NC0060534_Fact Sheet_20230208

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCOO6O534
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Nick Coco,[e-mail]
Date: 1/4/2023
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 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers(Non-POTW),EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable,enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name: City of Brevard/Brevard Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP)
Applicant Address: 95 W.Main Street Brevard,NC 28712
Facility Address: 3226 Wilson Road Pisgah Forest,NC 28768
Permitted Flow: 2.5 MGD
Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR Municipal; 97.6%domestic,2.4% industrial(Based on
permitted flows)
Facility Class: Class III
Treatment Units: Influent lift station,Grit removal,Rotating Biological Contactors
(RBCs),Dual secondary clarifiers,Aerobic digester,Belt press,
Chlorination,Dechlorination
Pretreatment Program(Y/N) Y; LTMP
County: Transylvania
Region Asheville
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background.-
The City of Brevard has applied for an NPDES permit renewal at 2.5 MGD for its Brevard WWTP. This
facility serves approximately 10,000 residents,as well as 1 significant industrial user(SIU)via an
approved pretreatment program. Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged via Outfall 001
into the French Broad River,a class B waterbody in the French Broad River Basin. Outfall 001 is located
approximately 12.5 miles upstream of WS-IV;B classified waters.
Sludge disposal: Sludge is sent to the Transylvania County landfill for disposal.
Page 1 of 10

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001 -French Broad River
Stream Segment: 6-(27)
Stream Classification: B
Drainage Area(m12): 220
Summer 7Q10(cfs) 161
Winter 7Q10(cfs): -
30Q2(cfs): 264
Average Flow(cfs): 750
IWC(%effluent): 2.4
2022 303(d)listed/parameter: Not listed;meeting criteria for all identified parameters
Subject to TMDL/parameter: Yes- State-wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Basin/Sub-basin/HUC: French Broad/04-03-01 /06010105
USGS Topo Quad: FBSW Pisgah Forest,NC
3. Effluent Data Summary
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001 (June 2018 through December 2022)
Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit Limit
Flow MGD 1.() 6.97 0.31 MA 2.5
Temperawre ° C 18.3 27 8.7 Monitor and
Report
BOD mg/l 21.1 140 3.2 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
TSS mg/l 15.8 81.5 1.3 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
NH3N mg/l 12.5 28 < I Monitor and
Report
DO mg/l 7.5 12.7 5.2 DA> 5.0
(geometric)
Fecal coliform 4/100 nil l (ge1 2450 < 1 WA 400
9.2 MA 200
pH SU 7.2 7.7 6.3 6.0 <pH<9.0
TRC µg/l 20.9 29 < I DM 28.0(<50
compliance)
TN mg/l 15.3 30.3 7.5 Monitor and
Report
TP mg/l 1.0 2.2 0.26 Monitor and
Report
Total Silver µg/l < 1 <2 <0.1 Monitor and
Report
Total Mercury ng/l 4.0 12.4 0.64 AA 47
Total Hardness mg/l 33.5 42 22.8 Monitor and
Report
MA-Monthly Average,WA-Weekly Average,DM-Daily Maximum,DA-Daily Average,AA-Annual Average
Page 2 of 10

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 quarterly hardness monitoring upstream of the outfall to aid in
calculating total metals of hardness-dependent dissolved metals(See RPA section below). Data was
observed from June 2018 to December 2022.Upstream hardness ranged from 4.22 mg/L to 32 mg/L,with
an average of 9.0 mg/L during the period reviewed.
No other instream monitoring requirements are currently in the permit. While the receiving stream is rated
as class B waters,instream fecal coliform monitoring was removed from the permit in 2017 after review
of submitted data and assessment of the stream in the Integrated Report indicating that the stream was
meeting criteria for fecal coliform.As the 2022 Integrated Report has not indicated an issue with fecal
coliform and the facility reported no fecal coliform effluent limit violations within the past 5 years,no
change has been proposed for fecal coliform requirements at this time.
No changes are proposed to instream monitoring requirements.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN):NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition:NA
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported 2 flow
and 1 BOD limit violations resulting in NOVs in 2019. In 2021,the facility reported 3 BOD limit
violations resulting in NOVs.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 19 of 19 quarterly chronic toxicity tests,as well as all 4 second species
chronic toxicity tests from January 2018 to July 2022.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in October 2022 reported that the facility was in compliance with NPDES permit NC0060534. The last
pretreatment inspection conducted in November 2021 reported that the facility was out of compliance
with their approved pretreatment program due to an out of date Industrial Waste Survey. The Pretreatment
staff has been notified.
6. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206,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 I5A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Page 3 of 10

Oxyaen-Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen-consuming waste (e.g.,BOD)are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen(DO)water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g.,BOD=30 mg/l for Municipals)may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed.- Secondary TBEL
BOD5 and TSS limits were established in the permit based on a 1984 Level B model.No changes are
proposed from the previous 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/l(summer) and 1.8 mg/1(winter).Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non-Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine(TRC)are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1)and capped at 28 ug/l(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 permit does
not currently have ammonia limits.Ammonia requirements have been reviewed in the attached WLA
spreadsheet based on ammonia toxicity.Based on these calculations, a monthly average summer
ammonia limit of 33.4 mg/L is proposed. Per the 2016 DWR Ammonia permitting guidance,weekly
average ammonia limits are calculated to be 3 times the monthly average limit.Additionally,the guidance
states that allowable concentrations> 35 mg/L do not require a permit limit. As the calculated weekly
average limit is greater than 35 mg/L,no weekly average limit has been added to the permit.As the
facility did not report a single value greater than the proposed monthly average ammonia limit during the
period reviewed,no compliance schedule has been proposed for the new limit. As the allowable discharge
concentration for ammonia in the winter,as calculated based on ammonia toxicity,was greater than 35
mg/L,no winter ammonia limits have been proposed.However,monitoring and reporting shall be
maintained in the winter months.
The TRC limit took effect in 2006 at 28.0 ug/L. The limit has been reviewed in the attached WLA
spreadsheet and 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.
Page 4 of 10

