NC0056561_permit issuance_20170731

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
July 31, 2017
Mr. Nathan Clark, Town Manager
Town of Maggie Valley
3987 Soco Road
Maggie Valley, North Carolina 28751
ROY COOPER
Govenzor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
Subject:. Final NPDES Permit Renewal
Permit NCO056561
Maggie Valley WWTP, Class 3
Haywood County
SIC Code 4952
Dear Mr. Clark:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007
(or as subsequently amended).
The following changes were made to the draft permit sent to you on May 31, 2017:
• The Supplement to the Permit Cover Sheet was corrected from 0.600 to 1.000 MGD.
• A back-up manual bar screen was added'to the treatment system components on the
Supplement to the Permit Cover Sheet.
• Three digesters were added to the treatment system components on the Supplement to the
Permit Cover Sheet.
The final permit maintains the following significant changes identified in the letter sent on
May 31, 2017:'
• The NC 2007-2014 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the
NC Environmental Management Committee (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA
subsequently approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016 with some exceptions. The NC
Division of Water Resources / NPDES Permitting Unit is required to implement the new
dissolved metal standards in all permits public noticed after April 6, 2016. The new
standards for most metals include acute standards. Further, the freshwater standards for
several metals are expressed as the dissolved form of the metals, and seven metals have
hardness -dependent equations. As a result, the NPDES Permitting Unit will need site -
State ofNorth Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 707 9000

specific effluent hardness data and instream hardness data, upstream of the discharge, for
each facility monitoring these metals in order to calculate permit limitations. Effluent All
hardness and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, has been added to
this permit at a monitoring frequency of quarterly. [See Special Condition A. (1.) Effluent
Limitations and Monitoring Requirements.]
• Quarterly monitoring for Total Copper has been removed from the permit. Results of a
reasonable potential analysis on submitted data indicated there was no reasonable potential
to exceed the water quality standard in the receiving stream.
Review of effluent data shows that there was one detection of Total Silver at 5 µg/L and
18 non -detects (< 5 µg/L and < 10 µg/L). In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0500. all test
procedures must produce detection and reporting levels that are below the permit discharge
requirements, and all data generated must be reported to the approved detection level or
lower reporting level of the procedure. Currently, DWR's laboratory identifies the Practical
Quantitation Limit (PQL) for Silver at < 1 µg/L. The allowable discharge concentration for
your facility is 0.95 µg/L. Therefore, the best your facility can do is sample Silver down to
the lower reporting level of the procedure, which is < 1 µg/L. Since only one sample was
at the detection level, a limit for Total Silver has not been put in the permit at this time;
however, quarterly Silver effluent sampling has been maintained. The Division
recommends that the Permittee improve and implement "clean" sampling techniques. The
Permittee should also work to identify potential sources of the pollutant and reduce influent
concentrations. If these measures do not result in Total Silver concentrations consistently
less than 1 µg/L, a limit will be added to the permit during the next renewal.
• In order to demonstrate compliance with the 2012 Statewide Mercury TMDL, this facility
is required to perform three low level Total Mercury tests (using EPA test method 1631 E)
as part of Town's next three Effluent Pollutant Scans. [See Special Condition A. (3.).]
• Quarterly monitoring for Total Zinc has been removed from the permit. Results of a
reasonable potential analysis on submitted data indicated there was no reasonable potential
to exceed the water quality standard in the receiving stream.
• Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports
(DMRs) and program reports. The final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was adopted
and became effective on December 21, 2015. The requirement to begin reporting discharge
monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge Monitoring
Report (eDMR) internet application has been added to your final NPDES permit. [See
Special Condition A. (4.).]
For information on eDMR, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account,
please visit the following web page: http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/edmr.
For more information on EPA's final NPDES Electronic Deporting Rule, please visit the
following web site: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/10/22/2015-
24954/national-pollutant-discharge-elimination-system-npdes-electronic-reporting-rule.

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.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division
may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect
the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water
Resources or any other Federal, State, or Local governmental permits that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Gary Perlmutter at (919) 807-
6385 or via email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jay Zimm ZeG.
ex(js
rector, Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
Hardcopy: NPDES Files
Central Files
DWR / Asheville Regional Office / Water Quality
Ecopy: US EPA Region 4
DWR / Aquatic Toxicology Branch / Susan Meadows

Pen -nit NCO056561
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
Town of Maggie Valley
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Maggie Valley WWTP
5320 Jonathan Creek Road
Waynesville, NC 28785
Haywood County
to receiving waters designated as Jonathans Creek in the French Broad River Basin in accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV
hereof.
This permit shall become effective September 1, 2017.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on March 31, 2021.
Signed this day July 31, 2017.
ILL a.
S. ZimmeA(Il",
Division of Water Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0056561
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the
permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
The Town of Maggie Valley is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 1.00 MGD wastewater treatment system consisting of the
following:
♦ A mechanical influent bar screen
♦ Back-up manual bar screen
♦ Flow selector basin
♦ 2 rectangular aeration basins
♦ 2 rectangular Aero-Mod clarifiers
♦ 5 dual aeration blowers
♦ 2 sludge holding basins
♦ 3 digesters
♦ Chlorination
i Chlorine contact basin
♦ Sulfur dioxide dechlorination
♦ Effluent flow monitoring
♦ Belt filter press
The facility is located at Maggie Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant, 5320 Jonathan Creek Rd,
Waynesville, NC 28785, in Haywood County;
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into Jonathans
Creek, classified C; Trout waters in the French Broad River Basin.
Page 2 of 12

Permit NCO056561
PART I
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (1.0 MGD)
�15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.i]
a. During the period beginning on the effective date and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
7
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS . k 'x
F 3 MONITORING *REQUIREMENTS
F
Monthly
Average£ .
x
Weekly •
5r
Average
Daily
,�
„Maximum
{
Measurement
;. � �
frequency
� Sample
Type ;
r a z
Sample Location
M
Flow
1.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20°C3
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L,
3M►eek
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Solids3
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/Li
3M/eek
Composite-
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N (mg/L)
Monitor and Report
3M►eek.
Composite
Effluent
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 mL 1
400/100 mL
3MMeek
Grab
Effluent
Temperature (°C)
Monitor and Report
3/Week
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)4
28 µg/L
2MMeek
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)5
Monitor and Report
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Monitor and Report
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
pH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 Standard Units
3MMeek
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
3M►eek
Grab
Effluent
Total Silver (Ng/L)7
Monitor and Report
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Hardness as [CaCO3 or
(Ca + Mg)] (mg/L)e
Monitor and Report
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Effluent Pollutant Scan
Monitor and Report
Footnote 9
Footnote 9
Effluent
Total Hardness as [CaCO3 or
(Ca + Mg)] (mg/L)10
Monitor and Report
Quarterly
Grab
Upstream
All footnotes are listed on the following page.
Page 3 of 12

Permit NC0056561
Footnotes:
1. Submit discharge monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDAM application system. See `
Special Condition A (4.).
2. Upstream is at 50-100 feet above discharge or at the nearest sampling location upstream of discharge.
3. The monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed
15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
4. The facility shall report all effluent TRC values reported by a NC certified laboratory (including
field -certified). Effluent values below 50 µg/L shall be treated as zero for compliance purposes.
5. Total Nitrogen = TKN + NO3-N + NO2-N, where TKN is Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, NO3-N is Nitrate
Nitrogen, and NO2-N is Nitrite Nitrogen.
6. Whole Effluent Toxicity shall be monitored using the Pass/Fail Chronic Toxicity test using
Ceriodaphnia at 6% effluent. Samples shall be taken in January, April, July and October. See Special
Condition A. (2.).
7. The Permittee should review and implement clean sampling techniques for Total Silver. The
reporting laboratory should test to the lower reporting level of the procedure, which is < 1 jig/L.
8. Effluent Total Hardness sampling should be performed in conjunction with metals sampling.
9. The Permittee shall perform three Effluent Pollutant Scans during the term of this permit. See Special
Condition A. (3.).
10. The Permittee shall sample instream Total Hardness, upstream of the facility's discharge. The sample
shall be representative of the hardness in the receiving stream.
b. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts
Page 4 of 12

Permit NCO056561
A. (2.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly) [15A NCAC 02B .0200 et seq.]
The effluent discharge shall at. no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 6%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in
the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised December 2010, or
subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised- December 2010) or subsequent versions.. The tests will be performed during the months of
January, April, July and October. These months signify the first month of each three-month toxicity
testing quarter assigned to the facility. Effluent sampling for this testing must be obtained during
representative effluent discharge and shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge
below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test Hof any single quarter results in a failure or Chronic
Value (ChV) below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a
minimum, in each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase H Chronic
Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -December 2010) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP311 for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWR Form AT-
3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than
thirty (30) days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all; supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate
signature. Total Residual Chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if
chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test
form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report
with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the
Water Sciences Section at the address cited above!
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a mont in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring
will be required during the following month. Assessment of toxicity compliance is based on the toxicity
testing quarter, which'is the three-month time interval that begins on the first day of the month in which
toxicity testing is required by this permit and continues until the final day of the third month.
Page'5 of 12

Permit NC0056561
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division
of Water Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls,
shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later
than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.
Page 6 of 12

