NC0021211_Fact Sheet_20220301

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCOO21211
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Gary Perlmutter, [e-mail]
Date: March 1, 2022
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Complex Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑ Renewal
N Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Graham / Graham WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Drawer 357, Graham, NC 27253
Facility Address:
1204 East Gilbreath Street, Graham, NC 27253
Permitted Flow:
3.5 MGD with 5.0 MGD expansion
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal: 92.43 % Domestic, 7.57 % Industrial'
Facility Class:
Grade IV
Treatment Units:
Bar screen, Grit collection, Primary clarifiers, Aeration basins, Settling
Tanks, Digesters, Lime Stabilization, Sludge thickening, Chlorination,
De -chlorination
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Yes
County:
Alamance
Region
Winston-Salem
Footnote.
1. Permitted industrial flow is 0.265 MGD.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Graham had applied
for NPDES permit renewal, and submitted a renewal application dated 11/18/2015 to DWR, received on
12/2/2015. Since that time, the Permittee proposed expansion plans to the Division, submitting a request
for speculative limits on 6/6/2019. Speculative limits for expansion flow tiers of 5.0 and 6.2 MGD were
Page 1 of 17

calculated and communicated to the Permittee on 10/1/2019 with a revised set sent on 1/27/2020. A draft
Engineering Report/Enivronmental Information Document (ER/EID) for the expansion was received from
the Permittee in 11/5/2020 followed by a permit renewal modification application, received by DWR on
11/25/2020. The application is for flow tiers of 3.5 MGD and 5.0 MGD. The final ER/EID was received on
10/11/2021 and approved on 12/21/2021 with a review of the FONSI.
Review of the 2020 application found it complete with all appropriate sections filled, signed by the
responsible official, and contains the required attachments. Effluent Pollutant Scans were sampled on
3/16/2017, 6/19/2018, and 9/10/2019. The four required second species WET tests were sampled on
12/5/2016, 3/13/2017, 6/18/2018, and 9/9/2019. Per Session Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 19, Section 13.1(r)
the City submitted a Chemical Addendum to the permit application on 1/3/2022.
This facility serves a population of —16,953 residents in the City of Graham as reported in the Final ER/EID
and operates a pretreatment program with 5 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), including 3 Categorical
Industrial Users (CIUs).
2. Receiving Waterbody Information
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 — Haw River
Stream Segment:
16-(10.5)
Stream Classification:
WS-V; NSW
Drainage Area (mi2):
614
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
34
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
85
30Q2 (cfs):
114
Average Flow (cfs):
553
IWC (% effluent):
14 at 3.5 MGD / 19 at 5.0 MGD
303(d) listed/parameter:
This segment is neither listed as impaired in the 2018 NC
final 303(d) list nor the 2020 draft 303(d) list.
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Statewide TMDL for Mercury
Subbasin/HUC:
03-06-02 / 03030002
USGS Topo Quad:
C21SE / Mebane, NC
3. Effluent Data Summary
Page 2of17

Effluent data is summarized in Table 1 for the period of June 2017-May 2021.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary.
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limit 1
Flow
MGD
1.98
8.64
1.13
3.5
Total Monthly Flow
MG/mo
60.33
90.15
45.11
BOD5
(April 1 -October 31)WA
mg/L
5.6
19.8
< 2 0
MA = 12.0
= 18.0
BOD5
(November 1 -March 31)WA
mg/L
6.7
84.2
< 20
,
MA = 24.0
= 36.0
BOD5 removal
%
97.2
99.2
92.5
> 85
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS)
m
6.0
296
2.3
MA = 30.0
WA = 45.0
TSS removal
%
97.8
99.5
90.0
> 85
Ammonia-N (NH3-N)
(April 1 - October 31)
mg/L
1.53
10.30
<0.10
MA = 4.0
WA = 12.0
Ammonia-N (NH3-N)
(November 1 -March 31)WA
mg/L
3.85
25.68
< 010
.
MA = 8.0
= 24.0
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
mg/L
8.1
10.8
5.8
DA > 5.0
pH
SU
7.2
7.9
6.1
6.0-9.0
Temperature
°C
18.4
28.0
6.0
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
#/100 mL
> 2420
< 1.0
MA = 200
WA = 400
Total Residual Chlorine
(TRC)
!AWL
20.1
43
< 20
DM = 28 z
Conductivity
µmhos/cm
1,609
3,392
TKN
mg/L
3.48
25.60
0.13
NO3-N + NO2-N
mg/L
6.34
29.70
< 0.10
Total Nitrogen (TN)
mg/L
9.80
33.47
0.22
TN Load
lb/mo
4,870
11,366
939
TN Load
lb/yr
CY2018 = 100,683**
CY2019 = 40,305
CY2020 = 36,483
56,315
Total Phosphorus (TP)
mg/L
0.5
8.6
<
TP Load
lb/mo
244
939
48
Monitor &
Report
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limit 1
Page 3of17

CY2018 = 4,319
TP Load
lb/yr
CY2019 = 2,944
7,079
CY2020 = 2,694
Footnotes.
1. MA -Monthly Average, WA -Weekly Average, DM -Daily Maximum.
2. TRC compliance level of 50 µg/L approved by EPA effective March 1, 2008 to address analytical
difficulties with TRC measurements.
**See note in Compliance Summary.
The annual average flow for calendar year 2020 was 1.90 MGD or 54% of the design flow of 3.50 MGD.
The City met with DWR in May 2019 to discuss potential flow expansions out of concerns of meeting the
annual TN load limits, and was given guidance in planning for expansions. A request for speculative limits
at 5.0 MGD amd 6.2 MGD was received by the Division in June 2019. A renewal / modification application
was received by DWR on 11/25/20 to include an expansion flow tier of 5.0 MGD. The expansion flow tier
has been added to the permit.
From the Comments section of the January 2019 DMR: "Weekly averages for BOD and TSS were above
permit limits for the week of January 20-26 of 2019. Heavy rain on January 24 led to brief upset of the
plant over the next 24-48 hours. By January 26, the plant was back in compliance. However, the BOD and
TSS results on January 25 caused our weekly average results to exceed our permit limits."
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions when
model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/L of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to verify
model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other instream
concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also Monitoring Coalitions
established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in which case instream
monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this permit
action: The current permit requires instream monitoring for Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Temperature for
protection of aquatic life. The upstream monitoring station (B 1200000) is located at the NC 54 bridge —600
ft upstream of the outfall, and the downstream station (B1440000) is located at the SR 2158 bridge —1.6 mi
downstream of the outfall.
Instream data from were obtained from June 2017—December 2020 were provided by DWR Ecosystems
Branch / Monitoring Coalition Program for review. The data were compared with concurrent effluent data
and against state water quality standards where applicable. Averages of upstream and downstream locations
were tested statistically for significant differences using two -sample t tests. Level of significance is 0.05.
Instream data review findings for each parameter are summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Instream and concurrent effluent monitoring summary statistics.
Page 4of17

Parameter
Upstream
Downstream
Effluent
Standard
Dissolved Oxygen
(DO), mg/L
Average = 8.5
Range: 5.8-12.3
Average = 8.6
Range: 5.9-12.4
Average = 7.8
Range: 6.3-9.8
5.0
Temperature, °C
Average = 20.0
Range: 4.9-31.7
Average = 20.0
Range: 5.2-31.9
Average = 20.1
Range: 10.0-27.0
32.0
Specific Conductance,
µS/cm
Average = 236
Range: 75-615
Average = 240
Range: 75-608
Average = 1641
Range: 653-2793
NA
Fecal Coliform,
cfu/100 mL
Geomean = 230
Range: 25-12,000
Geomean = 221
Range: 16-22,000
Geomean = 4
Range: < 1-2420
NA
Dissolved Oxygen. DO remains in the permit as a parameter of concern for aquatic life. Reviewed instream
DO data showed seasonal variation with summer lows and winter highs at both instream locations. Instream
summer minima were above the 5 mg/L daily average water quality standard for non -trout waters (15A
NCAC 02B .0211) at both locations. No statistically significant differences were found between the
upstream and downstream locations. While overall the effluent DO was lower on average than either
instream DO, it does not seem to affect the instream DO.
Temperature. Temperature remains in the permit as a parameter of concern for aquatic life. Reviewed
instream temperature data showed seasonal patterns of summer highs and winter lows at both locations.
Summer temperature maxima at both stations were below the water quality standard of 32°C for upper
piedmont and mountain waters (15A NCAC 02B .0211). No statistically significant differences were
detected among average temperature values of the two instream locations. Review of paired up- to
downstream temperatures found all within the 2.8°C increase standard (15A NCAC 02B .0211).
Conductivity is a parameter of concern because of industrial discharges. The permit does not currently
require instream monitoring, but data are available for the monitoring stations noted above. Review of
instream data from June 2017—December 2020 revealed no statistical difference between the two sets on
average (two -sample t-test: t = -0.18, p > 0.10). Instream patterns appeared to be aligned between the
upstream and downstream stations. Concurrent effluent conductivity data are substantially higher than
either instream station. The WWTP has a pretreatment program with six SIUs. Therefore, instream
conductivity monitoring both upstream and downstream of discharge will be added to the permit, based on
presence of an industrial pretreatment program and the 2002 Instream Conductivity and Fecal Coliform
Monitoring Guidance.
Fecal Coliform is a parameter of concern for aquatic life and human health. The permit does not currently
require instream monitoring for Fecal Coliform, since the receiving stream is neither impaired for coliform
not is it a Class B waterbody, per the 2002 guidance. However, data are available for review. Instream
coliform count geomean were similar between upstream and downstream while concurrent effluent
coliform count geomean was substantially lower. The effluent does not appear to be affecting the instream
Fecal Coliform; this parameter is not required and instream monitoring for Fecal Coliform was not added
to the permit.
Permit -required instream monitoring will continue to be waived as long as the Permittee maintains
membership in the Upper Cape Fear Basin Association (monitoring coalition).
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): YES
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association (UCFRBA)
5. Compliance Summary
Page 5of17

Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility has reported five
limit violations over the past five years (since June 2016), involving BOD, NH3-N, TN Loading and TSS
exceedences. One weekly average BOD exceedence and a weekly TSS exceedence was reported on
1/26/2019, resulting in an Notice of Violation (NOV) for both violations. One monthly average NH3-N
exceedences was reported on 1/31/2018, resulting in a Notice of Deficiency (NOD). Two annual TN Load
exceedences were reported (2017 and 2018), but no action has been taken in either case due to confusion
regarding effective date (January 2016 or 2019).
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): The facility passed 18 of 18 quarterly chronic toxicity tests from March 2017—June 2021, as well
as the most recent 4 second species chronic toxicity tests included in the renewal/modification application,
collected on 12/16/2016, 03/23/2017, 06/28/2018, and 09/19/2019 plus those collected more recently in
December 2020 and March 2021.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The most recent inspection (compliance
evaluation), conducted 09/15/2020, found the facility in compliance. The inspection report noted that the
facility appeared well run with no deficiencies of violations found. A pretreatment inspection was occurred
on 3/10/2021 and similarly reported that the facility was well operated, records well organized, and no
issues were noted.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1 Q 10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B. 0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD = 30 mg/L for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: The current BOD
limits were set from wasteload allocations (WLAs) that were modeled in the 1980's. The summer limit of
12 mg/L was first set in 1987 (originally set as an overall limit in 1982), and the winter limit of 24 mg/L
was set in 1989. No changes are proposed. The speculative limits for the 5.0 MGD expansion flow tier are
based on freezing the current permitted BOD ultimate loading (i.e., the facility will not be allowed to
discharge oxygen -consuming waste above what is currently permitted).
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/L (summer) and 1.8 mg/L (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria, utilizing
a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Page 6of17

Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/L) and capped at 28 ug/L (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/L are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The current NH3-
N monthly average limits were first placed in the permit prior to 1996 to protect the DO standard. Weekly
average limits were first placed in the 2006 permit renewal per federal rules not specified in that permit's
fact sheet. The current TRC limit was also first placed in the 2006 permit, capped at 28 µg/L to protect the
water quality standard of 17 µg/L.
Ammonia and TRC have been reviewed in the attached Wasteload Allocation (WLA) sheet. Current limits
for ammonia were found to be more stringent than the IWC-based calculated results in the WLA sheet. The
resulting TRC limit is capped at 28 µg/L, and will be maintained in the permit.
The speculative NH3-N limits for the 5.0 MGD expansion flow tier are based on freezing the current
permitted BOD ultimate loading (i.e., facility will not be allowed to discharge oxygen -consuming waste
above what is currently permitted).
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of 1/2 detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
The RPA was run with effluent Hardness data available via DMRs and upstream hardness data received
from the ORC per request on 7/22/2021.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between June 2017 and
May 2021 for both the current 3.5 MGD permitted flow and the 5.0 MGD expansion flow tier. Pollutants
of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water quality standards/criteria.
Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for this permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable water
quality standards/criteria: None.
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria, but
the maximum predicted concentration was > 50% of the allowable concentration: None.
No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and the
maximum predicted concentration was < 50% of the allowable concentration: Arsenic, Beryllium,
Cadmium, Total Phenolic Compounds, Total Chromium, Copper, Cyanide, Lead, Molybdenum,
Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Zinc.
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality -based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: None.
Page 7of17

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: Graham WWTP is a Major POTW discharging complex
wastewater with a chronic WET limit at 14% effluent, based on the instream waste concentration (IWC)
calculation using the permitted flow of 3.5 MGD and summer minimum stream flow 7Q10 of 34 cfs. WET
testing will continue on a quarterly frequency. No changes were made at 3.5 MGD; a WET limit at 19%
was added to the permit at 5.0 MGD based on the same stream flow.
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.
The current permit has an MMP Special Condition, and the Permittee had included an updated Summary
of Waste Minimization Plan Activities with the permit renewal application, in accordance with the permit.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary.
Parameter
2017
2018
2019
2020
202
No. of Samples
6
8
3
4
1
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
6.2
5.6
6.0
3.1
3.5
Maximum Conc., ng/L
8.65
15.90
8.63
5.62
3.50
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L at 3.5 MGD
87.21
WQBEL, ng/L at 5.0 MGD
64.65 i
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Review of effluent data from July 2017—
March 2021 revealed no annual average mercury concentration exceeded the WQBEL at either flow tier,
and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL (Table 3). Therefore, no mercury limit is required.
Because the facility's permitted flow is > 2 MGD and mercury levels > 1 ng/L were detected among
Page 8of17

samples, a mercury minimization plan (MMP) is required and will be maintained in the permit. The MMP
special condition has been reworded toward its maintenance.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within
this permit: The facility lies in the Haw River arm of the Lake Jordan Reservoir. The Haw River arm is
subject to the Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy (15A NCAC 02B .0262) in which are respective
nitrogen and phosphorus TMDL reduction goals of 8% and 5%, respectively, from 1997-2001 baseline
load levels. To meet these goals, the facility is subject to nitrogen and phosphorus allocations assigned in
accordance with the Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Wastewater Discharge Requirements (15A
NCAC 02B .0270). The assigned allocations are listed in the current permit as load limits of 56,315 lb/yr
Total Nitrogen (TN) and 7,079 lbs/yr Total Phosphorus (TP).
Nutrient requirements were originally placed in the permit as a modification to incorporate Jordan Lake
Nutrient Requirements (15A NCAC 02B .0270) on July 9, 2010. The 2010 permit modification included:
monthly and annual TN and TP load monitoring requirements; an annual TP load of 7,079 lb/yr, effective
1/1/2010; and the addition of five sections. The added sections included: 1) nutrient allocations, 2) annual
TN and TP limits, 3) calculation for TN and TP loads, 4) nitrogen optimization, and 5) nutrient monitoring
re -opener. The re -opener was removed in the subsequent permit renewal in 2013, and a TN load limit of
56,315 lb/yr was added with an effective date 1/1/2016 in recognition of Session Law 2011-394 H.B. 119.
The TN load limit effective date had since been extended to January 1, 2019 per Session Law 2016-94,
H.B. 1030. Sijnce both effective dates have passed, the effective date was removed from the permit.
Section A. (3.) of the current permit lists TN and TP allocations assigned to Graham WWTP in accordance
with the Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Rule. This section states that for compliance purposes these
allocations do not supersede any nutrient limit elsewhere in the permit or in a NPDES permit of a
compliance association in which the Permittee is a Co-Permittee Member. The allocations are referred to
as limits in Section A. (5.) of the current permit. In addition, the TP allocation is the same as that in the
Haw River Nutrient Compliance Association (HRNCA) NPDES Permit No. NCC000003 (issued December
22, 2016), in which Permittee is a Co-Permittee Member.
Section A. (4.) of the current permit states that the Permittee shall be in compliance with TN and TP load
limits if the load is less than the limit, or if the Permittee is a Co-Permittee Member of a compliance
association. Review of effluent data showed annual TN and TP loads were below their respective limits for
the years 2015, 2016 and 2019, but the TN load was exceeded in 2017 and 2018 (see Table 1). No action
was taken due to the effective date being moved to January 1, 2019. As stated above, Graham WWTP is a
Co-Permittee Member of HRNCA, which addresses only TP discharges. TP Allocations and effluent limits
for Graham WWTP are the same in the current permit as in the HRNCA permit. Therefore, TP compliance
is demonstrated. No changes were made.
Section A. (5.) of the current permit contains formulae to calculate monthly and annual nutrient (TN and
TP) loading based on effluent concentrations and flows. To check TN load calculations, the current permit
requires weekly monitoring of effluent TKN, NO2 + NO3, and TN concentrations as separate parameters.
Review of the data verified that the calculations were used correctly for both TN and TP loading parameters.
Few errors were found, and these were corrected via communication with the ORC.
Section A. (6.) in the current permit contains annual reporting requirements for nitrogen optimization. The
Permittee submitted a nitrogen optimization report on February 5, 2010. Because of the TN loading limits
are in effect as of January 1, 2016, this interim condition is not longer needed. Therefore, it was removed
from the permit.
Page 9of17

Speculative limits were calculated for TN and TP loads based on current allocations per rule 15A NCAC
02B . 0270. Those load limits for the 5.0 MGD expansion flow (56,315 lbs/ year TN and 7,079 lbs/ year
TP) will be added to the permit. The speculative limits letter notes that the Permittee is required to
demonstrate that the design will be capable of achieving the limits opon application for expansion. The
submitted Engineering Report/Environnental Information Document (ER/EID), which was received prior
to the renewal/modification application and describes the improvement project for expansion, demonstrates
the expansion design's capability to meet the expansion nutrient loading limits.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: The receiving water
section of the Haw River is classified as a water supply (WS-V; NSW), potentially subject to specific water
quality standards. Among the water quality standards for WS-V waters (15A NCAC 02B .0218) is Nitrate
Nitrogen of 10.0 mg/L. Graham WWTP is exempt from this standard per clarification in Senate Bill 810,
signed by the NC Governor on July 16, 2012. Senate Bill 810 states, in part:
"SECTION 12.1. Rules adopted by the Environmental Management Commission pursuant to S.L.
2009-216 and S.L. 2009-486 to implement nutrient management strategies for the B. Everett Jordan
Reservoir and the Falls of the Neuse Reservoir watersheds shall not be interpreted to apply surface
water quality standards set out in 15A NCAC 2B .0218(3)(e) through (3)(h) to waters designated in the
nutrient management rules as WS-V except where: (i) the designation of WS-V is associated with a
water supply intake used by an industry to supply drinking water for their employees; or (ii) standards
set out in 15A NCAC 02B .0218(3)(e) through (3)(h) are violated at the upstream boundary of waters
within those watersheds that are classified as WS-II, WS-III, or WS-IV. This section shall not be
construed to alter the nutrient reduction requirements set out in 15A NCAC 2B .0262(5) or 15A NCAC
2B .0275(3)."
Graham WWTP had participated in a basin -wide survey for the emerging contaminants 1,4-Dioxane and
PFAS chemical group in 2019. Three rounds of influent sampling were conducted in July, August and
September 2019, results of which were submitted along with a completed Chemical Addendum form for
all 40 CFR 136 pollutants, received on 1/4/2022. Reviewed data from the sampling found effluent
concentrations to be below the allowable concentration for 1,4-Dioxane and the EPA Health Advisory for
PFOA & PFOS (Table 5).
Table 5. Influent Monitoring Results of Emerging Contaminants, 2017-2019.
Parameter
Average (Range), µg/LIr
Reference Target
Concentration (µg/L)
1,4-Dioxane
2.02 (1.18-3.29)
36.03'
PFOA & PFOS
15.41 (6.50-21.77)
70 2
Footnote.
1. Allowable Discharge concentration based on RPA using instream target value of 0.35 µg/L for water
supply waters.
2. EPA Health Advisory level for drinking water.
The POTW lies downstream of where the discharge from Reidsville WWTP enters the Haw River, a
discharge that has reported high levels of 1,4-Dioxane. The Graham WWTP discharges into a Class WS-V
waterbody with the nearest WS boundary at 14.8 miles downstream. Because 1,4-Dioxane was detected in
the influent at a concentration high enough for further evaluation, monthly monitoring for this parameter
will be added to the permit. In addition, a permit reopener special condition regarding 1,4-Dioxane based
on changes toward limits, monitoring or treatment was added to the permit.
Page 10 of 17

Based on detection of PFAS chemicals in the influent from the 2019 samplings, which was also provided
via as an attachment to the NPDES application received on 1/4/2022, monitoring of PFAS chemicals was
added to the permit at a frequency of 2/year. Since an EPA method for sampling and analyzing PFAS in
wastewater is not currently available, the PFAS sampling requirement in the Permit includes a compliance
schedule which delays the effective date of this requirement until the first full calendar quarter beginning 6
months after EPA has a final wastewater method in 40 CFR 136 published in the Federal Register. This
date may be extended upon request and if there are no NC -certified labs.
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H.0107(c) (2) (B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B. 0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/L
BOD5/ TSSfor Monthly Average, and 45 mg/L for BOD5/TSSfor Weekly Average). YES.
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD5/TSS included in the permit? YES.
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA.
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge)
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit must
document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H .0105(c)(2). In all cases,
existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is maintained
and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: The submitted ER/EID evaluated multiple
alternatives, including a no -action alternative, two expansion alternatives (one with and one without
primary clarifiers), three non -discharge alternatives (re -use, land application, and decentralized system of
septic tanks), a regionalization alternative (diverting excess flow to another nearby WWTP), and a
combined alternative of re -use and regionalization. The non -discharge alternatives were rejected due to
insufficient demand for re -use water and infeasibility.
Expansion without primary clarifiers was the preferred alternative, selected based on lowest cost compared
to the other feasible alternatives while providing the needed capacity and treatment for increased flow,
including high I/I during storm events. The ER portion of the ER/EID states that the proposed expansion
project "would increase the plant's hydraulic capacity and help prevent another overflow during a storm
event. This project will also relocate current treatment facilities that are located within the 100-year
floodplain to a safer location where they are less likely to be affected by flooding. This, along with replacing
Page 11 of 17

older facilities with newer treatment facilities will make the plant more resilient to future flooding/storm
events and ensure the plant returns highly treated effluent to the river."
An assessment of direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts and their mitigation are detailed in
the EID portion of the ER/EID. Direct impacts to water resources by the expansion project include minor,
short-term sedimentation and tubidity increase by construction activities. Mitigation includes an erosion
and sedimentation control plan and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Indirect
and cumulative impacts to water resources may accrue from growth and urban development, to which the
proposed expansion will mitigate by preventing future development of septic systems in the service area,
thereby mitigating groundwater quality impacts. Land use changes from future growth and development
can also have impact via stormwater. Mitigation measures noted in the EID include local erosion and
sedimentation ordinances. The ER was reviewed by the EMC with no comments; the ER approval letter
was issued on 12/21/2021.
9. Antibacksliding Review
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO.
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA.
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following regulations
and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2) NPDES
Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance, Reduced
Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best Professional
Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not considered
effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -backsliding
prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
The current permit has reduced monitoring frequencies for BOD, TSS, NH3-N and Fecal Coliform, all set
in 2013. Neither the 2015 renewal application nor the 2020 renewal/modification application included a
request for continuation of reduced monitoring. A request was received on December 17, 2020. Review of
effluent data from June 2018—May 2021 for all four parameters revealed that the data criteria of 1) three-
year mean below 50% of the monthly average limit, and 2) no more than 15 sampling results greater than
200% of that limit, were met. Therefore, the reduced monitoring frequencies were maintained for BOD,
TSS, Ammonia-N, and Fecal Coliform at the 3.5 MGD flow tier.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
Page 12 of 17