A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between June 2018 and
December 2022. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis,the following permitting actions are proposed for this
permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality-based
effluent limit(WQBEL)since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable
water quality standards/criteria: None
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor-only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but the maximum predicted concentration was>50%of the allowable concentration: None
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was<50%of the allowable
concentration: Silver
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern(2018,2019,2020),as well as Pretreatment data
o The following parameter(s)will receive a water quality-based effluent limit(WQBEL)
with monitoring,since as part of a limited data set,two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None
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: None
o The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since as part of a limited
data set,they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was<50%of the allowable
concentration: Beryllium,Total Phenolic Compounds,Arsenic,Cadmium, Chromium,
Copper,Cyanide,Lead,Nickel, Selenium,Zinc,Toluene
Attached are the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals Implementation Fact Sheet for
freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet.
Toxici , Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity(WET)have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance,all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex"wastewater(contains anything other than
domestic waste)will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements,with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits,using single concentration screening tests,with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic WET limit at 2.4%
effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency during the months of January,April,July,and October.
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
Page 5 of 10

control. Municipal facilities>2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury(>1 ng/1)will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case-by-case basis,depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1
Table 2. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
4 of Samples 3 5 5 4 4
Annual Average Conc.n /L 6.1 4.1 17.2 3.5 2.6
Maximum Conc.,n /L 12.4 8.55 64.5 5.6 3.73
TBEL,n /L 47.0
WQBEL,n /L 510.58
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since an individual mercury sample
exceeded the TBEL,the annual average mercury limit has been maintained.As the facility is>2 MGD in
capacity and reported multiple detections of mercury> 1 ng/L,the MMP requirement has been
maintained.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TNDDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: N/A
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: As required by Session
Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r),every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is
anticipated via a Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table.As an attachment to the permit
application,the City of Brevard informed the Division that no monitoring for additional pollutants has
been conducted(see attached chemical addendum) and therefore no additional pollutants of concern have
been identified.
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody:NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H 010 7(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo:NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e)and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal:NA
7. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/1
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO,provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85%removal requirements for CBODS/TSS included in the permit? YES,Overall BOD5 and TSS
removal rates were greater than 85% - See attached BOD/TSS removal rate calculations
If NO,provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Page 6 of 10

8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non-discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all
cases,existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results:NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4)of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1)prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit,with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed(e.g.,based on new information,increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits,or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit(YESINO):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 213.0500;2)
NPDES Guidance,Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances(7/15/2010 Memo); 3)NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo);4)Best
Professional Judgement(BPJ). Per US EPA(Interim Guidance, 1996),monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o)of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti-
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring,refer to Section 4.
Effluent BOD,TSS,fecal coliform,pH,DO and TRC monitoring are currently required at a frequency of
daily. Per 15A NCAC 02B .0508,Grade III facilities are required to monitor BOD,TSS,fecal coliform,
pH,DO and TRC 3/Week.As such,the monitoring frequency requirements have been revised for these
parameters to meet the requirements outlined in 15A NCAC 02B .0508.
To identify PFAS contamination in waters classified as Water Supply(WS)waters,monitoring
requirements are to be implemented in permits with pretreatment programs that discharge to WS waters.
While not immediately downstream,the French Broad River does have a WS-IV classified stream
segment approximately 12.5 miles downstream of the discharge.As the Brevard WWTP has a
pretreatment program,monitoring of PFAS chemicals will be added to the permit at a frequency of
quarterly. Since an EPA method for sampling and analyzing PFAS in wastewater is not currently
available,the PFAS sampling requirement in the Permit includes a compliance schedule which delays the
effective date of this requirement until the first full calendar quarter beginning 6 months after EPA has a
final wastewater method in 40 CFR136 published in the Federal Register. This date may be extended
upon request and if there are no NC-certified labs.
Page 7 of 10

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 3. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 2.5 MGD
Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change
Flow MA 2.5 MGD No change 15A NCAC 213 .0505
Temperature Monitor and Report No change Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Daily NCAC 02B .0500
BOD5 MA 30.0 mg/l No change to limits; TBEL. Secondary treatment
WA 45.0 mg/l Monitor and Report standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
Monitor and Report 3/Week 213 .0406; 1984 Level B model.
Daily Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 02B .0500
TSS MA 30.0 mg/l No change to limits; TBEL. Secondary treatment
WA 45.0 mg/l Monitor and Report standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
Monitor and Report 3/Week 213 .0406; 1984 Level B model.
Daily Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 02B .0500
N113-N Monitor 3/Week No change to WQBEL. 2023 WLA review; Surface
monitoring Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 02B
requirements; .0500
Summer:
MA 33.4 mg/L
DO DA> 5.0 mg/L No change to limits; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
Monitor and Report Monitor and Report NCAC 02B .0500; 1984 Level B
Dail 3/Week model.
Fecal coliform MA 200/100ml No change to limits; WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400/100ml Monitor and Report NCAC 213 .0200; Surface Water
Monitor and Report 3/Week Monitoring, 15A NCAC 02B .0500
Dail
pH 6.0—9.0 SU No change to limits; WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and Report Monitor and Report NCAC 213 .0200. 2023 WLA review;
Daily 3/Week Surface Water Monitoring, 15A
NCAC 02B .0500
TRC DM 28.0 µg/l No change to limits; WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
Monitor and Report Monitor and Report NCAC 213 .0200. Surface Water
Daily 3/Week Monitoring, 15A NCAC 02B .0500
Total Nitrogen Monitor and Report No change 15A NCAC 213.0500
Quarterly
Page 8 of 10

Total Phosphorus Monitor and Report No change 15A NCAC 213.0500.
Quarterly
Total Hardness Quarterly effluent and No change Hardness-dependent dissolved metals
upstream monitoring water quality standards approved in
2016; Pretreatment facility
Total Silver Monitor and Report Remove Based on results of RPA: No RP,
Quarterly Requirement Predicted Max<50% of Allowable
Cw-No Monitoring required
Total Mercury AA 47 ng/L No change Mercury TMDL evaluation:
Monitor and Report individual value>TBEL
Quarterly
Add quarterly Evaluation of PFAS contribution;
PFAS No requirement monitoring with Implementation delayed until after
delayed EPA certified method becomes
implementation available.
Toxicity Test Chronic limit,2.4% No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
effluent,conducted 15A NCAC 213.0200 and 15A NCAC
quarterly 213.0500
Effluent Pollutant 3 times per permit cycle: 3 times per permit 40 CFR 122
Scan 2018,2019,2020 cycle: 2024,2025,
2026
Mercury Required No change,revise Consistent with 2012 Statewide
Minimization Plan language toward Mercury TMDL Implementation.
(MMP) maintenance
Electronic Electronic Reporting No change In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Special Condition A.(4.) Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD—Million gallons per day,MA-Monthly Average,WA—Weekly Average,DM—Daily Max
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: xx/xx/2023
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. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit,please
contact Nick Coco at(919) 707-3609 or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed(Yes/No):NO
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:NA
Page 9 of 10

16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards—Freshwater Standards
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
• CBOD&TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Pretreatment Form
• WET Testing and Self-Monitoring Summary
• Water Compliance Inspection Report
• Application Addendum(EPA Application Update and Chemical Addendum Information)
• Mercury Minimization Plan Submittal(previously submitted)
• Applicable special correspondences
Page 10 of 10

