NC0021709_Final Fact Sheet_20180108

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO021709
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Gary Perlmutter, [e-mail]
Date: December 11, 2017
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources / NPDES Complex Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
® Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2"d species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Jefferson / Jefferson WWTP
Applicant Address:
PO Box 67, Jefferson, NC 28640
Facility Address:
1233 Highway 16 South, Jefferson, NC 28640
Permitted Flow:
0.600 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 97.6% domestic, 2.4% industrial'
Facility Class:
Class 3
Treatment Units:
Bar Screen, Oxidation Ditch, Clarification, Activated Sludge, Filtration,
Chlorine Disinfection, Dechlorination, Aeration
Pretreatment Program (Y/1)
Yes
County:
Ashe
Region
Winston-Salem
`Data from 2016 flows (total average = 0.211 MGD) with industrial portion (average = 0.005 MGD)
provided by PERCS. Permitted waste proportions: 83.3% domestic, 16.7% industrial.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The Town of Jefferson has
applied for NPDES permit renewal, and submitted a renewal application dated January 12, 2016. This
facility serves a population of 1,800 residents and operates a pretreatment program with 1 Categorical
Industrial User (CIU): American Emergency Vehicles (metal finishing).
Page 1 of 10

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 /Naked Creek
Stream Segment:
10-1-32
Stream Classification:
C; +. `Y' = subject to a special management strategies,
specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0225 - "Outstanding Resource
Waters" (ORW) rule, to protect downstream waters
designated as ORW. Strategies are specified in Rule
.0225(e)(4) for the South Fork New and New Rivers ORW
Area.
Drainage Area (mil):
6.4
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
2.2
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
3.4
30Q2 (cfs):
4.5
Average Flow (cfs):
12
IWC (% effluent):
29.7
303(d) listed/parameter:
This segment is listed as impaired for Fish Community (Nar,
AL, FW) on the final 2014 NC 303(d) list.
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Statewide TMDL for Mercury
Subbasin/HUC:
050701 / 05050001
USGS Topo Quad:
B 1 3N / Jefferson, NC
3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data are summarized for the period September 2013 through August 2017 in Table 1.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limit 1
Flow
MGD
0.24
0.61
0.11
0.6
BODS summer
mg/L
3.7
10.9
< 2
MA = 5.0
WA = 7.5
BODS winter
mg/L
3.4
11.0
< 2
MA = 10.0
%
98.1
99.1
96.2
WA = 15.0
> 85
BOD removal f
MA = 20.0
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS)
mg/L
5
23
< 5
WA = 30.0
TSS removal
%
98.1 99.4
95.7
> 85
Page 2 of 10

NH3-N summer
mg/L
0.23
0.77
< 0.20
MA = 2.0
WA = 6.0
NH3-N winter
mg/L
0.34
4.40
< 0.20
MA = 4.0
WA = 12.0
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
mg/L
8.2
11.4
6.1
> 6.0
Fecal Coliform
#/100 mL
143
5800
< 1
MA = 200
SU
WA = 400
pH
6.8
7.5
6.3
6-9
Total Residual Chlorine
gg/L
28
48
< 20 DM = 28'
(TRC)
Temperature
°C
16.0
25.6
5.7
Monitor
only
Total Nitrogen
mg/L
16.3
32.8
6.0
Monitor
only
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
2.5
4.0
1.1
Monitor
only
Total Cadmium
gg/L
0.3
4.0
< 0.2
MA = 3.4
DM = 22.3
Total Cyanide
gg/L
5.4
10.0
< 5.0
MA = 8.4
...............
DM = 32.8
Total Copper
gg/L
5.9
22.0
< 1.0
Monitor
only
gg/L
< 9.2
< 10.0
< 5.0
MA = 42.1
Total Lead
DM = 50.3
Total Zinc
gg/L
105
524
< 1
Monitor
only
Total Mercury
ng/L
0.97
6.46
< 0.1 MA = 40
DM = 40
'MA - Monthly Average, WA - Weekly Average, DM - Daily Maximum.
s TRC compliance level of 50 gg/L approved by EPA effective March 1, 2008 to address analytical
difficulties with TRC measurements.
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions when
model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/L of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to verify
model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; or 4) based on other instream
concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also Monitoring Coalitions
established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in which case instream
monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for thispermit
action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for DO and Temperature. Review of instream data
from August 2014 - August 2017 yielded an average decrease of 0.10 mg/L DO from upstream to
downstream, indicating that oxygen -consuming wastes in the effluent is not causing the receiving water
DO to drop more than 0.5 mg/L below background levels, as required for High Quality Waters, including
Page 3 of 10

ORWs, per 15A NCAC 02B .0224. Downstream temperature was on average 0.09°C higher than upstream
temperature, within the 2.8°C heating limit; downstream maximum temperature was 25.4°C, below the
29°C limit for mountain and upper piedmont waters.
Conductivity and Fecal Coliform are two instream parameters that are not in the current permit. The facility
has a pretreatment program, necessitating the inclusion of instream monitoring for Conductivity per 2002
Division guidance (per Instream Conductivity & Fecal Coliform Monitoring memo, 4/22/2002). However,
the industrial user is a metal finisher, which does not contribute to water quality in terms of dissolved solids
Fecal Coliform is not required since the receiving stream is not listed as impaired for this parameter, nor is
it a Class B waterbody. Therefore, neither of these parameters need to be added to the permit. No changes
are proposed.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility reported one Fecal
Coliform exceedance in November 2014, which triggered a Notice of Violation (NOV). The facility also
reported two Total Cyanide exceedences, one in 2013 and one in 2014; neither exceedence triggered an
action based on Best Professional Judgement (the values reported were both under 10 gg/L, which are
considered compliant).
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): The facility passed 19 of 19 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as three of the four second
species tests, sampled on 4/2/2017, 05/01/2017 and 06/04/2017; the fourth test, sampled on 07/09/2017
failed.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The most recent facility inspection,
conducted on October 9, 2015, reported that the facility appeared to be in compliance with its current permit.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and MiLdAg Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, 1".
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15,4 NCAC 2B. 0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/L for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Page 4 of 10

Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: Rule 15A NCAC 02B
.0225 Outstanding Resource Waters, Section (e)(4)(C)(i) requires effluent limitations for BODS to be 5 m/L
and NH3-N to be 2 mg/L of new or expanded NPDES permitted wastewater discharges located upstream of
the South Fork New and New Rivers ORW Area to protect the ORW. The Jefferson WWTP had expanded
from 0.30 MGD to 0.60 MGD in 2006, after rule effective date of 1995 and amended effective dates of
1996-2004. No changes are proposed from the previous permit limits for BODS and NH3-N.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for Ammonia -N (NH3-N) 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 µg2) and capped at 28 µg/L (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 gg/L are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current permit
limits for both TRC and NH3-N will be maintained. A wasteload allocation (WLA) analyses was performed
for both parameters, yielding a TRC allowable concentration above the cap of 28 mg/L. The WLA also
yielded NH3-N allowable concentrations that are less stringent than the current permit limits. No changes
are proposed.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards. Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) is a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every
permit renewal utilizing the most recent effluent data for each outfall to determine if reasonable potential
is demonstrated in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The North Carolina RPA procedure utilizes the
following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero background; 3) use of '/z
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.
An RPA was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between September 2013 through July
2017. 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 Monitorin . 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: Copper, Cyanide, Zinc.
• 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: Arsenic,
Beryllium, Cadmium, Total Phenolic Compounds, Total Chromium, Lead, Nickel, Selenium,
Silver.
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review. Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
Page 5 of 10

o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor -only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge concentration: None.
If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several exceptions.
The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in NPDES permits,
using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major POTW with a complex discharge and a
chronic WET limit at 30% effluent sampled on a quarterly frequency. No changes are proposed.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply with
EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (^-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (> 1 ng/L) will receive
an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending if mercury is a pollutant
of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed the WQBEL
value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/L) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL value of 47 ng/L.
Table 2. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
Parameter
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
No. of Samples
2
5
4
19
3
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
1.2
2.3
2.3
0.6
1.9
Maximum Conc., ng/L
1.20
6.19
6.46
1 1.08
1 3.59
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
20.2
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 (Table 2), no
mercury limit is required. Because the facility is < 2 MGD, a mercury minimization plan (MMP) is not
required. Therefore, only removal of the current permit mercury limits of 40 ng/L (monthly average and
daily maximum) are proposed.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/NutrientManagement Strategies and their implementation within
this permit: The New River Basin has no TMDLs, nor does it have a Nutrient Management Strategy. Total
Page 6 of 10

Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus are monitored semi-annually per facility size (< 1 MGD) and river sub -
basin (New) as specified in 15A NCAC 02B .0508. No changes are proposed.
Other W BEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: The receiving stream, Naked Creek, is in the
South Fork New and New Rivers Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) Area. To protect the ORW, 15A
NCAC 02B .0225 requires new and expanded wastewater discharges to comply with BODS = 5 mg/L, NH3-
N = 2 mg/L, and TSS = 20 mg/L. In addition, all ORW waters are subject to the HQW DO > 6 mg/L water
quality standard and the requirement that toxic substances shall be allocated at one-half the normal standard
at design conditions.
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H.0107(c)(2)(B), 40 CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: A 4 -year compliance schedule is
proposed for meeting the new Total Copper and Total Zinc effluent limits. Annual milestones are included
for this Special Condition.
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 ski to Industrials
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/L
BODS/TSSfor Monthly Average, and 45 mgt for BODS/TSSfor Weekly Average). YES: permit BODS and
TSS limits are more stringent to protect the South Fork New and New Rivers ORW area downstream of the
facility per 15A NCAC 02B .0225.
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
Industrials (if not applicable. delete and skin to next Section). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit must
document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 211.0105(c)(2). In all cases,
existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is maintained
and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA
Page 7 of 10

9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(0)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following regulations
and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2) NPDES
Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance, Reduced
Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best Professional
Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not considered
effluent limitations under Section 402(0) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -backsliding
prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
The current permit does not have reduced monitoring frequencies for BOD, TSS, N113 -N, or Fecal Coliform.
No changes are proposed.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective December
21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
electronically. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to submit
additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic reporting,
consistent with Federal requirements.
12. Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 3. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes.
Parameter
Current Permit Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
0.6 MGD No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505.
Summer:
MA 5.0 mg/L
WQBEL. BAT limits to protect
BODS
WA 7.5 mg/L No change
Winter:
downstream ORW per 15A
MA 10.0 mg/L
NCAC 02B.0225.
WA 15.0 mg/L
Page 8 of 10