Permit NCO056561
A. (3.) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN (Municipal POTWs) [G.S. 143-215.1(b)]
• - The Permittee shall perform a total of three (3) Effluent Pollutant Scans for all parameters listed below.
One scan must be performed in each of the following years: 2018, 2019, and 2020. Analytical methods
shall be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 and shall be sufficiently sensitive to determine whether
parameters are present in concentrations greater than applicable standards and criteria. Samples should be
collected with one quarterly toxicity test each year, and must represent seasonal variation [i.e., do not
sample in the same quarter 'every year]. Unless otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total
recoverable."
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Dissolved Oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Oil and Grease
Phosphorus
Total Dissolved Solids
Hardness
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury (EPA Method 1631 E)
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total Phenolic Compounds
Volatile organic compounds:
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1, 1 -dichloroethahe
1,2-dichloroethane
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1, 1 -dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene 1
1,1,1-tri0loroethane
1,1,2-tnchloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Acid -extractable compounds:
P-chloro=m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichl6rophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Base -neutral compounds:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Page 7 of .12
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene

Permit NCO056561
Reporting. Test results shall be reported on DWR Form -A MR-PPA1 (or in a form approved by the
Director) by December 31st of each designated sampling year. The report shall be submitted to the
following address: NC DEQ / DWR / Central Files, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1617.
Additional Toxicity Testing Requirements for Municipal Permit Renewal. Please note that
Municipal facilities that are subject to the Effluent Pollutant Scan requirements listed above are also
subject to additional toxicity testing requirements specified in Federal Regulation 40 CFR 122.210)(5).
The US EPA requires four (4) toxicity tests for a test organism other than the test species currently
required in this permit. The multiple species tests should be conducted either quarterly for a 12-month
period prior to submittal of the permit renewal application, or four tests performed at least annually in
the four and one half year period prior to the application. These tests shall be performed for acute or
chronic toxicity, whichever is specified in this permit. The multiple species toxicity test results shall be
filed'with the Aquatic Toxicology Branch at the following address:
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Contact the Division's Aquatic Toxicology Branch at 919-743-8401 for guidance on conducting the
additional toxicity tests and reporting requirements. Results should also be summarized in Part E
(Toxicity Testing Data) of EPA Municipal Application Form 2A, when submitting the permit renewal
application to the NPDES Permitting Unit.
Page 8 of 12

Permit NCO056561
A. (4.) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF MONITORING REPORTS [G.S. 143-215.1(b)]
Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and program
reports. The final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was adopted and became effective: on December
21, 2015.
NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within Part II of this
permit (Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits):
1.
• Section B. (11.)
• Section D. (2.)
• Section D. (6.)
• Section E. (5.)
Signatory Requiremenis
Reporting
Records Retention
Monitoring. Reports
The permittee shall report discharge in
Discharge Monitoring Report (eDMR)
Monitoring results obtained during the previc
submitted electronically using eDMR; The
monitoring data and submit DMRs electronic
eDMR application is compliant with ER
(CROMERR), permittees will be required t
electronically using eDMR and will be requ
signing, and submitting one signed original
following address:
data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic
application.
s month(s) shall be summarized for each month and
;DMR system allows permitted_ facilities to enter
lly using the internet. Until such time that the state's
's Cross -Media Electronic Reporting Regulation
submit all discharge monitoring data to the state
•ed to complete the eDMR submission by printing,
end a copy of the computer printed eDMR to the
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or due to the facility
being physically located in an area where less than 10 percent of the households have broadband
access, then a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements may be granted
and discharge monitoring data may be submitted on paper DMR forms (MR 1, 1. 1, 2, 3) or alternative
forms approved by the Director. Duplicate signed copies shall be submitted to the mailing address
above. See "How to Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting" section below.
Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is -due on the last day of the month following
the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last day of the month following the
commencement of discharge.
Starting on December 21, 2020, the permittee must electronically report the following compliance
monitoring data and reports, when applicable:
Page 9 of 12

Permit NCO056561
• Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports;
• Pretreatment Program Annual Reports; and
• Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) Annual Reports.
The permittee may seek an electronic reporting waiver from the Division (see "How to Request a
Waiver from Electronic Reporting" section below).
2. Electronic Submissions
In accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(1)(9), the permittee must identify the initial recipient at the time
of each electronic submission. The permittee should use the EPA's website resources to identify the
initial recipient for the electronic submission.
Initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities means the entity
(EPA or the state authorized by EPA to implement the NPDES program) that is the designated entity
for receiving electronic NPDES data [see 40 CFR 127.2(b)].
EPA plans to establish a website that will also link to the appropriate electronic reporting tool for
each type of electronic submission and for each state. Instructions on how to access and use the
appropriate electronic reporting tool will be available as well. Information on EPA's NPDES
Electronic Reporting Rule is found at:
httys://www.federalregister. Gov/documents/2015/10/22/2015-24954/national-pollutant-discharrge-
elimination-s s� tem-npdes-electronic-reportin -rule.
Electronic submissions must start by the dates listed in the "Reporting Requirements" section above.
3. How to Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting
The permittee may seek a temporary electronic reporting waiver from the Division. To obtain an
electronic reporting waiver, a permittee must first submit an electronic reporting waiver request to
the Division. Requests for temporary electronic reporting waivers must be submitted in writing to
the Division for written approval at least sixty (60) days prior to the date the facility would be
required under this permit to begin submitting monitoring data and reports. The duration of a
temporarywaiver shall not exceed five (5) years and shall thereupon expire. At such time, monitoring
data and reports shall be submitted electronically to the Division unless the Permittee re -applies for
and is granted a new temporary electronic reporting waiver by the Division. Approved electronic
reporting waivers are not transferrable. Only permittees with an approved reporting waiver request
may submit monitoring data and reports on paper to the Division for the period that the approved
reporting waiver request is effective.
Information on eDMR and the application for a temporary electronic reporting waiver are found on
the following web page:
htti)://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/edmr
Page 10 of 12

Permit NC0056561
4. Signatory Requirements [Supplements Section B. (11.) (b) and Supersedes Section B. (11.) (d)1
All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person described in Part
II, Section B. (11.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that person as described in Part II,
Section B. (11.)(b). A person, and not a position, must be delegated signatory authority for eDMR
reporting purposes.
For eDMR submissions, the person signing and submitting the DMR must obtain an eDMR user
account and login credentials to access the eDMR system. For more information on North Carolina's
eDMR system, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please visit the following
web page:
httD:Hdeu .nc. izov/ab out/divisions/water-resources/edmr
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system shall make
the following certification [40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION
WILL BE ACCEPTED:
7 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. I
am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations. "
5. Records Retention [Supplements Section D.
The permittee shall retain records of all Discharge Monitoring Reports, including eDMR
submissions. These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least three (3) years from
the date of the report. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40 CFR
122.41].
Page 11 of 12

Permit NCO056561
t, S . h :.'l i.; �- i� . 1.. '.•:.. .., �}, v_.:� -. s� e-� a ,,y�-A�''.-: - .`ter s-,
�� .. � t i:� . � ' 9. s e.•• :.- ` f � 1 � +: h� tar. Fitl Fes} s _,-�=-f^�..a J '
_1116 14 l ;,;r,. t 1 a t 1 Na _ - • �. '� s�.-rr
h 1 l
in
^� •ti._.._. �'��' r 't r �i>I� I y"� 1't"y ~ 1 i- � �c7� -�Tt1
, �� �- r�--•,�. ,, ! _,, i. - _tom: -
t Yj, ,5 L,Ajr MC it Ytt Ciia
t ;,� f
} _ n
�i�{ d, 1 }.y a�Tr t} t r Ipi `ti �.••a � '� � �` '1 "a A. !' '°
€e�Fv6 `..,. '`.` �L _ f, �— 'ram^4 ` ' �-• �.' " � ` ,�" '� � �` _r'�`�� ..
71
Xr
aggle
r> f�de1i� EiItll�� 0OI r
- r E J` �` ! . 11jr _ -•1� . P�% 1) '' y' '�,.. y ,� .,. i fry r W �,le,
,. � •.+ � � � _• red{
#� cc's's�r. ' `'� 1. 1` � y��,�1 -. yyy'I •fir' �. ;
�. � is P 1 f. �' •T"� 1 E,s4 t 5�'�, � , # A J.
V
k F3.^-.Jrc G�a41to oars! eMr �: 0.PCrt E 7..HFC: C.
Facility
Town of Maggie Valley WWTP LDC-stior,
oaim Cas4!:rzsd, R9 C 61fmmsta Mum; k-rot tameCmc .,
35° 3&' S6" N Zfenm [Lnssl C'-laid. �+� H$.� wood '[;aunty
j 2�C 2:3' IN #atkayn. CtcHs
MAD not to 6Crd{.