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 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes at 3.5 MGD flow tier.
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow
MA 3.5 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Total Monthly Flow
(TMF)
Monitor monthly
No change
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
and Total Phosphorus loads.
Biological Oxygen
Demand, 5-day
(BOD5)
Summer
MA 12.0 mg/L
WA 18.0 mg/L
Winter
MA 24.0 mg/L
WA 36.0 mg/L
Monitor 2/week
No change
WQBEL. Based on protection of
DO standard via Wasteload
Allocation (WLA) calculated in
1987 and 1989. Monitoring
Frequency Reduction (MFR) criteria
were met.
Total Suspended
Solids (TSS)
MA 30.0 mg/L
WA 45.0 mg/L
Monitor 2/week
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards / 40 CFR 133 / 15A
NCAC 2B .0406. MFR criteria were
met.
Ammonia-N (NH3-N)
Summer
MA 4.0 mg/L
WA 12.0 mg/L
Winter
MA 8.0 mg/L
WA 24.0 mg/L
Monitor 2/week
No change
WQBEL. Calculation results based
on NC's use of EPA criteria in
developing 1.0 mg/L summer and
1.8 mg/L winter values in wasteload
allocations to protect against NH3-N
toxicity (see WLA sheet attached).
MFR criteria were met.
Dissolved Oxygen
(DO)
>_ 5 mg/L
Monitor daily
No change
WQBEL. Based on protection of the
DO standard, 15A NCAC 2B .0200
and .0500.
pH
6-9 SU
Monitor daily
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200 and .0500.
Temperature
Monitor daily
No change
State WQ reporting requirements
15A NCAC 2B .0500.
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
MA 200 /100 mL
WA 400 /100 mL
Monitor 2/week
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200. MFR criteria were
met.
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Total Residual
Chlorine (TRC)
DM 28 µg/L
Monitor daily
No change
WQBEL. Capped per NH3/TRC
WLA Calculation.
Page 13 of 17

Conductivity
Monitor daily
Add Instream
monitoring at
frequency per 15A
NCAC 2B .0500.
2002 DWQ Guidance memo; plant
has a pretreatment program. 15A
NCAC 2B .0500.
TKN
Monitor weekly
No change
For Total Nitrogen (TN) calculation,
15A NCAC 02B .0500.
NO3 + NO2
Monitor weekly
No change
For TN calculation, 15A NCAC 02B
.0500.
Total Nitrogen (TN)
Monitor weekly
No change
State WQ reporting requirements
15A NCAC 2B .0500.
TN Load
56,315 lb/yr
Monitor monthly,
annually
No change
WQBEL. Nutrient load allocations,
15A NCAC 02B .0270.
Nitrogen
Optimization
Special Condition
Remove from permit
This was an interim condition to
help meet TN Load limits.
Condition expired at end of 2016.
Total Phosphorus
(TP)
Monitor weekly
No change
State WQ reporting requirements
15A NCAC 2B .0500.
TP Load
7,079 lb/yr
Monitor monthly,
annually
No change
WQBEL. Nutrient load allocations,
15A NCAC 02B .0270.
Total Hardness
No requirement
Add quarterly
monitoring
Hardness -dependent dissolved
metals water quality standards,
approved in 2016, need effluent and
instream hardness data for
calculations of permit limitations.
Total Mercury
Mercury
Minimization Plan
(MMP)
Maintain MMP
In accordance with 2012 Statewide
Mercury TMDL Implementation, per
facility size and monitoring data
criteria.
1,4-Dioxane
No requirement
Add monthly
monitoring
Based limited influent data showing
detection, more results are needed to
evaluate.
PFAS
No requirement
Add monitoring 2/year
with delayed
implementation
Based limited influent data showing
detection, more results are needed to
evaluate. Implementation delayed
until after EPA certified method
becomes available.
Toxicity Test
Chronic
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Pass/Fail at 14%
effluent, monitor
quarterly
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
amounts. 15A NCAC 02B .0200,
15A NCAC 02B .0500.
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Page 14 of 17

Effluent Pollutant
Scan
Three times per
permit cycle
Update sampling years
to 2023, 2024, 2025.
40 CFR 122
Electronic Reporting
No requirement
Add Electronic
Reporting Special
Condition
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA — Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Maximum.
Table 5. Proposed Permit Conditions at 5.0 MGD flow tier.
Parameter
Permit Condition.
Basis for Condition
Flow
MA 5.0 MGD
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Total Monthly Flow
(TMF)
Monitor monthly
For calculation of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus loads.
Biological Oxygen
Demand, 5-day
(BOD5)
Summer
MA 8.4 mg/L
WA 12.6 mg/L
Winter
MA 16.8 mg/L
WA 25.2 mg/L
Monitor daily
WQBEL. Based on freezing permitted BOD ultimate loading
at 3.5 MGD (i.e., facility will not be allowed to discharge
oxygen -consuming waste above what is permitted for 3.5
MGD).
Total Suspended
Solids (TSS)
MA 30.0 mg/L
WA 45.0 mg/L
Monitor daily*
TBEL. Secondary treatment standards / 40 CFR 133 / 15A
NCAC 2B .0406. MFR criteria were met.
*See comments relating to frequency reduction below.
Ammonia-N (NH3-N)
Summer
MA 2.8 mg/L
WA 8.4 mg/L
Winter
MA 5.6 mg/L
WA 16.8 mg/L
Monitor daily
WQBEL. Based on freezing permitted BOD ultimate loading
at 3.5 MGD (i.e., facility will not be allowed to discharge
oxygen -consuming waste above what is permitted for 3.5
MGD).
Dissolved Oxygen
(DO)
> 5 mg/L
Monitor daily
WQBEL. Based on protection of the DO standard, 15A NCAC
2B .0200 and .0500.
pH
6-9 SU
Monitor daily
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B .0200 and .0500.
Temperature
Monitor daily
State WQ reporting requirements 15A NCAC 2B .0500.
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
MA 200 /100 mL
WA 400 /100 mL
Monitor daily
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B .0200.
Total Residual
Chlorine (TRC)
DM 28 µg/L
Monitor daily
WQBEL. Capped per NH3/TRC WLA Calculation.
Conductivity
Monitor daily
2002 DWQ Guidance memo; plant has a pretreatment
program. 15A NCAC 2B .0500.
Parameter
Permit Condition
Basis for Condition
TKN
Monitor weekly
For Total Nitrogen (TN) calculation, 15A NCAC 02B .0500.
NO3 + NO2
Monitor weekly
For TN calculation, 15A NCAC 02B .0500.
Page 15 of 17

Total Nitrogen (TN)
Monitor weekly
State WQ reporting requirements 15A NCAC 2B .0500.
TN Load
56,315 lb/yr
Monitor monthly,
annually
WQBEL. Nutrient load allocations, 15A NCAC 02B .0270.
Total Phosphorus
(TP)
Monitor weekly
State WQ reporting requirements 15A NCAC 2B .0500.
TP Load
7,079 lb/yr
Monitor monthly,
annually
WQBEL. Nutrient load allocations, 15A NCAC 02B .0270.
Total Hardness
Monitor quarterly
Hardness -dependent dissolved metals water quality standards,
approved in 2016, need effluent and instream hardness data for
calculations of permit limitations.
Total Mercury
Mercury
Minimization Plan
(MMP)
In accordance with 2012 Statewide Mercury TMDL
Implementation, per facility size and monitoring data criteria.
1,4-Dioxane
Monitor monthly
Based limited influent data showing detection, more results are
needed to evaluate.
PFAS
Monitor 2/year
with delayed
implementation
Based limited influent data showing detection, more results are
needed to evaluate. Implementation delayed until after EPA
certified method becomes available.
Toxicity Test
Chronic
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Pass/Fail at 19%
effluent, monitor
quarterly
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts. 15A NCAC 02B .0200,
15A NCAC 02B .0500.
Effluent Pollutant
Scan
Three times per
permit cycle
40 CFR 122
Electronic Reporting
No requirement
In accordance with EPA 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: 01/15/2022
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): Comments were
provided by the Permittee requesting monitoring reductions in several parameters. DWR PWS Regional
Engineer provided a couple minor grammatical corrections. No other comments were received. Minor
Page 16 of 17

changes will be made to the permit in response to submitted comments. Comments by the City and
responses by DWR are attached as a Fact Sheet Addendum.
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: The following changes have been made to the permit:
• A footnote to the 5.0 MGD effluent limitations sheet [A. (2.)] was added that after one year
following expansion, sampling frequency for TSS may be reduced to 2/week if no violations have
occurred.
• The title for Effluent Pollutant Scans special condition [A. (6.)] was modified to include 2nd species
testing, and a sentence was added to clarify 2nd species toxicity testing frequency.
15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• NPDES/PT POCs Review Form, completed
• Effluent data trend charts and data summaries
• BOD/TSS Removal rate sheet
• Instream monitoring trend charts and data summaries
• Monitoring Report (MR) Violations sheet
• WET Testing and Self Monitoring sheet, page 48
• Compliance Evaluation Report, 9/15/2020
• Pretreatment Inspection Report, 3/10/2021
• NH3/TRC WLA Calculations sheets for 3.5 & 5.0 MGD
• Upstream Hardness data from Permittee
• RPA Spreadsheet Summaries for 3.5 & 5.0 MGD
• Dissolved Metals Implementation/Freshwater
• Mercury Data Statistics tables and data
• Chemical Addendum plus attachments, submitted 1/4/2022
• Monitoring Reduction spreadsheet
• Correspondence e-mail with ORC re: nutrient loading calculations
• Fact Sheet Addendum
Page 17 of 17