Page 9 of 10
MA 20.0 mg/L
WQBEL. BAT limits to protect
TSS
WA 30.0 mg/L
No change
downstream ORW per 15A
NCAC 02B.0225.
Summer:
MA 2.0 mg/L
WA 6.0 mg/L
WQBEL. BAT limits to protect
NH3-N
Winter:
No change
downstream ORW per 15A
MA 4.0 mg/L
NCAC 02B .0225.
WA 12.0 mg/L
WQBEL. BAT limits to protect
DO
> 6 mg/L
No change
downstream ORW per 15A
No change
NCAC 02B .0225.
WQBEL. State WQ standard,
Fecal Coliform MA 200 /100mL
WA 400 /100mL
15A NCAC 2B .0200.
pH
6-9 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard,
15A NCAC 2B .0200.
TRC
DM 28 gg/L
No change
WQBEL. Capped per NH3/TRC
WLA Calculation.
Temperature
Monitor 3/week
No change
15A NCAC 02B .0500.
Total Nitrogen
Monitor semi-annually
No change
15A NCAC 02B .0508.
Total
Phosphorus
Monitor semi-annually
No change
15A NCAC 02B .0508.
Hardness -dependent dissolved
metals water quality standards,
Total Hardness
No requirement
Monitor quarterly
approved in 2016, need effluent
and instream hardness data for
calculations of permit
limitations.
Total Cadmium
MA 3.4 gg/L
Remove from permit
No detects at 1 or 0.2 gg/L in
DM 22.3 gg/L
RPA.
MA 8.4 gg/L
WQBEL. Reasonable Potential
Total Cyanide
DM 32.8 gg/L
No change
shown in RPA. Final limits with
permit issuance.
MA 25.0 gg/L
WQBEL. Reasonable Potential
Total Copper
Monitor quarterly
DM 32.0 gg/L
shown in RPA. A compliance
schedule is included.
One non -detect at < 50 gg/L, 53
Total Lead
MA 42.1 gg/L
Remove from permit
non -detects at < 10 gg/L, and
DM 50.3 gg/L
three non -detects at < 5 gg/L in
RPA.
MA 358 gg/L
WQBEL. Reasonable Potential
Total Zinc
Monitor quarterly
DM 358 gg/L
shown in RPA. A compliance
schedule is included.
MA 40 ng/L
Mercury TMDL Evaluation
Total Mercury
DM 40 ng/L
Remove from permit
yielded no WQBEL or TBEL
exceedences. Based on 2012
Page 9 of 10

MGD — Million gallons per day, MA — Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Maximum.
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 11/08/2017
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0 111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the Director
within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the reasons
why a hearing is warranted.
14. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): NO. Although the
receiving stream is not classified as a water supply, a water supply review form was requested by the Jeff
Bryan, Winston-Salem Regional Office Public Water Supply (WSRO-PWS) on November 16, 2017, after
electronic copies of the draft permit were distributed. The completed form, indicating concurrence of permit
issuance, was received from Mr. Bryan on December 7, 2017.
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: NA
15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• Completed Pretreatment Information Request Form
• Final 2014 Category 5 Water Quality Assessments - 303(d) List, page 71
• Effluent monitoring data summary tables and charts
• Instream monitoring data summary tables and charts
• Monitoring Report (MR) Violations sheet
• WET Testing and Self Monitoring sheet, page 58
• Compliance Evaluation Report, 10/9/2015
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations sheet
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards
• Mercury Data WQBEL / TBEL Evaluation data and statistics table
• Copy of 15A NCAC 02B .0225
• Completed Draft Permit Review Form from WSRO-PWS
Page 10 of 10
TMDL, facility < 2 MGD does
not require MMP.
Chronic
Ceriodaphnia pass/fail
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
Toxicity
at 30% effluent conc.
No change
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B .0200
and 15A NCAC 2B .0500.
Effluent
Annual
Reduce to three times
40 CFR 122.
Pollutant Scan
per permit cycle
Electronic
No requirement
Add Electronic
Reporting Special
In accordance with EPA
Reporting
Condition
Electronic Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA — Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Maximum.
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 11/08/2017
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0 111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the Director
within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the reasons
why a hearing is warranted.
14. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): NO. Although the
receiving stream is not classified as a water supply, a water supply review form was requested by the Jeff
Bryan, Winston-Salem Regional Office Public Water Supply (WSRO-PWS) on November 16, 2017, after
electronic copies of the draft permit were distributed. The completed form, indicating concurrence of permit
issuance, was received from Mr. Bryan on December 7, 2017.
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: NA
15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• Completed Pretreatment Information Request Form
• Final 2014 Category 5 Water Quality Assessments - 303(d) List, page 71
• Effluent monitoring data summary tables and charts
• Instream monitoring data summary tables and charts
• Monitoring Report (MR) Violations sheet
• WET Testing and Self Monitoring sheet, page 58
• Compliance Evaluation Report, 10/9/2015
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations sheet
• RPA Spreadsheet Summary
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards
• Mercury Data WQBEL / TBEL Evaluation data and statistics table
• Copy of 15A NCAC 02B .0225
• Completed Draft Permit Review Form from WSRO-PWS
Page 10 of 10

J� klvkl
NPDES/Aquifer Protection Permitting
Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
Check all that apply
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form back
from PERCS:
- Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data we said should be
DMRs is not
(or NOV POTW), ally there, so we can get it for you
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
renewal.ass. - Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
changes.
Date of R uest 10/19/2017 munici al renewal
xon
Industrial
R uestor Ga Perlmutter new industries
U LIC
U I Le
Facili Name Jefferson WWTP WWTP expansion
TU
Permit Number NCO021709 Speculative limits
n/a
Region Winston-Salem stream reG
Next
Cycle:
Basin New outfall relocation
d
a
tBOD
7Q10 chane
ntharl
POC due to
NPDESINon-
Permit
LimitSludge*
check applicable PERCS staff:
BIRD, CPF, CTB, FRB, TAR - Sarah Bass 801
CHO, HIW, LTN, LUM, NES, NEW, ROA, YAD
J - Monit Hassan (807-6314)
Facility is rated 0.6 MGD wtih 1 CIU listed in its application, and is listed in
POTW with pretreatment spreadsheet.
CS PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
is of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEV" if program still under development)
3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b) Modified Program with STMP
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
*Always in the LTMP/STMP ** Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or composte (dif POCs for incinerators)
**` Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW **** Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
Comments to Permit Writer ex.,. explanation of anv POCs: info you have on IU related investioations into NPDES nrohlpmcl-
arn. gO I W has � CI u , A'hWtc&,.
PERC NPDES_Pretreatment.requestform.may2016
Revised: July 24, 2007
L 33Q
n(sWr
Flow, MGDPermitted
I
Actual
I Time perioqfor Actual
STMP time frame:
Industrial
loos
U LIC
U I Le
Most recent:
TU
Uncontrollable
n/a
Next
Cycle:
d
a
tBOD
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
POC due to
NPDESINon-
Permit
LimitSludge*
Required by
EPA*
Required POTW POC
by 503 POC due(Disch
to SIU***plain
below)****
STMP
Effluent
Freq
LTMP
Effluent
Freq
IQ= Quarterly
M = Monthly
4 Q M
TSS 7 4 Q M
NH3 1_/ 4 Q M
Arsenic 4 Q M
Cadmium ✓ V 4 Q M
Chromium 4 Q M
.Copper 4 j Q M
Cyanide
►f _
4
Q M
Is all data on DMRs?
Lead
V1,
4
Q M
YES
Mercury
4
Q M
NO (attach data
Molybdenum
4
Q M
Nickel 4 Q M
Silver V J 4 Q M
Sefenium 4 Q M
Zinc
4
Q M
Is data in readsheet?
Total Nitrogen
4
1 Q M
YES email to writer
Phosphorus
4
Q M
NO
4
Q M
4 Q M
4 Q M
4 Q M
*Always in the LTMP/STMP ** Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or composte (dif POCs for incinerators)
**` Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW **** Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
Comments to Permit Writer ex.,. explanation of anv POCs: info you have on IU related investioations into NPDES nrohlpmcl-
arn. gO I W has � CI u , A'hWtc&,.
PERC NPDES_Pretreatment.requestform.may2016
Revised: July 24, 2007
L 33Q
n(sWr

2014 AU Number: I AU Name:
AU Description:
New River Basin
AU Length Area: AU Units: Classification:
NC River Basin New River Basin
Subbasin Upper New River
10-1-10-3 Cobb Creek 2.7 FW Miles C;Tr•+
From source to Meat Camp Creek
IRCategory: ACS: Parameter Of Interest: Collection Year: 303(d) yr -
5 EC Turbidity (10 NTU, AL, Tr) 2012 2012
10-9-12 Crab Creek
From source to Little River
RCategory: ACS: Parameter Of Interest:
5 EC Fish Community Fair (Nar, AL, FW)
10-1-3-(1) East Fork South Fork New River
From source to Watauga County SR 1524
IRCategory: ACS: Parameter Of Interest:
5 EC Benthos Fair (Nar, AL, FW)
10-2-20-1 Little Buffalo Creek
From source to Buffalo Creek
IRCategory: ACS: Parameter Of Interest:
5 EC Benthos Fair (Nar, AL, FW)
7.8 FW Miles C;Tr
Collection Year: 303(d) yr:
2008 2010
2.3 FW Miles WS-IV;Tr:+
Collection Year: 303(d) yr:
2003 2008
4.4 FW Miles C;Tr:+
Collection Year: 303(d) yr:
2008 2000
10-1-2-(1)a Middle Fork South Fork New River (Chetola Lake) 3.9 FW Miles WS -IV:+
From source to Sumpter Cabin Branch
IRCategory: ACS: Parameter Of Interest: Collection Year: 303(d) yr:
5 EC Benthos Fair (Nar, AL, FW) 2009 2012
10-1-32b Naked Creek 2.5 FW Miles C•+
From 0.4 miles above Jefferson WWTP to South Fork New River
IRCategory: ACS: Parameter Of Interest: Collection Year: 303(d) yr:
5 EC Fish Community Fair (Nar, AL, FW) 2008 2010
10-1-(3.5)b South Fork New River 5.1 FW Miles C:+
From 0.1 mile downstream Hunting Lane to US Hwy.221/421
IRCategory: ACS: Parameter Of Interest: Collection Year: 303(d) yr:
5 EC Benthos Fair (Nar, AL, FW) 2008 2008
10-1-(3.5)a South Fork New River 0.3 FW Miles C:+
From Winkler Creek to 0.1 miles downstream of Hunting Lane
(IRCategory: ACS: Parameter Of Interest: Collection Year: 303(d) yr:
Is EC Benthos Fair (Nar, AL, FW) 2003 2008
2014 NC 303(d) List -Category 5 Final December 19, 2014 Page 71 of 149

DMR EFFLUENT REVIEW: SEP 2013 - AUG 2017
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - Flow
Effluent Limit
0.7
0.6
0.5 't• • • •• • •
0 0.4 • • : :i�
X0.3 •'•MAL
• .:
•
0.2 . ■; •
0.1 •
0
INV tx
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - TSS
Wk Avg Mo Avg WA Limit MA Limit
35
30
25
20 - -
E 15
10
0
\`O\�oy� titi\�°y� ti°\soya
y� A
tip`\T \
0,\o�o ti`'\�oyh 3 \� ti\\°ti
y w o\ tio\
�\
Summary Statistics
n
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - BOD
Mean
Wk Avg Mo Avg
WA Limit MA Limit
16
Min
0.11
14
0.61
Max
12
J 10
n 8
J.OL
E 6
..•
•r� •'
001. - -t
+•
2
•
ani•'
0
y Is.
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - TSS
Wk Avg Mo Avg WA Limit MA Limit
35
30
25
20 - -
E 15
10
0
\`O\�oy� titi\�°y� ti°\soya
y� A
tip`\T \
0,\o�o ti`'\�oyh 3 \� ti\\°ti
y w o\ tio\
�\
Summary Statistics
n
1461
Mean
0.24
SD
0.07
Min
0.11
Max
0.61
Summary Statistics
Summary Statistics
n
Summer
n
369
Mean
3.74
SD
1.70
Min
2.00
Max
10.90
Summary Statistics
n
Winter
n
259
Mean
3.38
SD
1.64
Min
2.00
Max
11.00
Summary Statistics
n
628
mean
5
SD
1
Min
5
Max
23
G.B. Perlmutter 10/18/2017