Public Notice
North Carolina Environ-
NORTH CAROLINA
mental Management
HAYWOOD COUNTY
Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Notice of Intent to Issue a
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and
NPDES Wastewater Permit
State, duly commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to
The North Carolina Envi-
ad r oaths, personally appeared
ronmental Management
Commission proposes to
who being first
issue a NPDES wastewater
discharge permit to the
ly an. deposes andmys:thathe(she)
personCs) listed below.
(Owner, partner,publisher, or other officer or employee authorized to make this affidavit)
Written comments re-
garding the proposed per-
mit will be accepted until
30 days after the publish
of THE MOUNTAINEER
date of this notice. The
Director of the NC Divi-
engaged in the publication of a newspaper known as
sion of Water Resources
THE MOUNTAINEER published, issued, and entered as second
(DWR) may hold a public
class mail in the City of
hearing should there be a
WAYNESVILLE
significant degree of pub-
in said County and State; that he (she) is authorized to make
lic interest. Please mail
this affidavit and sworn statement; that the notice or other legal
comments and/or infor-
advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was
mation requests to DWR
pub]' ' THE MOUNTAINEER on the following dates:
at the above address. In-
terested persons may visit
/
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper, document,
Salis-
the DWR t, ale N. NC to
bury Street, Raleigh, NC to
review information on file.
or legal advertisement was published was, at the time of each and
Additional information on
every such publication, a newspaper meeting all of the requirements
NPDES permits and this
and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North
notice may be found on
Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within the meaning of
our website: http;//deq.
Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.
nc.gov/a bout/d ivisions/
water -resources -permits/
wastewater- bra nch/np-
I hi of 20�
des-wastewater/public-
notices, or by calling (919)
807-6397.
The Town of Maggie Val-
Signature orperson making affidavit
ley requested renewal
Sworn to a cribed before me, this
of permit NC 0056561
Valley WWTP
2Q�
for Maggie
c
n
1 Haywood County; this
permitted discharge is,
My C mmission expires: Z�-�
treated municipal water,
to Jonathan Creek, French
�— Notary Dubuc
Broad River Basin.
No 33882 June 5, 2017
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Issued by
THE MOUNTAINEER
Waynesville, NC 28786

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCOO56561
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Gary Perlmutter, [e-mail]
Date: July 10, 2017
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Complex Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
0 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.
I
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Maggie V;alley/Maggie Valley WWTP
Applicant Address:
3987 Soco Road; Maggie Valley, North Carolina 28751
Facility Address:
5320 Jonathan Creek Road; Waynesville, North Carolina 28786
Permitted Flow:
1.0 MGD i
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 100% domestic
Facility Class:
Class 3
Treatment Units:
Bar screen, Flow Selector Basin, Aeration Basins, Clarifiers, Sludge
Holding Basins, Belt Filter Press, Chlorination, Dechlorination
Pretreatment.Program (Y/N)
No
County:
Haywood
Region
Asheville
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action andfacility background.• The Town of Maggie Valley
has applied for NPDES permit renewal, and submitted a renewal application dated July 22, 2015. This
facility serves a population of 4,100 residents.
Page 1.of 9

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 — Jonathan Creek
Stream Segment:
5-26-(7)
Stream Classification:
C; Tr
Drainage Area (mi2):
55.8
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
23
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
27
30Q2 (cfs):
38
Average. Flow (cfs):
110
IWC (% effluent):
6
303(d) listed/parameter:
None
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Statewide TMDL for Mercury
Subbasin/HUC:
04-03-05/06010106
USGS Topo Quad:
E6SE/Dellwood, NC
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data is summarized below for the period January 2013 through February 2017.
Table. Effluent Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limit'
Flow
MGD
0.299
1.699
0.108
1.0
BODs
mg/L
3.5
21.7
< 2
MA = 30.0
WA = 45.0
BOD removal
%
98.6
NA
NA
> 85
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
4.7
17.7
< 2.4
MA = 30.0
(TSS)
WA = 45.0
TSS removal
%
97.9
NA
NA
> 85
NH3-N
mg/L
0.28
6.50
< 0.10
Monitor
only
Fecal Coliform
#/100 mL
4.9
> 400
< 2
MA = 200
(geometric mean)
WA = 400
Temperature
°C
16.5
25.0
6.0
Monitor
only
Total Residual Chlorine
(TRC)
µg/L
13.4
< 14
< 13
MD = 28 2
Page 2 of 9

Monitor
Total Nitrogen
mg/L
6.65
12.60
2.91
only
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
2.39
4.60
0.13
Monitor
only
pH
SU
6.45
6.90
6.00
6.0-9.0
Monitor
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
mg/L
6.09
9.10
3.80
only
Total Copper
µg/L
6.83
13.00
1.00
Monitor
only
Total Silver
µg/L
5.26
10.00
< 5.00
Monitor
only
Total Zinc
µg/L
50.63
87.00
22.00
Monitor
only
I MA — Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Maximum.
2 TRC compliance level of 50 µg/L approved by EPA effective March 1, 2008 to address analytical
difficulties with TRC measurements.
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/L of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: The current permit does not require instream monitoring; no data are available for review.
No changes are proposed.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition w th 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 has no record of
limit violations within the past five years.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): The facility passed 18 of 18 quarterly (Ceriodaphnia) chronic toxicity tests, as well as all
4 second species (Pimephales) chronic toxicity tests, collected 10/30/2016, 12/4/2016, 1/8/2017, and
3/5/2017.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The most recent facility inspection
(compliance evaluation), conducted in March 2017, reported that the facility was well maintained and
operated.
Page 3 of 9

6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixin Zones
ones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HIT).
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 15,4 NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD = 30 mg/L for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The current permit
limits for BOD are the TBELs of 30 mg/L monthly average and 45 mg/L weekly average. 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/L (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 µg/L) and capped at 28 µg/L (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 µg/L are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: There are no
proposed changes. WLA results are TRC capped at 28 µg/L and NH3 weekly average limits are > 35
mg/L, which requires monitoring only. Reviewed NH3 data are well below 35 mg/L.
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 1/2 detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between October 2012
and January 2017. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
Page 4 of 9

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: Silver.
Results for Total Silver included 18 non -detects except for one detect at 5 µg/L. Current PQL for
Total Silver is at 1.0 jig/L. Therefore, monitoring only is proposed with the recommendation to
improve sampling techniques and measurements to the lower detection limit.
• No Limit or Monitoring. The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria and the maximum predicted concentration was < 50% of the allowable
concentration: Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Total Phenolic Compounds, Total Chromium,
Copper, Lead, Nickel, Selenium, Zinc.
POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review. Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: 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.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: Maggie Valley WWTP is a Major POTW, and a chronic
WET limit at 6% effluent will continue with a quarterly sampling frequency.
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 9

control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/L) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/L) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/L.
Table. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
Parameter
2012
2013
2014
No. of Samples
1
1
1
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
0.5
0.5
0.5
Maximum Conc., ng/L
0.50
0.50
0.50
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
190.1
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, no Total
Mercury limit is required. Because the facility is < 2 MGD, a Mercury Minimization Plan (MMP) is not
required.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: There is no Nutrient Management Strategy for the French Broad River Basin. Total
Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus is monitored quarterly per facility size (> 1 MGD) and river sub -basin
(French Broad) as specified in 15A NCAC 02B .0508. No changes are proposed.
Other WOBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
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. 0107(c) (2) (B), 40 CFR 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 (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg1L
BOD51TSSfor Monthly Average, and 45 mg/L for BOD51TSSfor Weekly Average): YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond): NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD5/TSS included in the permit? YES
Page 6 of 9

If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond): NA
" Industrials (if not applicable delete and skip to next Section): NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit must
document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 211.0105(c)(2). In all cases,
existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore
antibacksliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to
submit additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic
reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
Page 7 of 9

12. Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
1.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
MA 30.0 mg/L
TBEL. Secondary treatment
BOD5
WA 45.0 mg/L
No change
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
2B .0406
Total Suspended
MA 30 mg/L
TBEL. Secondary treatment
Solids (TSS)
WA 45 mg/L
No change
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
2B .0406
WQBEL. Based on EPA criteria,
NH3-N
Monitor 3/week
No change
State guidance (7-20-2016) and
WLA calculations
Fecal Coliform
MA 200 /100mL
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400 /100mL
NCAC 2B .0200
Temperature
Monitor daily
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15ANCAC
2B .0508.
Total Residual
DM 28 µg/L
No change
Capped per NH3/TRC WLA
Chlorine (TRC)
Calculation
Total Nitrogen
Monitor quarterly
No change
TBEL. 15A NCAC 02B .0508.
Total Phosphorus
Monitor quarterly
No change
TBEL. 15A NCAC 02B .0508.
Ceriodaphnia pass/fail
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
Chronic Toxicity
at 6% effluent
No change
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
15A NCAC 2B.0500
pH
6 — 9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200
Dissolved Oxygen
Monitor 3/week
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
(DO)
NCAC 2B .0200
Hardness -dependent dissolved
metals water quality standards,
Total Hardness
No requirement
Monitor quarterly
approved in 2016, need effluent and
instream hardness data for
calculations of permit limitations.
Total Copper
Monitor quarterly
Remove effluent
No reasonable potential found; max
monitoring
Cw < 50 /o of allowable Cw.
Maintain monitoring
and report lower
RPA data all < 5, one < 10 and one
Total Silver
Monitor quarterly
detection limit (PQL)
at 5 µg/L; allowable concentration is
of < 1 µg/L
0.95 µg/L.
Total Zinc
Monitor quarterly
Remove effluent
No reasonable potential found; max
monitoring
Cw < 50 /o of allowable Cw.
Page 8 of 9

