NC0021547_Fact Sheet_20240611

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO021547
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Urva Patel,[e-mail]
Date: April 15,2024
Division/Branch:NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification(Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers,EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis,Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW),EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans,4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers(Non-POTW),EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information:
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name: Town of Franklin/Franklin Wastewater Treatment Plant
Applicant Address: P.O. Box 1479,Franklin,NC 28744
Facility Address: 399 Sierra Drive, Franklin,NC 28734
Permitted Flow: 1.65 MGD
Facility Type/Waste: MAJOR Municipal; 99%domestic, 1%Industrial
Facility Class: Grade III,Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units: Mechanical Screen, Grit Removal,EQ Basin, Oxidation Ditch,
Clarifiers,Aerobic Digestor, Chlorine Contact Chamber,
Dechlorination
Pretreatment Program(Y/N) Y
County: Macon
Region Asheville
*Based on permitted flow for the Industrial user permits.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The Town of Franklin has applied
for an NPDES permit renewal at 1.65 MGD for the Franklin WWTP. This facility serves a population of
approximately 2,400 residents within town of Franklin and Macon County,as well as 1 significant industrial
user(SIU)via an approved pretreatment program.Treated domestic and industrial wastewater is discharged
via Outfall 001 to the Little Tennessee River, a Class C waterbody in the Little Tennessee River Basin.
Outfall 001 is approximately 40 miles upstream of waters designated as WS-IV; B; CA waters (Fontana
Lake).
Page 1 of 11

As per email from Mr. Jason Hopkins on February 5, 2024, "Wastewater comes into our system at the
headworks,where it goes through an automatic screening system.It then goes through a grit removal system
before going into the EQ basin. The material removed by screen and grit removal go into dumpsters and
are taken to landfill. The wastewater then travels to the aeration basin where we have 9 floating aerators,
and then to 2 secondary clarifiers. From there the clear water goes to contact basin for chlorination and
dichlorination,before going into the river at our only outfall."
Inflow and Infiltration(I&I)—From the application,the city has reported total I&I 110,000 gpd(0.11MGD).
To minimize I&I,the facility replacing pipe and infrastructure.
Sludge Management Plan—As per email from Mr. Jason Hopkins on February 5, 2024, sludge is pressed
on a 1-meter belt press, and then hauled to the landfill—Macon County Landfill.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001 —Little Tennessee River
Stream Segment: 2-(l)c2
Stream Classification: C
Drainage Area(mi2): 299
Summer 7Q10(cfs) 157
Winter 7Q 10(cfs): 186
30Q2 (cfs): —
Average Flow(cfs): 682
IWC (%effluent): 1.60%
2022 303(d) listed/parameter: None
Subject to TMDL/parameter: Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Basin/HUC: Little Tennessee River/06010202
USGS Topo Quad: Corbin Knob,NC
3. Effluent Data Summary:
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of July 2019 through November 2023.
Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit Limit
Flow MGD 0.87 2.795 0.425 MA 1.65
BOD mg/1 4.67 26.2 2 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
TSS mg/I 4.48 15.6 2.5 WA 45.0
MA 30.0
(geometric)
Fecal coliform #/100 ml (geom 4 1119.9 1 WA 400
20.8 MA 200
TRC µg/1 33.89 49 20 DM 28.0
(<50 compliance)
Temperature ° C 17.08 28 7 Monitor and
Report
pH SU 7.12 7.7 6.2 6.0<pH<9.0
Page 2 of 11

NH3-N mg/1 0.14 1 0.1 Monitor and
Report
TN mg/l 5.64 16.7 0.5 Monitor and
Report
TP mg/1 2.45 5 0.02 Monitor and
Report
DO (from 3 effluent mg/1 8.49 9.75 7.48 Monitor and
pollutant scans) Report
MA-Monthly Average,WA-Weekly Average,DM-Daily Maximum,DA-Daily Average
4. Instream Data Summary:
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations,for example: 1)to verify model predictions when
model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/1 of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to verify
model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other instream
concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also Monitoring
Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in which case
instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring(YIN):NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition:NA
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will beproposedfor this permit
action: The current permit does not require instream monitoring. However, ambient monitoring system
(AMS) data are available from AMS station G0035000, located approximately 8 miles upstream of the
Franklin WWTP,and AMS station G2000000,located approximately 5 miles downstream(Below is a table
summary of data analyzed from January 2019 to December 2022).
Upstream and downstream data were included from the Water Qualfty Portal (National Water Quality
Monitoring Council). And summary of data analyzed from January 2019 to December 2023 in Table 2,
below.
Table 2. Instream Monitoring Data Summary
Upstream Downstream
Parameter Units
Average Max Min Average Max Min
Temperature ° C 15.87 23.4 6.9 16.65 24.6 6.8
DO mg/1 9.42 11.7 7.8 9.64 12.3 7.8
Fecal Coliform cfu/100mL 143.61 600 2 154.69 1000 19
pH 6.64 7.4 1 5.5 6.51 7.7 5.7
Students t-tests were run at a 95% confidence interval to analyze relationships between instream
samples.A statistically significant difference is determined when the t-test p-value result is<0.05.
Ambient temperature was not greater than 32 degrees Celsius [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18)] at either
station during the period reviewed.Downstream temperature was not greater than upstream temperature by
more than 2.8 degrees Celsius during the period reviewed. It was concluded that no statistically significant
difference exists between upstream and downstream temperature. As such, instream monitoring for
temperature has not been added at this time.
It was concluded there is no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream
DO. And average DO was above 5 mg/L [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6)] both upstream and downstream
Page 3 of 11

of the discharge during the review period. As such, instream monitoring for DO has not been added at this
time.
There is no statistically significant difference exists between upstream and downstream pH. And average
pH was between 6 and 9 [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (14)]both upstream and downstream of the discharge
during the period reviewed. As such, instream monitoring for pH has not been added at this time.
Fecal coliform geomean for upstream (G0035000 station) is 16.92 cfu/100mL and for downstream
(G2000000 station) is 8.012 cfu/100mL. It was less than 200cfu/100mL [per 15A NCAC 02B .0211(7)]
both upstream and downstream of the discharge during the review period.As such,instream monitoring for
Fecal coliform has not been added at this time.
Above analysis shows no statistically significant differences between the upstream and downstream sites
for all parameters listed. The instream waste concentration is only 1.60%. There are no recommended
changes to instream monitoring requirements during this permit renewal.
5. Compliance Summary:
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported one
unauthorized bypass due to heavy rain events on February 24,2020, and another on January 9, 2024,both
resulting in enforcement cases. No civil penalty was included in the enforcement cases.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): The facility passed 16 of 16 quarterly chronic toxicity tests,as well as all 4 second species chronic
toxicity tests for January 2020 to December 2023.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in November 2022 reported that the facility was compliant.
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: I Q 10 streamflow(acute Aquatic Life); 7Q 10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life;non-carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow(aesthetics); annual average flow(carcinogen,HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered(e.g., based on CORMIX model results):NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen-Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen-consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The limits for BOD5
(monthly average limits 30.0 mg/L, 15A NCAC 02B .0406)were based on secondary treatment standards.
No changes are proposed from previous permit limits.
Page 4 of 11

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 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/l (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/l are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The TRC limit of
28 µg/l is based on the results of the wasteload allocation (WLA). The limits have been evaluated in the
attached WLA spreadsheet and have been found to be protective.No changes are proposed for TRC.
The are no limits for NH3-N. The Instream Waste Concentration(IWC) for this facility is 1.6%. Based on
Waste Load Allocation(WLA)calculations,the allowable discharge concentration of NH3-N are 48.9 mg/L
(summer) and 116.7 mg/L (winter), above the cap of 35 mg/L and thus not requiring a limit. The facility
will continue to monitor NH3-N on a weekly basis.No changes are proposed/recommended for NH3-N.
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 '/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.
The current permit requires Effluent and Upstream Monitoring for total Hardness.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between July 2019 and
December 2023. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for this
permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality-based
effluent limit(WQBEL)since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable water
quality standards/criteria: None
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor-only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,but
the maximum predicted concentration was>50%of the allowable concentration: None
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria
and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable concentration: Cadmium,
Total Chromium, Copper,Cyanide,Lead,Nickel,Zinc, Silver
• 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
Page 5 of 11

o The following parameter(s)will receive a monitor-only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: Bis(2-
Ethylhexyl)phthalate(max predicted concentration>50%of allowable)
The data result on 10/06/2020 for Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate= 1920 µg/L was considered a lab error and
not included in the dataset reviewed in the reasonable potential analysis. Per email correspondence with
Mr. Jason Hopkins on March 20,2024,the permittee felt the contract laboratory(Rogers&Calcott)which
conducted the Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate analysis was questionable and switched to another laboratory
(EnviroChem)for their data sample test.Additionally,the data result on 01/05/2021 for Total Silver is non-
detect at<50 ug/L.Use of this PQL was considered a laboratory error and was not repeated in the remainder
of the dataset. Therefore, the 01/05/2021 total Silver data was omitted while performing the reasonable
potential analysis.
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.
Toxici . Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste)will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements,with several exceptions.
The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in NPDES permits,
using single concentration screening tests,with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW, and a chronic Pass/Fail test at 1.6%
effluent will continue a quarterly 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
control. Municipal facilities>2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury(>1 ng/1)will receive
an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case-by-case basis,depending if mercury is a pollutant
of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed the WQBEL
value(based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL value of 47 ng/l.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2019 2020 2021 2022
#of Samples 1 1 1 1
Annual Average Conc. n /L 1.4 1.1 6.6 1.0
Maximum Conc.,n /L 1.37 1.08 6.64 0.99
TBEL,n /L 47
WQBEL,n /L 748.7
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 mercury
Page 6 of 11

limit is required. Additionally,since the facility is less than 2 MGD,the mercury minimization plan(MMP)
has been removed from the permit.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within
this permit: Receiving stream water does not require TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategies and their
implementation.The current permit requires to monthly Total Nitrogen(TN)monitoring and monthly Total
Phosphorus(TP)monitoring.Per 15A NCAC 02B .0508,facilities discharging 1.0 MGD or greater into the
Little Tennessee River Basin shall monitor for TN and TP quarterly.As such,the monitoring frequency has
been revised from monthly to quarterly for both parameters. Additionally, to better understand TN in the
effluent,NO2+NO3 and TKN quarterly monitoring is proposed to be added in the permit.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: As required by Session
Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section ILL r), every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is anticipated
via a Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application table. In their application, the Town provided the
chemical addendum and informed the Division that no additional sampling had been conducted.
To consider 1,4-Dioxane and PFAS, industrial sources need to be taken in consideration as well as
downstream water supply. The facility is receiving wastewater from landfill, which is recognized as a
potential source of PFAS by EPA. Because of potential source for 1,4-Dioxane and PFAS, there is
downstream water supply. Therefore,monitoring will be added to the permit at 2/year for both parameters.
1,4-Dioxane reopener will be added as special condition in the permit. Please, see details below in section
10.
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. The receiving stream is a class C waterbody.
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H.0 10 7(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo:NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal:NA
7. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs):
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg1l
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO,provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85%removal requirements for BOD51TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO,provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit must
document an effort to consider non-discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c)(2). In all cases,
existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is maintained
and protected.
Page 7 of 11

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):Removal of silver monitoring as
per RPA data analysis, its predicted maximum concentration < 50% of allowable concentration. There is
no reasonable potential to exceed the water quality standard for silver.
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated:NA
10. Monitoring Requirements:
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following regulations
and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 213.0500; 2) NPDES
Guidance,Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances(7/15/2010 Memo); 3)NPDES Guidance,Reduced
Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance(10/22/2012 Memo);4)Best Professional
Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not considered
effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti-backsliding
prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring,refer to Section 4.
To better understand the contribution of PFAS compounds and 1,4-Dioxane from the Franklin WWTP,
monitoring of PFAS chemicals and 1,4-Dioxane will be added to the permit at a frequency of 2/year for
each. Since an EPA approved method for sampling and analyzing PFAS in wastewater is not currently
available, the PFAS sampling requirement in the Permit includes a delayed implementation until the first
full calendar quarter beginning 6 months after EPA has a final wastewater method in 40 CFR 136 published
in the Federal Register. This date may be extended upon request and if there are no NC-certified labs.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements:
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21,2015. Effective December
21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional NPDES
reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December 21, 2020,
to December 21, 2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4, 2021, was extended as a final
regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
Page 8 of 11

12. Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
A. Table. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes: 1.65 MGD
Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change
Flow MA 1.65 MGD No change 15A NCAC 02B .0505
BOD5 MA 30 mg/1 No change TBEL. Secondary treatment
WA 45 mg/1 standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A
NCAC 2B .0406
TSS MA 30 mg/l No change TBEL. Secondary treatment
WA 45 mg/1 standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
02B .0406
Fecal coliform MA 200/100ml No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
WA 400/100ml NCAC 02B .0200
Toxicity Test Chronic limit, 1.60% No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
effluent amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
15A NCAC 02B.0500
TRC Monitor 3/week No change WQBEL. Based on protection of
State WQ criteria(WLA). 15A
Daily Maximum 28 µg/1 NCAC 02B. 0500
Temperature Monitor 3/week No change 15A NCAC 02B .0500
pH 6—9 SU No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 02B .0200
NH3-N Monitor Weekly No change Based on protection of State WQ
criteria. 15A NCAC 02B.0500
TKN No requirement Monitor and Report For calculation of TN
Quarterly
NO3-N+NO2-N No requirement Monitor and Report For calculation of TN
Quarterly
Total Nitrogen Monitor Monthly Monitor and Report 15A NCAC 02B .0508
Quarterly
Total Phosphorus Monitor Monthly Monitor and Report 15A NCAC 02B .0508
Quarterly
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Quarterly effluent No change Based on RPA,predicted maximum
Phthalate monitoring concentration>50%Allowable
concentration
Silver Quarterly effluent Remove monitoring Based on RPA,predicted maximum
monitoring concentration<50%Allowable
concentration
Page 9 of 11

Total Hardness Quarterly effluent and No change Hardness-dependent dissolved
upstream monitoring metals water quality standards
approved in 2016
1,4-Dioxane No requirement Add 2/year Potential source of influent from
monitoring,reopener landfill and downstream water
special condition supply
Potential source of influent from
Add 2/year landfill and downstream water
monitoring with supply
PFAS No requirement delayed
implementation Evaluation of PFAS contribution:
requirements method not yet published in Federal
Register
Effluent Pollutant 3/permit cycle No change, 2025, 40 CFR 122
Scan 2026, 2027
Electronic No requirement Add Electronic In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Reporting Special Reporting Rule 2015.
Condition
MGD—Million gallons per day,MA- Monthly Average,WA—Weekly Average,DM—Daily Max
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 04/24/2024
Per 15A NCAC 02H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days
following the publication date of the public notice.Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to
the Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and
the reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact:
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit,please contact
Urva Patel at(919) 707-3628 or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft permit was submitted to the Town of Franklin, EPA Region IV, and the Division's Asheville
Regional Office,Aquatic Toxicology Branch and Operator Certification Program for review.No comments
were received from any party.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed(Yes/No):NO
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:NA
Page 10 of 11

16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards—Freshwater Standards
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
• BOD&TSS Removal Rate Calculations
• Mercury TMDL Calculations
• WET Testing and Self-Monitoring Summary
• Water Compliance Inspection Report
• Water Compliance Inspection Report with Pretreatment
• Chemical Addendum
• Additional Requested Information
Page 11 of 11

Invoice / Affidavit
The Franklin Press
Post Office Box 350 PUBLIC NOTICE
Franklin, NC 28744 North Carolina Environmental
Management
Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 1617
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Notice of Intent to Issue a
COUNTY OF MACON NPDES Wastewater Permit
NC0021547 Franklin WWTP
The North Carolina
Environmental Management
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Personally appeared before the undersigned, Rachel Commission proposes to issue a
NPDES wastewater discharge
Hoskins, who having been duly sworn on oath that she is the Regional Publisher permit to the person(s) listed
of The Franklin Press, and the following legal advertisement was published in below. Written comments
regarding the proposed permit
The Franklin Press newspaper, and entered as second class mail in the Town of will be accepted until 30 days
Franklin in said county and state; and that she is authorized to make this after the publish date of this
notice. The Director of the NC
affidavit and sworn statement; that the notice or other legal advertisement, a Division of Water Resources
true copy of which is attached hereto, was published in The Franklin Press (DWR) may hold a public hearing
l should there be a significant
newspaper on the following dates: degree of public interest. Please
mail comments and/or
PERMIT NOTICE NC0021547 information requests to DWR at
the above address. Interested
NCDEQ-DR persons may visit the DWR at
04/24/2024 NC N27604bu toStreet reviewaleit he,
information on file. Additional
information on NPDES permits
And that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper, document or legal and this notice may be found on
advertisement was published, was at the time of each and every such our website:
https:Hdeq.nc.gov/public-notices-
publication, a newspaper meeting all the requirements and qualifications of hearings,or by calling (919) 707-
Section I-597 of the General Statues of North Carolina and was a qualified 3601. The Town of Franklin [PO
Box 1479, Franklin, NC 28744]
newspaper within the meaning of the Section I-597 of the General Statues of has requested renewal of
North Carolina. NPDES permit NC0021547 for its
Waste Water Treatment Plant,
located in Macon County. This
permitted facility discharges
treated municipal wastewater to
Little Tennessee River, a class C
waterbody in the Little
Tennessee River Basin.
Currently BOD, ammonia, fecal
Sign ure of person making affidavit coliform, TSS, dissolved oxygen,
pH, total residual chlorine, total
JACQUELINE HOLLAND nitrogen, and total phosphorus
are water quality limited. This
Notary Public, North Carolina discharge may affect future
Macon County allocations in this segment of
My Commission Expires Little Tennessee River.
February 13,2029
04/24/2024#811664
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 24th day of April, 2024
Notary Public -1
My Commission Expires: CX
Filed with: NCDEQ-DWR
Address: WATER QUALITY SECTION 1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27699-1617
Total Amount Due: $75.21

Freshwater RPA- 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
❑CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Name WQs Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Facility Name Franklin WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class WWTP Par02 Arsenic Human Health C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
Water Supply
NPDES Permit NCO021547 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 1.0015 FW 2.9633 ug/L
Flow,Qw(MGD) 1.650 Par05 Chlorides Aquatic Life NC 230 FW mg/L
Receiving Stream Little Tennessee River ParO Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number 6010202 Par07 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class C Par08 Chromium III Aquatic Life NC 117.7325 FW 905.0818 ug/L
❑Apply WS Hardness WQC Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 pg/L
7Q10s(cfs) 157.00 Par10 Chromium,Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A pg/L
7Q10w(cfs) 186.00 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 7.8806 FW 10.4720 ug/L
30Q2(cfs) 0.00 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
QA(cfs) 682.00 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
1010s(cfs) 127.75 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 2.9416 FW 75.4871 ug/L
Effluent Hardness 35.11 mg/L(Avg) Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L
------------ -------------------
Upstream Hardness 8.96 mg/L(Avg) I Par16 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L
------------ -------------------
Combined Hardness Chronic 25 mg/L I Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 37.2313 FW 335.2087 pg/L
C—o—m bined---Har—d---
nes TA------
--------25—mg/L————————
I Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A pg/L
-------------------
Data Source(s) Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L
❑CHECK TO APPLY MODEL Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 0.2964 ug/L
Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 126.7335 FW 125.7052 ug/L
Par22 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Human Health C 0.37 HH pg/L
Par23
Par24
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefaults_full pred_, input
4/26/2024

Franklin WWTP I Outfall 001
NCO021547 Freshwater RPA- 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 1.65 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw(MGD)= 1.6500 WWTP/WTP Class: WWTP COMBINED HARDNESS(m2/L)
1Q10S(cfs)= 127.75 IWC% @ 1Q10S = 1.962665234 Acute=25 mg/L
7Q10S(cfs)= 157.00 IWC% @ 7QIOS= 1.602870439 Chronic=25 mg/L
7Q10W(cfs)= 186.00 IWC%@ 7QIOW= 1.356350185
30Q2(cfs)= 0.00 IWC%@ 30Q2= 100
Avg.Stream Flow,QA(cfs)= 682.00 IW%C @ QA= 0.373599004
Receiving Stream: Little Tennessee River HUC 6010202 Stream Class: C
PARAMETER NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA J REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE Chronic Standard Applied Acute o n #Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute(FW): 17,323.4
Arsenic C 150 FW(7QIOs) 340 ug/L
3 0 15.0 Chronic(FW): 9,358.2
C.V.(default) Max M_DL_=10
Arsenic C 10 HH/WS(Qavg) ug/L Note:n<_9 NO DETECTS Chronic(HH): 2,676.7 No RP, Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No
Limited data set Max MDL=10 Monitoring required
Acute: 3,311.82
Beryllium NC 6.5 FW(7QIOs) 65 ug/L 3 0 1.50
Note:n<9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 405.52 No RP, Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL=1 Monitoring required
Acute: 150.986
Cadmium NC 1.0015 FW(7QIOs) 2.9633 ug/L 3 0 1.500
Note:n<_9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 62.482 No RP, Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL=1 Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(30Q2) ug/L 3 0 7.5
Note:n<9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 300.0 No RP, Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL=5 Monitoring required
Acute: 46,114.9
Chromium III NC 117.7325 FW(7QIOs) 905.0818 µg/L 0 0 N/A
Chronic: - -7,345.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Acute: 815.2
Chromium VI NC 11 FW(7QIOs) 16 µg/L 0 0 N/A _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: - - 686.3-- ---------------------------
Chromium,Total NC µg/L 3 0 7.5 Max reported value=2.5 a:No monitoring required if all Total Chromium
default samples are<5 pg/L or Pred.max for Total Cr is<
Note:n<9 C.V.
(default) allowable Cw for Cr VI.
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL=5
Acute: 533.56
Copper NC 7.8806 FW(7QIOs) 10.4720 ug/L 3 2 15.00 _
Note:n<9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 491.66 No RP, Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No
Limited data set No value>Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: 1,120.9
Cyanide NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 22 10 ug/L 3 1 15.0
Note:n<9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 311.9 No RP, Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No
Limited data set lNo value>Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: 3,846.153
Lead NC 2.9416 FW(7QIOs) 75.4871 ug/L 3 0 3.000 _ _ _ _ _
Note:n 5 9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 183.522
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefaults_full pred_,rpa
Page 1 of 2 4/26/2024