Permit No. NC0060534
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards-Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard(WQS)Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission(EMC)on November 13,2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6,2016,with some exceptions. Therefore,metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6,2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards- as
approved.
Table 1.NC Dissolved Metals Water Q ality Standards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter Acute FW, µg/l Chronic FW, µg/1 Acute SW, µg/1 Chronic SW, µg/l
(Dissolved) (Dissolved) (Dissolved) (Dissolved)
Arsenic 340 150 69 36
Beryllium 65 6.5 --- ---
Cadmium Calculation Calculation 40 8.8
Chromium III Calculation Calculation --- ---
Chromium VI 16 11 1100 50
Copper Calculation Calculation 4.8 3.1
Lead Calculation Calculation 210 8.1
Nickel Calculation Calculation 74 8.2
Silver Calculation 0.06 1.9 0.1
Zinc Calculation Calculation 90 81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW=Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation=Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns(as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
213.0200(e.g.,arsenic at 10 µg/l for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness-Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER)is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph(11)(d)
Metal NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium,Acute WER*11.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} eA10.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium,Acute Trout waters WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} ell{0.9151[In hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium,Chronic WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.7998[1n 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]-1.7001
Copper,Chronic WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[In hardness]-1.7021
Lead,Acute WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)1 •e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.4601
Lead,Chronic WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)1 •e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705}
Nickel,Acute WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel,Chronic WER*0.997 e-10.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO060534
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]+0.8841
Zinc,Chronic WER*0.986 e-10.8473[ln hardness]+0.8841
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/WOBELs for Hardness-Dependent Metals -Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations,based on applicable
standards and the critical low-flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute),the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard,which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present(i.e. consistently below
detection level),then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness-dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10(the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10=0.843 (s7Q 10,cfs)0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness,site-specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness-dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge,the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream)hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the 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. NCO060534
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)+WOW,cfs *Avg.Upstream Hardness,ma/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 I + { [Kpo] [ss(i+a)] [10 6] }
Where:
ss=in-stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1],minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a=constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals.A list of constants used for each hardness-dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient(or
site-specific translator)to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases,where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist(le. 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)(Cwgs)-(s7Q10)(Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca=allowable effluent concentration(µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs=NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria(µg/L or mg/L)
Cb=background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw=permitted effluent flow(cfs,match 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. NC0060534
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) 33.45 Average from June 2018 to
[Total as,CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] December 2022 samples
Average Upstream Hardness(mg/L) 25 Default used, average reported
[Total as,CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] upstream hardness <25 ug/L
7Q10 summer(cfs) 161.0 Historical;Previous Fact Sheet
1Q10(cfs) 130.98 Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow(MGD) 2.5 NPDES Files
Date: 1/5/2023
Permit Writer: Nick Coco
Page 4 of 4

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
❑CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Facility Name Brevard WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class III Par02 Arsenic Human Health C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
Water Supply
NPDES Permit NCO060534 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 0.5934 FW 3.2671 ug/L
Flow, Qw(MGD) 2.500 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW
Receiving Stream French Broad River Par06 Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number 06010105 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class B Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 118.4980 FW 912.2748 ug/L
❑Apply WS Hardness WQC Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 lag/L
7Q10s (cfs) 161.00 Par10 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A lag/L
7Q10w(cfs) 161.00 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 7.9341 FW 10.5678 ug/L
30Q2 (cfs) 264.00 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
QA(cfs) 750.00 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
1 Q10s (cfs) 130.98 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 2.9680 FW 76.3133 ug/L
Effluent Hardness 33.45 mg/L (Avg) Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L
------------- ----------------------
Upstream Hardness 25 mg/L (Avg) Par16 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L
------------- ---- ------------ —
Combined Hardness Chronic 25.2 mg/L Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 37.4814 FW 337.9609 lag/L
Combined Hardness Acute r 25.24 mg/L I Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A lag/L
Data Source(s) Default upstream hardness value of 25 mg/L used Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L
❑CHECK TO APPLY MODEL for calculation as average reported upstream Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 0.3014 ug/L
hardness was < 25 mg/L during the period reviewed.
Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 127.5860 FW 126.7389 ug/L
Par22 Toluene Aquatic Life NC 11 FW lag/L
Par23
Par24
60534 rpa, input
1/5/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1 H2 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Effluent Hardness Values"then"COPY" Upstream Hardness Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data . Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/12/2018 30.4 30.4 Std Dev. 6.0767 1 Default 25 25 Std Dev. N/A
2 10/11/2018 30.1 30.1 Mean 33.4500 2 Mean 25.0000
3 1/24/2019 22.8 22.8 C.V. 0.1817 3 C.V. 0.0000
4 4/11/2019 29.7 29.7 n 18 4 n 1
5 7/11/2019 37.3 37.3 10th Per value 24.00 mg/L 5 10th Per value 25.00 mg/L
6 10/10/2019 40.5 40.5 Average Value 33.45 mg/L 6 Average Value 25.00 mg/L
7 1/16/2020 38.8 38.8 Max. Value 42.00 mg/L 7 Max. Value 25.00 mg/L
8 4/9/2020 35.5 35.5 8
9 7/9/2020 38.4 38.4 9
10 10/15/2020 30.7 30.7 10
11 1/14/2021 31.9 31.9 11
12 4/15/2021 42 42 12
13 7/20/2021 34 34 13
14 10/12/2021 42 42 14
15 1/11/2022 38 38 15
16 4/12/2022 24 24 16
17 7/5/2022 24 24 17
18 10/11/2022 32 32 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
60534 rpa, data
- 1 - 1/5/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Arsenic Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data
points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 12/27/2018 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 12/23/2019 < 10 5 Mean 5.0000
3 12/29/2020 < 10 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 3
5
6 Mult Factor = 3.00
7 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 15.0 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
60534 rpa, data
-2 - 1/5/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03 Par04
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Beryllium Values"then"COPY" Cadmium Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data . Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 12/27/2018 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 12/27/2018 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 12/23/2019 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000 2 12/23/2019 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000
3 12/29/2020 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 12/29/2020 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 3 4 1/11/2022 < 1 0.5 n 6
5 5 2/23/2022 < 1 0.5
6 Mult Factor = 3.00 6 3/22/2022 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor = 2.14
7 Max. Value 0.50 ug/L 7 Max. Value 0.500 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 1.50 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 1.070 ug/L
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
60534 rpa, data
-3 - 1/5/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07 Par10
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Total Phenolic Compounds Values"then"COPY" Chromium, Total values"then"COPY"
Maximum data . Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 12/27/2018 < 10 5 Std Dev. 2.8868 1 12/27/2018 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 1.0954
2 12/23/2019 < 20 10 Mean 8.3333 2 12/23/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 1.5000
3 12/29/2020 < 20 10 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 12/29/2020 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 3 4 1/11/2022 < 1 0.5 n 6
5 5 2/23/2022 < 1 0.5
6 Mult Factor = 3.00 6 3/22/2022 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor = 2.14
7 Max. Value 10.0 ug/L 7 Max. Value 2.5 pg/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 30.0 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 5.4 pg/L
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
60534 rpa, data
-4 - 1/5/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pal Par12
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Copper Values"then"COPY" Cyanide Values"then"COPY"
pp . Maximum data yan . Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 12/27/2018 7.6 7.6 Std Dev. 7.0847 1 12/27/2018 < 8 5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 12/23/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 7.2167 2 12/23/2019 < 8 5 Mean 5.00
3 12/29/2020 21.2 21.2 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 12/29/2020 < 8 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 1/11/2022 3 3 n 6 4 n 3
5 2/23/2022 4 4 5
6 3/22/2022 5 5 Mult Factor = 2.14 6 Mult Factor = 3.00
7 Max. Value 21.20 ug/L 7 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 45.37 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 15.0 ug/L
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
60534 rpa, data
-5 - 1/5/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Par17 & Par18 use"PASTE
Values"then"COPY" SPECIAL-Values"
Lead . Maximum data Nickel then"COPY".
points=58 Maximum data
Date BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results points=58
1 12/27/2018 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 1.0954 1 12/27/2018 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 0.9309
2 12/23/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 1.5000 2 12/23/2019 < 5 2.5 Mean 1.6667
3 12/29/2020 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 12/29/2020 < 5 2.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 1/11/2022 < 1 0.5 n 6 4 1/11/2022 < 1 0.5 n 6
5 2/23/2022 < 1 0.5 5 2/23/2022 1 1
6 3/22/2022 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor = 2.14 6 3/22/2022 1 1 Mult Factor = 2.14
7 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L 7 Max. Value 2.5 pg/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 5.350 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 5.4 pg/L
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
60534 rpa, data
-6 - 1/5/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Parl9 Use"PASTE Par20
SPECIAL-Values" Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values"
Selenium then"COPY". Silver es"then"COPY"
Maximum data
Maximum data points .
=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 12/27/2018 < 10 5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 7/12/2018 < 0.1 0.05 Std Dev. 0.2400
2 12/23/2019 < 10 5 Mean 5.0000 2 10/11/2018 < 0.1 0.05 Mean 0.3556
3 12/29/2020 < 10 5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 1/24/2019 < 0.4 0.2 C.V. 0.6751
4 n 3 4 4/11/2019 < 0.2 0.1 n 18
5 5 7/11/2019 < 2 1
6 Mult Factor = 3.00 6 10/10/2019 < 0.4 0.2 Mult Factor = 1.46
7 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L 7 1/16/2020 < 1 0.5 Max. Value 1.000 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 15.0 ug/L 8 4/9/2020 < 0.4 0.2 Max. Pred Cw 1.460 ug/L
9 9 7/9/2020 < 0.4 0.2
10 10 10/15/2020 < 0.4 0.2
11 11 1/14/2021 < 0.4 0.2
12 12 4/15/2021 < 1 0.5
13 13 7/20/2021 < 1 0.5
14 14 10/12/2021 < 1 0.5
15 15 1/11/2022 < 1 0.5
16 16 4/12/2022 < 1 0.5
17 17 7/5/2022 < 1 0.5
18 18 10/11/2022 < 1 0.5
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
60534 rpa, data
-7 - 1/5/2023