Page 1
NPDES/PT POCs Review Form
Version: 2021.11.04
I. Facility's General Information and Permit Writer (pw)'s checklist
Date of (draft) Review
7/20/2021
c. POCs review due to:
e. Permit writer, please check if/when completed:
Date of (final) Review
._
Municipal NPDES renewal
0
1. Review PQLs used in L/STMP vs 2017 recommended PQLs (See tab
2017 PQLs tab) & All POCs per section IV
❑
NPDES Permit Writer
Gary Perlmutter
New Industries
❑
2. Notify Permittee (cc PT staff in regional office) if effluent NPDES, L/STMP
data that should be on eDMRs is not really there/ Request eDMR update
❑ 0 NA
Permittee-Facility Name
City of Graham - Graham WWTP
WWTP expansion
0
3. Notify PT staff (in comment section II below) the NPDES POCs that need
to be maintained/added in LTMP/STMP and HWA/AT
❑
NPDES Permit Number
NC0021211
Stream reclass./adjustment
0
4. (with draft NPDES) Email PT staff in central office, regional office, and
Facility: draft NPDES permit package. PDF this form and include it in
attachments. Add excel and PDF file to the respective SharePoint PT_Town
Folder (04. PT_Towns> NCOOXXXXX>NPDES Permit Draft)
❑
NPDES Permit Effective Date
7/1/2013
Outfall relocation/adjustment
0
NPDES Permit Renewal
Application Date
11/18/2015, 11/5/2020 to include ex ansion
p
7Q1 o u date
p
❑
5. (with final NPDES) Email PT staff in central office, regional office, and
Facility: final NPDES permit package. (Note effective date and 180 days after,
at the bottom of this form). ADD Final excel and final PDF form to the
respective SharePoint NPDES Folder (NPDES Permit Files>NCOOXXXXX)
and SharePoint PT (04. PT Towns> NC00XXXXX>NPDES Permit Final)
❑
NPDES Permit Public Notice
Date
1/12/2021
Other, explain below
0
eDMR data evaluated from:
1/6/2017
to
5/31/2021
Comment: The City applied for NPDES permit
xpparameters
renewal and expansion for Graham WWTP in
November 2020. The WWTP has a design
capacity of 3.5 MGD with a proposed expansion
of 5.0 MGD.
6. Notify PT Permittee about new parameters with monitoring/limit (share ICIS
file to ensure theyuse the rightparameter code in the eDMR)and
9
whether PQLs need to be adjusted.
❑
a. WWTP Capacity Summary
7. For inactive or not developed PT Programs:
Current Permitted Flow, mgd
3.5
Designed Flow,
mgd
3.5
7.1 Review POCs/last approved IWS/check industryselect.com to check
industrial activity in town and compare it with last approved IWS and POCs
that are present in DMR and PPA.
❑ 0 NA
Permitted SIU Flow, mgd
0.265
7.2 If you deem necessary, follow-up with Permittee regarding IU and POCs
and determine if a special condition in NPDES permit requiring a Full IWS
submittal is deemed neccessary.
❑ ❑r NA
b. PT Docs. Summary
d. IU Summary
f. Contact Information
IWS approval date
4/4/2018
#SIUs
6
Regional Office (RO)
Winston-Salem Regional Office (WSRO)
L/STMP approval date:
2/13/2020
# ClUs
4
RO PT Staff
Alexander Lowe & James Gonsiewski
HWAs approval date
10/3/2018
# NSCIUs
Facility PT Staff, email
Shelby Smith <ssmith©cityofgraham.com>
# Ills w/Local
Permits
Central Office PT-NPDES Staff
Keyes McGee and Charlie Miller
g. Receiving Stream Info.
Receiving Stream:
Catawba River
Basin:
Cape Fear
Stream Class.
WS-V, NSW
7Q10 / AAF
(cfs):
34 / 553
Outfall Lat.
36° 02' 44" N
Outfall Long.
79° 22' 06" W
h. Industrial Users' POC Info.
#
Industrial User (IU) Name
IU Activity
IU POCs
IUP Renewal Effective Date
1
Cintas Corporation
Laundry
See "POC Table" tab
7/1/2020
2
Metal Impact East (Luxfer Gas Cylinders)
Gas Cylinder
mfq
See "POC Table" tab
7/1/2020
3
Novaflex
Rubber mfg
See "POC Table" tab
7/1/2020
4
Precient Company, Inc
Metal Finishing
See "POC Table" tab
10/24/2018
5
Stericycle
Medical Waste
Incineration
See "POC Table" tab
7/1/2021
6
USA Dutch, Inc
Metal Finishing
See "POC Table" tab
12/12/2021 (new)
II. Comments from NPDES pw
Facility Summary and NPDES regulatory action:
Comments from NPDES pw to PT staff (Central, RO, Facility):
The City of Graham applied for NPDES permit renewal for the WWTP in
November 2020 to incluede an expansion flow tier at 5.0 MGD. The Facility
has a design capacity of 3.5 MGD and is currently authorized to discharge 3.5
MGD (up to 5.0 MGD upon request) into the Haw River. This form needs to be
updated upon receiving an engineering certification confirming use of the
expanded flow tier effluent limitation page (5.0 MGD).
Please maintain the following POCs-
NPDES required pollutants:
Flow, BOD, TSS, ammonia, TP, TN, copper, silver, aluminum, and antimony.
POCs that need to be added/modified in
L/STMP sampling plan:
1,4-Dioxane, PFAS
POCs that may be removed from L/STMP
sampling plan:
ORC's comments on IU/POCs:
Permit Writer's Comments on Industrial
Users
Since the last permit cycle, the SIU Luxfer Gas Cylinders has changed its name to
Metal Impact East, and a new SIU, USA Dutch Inc., has received an IUP.
III. Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
Status 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
5) facility's sludge is being land applied or composted
6) facility's sludge is incinerated (add Beryllium sampling)
7) facility's sludge is taken to a landfill
8) other
❑
❑
p
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
21211 NPDES PT POCs review 2021-2

Page 2
IV. LTMP/STMP and HWA Review
PW: Find S/LTMP document, HWA spreadsheet, and DMR, previous and new NPDES permit for next section.
POC in L/STMPI
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
New
NPDES
POC
Previous
NPDES/
Non-Disch.
POC
Required
by EPA (1)
Required by
503 Sludge
Permit (2)
POC due to
SIU (3)
POTW
POC (4)
% RR
L/STMP
Effluent Freq
PQLs review
PQL from
S/LTMP, uq/I
Recomm.
PQL, uq/I
Comment
g
Flow
0
g
g
0
Q
g
BOD
0
g
g
❑
98.26
Q
2.0 mg/L
El
TSS
0
g
g
0
98.36
Q
2.5 mg/L
g
NH3
0
g
g
0
88.44
Q
0.1 mg/L
❑r
Arsenic
0
0
g
0
0
45
Q
2.0
2.0
❑
Beryllium(5)
0
0
0
0
0
Q
g
Cadmium(1)
0
0
g
g
g
0
67
Q
0.5
0.5
g
Chromium(1)
0
❑
g
0
g
0
82
Q
5.0
10.0
g
Copper(1)
g
g
g
g
g
0
76.25
Q
2.0
2.0
g
Cyanide
❑
❑
0
g
0
69
Q
10.0
g
Lead(1)
❑
0
g
g
g
0
61
Q
2.0
2.0
g
Mercury(5)
❑
❑
g
❑
0
96.01
Q
1 ng/L
1.0 ng/L
g
Molybdenum
0
❑
g
0
0
33
Q
10.0
10.0
g
Nickel(1)
❑
0
g
g
g
0
42
Q
10.0
g
Silver
❑
❑
g
0
0
75
Q
1.0
1.0
g
Selenium
0
0
II
g
0
50
Q
1.0
5.0
g
Zinc(1)
❑
❑
g
g
0
❑
59.2
Q
10.0
10.0
g
Sludge Flow to Disposal
❑
g
❑
❑
2/yr
g
% Solids to Disposal
❑
g
❑
❑
2/yr
g
TN
❑
g
g
0
200.0
Ei
TP
❑
g
g
❑
92.76
100.0
p
1,4-Dioxane
g
0
0
0
g
PFAS
❑p
❑
❑
❑
See Spc Cond in permit
❑
0
0
0
0
❑
0
0
0
0
❑
0
0
0
0
❑
0
0
0
❑
Footnotes:
(1) Always in the LTMP/STMP due to EPA requirement
(2) Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or compost (dif POCs for incinerators)
(3) Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW
(4) Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
(5) In LTMP/STMP if sewage sludge is incinerated (Be and Hg according to § 503.43)
Please use blue font for the info updated by pw
Please use red font for POCs that need to be added/modified in L/STMP sampling plan
Blue shaded cell: Parameters usually included under that POC list
1. Is all effluent data required on L/STMP on DMRs?
Yes
g
No
❑
1.1 If not, request submittal and cc PT staff central office
21211 NPDES PT POCs review 2021-2

Page 3
V. NPDES pw completes this section when issuing NPDES permit:
NPDES Permit Public Notice Date:
1/10/2022
Effective date:
180 days after effective (date):
NPDES PERMIT WRITER (PIN) eDMR and PQLs Notification email to Permittee
Date
I1/10/2022
1. Emerging Contaminants of 1,4-Dioxane and PFAS have been detected in WWTP's influent from a POTW survey in 2019; monitoring for them should be added for IUPs of EPA -target industries: Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers category,
Metal Finishers category. Based on industry type and current IUP parameters TTO and those in EPA Method 624, the Division recommends monitoring for 1,4-Dioxane and PFAS in the following Sills: Cintas Corp., Metal Impact, Prescient, and USA Dutch.
2. Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) and Headworks Analysis (HWA) updates required.
Date
I
VI. Central Office PT Staff Completes this section:
Comments from PT Central Office ((ex., explanation of any POCs; info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems)
Checklist
1. Review and update FileMaker as necessary
❑
2. Update ProTrac with the following datelines:
2.1
Is there a schedule of compliance for POCs (Y/N)
Y
Which POCs?
Copper
Dateline for CAP:
❑ ❑ NA
2.2
180 days after NPDES permit is effective would be:
❑
2.3
IWS submittal is required by NPDES permit by:
❑ ❑ NA
3. Is all data required on L/STMP (Eff, Inf, unregulated, etc.) in spreadsheets with HWA/AT submittal?
Yes
❑
No
❑
a. L/STMP data required from
to
'
Comment:
0
b. L/STMP data submitted from
to
Comment:
0
3.1 If not, require submittal and update HWA/AT file ASAP. Check with pw if any eDMR data was updated and verify updates.
0
4. S/LTMP follow up: PQLs vs 2017 PQL recommendation vs NPDES permit PQL requirements
❑
TO BE CONTINUED
VII. Regional Office PT Staff Completes this Section (optional):
Comments from PT RO Staff (ex. updates on the actions required above, issues noted missed above/general feedback/questions and send the form to NPDES pw and PT staff Central Office)
21211 NPDES PT POCs review 2021-2

L= Limit in IUP; M = Monitor only 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cintas Metal USA
Parameter Corp. Impact Novaflex Prescient Stericvcle Dutch
CIU N/A 467.36 428 433.17 N/A 433
Flow L L L L L L
BOD5 L L L L L L
TSS L L L L L L
pH L L L L L L
As M M M M M M
Cd L L L L L L
Cr L L L L L L
Cu L L L L L L
CN L L L L L L
Pb L L L L L L
Hg L M M M M M
Ni L L L L L L
Zn L L L L L L
Se M M M M M M
Ag M M M L M L
Mo M M M M M M
Phosphorus L M M M M M
TKN L L L L L L
NH3 M M M M M M
FOG L L L L L L
COD M M M M M
NO2+NO3 M M M M
EPA 624 M
TTO M M L
Fluoride M M
TN M M
1,4-Dioxane M M M M
PFAS M M M M

Graham WWTP
Effluent Monitoring NCOO21211
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Flow
• Mo. Avg Limit
• • • �• •• •
•
•
•MNM ••SS ~~.0 •• •• •
••
�\°�ti °�1Sti �\�°�ti °\�\ ti h\yh�ti ��\ti�ti °\y��ti y\°\ti �\�,��ti ���ti
Summary Statistics
N 1461
Avg 1.98
SD 0.66
Min 1.13
Max 8.64
Summary Statistics
Summer
N 244
Avg 5.6
SD 2.5
Min 2.0
Max 19.8
Winter
N 174
Avg 6.7
SD 6.5
Min 2.0
Max 84.2
Summary Statistics
N 430
Avg 6.0
SD 14.4
Min 2.3
Max 296
Page 1 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

Graham WWTP
Effluent Monitoring
NC0021211
Summary Statistics
Summer
N 256
Avg 1.53
SD 2.04
Min 0.10
Max 10.30
Winter
N 183
Avg 3.85
SD 4.47
Min 0.10
Max 25.68
Summary Statistics
N 999
Avg 8.1
SD 1.0
Min 5.8
Max 10.8
Summary Statistics
N 999
Avg 7.2
SD 0.2
Min 6.1
Max 7.9
Page 2 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

Graham WWTP
Effluent Monitoring NCOO21211
1,000
100
0
0
- 10
1
Fecal Coliform
Wk Avg ♦ Mo Avg WA Limit MA Limit
I l
• •
• ••
• .2,, iv..
••
Z
♦••
••
o,cb O,cl° ° O1> 01> 01 O, O� 00'
'5\°\ti o\'L' C<\ * °�\ti 4)\y��ti y\� ��
60
50
40
—ao 30
20
10
0
Total Residual Chlorine
Effluent Limit
Compliant
ON,,,
otio oti°\°�ti �\ti�ti \���ti y°�ti �\���ti\��ti
Summary Statistics
N 999
Avg 18.4
SD 5.4
Min 6
Max 28
Summary Statistics
N 419
Geomean 2.7
Min 1
Max 2420
Summary Statistics
N 1000
Avg 20.1
SD 1.1
Min 20
Max 43
Page 3 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

Effluent Monitoring NC0021211
Graham WWTP
4,000
3,500
1,000
500
12,000
10,000
8,000
0
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Total Nitrogen Load
• •
••• •
• •
• •
♦ ♦
• •
_ •• �•� • • •
♦ •• ♦•
•
• • •♦
N ••••
•
•
••
•
oti� oti�' oti� oti° oti� oti° oti� otiti oti�
001' o\�v�ti h\y��ti \ti�ti o\y��ti y\°�ti �\���ti ���ti
Summary Statistics
N 999
Avg 1609
SD 537
Min 455
Max 3392
Summary Statistics
TKN
N 208
Avg 3.48
SD 3.57
Min 0.13
Max 25.60
NO2+NO3
N 208
Avg
SD
Min
Max
6.34
7.62
0.10
29.70
TN
N
Avg
SD
Min
Max
208
9.80
7.13
0.22
33.47
Summary Statistics
N 48
Avg 4,870
SD 2,955
Min 939
Max 11,366
Page 4 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

Graham WWTP
Effluent Monitoring NC0021211
J
E
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Total Phosphorus (TP)
oti oti oti oti oti oti oti° otiti otiy oti�
0
E
0
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
TP Load
♦
♦
• ♦♦
•
•
•
• • • ♦♦ ♦
♦♦♦♦♦ N ♦~ ♦•• ♦••♦ •
♦♦♦♦•• ♦♦
•
ONE• O, O�� O,� O,O OHO Ol•° 01' 01' 01'
Summary Statistics
N 421
Avg 0.5
SD
Min 0.1
Max 8.6
Summary Statistics
N 48
Avg 244
SD
Min 48
Max 939
Page 5 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