Franklin WWTP I Outfall 001
NCO021547 Freshwater RPA- 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 1.65 MGD
Limited data set NO DETECTS Max MDL=2 v�VwV V
Acute(FW): 17,079.3
Nickel NC 37.2313 FW(7Q10s) 335.2087 µg/L ---------------------------------------------
3 1 15.0 Chronic(FW): 2,322.8 No RP, Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No
Note:n<9 C.V.(default) No value>Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Nickel NC 25.0000 WS(7Q10s) µg/L Limited data set Chronic(WS): 1,559.7
No value>Allowable Cw
Acute: 2,853.3
Selenium NC 5 FW(7Q10s) 56 ug/L 3 2 30.0
Note:n<_9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 311.9 No RP, Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No
Limited data set No value>Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: 15.102
Silver NC 0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.2964 ug/L 20 1 1.062 _ _ _
Chronic: 3.743 No RP, Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No
No value>Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: 6,404.8
Zinc NC 126.7335 FW(7Q10s) 125.7052 ug/L 3 3 339.0
Note:n<_9 C.V.(default) Chronic: 7,906.7 No RP, Predicted Max<50%of Allowable Cw-No
Limited data set No value>Allowable Cw Monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate C 0.37 HH(Qavg) n
20 5 69.12100 _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 99.03667 No RP,Predicted Max >_50%of Allowable Cw
No value>Allowable Cw apply Quarterly Monitoring
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefaults_full pred_,rpa
Page 2 of 2 4/26/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1 Use"PASTE SPECIAL H2 Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Effluent Hardness Values"then"COPY". Upstream Hardness Values"then"COPY".
Maximum data points Maximum data points
=58 =58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 10/8/2019 44 44 Std Dev. 5.3785 1 10/8/2019 14 14 Std Dev. 4.5938
2 1/7/2020 32 32 Mean 35.1111 2 1/7/2020 8 8 Mean 8.9588
3 4/7/2020 38 36 C.V. 0.1532 3 4/7/2020 12 12 C.V. 0.5128
4 7/7/2020 34 34 n 18 4 7/7/2020 8.1 8.1 n 17
5 10/6/2020 42 42 10th Per value 29.00 mg/L 5 10/6/2020 10 10 10th Per value 2.50 mg/L
6 1/5/2021 33 33 Average Value 35.11 mg/L 6 1/5/2021 < 5 2.5 Average Value 8.96 mg/L
7 4/6/2021 42 42 Max.Value 44.00 mg/L 7 4/6/2021 < 5 2.5 Max.Value 18.00 mg/L
8 7/6/2021 36 36 8 7/6/2021 8.1 8.1
9 9/14/2021 42 42 9 10/5/2021 18 18
10 10/5/2021 40 40 10 1/4/2022 16 16
11 1/4/2022 40 40 11 4/5/2022 6.1 6.1
12 4/5/2022 31 31 12 7/5/2022 8.2 8.2
13 7/5/2022 29 29 13 12/6/2022 12 12
14 12/6/2022 31 31 14 1/3/2023 < 5 2.5
15 1/3/2023 26 26 15 4/4/2023 6.2 6.2
16 4/4/2023 29 29 16 7/11/2023 6.1 6.1
17 7/11/2023 33 33 17 10/3/2023 12 12
18 10/3/2023 32 32 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefau Its_full pred_,data
-1- 4/26/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01&Par02
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Arsenic Values"then"COPY".
Maximum data points
=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 6/9/2020 < 10 5 Std Dev. 2.5981
2 9/14/2021 < 10 5 Mean 3.5000
3 12/6/2022 < 1 0.5 C.V.(default) 0.6000
4 n 3
5
6 Mult Factor= 3.00
7 Max.Value 5.0 ug/L
8 Max.Fred Cw 15.0 ug/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefau Its_full pred_,data
-2- 4/26/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par03 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Par04 Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Beryllium Values•then"COPY". Cadmium Values"then"COPY".
Maximum data points Maximum data points
=58 =58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 6/9/2020 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 6/9/2020 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 9/14/2021 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000 2 9/14/2021 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000
3 12/6/2022 < 1 0.5 C.V.(default) 0.6000 3 12/6/2022 < 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 0.50 ug/L 7 Max.Value 0.500 ug/L
8 Max.Fred Cw 1.50 ug/L 8 Max.Fred Cw 1.500 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
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefau Its_full pred_,data
-3- 4/26/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Par10 Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Values then"COPY". Chromium Values"then"COPY".
Total Phenolic Compounds ,Total
Maximum data points Maximum data points
=58 =58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 6/9/2020 < 5.0 2.5 Std Dev. 0.0000 1 6/9/2020 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 1.1547
2 9/14/2021 < 5.0 2.5 Mean 2.5000 2 9/14/2021 < 1 0.5 Mean 1.1667
3 12/6/2022 < 5 2.5 C.V.(default) 0.6000 3 12/6/2022 < 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 2.5 ug/L 7 Max.Value 2.5 pg/L
8 Max.Fred Cw 7.5 ug/L 8 Max.Fred Cw 7.5 pg/L
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefau Its_full pred_,data
-4- 4/26/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Pal Use"PASTE SPECIAL Par12 Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Copper Values"then"COPY". Cy anide Values"then"COPY".
pp Maximum data points Maximum data points
=58 =58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 6/9/2020 < 2 1 Std Dev. 2.0817 1 6/9/2020 < 5 5 Std Dev. 0.0000
2 9/14/2021 5 5 Mean 2.6667 2 9/14/2021 < 5 5 Mean 5.00
3 12/6/2022 2 2 C.V.(default) 0.6000 3 12/6/2022 5 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 5.00 ug/L 7 Max.Value 5.0 ug/L
8 Max.Fred Cw 15.00 ug/L 8 Max.Fred Cw 15.0 ug/L
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57
58 58
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefau Its_full pred_,data
-5- 4/26/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Par15 Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Lead Values"then"COPY". Mercury Values"then"COPY".
Maximum data points Maximum data points
=58 =58
Date BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 6/9/2020 < 2 1 Std Dev. 0.2887 1 6/9/2020 < 1.08 0.54 Std Dev. 1.3225
2 9/14/2021 < 2 1 Mean 0.8333 2 9/14/2021 < 6.64 3.32 Mean 1.4306
3 12/6/2022 < 1 0.5 C.V.(default) 0.6000 3 12/6/2022 < 0.985 0.4925 C.V.(default) 0.6000
4 n 3 4 7/2/2019 1.37 1.37 n 4
5 5
6 Mult Factor= 3.00 6 Mult Factor= 2.59
7 Max.Value 1.000 ug/L 7 Max.Value 3.3 ng/L
8 Max.Fred Cw 3.000 ug/L 8 Max.Fred Cw 8.6 ng/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
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefau Its_full pred_,data
-6- 4/26/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par17&Par18 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Par19 Use"PASTE SF
Values"then"COPY". Values"then"C
Nickel Maximum data points Selenium Maximum data
=58 =58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 6/9/2020 1 1 Std Dev. 2.3094 1 6/9/2020 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 5.4848
2 9/14/2021 < 10 5 Mean 3.6667 2 9/14/2021 10 10 Mean 6.8333
3 12/6/2022 < 10 5 C.V.(default) 0.6000 3 12/6/2022 10 10 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 5.0 pg/L 7 Max.Value 10.0
8 Max.Fred Cw 15.0 pg/L 8 Max.Fred Cw 30.0
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
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefau Its_full pred_,data
-7- 4/26/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
'ECIAL Par20 Use"PASTE SPECIAL Par21 Use"PASTE SF
:OPY". Values"then"COPY". Values"then'Y
points Silver Maximum data points Zinc Values"
data
=58 =58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 6/9/2020 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.1400 1 6/9/2020 74 74 Std Dev. 19.8578
2 9/14/2021 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.4750 2 9/14/2021 100 100 Mean 95.6667
3 12/6/2022 < 0.9 0.45 C.V. 0.2948 3 12/6/2022 113 113 C.V.(default) 0.6000
4 10/8/2019 < 1 0.5 n 20 4 n 3
5 1/7/2020 < 1 0.5 5
6 4/7/2020 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor= 1.18 6 Mult Factor= 3.00
ug/L 7 7/7/2020 < 1 0.5 Max.Value 0.900 ug/L 7 Max.Value 113.0
ug/L 8 10/13/2020 < 1 0.5 Max.Fred Cw 1.062 ug/L 8 Max.Fred Cw 339.0
9 4/6/2021 < 1 0.5 9
10 7/6/2021 < 0.9 0.45 10
11 9/14/2021 < 1 0.5 11
12 10/5/2021 < 0.9 0.45 12
13 1/4/2022 0.9 0.9 13
14 4/5/2022 < 0.9 0.45 14
15 7/5/2022 < 0.1 0.05 15
16 12/6/2022 < 0.9 0.45 16
17 1/3/2023 < 0.9 0.45 17
18 4/4/2023 < 0.9 0.45 18
19 7/11/2023 < 0.9 0.45 19
20 10/3/2023 < 0.9 0.45 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
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefau Its_full pred_,data
-8- 4/26/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
'ECIAL Par22 Use"PASTE SPECIAL
:OPY" Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Values"then"COPY".
points Maximum data points
=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 6/9/2020 24.7 24.7 Std Dev. 10.8372
2 9/14/2021 < 10 5 Mean 9.1808
3 12/6/2022 < 4.85 2.425 C.V. 1.1804
4 10/8/2019 40.9 40.9 n 20
5 1/7/2020 27.7 27.7
6 4/7/2020 21.3 21.3 Mult Factor= 1.69
ug/L 7 7/7/2020 < 10 5 Max.Value 40.900000 pg/L
ug/L 8 1/5/2021 < 10 5 Max.Fred Cw 69.121000 pg/L
9 4/6/2021 < 11.2 5.6
10 7/6/2021 < 10 5
11 9/14/2021 < 10 5
12 10/19/2021 < 10 5
13 1/4/2022 < 4.72 2.36
14 4/5/2022 < 5.32 2.66
15 7/5/2022 13.5 13.5
16 12/6/2022 < 4.85 2.425
17 1/10/2023 < 5.32 2.66
18 4/4/2023 < 4.81 2.405
19 7/11/2023 < 4.81 2.405
20 10/3/2023 < 5.15 2.575
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
copy 9595 Final FW RPA w_upstream avg data column_diss to total metals_nodetects_limiteddefau Its_full pred_,data
-9- 4/26/2024

Permit No. NCO086550
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards-Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard(WQS)Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission(EMC) on November 13,2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016,with some exceptions. Therefore,metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6,2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards -as
approved.
Table 1.NC Dissolved Metals Water Q ality Standards/A uatic Life Protection
Parameter Acute FW, µg/1 Chronic FW, µg/1 Acute SW, µg/1 Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved) (Dissolved) (Dissolved) (Dissolved)
Arsenic 340 150 69 36
Beryllium 65 6.5 --- ---
Cadmium Calculation Calculation 40 8.8
Chromium III Calculation Calculation --- ---
Chromium VI 16 11 1100 50
Copper Calculation Calculation 4.8 3.1
Lead Calculation Calculation 210 8.1
Nickel Calculation Calculation 74 8.2
Silver Calculation 0.06 1.9 0.1
Zinc Calculation Calculation 90 81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW=Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation=Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns(as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
213.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2.Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness-Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER)is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph(11)(d)
Metal NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium,Acute WER*{1.136672-[In hardness](0.04183 8)) •e^{0.9789 [ln hardness]-3.443}
Cadmium,Acute Trout waters WER*{1.136672-[In hardness](0.04183 8)) •e^{0.9789[ln hardness]-3.866}
Cadmium,Chronic WER*{1.101672-[In hardness](0.04183 8)) •e^{0.7977[ln hardness]-3.9091
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]-1.7021
Lead,Acute WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460}
Lead,Chronic WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705}
Nickel,Acute WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255)
Nickel,Chronic WER*0.997 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584)
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NCO086550
Silver,Acute WER*0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver,Chronic Not applicable
Zinc,Acute WER*0.978 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc,Chronic WER*0.986 e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884)
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness-dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness-based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream(upstream)hardness
and so must be calculated case-by-case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge-specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal(more on that
below),but it is also possible to consider case-specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness-Dependent Metals -Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations,based on applicable
standards and the critical low-flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute),the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard,which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present(i.e. consistently below
detection level),then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness-dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10(the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10=0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs)0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site-specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness-dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge,the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream)hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's,Effluent Pollutant Scans,and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values,upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available,the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L(CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L,respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness-dependent metal showing reasonable
potential,the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site-specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No. NCO086550
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness(chronic)
_(Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness,mg/L)+(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 IQ 10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal,using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site-specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the"Fraction Dissolved"converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in-stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007,June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss — 1
Ctotal 1 + { [KPO] [SS(l+a)] [10-6] }
Where:
ss=in-stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1],minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a=constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness-dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient(or
site-specific translator)to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases,where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist(ie. silver),the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca=(s7Q 10+Qw) (Cwgs)^(s7Q 10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca=allowable effluent concentration(µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs=NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria(µg/L or mg/L)
Cb=background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw=permitted effluent flow(cfs,match 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:
IQ 10=used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0086550
QA=used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2=used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application(40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations,the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit(Total allowable
concentration)is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate,permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10,2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure,total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases,the projected maximum concentration(95th%) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling,upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness-dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter Value Comments(Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness(mg/L) 34.67 Effluent pollutant scans—2020,
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] 2021, 2022
Average Upstream Hardness(mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] 8.96 Default value
7Q10 summer(cfs) 157 Previous Fact Sheet
1Q10(cfs) 127.75 RPA calculation
Permitted Flow(MGD) 1.65 Previous permit/Fact Sheet
Date: April 22,2024
Permit Writer: Urva Patel
Page 4 of 4

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Franklin WWTP
PermitNo. NCO021547
Prepared By: Urva Patel
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 1.65
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 157
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 186
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1) Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS) 157 s7Q10 (CFS) 157
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 1.65 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 1.65
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 2.5575 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 2.5575
STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1) 0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 1.60 IWC (%) 1.60
Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 1061 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 48.9
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS) 186
Monthly Average Limit: 200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 1.65
(If DF >331; Monitor) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 2.5575
(If DF<331; Limit) STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
Dilution Factor(DF) 62.39 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1) 0.22
IWC (%) 1.36
Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 116.7
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non-Muni)

NCO021547 Franklin WWTP 6/7/2024
BOD monthly removal rate TSS monthly removal rate
Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%) Month RR(%)
July-19 98.61 January-22 98.71 July-19 99.36 January-22 98.73
August-19 98.85 February-22 98.84 August-19 98.97 February-22 99.26
September-19 98.80 March-22 98.33 September-19 99.13 March-22 98.86
October-19 98.84 April-22 98.76 October-19 98.86 April-22 98.61
November-19 98.58 May-22 99.05 November-19 98.78 May-22 99.60
December-19 97.49 June-22 99.20 December-19 97.91 June-22 99.47
January-20 97.63 July-22 99.14 January-20 98.00 July-22 99.35
February-20 97.85 August-22 99.09 February-20 98.93 August-22 99.29
March-20 96.89 September-22 99.04 March-20 98.47 September-22 98.72
April-20 98.10 October-22 99.34 April-20 99.08 October-22 99.56
May-20 98.48 November-22 99.23 May-20 99.30 November-22 99.48
June-20 98.44 December-22 99.03 June-20 99.28 December-22 99.29
July-20 96.46 January-23 98.53 July-20 98.47 January-23 98.82
August-20 96.97 February-23 99.16 August-20 98.64 February-23 99.48
September-20 98.02 March-23 99.27 September-20 98.63 March-23 99.56
October-20 97.88 April-23 99.28 October-20 98.34 April-23 99.51
November-20 97.79 May-23 99.27 November-20 98.39 May-23 99.66
December-20 97.43 June-23 99.42 December-20 98.33 June-23 99.69
January-21 97.22 July-23 99.33 January-21 97.76 July-23 99.55
February-21 97.79 August-23 99.11 February-21 99.20 August-23 98.54
March-21 98.70 September-23 99.26 March-21 99.49 September-23 98.88
April-21 98.29 October-23 99.27 April-21 99.13 October-23 99.32
May-21 98.01 November-23 99.35 May-21 98.95 November-23 99.42
June-21 98.58 December-23 99.09 June-21 99.14 December-23 99.05
July-21 99.01 January-24 July-21 99.53 January-24
August-21 98.89 February-24 August-21 99.22 February-24
September-21 99.05 March-24 September-21 99.44 March-24
October-21 99.05 April-24 October-21 99.58 April-24
November-21 99.11 May-24 November-21 99.44 May-24
December-21 99.24 June-24 December-21 99.41 June-24
Overall BOD removal rate 98.60 Overall TSSD removal rate 99.03