Effluent Pollutant
Three times per permit
No change
40 CFR 122
Scan
cycle
Electronic
Add Electronic
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
No requirement
Reporting Special
Reporting Rule 2015.
Condition
MUD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily
Maximum.
13. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable).,:
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• Corrections were made to the permit per Regional Office comments, dated 06/02/2017 (e-mail):
o The Supplement to the Permit Cover Sheet was corrected from 0.600 to 1.000 MGD.
o A back-up manual bar screen was added to the treatment system components on the
Supplement to the Permit Cover Sheet.
o Three digesters were added to the treatment system components on the Supplement to the
Permit Cover Sheet.
14. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable'):
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards
• Monitoring Report (MR) Violations sheet
• Removal Calculations Sheet !I
• WET Testing and Self Monitoring sheet, page 70
• Compliance Evaluation Report, 02/03/2017 !
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations sheet
• Mercury Data Statistics table
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
Page 9 of 9

Permit No.
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 alli Standards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5.
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. `Calculation = Hardness dependent standard'
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still'expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and:human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
213.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/l for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection). '
Table 2. Dissolved freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11) (d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium,,Acute
WER*{1.136672-[In hardness](0.0418M)} e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485)
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.136672-[17? hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9151[ln hardness]=3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[1n hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.7998[In hardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848)
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700)
Copper; Chronic
WER*0.960 e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702)
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[In liardness](0.145712)) • eAll .273[ln hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)) • eAll .273[In hardness]-4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255)
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584)
Page 1 of 4

Permit No.
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 . e^{.1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 a^{0.8473[in hardness]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 e^{0.8473[in hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/W®EELS 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.
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
_ ,(Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg Effluent Hardness,- mp,/L) + (s7Q 10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q 10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 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
Ctotaf 1 + { [Kpo] [ss,l+a,] [10-1] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspendedsolids concentration [mg/1],, minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list, of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient ;conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q 10 + Qw) (Cwgs) — (s7Q 10) (Cb)
Qv,
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q 10)
s7Q 10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
*Discussions are on -going with EPA. on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q 10 may be incorporated as applicable:
1 Q 10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No.
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
,� 11'
3 F_ P P �J ti ,� C �zp,J t
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
9 F� J LT
7Q10 summer (cfs)
ZZ , p0
�' �o� i 'mac; SA C_kT'
1 Q 10 (cfs)
IT
V%
Permitted Flow (MGD)
fL 10 , Z V 1 t14
Date: '� " t Y_ L_ 1
Permit Writer:
Page 4 of 4

Removal Rate Calculations
:.0
<
Influent
m /L
on <
Effluent
m L
Used in
Calculation
Sample Date
spreadsheet
Instructions:
1) Data
Jun-16
286.2
2.5
2.5
entereJul-15 Heavy only in
Bordered
cells. Rest of
worksheet is
protected,password is
'
2) For below
detection data,
enter "<" in •<^
column, and enter detection
level in
Influent or
Effluent mgn
columns.
Spreadsheet
will auto-
matically
calculate
averages and
removal rates
in1/2
value entered.
3) Document
removal Rate
choice
a) Formulas in Compre-
hensive Guide
HWA Chapter,
section E,
page 1.
281.0
7Cala
3.3
3.3
Au -15
291.0
2.3
2.3
S -15
293.9
3.0
3
Oct-15
237.0
3.6
3.6
Nov-15
189.6
3.0
3.0
Dec-15
178.3
178.3
2.8
2.8
Jan-16
213.0
213.0
5.0
5.0
Feb-16
155.0
155.0
3.5
3.5
Mar-16
206.0
206.0
3.7
3.7
A r-16
252.0
252.0
7.2
7.2
Ma -16
264.0
264.0
3.4
3.4
Jun-16
267.0
267.0
3.3
3.3
Jul-16
306.0
306.0
2.9
2.9
Aug- 16
270.0
270.0
2.0
2.0
Sep- 16
265.0
265.0
1 2.1
2.1
Oct-16
343.0
343.0
1 2.4
2.4
Nov-16
266.8
266.8
4.4
4.4
Dec-16
212.0
212.0
3.6
3.6
Jan-17
184.0
0 184.0
4.6
4.6
Feb-17
207.0
1 207.0
3.1
3.1
Column Averages =>
NC0056561
246.0857
Unpaired Site Specific RR =>
Literature/Default RR =>
3.41
98.61 771
85.00
Maggie Valley WWTP
5/11 /2017
Gary Permutter
NC0056561 Removal rate Calc
Removal Rates
Page 1 of 1 pages
5/11/2017, 9:13 AM
Revision: August 1999
0 % of data is BDL
m
Used in
alculation <
Effluent
m L
Used in
Calculation
319.8
3.4
3.4
238
2.9
2.9
283.0
283
2.7
2.7
334.7
334.7
1
2.60
2.6
245.0
245
1
4.90
4.9
196.0
196.0
1 6.30
6.3
202.0
202.0
8.00
8
192.0
192.0
11.60
11.6
167.0
167.0
8.40
8.4
192.0
192.0
7.10
7.1
276.0
276.0
6.80
6.8
286.0
286.0
5.30
5.3
268.0
268.0
4.80
4.8
288.0
288.0
2.50
2.5
310.0
310.0
2.60
2.6
317.0
317.0
2.60
2.6
304.0
304.0
3.70
3.7
273.0
273.0
6.60
6.6
229.0
229.0
9.80
9.8
187.0
187.0
6.30
6.3
219.0
219.0
4.05
4.05
253.64
Unpaired Site Specific RR =>
Literature/Default RR =>
5.38
97.88
85. 00 761
0 % of data is BDL
0 0
Unpaired Site Specific RR =>�
Literature/Default RR => 85.00
of data is BDL

-7 -vv- 1_0 a,�r
NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Maggie Valley WWTP
PermitNo. NCO056561
Prepared By: Gary Perlmutter
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
1
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
23
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
27 .
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
23 s7Q10 (CFS)
23
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
1.55 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
1.55
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
6.31 IWC (%)
6.31
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
269 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 6A
12.6
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
27
Monthly Average Limit:
200/10.0ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
1
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
1.55
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
15.84. Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
5.43
Allowable Conc. (mg/1) PV
29.3
OAS
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); capped at 35 mg/I
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max
limit (Non-Munis); capped at 35 mg/I
Fecal Coliform
1.. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

G fS�P
Maggie Valley WWTP / NCO056561
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2012
2013
2014
# of Samples
1
1
1
Annual Average, ng/L
0.5
0.5
0.5
Maximum Value, ng/L
0.50
0.50
0.50
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
190.1