DMR EFFLUENT REVIEW: SEP 2013 - AUG 2017
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - Amonia-N
• Wk Avg • Mo Avg WA Limit MA Limit
14
12
10
n
b L1 -118
E 6
4
2 • r • •
0
otic oti3 01°` 01°` otih oti°oti° otic otic Otis'
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - Dissolved Oxygen
• Effluent Limit
12
11
' • •
10 •
g i r�
J •� •'
E 8 i • • • AS
r•
5
4
O,O O,� O,�
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709)
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Wk Avg Mo Avg WA Limit MA Limit
1000
J g _
E 100 • • i S • •` • • •
40 • '� •
••• •• ♦�S •• w i �• �• w • • •♦� •
•
O,O O,A
by\tip\�\ti`'\� ti o\titi\�%\ti
Summary Statistics
Summer
625
n
132
Mean
0.23
SD
0.09
Min
0.20
Max
0.77
Winter
n 90
Mean 0.34
SD 0.56
Min 0.20
Max 4.40
Summary Statistics
n
625
Mean
8.2
SD
1.2
Min
6.1
Max
11.4
Summary Statistics
n
629
Mean
143
SD
631
Min
1
Max
5800
G.B. Perlmutter 10/18/2017

DMR EFFLUENT REVIEW: SEP 2013 - AUG 2017
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - pH
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - TRC
Effluent Limit Compliant
60
50
40
30
20 h _r . w ' • w w ■ Aw�rYrr.r`..w�
10
0
OHO Ci I O,1 O,�
�\tip\�
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - Temperature
. Effluent
30
25 •
20 � .
15 i
10
Y
5
0 s
°y3111 Oy3 °ya OtiR Oyh OyO 010 Otin °yn 5000
\ti`s\� 3\b\'v \T \ti°\T
Summary Statistics
n
Effluent
Min Limit
Max Limit
SD
0
10.0
6.3
Max
7.5
9.0
-
-
8.0
H 7.0
•
•
6.0
•
5.0
4.0
O,h ONO
O,O 5SN
O,
O,�
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - TRC
Effluent Limit Compliant
60
50
40
30
20 h _r . w ' • w w ■ Aw�rYrr.r`..w�
10
0
OHO Ci I O,1 O,�
�\tip\�
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - Temperature
. Effluent
30
25 •
20 � .
15 i
10
Y
5
0 s
°y3111 Oy3 °ya OtiR Oyh OyO 010 Otin °yn 5000
\ti`s\� 3\b\'v \T \ti°\T
Summary Statistics
n
624
Mean
7
SD
0
Min
6.3
Max
7.5
Summary Statistics
n
625
Mean
28
SD
8
Min
20
Max
48
Summary Statistics
n
625
Mean
16.0
SD
4.9
Min
5.7
Max
25.6
G.B. Perlmutter 10/18/2017

35
30
25
20
E 15
10
5
0
ti3
DMR EFFLUENT REVIEW: SEP 2013 - AUG 2017
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - Total Nitrogen
Effluent
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - Total Phosphorus
Effluent
4.5
4
3.5
3
- 2.5
E 2
1.5
1
0.5
0
61*;0 ON O,A O,�
Summary Statistics
n
10
Mean
16.3
SD
8.9
Min
5s;
5v
Ory
O,O
O,O
O,^
O,�
��ti0\�
y�\�A\ti
1�tih\~
'y��'y\�
���$\�
''��\T
ASN
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - Total Phosphorus
Effluent
4.5
4
3.5
3
- 2.5
E 2
1.5
1
0.5
0
61*;0 ON O,A O,�
Summary Statistics
n
10
Mean
16.3
SD
8.9
Min
6.01
Max
32.8
Summary Statistics
n
10
Mean
2.5
SD
1.0
Min
1.1
Max
4.0
G.B. Perlmutter 10/18/2017

35
30
25
U 20
Ob
p 15
10
5
0
DMR INSTREAM REVIEW: AUG 2014 - AUG 2017
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - Temperature
Upstream Dnstream Standard
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - Dissolved Oxygen
Upstream Dnstream Standard
16
14
12
J
to 10
E
8
6
4 �•
h
Mean
14.3
SD
6.0
Min
0.4
Max
Oyh
oyo
n
Oy'1
oyw
14.4
lb\p
6.0
Min
1.0
Max
4T
y�,\\P
\
h
yti
ro
\yh\�Oy1
'y
SD
'L
Jefferson WWTP (NC0021709) - Dissolved Oxygen
Upstream Dnstream Standard
16
14
12
J
to 10
E
8
6
4 �•
Summary Statistics
Upstream
n
481
Mean
14.3
SD
6.0
Min
0.4
Max
25.5
Downstream
n
oyo
Mean
14.4
6.0
Min
1.0
Max
4T
Downstream
4T
Upstream Difference
Mean
0.1
SD
0.1
Min
y�y4^0
Max
1.0
Summary Statistics
Upstream
n
481
Mean
14.3
SD
6.0
Min
0.4
Max
25.5
Downstream
n
481
Mean
14.4
SD
6.0
Min
1.0
Max
25.4
Downstream
-
Upstream Difference
Mean
0.1
SD
0.1
Min
-0.4
Max
1.0
Summary Statistics
Upstream
n
481
Mean
9.4
SD
1.6
Min
6.6
Max
13.9
Downstream
n
481
Mean
9.3
SD
1.6
Min
6.6
Max
13.8
Downstream -
Upstream Difference
Mean
-0.1
SD
0.2
Min
-0.8
Max
0.5
G.B. Perlmutter 10/18/2017

§CL >
§§
�§m
§
k
j
f
§ k
§
\
§ `
§
ƒ
£
£
¥
(
)
0
0
�
e
£
f�
F=
E-0
(w�
§ k)J)J�
2 f2�2�]
=
J
/
>
I
2
LL
2
v
k
CD
cm Cd Cd
§§
§§
�§m
§
_
/ I
\
k
CD
cm Cd Cd
§§
_
t 2
Fmk
\
§
LU
(
)
0
0
n
£
£
(w�
=
J
§
LL
v
J
ƒ
0
Lamƒ
)
LQL
v
v
0
@
£
2
I
§
§
§
(

N N N
N N N
i
a a a a I
Q m
0 I I I I I
O I I I I
I
O I I 1 I I
O I I I I I
N
m
N N H
°
Z I
N I/N1 N d
Z m m m a,
u0
u0
a- d d d
O
ii
a d d
O
O
n
U�
O
Ul
O
U
O
UI
OCA
UI
O
Ln
In
O I
VI IA IN/1 N
O a a a a
I
N N
V N N I
a
O
O O
CL CL CL
d
O
O
O
a
D
z
Z0
CO
a
0 ..
ea
w
en
ar
Q °
v
Q
a)
coO
C
LL
LL
li
lL
�•
lL
In
mw
Q
d
2
H a a a a l
c
I I I I I
h
-0
I I
LO
I
Ln
a
tn I
OD'a
i
m
LL
n.
n
ari
m
N
vj
rq
O
W
W
N V1 NN INII
Q
W
N N N N N
K%
I I I I I
Z
I I
Q
Q a a a a a
Y m
I I I I I
Q
Z
N N N
Q a a s a
Inn
n
tD
0
O
N
C
N
C
c O
r- O
C
n
d
m
1
m
1
m d
m
u.
_. d
CL
N N N
I I
1 I d
mm O Ip
1 d d d 0. W
I I I N
1 '-j
mmmmm
1 d d d d d
I I I
N
Q
N
d
z
N
ao
N
0
m
O
C
O O
O
N
6
N
3
Cf
3
d
z Cl
z
c
n
�d am a s
n
n
l o
n
n
I I I I I
o
c
n
C
C
aJ
O
O
O
O
V
N N
K
�
a
3
a
v
•m
H N O
N N N N
L
. I I I
g l
I I I I
g
gm m A
l
m m m A m
d d d d
N
g
N
gm d d N CL
y0.
m
c
N
m
'=
V)
n
y
3
c
a
a
fl.
E
a
E
m E
E
O
O
O
O
CC
O
C
C
QC
N N N
dNm
0°
Up
tNdj'
Z
I I I I
O
z
m
O
z
I I . .
O
ZQ
NN
aaaN
d
Z
Q
E
42
A
m
C
C
E
O
O
p
_.
,?
V
V
U
U
U
U
w
ao
3
N N N N h
O
LL
L
g
N
'"�
g I I
g I I I I
I I I I I
g
z
0
C
d d d d d
Ln
.--1.-a
0
e-i
0
a,
�..� O
M
N �:
Ol
il
2
O
�z
E
�
c
O
O
O
1(z,
O C
O O
O
O
^
2
'L
O
2
`l
r�
w
£
m
'�
00
u
m
U
o
o r
n
v
E
C
O
N V
m V
m
LJ
d
O
V)
u
u
u
u
H h m
G
-O
z
I I I I I
u, L. I I
� Ip tp m m m
u
LL I I I I I
(Oj
n
n
Z
z
d d d d d
z
z
1 C R a
E
m
CU
o
ti
oto
O
O
O
d`
i
N
N
N
E
jJ
N
ei
N
H
d
v
d
c
C
C
C
C
LL
C
l`w�
LA
C
+_+
'
C
tw
al
ti I
m
a/
N N N N
l m m m
d
I
a
m m m m m
w
�
E
V
X
.O
o
m
m
m
d LL d d d
m
m
d d d d d
m
I I I I
�7
m
m
,
y
C
m
O
c
m
Z
M V In W n
H I -i .t ti�
a_
M a to O n
d
M a In tD n
d
cn v In w n
N
C
M cf In w n
d
ar
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
d
0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N
C
W
c
a
oc
a
N 0-'I^
y
CL
U
c
°
LL
tv
'I^
L
'°
0 CL
a
�
O
u^
s ncj
t
o
u
a,' u
° u
u

e

United Slates 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 E 2 15 1 3 I NCO021709 111 12 15/10/09 17 18 [d i 19 i G i 201
2111111L1111111111111111111111111111111111111 �6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ------------ --
751 I I I I I I I801
67 7014 I 71 72 L�J, 73I 74
671
LJ ItI
1
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)
09:OOAM 15/10/09
11/09/01
Jefferson VVWTP
Exit Time/Date
permit Expiration Date
1233 NC Hwy 16 S
12:30PM 15/10!09
16/03/31
Jefferson NC 28640
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)rTitles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
!//
Timothy Church/ORC/336-246-2165/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Timothy Church,PO Box 67 Jefferson NC 286400067/1336-246-2165/
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance E Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program N Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Waters
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
George S Smith WSRO WQ//336-776-9700/
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
3 NCO021709 121 15/10/09 117 18 I' l
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page#

Permit: NCO021709
Inspection Date: 10/09/2015
owner -Facility: Jefferson wwTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
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:
Permit
Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
❑
M
❑
❑
application?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the facility as described in the permit?
M
❑
❑
❑
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
❑
M
❑
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
!
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Renewal notice was qiven with this report
Record KeeiRinn
Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
X
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
M
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
M
❑
❑
❑
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 CDCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
M
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
0
❑
❑
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator
❑
❑
0
❑
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
M
❑
❑
❑
Page# 3