4/26/24 WQS = 12 ng/L MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Facility Name Franklin WWTP/ NC0021547 No Limit Required
/Permit No.
No MMP Required
Total Mercury 1631E PQL= 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s = 157.000 cfs WQBEL= 748.66 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow= 1.650 47 ng/L
7/2/19 1.37 1.37 1.4 ng/L-Annual Average for 2019
6/9/20 1.08 1.08 1.1 ng/L-Annual Average for 2020
9/14/21 6.64 6.64 6.6 ng/L-Annual Average for 2021
12/6/22 0.985 0.985 1.0 ng/L-Annual Average for 2022

Franklin WWTP/ NCO021547
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2019 2020 2021 2022
#of Samples 1 1 1 1
Annual Average, ng/L 1.4 1.1 6.6 1.0
Maximum Value, ng/L 1.37 1.08 6.64 0.99
TBEL, ng/L 47
WQBEL, ng/L 748.7

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Franklin County WWTP NCO069311/001 County: Franklin Region: RRO Basin: TAR01 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 5/1/2021 chr lim:2 MGD @ 66 NonComp: Single 70,10: 1.6 PF: 2.0 IWC: 74.4 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2020 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2021 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass>100(P) - -
2022 Pass>100(P) - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2023 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2024 Pass - - - - - - - - - - -
Franklin WTP NCO089737/001 County: Macon Region: ARO Basin: LTN01 Mar Jun Sep Dec SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 1/1/2019 Chr Monit:1.92% NonComp: 7Q10: PF: IWC: Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2020 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2021 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2022 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2023 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
Franklin WTP(CMUD) NCO084549/001 County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Basin: CTB34 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 3/1/2021 Chr Monit: 90% NonComp: 7Q10: PF: IWC: Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2020 Fail - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2021 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2022 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2023 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2024 Pass - - - - - - - - - - -
Franklin WWTP NCO021547/001 County: Macon Region: ARO Basin: LTN01 Mar Jun Sep Dec SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 10/1/2019 chr lim:1.6% NonComp: Single 7Q10: 157 PF: 1.65 IWC: 1.6 Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2020 - - Pass - >6.4(P) Pass - - Pass - - Pass
2021 - - Pass - - Pass - - >6.4(P)Pass - - Pass
2022 - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - >6.4(P)Pass
2023 - - >6.4(P)Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
Franklinton WTP,Town of NC0002852/001 County: Franklin Region: RRO Basin: TAR01 Jan Apr Jul Oct SOC JOC:
Ceri7dPF Begin: 7/1/2015 Chr Monit: 90% NonComp: 70,10: PF: 0.085 IWC: Freq: Q
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2020 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2021 Pass - - Fail - - Pass - - Pass - -
2022 Fail - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
2023 Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass - -
Leeend: P=Fathead minnow(Pimohales oromelas).H=No Flow(facilitv is active).s=Solit test between Certified Labs Page 36 of 100

United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved.
EPA Washington,D.C.20460 OMB No.2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 u 3 I NCO021547 I11 121 22/11/17 I17 18I�I 19 I G I 201 I
21111I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
67 70 J 71 Ity 72 L-J 73 1 74 79 I I I I 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected(For Industrial Users discharging to POTW,also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 10:30AM 22/11/17 19/10/01
Franklin WWTP
Sierra Dr Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Franklin NC 28734 12:30PM 22/11/17 23/11/30
Name(s)of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
William Logan Deal/ORC/828-524-2516/
Name,Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Amanda W Owens,PO Box 1479 Franklin NC 287441479/Town
Manager/828-524-2516/ No
Section C:Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations&Maintenar Records/Reports
Self-Monitoring Progran 0 Sludge Handling Dispo: Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Wate
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments(Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s)and Signature(s)of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Lauren E Armeni DWR/ARO WQ/828-296-4500/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3(Rev 9-94)Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (Cont.) 1
31 NCO021547 I11 12I 22/11/17 117 18 i c i
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Lauren Armeni, with the Asheville Regional Office, conducted a Compliance Evaluation Inspection of
the Franklin WWTP on November 17, 2022. This inspection was conducted to determine whether the
facility is being operated and maintained in compliance with NPDES Permit No. NC0021547. Mr. Bill
Deal (ORC) and Mr. Jason Hopkins (Plant Supervisor/Backup ORC)were present and assisted in the
inspection.
Overall, the plant was well-maintained and operated. All paperwork was very organized and easily
accessible. No deficiencies or violations were found during the inspection.
Page# 2

Permit: NCO021547 Owner-Facility: Franklin WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/17/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
#Are there any special conditions for the permit? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The facility has grit removal, but it is not listed under the components in the current
permit. Remember to note this on the permit renewal application that will be submitted
next year.
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: Process controls include MLSS, sludge fudge for blanket depth, and pH. DO is
monitored by in-line DO probes. Mr. Deal indicated that all WWTP components are
connected to SCADA, except the aerators in the oxidation ditch and the RAS/WAS
pumps.
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the chain-of-custody complete? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Dates, times and location of sampling ❑
Name of individual performing the sampling ❑
Results of analysis and calibration ❑
Dates of analysis ❑
Name of person performing analyses ❑
Transported COCs ❑
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
(If the facility is = or> 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO021547 Owner-Facility: Franklin WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/17/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Is the CIRC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
classification?
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Influent Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the flow meter operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Comment: The influent flow meter records the flow from the EQ Basin into the plant. This meter
was last calibrated on Auqust 10, 2022 by Carolina Technical Services, Inc.
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Is sample collected above side streams? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is proper volume collected? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the tubing clean? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Flow-proportional composite sampling is not required for influent sampling. Mr. Deal
indicated that the influent composite sampling is time-based.
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual ❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the unit in good condition? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 4

Permit: NCO021547 Owner-Facility: Franklin WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/17/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Comment: Debris is hauled to the landfill twice a week. The last inspection indicated that a
separate bar screen was ordered that catches debris from septage haulers prior to
entering the WWTP. This bar screen was installed in May 2021 and has fixed previous
issues with screen backups. Septage haulers are only allowed to dump between 7:30
AM to 11:00 AM.
Grit Removal Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual ❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: As with the debris from the bar screens, solids are hauled to the landfill twice a week.
Equalization Basins Yes No NA NE
Is the basin aerated? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the basin free of bypass lines or structures to the natural environment? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the basin free of excessive grease? M ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps present? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps operable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are float controls operable? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are audible and visual alarms operable? ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is basin size/volume adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The EQ basin is 21' deep, and the float is set at 15'. Mr. Deal indicated that it generally
takes around three days of rain to get up to that depth since the EQ basin generally
stays around 4.5'. The basin is connected to SCADA.
Oxidation Ditches Yes No NA NE
Are the aerators operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the DO level acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are settleometer results acceptable (> 30 minutes)? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NCO021547 Owner-Facility: Franklin WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/17/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Oxidation Ditches Yes No NA NE
Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/I in 30 minutes) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The oxidation ditch uses floating brush aerators that are conntected to three new
Chemtrac in-line DO probes. These probes are placed in various locations throughout
the oxidation ditch. DO levels are kept between 0.5 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L. These new
probes were installed in May 2021. At the time of the inspection, settleability was 650
mL after 30 minutes.
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are weirs level? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of weir blockage? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is scum removal adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the drive unit operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately '/4 of the sidewall depth) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Comment: From the oxidation ditches, flow is split between the two clarifiers. At the time of the
inspection, the sludge blanket in Clarifier#1 was measured at 3', and in Clarifier#2
was measured at 5'. Both clarifiers are approximately 12' deep. Clarifier#2 had a
slightly high sludge blanket, but this has caused no issues in the effluent quality or with
exceeding permit limits. Mr. Deal indicated that the Town is planning on replacing the
fiberglass around the weirs.
Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are pumps operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The RAS pumps are rotated once a week.
Disinfection-Liquid Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

Permit: NCO021547 Owner-Facility: Franklin WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/17/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Disinfection-Liquid Yes No NA NE
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable? ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de-chlorination? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The chorine contact basin is pumped out yearly.
De-chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ? Liquid
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
# Is de-chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Are tablet de-chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment: Mr. Deal indicated that Captor was previously used as the disinfectant, but sodium
thiosulfate is now being used.
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the flow meter operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Comment: The original chart recorder is no longer used because the flow meter is connected to
the SCADA system, and the monthly flow is printed from this system. The meter was
last calibrated on August 10, 2022 by Carolina Technical Services, Inc.
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is proper volume collected? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the tubing clean? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
representative)?
Page# 7

Permit: NCO021547 Owner-Facility: Franklin WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/17/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Comment: At the time of the inspection, the sampler was set to 417 gallons/pulse. At 25 pulses, a
100-mL aliquot sample is taken.
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment:
Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the mixing adequate? M ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is the odor acceptable? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: A coarse bubble diffuser supplies air to the digester, and rotates on/off for two hours in
the winter, and approximately 14 hours in the summer. Mr. Deal indicated that they use
MLSS values to determine when they supernate and pump from the digester to the belt
press.
Solids Handling Equipment Yes No NA NE
Is the equipment operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is storage adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
The facility has an approved sludge management plan? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Comment: At the time of the inspection, the belt press was not in operation. The belt press and
surrounding area were kept very clean. The press is used to dry sludge before it's
hauled to the landfill.
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the generator tested under load? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 8

Permit: NCO021547 Owner-Facility: Franklin WWTP
Inspection Date: 11/17/2022 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power Yes No NA NE
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection? ❑ ❑ ❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: One generator is located at the headworks and another is used for the WWTP and
on-site buildings. The generators have dipsticks to check the fuel levels. They do not
let the fuel tanks get below 33%. The generators automatically exercise once a month
and are serviced semi-annually by Nixon Power.
Page# 9

United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved.
EPA Washington,D.C.20460 OMB No.2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 2 u 3 I NC0021547 111 121 23/07/17 I17 18 I S I 19 I G I 201 I
21111I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I r6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
67 70 J 71 Ity 72 L-J 73 1 74 79 I I I I 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected(For Industrial Users discharging to POTW,also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 10:30AM 23/07/17 19/10/01
Franklin WWTP
Sierra Dr Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Franklin NC 28734 01:OOPM 23/07/17 23/11/30
Name(s)of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data
Jason Dean Hopkins/ORC/828-524-2516/
Name,Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Amanda W Owens,PO Box 1479 Franklin NC 287441479/Town
Manager/828-524-2516/ No
Section C:Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Other
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments(Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s)and Signature(s)of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Lauren E Armeni DWR/ARO WQ/828-296-4500/
Mara G Chamlee DWR/ARO WQ/828-296-4500/
Rachel Rose DWR/ARO WQ/828-296-4500/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3(Rev 9-94)Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (Cont.) 1
31 NCO021547 I11 12I 23/07/17 117 18 I G I
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Lauren Armeni, Mara Chamlee, and Rachel Rose, with the Asheville Regional Office, conducted
a Pretreatment Compliance Audit (PCA) of the Town of Franklin's Pretreatment Program on
July 17, 2023. Jason Hopkins (Pretreatment Coordinator/ORC)was present during the inspection.
Overall, the program appears to be in compliance with Federal and State Pretreatment requirements.
The Franklin Pretreatment Program has one SIU which is the Macon County Landfill. Currently, there
are no over allocations and all sampling is being conducted per program requirements.
Macon County landfill was in SNC for cyanide during both 6-month sampling periods in 2022;
however, they were not in SNC during the first 6-month sampling period in 2023. Mr. Hopkins believes
the cyanide came from the new plastic liners/pipes from the landfill opening a new cell. He will
continue to monitor and take action as needed. Please reference the attached Pretreatment Audit
Report for inspection details.
Page# 2

Permit: NCO021547 Owner-Facility: Franklin WWTP
Inspection Date: 07/17/2023 Inspection Type: Pretreatment Audit
Other Yes No NA NE
Comment: See summary for details.
Page# 3

PO Box 7565
Asheville, NC 28802
En�irnnmen;alTestingSolukions Inc, Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
June 19, 2020
Ms. Wanda Ladd
Earth Environmental Services
75 Bison Lane
Murphy, NC 28906
ETS Project Number: 15132
Test Start Date: June 02, 2020
Facility Tested: Franklin WWTP I
Enclosed are toxicitytest results for samples received b Environmental Testing Solutions Inc.
p Y g
Parameter
Code
Test Procedure, Method Number Result (ChV)
1 THP6C Fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas, Larval Survival and Growth Chronic
EPA-821-R-02-013, Method 1000.0 >6.4%
I
All toxicity testing results required as part of your permit must be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1)for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code THP6C.
Additionally, the DMR Reporting Form AT-5 must be signed and e-mailed or mailed to the following
addrPct:
ATForms.ATB(@-ncdenr.aov
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Please call if you have any questions concerning these results.
Sincerely,
Jim umner
Laboratory Supervisor
North Carolina Certificate Numbers: Biological Analyses: 037, Drinking Water: 37786,Wastewater: 600
South Carolina Certificate Number: Clean Water Act: 99053-001