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information
❑CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Facility Name Maggie Valley WWTP Paro1
WWTP/WTP Class WWTP Class 3 Par02
NPDES Permit NCO056561 Par03
Outfal I 001 Par04
Flow, Qw (MGD) 1.000 Par05
Receiving Stream Jonathans Creek Par06■
HUC Number 06010106 Par07
Stream Class Par08
C; Tr
❑Apply WS Hardness WQC Par09
7010s (cfs) 23.00 Par10
7Q10w (cfs) 27.00 Partt
30Q2 (cfs) 38.00 Par12
CIA (cfs) - 110.00 Par13
1Q10s (cfs) 18.97 Par14
Effluent Hardness 52 mg/L (Avg) Par15
Upstream Hardness w 25 mg/L (Avg) e. I Par16
Combined Hardness Chronic _ 26.7 mg/L , Par17
Combined Hardness Acute w 27.04 mg/L. r �I Par18
Data Source(s) Three Effluent Scans and DMR data from January parts
❑CHECK TO APPLY MODEL 2013 - January 2017.
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name wQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
0.6201
FW
3.4692
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
mg/L
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
Total Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
124.2679
FW
965.1204
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
fig/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
8.3376
FW
11.2751
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L i
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
3.1683
FW
82.4522
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
39.3681
FW
358.2024
lag/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
lag/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
0.3392
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
134.0184
FW
134.3417
ug/L
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, input
5/11 /2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
Effluent Hardness
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
10/9/2012
46 46
Std Dev.
2
1/8/2013
77 77
Mean
3
7/22/2014
33 33
C.V. (default)
4
n
5
10th Per value
6
Average Value
7
Max. Value
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
H2
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values- then "COPY"
Maximum data
Upstream Hardness
Values" then "COPY'
.'Maximum data
.
points = 58
points = 58
p
Date
1
Data BDL=1/2DL Results
25 25 Std Dev.
N/A
22.6053
52.0000
2
Mean
25.0000
0.6000
3
C.V.
0.0000
3
4
n
1
35.60 mg/L
5
10th Per value
25.00 mg/L
52.00 mg/L
6
Average Value
25.00 mg/L
77.00 mg/L
7
Max. Value
25.00 mg/L
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, data
1 _ 5/11/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Arsenic
Date Data BDL=112DL
10/9/2012 < 10 5
1/8/2013 < 10 5
7/22/2014 < 1 0.5
Use 'PASTE SPECI
Values" then'COF
. Maximum data
points = 58
Results
Std Dev.
2.5981
Mean
3.5000
C.V. (default)
0,6000
n
3
Mult Factor = 3.00
Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
Max. Fred Cw O DETECTS ug/L
-2-
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, data
5/11 /2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03
Use "PASTE SPE
Par04
Use"PASTE SPECIA
BeryiilUm
Vatues" 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
10/9/2012
< 2 1
Std Dev.
0.2887
1
10/9/2012 <
10 5
Std Dev.
2.5981
2
1/8/2013
< 2 1
Mean
0.8333
2
1/8/2013 <
10 5
Mean
3.5000
3
7/22/2014
< 1 0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
7/22/2014 <
1 0.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
n
3
4
n
3
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
7
Max. Value
1.00 ug/L
7
Max. Value
5.000 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
O DETECTS ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
O DETECTS 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
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, data
3- 5/11/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Chlorides
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
1
Std Dev,
2
Mean
3
C.V.
4
n
5
6
Mult Factor =
7
Max. Value
8
Max. Fred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL- Paf06
Values" Men
Maximum data points =
58
NO DATA
NO DATA
1
2
3
0 4
5
N/A 6
N/A mg/L 7
N/A mg/L 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
III ae -PASTESF
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
V8!::"tl1Bn '
atlmum <
pol. ` 6
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
NO DATA
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
n
0
Mult Factor =
N/A
Max. Value
N/A
Max. Pred Cw
N/A
-4-
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, data
5/ 11 /2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
'ECIAL
Use PASTE SPE �•
-PASTE
raruo
Use "PASTE SF
Chromium 111
Values" then '+
Maximum,
:oPr
Total Phenolic Compounds values" then "COPY
feta
Maximum data
points= 5
points = 58
1
Date
10/9/2012
Data BDL=112DL
76 76
Results
Sid Dev.
37.6597
Date
1
Data BDL=112DL Results
Std Dev.
NO DATA
2
1/8/2013
< 50 25
Mean
34.5000
2
Mean
NO DATA
3
7/22/2014
< 5 2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
C.V.
NO DATA
4
n
3
4
n
0
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
ug/L
7
Max. Value
76.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
NIA
ug/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
228.0 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
NIA
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
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, data
-5- 5/11/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
PIECIAL ar09
"Oa
VI
IotaChromium
4
Date
Data BDL=1/20L Results
1
Std Dev.
2
Mean
3
C.V.
4
n
5
6
Mult Factor =
pg/L
7
Max. Value
pg/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
vp
Par10
Use "PASTE SPEdAL
Use "PASTE SF
Values" then "COPY"
Chromium, Total
Values' then "I
. Maximum data
. Maximum
points = 58
points a E
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
NO DATA
1
10/9/2012
< 5 2.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
NO DATA
2
1/8/2013
< 5 2.5
Mean
2.5000
NO DATA
3
7/22/2014
< 5 2.5
C.V.
0.0000
0
4
n
3
5
N/A
6
Mult Factor =
1.00
N/A pg/L
7
Max. Value
2.5
N/A pg/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
O DETECTS
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
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, data
6- 5/11/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
ECIPall Use "PASTE SPEC!
AL
:OPy" Copper Values" then "COF
fate . Maximum data
4 points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
10/9/2012
<
10
5
Std Dev.
2
1/8/2013
<
10
5
Mean
3
4/2/2013
<
10
5
C.V.
4
7/9/2013
<
5
2.5
n
5
10/8/2013
5
5
6
1/14/2014
8
8
Mult Factor =
pg/L
7
4/8/2014
5
5
Max. Value
pg/L
8
7/l/2014
3
3
Max. Pred Cw
9
7/22/2014
4
4
10
10/7/2014
8
8
11
1/6/2015
1
1
12
4/14/2015
5
5
13
7/7/2015
13
13
14
10/13/2015
7
7
15
1/12/2016
8
8
16
4/12/2016
9
9
17
7/19/2016
6
6
18
1/10/2017
6
6
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
5.8611
0.4662
18
1.32
13.00 ug/L
17.16 ug/L
Par12
Cyanide
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
10/9/2012
11 11
Std Dev.
2
1/8/2013 <
5 5
Mean
3
7/22/2014 <
5 5
C.V. (default)
4
n
5
6
Mult Factor =
7
Max. Value
8
Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE S€
Values" then
Maximum s
points z 6
7.00
0.6000
3
3.00
11.0
33.0
IW!
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, data
5/ 11 /2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
SCULL
Part 3
Use -PASTE SPECIAL
Par14
Use "PASTE S6
Lead
Values'then 'I
. Maximum r
"OPY'
tan
Fluoride
Values" then "COPY'
. Maximum data
polrrts = E
a
points = 58
Date Data
1
BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
NO DATA
1
Date
10/9/2012 <
BDL=1/2DL
5 2.5
Results
Std Dev.
0.0000
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
1/8/2013 <
5 2.5
Mean
2.5000
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
7/22/2014 <
5 2.5
C.V.
0.0000
4
n
0
4
n
3
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
6
Mult Factor =
1.00
ug/L
7
Max. Value
N/A ug/L
7
Max. Value
2.500
ug/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
N/A ug/L
8
Max. Fred Cw
O DETECTS
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
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, data
-8- 5/11/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
'ECtAL
Par15
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Par16
Molybdenum
.OPY"
Mercury Values" then "COPY"
fata
. Maximum data
g
points = 58
Date Data
1
BDL=112DL Results
Std Dev.
NO DATA
Date
1
Data BDL=112DL Results
Std Dev.
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
Mean
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
C.V.
4
n
0
4
n
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
6
Mult Factor
ug/L
7
Max. Value
N/A ng/L
7
Max. Value
ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A ng/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
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
Use "PASTE SF
Values" then
Maximum s
points - 5
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, data
-9- 5/11/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
'ECiAL Par17 & Par18
Nickel
fate
a
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
10/9/2012 <
10 5
Std Dev.
2
1/8/2013 <
10 5
Mean
3
7/22/2014 <
10 5
C.V.
4
n
5
6
Mult Factor =
ug/L
7
Max. Value
ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use 'PASTE SPECIAL
Par19
Selenium.
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
1
Date Data
10/9/2012 <
BDL=1/2DL
10 5
Results
Std Dev.
0.0000
5.0000
2
1/8/2013 <
10 5
Mean
0.0000
3
7/22/2014 <
5 2.5
C.V. (default)
3
4
n
5
1.00
6
Mult Factor =
5.0 Ng/L
7
Max. Value
O DETECTS Ng/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
10-
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, data
5/11/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par20
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then 'COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
4.1667
0.6000
3
3.00
5.0 ug/L
O DETECTS ug/L
Date Data
1 10/9/2012 <
2 1/8/2013 <
3 4/2/2013 <
4 7/9/2013 <
5 10/8/2013 <
6 1/14/2014
7 4/8/2014 <
8 7/1/2014 <
9 7/22/2014 <
10 10/7/2014 <
11 1 /6/2015 <
12 4/14/2015 <
13 7/7/2015 <
14 10/13/2015 <
15 1/12/2016 <
16 4/12/2016 <
17 7/19/2016 <
18 10/11/2016 <
19 1/10/2017 <
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Silver
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
BDL=1/2DL
Results
5 2.5
Std Dev.
0.7883
5 2.5
Mean
2.7632
5 2.5
C.V.
0.2853
10 5
n
19
5 2.5
5 5
Mult Factor =
1.18
5 2.5
Max. Value
5.000 ug/L
5 2.5
Max. Pred Cw
5.900 ug/L
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
Par21
Zinc
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
10/9i2012
55
55
Std Dev.
2
1/8/2013 <
30
15
Mean
3
4/2/2013
35
35
C.V.
4
7/9/2013
24
24
n
5
10/8/2013
65
65
6
1/14/2014
54
54
Mult Factor =
7
4/8/2014
26
26
Max. Value
8
7/1/2014
22
22
Max. Pred Cw
9
7/22/2014
57
57
10
10/7/2014
68
68
11
1 /6/2015
72
72
12
4/14/2015
46
46
13
7/7/2015
45
45
14
10/13/2015
64
64
15
1/12/2016
44
44
16
4/12/2016
49
49
17
7/19/2016
87
87
18
10/11/2016
72
72
19
1/10/2017
47
47
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
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, data
11 - 5/11/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
NC0056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, data
- 12 - 5/11/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Use "PASTE SPEQ
Values" then "COPY"
O
Values" then "COF
. Maximum data
. Maximum data
points = 58
points = 58
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
NO DATA
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
Mean
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
n
0
4
n
0
5
Mult Factor =
N/A
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
Max. Value
N/A
7
Max. Value
N/A
Max. Pred Cw
NIA
8
Max. Fred Cw
N/A
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
�Par25
0
Date Data BDL=1/2DL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
-13-
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, data
5/11/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Use -PASTE SPECI
Values" then "COF
. Maximum data
points = 58
Results
Std Dev.
NO DATA
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
n
0
Mull Factor = N/A
Max. Value N/A
Max. Pred Cw N/A
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, data
14 - 5/11/2017