NC0024872
Cooleemee WWTP
BOD monthly
Month RR (%)
removal rate
Month RR (%)
June-17
July-17
August-17
September-17
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
March-18
April-18
May-18
June-18
July-18
August-18
September-18
October-18
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
97.46
98.40
98.13
98.59
98.85
99.04
98.70
97.90
98.03
97.20
96.65
98.24
98.58
98.12
98.37
96.76
99.20
96.90
97.66
92.47
97.01
97.89
98.15
98.26
96.63
97.29
97.88
98.62
98.03
97.47
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
April-21
May-21
June-21
July-21
August-21
September-21
October-21
November-21
December-21
January-22
February-22
March-22
April-22
May-22
Overall BOD removal rate
97.27
96.02
94.80
96.87
97.86
96.29
96.00
95.74
97.00
96.17
96.69
96.14
96.31
97.25
94.26
94.60
96.56
96.48
97.18
1/11/2022
TSS
Month
monthly
RR (%)
removal rate
Month RR (%)
June-17
July-17
August-17
September-17
October-17
November-17
December-17
January-18
February-18
March-18
April-18
May-18
June-18
July-18
August-18
September-18
October-18
November-18
December-18
January-19
February-19
March-19
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
97.79
99.18
98.65
98.67
99.08
99.03
97.80
98.11
97.91
96.98
96.77
98.80
99.20
99.11
98.65
98.08
99.34
98.35
98.30
90.02
98.24
98.48
98.04
99.50
98.53
98.61
98.32
98.59
97.72
97.06
Overall TSSD
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
May-20
June-20
July-20
August-20
September-20
October-20
November-20
December-20
January-21
February-21
March-21
April-21
May-21
June-21
July-21
August-21
September-21
October-21
November-21
December-21
January-22
February-22
March-22
April-22
May-22
removal rate
96.82
95.99
94.92
96.54
98.61
96.84
97.67
97.56
97.58
97.60
98.24
98.02
97.85
97.98
96.25
98.17
98.48
98.13
97.84
Summary Statistics
BOD removal rate
n 48
Avg 97.18
SD 1.34
Min 92.47
Max 99.20
TSS removal rate
n
Avg
SD
Min
Max
48
97.84
1.48
90.02
99.50

Graham WWTP
Instream Monitoring NC0021211
Dissolved oxygen (DO), mg/L
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent Standard
6/5/2017 7.8 7.4 7.4 5.0
6/22/2017 7.3 7.3 7 5.0
7/7/2017 7.7 7.6 7.4 5.0
7/24/2017 6.6 6.7 7 5.0
8/16/2017 6.6 6.8 7.4 5.0
8/31/2017 7.3 7.9 7.2 5.0
9/8/2017 8.3 8.6 7.1 5.0
9/19/2017 7.1 7.6 7 5.0
10/24/2017 7.2 7.5 7.9 5.0
11/13/2017 10.4 10.6 8.3 5.0
12/12/2017 12.3 12.4 9.4 5.0
1/26/2018 11.9 11.5 8.6 5.0
2/20/2018 9.6 9.4 8.2 5.0
3/5/2018 10 10.2 8.7 5.0
4/17/2018 8.5 8.8 7.4 5.0
5/1/2018 9.3 9.3 8.2 5.0
5/21/2018 7.8 8.9 8 5.0
6/5/2018 7.2 7.5 7.5 5.0
6/18/2018 8.4 8.4 7.4 5.0
7/3/2018 7.4 7.4 7.6 5.0
7/31/2018 7 6.9 7.5 5.0
8/14/2018 6.9 6.8 7.3 5.0
8/29/2018 7.2 7.6 7.6 5.0
9/13/2018 7.2 7.3 6.7 5.0
9/27/2018 7.5 7.7 7.5 5.0
10/15/2018 8.6 8.6 8 5.0
11/20/2018 11.2 11.2 8 5.0
12/3/2018 10.9 11.1 8.1 5.0
1/28/2019 12.1 12.2 9.8 5.0
2/27/2019 11.7 11.8 8.3 5.0
3/25/2019 10.6 10.7 9 5.0
4/24/2019 8.9 9 8.7 5.0
5/6/2019 8.7 8.4 8 5.0
5/22/2019 7.2 7.2 7.6 5.0
6/18/2019 7.2 7.4 7.2 5.0
6/28/2019 8 8.4 7 5.0
7/2/2019 7.2 7.9 6.8 5.0
7/23/2019 5.8 5.9 7.5 5.0
8/12/2019 6.5 6.6 7.7 5.0
8/28/2019 7.5 7.5 6.9 5.0
9/18/2019 6.4 6.6 7.4 5.0
9/28/2019 6.9 7.8 5.0
10/7/2019 8 8.2 6.9 5.0
11/25/2019 10.7 10.6 8 5.0
12/9/2019 11.2 11.2 8.9 5.0
1/13/2020 10.7 10.3 8.6 5.0
2/3/2020 11.6 11.4 9.4 5.0
3/11/2020 11.7 12.3 8.9 5.0
4/14/2020 8.9 8.8 8.1 5.0
5/6/2020 9.1 9.2 8.2 5.0
5/21/2020 8.6 8.7 8 5.0
6/15/2020 7.2 7 6.5 5.0
Page 1 of 12 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

Graham WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0021211
6/29/2020 7.5 7.8 6.8 5.0
7/13/2020 7.5 7.6 6.3 5.0
7/24/2020 6.9 6.9 6.5 5.0
8/10/2020 7.4 7.5 7 5.0
8/27/2020 6.8 7.2 6.8 5.0
9/1/2020 6.8 6.7 6.9 5.0
9/18/2020 7.5 7.5 8.2 5.0
10/28/2020 8.9 8.9 9.2 5.0
11/18/2020 10 10 9 5.0
12/15/2020 10.7 10.7 9.4 5.0
N
Avg
SD
Min
Max
62
8.5
1.7
5.8
12.3
62
8.6
1.7
5.9
12.4
61
7.8
0.8
6.3
9.8
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Upstream Dnstream
Mean 8.5096774 8.627419
Variance 3.0451507 2.882023
Observations 62 62
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 122
t Stat -0.380805
P(T<=t) one -tail 0.3520049
t Critical one -tail 1.6574395
P(T<=t) two -tail 0.7040099
t Critical two -tail 1.9795999
Page 2 of 12 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

Graham WWTP
Instream Monitoring NC0021211
Temperature, water (Si
Date Upstream Dnstream D-U diff Effluent Standard
6/5/2017 23.5 24 0.5 22 32
6/22/2017 25.2 25.1 -0.1 24 32
7/7/2017 27.4 27.8 0.4 26 32
7/24/2017 28.9 28.6 -0.3 26 32
8/16/2017 25.8 26.6 0.8 26 32
8/31/2017 24.2 24.3 0.1 23 32
9/8/2017 19.7 20.5 0.8 22 32
9/19/2017 23.6 23.5 -0.1 23 32
10/24/2017 18.1 17.9 -0.2 20 32
11/13/2017 9.7 9.5 -0.2 14 32
12/12/2017 4.9 5.2 0.3 11 32
1/26/2018 5.1 5.5 0.4 10 32
2/20/2018 10.9 10.9 0 13 32
3/5/2018 9.1 9.5 0.4 11 32
4/17/2018 14.7 14.8 0.1 15 32
5/1/2018 17.6 17.9 0.3 15 32
5/21/2018 23.2 23.4 0.2 22 32
6/5/2018 25 25.6 0.6 23 32
6/18/2018 29.6 28.9 -0.7 25 32
7/3/2018 31.7 31.9 0.2 27 32
7/31/2018 24 24.1 0.1 26 32
8/14/2018 25.1 25.6 0.5 25 32
8/29/2018 27.2 27 -0.2 25 32
9/13/2018 24.5 24.5 0 26 32
9/27/2018 23.9 24.6 0.7 24 32
10/15/2018 18.2 18.5 0.3 20 32
11/20/2018 9.8 9.9 0.1 15 32
12/3/2018 10.9 10.9 0 16 32
1/28/2019 5.7 5.3 -0.4 12 32
2/27/2019 8.2 8.2 0 12 32
3/25/2019 12.6 12.6 0 12 32
4/24/2019 18.6 18.8 0.2 17 32
5/6/2019 23.5 23.2 -0.3 21 32
5/22/2019 23.8 24.1 0.3 22 32
6/18/2019 25.5 25.5 0 24 32
6/28/2019 27.8 28.7 0.9 25 32
7/2/2019 28.6 28.7 0.1 25 32
7/23/2019 27.8 27.3 -0.5 26 32
8/12/2019 27.1 26.9 -0.2 25 32
8/28/2019 23.6 23.8 0.2 24 32
9/18/2019 24.6 24.5 -0.1 25 32
9/28/2019 26.8 23.7 -3.1 32
10/7/2019 22.2 21.9 -0.3 22 32
11/25/2019 10.1 10.1 0 15 32
12/9/2019 7.9 7.5 -0.4 13 32
1 / 13/2020 13.7 13.9 0.2 16 32
2/3/2020 8.3 8.3 0 12 32
3/ 11 /2020 14.3 14.2 -0.1 14 32
4/14/2020 17.7 17.7 0 17 32
5/6/2020 19.6 19.5 -0.1 18 32
5/21/2020 16 16.1 0.1 18 32
6/15/2020 22.1 21.7 -0.4 22 32
Page 3 of 12 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

Graham WWTP
Instream Monitoring NC0021211
6/29/2020 26.6 27.1 0.5 24 32
7/13/2020 28.2 28.7 0.5 25 32
7/24/2020 26.6 26.6 0 25 32
8/10/2020 26.7 26.9 0.2 26 32
8/27/2020 27.2 28 0.8 26 32
9/1/2020 24.8 24.8 0 25 32
9/18/2020 21.8 21.8 0 23 32
10/28/2020 17.5 17.3 -0.2 19 32
11 / 18/2020 11.7 11.7 0 15 32
12/15/2020 9.2 9.2 0 14 32
N
Avg
SD
Min
Max
62
20.0
7.4
4.9
31.7
62 62
20.0 0.0
7.4 0.5
5.2 -3.1
31.9 0.9
61
20.2
5.2
10
27
Page 4 of 12 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

Graham WWTP
Instream Monitoring NC0021211
Specific Conductance, uS/cm
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
6/5/2017 153 191 1667
6/22/2017 110 110 1008
7/7/2017 260 240 1657
7/24/2017 299 293 1926
8/16/2017 215 240 2002
8/31/2017 570 496 2793
9/8/2017 133 155 2584
9/19/2017 310 301 2606
10/24/2017 251 373 2300
11/13/2017 391 409 2153
12/12/2017 374 367 1755
1/26/2018 378 404 2737
2/20/2018 271 272 1686
3/5/2018 203 204 1576
4/17/2018 105 104 1356
5/1/2018 151 153 1127
5/21/2018 131 130 870
6/5/2018 246 244 1538
6/18/2018 416 375 1851
7/3/2018 412 388 1973
7/31/2018 84 88 1580
8/14/2018 168 203 1552
8/29/2018 346 336 1884
9/13/2018 151 165 1985
9/27/2018 275 276 1447
10/15/2018 84 85 873
11/20/2018 117 122 1086
12/3/2018 250 229 1351
1/28/2019 129 135 953
2/27/2019 93 97 1222
3/25/2019 128 147 1051
4/24/2019 146 152 1180
5/6/2019 282 271 1439
5/22/2019 277 273 1528
6/18/2019 174 179 1568
6/28/2019 225 237 1898
7/2/2019 371 338 1683
7/23/2019 385 338 1802
8/12/2019 334 316 1951
8/28/2019 141 153 1962
9/18/2019 561 576 2196
9/28/2019 615 608
10/7/2019 500 524 2764
11/25/2019 131 141 1710
12/9/2019 277 275 1788
1/13/2020 135 155 1307
2/3/2020 158 163 1341
3/11/2020 240 240 1374
4/14/2020 104 105 1070
5/6/2020 152 153 1187
5/21/2020 75 75 1148
6/15/2020 183 180 1189
Page 5 of 12 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