PO Box 7565
�.
Asheville, NC 28802
--_--- Phone: [phone]
Environmental Testing Solutions,Inc. Fax: [phone]
June 19, 2020
Ms. Wanda Ladd
Earth Environmental Services
75 Bison Lane
Murphy, NC 28906
i
ETS Project Number: 15132
Test Start Date: June 02, 2020 I'
Facility Tested: Franklin WWTP '
Enclosed are toxicity test results for samples received by Environmental Testing Solutions Inc.
i
Parameter f
Code
Test Procedure, Method Number Result (ChV)
1 THP6C Fathead minnow, Pimepholes promelas, Larval Survival and Growth Chronic >6.4%
EPA-821-R-02-013, Method 1000.0
All toxicity testing results required as part of your permit must be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1)for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code THP6C.
Additionally, the DMR Reporting Form AT-5 must be signed and e-mailed or mailed to the following
arlrirPct:
ATForms.ATBCa)ncdenr.aov
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1621 Mail Service Center l
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 j
Please call if you have any questions concerning these results.
Sincerely,
Jim umner
Laboratory Supervisor
. North Carolina Certificate Numbers: Biological Analyses: 037, Drinking Water: 37786,Wastewater: 600
Y g
South Carolina Certificate Number: Clean Water Act: 99053-001
i

�?ermit No. IVC067-6V Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan Je Month Pecel
Outfall Year 2622-
Cility Name: Town of Franklin WWTP
ate of sampling: iWL�2022
Analytical Laboratory: Earth Environmental Servi,ces; Environmental Testing Solutions; Rogers&Callcott
lgtijal Quantit tiq R4.3-1-W, TO
MAU
Ammonia(as N) Composite SM4500NH3F 0.2 ND mg/l 1
Dissolved oxygen Composite SM4500-0 G 0.1 9.75 mg/l
Nitrate/Nitrite Composite SM4500-NO3F 0.20 0.26 mg/l
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen Composite 351.2 0.10 1.3 mg/1
Total Phosphor-us Composite SM4500-P-F 0.10 1.96 mg/1 1
Total dissolved solids Composite SM2540 C 20 180 mg/l 1
Hardness Composite 200.7 5.0 29 mg/1
Chlorine (total residual,TRC) Grab SM 4500 CL G 20 30 ug/1
Oil and grease Grab 1664A 5.0 ND mg11
M
Antimony Composite 200.8 1.0 ND ug/I
Arsenic Composite 200.8 1.0 ND ug/I
Beryllium Composite 200.8 1.0 ND ug/l
Cadmium Composite 200.8 1.0 ND ug/l I
,Chromium i Composite 200.8 1.0 ND ug/l I
( opper Composite 200.8 1.0 2.0 Ug/I
ad Composite 200.8 1.0 ND ug/I
Mercury Composite 1631 E 0.500 0.985 ng/L
Nickel Composite 200.8 1.0 1.0 ug/l
Selenium Composite 200.8 1.0 ND ug/I 1
Silver Composite 200.8 0.9 ND ug/I 1
Thallium Composite 200.8 1.0 ND ug/I
Zinc L composite 200.8 1.0 113 ug/l
Cyanide Grab EPA 335.4 0.005 0.005 mg/1
Total phenolic compounds Grab 420.1 0.005 ND mg/1
co w A
Acrolein Grab 624 5,0 ND ug/I
Acrylonitrile Grab 624 5,0 ND ug/I
Benzene Grab 624 0.5 ND ug/I
Bromoform Grab 624 0.5 ND ug/l
Carbon tetrachloride Grab 624 0.5 ND ug/I
Chlorobenzene Grab 624 0.5 ND ug/l
Chlorodibromomethane Grab 624 0.5 ND ug/l
Chloroethane Grab 624 0.5 ND ug/I
2-chloroethylvinyl ether Grab 624 0.5 ND ug/I
Chloroform Grab 624 0.5 5.06 ug/I
Dichl orobromorn ethane Grab 624 0.5 ND Ug/I
.-dichlor-octhane Grab 624 0.5 ND ug/l
11,2-dichloroethane Grab 624 0.5 ND ug/l
]Trans-1,2-dichloro ethylene Grab 624 0.5 ND ug/l
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 1

.,Permit No. Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan Month
Outfall Year
yl-
-y- iQUI-0-
vi,"
.c
1,1-dichloroethylene Grab 624 0.5 NO Ug/l
1,2-dichloroproparie Grab 624 0.5 ND Ug/l
1,3-dichloropropylene Grab 624 0.5 ND Ug/l
Ethylbenzene Grab 624 0.5 ND Ug/l
Methyl bromide Grab 624 0.5 ND Ug/l
Methyl chloride Grab 624 0.5 ND Ug/l
Methylene chloride Grab 624 0.5 ND Ug/l
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane Grab 624 0.5 ND Ug/l 1
Tetrachloroethylene Grab 624 0.5 ND Ug/l 1
Toluene Grab 624 0.5 ND ug/l
1,1,1-ttichloroethane Grab 624 0.5 ND Ug/I
1,1,2-trichloroethane Grab 624 0.5 ND Ug/l
Trichloroethylene Grab 624 0.5 ND Ug/l
Vinyl chloride Grab 624 0.5 ND Ug/I
4
-----------
V
00
P-chloro-m-creso Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/I
2-chlorophenol Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/I
2,4-dichlorophenol Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/l
2,4-dimethylphenol- Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/l
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol Grab 625 24.3 ND Ug/l
.-dinitrophenol Grab 625 24.3 ND Ug/l
2-nitrophenol Grab 625 24.3 ND Ug/I
4-nitrophenol Grab 625 24.3 ND Ug/l
Pentachlorophenol Grab 625 24.3 ND Ug/I
Phenol Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/I
2,4,6-trichlorophenol Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/l
eu v-
Eia6s-i� ak
Acenaphthene Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/I
Acenaphthylene Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/l 1
Anthracene Grab 625 4.85 ND, Ug/l
Benzidine Grab 625 9.71 ND Ug/l
Benzo(a)anthracene Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/l
Benzo(a)pyrene Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/T
3,4 benzofluoranthene Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/l
Benzo(ghi)perylene Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/I
Benzo(k)fluoranthene Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/l
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/l
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/I I
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/I I
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/I I
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/l I
tyl benzyl phthalate Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/I I
alene 1
.2-chloronaphth. Grab 625 4.85 ND Ug/l
14-chlorophenyl phenyl ether Grab 1 625 4.85 ND Ug/I 1
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 2

Perm" No. /
it V
Month gewbe--e
Year 2222
Outfall Of)/
---Amp idytw -C
ParameterU.
E
xysene Grab 625 4.85 ND g/l
Ji-n-butyl phthalate Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/l
Di-n-octyl phthalate Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/l
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I I
1,2-dichlorobenzene Grab 624 0.5 ND ug/I I
1,3-dichlorobenzene Grab 624 0.5 ND ug/l
1,4-dichlorobenzene Grab 624 0.5 ND ug/I
3,3-dichlorobenzidine Grab 625 9.71 ND ug/I
Diethyl phthalate Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I 1
Dimethyl phthalate Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I 1
2,4-dinitrotoluene Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I 1
2,6-dinitrotoluene Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I 1
1,2-diphenylhydrazine Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I
Fluoranthene Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I
Fluorene Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I
Hexachlorobenzene Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I 1
Hexachlorobutadiene Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/l
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene Grab 625 24.3 ND ug/I
Hexachloroethane Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I 1
Isophorone Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I I
phthalene Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I I
.nitrobenzene Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I
N-nitrosodi-n-propylan-iine Grab 625 4.85 NO ug/l
N-nitro so dimethylarnine Grab 625 4.85 ND ugll
N-nitrosodiphenylamine Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I
Phenanthrene Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/I 1
Pyrene Grab 625 4.85 ND ug/l 1
1,2,4,-trichlorobenzene Grab T- 624 4.85 ND ug/I
1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
and supervision in accordance with a system to design to assure that qualified perdonnel properly
gather and evaluat the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons that
manage the system, or those persons directly responsibel 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.
Authorized Representative name
Signature
Date
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 3

PO Box 7565
Asheville,NC 28802
f 7�n;
li-b ".;.N Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Environmental Testing Solutions,Inc. Certificate of Analysis
Project name: Earth Environmental Services Project number: 2101206.502
Collection date: 6-Dec-22
Date received: 6-Dec-22
Sample identification: H122202 FR PPA Sample number: 230283
Parameter Method Result RL Units Date
Analyzed Analyst Footnotes
Cyanide =A --SM-4500-e l->?--� 0.005 0.005 mg/L 14-Dec-22 ECHEM I
Oil&Grease(HEM) j 1664 B <5.0 5.0 mg/L 19-Dec-22 ECHEM I
VOC by 624 See Attached Sheet pg1L 13-D..-22 ECHEM I
Dissolved Solids,Total SM 2540 C ISO 20 mg/L 6-Dec-22 KEK
Hardness,Total SM 2340 C 29 5.0 mg/L 10-Dec-22 BSC
Total Recoverable Phenols 420.1 <0.005 mg/L 20-Dec-22 ECHEM I
Nitrate+Nitrite Nitrogen 351.2 0.26 mg/L 13-Dec-22 ECHEM I
Total Phosphorus SM 4500 P F 1.96 mg/L 14-Dec-22 ECHEM I
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 351.2 1.3 mg/L t4-Dec-22 ECHEM I
Total Nitrogen Calculation 1.6 mg/L 19-Dec-22 ECHEM I
Antimony 200.8 <0.001 mg/L 14-Dec-22 ECHEM I
Arsenic 200.8 <0.001 mg/L 14-Dec-22 ECHEM I
Beryllium 200.8 <0.001 mg/L 14-1)ec-22 ECHEM I
Cadmium 200.8 <0.001 mg/L 14-Dec-22 ECHEM I
Chromium 200.8 <0.001 mg/L' 14-Dec-22 ECHEM I
Copper 200.8 0.002 mg/L 14-Dec-22 ECHEM I
Lead 200.8 <0.001 mg/L 14-Dec-22 ECHEM 1
Nickel 200.8 0.0010 mg/L 14-Dec,22 ECHEM I
Selenuim 200.8 <0.001 mg/L 14-D.c-22 ECHEM I
Silver 200.8 <0.0009 mg/L 19-De.-22 ECHEM I
Thallium 200.8 <0.001 mg/L 14-Dec-22 ECHEM I
Zinc 200.8 0.113 mg/L 28-Dec-22 ECHEM I
SVOC by 625 See Attached Sheet pg/L 12-Dec-22 ECHEM I
Sample identification: 4122202 FR LLHG Sample number: 230284
Parameter Method Result RL Units Date
Analyzed Analyst Footnotes
Mercury 1631 E 0.985 0.500 ng/L t3-Dec-22 LYGI 2
Sample identification: NIZ2201 FR Blank Sample number: 230285
Parameter Method Result RL Units Date Analyst Footnotes
Analyzed
Mercury 1631 E <0.500 0.500 ng/L 13-Dec-22 LYGI 2
This report should not be reproduced,exept in its entirety,without the written consent of Environmental Testing Solutions,Inc.
The results in this report relate only to the samples submitted for analysis.

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan r
Permit No. N�i Cep a.�s�� Month ✓i'1(9
Outfall 00 1 Year 2 D 2.1
Facility Name: Town of Franklin WWTP
we of sampling: 2LLI 2021
Analytical Laboratory: Earth Environmental Services; Environmental Testing Solutions; Rogers&Callcott
`�''��.�..��,�� _� yx� �'4"x�..'-:��-.c�t�... __�-�`�ti. rPr��.',itF,���'.=�3'.�� •-,,.��� �- a���:����-Y?_.,�.�.y _�y;v,. �-. ...". _
Ammonia (as N) Composite SM4500NH3F 0.1 ND = mg/l 1
Dissolved oxygen Composite SM4500-0 G 0.1 8.25 mg/1 1
Nitrate/Nitrite Composite SM4500-NO3F 0.20 4.64 mg/1 1
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen Composite 351.2 0.10 0.90 mg/l 1
Total Phosphorus Composite SM4500-P-F 0.10 3.5 mg/1 1
Total dissolved solids Composite SM2540 C 20 170 mg/1 1
Hardness Composite 200.7 5.0 42 mg/1 1
Chlorine (total residual,TRC) Grab SM 4500 CL G 20 29 ug/l 1
Oil and grease Grab 1664A 5.0 ND mg/1 1
f "� r a 3�' y, � ''3i�"�=`a 'o-� tz �..- ,��� ":F Y''� �1��x, �-i✓�''���' t .�.�"��=� 1'� f
lYteta�s{�bt�i'i r�cot�eraltl_��►x�Y �e•�;nti�#�t� �+�rso� .-� ���.�� � �� 7���������� _ ��.�`_' c
Antimony Composite 200.8 10.0 ND ug/1 1
Arsenic Composite 200.8 10.0 ND ug/1 1
Beryllium Composite 200.8 1.0 ND ug/1 1
Cadmium Composite 200.8 1.0 ND ug/1 1
Chromium Composite 200.8 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Copper Composite 200.8 2.0 5.0 ug/1 1
ti
ead Composite 200.8 2.0 ND ug/l 1
Mercury Composite 1631 E 0.500 6.64 ng/L 1
Nickel Composite 200.8 10.0 ND ug/1 1
Selenium Composite 200.8 10.0 10 ug/l 1
Silver Composite 200.8 1.0 ND ug/1 1
Thallium Composite 200.8 0.5 ND ug/1 1
Zinc Composite 200.8 10.0 100 ug/1 1
Cyanide Grab SM4500 CN-E 0.005 ND mg/1 1
Total phenolic compounds Grab 420.1 0.005 ND mg/l 1
Acrolein Grab 624 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Acrylonitrile Grab 624 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Benzene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
Bromoform Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
Carbon tetrachloride Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l 1
Chlorobenzene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l 1
Chlorodibromomethane Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l 1
Chloroethane Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
2-chloroethylvinyl ether Grab 624 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Chloroform Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
Dichlorobromomethane Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l 1
!,1-dichloroethane Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l 1
F1,2-ndichloroethaneGrab 624 2.0 ND ug/idichloroethylene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l 1
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 1