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21 Par22
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Zinc Values"then"COPY" Toluene Values"then"COPY"
Maximum data . Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 12/27/2018 22.3 22.3 Std Dev. 20.6971 1 12/27/2018 5.4 5.4 Std Dev. 1.4000
2 12/23/2019 13.7 13.7 Mean 28.2500 2 12/23/2019 5 5 Mean 4.4000
3 12/29/2020 68.5 68.5 C.V. (default) 0.6000 3 12/29/2020 2.8 2.8 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 1/11/2022 12 12 n 6 4 n 3
5 2/23/2022 28 28 5
6 3/22/2022 25 25 Mult Factor = 2.14 6 Mult Factor = 3.00
7 Max. Value 68.5 ug/L 7 Max. Value 5.400000 pg/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 146.6 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 16.200000 pg/L
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
60534 rpa, data
-8 - 1/5/2023

Brevard WWTP Outfall 001
NCO060534 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 2.5 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 2.5000 WWTP/WTP Class: III COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
1Ql0S (cfs) = 130.98 IWC% @ 1Ql0S = 2.873456676 Acute =25.24 mg/L
7QIOS (cfs) = 161.00 IWC% @ 7Q10S = 2.350265353 Chronic = 25.2 mg/L
7QIOW (cfs) = 161.00 1WC% @ 7Q10W = 2.350265353
30Q2 (cfs) = 264.00 1WC% @ 30Q2 = 1.446570229
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 750.00 IW%C @ QA= 0.514010943
Receiving Stream: French Broad River HUC 06010105 Stream Class: B
PARAMETER NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA J co REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE Chronic Stapda d Acute a n 4 Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 11,832.4
Arsenic C 150 FW(7Q1 Os) 340 ug/L _
3 0 15.0 Chronic (FW) 6,382.3 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
C.V. (default) Max MDL = 10 Monitoring required
_ _ _
Arsenic C 10 14H/WS(Qavg) ug/L Note: n< 9 NO DETECTS Chronic (HH) 1,945.5
Limited data set Max MDL = 10
Acute: 2,262.08
Beryllium NC 6.5 FW(7Q1 Os) 65 ug/L 3 0 1.50 ------------------- -----------------------------
Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 276.56 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL = 1 Monitoring required
Acute: 113.698
Cadmium NC 0.5934 FW(7Q1 Os) 3.2671 ug/L 6 0 1.070 ___ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 25.249 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL = 1 Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(30Q2) ug/L 3 0 30.0 ___ _ ___ _ _ _
Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 20,738.7 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL = 20 Monitoring required
Acute: 31,748.3
Chromium III NC 118.4980 FW(7QlOs) 912.2748 µg/L 0 0 N/A _ _ _ _
--Chronic: ----5,0- -- ---------------------------
Acute: 556.8
Chromium VI NC 11 FW(7QlOs) 16 µg/L 0 0 N/A _ _ _ _
--Chronic: ----------- ---------------------------
468.0
Chromium, Total NC µg/L 6 0 5.4 Max reported value =2.5 a: No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
samples are < 5 pg/L or Pred. max for Total Cr is <
Note: n<9 C.V. (default) allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL = 5
Acute: 367.77
Copper NC 7.9341 FW(7Q1 Os) 10.5678 ug/L 6 5 45.37 ------------------- -----------------------------
Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 337.58 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set No value > Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: 765.6
Cyanide NC 5 FW(7QlOs) 22 10 ug/L 3 0 15.0 ------------------- -----------------------------
Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 212.7 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL = 10 Monitoring required
60534 rpa, rpa
Page 1 of 1/5/2023