Graham WWTP
Instream Monitoring NC0021211
6/29/2020 249 244 1869
7/13/2020 395 426 2076
7/24/2020 400 400 1265
8/10/2020 89 104 1887
8/27/2020 239 238 2257
9/1/2020 174 279 1841
9/18/2020 94 95 1367
10/28/2020 104 110 1401
11/18/2020 142 145 1257
12/15/2020 79 79 653
N
Avg
SD
Min
Max
62 62 61
236.0 240.4 1641.1
132.7 127.8 491.9
75 75 653
615 608 2793
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Upstream Dnstream
Mean 236.0484 240.3871
Variance 17616.8 16331.91
Observations 62 62
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 122
t Stat -0.18541
P(T<=t) one -tail 0.426606
t Critical one -tail 1.657439
P(T<=t) two -tail 0.853211
t Critical two -tail 1.9796
Page 6 of 12 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

Graham WWTP
Instream Monitoring NC0021211
Fecal coliform, cfu/100 mL
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
6/5/2017 52 57
6/6/2017 6.1
7/24/2017 46 220
7/25/2017 4.1
8/16/2017 162 114
8/17/2017 1
9/19/2017 190 49 2
10/24/2017 5000 3400 1
11/13/2017 400 590
11/14/2017 1
12/12/2017 59 105 1
1/25/2018 1
1/26/2018 25 22
2/20/2018 105 124 1
3/5/2018 95 76
3/6/2018 1
4/17/2018 2600 1800 4.1
5/21/2018 370 143
5/22/2018 14.6
6/18/2018 114 38
6/19/2018 2
7/31/2018 9200 9200 11
8/28/2018 3.1
8/29/2018 390 200
9/13/2018 520 600 19.5
10/15/2018 800 600
10/16/2018 4.1
11/20/2018 58 86
11 /21 /2018 2
12/3/2018 600 270
12/4/2018 1
1/28/2019 45 53
1/29/2019 1
2/27/2019 290 105
2/28/2019 2
3/25/2019 95 57
3/26/2019 1
4/24/2019 86 76
4/25/2019 2
5/22/2019 41 44
5/23/2019 6.3
6/18/2019 53 380 2419.6
7/2/2019 27 25
7/3/2019 1
8/12/2019 95 81
8/13/2019 1
9/18/2019 37 16
9/19/2019 3
Page 7 of 12 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

Graham WWTP
Instream Monitoring NC0021211
10/7/2019 133 19
10/8/2019 1
11/25/2019 400 1400 2
12/9/2019 114 105
12/10/2019 2
1/13/2020 390 480
1/14/2020 2420
2/3/2020 51 50
2/4/2020 2
3/11/2020 28 25
3/12/2020 5.2
4/14/2020 4600 4000 3.1
5/21/2020 12000 7400 77.1
6/15/2020 200 143
6/16/2020 13.4
7/13/2020 67 49
7/14/2020 8.5
8/27/2020 105 143 2
9/1/2020 12000 12000 3
10/28/2020 1000 22000
10/29/2020 4.1
11/18/2020 119 171
11/19/2020 24.6
12/15/2020 3400 4600 24.3
N 43 43 43
Geomean 230 221 4
Min 25 16 1
Max 12000 22000 2420
100000
10000
1000
0
0
• 1
Fecal Coliform
• Upstream ♦ Dnstream • Effluent
00
♦
Page 8 of 12 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

Graham WWTP
Instream Monitoring NC00211
Upstream TN, m_q/L Downstream TN, mq/L TN, mq/L
Date NO2+NO3 TKN TN Date NO2+NO3 TKN TN Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
6/5/2017 1.25 0.62 1.87 6/5/2017 1.25 0.77 2.02 6/5/2017 1.87 2.02
7/24/2017 2.13 0.98 3.11 7/24/2017 1.79 0.72 2.51 6/8/2017 12.45
8/16/2017 1.67 1.18 2.85 8/16/2017 1.79 1.34 3.13 7/24/2017 3.11 2.51
9/19/2017 2.64 1.19 3.83 9/19/2017 2.32 0.96 3.28 7/26/2017 9.19
10/24/2017 2.93 1.26 4.19 10/24/2017 4.13 1 5.13 8/16/2017 2.85 3.13 9.72
11/13/2017 3.47 0.6 4.07 11/13/2017 3.64 0.75 4.39 9/19/2017 3.83 3.28
12/12/2017 1.65 0.9 2.55 12/12/2017 1.73 0.58 2.31 9/20/2017 16.85
1/26/2018 1.08 0.8 1.88 1/26/2018 1.08 0.9 1.98 10/24/2017 4.19 5.13
2/20/2018 1.73 1.52 3.25 2/20/2018 1.72 1.32 3.04 10/25/2017 3.5
3/5/2018 0.59 1.84 2.43 3/5/2018 0.65 1.26 1.91 11/13/2017 4.07 4.39
4/17/2018 0.27 1.06 1.33 4/17/2018 0.25 1.21 1.46 11/15/2017 2.69
5/21/2018 0.51 1.27 1.78 5/21/2018 0.49 1.2 1.69 12/12/2017 2.55 2.31
6/18/2018 4.42 1.12 5.54 6/18/2018 4.33 1.45 5.78 12/13/2017 17.51
7/31/2018 0.5 1.18 1.68 7/31/2018 0.5 1.5 2 1/24/2018 18.53
8/29/2018 1.46 1.26 2.72 8/29/2018 1.46 1.31 2.77 1/26/2018 1.88 1.98
9/13/2018 0.72 2.38 3.1 9/13/2018 1.05 2.15 3.2 2/20/2018 3.25 3.04
10/15/2018 0.45 1 1.45 10/15/2018 0.41 0.87 1.28 2/21/2018 26.17
11/20/2018 0.69 0.84 1.53 11/20/2018 0.68 1.04 1.72 3/5/2018 2.43 1.91
12/3/2018 2.5 1.02 3.52 12/3/2018 1.9 1.19 3.09 3/7/2018 22.51
1/28/2019 0.71 1.17 1.88 1/28/2019 0.73 0.93 1.66 4/17/2018 1.33 1.46
2/27/2019 0.64 0.82 1.46 2/27/2019 0.62 0.88 1.5 4/18/2018 11.16
3/25/2019 0.76 0.69 1.45 3/25/2019 0.75 0.77 1.52 5/21/2018 1.78 1.69
4/24/2019 1.03 0.6 1.63 4/24/2019 1.01 0.52 1.53 5/23/2018 15.06
5/22/2019 1.79 1.33 3.12 5/22/2019 1.61 2.56 4.17 6/18/2018 5.54 5.78
6/18/2019 1.01 0.2 1.21 6/18/2019 0.95 0.79 1.74 6/19/2018 20.5
7/2/2019 3.83 0.71 4.54 7/2/2019 2.3 0.75 3.05 7/31/2018 1.68 2
8/12/2019 3.23 0.89 4.12 8/12/2019 1.96 0.74 2.7 8/1/2018 24.86
9/18/2019 5.3 1.36 6.66 9/18/2019 5.03 1.3 6.33 8/29/2018 2.72 2.77 23.8
10/7/2019 5.73 1.02 6.75 10/7/2019 4.34 1.13 5.47 9/11/2018 20.69
11/25/2019 0.62 0.59 1.21 11/25/2019 0.6 0.58 1.18 9/13/2018 3.1 3.2
12/9/2019 2.16 0.95 3.11 12/9/2019 1.89 0.78 2.67 10/15/2018 1.45 1.28
1/13/2020 0.61 0.57 1.18 1/13/2020 0.68 0.59 1.27 10/17/2018 8.11
2/3/2020 1.07 0.4 1.47 2/3/2020 0.95 0.46 1.41 11/20/2018 1.53 1.72
3/11/2020 2.94 0.88 3.82 3/11/2020 2.41 0.74 3.15 11 /21 /2018 4.48
4/14/2020 0.54 1.59 2.13 4/14/2020 0.51 1.39 1.9 12/3/2018 3.52 3.09
5/21/2020 0.42 0.95 1.37 5/21/2020 0.44 0.89 1.33 12/5/2018 0.22
6/15/2020 1.09 0.79 1.88 6/15/2020 0.9 0.76 1.66 1/28/2019 1.88 1.66
7/13/2020 3.98 1.09 5.07 7/13/2020 4.58 1.1 5.68 1/30/2018 4.42
8/27/2020 1.41 0.75 2.16 8/27/2020 1.1 0.82 1.92 2/27/2019 1.46 1.5 7.01
9/1/2020 0.91 1.58 2.49 9/1/2020 1.34 2.33 3.67 3/25/2019 1.45 1.52 6.28
10/28/2020 0.2 0.53 0.73 10/28/2020 0.22 0.87 1.09 4/24/2019 1.63 1.53 8.94
11/18/2020 0.48 0.66 1.14 11/18/2020 0.46 0.7 1.16 5/20/2019 19.15
12/15/2020 0.29 1.01 1.3 12/15/2020 0.28 1.47 1.75 5/22/2019 3.12 4.17
6/18/2019 1.21 1.74
N 43 43 43 N 43 43 43 6/19/2019 2.88
Avg 1.66 1.00 2.66 Avg 1.55 1.06 2.61 7/2/2019 4.54 3.05
SD 1.41 0.40 1.48 SD 1.29 0.45 1.40 7/3/2019 3.06
Min 0.20 0.20 0.73 Min 0.22 0.46 1.09 8/12/2019 4.12 2.7
Max 5.73 2.38 6.75 Max 5.03 2.56 6.33 8/14/2019 2.2
Page 9 of 12 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

Graham WWTP
Instream Monitoring NC00211
30
25
20
Sao 15
E
10
5
0
Total Nitrogen
• Upstream • Effluent ♦ Dnstream
■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■ ■
■
II ■■ ■ ■� ME
nn 0 -nry Mv)n _ AIM ‘c",
■
oy' oy oti° oti° otiy otiy
\o h\yh�ti•
yti\y\� °\yeti y\�\ti �\���ti
9/18/2019 6.66 6.33 2.89
10/7/2019 6.75 5.47
10/9/2019 5.07
11/25/2019 1.21 1.18
11/27/2019 5.61
12/9/2019 3.11 2.67
12/11/2019 4.63
1/13/2020 1.18 1.27
1/15/2020 9.59
2/3/2020 1.47 1.41
2/5/2020 7.02
3/11/2020 3.82 3.15 7.78
4/14/2020 2.13 1.9
4/15/2020 6.01
5/18/2020 1.83
5/21/2020 1.37 1.33
6/15/2020 1.88 1.66
6/17/2020 5.22
7/13/2020 5.07 5.68
7/15/2020 10.76
8/24/2020 1.75
8/27/2020 2.16 1.92
9/1/2020 2.49 3.67
9/2/2020 3.57
10/28/2020 0.73 1.09 12.46
11 / 18/2020 1.14 1.16 5.82
12/15/2020 1.3 1.75
12/16/2020 4.68
N 43 43 43
Avg 3.21 3.25 9.07
SD 1.48 1.40 7.22
Min 0.73 1.09 0.22
Max 6.75 6.33 26.17
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Upstream Dnstream
Mean 2.664186 2.609302
Variance 2.193363 1.957383
Observations 43 43
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 84
t Stat 0.17665
P(T<=t) one -tail 0.430104
t Critical one -tail 1.663197
P(T<=t) two -tail 0.860208
t Critical two -tail 1.98861
Conclusion: TN not different between up and dnstream sites.
Page 10 of 12 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

Graham WWTP
Instream Monitoring NC00211
TP, mq/L
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
6/5/2017 0.062 0.059 0.3
7/24/2017 0.19 0.15
7/26/2017 0.3
8/16/2017 0.157 0.175 0.3
9/19/2017 0.122 0.106
9/20/2017 0.4
10/24/2017 0.127 0.114
10/25/2017 1
11/13/2017 0.146 0.129
11/15/2017 0.3
12/12/2017 0.176 0.176
12/13/2017 0.3
1/26/2018 0.067 0.067 0.3
2/20/2018 0.09 0.085
2/21/2018 0.5
3/5/2018 0.092 0.093
3/7/2018 0.5
4/17/2018 0.091 0.088
4/18/2018 1.4
5/21/2018 0.123 0.115
5/23/2018 0.2
6/18/2018 0.131 0.116
6/19/2018 0.4
7/31/2018 0.223 0.217
8/1/2018 1.7
8/29/2018 0.227 0.218
8/31/2018 2.1
9/13/2018 0.436 0.444 1.6
10/15/2018 0.093 0.083
10/17/2018 0.2
11/20/2018 0.061 0.059
11 /21 /2018 0.3
12/3/2018 0.168 0.158
12/4/2018 0.4
1/28/2019 0.046 0.056
1/30/2019 0.2
2/27/2019 0.135 0.121 0.3
3/25/2019 0.046 0.047
3/27/2019 0.1
4/24/2019 0.063 0.054
4/26/2019 0.1
5/22/2019 0.081 0.089 0.4
6/18/2019 0.074 0.077
6/19/2019 0.4
7/2/2019 0.246 0.295
7/3/2019 0.3
8/12/2019 0.175 0.168
8/14/2019 0.4
9/18/2019 0.57 0.508 0.3
Page 11 of 12 GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