Permit: NCO021709
Inspection Date: 10/09/2015
Owner -Facility: JeffersonWWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Oxidation Ditches
Yes No NA NE
Are the aerators operational?
N
❑
❑
❑
Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
N
❑
❑
❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are settleometer results acceptable (> 30 minutes)?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/I)
■
❑
❑
❑
Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/I in 30 minutes)
N
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier
Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
M
❑
❑
❑
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?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately '/4 of the sidewall depth)
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Yes No NA NE
Type of operation:
Down flow
Is the filter media present?
■ ❑
❑
❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of growth?
M ❑
❑
❑
Page# 4

Permit: NCO021709
inspection Date: 10/09/2015
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Is the air scour operational?
Is the scouring acceptable?
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
Comment:
Disinfection -Gas
Are cylinders secured adequately?
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
Owner -Facility: Jefferson WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 lbs of Chlorine (CAS No. 7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000------)
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment:
De -chlorination
Type of system ?
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
Yes No... NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
lid ❑ ❑ ❑
* ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ f=
❑ ❑ ❑i
Yes No NA NE
Liquid
❑
❑
E
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
E
❑
Yes No NA NE
N ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NCO021709
Inspection Date: 10/09/2015
Owner - Facility: Jefferson WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Flow Measurement - Effluent
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment:
Effluent Sampling
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
Comment:
Effluent Pine
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑ M
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
IS ❑ ❑ ❑
M ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ N ❑
Page# 6

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Jefferson WWTP
PermitNo. NC0021709
Prepared By: Claire Welling
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 0.6
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 2.2
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 3.4
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
2.2
s7Q10 (CFS)
2.2
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.6
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.6
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.93
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.93
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
29.71
IWC (%)
29.71
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
57
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
2.8
IIL
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
3.4
Monthly Average Limit:
2001100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.6
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.93
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
3.37
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
21.48
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
7.6
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals); capped at 35 mg/I
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis); capped at 35 mg/I
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

J
J
J
.`i
..�
J
O O
J
J`a,
O
O O O N M d•
`L
a a
a
a
a
a a a a a a a a
a
a
a a a a a a a
cm
O
�
i
*=J
rn
01
0)
Zb
m
0)
C•
CT+
0)
0)
O)
m7
7
E
_
M
1
7
3
7
3
C
3
1
1
7
7
7
c
1
1 o co
v
C,
O
Q
Q
ma)
v
N
O
N
O J
J
E
m
E n C
U O
1
O
N OL
U N M Vcq - E
N
M C N
Z
O
M
C)
O
U"
m T
V5
ISI
.
CD
c �
`)
M
co
I
l
M M m
rn
to
w
O
Q
K7
p
II
00
CO
Q
O
N
_�
N
CMO
Q
CG
O
M
!
M
0)
Z
I
N
f•
m
Z
Lr
CJ
I
a 2
(fl
co
H rn a
N
n
M
Co
N
LI]
I
o
I
7
S
yy
S
v
U
yy
7
77
7
co
tll
N
N
LL.
=
LL
LL
LL
<
E
LL
LL
LL
LL
lL
lL
w
LL
S
LL
>
LL
LL
LL
2
U) -
LLl m
CY
z'
E
m
a
H 3 w
O O N O
m
w
c
LON
o w
OD
0
ID
v
a
Cq �'
.�..
w
O
M
O
n
y07
O
s[y
M
M
C+Oj
q
z 0
Q
Lt
oq
2
O
til
d
V
N
b
I
C)
U
fa
O
N
t•1
(D
Z
d'
n
N
m
CO
O
N
O
N
M
N
U
U
U
I U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
'U
U
U
U
Z
Z
z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
Z
z
z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
m'
a
,9
9
R
4 d
N
m
Cj
A
'a
[C
7
t0
N
ul
7
N
'a
f6
m
IE
7
{C
I6
E n
a
c
a
c
s
w
¢
a
a
Q
a
v
a
c
a
a
a
z=
E
c
a
m
F
v
a
c
a
�
S
N
C
v
u
.0
E
m
't7
,�
a
U
E
E~
N
v
G__
C
G
7
7
E
Q
-
a
Q•
m
m
>
C
H
m
7
U
U
C
c
m
c
o
Q
E
U
J
r
Z
Z
-cmi
fn
fV
U
U
a
wL
�
O
Q>'
y
L
U
U
t
IL
U
Q
F
L.7
m
E
m
z
.Z,
LLm
I
O O
Q
Q
O
O O O N M d•
`L
a a
a
a
a
a a a a a a a a
a
a
a a a a a a a
LULULAW
i
I
l
r
I
I
i
�
!
c
1
1 o co
v
C,
O
Q
Q
ma)
v
N
O
N
O J
J
E
m
E n C
U O
1
O
N OL
U N M Vcq - E
N
M C N
Z
m
Z
M
C)
O
U"
m T
V5
ISI
.
c �
`)
I
l
M M m
II
1
I = iu
w
!
!
! E
I
I
yv
I
I
a 2
H rn a
I
o
I
v
U
Q
tll
N
N
N
N
w
C
C
C
x
L
U) -
LLl m
CY
z'
E
m
a
H 3 w
O O N O
m
w
c
e m°
o w
3
0
ID
v
a
Cq �'
.�..
w
E
E
A
n
0.
z 0
L
w
2
N❑�
r- M Ci
W
I
U
U

sn
CL o
_ N
d CD
a. O
n
0
N

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Uw'PASTE SPECIAL H2 urr'PAM SPECT
Effluent Hardness va1„s:" then 'COPY- Upstream Hardness Vituel-th@il'C4F
Malmum data Maximum data
points = S& paints = M
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results I
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results 1
1/10/2017
79
79
Std Dev.
:': 51 U
1
1/10/2017
36.2
36.2
Std Dev.
[: { :•
1/17/2017
94.6
94.6
Mean
73.6000
2
1/17/2017
31.6
31.6
Mean
43.5800
1/19/2017
96.4
96.4
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
1/19/2017
71.7
71.7
C.V. (default)
0.6000
2/1/2017
46.7
46.7
n
5
4
2/1/2017
37.6
37.6
n
5
2/13/2017
51.3
51.3
10th Per value
48.54 mg/L
5
2/13/2017
40.8
40.8
10th Per value
33.44 mg/L
Average Value
73.60 mg/L
6
Average Value
43.58 mg/L
Max. Value
96.40 mg/L
7
Max. Value
71.70 mg/L
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
1 10/19/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
use "PASTE SPECIA
Arsenic
Yaluaa' than -00p�
. MnImm Wass
poknls = S@
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
12/2/2014 <
10 5
Std Dev.
.`•:ri t
2
8/26/2015 <
10 5
Mean
5.0000
3
11/22/2016 <
10 5
C.V.
0.0000
4
n
3
5
6
Mult Factor =
1.00
7
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
O DETECTS 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
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
- 2 - 10/19/2017

Par03
Date Data
1 12/2/2014 <
2 8/26/2015 <
3 11/22/2016 <
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Max. Pred Cw O DETECTS ug/L
Par04
the "PASTE SPECI
Cadmium 14 m°"'CQF
. Maximum dnu
Polnts = 54
Date
uaf'PASTE SPECLM
Beryllium
BDL=112DL
vuuas'then 'CO r
1
- Maximum darn
<
0.2
point - 55
BDL=112DL
Results
2
20 10
Std Dev.
0.0000
20 10
Mean
10.0000
20 10
C.V.
0.0000
0.2
n
3
1.6188
Mult Factor =
1.00
<
Max. Value
10.00 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw O DETECTS ug/L
Par04
the "PASTE SPECI
Cadmium 14 m°"'CQF
. Maximum dnu
Polnts = 54
56
57
58
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
- 3 - 10/19/2017
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results j
1
3/11/2014
<
0.2
0.1
Std Dev.
0.«•i
2
4/2/2014
<
1
0.5
Mean
0.1709
3
5/13/2014
<
0.2
0.1
C.V.
1.6188
4
6/3/2014
<
0.2
0.1
n
55
5
7/15/2014
<
0.2
0.1
6
8/12/2014
<
0.2
0.1
Mult Factor =
1.03
7
9/10/2014
<
0.2
0.1
Max. Value
2.000 ug/L
8
10/7/2014
<
1
0.5
Max. Pred Cw O
DETECTS ug/L
9
8/12/2014
<
0.2
0.1
10
9/10/2014
<
0.2
0.1
11
10/7/2014
<
0.2
0.1
12
11/4/2014
<
0.2
0.1
13
12/2/2014
<
0.2
0.1
14
1/12/2015
<
0.2
0.1
15
2/2/2015
<
0.2
0.1
16
3/3/2015
<
0.2
0.1
17
4/21/2015
<
0.2
0.1
18
5/5/2015
<
0.2
0.1
19
6/24/2015
<
0.2
0.1
20
7/15/2015
<
0.2
0.1
21
8/11/2015
<
0.2
0.1
22
9/9/2015
<
0.2
0.1
23
10/7/2015
<
0.2
0.1
24
11/3/2015
<
0.2
0.1
25
12/15/2015
<
0.2
0.1
26
1/19/2016
<
0.2
0.1
27
2/2/2016
<
0.2
0.1
28
3/14/2016
<
0.2
0.1
29
3/15/2016
<
0.2
0.1
30
3/16/2016
<
0.2
0.1
31
3/17/2015
<
0.2
0.1
32
4/5/2016
<
0.2
0.1
33
5/16/2016
<
0.2
0.1
34
5/17/2016
<
0.2
0.1
35
5/18/2016
<
0.2
0.1
36
5/19/2016
<
0.2
0.1
37
6/28/2016
<
0.2
0.1
38
7/7/2016
<
0.2
0.1
39
8/15/2016
<
0.2
0.1
40
8/16/2016
<
0.2
0.1
41
8/17/2016
<
0.2
0.1
42
8/18/2016
<
0.2
0.1
43
9/20/2016
<
0.2
0.1
44
10/10/2016
<
0.2
0.1
45
10/11/2016
<
0.2
0.1
46
10/12/2016
<
0.2
0.1
47
10/13/2016
<
0.2
0.1
48
11122/2016
<
0.2
0.1
49
12/13/2016
<
0.2
0.1
50
1/24/2017
<
0.2
0.1
51
3/22/2017
<
0.2
0.1
52
4/5/2017
<
1
0.5
53
5/2/2017
<
4
2
54
6/6/2017
<
1
0.5
55
7/10/2017
<
1
0.5
56
57
58
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
- 3 - 10/19/2017