Brevard WWTP Outfall 001
NCO060534 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 2.5 MGD
Acute: 2,655.800
Lead NC 2.9680 FW(7Q10s) 76.3133 ug/L 6 0 5.350 ------------------- -----------------------------
Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 126.282 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 5 Monitoring required
Acute (FW): 11,761.5
Nickel NC 37.4814 FW(7Q10s) 337.9609 µg/L _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
6 2 5.4 Chronic (FW) 1,594.8 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) No value>Allowable Cw Monitoring required
------ -----------------------------
Nickel NC 25.0000 WS(7Q10s) µg/L Limited data set Chronic (WS) 1,063.7
No value>Allowable Cw
Acute: 1,948.9
Selenium NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 56 ug/L 3 0 15.0
Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 212.7 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL= 10 Monitoring required
Acute: 10.488
Silver NC 0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.3014 ug/L 18 0 1.460 ___ _ ______ ____ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ____
Chronic: 2.553 All values non-detect < 1 ug/L- no monitoring
NO DETECTS Max MDL= 2 required
Acute: 4,410.7
Zinc NC 127.5860 FW(7Q10s) 126.7389 ug/L 6 6 146.6
Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 5,428.6 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set No value> Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Toluene NC 11 FW(7Q10s) µg/L 3 3 16.20000
Note: n< 9 C.V. (default) Chronic: 468.03226 No RP, Predicted Max< 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Limited data set No value>Allowable Cw Monitoring required
60534 rpa, rpa
Page 2 of 2 1/5/2023

NCO060534 Brevard WWTP 1/5/2023
BOD monthly removal rate TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%)
June-18 91.60 December-20 92.87 June-18 94.06 December-20 94.62
July-18 91.09 January-21 90.65 July-18 92.78 January-21 92.41
August-18 92.29 February-21 91.64 August-18 95.86 February-21 93.42
September-18 90.71 March-21 91.60 September-18 94.25 March-21 91.30
October-18 92.63 April-21 94.09 October-18 95.35 April-21 93.77
November-18 88.86 May-21 91.49 November-18 92.47 May-21 94.44
December-18 88.69 June-21 89.21 December-18 92.98 June-21 95.57
January-19 86.61 July-21 91.98 January-19 86.42 July-21 94.91
February-19 83.15 August-21 92.00 February-19 80.98 August-21 93.15
March-19 88.41 September-21 89.59 March-19 90.52 September-21 92.74
April-19 91.81 October-21 92.73 April-19 92.85 October-21 95.95
May-19 92.16 November-21 93.70 May-19 95.22 November-21 97.18
June-19 91.96 December-21 91.76 June-19 92.72 December-21 96.67
July-19 92.76 January-22 91.25 July-19 95.24 January-22 91.27
August-19 93.84 February-22 91.74 August-19 94.63 February-22 89.67
September-19 94.89 March-22 90.76 September-19 96.53 March-22 88.48
October-19 93.71 April-22 86.65 October-19 95.02 April-22 87.60
November-19 91.24 May-22 91.34 November-19 96.16 May-22 92.89
December-19 93.45 June-22 90.13 December-19 95.78 June-22 94.47
January-20 92.42 July-22 89.09 January-20 95.23 July-22 94.14
February-20 91.60 August-22 91.28 February-20 92.14 August-22 91.56
March-20 95.10 September-22 89.48 March-20 96.77 September-22 88.43
April-20 94.65 October-22 94.16 April-20 95.95 October-22 95.59
May-20 91.03 November-22 94.38 May-20 95.06 November-22 95.47
June-20 93.37 December-22 - June-20 95.39 December-22 -
July-20 93.20 January-23 - July-20 95.13 January-23 -
August-20 92.65 February-23 - August-20 94.71 February-23 -
September-20 91.14 March-23 - September-20 93.41 March-23 -
October-20 91.48 April-23 - October-20 93.26 April-23 -
November-20 93.14 May-23 - November-20 95.53 May-23 -
Overall BOD removal rate 91.54 Overall TSS removal rate 93.48

1/5/23 WQS= 12 ng/L MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Facility Name Brevard WWTP/NC0060534 Annual Limit 47 ng/L with
/Permit No. : Quarterly Monitoring
MMP Required
Total Mercury 1631E PQL= 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s = 161.000 cfs WQBEL= 510.58 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow= 2.500 47 ng/L
7/12/18 2.05 2.05
10/11/18 12.4 12.4
12/27/18 3.98 3.98 6.1 ng/L-Annual Average for 2018
1/24/19 3.4 3.4
4/11/19 2.37 2.37
7/11/19 4.51 4.51
10/10/19 1.75 1.75
12/23/19 8.55 8.55 4.1 ng/L-Annual Average for 2019
1/16/20 4.25 4.25
4/9/20 10.1 10.1
7/9/20 2.22 2.22
10/15/20 5.11 5.11
12/29/20 64.5 64.5 >TBEL 17.2 ng/L-Annual Average for 2020
1/14/21 1.11 1.11
4/15/21 5.6 5.6
7/20/21 4.7 4.7
10/12/21 2.38 2.38 3.4 ng/L-Annual Average for 2021
1/11/22 3.38 3.38
4/12/22 2.58 2.58
7/5/22 0.64 0.64
10/11/22 3.73 3.73 2.6 ng/L-Annual Average for 2022

Brevard WWTP/NC0060534
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
#of Samples 3 5 5 4 4
Annual Average, ng/L 6.1 4.1 17.2 3.45 2.5825
Maximum Value, ng/L 12.40 8.55 64.50 5.6 3.73
TBEL, ng/L 47
WQBEL, ng/L 510.6

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Brevard WWTP
PermitNo. NC0060534
Prepared By: Nick Coco
Enter Design Flow(MGD): 2.5
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 161
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 161
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1) Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS) 161 s7Q10 (CFS) 161
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 2.5 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 2.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 3.875 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 3.875
STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1) 0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 2.35 IWC (%) 2.35
Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 723 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 33.4
Cap at28 ug/L.Consistent with current limit. <35 mg/L;More stringent than current requirement.
Apply limit. Apply limit.
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS) 161
Monthly Average Limit: 2001100- DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 2.5
(If DF >331; Monitor) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 3.875
(If DF<331; Limit) STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
Dilution Factor(DF) 42.55 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 2.35
Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 67.4
>35 mg/L;Monitor and Report.
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/l, 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)