Maggie Valley WWTP
NCO056561 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD)= 1.00 WWTP/WTPClass: wwTP Class 3
1Q10S (cfs) = 18.97 IWC% @ iQ10S = 7.553606238
7QI OS (cfs) = 23.00 IWC% @ 7Q10S = 6.313645621
7Q10W (cfs) = 27.00 IWC%@ 7QIOW = 5.429071804
30Q2 (cfs) = 38.00 IWC% @ 30Q2 = 3.91908976
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 110.00 IW%C @ QA = 1.38951143
Receiving Stream: Jonathans Creek HUC 06010106 Stream Class: C; Tr
(lutfail'001,
Qw=1 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS
Acute = 27.04 mg/1.
Chronic = 26.7 mg/L
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
to
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
PARAMETER
TYPE
Q
F
(1)
Chronic Applied Acute
°
n N Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Standard
Acute (FW): 4,501.2
Two non -detects at 10 ug/L and one non -detect at 1
Arsenic
C
150 FW(7QIOs) 340
ug/L
-
ug/L_C - — -rrent — - is 2 -- — — — — — —
3 0 NO DFTF.CT.S
Chronic (FW): 2,375.8
No monitoring or limits required.
Max =10
--------------------------
Arsenic
C
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
Note: n 5 9
_MDL
Chronic (HH): 719.7
Limited data set
Max MDL = 10
Acute: 860.52
Two non -detects at 10 ug/L and one non -detect at 1
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW(7QIOs) 65
ug/L
3 0 NO DETECTS
— —
ug/L_Current PQL is 5 ug/L — — — — — —
Note: n < 9
Chronic: 102.95
No monitoring or limits required.
Limited data set
Max MDL = 2
Acute: 45.928
Two non -detects at 10 ug/L and one non -detect at 1
Cadmium
NC
0.6201. FW(7QIOs) 3.4692
ug/L
3 0 NO DETECTS
_ ---
ug/L_Current POL is 0_5 ug/L.— _ f — — — —
Note: n < 9
Chronic: 9.821
No monitoring or limits required.
Limited data
Max MDL= 10
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorides
NC
230 FW(7QIOs)
mg/L
0 0
N/A
_ _ _ —_—__ _ __
_—_---_---_---_—_---_—_—_--
Chronic: 3,642.9
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
NC
1 A(30Q2)
ug/L
0 0
N/A
_ _ _ — —_ —5
1
Chronic: 25.5
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A(30Q2)
ug/L
3 1 228.0
— _ —_—_— _ __
----------------------_—_—_
Note: n < 9 I)etault C.\'
Chronic: 7,654.8
No RP, Predicted Max < 50 % of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data
No value � Allowable Cw
Monitoring required.
Acute: 12,776.9
Chromium III
NC
124.2679 FW(7QIOs) 965.1204
µg/L
0 0
N/A
_ _ _ —_—__ _ __
_---_—_—_-----_—_---_-----
Chronic: 1,968.2
Acute: 211.8
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7QIOs) 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
__ _ _ —_—__ _ __
—_—_—_—_---_—_—_—_—_---_—
Chronic: 174.2
No detects at 5 ug/L. No Monitoring required if all
Chromium, Total
NC
µ8/ L
3 0 NO DETECTS
1
Total Chromium samples are < the Chromium VI
Note: n <_ 9
Allowable Cw.
Limited data se
IMax MDL = 5
Page 1 of 3
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, rpa
5/11 /2017

Maggie Valley WWTP
Outfall 001
rvIL.UU3000-1 Freshwater RPA- 95% Probability/95%
Confidence
Using Metal Translators Qw = 1 MGD
Acute: 149.27
Copper
NC
8.3376 FW(7QIOs) 11.2751
ug/L
18 14
17.16
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic 132.06
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50 % of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required.
Acute: 291.3
No RP, Predicted Max < 50 % of Allowable Cw - No
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7QIOs) 22
10
ug/L
3 1 33.0
Monitoring required.
Note: n < 9 Gnilt (` �'
Chronic 79.2
[No
limited data -
value> Allowable Cw
Insert CN footnote in Effluent Limit page.
Acute: NO WQS
Fluoride
NC
1800 FW(7Q10s)
ug/L
0 0
N/A
_ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic- — 28,509.7
Acute:
Acute: 1,091.561
Lead
NC
3.1683 FW(7QIOs) 82.4522
ug/L
(1
3 NO DETECT
No detects at 5 ug/L. Current PQL is 2 ug/L.
Note: n _ °:
_ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic 50.182
_ _ _ _
Limited data set
Max MDL = 5
No monitoring or limits required.
Acute: - NO WQS
Mercury
NC
12 FW(7QIOs)
0.5
ng/L
0 (1
N/A
_ _ _
Chronic- _ — —190.1
--------------------------
Acute: NO WQS
Molybdenum
NC
2000 HH(7Q10s)
ug/L
0 0
N/A
_ _ _ _ _
Chronic--- 31,677
---------------------------
Acute (FW): 4,742.1
Nickel
NC
39.3681 FW(7QIOs) 358.2024
µg/L
_ _ _
No detects at 10 ug/L. Current PQL is 2 ug/L.
3 0
NO DETEC75
_
Chronic (FW): 623.5
Note: n<9
Max
No monitoring or limits required.
Nickel
NC
25.0000 WS(7QIOs)
µg/L
Limited data set
_MDL= _10_
Chronic (WS): 396.0
Max MDL= 10
Acute: 741.4
Two non -detects at 10 ug/L and one non -detect at 1
Selenium
INC
5 FW(7QIOs) 56
ug/L
3 0
NO DETECTS
ug/L. Current PQL is 1 ug/L.
Note: n < 9
--------------------------------------
Chronic 79.2
Limited data sel
Max MDL= 10
No monitoring or limits required.
Acute: 4.491
All data non -detects except for 1 at 5 ug/L. All non -
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7QIOs) 0.3392
ug/L
19 1
5.900
detects are at 5 ug/L except for 1 at 10 ug/L.
Chronic 0.950
Current PQL = 1 ug/L. Require improved sampling
19 values > Allowable ('e
techniques & measurements to lower reporting level.
Acute: 1,778.5
Zinc
NC
134.0184 FW(7QIOs) 134.3417
ug/L
19 18
108.8
_ _ _
Chronic 2,122.7
No RP, Predicted Max < 50 % of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required.
Acute:
0 0
N/A
Chronic----------
-------------------------
Acute:
0 O
N/A
_ _ _
Chronic----------
--------------------------
Acute:
Page 2 of 3 NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, rpd
5/11 /20' 7

Maggie Valley WWTP z OutfAu'loo 1
NCO056561 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators QW = 1 MGD
0 0
N/A
— — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
Chronic:
Acute:
0 0
N/A
-------- —-----------------
_ _ _
Chronic: ----------
NCO056561 Maggie Valley 2017 RPA, rpa
Page 3 of 3 5111f2017

Perlmutter, Gary
From: Heim, Tim
~ Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 9:01 AM
To: Perlmutter, Gary
Subject: FW: NCO056561 Draft Permit
Attachments: NCO056561 Draft Permit 2017- With ARO Comments.pdf
Gary,
Review comments below from the inspector for this facility.
I have nothing additional to add.
Regards
-Tim
From: Willmer, Mikal
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 8:50 AM
To: Heim, Tim <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: NCO056561 Draft Permit
Added a few comments to the draft permit (attached).
`: • Permit cover sheet says 0.6 MGD facility, should be 1 MGD
• Facility also has a back-up manual bar screen (not a necessary change)
• 1 noted three digesters during the inspection and the WWTP Process Description (included with permit
application) also indicates three digesters
Mikal Willmer
Environmental Specialist -Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
NCDEQ-Division of Water Resources
Office: 828-296-4686
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
2090 US Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
"Nothing Compares
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Heim, Tim
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 3:38 PM
To: Willmer, Mikal <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: NCO056561 Draft Permit
Let me know if you have any review comments.
From: Perlmutter, Gary
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 3:34 PM
To: Heim, Tim <[e-mail]>
Subject: NCO056561 Draft Permit
Dear Tim,
Attached is the Draft Permit plus Cover Letter as well as the draft Fact Sheet and attachments for the Maggie Valleys
WWTP (NC0056561) renewal for your review. This is scheduled for Public Notice on June 7 for a 30-day comment
period. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Have a good weekend,
Gary Perlmutter
Gary B. Perlmutter, M.S.
Enivronmental Senior Specialist
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting
919 807 6385 office
919 707 9000 main office
gary.perlmutter(a)ncdenr,gov
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2