Par05
Date Data
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Chlorides
BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
-4-
Par06
use'PASTE SPECIAL-
v"""
. Al�xlmum �
v&1UW Iran "Cor)"
POWS - S
AI�Ynum 4alA yoinM. e
5B
NO DATA
NO DATA
1
NO DATA
2
NO DATA
3
0
4
Max. Value
5
N/A
6
N/A mg/L
7
N/A mg/L
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
-4-
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
10/19/2017
Use 'PASTE SF
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
v"""
. Al�xlmum �
POWS - S
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
NO DATA
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
n
0
Mult Factor =
N/A
Max. Value
N/A
Max. Pred Cw
N/A
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
10/19/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
WCIAL
JEW
Par07
Total Phenolic Com
Compounds
p
ef&a—PASTE SKCIAL
911"
`°' 911" MC¢PY
Par08
PASTESF
Chromium III
�
JEW
Ma data
. Ma
t
1YYR[
MUM
p0aft&.6
8
Poln4 a 58
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Date
Data BDL=1l2DL Results
1 12/2/2014
10 10 Std Dev.
-
1
Std Dev. NO DATA
2 11/22/2016
< 10 5 Mean
7.5000
2
Mean NO DATA
3
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
C.V. NO DATA
4
n
2
4
n
0
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
3.79
6
Mult Factor =
NIA
ug/L
7
Max. Value
10.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
N/A
ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
37.9 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A
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
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
- 5 - 10/19/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
6 10/19/2017
Par09
FECGA .
'"4A�"
Chromium VI
srn
vo:„�-mon �•G
Chromium, Total
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1
Std Dev.
Is
2
Mean
3
C.V.
4
n
5
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
6
Mult Factor =
Ng/L
7
Max. Value
Ng/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
9
NO DATA
2
10
< 1 0.5
Mean
11
NO DATA
3
12
< 1 0.5
C.V.
13
0
4
14
n
15
5
16
17
N/A
6
18
MultFactor=
19
N/A Ng/L
7
20
Max. Value
21
N/A Ng/L
8
22
Max. Pred Cw 0
23
9
24
25
10
26
27
11
28
29
12
30
31
13
32
33
14
34
35
15
36
37
16
38
39
17
40
41
18
42
43
19
44
45
20
46
47
21
48
49
22
50
51
23
52
53
24
54
55
25
56
57
26
58
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
6 10/19/2017
Use `PASTEParl0
vo:„�-mon �•G
Chromium, Total
. Mlaximwmdata
Is
points w"
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
NO DATA
1
12/2/2014
< 1 0.5
Std Dev.
0.0000
NO DATA
2
8/26/2015
< 1 0.5
Mean
0.5000
NO DATA
3
11/22/2016
< 1 0.5
C.V.
0.0000
0
4
n
3
5
N/A
6
MultFactor=
1.00
N/A Ng/L
7
Max. Value
0.5
N/A Ng/L
8
Max. Pred Cw 0
DETECTS
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
6 10/19/2017

Pal 1
�ECSAL
;oPr
ger
r
8 I
pg/L
Ng/L
Date Data
1 1/3/2013
2 4/2/2013
3 6/3!2013
4 7/2/2013
5 10/15/2013
6 2/412014
7 5/13/2014
8 8/12/2014
9 11/4/2014
10 12/2/2014
11 1112/2015
12 2/2/2015
13 5/5/2015
14 8/11/2015 <
15 2/2/2016
16 3/14/2016
17 3/15/2016
18 3/16/2016 <
19 3/17/2016
20 5/16/2016
21 5/17/2016
22 5/18/2016
23 5/19/2016
24 8/15/2016 <
25 8/16/2016
26 8/17/2016
27 8/18/2016
28 10/10/2016 <
29 10/11/2016 <
30 10/12/2016 <
31 10/13/2016 <
32 11/22/2016 <
33 2/14/2017
34 5/2/2017
35 710/2017
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Copper
Parl2
BDL=1/2DL
Results
14 14
Std Dev.
8 8
Mean
2 2
C.V.
2 2
n
13 13
Vatues" Own -COPY-
I�s�ttnum data
22 22
Mult Factor =
8 8
Max. Value
4 4
Max. Pred Cw
3 3
3 3
Date
11/5/2013
7 7
6
12 12
Results
Std Dev.
3 3
5.8571
1 0.5
12/3/2013
11 11
5
6 6
Mean
1 1
3
1 0.5
3 3
5
11 11
35
8 8
2/4/2014
12 12
5
8 8
n
1 0.5
5
2 2
<
3 3
5
1 1
1.22
1 0.5
4/2/2014
1 0.5
5
1 0.5
Mult Factor =
1 0.5
7
1 0.5
16 16
5
7 7
26.84 ug/L
11 11
6/3/2014
We "PASTE SPECIAL
Parl2
Cyanide
Vatues" Own -COPY-
I�s�ttnum data
pomis = 56
1
Date
11/5/2013
Data
6
BDL=1/2DL
5
Results
Std Dev.
5.4834
5.8571
2
12/3/2013
5
5
Mean
0.9362
3
1/7/2014
5
5
C.V.
35
4
2/4/2014
<
5
5
n
5
3/11/2014
<
5
5
1.22
6
4/2/2014
<
5
5
Mult Factor =
22.00 ug/L
7
5/13/2014
5
5
Max. Value
26.84 ug/L
8
6/3/2014
5
5
Max. Pred Cw
9
7/15/2014
6
5
10
8/12/2014
10
10
11
9/10/2014
<
5
5
12
10/7/2014
6
5
13
11/4/2014
5
5
14
12/212014
8
5
15
1/12/2015
5
5
16
2/2/2015
5
5
17
3/3/2015
5
5
18
4/21/2015
6
5
19
5/5/2015
6
5
20
6/24/2015
<
5
5
21
7/15/2015
<
5
5
22
8/11/2015
5
5
23
9/9/2015
5
5
24
10/7/2015
5
5
25
11/3/2015
6
5
26
12/1512015
5
5
27
1/19/2016
5
5
28
2/2/2016
<
5
5
29
3/14/2016
5
5
30
3/15/2016
6
5
31
3/16/2016
<
5
5
32
3/17/2016
5
5
33
4/5/2016
6
5
34
5/16/2016
5
5
35
5/17/2016
<
5
5
36
5/18/2016
5
5
37
5/19/2016
<
5
5
38
6/28/2016
6
5
39
7/7/2016
5
5
40
8/15/2016
<
5
5
41
8/16/2016
<
5
5
42
8/17/2016
<
5
5
43
8/18/2016
<
5
5
44
9/20/2016
<
5
5
45
10/10/2016
5
5
46
10/11/2016
<
5
5
47
10/12/2016
5
5
48
10/13/2016
<
5
5
49
11/22/2016
<
5
5
50
12/13/2016
<
5
5
51
1/24/2017
<
5
5
52
2/14/2017
<
5
5
53
3/22/2017
<
5
5
54
4/5/2017
8
5
55
5/2/2017
<
5
5
56
6/6/2017
10
10
57
7/10/2017
8
5
58
-7-
U"'PASTE Si
Maximum �
pokes • .
5.18
0.1793
57
1.00
10.0
10.0
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
10/19/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
- 8 - 10/19/2017
Parl3
Uw'PASTE SPECxAL
Par14
UNG 'PASTE SF
Lead
VAkm., emm N
. pAnk,mm.
mpy-
1a4
Fluoride
VAIURS- man "COPY'
. muroruln am1a
powft • d
i
pnmla = Sof
Date Data
1
BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
h':: i-,�n iA
1
Date
11/5/2013
<
10
BDL=1/2DL
5
Results
Std Dev.
2.72,5
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
12/3/2013
<
10
5
Mean
5.2193
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
1/7/2014
<
10
5
C.V.
0.5222
4
n
0
4
2/4/2014
<
5
2.5
n
57
5
5
3/11/2014
<
10
5
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
6
4/2/2014
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
1.01
ug/L
7
Max. Value
N/A ug/L
7
5/13/2014
<
10
5
Max. Value
25.000
ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A ug/L
8
6/3/2014
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
O DETECTS
9
9
7/15/2014
<
10
5
10
10
8/12/2014
<
10
5
11
11
9/10/2014
<
10
5
12
12
10/7/2014
<
10
5
13
13
1114/2014
<
10
5
14
14
12/2/2014
<
10
5
15
15
1/12/2015
<
10
5
16
16
2/2/2015
<
10
5
17
17
3/3/2015
<
10
5
18
18
4121/2015
<
10
5
19
19
5/5/2015
<
10
5
20
20
6/24/2015
<
10
5
21
21
7/15/2015
<
10
5
22
22
8/11/2015
<
10
5
23
23
9/9/2015
<
10
5
24
24
10/7/2015
<
10
5
25
25
11/3/2015
<
10
5
26
26
12/15/2015
<
10
5
27
27
1/19/2016
<
10
5
28
28
2/2/2016
<
10
5
29
29
3/14/2016
<
10
5
30
30
3/15/2016
<
10
5
31
31
3/16/2016
<
10
5
32
32
3/17/2016
<
10
5
33
33
4/5/2016
<
10
5
34
34
5/16/2016
<
10
5
35
35
5/17/2016
<
10
5
36
36
5/18/2016
<
10
5
37
37
5/19/2016
<
10
5
38
38
6/28/2016
<
10
5
39
39
7/7/2016
<
10
5
40
40
8/15/2016
<
10
5
41
41
8/16/2016
<
10
5
42
42
8/17/2016
<
10
5
43
43
8118/2016
<
10
5
44
44
9/20/2016
<
10
5
45
45
10/10/2016
<
10
5
46
46
10/11/2016
<
10
5
47
47
10/12/2016
<
10
5
48
48
10/13/2016
<
10
5
49
49
11/22/2016
<
10
5
50
50
12/13/2016
<
10
5
51
51
1/24/2017
<
10
5
52
52
2/14/2017
<
10
5
53
53
3/22/2017
<
10
5
54
54
4/5/2017
<
10
5
55
55
5/212017
<
50
25
56
56
6/6/2017
<
5
2.5
57
57
7/10/2017
<
5
2.5
58
58
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
- 8 - 10/19/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
- 9 - 10/19/2017
Parl5
Parl6
PECIAL.
_
uae'PASTE SPECEAL
U"'PA,STE Sr
Molybdenum
VMKWW' nrn'i
WFY'
Valuot" man "COPr'
Mercury
SRM
Maximum data
la=mwm c
•$
pain [x a 58
pPN!!i � Ei
Date Data
1
BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
NC''!F `A
Date
1
Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
N:: DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
4
n
0
4
n
0
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
NIA
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
ug/L
7
Max. Value
NIA ng/L
7
Max. Value
NIA
ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A ng/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A
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
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
- 9 - 10/19/2017

ug/L
ug/L
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par17 & Par1a
Nickel
tlw "PASTE 5:EGrR3.
va`uW `Mian �C°P'-
Par19
,
Selenium
maxLmum data
PoInta - 58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
12/2/2014 1 1
Std Dev.
0.2'87
1
12/2/2014 <
10 5
Std Dev.
2
8/26/2015 1 1
Mean
0.8333
2
8/26/2015 <
10 5
Mean
3
11/22/2016 < 1 0.5
C.V.(default)
0.6000
3
11/22/2016 <
10 5
C.V.
4
n
3
4
n
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
3.00
6
Mult Factor =
7
Max. Value
1.0 Ng/L
7
Max. Value
8
Max. Pred Cw
3.0 Ng/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
10- 10/19/2017