MONITORING REPORT(MR)VIOLATIONS for: Report Date: 01/04/23 Page 1 of 1
Permit: NCO060534 MRS Betweel 1 - 2018 and 1 - 2023 Region: % Violation Category:Limit Violation Program Category:%
Facility Name:% Param Name% County: % Subbasin:% Violation Action:%
Major Minor: %
PERMIT: NCO060534 FACILITY: City of Brevard-Brevard WWTP COUNTY: Transylvania REGION: Asheville
Limit Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
11-2019 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day(20 Deg. C)- 11/16/19 5 X week mg/I 45 62 37.8 Weekly Average Proceed to NOV
Concentration Exceeded
06-2021 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day(20 Deg. C)- 06/05/21 5 X week mg/I 45 53.08 17.9 Weekly Average Proceed to NOV
Concentration Exceeded
12-2021 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day(20 Deg. C)- 12/11/21 5 X week mg/I 45 60.34 34.1 Weekly Average Proceed to NOV
Concentration Exceeded
12-2021 001 Effluent BOD, 5-Day(20 Deg. C)- 12/31/21 5 X week mg/I 30 36.74 22.5 Monthly Average Proceed to NOV
Concentration Exceeded
12-2021 001 Effluent Chlorine,Total Residual 12/14/21 5 X week ug/I 28 29 3.6 Daily Maximum No Action, BPJ
Exceeded
05-2018 001 Effluent Flow, in conduit or thru 05/31/18 Continuous mgd 2.5 2.79 11.8 Monthly Average No Action, BPJ
treatment plant Exceeded
12-2018 001 Effluent Flow, in conduit or thru 12/31/18 Continuous mgd 2.5 2.77 10.8 Monthly Average No Action, Facility
treatment plant Exceeded Reporting Error
01-2019 001 Effluent Flow, in conduit or thru 01/31/19 Continuous mgd 2.5 2.65 6.2 Monthly Average Proceed to NOV
treatment plant Exceeded
02-2019 001 Effluent Flow, in conduit or thru 02/28/19 Continuous mgd 2.5 2.64 5.5 Monthly Average Proceed to NOV
treatment plant Exceeded

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1
Pollutants of Concern (POC) Review Form Version: 2022.09.28
2 1. Facility's General Information
3 Date of(draft) Review 1/4/2023 c. POC review due to: e. Contact Information
4
Date of(final) Review Municipal NPDES renewal 0 Regional Office (RO) AshE
5 NPDES Permit Writer(pw) Nick Coco HWA-AT/LTMP Review ❑ RO PT Staff Tim Heim RO NPDES Staff Tim Heim
6
Permittee-Facility Name City of Brevard-Brevard WWTP New Industries ❑ Facility PT Staff, email Tom Williams, tom.williams(c�cityofbrevard.com
7 NPDES Permit Number NCO060534 WWTP expansion ❑ f. Receiving Stream
8 NPDES Permit Effective Date Stream reclass./adjustment ❑ Outfall
9 Chemical Addendum Submittal Date 1/4/2023 Outfall relocation/adjustment ElReceiving Stream: River French Broad QA, cfs: 750
10 NPDES Permit Public Notice Date 7Q10 update ❑ Stream Class B 7Q10 (S), cfs: 161
11
eDMR data evaluated from: 6/1/2018 to 12/31/2022 Other POC review trigger, explain: Oufall Lat. 35.15.09 N Outfall Long. 82.41.39 W
12 a. WWTP Capacity Summary Outfall II
Current Permitted Flow, mgd Designed Flow, 2.5 Receiving Stream: QA, cfs:
13 m d
14 Permitted SIU Flow, mgd 0.06 d. IU Summary Stream Class 7Q10, cfs:
15 b. PT Docs. Summary # IUs Oufall Lat. Outfall Long.
16
IWS approval date 7/6/2016 #SIUs Is there a PWS intake downstream of the Facility's Outfall(s)? 0 YES ❑ NO
17 L/STMP approval date: 6/24/2014 #CIUs Comments:
18 .-
# NSCIUs
E HWA-AT approval date 1/31/2019 # IUs w/Local Discharge point is-12.5 miles upstream of WS-IV; B waters
d Permits or Other
19 W Types
20 a 2. Industrial Users' Information.
21 z # Industrial User(IU) Name IU Activity IU Non Conventional Pollutans &Toxic Pollutant IUP Effective Date
1 Oskar Blues Brewery Beer Brewing low, BOD, TSS, temperature, I 3/11/2019
22
23 2
3
24
4
25
5
26 hL
Comment:
31
32 3. Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
33 Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
34 A2)
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
35 facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
36 ,, 3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program
37 A5)
3a) Full Program with LTMP
38 3b) Modified Program with STMP
3g 4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
40 facility's sludge is being land applied or composted.
41 6) facility's sludge is incinerated (add Beryllium and Mercury sampling according to §503.43)
42 , 7) facility's sludge is taken to a landfill, if yes which landfill: Transylvania County Landfill
43 8) other
44 Sludge Disposal Plan:
45
46
47 Sludge Permit No: OP mt
48 4. LTMP/STMP and HWA Review IF
49 PW: Find L/STMP document, HWA spreadsheet, DMR, previous and new NPDES permit for next section.
a Parameter of Concern New Previous Required by POC due to POC due to POTW % /S NPDES Comment
(POC) Check List NPDES NPDES EPA PT(1) Sludge (2) SIU (3) POC (4) Removal Effluent Freq. Effluent Freq.
Cn
Q POC POC Rate PQLs review
50 U
a- PQL from Required PQL Recomm.
L/STMP, ug/I per NPDES PQL, ug/I
51 1 1 1 permit
[2] Flow ❑ p 0 El [Ell
53 p BOD Li El ❑ ❑
54 0 TSS ❑ p ❑ ❑
55 ❑ NH3 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
56 ❑ Arsenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
57 ❑ Barium ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
58 ❑ Beryllium(5) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
59 p Cadmium(1) ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ ❑ 0.5
60 p Chromium(1) ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ 5.0
61 p Copper(1) ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ ❑ 2.0
62 ❑ Cyanide ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
63 p Lead(1) ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ ❑ 10.0 2.0
64 ❑ Mercury(5) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0.001
65 ❑ Molybdenum ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10.0
66 0 Nickel(1) ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ ❑ 10.0
67 ❑ Selenium ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ' ^
68 ❑ Silver ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1.0
69 p Zinc(1) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10.0
70 ❑ Sludge Flow to Disposal ❑ ❑ ❑
71 ❑ %Solids to Disposal ❑ ❑ ❑
72 ❑ Oil & Grease ❑ ❑
73 ❑ TN ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
74 ❑ TP ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
75 ❑ PFAS 1633 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
76 ❑ 1,4 Dioxane ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
77 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
78 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
79 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
80 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
81 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
82 Footnotes:
83 (1)Always in the LTMP/STMP due to EPA-PT requirement
84 (2)Only in LTMP/STMP if listed in sludge permit
85 (3)Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW
86 (4)Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is of concern to POTW
87 (5) In LTMP/STMP, if sewage sludge is incinerated
88 Please use blue font for the info updated by pw
89 4lease use red font for POC that need to be added/modified in L/STMP sampling plan
90
91 Blue shaded cell (D60:H81): Parameters usually included under that POC list
92 Or 5. Comments
Facility Summary/background information/NPDES-PT regulatory action:
POC to be added/modified in L/STMP:
93
ORC's comments on IU/POC:
94
POC submitted through Chemical
Addendum or Supplemental Chemical
95 Datasheet:
Additional pollutants added to L/STMP due
96 to POTWs concerns:
97 NPDES pw's comments on IU/POC:
98 6. Pretreatment updates in response to NPDES permit renewal
gg NPDES Permit Effective Date 1 1180 days after effective (date): Permit writer, please add list of required/recommended PT updates in NPDES permit cover letter.
Pagel POC Review Form (1)