Perlmutter, Gary
From: Meadows, Susan
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 2:46 PM
To: Perlmutter, Gary
Subject: Second Species Test for Maggie Valley- NCO056561
Hello Gary,
I have attached a copy of the second species test for Maggie Valley from March.
And also included a clip of our database showing all 4 second species test results for them.
The "P" stands for the Second Species Test (actually Pimephales promelas, the fathead minnow).
NPDES
Test Date .i
Ttype
Result
LabNum
. Compliance .
NCO056561/001
3/5/2017
Fth7dChV
>24(P)
37
P
NCO056561/001
1/9/2017
Fth7dChV
>24(P)
37
P
NCO0565611001
1/9/2017
Cen7dPF
Pass
37
C
NCO056561/001
12/6/2016
Fth7dChV
17(P)
37
P
NCO056561/001
11/1/2016
Fth7dChV
17(P)
37
P
NCO056561/001
10/10/2016
Ceri7dPF
Pass
37
C
N C0056561 /001
7/18/2016
Ceri7dPF
Pass
37
C
NCO056561/001
4/11/2016
Ceri7dPF
Pass
37
C
NCO056561/001
1/11/2016
Cen7dPF
Pass
37
C
NCO056561/001
10/12/2015
Ceri7dPF
Pass
37
C
NCO056561/001
7/6/2015
Ceri7dPF
Pass
37
C
If you need anything
else just let me know.
Susie
Susan Meadows
Environmental Biologist
Aquatic Toxicology Branch
DWR/Water Sciences Section
Department of Environmental Quality
tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Welling, Claire
From: Nathan Clark <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 10:22 AM
To: Welling, Claire
Cc: Mike Mehaffey Hotmail
Subject: RE: NC0056561- Maggie Valley 2nd species test requirement
Ms. Welling,
The Town has decided to begin our 2nd Species Testing immediately.
The first test is scheduled to occur in November, it is our plan to test in four consecutive months to meet our obligations
in order to have our renewal permit considered for approval.
Nathan Clark
Town Manager
Town of Maggie Valley
From: Welling, Claire [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 2:39 PM
To: Nathan Clark <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mike Mehaffey Hotmail <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: NC0056561- Maggie Valley 2nd species test requirement
Mr. Clark,
As long as your permit renewal was submitted on -time (which it was) you can continue to operate under your old permit
until we issue a new one. As for the 2" species toxicity testing, you can conduct these once a month consecutively, so
the four 2"d species toxicity testing could be completed in a four month period. I'm sorry if there was confusion in terms
of these requirements. Please contact Susan Meadows from our Toxicity branch to discuss conducting the 2" species
toxicity tests. Her information is provided below:
Susan Meadows
Environmental Biologist
Aquatic Toxicology Branch
DWR/Water Sciences Section
Department of Environmental Quality
tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Please feel free to contact me as well with additional questions.
From: Nathan Clark [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:24 PM
To: Welling, Claire <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mike Mehaffey Hotmail <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: NC0056S61- Maggie Valley 2nd species test requirement

Ms. Welling,
Regarding your attachment, which is the same "Part E" I referenced in my email yesterday is where some of the ,.
confusion exists. In the first sentence of the section it states, "POTWS meeting one or more of the following criteria
must provide the results of whole effluent toxicity tests for acute or chronic toxicity for each of the facilities discharge
points." It is the Town's belief that the key word in that sentence is "or" which lead us to believe that we had a choice in
the matter; if both were required the use of "and" would have provided clearer direction to test for both ---again "or"
links alternatives and "and" connects similar actions.
As we look ahead to determine the best course of action let me review some dates with you.
• July 2015 Town of Maggie Valley submits permit renewal application
• August 2015 Town of Maggie Valley received confirmation that NCDENR received permit renewal application -
within the appropriate timeframe.
• December 2015 Town of Maggie Valley NPDES expires
• September 2016 NCDENR notifies Town that permit will not be renewed due to lack of secondary species tests
How long can the Town operate its Town's WWTP with an expired NPDES permit?
If the Town had been notified of the acute testing requirement deficiencies that existed in our July 2015 renewal
application within 30-45 days as the August 2015 letter promised we could have been working towards meeting our
testing requirement —in fact if notified in September 2015 we could have already met the testing acute requirement for
secondary species.
As I understand it, even if we started testing secondary species tomorrow, the earliest this test record would be
complete would be September 2017. Assuming that there are no other issues with our permit renewal applications
would we receive our renewal permit December 2017/January 2018?
If so that is more than two years since the original permit expired.
My top concern is the Town's ability to legally operate our WWTP that over 1800 sewer customers depend on to
responsibility treat their wastewater.
• Does the Town continue to operate on an expired NPDES Permit until we can submit 12 months of testing data
for acute secondary species? IF so what are the consequences associated with this action.
• If these issue is the only issue preventing the Town from permit renewal, could a conditional renewal permit be
issued to the Town while the Town provides NCDENR with the appropriate test results over the next year
Nathan Clark
Town Manager
Town of Maggie Valley
3987 Soco Road
Maggie Valley, NC 28751
828.926.0866
From: Welling, Claire[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:59 PM

To: Nathan Clark <nclark townofmaggievalley.com>
Cc: Mike Mehaffey Hotmail <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: NC0056561- Maggie Valley 2nd species test requirement
Mr. Clark,
I do apologize for the late feedback, the permitting unit has been backlogged for a while now. However, the EPA will not
even consider renewing this permit without four (4) 2nd species toxicity tests. The attachment contains an excerpt from
EPA Form 2A Part E stating that an additional toxicity test is required. We are willing to assist you in any way you need to
get the toxicity tests completed. If desired I can contact our toxicity group and have them work with you on this. Please
let me know how else I can be of help.
From: Nathan Clark [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:21 PM
To: Welling, Claire <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mike Mehaffey Hotmail <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: NC0056561- Maggie Valley 2nd species test requirement
Ms. Welling,
I have spoken to our Public Works Director Mike Mehaffey about the Town of Maggie Valley's NPDES (NC0056561)
permit renewal from for our Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP).
It is my understanding that the Town of Maggie Valley submitted our permit renewal application in July 2015--- this
permit renewal application was submitted more than 180 days before its expiration as required by NCDENR. It is also my
understanding that the Town's WWTP permit expired on January 31, 2016.
In August 2015 (See attached), the Town received a letter form Wren Thedford (NCDENR Wastewater Branch) stating
that the Town would receive a draft permit within 30-45 days and would have contact us if DNER needed any other
information regarding our permit application. Until today, DNER has not requested the Town provide any additional
information regarding our permit renewal application.
In reference to your email sent today, will not conducting four 2nd species tests within a 12-month period impact the
Town of Maggie Valley's ability to renew its permit for our Waste Water Treatment Plant or is the purpose of today's
email stating that the Town will be required to perform these test going forward?
I hope the intent is the latter.
The Town has zero problem with performing the 2nd species test as required by NCDENR/EPA in the future. However, to
tie the fate of our permit renewal to these species tests 14 months after the Town submitted our application and 13
months after your office said they would contact us after 30-4S days seems disingenuous. When examining our permit
renewal application, it appears that we have met our "Part E Toxicity Testing Data" requirements by submitting to
NCDENR quarterly chronic testing reports totaling 22 tests, spread over 4.5 years -each of these tests were considered
"passing". The Town submitted these reports as required by our existing permit. Again, if our permit is renewed and as a
condition of the new permit is to perform quarterly acute testing we will do so in the same professional manner we have
conducted chronic testing. However, it is our sincere belief that acute testing was not a requirement of our current
permit thus we have no data to address these concerns.
Please let me know how I can personally assist you in quickly resolving this issue. Feel free to contact me by phone,
email or if you feel an in person meeting would be most beneficial I would be happy to arrange one.
Nathan Clark

Town Manager
Town of Maggie Valley
From: Welling, Claire[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 1:42 PM
To: mike mehaffey<[e-mail]>
Cc: Nathan Clark <[e-mail]>
Subject: NC0056561- Maggie Valley 2nd species test requirement
Mike Mehaffey,
We briefly spoke this morning regarding the permit renewal for NC0056561- Maggie Valley WWTP. As I mentioned, four
(4)2 nd species toxicity tests are required to complete the renewal. This requirement is stated on the EPA application
form 2A Part E which we received from you with your renewal request, and is also stated in Federal Regulations 40 CFR
122.21(j)(5). To make it more clear in the future we will be including a 2"d Species Toxicity Testing Requirement in
permit renewals. Since this is an EPA requirement, EPA will not approve your permit renewal without the tests. Please
conduct four (4) 2"d species tests within the coming 12-month period. So we can keep EPA informed, let me know when
the Town plans to conduct the sampling. A formal letter with this request will also be sent to the Town Manager. The
results should be submitted to me (via email is fine) and the DWR Aquatic Toxicity Branch at the address listed below, as
they are received.
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Please contact me at 919-807-6385 or at my email address [e-mail] if you have any questions.
Best,
Claire Welling
Engineer
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit, DWR
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919-807-6385 office
claire.welling(cDncdenr.gov
512 North Salisbury Street
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27669
�'"Nothfng Compares --,.-
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

r�
D
July 22, 2015
down of3iaggie 'Valley
Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • 3987 Soco Rd., Maggie Valley, NC 28751
NC DENR/ DWQ/NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Town of Maggie Valley
NPDES Permit # NCO056561 Renewal
Haywood County, North Carolina
NC DENR/ DWQ/NPDES:
Please find enclosed one signed original and two copies of the Discharge Permit
Application Form for the Waste Water Treatment Plant renewal of the Town of Maggie
Valley's existing permit #NC0056561.
The Town of Maggie Valley currently operates a 1.0-MGD wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) and an alkaline sludge stabilization facility. The wastewater treatment facilities
include a mechanical influent bar screen, flow selector basin, 2 rectangular aeration
basins, 2 rectangular Aero-Mod clarifiers, dual aeration blowers for each aeration
basin/clarifier (five (5) blowers total), two (2) sludge holding basins, belt filter press,
chlorination, a chlorine contact basin, sulfur dioxide dechlorination, and effluent flow
monitoring. The alkaline sludge stabilization facility includes a lime kiln dust silo, a
volumetric lime kiln dust feeder, a sludge mixer/blender, and a concrete sludge drying/
storage pad. The stabilized sludge is stockpiled and offered to the public for beneficial
reuse applications.
Maggie Valley WWTP Process Description: Flow enters the Maggie Valley WWTP
through an 12" gravity sewer line to the influent screening channel. The influent screen
is a step screen with '/4" openings. The wastewater then flows to a selector basin which
acts to mix the raw influent and return activated sludge. This flow is then split to two
treatment trains. Each train consists of first stage and second stage aeration basins. The
first stage aeration basins are aerated by fine bubble diffusers and the second stage basins
are aerated with coarse bubble aeration. Second stage aeration cycles on and off to
promote denitrification prior to clarification. Following aeration the wastewater flows to