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
AL
Permit No. �16001,t!aa Month r wA L-Q-
Outfall 00 1 Year 262-1
R
1°dichloroethylene Grab 624 2.0 ND Ug/I
1,2-dichloropropane Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/I
1,3-dichloropropylene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/I
Ethylbenzene Grab 624 2.0 ND Ug/l
Methyl bromide Grab 624 2.0 ND Ug/I
Methyl chloride Grab 624 2.0 ND Ug/I
Methylene chloride Grab 624 2.0 ND Ug/l
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane Grab 624 2.0 ND Ug/I
Tetrachloroethylene Grab i 624 2.0 ND Ug/I
Toluene Grab 624 2.0 ND Ug/I
1,1,1-trichloroethane Grab 624 2.0 ND Ug/I
1,1,2-ttichloroethane Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/I
Trichloro ethylene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/I
Vinyl chloride Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/I 1
P-chloro-m-creso Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
2-chlorophenol Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
2,4-dichlorophenol Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
2,4-dimethylphenol Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/I
14-dinitrophenol Grab 625 10.0 ND ug/I
mnitrophenol Grab 625 6.0 ND ug/I
4-nitrophenol Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/I
Pentachlorophenol Grab 625 6.0 ND Ug/I
Phenol Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
2,4,6-tricWorophenol Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
D
1pl,ws 05'.9-
-a
Acenaphthene Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
Acenaphthylene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/I
Anthracene Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
Benzidine Grab 625 80 ND ug/I
Benzo(a)anthracene Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
Benzo(a)pyrene Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
3,4 benzofluoranthene Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
Benzo(ghi)perylene Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
Benzo(k)fluoranthene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/I
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Grab 625 10.0 ND ug/I
4-bromaphenyl phenyl ether Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
*-4utyl benzyl phthalate Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
-chlaronaphthalene Grab 625 5.0 ND Ug/I
4 chlorophenyl phenyl ether Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/I
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 2

Permit No. WoAts-U— Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan Month <. DLM
Outfall 60 Year tIO 21
VIM* V 57-irMOVIOW-11
AMA
L
r-r-MMIE53:10,757- t
W-1
-erysene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
Di-n-butyl phthalate Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
Di-n-octyl phthalate Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
1,2-dichlorobenzene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l I
1,3-dichlorobenzene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l
1,4-dichlorobenzene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/I
3,3-dichlorobenzidine Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
Diethyl phthalate Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
Dimethyl phthalate Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
2,4-dinitrotoluene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
2,6-dinitrotoluene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
1,2-diphenylhydrazine Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
Fluoranthene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
Fluorene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
Hexachlorobenzene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
Hexachlorobutadiene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
Hexachloroethane Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
ophorone Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
aphthalene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
Nitrobenzene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
N-nitro so di-n-propylan-tine Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
N-nitrosodimethylarnine Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
N-nitrosodiphenylamine Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
Phenanthrene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/I
Pyrene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l
1,2,4,-trichlorobenzene Grab 624 5.0 ND ug/l
1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
and supervision in accordance with a system to design to assure that qualified perdonnel properly
gather and evaluat the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons that
manage the system, or those persons directly responsibel 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.
LOJ I aV4 L �ej
Authorized Representative pjame
h
Sign ure
10 1,24�O
Date
Form - D MR- PPA-1 Page 3

~ b PO Box 7565
0 Asheville,NC 28802
Phone: [phone]
TFax: [phone]
Environmental Testing Solutions,Inc. Certificate of Analysis
Project name: Earth Environmental Services Project number: 210914.506
Collection date: 14-Sep-21
Date received: _ 14-Sep-21
Sample identification: N092109 FR PPA Sample number: 216077
Parameter Method Result RL Units Date Analyst Footnotes
Analyzed
Cyanide SM 4500 CN E <0.005 0.005 mg/L 27-Sep-21 MFZ 1
Oil&Grease(HEM) 1664A <5.0 5.0 mg/L 24-Sep-21 CTS l
VOC by 624 See Attached Sheet µg/L 2o-Sep-21 LDM I
Dissolved Solids,Total SM 2540 C 170 20 mg/L 16-sep-21 KEK
Hardness,Total SM 2340 C 42 5.0 mg/L 18-sep-21 KEK
Total Recoverable Phenols 420.1 <0.005 0.005 mg/L 27-sep.21 MNW l
Nitrate+Nitrite as N SM4500-N0311 4.64 0.20 mg/L 28-Sep-21 DRG I
Total Phosphorus 200.7 3.5 0.020 mg/L 2"ep-21 MTH 1
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 351.2 0.90 0.10 mg/L 21.Sep-2t LKH 1
Total Nitrogen Calculation 5.54 0.200 mg/L 28-Sep.21 LKH 1
Antimony 200.8 <0.010 0.010 mg/L 28-Sep-21 MLR 1
Arsenic 200.8 <0.010 0.010 mg/L 2&Sep-21 MLR 1
Beryllium 200.8 <0.001 0.001 mg/L 28-Sep-21 MLR 1
Cadmium 200.8 <0.001 0.001 mg/L 28-Sep-21 MLR l
Chromium 200.8 <0.005 0.005 mg/L 28-Sep-21 MLR 1
Copper 200.8 0.005 0.002 mg/L 28-Sep-21 MLR i
Lead 200.8 <0.002 0.002 mg/L 28-Sep-21 MLR 1
Nickel 200.8 <0.010 0.010 mg/L 28-Sep-21 MLR 1
Selenulm 200.8 0.010 0.010 mg/L 28-Sep-21 MLR 1
Silver 200.8 <0.001 0.001 mg/L 28-sep-21 MLR 1
Thallium 200.8 <0.0005 0.0005 mg/L 28-sep-21 MLR l
Zinc 200.8 0.100 0.010 mg/L 28-Sep-21 MLR 1
SVOC by 625 See Attached Sheet µg/L 28 Sep.21 RJM I
Sample identification: 4092109 FR LLHG Sample number: 216078
Parameter Method Result RL Units Date Analyst Footnotes
Analyzed
Mercury 1631 E 6.64 0.500 nplL 28-Sep-21 AXS5 2
Sample identification: ##092109 Blank Sample number: 216079
Parameter Method Result RL Units Date Analyst Footnotes
Analyzed
Mercury 1631 E <0.500 0.500 ng/L 28-Sep-21 AXS5 2
a
This report should not be reproduced,exept in its entirety,without the written consent of Environmental Testing Solutions,Inc.
The results in this report relate only to the samples submitted for analysis.

Annual monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. Nrr coo 21SY Month -
Outfall (- -- Year '9 0 2 a
Facility Name: Town of Franklin WWTP
`e of sampling. 6 9 2020
{ alytical Laboratory: Earth Environmental Services; Environmental Testing Solutions; Rogers&Callcott
gr
e wzIl � 02,10-0- e �eme t am ess
Ammonia (as N) Composite SM4500NH3F 0.1 ND mg/1 1
Dissolved oxygen Composite SM4500-0 G 0.1 7.48 mg/l 1
Nitrate/Nitrite Composite SM4500-NO3F 0.20 1.66 mg/l 1
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen Composite 351.2 0.10 0.65 mg/1 1
Total Phosphorus Composite SM4500-P-F 0.10 2.0 mg/1 1
Total dissolved solids Composite SM2540 C 20 140 mg/l 1
Hardness Composite 200.7 5.0 33 mg/l 1
Chlorine (total residual,TRC) Grab SM 4500 CL G 20 28 ug/l 1
Oil and grease Grab 1664A 5.0 ND mg/1 1
Antimony Composite 200.8 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Arsenic Composite 200.8 10.0 ND ug/l 1
Beryllium Composite 200.8 1.0 ND ug/I I
Cadmium Composite 200.8 1.0 ND ug/1 1
Chromium Composite 200.8 5.0 ND ug/l I
Copper Composite 200.8 2.0 ND ug/1 1
-d Composite 200.8 2.0 ND ug/1 1
cury Composite 1 1631 E 0.500 1.08 ng/L 1
..ckel Composite 200.8 10.0 ND ug/I 1
Selenium Composite 200.8 10.0 10 ug/1 1
Silver Composite 200.8 1.0 ND ug/l 1
Thallium Composite 200.8 0.5 ND ug/1 1
Zinc Composite 200.8 10.0 74 ug/1 I
Cyanide Grab SM4500 CN-E 0.005 ND mg/1 1
Total phenolic compounds Grab 420.1 0.005 ND mg/1 1
-
Acrolein Grab 624 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Acrylonitrile Grab 624 5.0 ND ug/I 1
Benzene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
Bromoform Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
Carbon tetrachloride Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 I
Chlorobenzene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
Chlorodibromomethane Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l 1
Chloroethane Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l 1
2-chloroethylvinyl ether Grab 624 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Chloroform Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/I 1
Dichlorobromomethane Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/I I
1-dichloroethane Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 I
dichloroethane Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
-ans-1,2-dichloroethylene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
Form - DMR- PPA-I Page I

Annuai ivion�. oring ana rouutant scan
• Permit No. 11.tit��zl.S�(7 Month 7:3'�A e
Outfall , (W 1 Year ZO 20
z �-• ��y��_�:,. _ -tom �a�P` �EUp
Fame It Me- ealaent a
f� dichloroethylene Grab 624 2.0 ND r ug/1� 1
,2-dichloropropane Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l 1
1,3-dichloropropylene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l 1
Ethylbenzene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
Methyl bromide Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
Methyl chloride Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
Methylene chloride Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
1,1,2,2-tetracbloroethane Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l 1
Tetrachloroethylene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l 1
Toluene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l 1
1,1,1-trichloro ethane Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
1,1,2-trichloroethane Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/l 1
Trichloro ethylene Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
Vinyl chloride Grab 624 2.0 ND ug/1 1
P-chloro-m-creso Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l i
2-chlorophenol Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
2,4-dichiorophenol Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
2,4-dimethylphenol Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
').4-dinitrophenol Grab 625 10.0 ND ug/1 1
trophenol Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
aitroph.enol Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Pentachlorophenol Grab 625 10.0 ND ug/1 1
Phenol Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
2,4,6-trichlorophenol Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
Acenaphthene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Acenaphthylene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
Anthracene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Benzidine Grab 625 80 ND ug/1 1
Benzo(a)anthracene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Benzo(a)pyrene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
3,4 benzofluoranthene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Benzo(ghi)perylene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Grab 625 10.0 24.7 ug/1 1
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Butyl benzyl phthalate Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Lloronaphthalene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
chlorophenyl phenyl ether Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Form - DMR- PPA-1 Page 2

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
•.Permit No. NG Ob 2!S q7 Month T%
Dutfall 001 Year 20 20
-80 � DIME soap
_ -
RIP
(' ysene Grab r 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
Oi-n-butyl phthalate Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Di-n-octyl phthalate Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
1,2-dichlorobenzene Grab 625 2.0 ND ug/1 1
1,3-dichlorobenzene Grab 625 2.0 ND ug/l 1
1,4-dichlorobenzene Grab 625 2.0 ND ug/l 1
3,3-dichlorobenzidine Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Diethyl phthalate Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
Dimethyl phthalate Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
2,4-dinitrotoluene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
2,6-dinitrotoluene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
1,2-diphenylhydrazine Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
Fluoranthene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Fluorene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Hexachlorobenzene Grab 625 SA ND ug/l 1
Hexachlorobutadiene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Hexachloroethane Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
^nhorone Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
athalene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
.41trobenzene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
N-nitrosodimethylarnine Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
N-nitrosodiphenylamine Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/1 1
Phenanthrene Grab 625 5.0 ND ug/l 1
Pyrene Grab 1 j-2 5-1 5.0 1 ND I ug/l 1
1,2,4,-trichlorobenzene Grab 1 625 1 2.0 1 ND I ug/l 1
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
and supervision in accordance with a system to design to assure that qualified perdonnel properly
gather and evaluat the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons that
manage the system, or those persons directly responsibel 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.
Willia! L- -Deg,
Authorized Representatives name
Signatur
7 2v av 20
Date
Form - DMR- PPA 1 Page 3