United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved.
EPA Washington,D.C.20460 OMB No.2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 15 1 3 I NC0060534 �11 121 21/11/02 I17 18 n 19 L G j 201
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 CA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
67 70 Iu ty
I 71 I I 72 L n, � 73 LLI74 71 I I I I I I I80
Section B: Facility Data LJ
Name and Location of Facility Inspected(For Industrial Users discharging to POTW,also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 09:30AM 21/11/02 17/05/01
Brevard WWTP
3226 Wilson Rd Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Pisgah Forest NC 28768 12:OOPM 21/11/02 21/09/30
Name(s)of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
Emory Gaine Owen/ORC/828-883-8461/
Name,Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Wilson Hooper,95 W Main St Brevard NC 28712//828-884-2770/8288842358
No
Section C:Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Pretreatment
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s)and Signature(s)of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Timothy H Heim DWR/ARO WQ/828-296-4665/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3(Rev 9-94)Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (Cont.) 1
31 NC0060! I11 12I 21/11/02 117 18 n
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Tim Heim of the Asheville Regional Office performed a Pretreatment Audit on November 2th, 2021.
Tom Williams (Brevard WWTP Lab Manager& Pretreatment Coordinator) assisted with the inspection
and with records and sampling results review. An inspection of Industrial User: (IU) Oscar Blues
Brewery (IUP# S-001-14)was performed as part of the inspection. Thomas Transue, The Director of
Brewery Operations, was also present during the IU inspection component.
The pretreatment program, associated record keeping, and the relationship with the IU were
generally in good order at the time of the inspection and compliant with permit conditions.
The following item was non-compliant with NC0060534:
Submit an updated Industrial Waste Survey, this deficiency was noted in the 2020 Pretreatment
Compliance Inspection.
See attached NC DEQ Pretreatment Compliance Audit form for details.
Page# 2

Permit: NC0060534 Owner-Facility: Brevard WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/02/2021 Inspection Type: Pretreatment Audit
Yes No NA NE
Page# 3

United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved.
EPA Washington,D.C.20460 OMB No.2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 15 1 3 I NC0060534 11 121 22/10/03 1
17 18 n 19 L G j 201
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 CA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
67 70 Iu ty
I 71 I I 72 L n, � 73 LLI74 71 I I I I I I I80
Section B: Facility Data LJ
Name and Location of Facility Inspected(For Industrial Users discharging to POTW,also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 09:30AM 22/10/03 17/05/01
Brevard WWTP
3226 Wilson Rd Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Pisgah Forest NC 28768 12:OOPM 22/10/03 21/09/30
Name(s)of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
Emory Gaine Owen/ORC/828-883-8461/
Name,Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Wilson Hooper,95 W Main St Brevard NC 28712//828-884-2770/8288842358
No
Section C:Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Operations&Maintenar 0 Facility Site Review 0 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
Timothy H Heim DWR/ARO WQ/828-296-4665/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3(Rev 9-94)Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (Cont.) 1
31 NC0060E I11 12I 22/10/03 117 18 [S j
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Tim Heim of the Asheville Regional Office (ARO) performed a Compliance Inspection of the Facility on
October 3rd, 2022. Emory Owen (ORC) and Tom Williams (Pretreatment Coordinator and Lab
Manager)were present and assisted with the inspection. The facility appeared well operated and
maintained at the time of the inspection, and in compliance with Permit NC0060534.
The following additional items were noted at the time of the inspection:
The facility experiences high annual chemical usage due to the limitations of its biological treatment
capacity. An assessment of alternative and/or expanded biological treatment options is being
assessed for future upgrades. Continue to keep ARO informed on this process.
The backup generator appears to be near the end of its service life, and replacement should be
evaluated.
The Chemical Feed Building was being renovated at the time of the inspection and bulk chemical
tanks were temporally stored outside. It is recommended that this project be finished, and the tanks
moved back inside prior to the onset of winter.
The EQ tank cannot be completely emptied and cleaned due to accumulation of debris/solids from
the collection system and potential for fouling of treatment components. Its is recommended that
macerator pumps be installed to address this issue when conveying water back to the treatment train.
Pump trucks hauling sludge from package plants and water treatment facilities are currently being
emptied into the digester to reduce the biological load on the treatment train and reduce chemical
costs.
It is recommended that the Pretreatment Coordinator attend the annual NC Pretreatment Consortium
on a regular basis for training and continuing education opportunities.
The Pretreatment Coordinator reported a continued good working relationship and communication
with the single SIU: Oscar Blues Brewery.
Page# 2

Permit: NCO060534 Owner-Facility: Brevard VWVTP
Inspection Date: 10/03/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Permit Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
#Are there any special conditions for the permit? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Equalization Basins Yes No NA NE
Is the basin aerated? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Is the basin free of bypass lines or structures to the natural environment? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the basin free of excessive grease? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps present? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps operable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are float controls operable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are audible and visual alarms operable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is basin size/volume adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The EQ tank cannot be completely emptied and cleaned due to accumulation of
debris/solids from the collection system and potential for fouling of treatment
components. Its is recommended that macerator pumps be installed to address this
issue when conveying water back to the treatment train.
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual ❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO060534 Owner-Facility: Brevard VWVTP
Inspection Date: 10/03/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Is the unit in good condition? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Rotating Biological Contactor Yes No NA NE
Is the unit free of excessive sloughing of growth? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the unit operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are media panels in good condition? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The facility experiences high annual chemical usage due to the limitations of its
biological treatment capacity. An assessment of alternative and/or expanded biological
treatment options is being assessed for future upgrades. Continue to keep ARO
informed on this process.
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are weirs level? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of weir blockage? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is scum removal adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the drive unit operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately '/4 of the sidewall depth) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested under load? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection? ❑ ❑ ❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
power?
Page# 4