Um "PASTE SPEP
Vafuee /Hen "CDP
. Llaxlmum data
points - 58
5.0000
0.0000
3
1.00
5.0 ug/L
O DETECTS ug/L
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par20
Silver
Us* 'PASTE SPECIAL
Values' 1hon'COPY'
. maximum dws
Par21
Zinc
ppints = 5E
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
12/2/2014
< 1 0.5
Std Dev.
.a ,0,.
1
1/3/2013
51
51
Std Dev.
2
8/26/2015
< 1 0.5
Mean
0.5000
2
4/2/2013
12
12
Mean
3
11/22/2016
< 1 0.5
C.V.
0.0000
3
6/3/2013
<
1
0.5
C.V.
4
n
3
4
7/2/2013
<
1
0.5
n
5
5
10/15/2013
29
29
6
Mult Factor =
1.00
6
2/4/2014
83
83
Mult Factor =
7
Max. Value
0.500 ug/L
7
5/13/2014
17
17
Max. Value
8
Max. Pred Cw
O DETECTS ug/L
8
8/12/2014
37
37
Max. Fred Cw
9
9
11/4/2014
10
10
10
10
12/2/2014
26
26
11
11
1/12/2015
<
1
0.5
12
12
2/2/2015
37
37
13
13
5/5/2015
<
1
0.5
14
14
8111/2015
78
78
15
15
11/3/2015
42
42
16
16
2/2/2016
71
71
17
17
3/14/2016
18
18
18
18
3/15/2016
4
4
19
19
3/16/2016
5
5
20
20
3/17/2016
<
1
0.5
21
21
5/16/2016
155
155
22
22
5/17/2016
90
90
23
23
5/18/2016
93
93
24
24
5/19/2016
108
108
25
25
8/15/2016
409
409
26
26
8/16/2016
273
273
27
27
8/17/2016
385
385
28
28
8/18/2016
524
524
29
29
10/10/2016
123
123
30
30
10/11/2016
210
210
31
31
10/12/2016
60
60
32
32
10/13/2016
74
74
33
33
11122/2016
178
178
34
34
2/14/2017
<
1
0.5
35
35
5/2/2017
95
95
36
36
7/10/2017
117
117
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
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
11 - 10/19/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Date Data BDL=112DL
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
-12- 10/19/2017
Par22
UM'PASTE SPECIAL
uae'PASTE SPWAJPar23
valval" then -COPY-
U values" Hwn "COPY"
. Maximum data
. Maximum data
paints = M
points = 5E
Date Data
1
BDL=112DL Results
Std Dev.
NIG DAI A
1
4: 5 2
94.9167
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
1.3122
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
36
4
n
0
4
5
5
1.27
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
6
524.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
N/A
7
665.5 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A
8
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
Date Data BDL=112DL
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
-12- 10/19/2017

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
0
BDL=1/2DL
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
-13- 10/19/2017
Use 'PASTE SPECIAL
Y al uss^ th an -COP Y"
Par24
0
Usm -PASTE SPECIALi
Vav us a" U+e n 'C OPY-
Par25
. Maillmum Esta
- Maximum aaia
points 3 SS
paints = 59
Results
Date Data
BDL=112DL Results
Date Data
Std Dev.
NO DATA
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
1
Mean
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
C.V.
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
n
0
4
n
0
4
5
5
Mult Factor =
N/A
6
Mult Factor =
NIA
6
Max. Value
N/A
7
Max. Value
NIA
7
Max. Pred Cw
N/A
8
Max. Pred Cw
NIA
8
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
0
BDL=1/2DL
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
-13- 10/19/2017

Mult Factor = N/A
Max. Value N/A
Max. Pred Cw N/A
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
-14- 10/19/2017
U"'PASIE SPM
vaivogs, INM 'C OF
. 4aximum data
polnn s U
Results
Std Dev.
NO DAI A
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
NO DATA
Mult Factor = N/A
Max. Value N/A
Max. Pred Cw N/A
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
NC0021709- Jefferson- 2017 RPA, data
-14- 10/19/2017

T
0
'c^
V@
0
L
�p
Z
tC >
43
v
I
O
II UO':
N
�y rn
I
W O
a0
Z7 3
C1
ani
(d
I
W Q A
'n �
� u
I
QQ�Q
II °
o
>-w��dU
N
W N w N N 10
OS N O O co O
P O O r
O O O P
0. a N OD h Ab
n r n N N
��•ar�+
M N N r IP V
II II II II II ti
U o o O'aU
a �
�aaUaM�b
n (d v
N
0
S
O
o
C
O
40
0
V
2
Y
d
U
O V O O O O y
CO CO N It N N w
O � V4 Z
II II II it II II F
R
V) Vi ^5 N d o0
000aa�
w �
g
R
bb
d
m
5
c �
0 ~
r� C4
i N
O
O
V
Z
Cl)
a
I I
I0
I
I
I
IZ
I
I
I I
I °v
I '�
I
I
1 3
I
I
�, I ;,
0
I rn
I
I
I?
I
I
p
NI I
N lad
t o
I
I
to
I
I
ILI
J I I
J Iaa
t o
I
I
IQ
I
1
m
a
a
a
.o
w
i I
Id9
I o
I
I
I°
I
I
z
c
I I
"c
I QLU
Z
I
I
I
o
I�
I
I
c
mv
z°
3 1 I
I.o
Icm
C5I
I
ID°
I
I
aLU,
ID
Q
I
I
E
I R
I
I
vLD
12
I
I
y
CD I I
low
I
I
I
lao
I
I
o f I
o1°
t o
I
I
loo
I
I
o
Z
Z �Z eu
Z
�Z
Z
M Iv, I,,,
o I�
IM
n
a
Io
�
OV I�
rn
d I" �
I�
IN
o Iv Io
,o to M
In
I�
3 IN
3
3 �� Ci v
I�
0o
N 100
U
v I N I O
rn �
N
I+
Ia
z
IM
z I
z Ioo
IM
3 il�x a I� aI2
A
I�
I
n
LU
d
I ., .a I.. a
Q,,ti Q?
Ica :?
Q 7
I `a
A
::
7
I :~
°' I c
I'c ^ .3
N
I c
'2
°.3 Iq
a
d'
,O
Iciod
O
Id
O
Id
I
d I
d I� �d
I
I�
P
d
U K
U
U
U
lu>
U
d
U
w
IIv
I
I
I
I
I z
I
I -
0
3
r
a
U
U
U
v
>
U
w
m
�
h
h
Q
d
L)[w.
a,
M5
z
z
a
W
Of
w
n
in
y
Q
O R
O a1
O
O
O
3
O
O
O
y
VI q
VI
VI
VI
9
C y
C y
C y
C
y
(may
M d �c
M d 'C
'tr,
O
O
N y •C
O
O
M d
•C
z 3
z'a
z.a
z:;
ae
S11Nn
a
a
a
a
-10d
N
V
O
N
C.
O'.
00
LLI
,�
00
U
a
a.
oD
W
.d b
O
O
O
O
NN
O
O
o
'�,�
a
a
a
a
a
O
a
o
a
a
Z
z
(1
v'i
N
O
1.
W
�D
Z
U
n
M
o
'.
O
,V
00
0
w
O_ '
U U
Z
z Z
z
Z
Z
z
Z
M
C
o
CL
a
W
E
E
O
U
0
C•
o
~
w
7
7
m
•p
O
U
E
7
E
7
£
le
p
°
£
E
a
m
U
U
a
m
t
t
o
t
U
U
C
A
a
v
c
C
O
m
C
F
U
Cl)
a

CL
M
O
N
m
a
I E
I
I
10
I
I
I; 1
10
I
I
I
I
CD
1 3
1 3
I
N Ism
I
I
I; I
^ 1=a
I�
1 3
I
I
II
O1
I C
I C
I
N -p Q
Ima
I
I
la I
N -p Q
I00
L
I
Of
I C
I
I
3
i .o
i o
i
r
o
I
I
I
iv IQ�
I
I
I� I
1a�
I
I
I
I
Z.
_0
V
v
Ix I
LD
I40
I
21V
t
I
I
l0
z
o
I
I
I
I E o
1
I
I I
I o
I
I
I
I
I a
I a
I
I°o
I
I
I QI
1°d
I
I n
I
I
IIl
IIl
rn
c
f0 I
EL
II Nm
II
II
.o
o
0
o
ro
II
ao
o o
o0
oaN
l a
I
I
z ,z m
zz
z z d
z
x
M io
i 3
d i0
'�✓
N iM
d i
3
d i�
3
i� i
v
i
cV
N 1 n U
M
Ipp
IO
I"'•
C',
IM
yNj I.'�. UINq
I
- Ipp
��q I�
,j I�
M
I
I`~
I
z I`^
N I'"
z I
z I"'
I^ pl P
I
to
IM
I
I
N
I c
I _o
A
I
I o
I
s
I
I•• _o I c
d
3
I o
I II
I
I II
I o
I d
n
I
I
I
I
is
n
I a „
O
;;
7 O
�
;; a
� O❑
I'a
O O
& I'�
O
w n' .. n
U U
a
O ❑
a
O ❑�
O
'J O
d I
d I
d I
d I
d IL
d
>
I Z
I N
I
I
I
I
d Iv zlv z
I
I
I N
I
I
00
C
N
z
z
z
M w
O
Q
z
z
.N
❑
Z
2
C
N
M
O
O
O
O
N
W
O w
O
eO+1
O
O
V
O\
VI 9
O\ SC
VI
O\ es
VI
C y
C y
C y
C
°
M
n
O
O
O
M C E
M C
M G E
O
O
V
za
z:a
za
LO
=L =L
Q
IC
O
M
h
00
rn
M
OO
N
„y
N
O
Yi
W
O
N
O
M
L
N
W O
L
N
O
Cl
�
G
�-.
N
ti
N
O
O
W
00
M
L
V..
U
z
U
z
U
z
U
z
U
z
U
z
U U
z z
U
z
U
z
U
z
m
m
2
E
CL
o
w
U
fT
LL
O
N
37
.7
r
y
Z
M
O
N
m
a

I I
I I
I I
I I
to � to
I I
'z
IL
s os
= o
o
i N
CD
CD
V
-� Z
m
0
c�
d
m
CL

0
m
75
U
�
U
■
�
�
�
0
�
0
V
§
O
■
■
CD
2
J_
a2
�§ C
§z
£s
�w
�IL
U)
w
U.Z
� c L
RIv)
ujCc
< @
�Q
� §
»
`SCD
CO
#-
-
/
fIe
-�
§q\§zkggz
cr22§\q
■1.9
/
m }
z
e
k
©«�k
2§±
f
0
°
{ k
qagg
-
co
_
/
co
I'
»
g�=>
o
��
G2g8
§q\§zkggz
cr22§\q
E
g3R
z
e
§§
82
§
®S
SS
_
qagg
-
�
n��
qq
RR
It
WMTE
oo�
§
§M
aao
-o
�«
_
00u0
m
CL0
o
.
zzalq
t$)\
§
R c
�
gc
J�
$$-$/7/7&$7
�}
J
6�
�a2
=oC%jc
0\
.
LOnw
77\}�-04
oo
LO
@�*-
Kn%
co
I'
»
g�=>
��
G2g8
E
g3R
a
e
§§
82
§
£
SS
_
qagg
-
�
n��
qq
RR
WMTE
oo�
§
§M
aao
-o
.
0
_
00u0
=
CL0
o
.
zzalq
_
R c
gc
J�
=oC%jc
LOnw
oo
LO
@�*-
Kn%
-=
77
�
�
2
(D
cl
co
C4//
-
�
q¥e
©
C4®
o=
/0
Ro
©2
k
o
I'
»
g�=>
0—
E
oz
a
e
§§
§
£
_
■
-
�
k
§
§
§M
.
0
_
00u0
=
CL0
o
.
zzalq
_
R c

I
J � (,Fetiba d 11�. i `.P Permit No.
W � GC?o 2l'��
NPDES Im lementation 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 StandarV7(Dissolved)
ic Life Protection
Parameter Acute FW, µg/l Chronic FW,cute SW, ggll Chronic SW, gg/l
(Dissolved) (Dissolved) (Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
Cadmium
65
Calculation
6.5
Calculation
---
40
-
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
50
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
3.1
Co er
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
81
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
0.1
Silver.
Calculation
0.06
1.9
81
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
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/l
Cadmium, Acute WER*{1.136672-[Inhardness](0.041838)) • e^{0.9151 [In hardness] -3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters WER*{1.136672-[Inhardness](0.041838)1 •e^{0.915l[Inhardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic WER*{1.101672-[Inhardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.7998[Inhardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute WER*0.316 • e^{0.8190[In hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[In hardness] -1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 • e^{0.8545[lnhardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER* {1.46203-[ln hardness] (0. 145712)} e^{1.273[lnhardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[Inhardness](0. 145712)} e^{1.273[In hardness] -4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 e^{0.8460[In hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No.
Silver, Acute WER*0.85 • e^{l.72[1n 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 Permittine 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.
To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q 10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site-specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site-specific effluent and
upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
Page 2 of 4