t
PO Box 7565
a Asheville,NC 28802
Phone: [phone]
h 1 Fax: [phone]
Envlronmental Testing Solutions,Inc.
Certificate of Analysis
Project name: Earth Environmental Services Project number: 200609.500
Collection date: 9-Jun-20
Date received: 9-Jan_20
Sample identification: 4062010 FRPPA Sample number: 200170
Parameter Method Result RL Units Date Analyst Footnotes
Analyzed
Cyanide SM 4500 CN E <0.005 0.005 mg/L 16•Jun-2o MFZ 1
Oil&Grease(HEM) 1664A <5.0 5.0 mg/L 1 t-Jun-2o CTS I
VOC by 624 See Attached Sheet Ag/L 19-Jun-2o LDM i
Dissolved Solids,Total SM 2540 C 140 20 mg/L naun-2o KEK
Hardness,Total SM 2340 C 33 5.0 mg/L 19-Jun-2o KEK
Total Recoverable Phenols 420.t <0.005 0.005 mg/L 18•Jun-20 ELN 1
Nitrate-I-Nitrite as SM4500-NO31I 1.66 0.20 mg/L IS-Jun-2o ELN I
Total Phosphorus SM 4500 P E 2.0 0.10 mg/L I 1-Jun•2o ANB 1
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 351.2 0.65 0.10 mg/L i 1-Jun•2o LKH I
Total Nitrogen Calculation 2.31 0.200 mg/L Is-Iun•2o LKH I
Antimony 200.8 <0.005 0.005 mg/L 15-Jun•2o TLT I
Arsenic 200.8 <0.010 0.010 mg/L 15Jun-2o TLT 1
Beryllium 200.8 <0.001 0.001 mg/L I5-Jun-20 TLT I
Cadmium 200.8 <0.001 0.001 mg/L Is-Jun-2o TLT 1
Chromium 200.8 <0.005 0.005 mg/L 1$-Jun-2o TLT 1
Copper 200.8 <0.002 0.002 mg/L i5-Jun-2o TLT 1
�. Lead 200.8 <0.002 0.002 mg/L 15-1un-2o TLT 1
Nickel 200.8 <0.010 0.010 mg/L 15-Jun-2o TLT 1
Selenuim 200.8 0.010 0.010 mg/L 15-Jun-zo TLT 1
Silver 200.8 <0.001 0.001 mg/L 1I-Jun-2o TLT I
Thallium 200.8 <0.0005 0.0005 mg/L ls-Ju..zo TLT 1
Zinc 200.8 0.074 0.010 mg/L 15-Jun-20 TLT 1
SVOC by 625 See Attached Sheet AWL is-Jun-2o RJM 1
Sample identification: #602010 FRLLHG Sample number: 200171
Parameter Method Result RL Units Date Analyzed Analyst Footnotes
Mercury 1631 E 1.08 0.50 n 30-Jun-20 AP 4
Sample identification: 4062010 FR BLANK Sample number: 200172
Parameter Method Result RL Units Date Analyst Footnotes
Analyzed
Mercury 1631 E <0.50 0.50 n g/L 30aun-20 AP 4
l
This report should not be reproduced,exept in its entirety,without the written consent of Environmental Testing Solutions,Inc.
The results in this report relate only to the samples submitted for analysis.

EPA Identification Number NPDES Number Facility Name Outfall Number
NC0021547 Town of Franklin WWTP 1
Method Number Estimated Concentration (If
Pollutant(Required) CAS number (if Applicable) Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge Known)
No additional testing was done
No PFAS testing was done

From: jhopkins(abfranklinnc.com
To: Patel,Urva P
Subject: [External] RE:Additional Information Request for Franklin WWTP(NC0021547)
Date: Friday,February 2,2024 10:54:44 AM
Attachments: imaoe001.ono
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Good morning,just had a couple of questions.This is my first permit renewal, and I just want to
make sure I am understanding this. When the permit renewal was sent in it had the results from the
pollutant scans included, I believe. I send in the tox results every quarter also. I guess what I am
asking is do you need me to scan the actual documents for both to you?As far as the chemical
addendum, is this a guess as to what else might be in the wastewater?The only thing I can think of
that is not part of the pollutant scan already is PFAS. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated
and I am happy to get you the info you are needing.Thanks in advance, and have a great day.
Jason Hopkins
WWTP ORC/Pre-treatment Coordinator
Town of Franklin
399 Sierra Dr.
Franklin, NC 28734
Phone: [phone]
1'
• Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132(Public Records),all electronic correspondence to and
from this address may be considered public record,and as such,subject to request and review by third parties at any time.
From: Patel, Urva P <Urva.Patel @deq.nc.gov>
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 10:15 AM
To: Owens, Amanda <[e-mail]>;[e-mail]
Subject:Additional Information Request for Franklin WWTP (NC0021547)
Good afternoon,
My name is Urva Patel. I am reviewing Franklin WWTP permit application for renewal and
have the following additional information request:
• Please provide a brief narrative of the treatment works.
• Please provide the facility's sludge management plan.
• As required by Session Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall now
submit documentation of any additional pollutants for which there are certified methods with

the permit application if their discharge is anticipated. The list of pollutants may be found in
40 CFR Part 136, which is incorporated by reference. If there are additional pollutants with
certified methods to be reported, please submit the Chemical Addendum to NPDES
Application table with your application and, if applicable, list the selected certified analytical
method used. If no additional sampling was conducted and/or there are no additional
pollutants to report, please note as much on the form itself. This requirement applies to all
NPDES facilities.The Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application will be required for any type
of facility with an NPDES permit, depending on whether those types of pollutants are found in
your wastewater. Please fill out, sign and submit the Chemical Addendum to NPDES
Application. As you will probably see,there isn't a signature block, but please sign anywhere
on the form and that would be sufficient.
• Please provide three effluent pollutant scans.
• Please, provide all second species test done for 2020 (summary with cover page).
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Urva Patel
Environmental Engineer II
Division of Water Resources—Water Quality Permitting Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-3628
urva.patel&deq.nc.gov (note new email address)
512 N. Salisbury Street
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties by an authorized state official.

From: jhopkins(abfranklinnc.com
To: Patel.Urva P
Cc: Owens,Amanda
Subject: [External]additional information requested
Date: Monday,February 5,2024 7:19:11 AM
Attachments: imaae001.Dna
Cony of Chemical-Addendum-to-NPDES-anolication.xlsx
D00O20524-02052024063726.odf
D00O20524-02052024063647.odf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Good morning, hope all is well. I wanted to thank you for your response to my email in regards to
clarification. I will go in order of your last email. Wastewater comes into our system at the
headworks, where it goes through an automatic screening system. It then goes through a grit
removal system before going into the EQ basin. The material removed by screen and grit removal go
into dumpsters, and are taken to landfill. The wastewater then travels to the aeration basin where
we have 9 floating aerators, and then to 2 secondary clarifiers. From there the clear water goes to
contact basin for chlorination and dichlorination, before going into the river at our only outfall. Our
sludge is pressed on a 1-meter belt press, and then hauled to the landfill. You will find attached the 3
pollutant scans from this permit cycle, as well as the second species toxicity results from 2020. The
tox results were a double scan, it is only one test with one result, my apologies. You will also find the
chemical addendum sheet attached; no additional testing was performed. We also weren't part of
the preliminary PFAS testing, so there were no PFAS tests performed. If there is anything else I can
help you with, please let me know and I will be happy to get that information to you asap. Thanks
again, and have a great day.
Jason Hopkins
WWTP ORC/Pre-treatment Coordinator
Town of Franklin
399 Sierra Dr.
Franklin, NC 28734
Phone: [phone]
1'
• Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132(Public Records),all electronic correspondence to and
from this address may be considered public record,and as such,subject to request and review by third parties at any time.

From: jhopkinsCabfranklinnc.com
To: Patel.Urva P
Subject: RE: [External]additional information requested
Date: Wednesday,March 20,2024 1:58:55 PM
Attachments: image001.ong
D00032024-03202024133936.Ddf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Good afternoon, attached you will find the results you were asking about. Our history on the Bis
shows that it is not an issue. This was a new sampler tube that was specifically made for bis, and in
my back up ORC log book it shows the tube change the week before the bis sample was collected.
Also shown, the contract lab had to do a 40x dilution on that particular bis sample. Also, you will find
attached our silver number you asked for. Our normal reporting limit on silver is .9 ug/I, not sure
why it changed on this sample. Hope this helps, and if there are any further questions or concerns,
please contact me.Thanks again for your help on this matter, and have a great day.
.Jason Hopkins
WWTP ORC/Pre-treatment Coordinator
Town of Franklin
399 Sierra Dr.
Franklin, NC 28734
Phone: [phone]
1'
• Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132(Public Records),all electronic correspondence to and
from this address may be considered public record,and as such,subject to request and review by third parties at any time.
From: Patel, Urva P <Urva.Patel @deq.nc.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:02 PM
To:[e-mail]
Cc: Owens, Amanda <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] additional information requested
Good afternoon Mr. Hopkins,
Please, validate data from 10/06/2020 for Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate and 01/05/2021 for Silver.
I left you a voicemail too.
Thank you.

Regards,
U rva
Urva Patel
Environmental Engineer II
Division of Water Resources—Water Quality Permitting Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-3628
urva.patel&deq.nc.gov (note new email address)
512 N. Salisbury Street
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
From:ihopkins(@franklinnc.com <ihopkins(@franklinnc.com>
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 7:18 AM
To: Patel, Urva P <Urva.Patel(@deq.nc.gov>
Cc: Owens, Amanda <aowens(@franklinnc.com>
Subject: [External] additional information requested
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Good morning, hope all is well. I wanted to thank you for your response to my email in regards to
clarification. I will go in order of your last email. Wastewater comes into our system at the
headworks, where it goes through an automatic screening system. It then goes through a grit
removal system before going into the EQ basin. The material removed by screen and grit removal go
into dumpsters, and are taken to landfill. The wastewater then travels to the aeration basin where
we have 9 floating aerators, and then to 2 secondary clarifiers. From there the clear water goes to
contact basin for chlorination and dichlorination, before going into the river at our only outfall. Our
sludge is pressed on a 1-meter belt press, and then hauled to the landfill. You will find attached the 3
pollutant scans from this permit cycle, as well as the second species toxicity results from 2020. The
tox results were a double scan, it is only one test with one result, my apologies. You will also find the
chemical addendum sheet attached; no additional testing was performed. We also weren't part of
the preliminary PFAS testing, so there were no PFAS tests performed. If there is anything else I can
help you with, please let me know and I will be happy to get that information to you asap. Thanks
again, and have a great day.
Jason Hopkins
WWTP ORC/Pre-treatment Coordinator
Town of Franklin
399 Sierra Dr.
Franklin, NC 28734
Phone: [phone]

• Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132(Public Records),all electronic correspondence to and
from this address may be considered public record,and as such,subject to request and review by third parties at any time.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties by an authorized state official.

From: jhopkins(abfranklinnc.com
To: Patel.Urva P
Subject: RE: [External]additional information requested
Date: Wednesday,March 20,2024 3:28:46 PM
Attachments: imaoe001.ono
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
I am getting an email from our contract lab that I will forward to you momentarily. I did want to state
that our history shows no hits ever on silver, and our bis numbers except for this one sample have
been really good numbers. Labs can have contamination, human error, and other factors that could
result in one blip on the radar. I do hope the explanation that you will receive from our contract lab,
and our history of numbers on these two parameters will show that neither of these pollutants are
an issue at this plant. I look forward to working with you on this, and thank you again for your time.
Have a great day.
Jason Hopkins
WWTP ORC/Pre-treatment Coordinator
Town of Franklin
399 Sierra Dr.
Franklin, NC 28734
Phone: [phone]
1'
• Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132(Public Records),all electronic correspondence to and
from this address may be considered public record,and as such,subject to request and review by third parties at any time.
From: Patel, Urva P <Urva.Patel @deq.nc.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:02 PM
To:[e-mail]
Cc: Owens, Amanda <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] additional information requested
Good afternoon Mr. Hopkins,
Please, validate data from 10/06/2020 for Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate and 01/05/2021 for Silver.
I left you a voicemail too.
Thank you.

Regards,
U rva
Urva Patel
Environmental Engineer II
Division of Water Resources—Water Quality Permitting Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-3628
urva.patel&deq.nc.gov (note new email address)
512 N. Salisbury Street
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
From:ihopkins(@franklinnc.com <ihopkins(@franklinnc.com>
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 7:18 AM
To: Patel, Urva P <Urva.Patel(@deq.nc.gov>
Cc: Owens, Amanda <aowens(@franklinnc.com>
Subject: [External] additional information requested
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Good morning, hope all is well. I wanted to thank you for your response to my email in regards to
clarification. I will go in order of your last email. Wastewater comes into our system at the
headworks, where it goes through an automatic screening system. It then goes through a grit
removal system before going into the EQ basin. The material removed by screen and grit removal go
into dumpsters, and are taken to landfill. The wastewater then travels to the aeration basin where
we have 9 floating aerators, and then to 2 secondary clarifiers. From there the clear water goes to
contact basin for chlorination and dichlorination, before going into the river at our only outfall. Our
sludge is pressed on a 1-meter belt press, and then hauled to the landfill. You will find attached the 3
pollutant scans from this permit cycle, as well as the second species toxicity results from 2020. The
tox results were a double scan, it is only one test with one result, my apologies. You will also find the
chemical addendum sheet attached; no additional testing was performed. We also weren't part of
the preliminary PFAS testing, so there were no PFAS tests performed. If there is anything else I can
help you with, please let me know and I will be happy to get that information to you asap. Thanks
again, and have a great day.
Jason Hopkins
WWTP ORC/Pre-treatment Coordinator
Town of Franklin
399 Sierra Dr.
Franklin, NC 28734
Phone: [phone]

• Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132(Public Records),all electronic correspondence to and
from this address may be considered public record,and as such,subject to request and review by third parties at any time.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties by an authorized state official.