Permit: NC0060534 Owner-Facility: Brevard WWTP
Inspection Date: 10/03/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Is the generator fuel level monitored? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The backup generator appears to be near the end of its service life, and replacement
should be evaluated.
Disinfection-Liquid Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Comment:
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment:
Page# 5

Attachment A—Request for Missing Information
NPDES APPLICATION COMPLETENESS REVIEWS
FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
NPDES APPLICATIONS AND PROGRAM UPDATES RULE
On February 12, 2019,the EPA finalized revisions to the application requirements at 40 CFR 122.21 in the NPDES
Applications and Program Updates Rule.The final rule became effective on June 12, 2019. On and after this
date, applicants for EPA-issued permits are required to meet the new application requirements through
completion of updated application forms that conform to the final rule.
During the transition to the updated forms,the EPA anticipates that applicants may inadvertently complete and
submit applications using the older outdated forms for a period after the June 12, 2019 effective date. If this
occurs, applications submitted using the outdated Forms 1 and 2A will not conform to the regulatory
requirements for applications at 40 CFR 122.21 and should be deemed incomplete by the EPA Regions. (Note
that the final rule did not include regulatory changes pertaining to the form requirements for Forms 213, 20, 2D,
2E, and 2F;therefore, submission of the outdated forms may be deemed complete at the EPA Regions'
discretion.)
Requiring applicants to transfer information from the outdated forms and resubmit the new updated forms may
be time-consuming and costly. In lieu of transferring the information and resubmitting the updated forms, EPA
Regions may consider issuing a "Notice of Incomplete Application"to the applicant requesting only the missing
information. Any information provided by the applicant in response to the notice must include the certification
statement from 40 CFR 122.22(d)and be signed in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22(a).
The EPA Regions have the discretion to determine the period of time for which they will allow applicants to
submit the outdated forms along with the missing information to accommodate applicants that may have begun
the permit application process prior to the availability of the updated forms; however, it is expected that this
practice will only be allowed for a short period of time (perhaps six months), after which the EPA Regions should
require that all applications be submitted using the updated forms.
Permittees to which the aforementioned transition period applies may complete and submit the tables
provided on Attachment A to the North Carolina DEQ's Division of Water Resources as an addendum to their
NPDES renewal applications.
These addenda only apply to facilities submitting Forms 1 and/or 2A:
Applicants submitting a renewal application addendum for Form 1(Non-POTW, private facilities)
should fill out Table 1,found on page 2 of this document&sign and submit document.
Applicants submitting a renewal application addendum for Form 2A(Municipal &POTW's)should fill
out Table 2,found on page 3 of this document&sign and submit document.
Submit completed files to the following address:
NC DEQ/Division of Water Resources/Complex NPDES Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617
1 The final rule clarified that existing data may be used,if available, in lieu of sampling done solely for the purpose of the
application, provided that sampling was performed,collected,and analyzed no more than 4.5 years prior to submission.

Attachment A—Request for Missing Information
Table 1.EPA Application Form 1 Missing Information
1.1 Email address of facility contact Frnoory.Qwen; citvofbrevard.com
1.2 NAICS Code(s) Description(optional)
221320 Sewage Treatment Facilities
,r
1.3 Email address of operator [e-mail]
I MOM
1 A Does your facility use cooling water?
❑ Yes ❑x No 4 SKIP to Item 1.6
1.5 Identify the source of cooling water.(Note that facilities that use a cooling water intake structure as described at 40 CFR 125,
Subparts I and J may have additional application requirements at 40 CFR 122.21(r).Consult with your NPDES permitting
authority to determine what specific information needs to be submitted and when,)
r i
1.6 Do you intend to request or renew one or more of the variances authorized at 40 CFR 122.21(m)7(Check all that apply.Consult
with your NPDES permitting authority to determine what information needs to be submitted and when.)
❑ Fundamentally different factors(CWA ❑ Water quality related effluent limitations(CWA Section
Section 301(n)) 302(b)(2))
❑ Non-conventional pollutants(CWA ❑ Thermal discharges(CWA Section 316(a))
Section 301(c)and(g))
❑x Not applicable
T.
qn
1.7 Certification Statement
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system,or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information,the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief,true,accurate,and complete.t am aware that
there are significant penalties for submitting false information,including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.
Name(print or type first and last name) Official title
Wilson Hooper City Manager
Signature u 7____ Date signed 1 y U m__._

Attachment A—Request for Missing Information
Table 2.EPA Application Form 2A Missing Information
1.1 1 Email address of facility contact Emorv.Owen(7a cilyofbrevard.com
1.2 Applicant email address [e-mail]
1.3 Email address of the organization transporting the discharge for treatment prior to discharge
NIA—All wastewater entering the plant is from the Cii 's collections stem
1.4 Email address of the organization receiving the discharge for treatment prior to discharge
NiA—All wastewater from the Cil 's collections stem is treated at the Ci 's WWTP
1.5 Do you intend to request or renew one or more of the variances authorized at 40 CFR 122 21(n)?(Check all that apply.Consult
with your NPDES permitting authority to determine what information needs to be submitted and when.)
Discharges into marine waters(CWA Sect on Water quality related effluent limitation(CWA
301(h)) Section 302(b)(2))
❑x Not applicable
1.6 Email address of contractor responsible for operational or maintenance aspects of the treatment works
NIA—All operation and maintenance of the WWTP is by City staff
r
1.7 Indicate the number of SIUs and NSCIUs that dischar eta the POTW.
Number of SIUs Number of CIUs
' ll
1•8 Certification Statement
I certify under penalty of taw that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system,or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information,the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief,true,accurate,and complete.I am aware that
There are significant penalties for submitting false information,including the possibility of tine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.
Name(print or type first and last name) Official title
Wilson Hooper City Manager
Signature1ULM Date signed )(y

EPA Identification Number NPDES Number Facility Name Outfall Number
NC0060534 City ofBreVardWWTP 1
Method Number Estimated Concentration (If
Pollutant(Required) CAS number I (if A licable) Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge Known)
There are no additional pollutants to report.