Permit No.
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
"_A" cc: ma/n + (S7C10, cjs *AV- U •)stream Yi
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
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 = i
Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [sst'+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 itduring
JuEPA's
96 EPA Translator1Guidance metals.
Document.more
information on conversion factors see hene
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
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µglL 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* (µgm or mg(L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
s7Q10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcmogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on-going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
1Q10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No.
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.
The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
3 e � �
! J ?p t ii -q-0 fA PINF1%. 0 V V r/1
C_la.�
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
�d5
A 0
7Q 10 summer (cfs)
(L ev tL-i -3 C -C S F e
1Q10 (cfs)
L, L
Permitted Flow (MGD)
'�L Ti
Date: q"
. r
Permit Writer.
6,4� �Ff°�I.NIJR
Page 4 of 4

10/19/17 WQS = 6 ng/L
Facility Name Jefferson WWTP/NC0021709
/Permit No.:
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
No Limit Required
No MMP Required
7Q10s = 2.200 cfs WQBEL = 20.19 ng/L
Permitted Flow = 0.600 47 ng/L
9/30/13
1.2
1.2
10/15/13
1.2
1.2
1.2 ng/L - Annual Average for 2013
2/4/14
2.94
2.94
5/13/14
1.15
1.15
8/12/14
6.19
6.19
11/4/14
0.7
0.7
12/2/14
0.1
0.5
2.3 ng/L - Annual Average for 2014
2/10/15
1.51
1.51
5/5/15
6.46
6.46
8/11/15
0.9
0.9
11/3/15
0.5
0.5
2.3 ng/L - Annual Average for 2015
2/2/16
1.08
1.08
3/14/16
0.1
0.5
3/15/16
0.1
0.5
3/16/16
0.1
0.5
3/17/16
0.1
0.5
4/27/16
0.91
0.91
5/16/16
<
0.1
0.5
5/17/16
<
0.1
0.5
5/18/16
<
0.1
0.5
5/19/16
<
0.1
0.5
8/15/16
<
0.1
0.5
8/16/16
<
0.1
0.5
8/17/16
<
0.1
0.5
8/18/16
<
0.1
0.5
10/10/16
<
0.1
0.5
10/11/16
<
0.1
0.5
10/12/16
<
0.1
0.5
10/13/16
<
0.1
0.5
11/22/16
<
0.1
0.5
0.6 ng/L - Annual Average for 2016
2/14/17
0.8
0.8
5/2/17
3.59
3.59
7/10/17
1.26
1.26
1.9 ng/L - Annual Average for 2017

Jefferson WWTP/NC0021709
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631E)
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
# of Samples
2
5
4
19
3
Annual Average, ng/L
1.2
2.3
2.3
0.6
1.9
Maximum Value, ng/L
1.20
6.19
6.46
1.08
3.59
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/ L
20.2

15A NCAC 02B.0225 OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS
(a) General. In addition to the existing classifications, the Commission may classify unique and special surface waters of
the state as outstanding resource waters (ORW) upon finding that such waters are of exceptional state or national
recreational or ecological significance and that the waters have exceptional water quality while meeting the following
conditions:
(1) that the water quality is rated as excellent based on physical, chemical or biological information;
(2) the characteristics which make these waters unique and special may not be protected by the assigned
narrative and numerical water quality standards.
(b) Outstanding Resource Values. In order to be classified as ORW, a water body must exhibit one or more of the
following values or uses to demonstrate it is of exceptional state or national recreational or ecological significance:
(1) there are outstanding fish (or commercially important aquatic species) habitat and fisheries;
(2) there is an unusually high level of water-based recreation or the potential for such recreation;
(3) the waters have already received some special designation such as a North Carolina or National Wild
and Scenic River, Native or Special Native Trout Waters or National Wildlife Refuge, which do not
provide any water quality protection;
(4) the waters represent an important component of a state or national park or forest; or
(5) the waters are of special ecological or scientific significance such as habitat for rare or endangered
species or as areas for research and education.
(c) Quality Standards for ORW.
(1) Freshwater: Water quality conditions shall be maintained to protect the outstanding resource values of
waters classified ORW. Management strategies to protect resource values shall be developed on a site
specific basis during the proceedings to classify waters as ORW. No new discharges or expansions of
existing discharges shall be permitted, and stormwater controls for all new development activities
requiring an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in accordance with rules established by the NC
Sedimentation Control Commission or an appropriate local erosion and sedimentation control program
shall be required to follow the stormwater provisions as specified in 15A NCAC 02H. 1000. Specific
stormwater requirements for ORW areas are described in 15A NCAC 02H .1007.
(2) Saltwater: Water quality conditions shall be maintained to protect the outstanding resource values of
waters classified ORW. Management strategies to protect resource values shall be developed on a
site-specific basis during the proceedings to classify waters as ORW. New development shall comply
with the stormwater provisions as specified in 15A NCAC 02H .1000. Specific stormwater
management requirements for saltwater ORWs are described in 15A NCAC 02H .1007. New
non -discharge permits shall meet reduced loading rates and increased buffer zones, to be determined
on a case-by-case basis. No dredge or fill activities shall be allowed if those activities would result in
a reduction of the beds of submerged aquatic vegetation or a reduction of shellfish producing habitat as
defined in 15A NCAC 031 .0 101 (b)(20)(A) and (B), except for maintenance dredging, such as that
required to maintain access to existing channels and facilities located within the designated areas or
maintenance dredging for activities such as agriculture. A public hearing is mandatory for any
proposed permits to discharge to waters classified as ORW.
Additional actions to protect resource values shall be considered on a site specific basis during the proceedings to classify
waters as ORW and shall be specified in Paragraph (e) of this Rule. These actions may include anything within the
powers of the Commission. The Commission shall also consider local actions which have been taken to protect a water
body in determining the appropriate state protection options. Descriptions of boundaries of waters classified as ORW are
included in Paragraph (e) of this Rule and in the Schedule of Classifications (15A NCAC 02B .0302 through 0213.0317)
as specified for the appropriate river basin and shall also be described on maps maintained by the Division of Water
Quality.
(d) Petition Process. Any person may petition the Commission to classify a surface water of the state as an ORW. The
petition shall identify the exceptional resource value to be protected, address how the water body meets the general
criteria in Paragraph (a) of this Rule, and the suggested actions to protect the resource values. The Commission may
request additional supporting information from the petitioner. The Commission or its designee shall initiate public
proceedings to classify waters as ORW or shall inform the petitioner that the waters do not meet the criteria for ORW
with an explanation of the basis for this decision. The petition shall be sent to:
Director
DENR/Division of Water Quality

1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
The envelope containing the petition shall clearly bear the notation: RULE-MAKING PETITION FOR ORW
CLASSIFICATION.
(e) Listing of Waters Classified ORW with Specific Actions. Waters classified as ORW with specific actions to protect
exceptional resource values are listed as follows:
(1) Roosevelt Natural Area [White Oak River Basin, Index Nos. 20-36-9.5-(1) and 20-36-9.5-(2)]
including all fresh and saline waters within the property boundaries of the natural area shall have only
new development which complies with the low density option in the stormwater rules as specified in
15A NCAC 2H .1005(2)(a) within 575 feet of the Roosevelt Natural Area (if the development site
naturally drains to the Roosevelt Natural Area);
(2) Chattooga River ORW Area (Little Tennessee River Basin and Savannah River Drainage Area): the
following undesignated waterbodies that are tributary to ORW designated segments shall comply with
Paragraph (c) of this Rule in order to protect the designated waters as per Rule .0203 of this Section.
However, expansions of existing discharges to these segments shall be allowed if there is no increase
in pollutant loading:
(A) North and South Fowler Creeks;
(B) Green and Norton Mill Creeks;
(C) Cane Creek;
(D) Ammons Branch;
(E) Glade Creek; and
(F) Associated tributaries;
(3) Henry Fork ORW Area (Catawba River Basin): the following undesignated waterbodies that are
tributary to ORW designated segments shall comply with Paragraph (c) of this Rule in order to protect
the designated waters as per Rule .0203 of this Section:
(A) Ivy Creek;
(B) Rock Creek; and
(C) Associated tributaries;
(4) South Fork New and New Rivers ORW Area [New River Basin (Index Nos. 10-1-33.5 and 10)]: the
following management strategies, in addition to the discharge requirements specified in Subparagraph
(c)(1) of this Rule, shall be applied to protect the designated ORW areas:
(A) Stormwater controls described in Subparagraph (c)(1) of this Rule shall apply to land within
one mile of and that drains to the designated ORW areas;
(B) New or expanded NPDES permitted wastewater discharges located upstream of the
designated ORW (for the North Fork New River ORW are see Subparagraph (14) of this
Paragraph) shall be permitted such that the following water quality standards are maintained
in the ORW segment:
(i) the total volume of treated wastewater for all upstream discharges combined shall
not exceed 50 percent of the total instream flow in the designated ORW under 7Q1 0
conditions, which are defined in Rule .0206(a)(1) of this Section;
(ii) a safety factor shall be applied to any chemical allocation such that the effluent
limitation for a specific chemical constituent shall be the more stringent of either the
limitation allocated under design conditions (pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0206)
for the normal standard at the point of discharge, or the limitation allocated under
design conditions for one-half the normal standard at the upstream border of the
ORW segment;
(iii) a safety factor shall be applied to any discharge of complex wastewater (those
containing or potentially containing toxicants) to protect for chronic toxicity in the
ORW segment by setting the whole effluent toxicity limitation at the higher (more
stringent) percentage effluent determined under design conditions (pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02B .0206) for either the instream effluent concentration at the point of
discharge or twice the effluent concentration calculated as if the discharge were at
the upstream border of the ORW segment;