2
dual rectangular clarifiers with air lift RAS pumps. Clarified effluent is disinfected with
chlorine gas in the chlorine contact basin and dechlorinated by sulfur dioxide prior to
discharge to Jonathan Creek. Solids are wasted by duplex sludge wasting pumps to two
digesters. Solids are then pumped to a 1.0 meter belt filter press for dewatering and lime
stabilization to produce a class A-biosolid.
The Sludge Management Plan provides for residuals produced on site to be treated on site
by the Alkaline Stabilization Process. The residuals will be pumped from the digester
through the belt filter press and conveyed to the Alkaline Stabilization process
equipment. The processed material is placed in piles and monitored. The residuals are
then windrowed on a covered concrete pad for additional drying and conditioning. The
dried material is stockpiled on a portion of the pad until it is disbursed in bulk to area
farmers and landscape professionals. Also included you will find a Bio-solids Product
Information Guide.
The Town of Maggie Valley WWTP continues receiving landfill leachate on a limited
basis. The leachate is trucked and hauled to the Maggie Valley facility in 6,000 gallon
loads. The leachate is unloaded at the headworks of the WWTP and is not to exceed
50,000 gallons per day. Town of Maggie Valley staff assists and monitors deliveries.
The Town has consulted with DWQ staff regarding this acceptance and DWQ has
determined that this is not considered a significant industrial user and therefore would not
trigger a pre-treatment program requirement. The Town has a formal agreement to accept
the leachate which requires annual testing of the leachate and states that the Town may
refuse to accept the leachate at any point it wishes.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed permit application renewal form or
information provided herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Nathan Clark
Town Manager

350 35' 59"N, 83° 00' 21"W (NAD27)
USGS Dellwood Quad
ice' / �{p •n
,A
:
.'I L
yi Jul C
�C I•
•'rR,'f' i•• 7�r{rY' •:{. . ,. .Y• r • .•:�•• , ti' S i S
.Y) y
{
r• t,
V'MSY.•An.,'.
' K 3.
yt. : is?:}'I;{:•-:•:
�s
t _
-
r`;:
L _ rC 3•
rYr'
?R}
f y i• _
• l�
.. . Ja
C. ..�
-'i
Y i
_'�.. � :.?; ::.}•::•:::' _ :/'-'. � - 11 � <':+�:>' r •?-, `^ r '.�:• . '--} :
!M
•1'f { — ' 1, ^. :•{:�•} :•; •.:: /
r'
•a ({
.t •
T f Y• y
••t v /
. •TJ pyyy
i , •a:. .•y r , �i
•:•`tip. -:5•::::�.�.. 1�
,r
_ _ ��; r'c'•-, Tow y.r, r • r: :•.. J...:..:��,`:
•• i
n of. Maggie Valle < : t:::. ::::::•:•:::•:::: s ::.: :.,.,_.; .:
c
'�: •:�`' ywood Coup��.,rr NC :�`" K;•.:.\•.�.�:
'•Y Outfall I}i •�+ / .�" �`''' • - /_:
1 `
.ri {�} �' � •i. •�: Y. ,•Ta �'. ;.yam`.':• ':ii'' J,.
._fir: is .�,.' .{;;:" ��d ...?�� t} pp{{-Jl.r rf 4•: i.'. {f:!•'r4+-y �b'���: ..�<;:� '?t;� t�:
• : r _ v:: �: �:�?:�:<•%'•: is `%`
r: 'i t' 3' ..,{.:::• • � f r •i: j • y :: X , ,;Y :.f y; ) ,4 ::•:i•1?:•'r:•::•:i.: l�. �y f ;`,ti•.
•{•: 15 ( `', .1 • . E.{ >;y ..� .v. /:r,` � :, ':y �! ,Cj :•:i•:ti :•::%•:tiOti �T� :V::?,{C :•r:�
''ti:' a : i i ,V. \. �Q �: � Y'i},• :ivy• .;-j : r :•:. '
tt C P :'•• SY..:::::
` i �i 4 • i.•Y � �r�.,., f. ;:�!i�:�'.''• '-�. 'fir K.
•� '"i •• ' ;�o•[};�:;}}} �:::?:fc�,`•:, i �} .J:• ��i.l'4 ��CC:;., y Er:k•:a4:•x ''T?:' ?• n�!f.' .�`'., r
: � U .OdCal:?'�-..�• ' y:;• .. X: via: 1:• ::.{,1}':�'• M1 � r-.- �.,
s
N
%• 5 a•. }
.mot � f r/T '�:ti�'�'•:;:;::-'-'-' .� r 1 L',�''9'•: �:'. A"'—•.:•...� •.._.
•.5—i. •;. ,`•y' .Z1 ''d '• a-: ; Y'2`2+ •i•:+,•ti�';tij •'� • 'ti ...{C::1 :,\'1•y i. • f;•.
I.e:L`<•r gv.. { � ''a'> �. /.- •ice 5.::.
f.
f
:i
J/
,
i
1.
1
{
5v:• 5
L b
r
�vS•f•• n• 5 h
i Y •t
r
r �s
,
2.8
�� '� n

35'j 35' 59"N, 830 00' 21"W (NAD27)
USGS Dellwood Quad
W
a &..
Town of Maggie Valley WW
Haywood County, Nc
WWI Pipe 001
-90M
LOOP
............ ..... . ... .. ... .......... -------------------- — —
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

n Ai r
f7Yeruye �a:�v .Scree•✓
Cd-
13us,h /sv .odd
Aet-a A eAl 4l%Sriv Ae,,raAo•v
CAlo,-; n e �onf=ac
x � �� ,�usi.✓
2
3-5`0K4l
GLhCraTO!'
over �iy:n�/t ool
allf% C1Uss i� �/J
fb/ay2 Ad �iaS©�//�1 f a �/
,riS�li�du�i0� � ��

r
Maggie Valley WWTP Process Description
Flow enters the Maggie Valley WWTP through an 18" gravity sewer line to the influent
screening channel. The influent screen is a step screen with '/" -openings. The
wastewater the flows to a selector basin which acts to mix the raw influent and return
activated sludge. This flow is then split to two treatment trains. Each train consists of
first stage and second stage aeration basins. The first stage aeration basins are aerated
by fine bubble diffusers and the second stage'basins are aerated with coarse bubble
aeration. Second stage aeration cycles on and off to promote denitrification prior to
clarification. Following aeration the wastewater flows to dual rectangular clarifiers with
air lift RAS pumps. Clarified effluent is disinfected with chlorine gas in the chlorine
contact basin and dechlorinated by sulfur dioxide prior to discharge to Jonathan Creek.
Solids are wasted by duplex sludge wasting pumps to three digesters. Solids are then
pumped to a 1.0 meter belt filter press for de watering and lime stabilization to produce a
class A biosolid.
Selector Basin Volume: 12,450 gallons
Stage 1 Aeration volume: 406,000 gallons ( 203,000 gallons per train)
Stage 2 Aeration volume: 360,000 gallons (180,000 gallons per train)
Clarifier Volume: Approx. 300,000 gallons
Clarifier Surface Area: 3,360 square feet
Chlorine Contact Basin Volume:22,981 gallons
Sludge Holding Basin 1: 46,000 gallons
I
Sludge Holding Basin 2: 46,000 gallons
Sludge Holding Basin 3: 50,500 gallons
I
Total Sludge Holding: 142,500 gallons

(3
0
i
Town of Maggie Valley
Biosolid Product Information Guide
The Maggie Valley Biosolid Product is a combination of highly treated domestic
sewage sludge and either lime kiln dust or cement kiln dust. The high alkalinity
and heat created by the interaction of the lime or cement kiln dust with the
sewage sludge destroys pathogenic orgahisms and produces a safe agriculturally
beneficial product.
The production of this product is closely regulated by the U S Environmental
Protection Agency and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. The biosolid
product is carefully prepared and routinely monitored to insure that all product
made available to the public is in compliance with all applicable regulations.
The product is an alkaline material and contains some trace plant nutrients. The
Division of Water Quality has placed the following requirements on the use of this
product to insure that no environmental or health impacts will occur:
The biosolid product shall be used and applied only in a manner consistent with
good agricultural or horticultural practice and the information contained herein.
The product shall not be applied:
• To any site that is flooded, frozen or snow covered;
• Within ten feet of any public or private water supply source (including
wells);
• Within ten feet of any stream, lake, river or natural drainage way
Adequate procedures must be provided to insure that surface storm water runoff
does not carry applied or stored product into any surface water body.
The biosolid product shall be applied at agronomic or recommended rates for
intended uses.
This product is prepared by the Town of Maggie Valley,
3987 Soco Road, Maggie Valley, NC 28751.
For additional information please contact Mike Mehaffey at 828-926-0866.