From: jhopkins(abfranklinnc.com
To: Patel,Urva P
Subject: [External] FW:Ag&Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Results 1/5/2021&10/6/2020
Date: Wednesday,March 20,2024 3:43:53 PM
Attachments: imaoe001.ono
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Here is the email from our contract lab, I hope this along with our history will be enough. Thanks
again, have a great day.
Jason Hopkins
WWTP ORC/Pre-treatment Coordinator
Town of Franklin
399 Sierra Dr.
Franklin, NC 28734
Phone: [phone]
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132(Public Records),all electronic correspondence to and
from this address may be considered public record,and as such,subject to request and review by third parties at any time.
From: Mark Bentley<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 3:30 PM
To:Jason Hopkins<[e-mail]>
Subject:Ag & Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Results 1/5/2021 & 10/6/2020
Jason:
Looking back through our paperwork, the Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
sample result was inquired about through Rogers & Calcott. They stood by
the sample result even though you had no sample history of having results in
that range. The results for that year are as follows:
1/7/2020 27.7 ug/L
4/7/2020 21.3 ug/L
6/9/2020 24.7 ug/L
7/7/2020 < 10.0 ug/L
10/7/2020 1920 ug/L
We were having a terrible time getting results back from Rogers and there
were some results from other samples that were questionable. It is my
personal opinion that the data from 10/7/20 is the result of a lab error and

not accurate. That prompted us to switch to EnviroChem at the end of 2020.
The first Ag sample for 2021 was mistakenly run by EnviroChem with a lower
detection limit of 0.05 mg/L. Successive sampled lowered limits to either 9
or 10 ug/L.
Please let me know if there's anything further I can do to assist you.
Mark Bentley
Earth Environmental Services
828-644-4835

From: Jason Hopkins
To: Patel,Urva P
Subject: RE: [External]additional information requested
Date: Thursday,April 4,2024 4:59:04 PM
(CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Everything there is still the same. Thanks again for your time, have a blessed day.
On Apr 4, 2024 3:38 PM, "Patel, Urva P" <[e-mail]>wrote:
Good afternoon Mr. Hopkins,
Is there any change in the following list of components:
• Influent mechanical rotary screen
• Equalization Basin
• Oxidation ditch
• Dual clarifiers
• Chlorine contact chamber
• Dechlorination
• Aerobic digester
• Belt Press
Regards,
Urva
Urva Patel
Environmental Engineer II
Division of Water Resources—Water Quality Permitting Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-3628

urva.patel e deq.nc.gov (note new email address)
512 N. Salisbury Street
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
From:[e-mail]<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 3:28 PM
To: Patel, Urva P <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] additional information requested
CAUTION:External email.Do not click links or open attachments unless verified.Report suspicious emails
with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
I am getting an email from our contract lab that I will forward to you momentarily. I did
want to state that our history shows no hits ever on silver, and our bis numbers except for
this one sample have been really good numbers. Labs can have contamination, human error,
and other factors that could result in one blip on the radar. I do hope the explanation that you
will receive from our contract lab, and our history of numbers on these two parameters will
show that neither of these pollutants are an issue at this plant. I look forward to working
with you on this, and thank you again for your time. Have a great day.
Jason Hopkins
WWTP ORC/Pre-treatment Coordinator
Town of Franklin
399 Sierra Dr.
Franklin, NC 28734
Phone: [phone]

ursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132(Public Records),all electronic correspondence to and
from this address may be considered public record,and as such,subject to request and review by third parties at any time.
From: Patel, Urva P<Urva.Patelndeq.nc.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:02 PM
To:j �.ho kins franklinnc.com
Cc: Owens, Amanda<aowensna.franklinnc.com>
Subject: RE: [External] additional information requested
Good afternoon Mr. Hopkins,
Please, validate data from 10/06/2020 for Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate and 01/05/2021 for
Silver.
I left you a voicemail too.
Thank you.
Regards,
Urva
Urva Patel
Environmental Engineer II
Division of Water Resources—Water Quality Permitting Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

919-707-3628
urva.patel e_deq.nc.gov (note new email address)
512 N. Salisbury Street
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
From:'jho kn ins&franklinnc.com<-jhopkins(&,Eranklinnc.com>
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 7:18 AM
To: Patel, Urva P <Urva.Patel&deq.nc.gov>
Cc: Owens, Amanda<aowensn.franklinnc.com>
Subject: [External] additional information requested
CAUTION:External email.Do not click links or open attachments unless verified.Report suspicious emails
with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Good morning, hope all is well. I wanted to thank you for your response to my email in
regards to clarification. I will go in order of your last email. Wastewater comes into our
system at the headworks,where it goes through an automatic screening system. It then goes
through a grit removal system before going into the EQ basin. The material removed by
screen and grit removal go into dumpsters, and are taken to landfill. The wastewater then
travels to the aeration basin where we have 9 floating aerators, and then to 2 secondary
clarifiers. From there the clear water goes to contact basin for chlorination and
dichlorination, before going into the river at our only outfall. Our sludge is pressed on a I-
meter belt press, and then hauled to the landfill. You will find attached the 3 pollutant scans
from this permit cycle, as well as the second species toxicity results from 2020. The tox
results were a double scan, it is only one test with one result, my apologies. You will also
find the chemical addendum sheet attached; no additional testing was performed. We also
weren't part of the preliminary PFAS testing, so there were no PFAS tests performed. If
there is anything else I can help you with,please let me know and I will be happy to get that
information to you asap. Thanks again, and have a great day.
.Jason Hopkins
WWTP ORC/Pre-treatment Coordinator

Town of Franklin
399 Sierra Dr.
Franklin, NC 28734
Phone: [phone]
B❑
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132(Public Records),all electronic correspondence to and
from this address may be considered public record,and as such,subject to request and review by third parties at any time.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties by an authorized state official.
On Apr 4, 2024 3:38 PM, "Patel, Urva P" <[e-mail]> wrote:
Good afternoon Mr. Hopkins,
Is there any change in the following list of components:
• Influent mechanical rotary screen
• Equalization Basin
• Oxidation ditch
• Dual clarifiers
• Chlorine contact chamber
• Dechlorination
• Aerobic digester

• Belt Press
Regards,
Urva
Urva Patel
Environmental Engineer II
Division of Water Resources—Water Quality Permitting Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-3628
urva.patel&deq.nc.gov (note new email address)
512 N. Salisbury Street
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
From:[e-mail]<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 3:28 PM
To: Patel, Urva P <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] additional information requested
CAUTION:External email.Do not click links or open attachments unless verified.Report suspicious emails
with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
I am getting an email from our contract lab that I will forward to you momentarily. I did
want to state that our history shows no hits ever on silver, and our bis numbers except for
this one sample have been really good numbers. Labs can have contamination, human error,
and other factors that could result in one blip on the radar. I do hope the explanation that you

will receive from our contract lab, and our history of numbers on these two parameters will
show that neither of these pollutants are an issue at this plant. I look forward to working
with you on this, and thank you again for your time. Have a great day.
.Jason Hopkins
WWTP ORC/Pre-treatment Coordinator
Town of Franklin
399 Sierra Dr.
Franklin, NC 28734
Phone: [phone]
0
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132(Public Records),all electronic correspondence to and
from this address may be considered public record,and as such,subject to request and review by third parties at any time.
From: Patel, Urva P <Urva.Patel&deq.nc.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:02 PM
To:jho kn ins&franklinnc.com
Cc: Owens, Amanda<aowensng.franklinnc.com>
Subject: RE: [External] additional information requested
Good afternoon Mr. Hopkins,
Please, validate data from 10/06/2020 for Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate and 01/05/2021 for
Silver.
I left you a voicemail too.

Thank you.
Regards,
Urva
Urva Patel
Environmental Engineer II
Division of Water Resources—Water Quality Permitting Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-3628
urva.patel e deq.nc.gov (note new email address)
512 N. Salisbury Street
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
From:ihopkinsAfranklinnc.com<-jhopkins(a franklinnc.com>
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 7:18 AM
To: Patel, Urva P <Urva.Patel&deq.nc.gov>
Cc: Owens, Amanda<aowensna.franklinnc.com>
Subject: [External] additional information requested
CAUTION:External email.Do not click links or open attachments unless verified.Report suspicious emails
with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Good morning,hope all is well. I wanted to thank you for your response to my email in

regards to clarification. I will go in order of your last email. Wastewater comes into our
system at the headworks,where it goes through an automatic screening system. It then goes
through a grit removal system before going into the EQ basin. The material removed by
screen and grit removal go into dumpsters, and are taken to landfill. The wastewater then
travels to the aeration basin where we have 9 floating aerators, and then to 2 secondary
clarifiers. From there the clear water goes to contact basin for chlorination and
dichlorination, before going into the river at our only outfall. Our sludge is pressed on a 1-
meter belt press, and then hauled to the landfill. You will find attached the 3 pollutant scans
from this permit cycle, as well as the second species toxicity results from 2020. The tox
results were a double scan, it is only one test with one result, my apologies. You will also
find the chemical addendum sheet attached; no additional testing was performed. We also
weren't part of the preliminary PFAS testing, so there were no PFAS tests performed. If
there is anything else I can help you with,please let me know and I will be happy to get that
information to you asap. Thanks again, and have a great day.
,Jason Hopkins
WWTP ORC/Pre-treatment Coordinator
Town of Franklin
399 Sierra Dr.
Franklin, NC 28734
Phone: [phone]
FEE
ursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132(Public Records),all electronic correspondence to and
from this address may be considered public record,and as such,subject to request and review by third parties at any time.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties by an authorized state official.

On Apr 4, 2024 3:38 PM, "Patel, Urva P" <[e-mail]>wrote:
Good afternoon Mr. Hopkins,
Is there any change in the following list of components:
• Influent mechanical rotary screen
• Equalization Basin
• Oxidation ditch
• Dual clarifiers
• Chlorine contact chamber
• Dechlorination
• Aerobic digester
• Belt Press
Regards,
Urva
Urva Patel
Environmental Engineer II
Division of Water Resources—Water Quality Permitting Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-3628
urva.patel&deq.nc.gov(note new email address)
512 N. Salisbury Street
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

From:[e-mail]<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 3:28 PM
To: Patel, Urva P <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] additional information requested
CAUTION:External email.Do not click links or open attachments unless verified.Report suspicious emails
with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
I am getting an email from our contract lab that I will forward to you momentarily. I did
want to state that our history shows no hits ever on silver, and our bis numbers except for
this one sample have been really good numbers. Labs can have contamination, human error,
and other factors that could result in one blip on the radar. I do hope the explanation that you
will receive from our contract lab, and our history of numbers on these two parameters will
show that neither of these pollutants are an issue at this plant. I look forward to working
with you on this, and thank you again for your time. Have a great day.
.Jason Hopkins
WWTP ORC/Pre-treatment Coordinator
Town of Franklin
399 Sierra Dr.
Franklin, NC 28734
Phone: [phone]
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132(Public Records),all electronic correspondence to and
from this address may be considered public record,and as such,subject to request and review by third parties at any time.

From: Patel, Urva P <Urva.Patelndeq.nc.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:02 PM
To:ihopkins&franklinnc.com
Cc: Owens, Amanda<aowens�.franklinnc.com>
Subject: RE: [External] additional information requested
Good afternoon Mr. Hopkins,
Please, validate data from 10/06/2020 for Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate and 01/05/2021 for
Silver.
I left you a voicemail too.
Thank you.
Regards,
Urva
Urva Patel
Environmental Engineer II
Division of Water Resources—Water Quality Permitting Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-3628
urva.patela-deq.nc.aov(note new email address)
512 N. Salisbury Street
1617 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
From:ihopkinsn_franklinnc.com<ihopkins&franklinnc.com>
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 7:18 AM
To: Patel, Urva P<Urva.PateI&deq.nc.gov>
Cc: Owens, Amanda<aowens&franklinnc.com>
Subject: [External] additional information requested
CAUTION:External email.Do not click links or open attachments unless verified.Report suspicious emails
with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Good morning, hope all is well. I wanted to thank you for your response to my email in
regards to clarification. I will go in order of your last email. Wastewater comes into our
system at the headworks, where it goes through an automatic screening system. It then goes
through a grit removal system before going into the EQ basin. The material removed by
screen and grit removal go into dumpsters, and are taken to landfill. The wastewater then
travels to the aeration basin where we have 9 floating aerators, and then to 2 secondary
clarifiers. From there the clear water goes to contact basin for chlorination and
dichlorination, before going into the river at our only outfall. Our sludge is pressed on a 1-
meter belt press, and then hauled to the landfill. You will find attached the 3 pollutant scans
from this permit cycle, as well as the second species toxicity results from 2020. The tox
results were a double scan, it is only one test with one result, my apologies. You will also
find the chemical addendum sheet attached; no additional testing was performed. We also
weren't part of the preliminary PFAS testing, so there were no PFAS tests performed. If
there is anything else I can help you with,please let me know and I will be happy to get that
information to you asap. Thanks again, and have a great day.
.Jason Hopkins
WWTP ORC/Pre-treatment Coordinator
Town of Franklin
399 Sierra Dr.
Franklin, NC 28734
Phone: [phone]

ursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132(Public Records),all electronic correspondence to and
from this address may be considered public record,and as such,subject to request and review by third parties at any time.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties by an authorized state official.