(5)
(6)
(7)
C) New or expanded NPDES permitted wastewater discharges located upstream of the
designated ORW (for the North Fork New River ORW area; see Subparagraph (14) of this
Paragraph) shall comply with the following:
(i) Oxygen Consuming Wastes: Effluent limitations shall be as follows: BOD = 5
mg/l, and NH3-N = 2 mg/l;
(ii) Total Suspended Solids: Discharges of total suspended solids (TSS) shall be
limited to effluent concentrations of 10 mg/1 for trout waters and to 20 mg/1 for all
other waters;
(iii) Emergency Requirements: Failsafe treatment designs shall be employed, including
stand-by power capability for entire treatment works, dual train design for all
treatment components, or equivalent failsafe treatment designs;
(iv) Nutrients: Where nutrient overenrichment is projected to be a concern, effluent
limitations shall be set for phosphorus or nitrogen, or both;
Old Field Creek (New River Basin): the undesignated portion of Old Field Creek (from its source to
Call Creek) shall comply with Paragraph (c) of this Rule in order to protect the designated waters as
per Rule .0203 of this Section;
In the following designated waterbodies, no additional restrictions shall be placed on new or expanded
marinas. The only new or expanded NPDES permitted discharges that shall be allowed shall be
non-domestic, non -process industrial discharges. The Alligator River Area (Pasquotank River Basin)
extending from the source of the Alligator River to the U.S. Highway 64 bridge including New Lake
Fork, North West Fork Alligator River, Juniper Creek, Southwest Fork Alligator River, Scouts Bay,
Gum Neck Creek, Georgia Bay, Winn Bay, Stumpy Creek Bay, Stumpy Creek, Swann Creek (Swann
Creek Lake), Whipping Creek (Whipping Creek Lake), Grapevine Bay, Rattlesnake Bay, The Straits,
The Frying Pan, Coopers Creek, Babbitt Bay, Goose Creek, Milltail Creek, Boat Bay, Sandy Ridge
Gut (Sawyer Lake) and Second Creek, but excluding the Intracoastal Waterway (Pungo
River -Alligator River Canal) and all other tributary streams and canals;
In the following designated waterbodies, the only type of new or expanded marina that shall be
allowed shall be those marinas located in upland basin areas, or those with less than 10 slips, having no
boats over 21 feet in length and no boats with heads. The only new or expanded NPDES permitted
discharges that shall be allowed shall be non-domestic, non -process industrial discharges:
(A) The Northeast Swanquarter Bay Area including all waters northeast of a line from a point at
Lat. 35E 23N 510 and Long. 76E 21N 020 thence southeast along the Swanquarter National
Wildlife Refuge hunting closure boundary (as defined by the 1935 Presidential Proclamation)
to Drum Point.
(B) The Neuse -Southeast Pamlico Sound Area (Southeast Pamlico Sound Section of the
Southeast Pamlico, Core and Back Sound Area); (Neuse River Basin) including all waters
within an area defined by a line extending from the southern shore of Ocracoke Inlet
northwest to the Tar -Pamlico River and Neuse River basin boundary, then southwest to Ship
Point.
(C) The Core Sound Section of the Southeast Pamlico, Core and Back Sound Area (White Oak
River Basin), including all waters of Core Sound and its tributaries, but excluding Nelson
Bay, Little Port Branch and Atlantic Harbor at its mouth, and those tributaries of Jarrett Bay
that are closed to shellfishing.
(D) The Western Bogue Sound Section of the Western Bogue Sound and Bear Island Area
(White Oak River Basin) including all waters within an area defined by a line from Bogue
Inlet to the mainland at SR 1117 to a line across Bogue Sound from the southwest side of
Gales Creek to Rock Point, including Taylor Bay and the Intracoastal Waterway.
(E) The Stump Sound Area (Cape Fear River Basin) including all waters of Stump Sound and
Alligator Bay from marker Number 17 to the western end of Permuda Island, but excluding
Rogers Bay, the Kings Creek Restricted Area and Mill Creek.
(F) The Topsail Sound and Middle Sound Area (Cape Fear River Basin) including all estuarine
waters from New Topsail Inlet to Mason Inlet, including the Intracoastal Waterway and
Howe Creek, but excluding Pages Creek and Futch Creek;

(8) In the following designated waterbodies, no new or expanded NPDES permitted discharges and only
new or expanded marinas with less than 10 slips, having no boats over 21 feet in length and no boats
with heads shall be allowed:
(A) The Swanquarter Bay and Juniper Bay Area (Tar -Pamlico River Basin) including all waters
within a line beginning at Juniper Bay Point and running south and then west below Great
Island, then northwest to Shell Point and including Shell Bay, Swanquarter and Juniper Bays
and their tributaries, but excluding all waters northeast of a line from a point at Lat. 35E 23N
510 and Long. 76E 21N 020 thence southeast along the Swanquarter National Wildlife
Refuge hunting closure boundary (as defined by the 1935 Presidential Proclamation) to Drum
Point and also excluding the Blowout Canal, Hydeland Canal, Juniper Canal and Quarter
Canal.
(B) The Back Sound Section of the Southeast Pamlico, Core and Back Sound Area (White Oak
River Basin) including that area of Back Sound extending from Core Sound west along
Shackleford Banks, then north to the western most point of Middle Marshes and along the
northwest shore of Middle Marshes (to include all of Middle Marshes), then west to Rush
Point on Harker's Island, and along the southern shore of Harker's Island back to Core Sound.
(C) The Bear Island Section of the Western Bogue Sound and Bear Island Area (White Oak
River Basin) including all waters within an area defined by a line from the western most point
on Bear Island to the northeast mouth of Goose Creek on the mainland, east to the southwest
mouth of Queen Creek, then south to green marker No. 49, then northeast to the northern
most point on Huggins Island, then southeast along the shoreline of Huggins Island to the
southeastern most point of Huggins Island, then south to the northeastern most point on
Dudley Island, then southwest along the shoreline of Dudley Island to the eastern tip of Bear
Island.
(D) The Masonboro Sound Area (Cape Fear River Basin) including all waters between the
Barrier Islands and the mainland from Carolina Beach Inlet to Masonboro Inlet;
(9) Black and South Rivers ORW Area (Cape Fear River Basin) [Index Nos. 18-68-(0.5), 18-68-(3.5),
18-68-(11.5),18-68-12-(0.5),18-68-12-(11.5), and 18-68-2]: the following management strategies, in
addition to the discharge requirements specified in Subparagraph (c)(1) of this Rule, shall be applied
to protect the designated ORW areas:
(A) Stormwater controls described in Subparagraph (c)(1) of this Rule shall apply to land within
one mile of and that drains to the designated ORW areas;
(B) New or expanded NPDES permitted wastewater discharges located one mile upstream of the
stream segments designated ORW (upstream on the designated mainstem and upstream into
direct tributaries to the designated mainstem) shall comply with the following discharge
restrictions:
(i) Oxygen Consuming Wastes: Effluent limitations shall be as follows: BOD = 5 mg/1
and NH3-N = 2 mg/1;
(ii) Total Suspended Solids: Discharges of total suspended solids (TSS) shall be
limited to effluent concentrations of 20 mg/1;
(iii) Emergency Requirements: Failsafe treatment designs shall be employed, including
stand-by power capability for entire treatment works, dual train design for all
treatment components, or equivalent failsafe treatment designs;
(iv) Nutrients: Where nutrient overenrichment is projected to be a concern, effluent
limitations shall be set for phosphorus or nitrogen, or both.
(v) Toxic substances: In cases where complex discharges (those containing or
potentially containing toxicants) may be currently present in the discharge, a safety
factor shall be applied to any chemical or whole effluent toxicity allocation. The
limit for a specific chemical constituent shall be allocated at one-half of the normal
standard at design conditions. Whole effluent toxicity shall be allocated to protect
for chronic toxicity at an effluent concentration equal to twice that which is
acceptable under flow design criteria (pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0206);
(10) Lake Waccamaw ORW Area (Lumber River Basin) [Index No. 15-2]: all undesignated waterbodies
that are tributary to Lake Waccamaw shall comply with Paragraph (c) of this Rule in order to protect
the designated waters as per Rule .0203 of this Section;

(11) Swift Creek and Sandy Creek ORW Area (Tar -Pamlico River Basin) [portion of Index No. 28-78-(0.5)
and Index No. 28-78-1-(19)1: all undesignated waterbodies that drain to the designated waters shall
comply with Paragraph (c) of this Rule in order to protect the designated waters as per Rule .0203 of
this Section and to protect outstanding resource values found in the designated waters as well as in the
undesignated waters that drain to the designated waters;
(12) Fontana Lake North Shore ORW Area (Little Tennessee River Basin and Savannah River Drainage
Area) [Index Nos. 2-96 through 2-164 (excluding all waterbodies that drain to the south shore of
Fontana Lake) consists of the entire watersheds of all creeks that drain to the north shore of Fontana
Lake between Eagle and Forney Creeks, including Eagle and Forney Creeks. In addition to the
requirements specified in Subparagraph (c)(1) of this Rule, any person conducting development
activity disturbing greater than or equal to 5,000 square feet of land area in the designated ORW area
shall undertake the following actions to protect the outstanding resource values of the designated ORW
and downstream waters:
(A) investigate for the presence of and identify the composition of acid -producing rocks by
exploratory drilling or other means and characterize the net neutralization potential of the
acid -producing rocks prior to commencing the land -disturbing activity;
(B) avoid areas to the maximum extent practical where acid -producing rocks are found with net
neutralization potential of —5 or less;
(C) establish background levels of acidity and mineralization prior to commencing land -
disturbing activity, and monitor and maintain baseline water quality conditions for the
duration of the land -disturbing activity and for any period thereafter not less than two years
as determined by the Division as part of a certification issued in accordance with 15A NCAC
02H .0500 or stormwater permit issued pursuant to this Rule;
(D) obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for construction pursuant to
Rule 15A NCAC 02H.0126 prior to initiating land -disturbing activity;
(E) design stormwater control systems to control and treat stormwater runoff generated from all
surfaces generated by one inch of rainfall in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H. 1008; and
(F) replicate pre -development runoff characteristics and mimic the natural and unique hydrology
of the site, post development;
(13) Horsepasture River ORW Area (Savannah Drainage Area) [Index No. 4-13-(0.5) and Index No. 4-13-
(12.5)]: all undesignated waterbodies that are located within the Horsepasture River watershed shall
comply with Paragraph (c) of this Rule in order to protect the designated waters as per Rule .0203 of
this Section and to protect outstanding resource values found throughout the watershed. However,
new domestic wastewater discharges and expansions of existing wastewater discharges maybe allowed
provided that:
(A) Oxygen Consuming Wastes: Effluent limitations shall be as follows: BOD = 5 mg/1, and
NH3-N = 2 mg/1;
(B) Total Suspended Solids: Discharges of total suspended solids (TSS) shall be limited to
effluent concentrations of 10 mg/1 for trout waters and to 20 mg/1 for all other waters except
for mining operations, which will be held to their respective NPDES TSS permit limits;
(C) Nutrients: Where nutrient overenrichment is projected to be a concern, effluent limitations
shall be set for phosphorus or nitrogen, or both; and
(D) Volume: The total volume of treated wastewater for all discharges combined shall not
exceed 25 percent of the total instream flow in the designated ORW under 7Q 10 conditions,
which are defined in Rule .0206(a)(1) of this Section; and
(14) North Fork New River ORW Area (New River Basin) [Index Nos. 10-2-(1),10-2-(11)and 10-2-(12)]:
all non-ORW waterbodies including Little Buffalo Creek and Claybank Creek [Index Nos. 10-2-20-1
and 10-2-20-1-1 ] that are located within the North Fork New River watershed shall comply with Rule
.0224 of this Section in order to protect the ORW designated waters.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; S.L. 2005-97;
Eff.' October 1, 1995;
Amended Eff. August 1, 2003 (see S.L. 2003-433, s.2); August 1, 2000; April 1, 1996; January 1,
1996;
Temporary Amendment Eff. October 7, 2003;

Amended Eff. December 1, 2010; July 1, 2009; January 1, 2007; June 1, 2004.

Wa ter Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
November 8, 2017
MEMORANDUM
To: Jeff Bryan
NC DEQ / DWR / PWS Regional Engineer
Winston-Salem Regional Office
From: Gary Perlmutter
919-807-6385
NPDES Unit
Subject: Review of Draft NPDES Permit NCO021709
Jefferson WWTP
Ashe County
ROY COOPER
Goik,l„ o
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secrwoq
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
01mclor
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the draft permit and return this form by xx, 2017. If you
have any questions on the draft permit, please feel free to contact me at the telephone number shown above.
RESPONSE: (Check one)
E�rConcur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained properly, the stated
effluent limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the designated water quality
standards.
F-1
Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
QOpposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
Signed g Date:
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Wafer Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300