Graham WWTP
Instream Monitoring
N C00211
10/7/2019 0.199 0.196
10/9/2019 0.3
11/25/2019 0.128 0.14 1.8
12/9/2019 0.057 0.057
12/11/2019 0.5
1/13/2020 0.217 0.221
1/15/2020 3.3
2/3/2020 0.108 0.107 0.2
3/11/2020 0.167 0.191 0.4
4/14/2020 0.218 0.244
4/15/2020 0.5
5/21/2020 0.192 0.185
5/22/2020 0.8
6/15/2020 0.09 0.093
6/17/2020 0.5
7/13/2020 0.214 0.276
7/15/2020 0.4
8/27/2020 0.127 0.075
8/28/2020 0.7
9/1/2020 0.556 0.845
9/2/2020 0.4
10/28/2020 0.092 0.094 0.3
11/18/2020 0.065 0.071 0.4
12/15/2020 0.223 0.249
12/16/2020 0.4
N
Avg
SD
Min
Max
43 43 43
0.16 0.17 0.60
0.12 0.14 0.63
0.05 0.05 0.10
0.57 0.85 3.30
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
an
E 1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Total Phosphorus
• Upstream Effluent ♦ Dnstream
■
■
■■
■
■
■` 1
oti� o' , o' • O' • oN• oN, Ol° O'1, otiy
■
Page 12 of 12
GB Perlmutter, 1/11/2022

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Report Date: 12/16/2C Page 1 01 1
Permit: NC0021211 MRs Betweei l l - 2016 and12 - 2020 Region: %
Facility Name: % Param Nam( % County: %
Major Minor:
Violation Category:%
Subbasin:%
Program Category: %
Violation Action: %
PERMIT: NC0021211
FACILITY: City of Graham - Graham WWTP
COUNTY: Alamance
REGION: Winston-Salem
Limit Violation
MONITORING OUTFALL
REPORT
LOCATION
PARAMETER
VIOLATION
FREQUENCY UNIT OF
DATE MEASURE
LIMIT
CALCULATED
VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
01-2019 001
12-2016 001
04-2017 001
05-2017 001
06-2017 001
04-2019 001
06-2019 001
01-2018 001
12-2017 001
12-2018 001
01-2019 001
Monitoring Violation
MONITORING OUTFALL
REPORT
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
LOCATION
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) - 01/26/19 2 X week
Concentration
Chlorine, Total Residual 12/01/16 5 X week
Chlorine, Total Residual
Chlorine, Total Residual
Chlorine, Total Residual
Chlorine, Total Residual
Chlorine, Total Residual
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
N) - Concentration
Nitrogen, Total - Quantity
(Yearly)
Nitrogen, Total - Quantity
(Yearly)
Solids, Total Suspended -
Concentration
PARAMETER
04/17/17 5 X week
05/24/17 5 X week
06/27/17 5 X week
04/30/19 5 X week
06/19/19 5 X week
01/31/18
12/31/17
12/31/18
01/26/19
2 X week
Annually
Annually
2 X week
mg/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
mg/I
Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
mg/I
VIOLATION UNIT OF
FREQUENCY
DATE MEASURE
36 45.2 25.6 Weekly Average
Exceeded
28 31 10.7 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
28 29 3.6 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
28 31 10.7 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
28 30 7.1 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
28 40 42.9 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
28
8
56,315
56,315
43
13.09
56,462
99,866
53.6 Daily Maximum
Exceeded
63.6 Monthly Average
Exceeded
0.3 Annual Load Exceeded
77.3 Annual Load Exceeded
45 63.42 40.9 Weekly Average
Exceeded
LIMIT
CALCULATED
VALUE
%
Over
Proceed to NOV
No Action, BPJ
No Action, BPJ
No Action, BPJ
No Action, BPJ
No Action, BPJ
No Action, BPJ
Proceed to NOD
None
None
Proceed to NOV
VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
07-2020 001
11-2016 001
Effluent
Effluent
Conductivity
07/11/20 5 X week umhos/cm
Nitrite plus Nitrate Total (as 11/26/16 Weekly
N)
mg/I
Frequency Violation Proceed to NOD
Frequency Violation No Action, BPJ

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
U
0
O
N
Jan Apr Jul Oct
New Hanover
NC0001228/001
Global Nuclear Fuel -Americas, LLC
a,
7Q10: 27.0
24hr p/f ac lim: 90%
LL
0_
L
LL
H
L
n
O 0 '2
C0 0 01
U
0
U
O
Jan Apr Jul Oct
O
Q
O
to
0)
CC
NC0023949/002
Goldsboro WRF
7Q10: 271.1
chr lim: 2.2%
02 2 2 2
H
2 2 2 2
C
Q 2 2 MI 2
C
L
= 2 2
n CO 01 0
O 0 0 0 0
U
0
0
O
Jan Apr Jul Oct
NC0023949/001
Goldsboro WWTP
O
N
N
7Q10: 271.1
chr lim: 14.2 MGD @
01
c-I
O
N
c-I
c-I
.Ea
03
LL
a
r-
CU
U
O a
H
1 d d
C
0.
1 a m a a
CO 01 o
0 0 0 0 0
U
0
UI
0
Mar Jun Sep Dec
C
O
U
NC0021211/001
Graham WWTP
O
v
chr lim: 14%
O
1 a
C
LL
n co 01 o
DDDss
U
0
O
N
Mar Jun Sep Dec
c
r-
C
O
Ea
4)
0_
0)
C
a
C
O
U
NC0045292/001
Graham/Mebane WTP
C
U
0
Chr Monit: 24%
c, 0 a
O
G
L
a 0 0 0 0
n co 01 o
DDDso
Page 48 of 120
Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimohales oromelasl. H=No Flow (facility is active). s = Solit test between Certified Labs

United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection
1 IN I 2 IL I 3 I NC0021211 111 121 20/09/15 117
Type
1810I
IIIIIIIIIII
Inspector Fac Type
19I S I 2011
21IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIII
P6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA Reserved
671 I 70I I 711 172 I N I 73I 1 74 71
I I
I I I I I I 180
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES Hermit Number)
Graham WWTP
1204 E Gilbreath St
Graham NC 27253
Entry Time/Date
09:OOAM 20/09/15
Permit Effective Date
13/07/01
Exit Time/Date
12:OOPM 20/09/15
Permit Expiration Date
16/05/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Crispian T. Routh/ORC/336-570-6721/
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Victor Ray Quick,PO Drawer 357 Graham NC 272530357//336-570-6700/3365135502
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenar Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran Sludge Handling DispoFacility Site Review Compliance Schedules
Effluent/Receiving Wate Laboratory
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
Ron Boone DWR/WSRO WQ/336-776-9690/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1

31
NPDES yr/mo/day
NC0021211 111 121 20/09/15
117
Inspection Type
18 [j
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Plant appeared to be running very well during the inspection. There were no deficiencies or violations
noted during the inspection.
Page# 2

Permit: NC0021211
Inspection Date: 09/15/2020
Owner - Facility: Graham WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Laboratory Yes No NA NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab? • ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is the facility using a contract lab? • ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees • ❑ ❑ ❑
Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
Comment: None
Influent Sampling
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected above side streams?
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 sampling performed according to the permit?
Comment: None
Upstream / Downstream Sampling
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, ant
sampling location)?
Comment: None
Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The plant no longer uses the sand filters or lime stabilization process for sludge.
Compliance Schedules
Is there a compliance schedule for this facility?
•
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NC0021211
Inspection Date: 09/15/2020
Owner - Facility: Graham WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Compliance Schedules
Is the facility compliant with the permit and conditions for the review period?
Comment: None
Record Keeping
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operatc
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification'
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
Comment: None
Bar Screens
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Yes No NA NE
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
Page# 4

Permit: NC0021211
Inspection Date: 09/15/2020
Owner - Facility: Graham WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Is the unit in good condition? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: None
Grit Removal
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Comment: None
Flow Measurement - Influent
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
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?
Is the flow meter operational?
Comment: None
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the wet well free of excessive grease? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
Are all pumps present? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps operable? ❑ • ❑ ❑
Are float controls operable? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: One pump currently down for repair.
Page# 5

Permit: NC0021211
Inspection Date: 09/15/2020
Owner - Facility: Graham WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Primary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/ of the sidewall depth)
Comment: None
Aeration Basins
Mode of operation
Type of aeration system
Is the basin free of dead spots?
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
Are the diffusers operational?
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/I)
Comment: None
Secondary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
Ext. Air
Surface
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ IN ❑
▪ El El El
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

Permit: NC0021211
Inspection Date: 09/15/2020
Owner - Facility: Graham WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
Comment: None
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Are pumps in place?
Are pumps operational?
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment: None
Disinfection -Liquid
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
Comment: None
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
De -chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ? Liquid
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? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ • ❑
Comment: None
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ • ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment: None
Effluent Pipe
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
Yes No NA NE
Page# 7

Permit: NC0021211
Inspection Date: 09/15/2020
Owner - Facility: Graham WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Effluent Pipe
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: None
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the flow meter operational? • ❑ ❑ ❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Calibrated in July 2020.
Aerobic Digester
Is the capacity adequate?
Is the mixing adequate?
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
# Is the odor acceptable?
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
Comment: None
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
Is the generator tested under load?
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
Comment: None
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
Page# 8

United States Environmental Protection Agency
E PA Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection
1 IN I 2 L 31 NC0021211 111 121 21/03/10 117
Type
181 D I
IIIIIIIIIII
Inspector Fac Type
19 I S I 2011
21IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIII
P6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA Reserved
671I 70 I5 I 711 1 72 I N I 73 _ I 74 71
I I J
1 1 1 1 1 1 180
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Graham WWTP
1204 E Gilbreath St
Graham NC 27253
Entry Time/Date
10:10AM 21/03/10
Permit Effective Date
13/07/01
Exit Time/Date
12:15PM 21/03/10
Permit Expiration Date
16/05/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Victor Ray Quick,PO Drawer 357 Graham NC 272530357//336-570-6700/3365135502
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Records/Reports Self -Monitoring Progran
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
Jim J Gonsiewski DWR/Division of Water Quality/336-776-9704/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1

31
NPDES yr/mo/day
N C 0021211 I11 121 21 /0 3/ 10
117
Inspection Type
18101
(Cont.)
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
On March 10, 2021 a Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) was performed by Jim Gonsiewski of
the Winston-Salem Regional Office. The purpose of this inspection was to determine the
effectiveness of the Town's pretreatment program, which includes reviewing the files, including
industrial monitoring data, POTW plant performance, industry monitoring data, and adherence to the
enforcement response plan (ERP).
The City has five (5) Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), three (3) of which are categorical. The
treatment plant is permitted for 3.5 MGD.
There are no plant problems related to pretreatment issues and no NPDES permit limit or monitoring
violations were recorded from October 2019 through January 2021. The facility is very well
operated.
The Headworks Analysis (HWA) was submitted on August 30, 2018. The HWA was approved on
October 3, 2018. The next HWA is due on September 1, 2023.
The last Industrial Waste Survey (IWS) was submitted on March 29, 2018. The IWS was approved on
April 4, 2018. The next IWS is due on April 2, 2023.
The Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO) was approved on September 14, 2011.
The Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) was approved on February 14, 2020.
The Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) was approved on February 13, 2020.
The Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) is being conducted at the proper locations and frequencies.
None of the five (5) SIUs were in significant noncompliance (SNC) in 2020.
A review of the file for Cintas (#0007) revealed that the monitoring data was well organized and
compliant.
A review of the file for Prescient Company, Inc. (#3001) revealed that the monitoring data was well
organized and compliant.
A review of the file for Stericycle (#0030) revealed that the monitoring data was well organized and
compliant.
The slug control plan for Cintas (#0007) was in good order.
The slug control plan for Prescient Company, Inc. (#3001) was in good order.
The slug control plan for Stericycle (#0030) was in good order.
No other action items were noted.
Page# 2

Permit: NC0021211
Inspection Date: 03/10/2021
Owner - Facility: Graham WWTP
Inspection Type: Pretreatment Compliance
Permit Yes No NA NE
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new El El ❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit? • El El El
# Are there any special conditions for the permit? El • El El
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? • El El El
Comment: There are no special conditions for the permit.
Page# 3

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Graham WWTP
PermitNo. NC0021211
Prepared By: Gary Perlmutter
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
3.5
34
85
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
34
3.5
5.425
17.0
0
13.76
124
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
7.27 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
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
34
3.5
5.425
1.0
0.22
13.76
5.9
85
3.5
5.425
1.8
0.22
6.00
26.6
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Graham WWTP
PermitNo. NC0021211
Prepared By: Gary Perlmutter
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
5
34
85
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
34
5
7.75
17.0
0
18.56
92
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
5.39 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
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
34
5
7.75
1.0
0.22
18.56
4.4
85
5
7.75
1.8
0.22
8.36
19.1
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

Meritech, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
Laboratory Certification No. 165
Contact: Cris Routh
Client: Graham, City of
P.O. Drawer 357
Graham, NC 27253
Report Date:
NPDES #:
P.O. #:
Date Sample Rcvd:
8/2/2021
NC0021211
Credit Card
7/26/2021
Meritech Work Order # 07262129
Parameters
Hardness (titration)
Result
28 mg/L
Sample: Plant Upstream Grab
Analysis Date
7/29/21
Reporting Limit
1 mg/L
7/26/21
Method
SM 2340C
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
sifianC;f rho no of
Laboratory Representative
642 Tamco Road, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
tel.[phone] fax.[phone]

NA
O
m
C
a
ul
o
O_ U
G
V
°-
1
r
[0
dal
mot=
\
'"
E ?
to
of
H
"^•
eft
y-
o
>
Around Ti
needs pi
frees Aoo
o
!mperatur
2celpt: ,1
ug/L
OOl
E
O
CJ
}
o
CJ
Turn *RUSK work
eh.
r c
V
12
V
4J
E
o
rn
N
S
uired
oG
,n
c
w
W
O
w
Z
E
Z au_ r a
r,
t! /
92
Ta ing Sam le (Sign P intl:
4)tJ_ .hQ 1 b,
(N samples must be done In the field prior to pres
Report results in:
1 e eived
F.ro . ••1at440r
ors C 7).53
il
f
4
G
dike
1
0
tt�
v�C
IAtten1
RG1ti uis t d by: 0
7 _ 3 tate: Time: /3
Relinquished by: / bate: 6" Time:
v 13
u ¢
Grab?
I-
o
Yte Chain of Custody Record (COC)
Sampling Dates & Times
Start End
cu
ro
uo
Are these results for regulatory purposes?
c
E
Date I Time
E
a
o
CO
CR5'
E
o.
in
• I
ONn
Rd,
C 273
3i1: it
itec
o
ample Location and/or ID #
0
c
ai
•
•'
E
E
u
_4
dlethod of
>hipment:
Fed Ex
,Rdf d Delivery l
%
*
N
o_
C
vi
id,
�,
__

eritech, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
Laboratory Certification No. 165
Contact: Cris Routh
Client: Graham, City of
P.O. Drawer 357
Graham, NC 27253
Report Date:
NPDES ti:
P.O. #:
Date Sample Rcvd:
8/9/2021
NC0021211
Credit Card
7/28/2021
Meritech Work Order # 07282147
Parameters
Hardness (titration)
Result
32 mg/L
Sample: Plant Upstream Grab
Analysis Date
7/29/21
Reporting Limit
1 mg/L
7/27/21
Method
SM 2340C
Meritech Work Order # 07282148
Parameters
Hardness (titration)
Result
32 mg/L
Sample: Plant Upstream Grab
Analysis Date
7/29/21
Re orLimit
1 mg/L
7/28/21
Method
SM 2340C
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
nil 44QY Th
Laboratory Representative
642 Tamco Road, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
tel.[phone] fax.[phone]

M1
Temperature Upon
Receipt: tt Q
telin` sh d if V._ '� jpate: Time: - - Received by: Date: Time:
Relinquished by: ' Date: Time: Received by lab: -]i. �k. ( Date: Time: '� / }
-ro
coT
O
O
Y
O O (J
2
'-,
S
_
tround Ti
needs prii
lilies Arm
3-5 Day
Si
O r
o
a
o
on
c
E
_
r
y
(J
CII
*** Dechlorination (<0.5 ppm) of Ammonia, Cyanide, Phenol and TKN samples must be done in the field prior to preservation. ***
Pe on T ing ample (t : , ; + ign/Pri. I
Comments: -- --
w
1-1
z
G
O
a
X
N
w
.O
a
0
a
r,
est(s) Requii
Re eive rsi
o
Report results in:
How would you like your report sent
Circle all that apply:(Email (preferrred) Fax,
Address: t ©- e1 a5.
Cycc01\a,^r\ 1�1C 1125.3
�ClSSj_:?r, 11
Attention: Cr' I :S �0 ,
0
CI
1}--�
j
0 C
u
._
^Nt
Comp?:
Grab?
CO
of Custody Record (COC)
1-
QJ
$
ling Dates & Ti
w
y
I
'or regulatory purposes?
v
Occ
E
0
V_
F-
m
K(M.
cn
cu
0
�\
RI
)NR
d.
273
il: in
tec
0 O
ro
`-
ro
Method of
Shipment:
Fed Ex
I
and Delivery
u
J
°1
JC
r
}
a
E
J
v
3
Y
�
(a)
v)
()
Li

Contact
Client:
Cris Routh
Graham, City of
P.O. Drawer 357
Graham, NC 27253
eritech, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
Laboratory Certification No, 165
Report Date:
NPDES #:
P.O. #:
Date Sample Rcvd:
8/9/2021
N00021211
Credit Card
7/30/2021
Meritech Work Order # 07302151
Parameters
Hardness (titration)
Result
40 mg/L
Sample: Plant Upstream Grab
Analysis Date
8/5/21
Reporting Limit
1 mg/L
7/29/21
Method
SM 2340C
Meritech Work Order # 07302152
Parameters
Hardness (titration)
Result
44 mg/L
Sample: Plant Upstream Grab
Analysis Date
8/5/21
Reporting Limit
1 mg/L
7/30/21
Method
SM 2340C
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Laboratory Representative
642 Tarnco Road, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
tel.[phone] fax.[phone]

n.
ro
to
a
pH OK
CI OK;
N
o
,�
o
,,
n
�,.
t
L.Gl
r
1
I t
aG..
—
around Ti
needs pri
r pn
On Ice?
(s/Nc
:mperatur
ceipt: /
-:
o
lab
r
0
V 1LJ
rye
_
V
Q
T
*RUSH H
lap at) P
bo
E
°'
co
o
1 cti�e i err
Phenol and TKN samples must be done in the field prior to preservation. °*
Received b\�` ' �) n f
Test(s) Requi)
Report results in: mg/L
e
Attention: 1.S Po
h
\
ti of
Cont.
Time: (✓ Le I II
'El
cE
9/18 Chain of Custody Record (COC)
Sampling Dates & Times
Start I End
Date Tin
*°* Dechlorination (<0.5 ppm) of Ammonia, Cyanide,
Relinquished bty;Jj2,-C>1' 7 Da
Relinquished by: CDate:
1
01
\I
J
Comments:
Are these results for regulato
c
d.
2i
C.
;ample Location and/or ID #
•
Cr
Aethod of
shipment:
Hand Delivery
a
v
.,,@-)
G ..,__,a

Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Graham WWTP
Class 4
NC0021211
001
3.500
Haw River
03030002
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q1Ow (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
1 Q1 Os (cfs)
WS-V; NSW
34.00
85.00
114.00
553.00
27.96
Effluent Hardness
80 mg/L (Avg)
Upstream Hardness
37.33 mg/L (Avg)
Combined Hardness Chronic
43.2 mg/L
Combined Hardness Acute
44.27 mg/L
Data Source(s)
❑ CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
DMR data from May 2017 - Jun 2021, 3 Effluent
Scans, and facility -provided Hardness data
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Name
WQS
Type Chronic Modifier
Acute
PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
0.8920
FW
5.3343
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
mg/L
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
♦ Total Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
184.2812 1
FW
1445.1444
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
12.5771
FW
17.9400
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
5.4287
FW
143.1269
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
59.1436
FW
543.5486
pg/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
pg/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
0.7919
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
201.4650
FW
203.9853
ug/L
Chloroform
Aquatic Life
NC
2000
FW
ug/L
Chlorodibromomethane
Human Health
C
21
HH
ug/L
1,4-Dioxane
Human Health
C
80
HH
ug/L
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, input
1 /11 /2022

21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, input
1 /11 /2022

Graham WWTP
NC0021211
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 3.50
1Q10S (cfs) = 27.96
7Q1OS (cfs) = 34.00
7Q1OW (cfs) = 85.00
30Q2 (cfs) = 114.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 553.00
Receiving Stream: Haw River HUC 03030002
WWTP/WTP Class: Class 4
IWC% @ 1Q10S = 16.24981279
IWC% @ 7Q1OS = 13.76030438
IWC% @ 7Q1OW = 5.999447056
IWC% @ 30Q2 = 4.542599958
IW%C @ QA = 0.971482294
Stream Class: WS-V; NSW
Outfall 001
Qw = 3.5 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 44.27 mg/L
Chronic = 43.2 mg/L
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Ci
H
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Chronic Applied Acute
Standard
11# Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Arsenic
Arsenic
C
C
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
ug/L
22 2
144.2
Acute (FW): 2,092.3
_ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic (FW):---1,090.1-----------------------------------
_ No_ value _> Allowable _Cw_ _ _
Chronic (HH): 1,029.4
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max <- 50% of Allowable C-w - No
Monitoring required
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65
ug/L
3 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Acute: 400.00
___ _ _______ _ ___
Chronic: 47.24
Max MDL = 5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP for limited dataset (n < 8 samples); no detects
at < 5 ug/L. No monitorig required.
Cadmium
NC
0.8920 FW(7Q10s) 5.3343
ug/L
22 2
1.420
Acute: 32.827
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 6.483
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A(30Q2)
-
ug/L
3 2
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
141.0
Default C.V.
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 6,604.1
No value > Allowable Cw 'Monitoring
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP for limited dataset (n < 8 samples). No
required
Chromium III
NC
184.2812 FW(7Q10s) 1445.1444
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 8,893.3
-- _ _ ------ _ -3_ _ ----------------------------------
Chronic:--
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7Q10s) 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 98.5
-- ------ _ _ _ _ ------------------------------------
Chronic: 79.9
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
Tot Cr value(s)
22 2
< 50 and < Cr VI
14.5
Allowable Cw
Max reported value = 10
No Monitoring required if all Total Chromium samples
are < the Chromium VI Allowable Cw
Copper
NC
12.5771 FW(7Q10s) 17.9400
ug/L
22 20
30.82
Acute: 110.40
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 91.40
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 22
10
ug/L
23 2
5.0
Acute: 135.4
____ _____________________________
Chronic: 36.3
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Lead
NC
5.4287 FW(7Q10s) 143.1269
ug/L
21 13
16.100
Acute: 880.791
____ ___________________________
Chronic: 39.452
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Page 3 of 19
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, rpa
1 /11 /2022

Graham WWTP
NC0021211
Outfall 001
Qw = 3.5 MGD
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Molybdenum
NC
2000 HH(7Q10s)
ug/L
22 14
14.9
Acute: NO WQS
____ ____ ______________________
Chronic: 14,534.6
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Nickel
Nickel
NC
NC
59.1436 FW(7Q10s) 543.5486
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
ug/L
µg/L
22 10
5.8
Acute (FW): 3,345.0
_ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic ----------- -----------------------------------
(FW):
N_ o_value _> A_llo_w_a_bl_e_Cw____________________________________________
Chronic (WS): 181.7
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 56
ug/L
22 0
NO DETECTS
Acute: 344.6
____ ____________________________
Chronic: 36.3
Max MDL = 10
13 non -detects at < 10 ug/L, 2 at < 2 ug/L and 2 at <
1 ug/L. No monitoring required.
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.7919
ug/L
22 0
NO DETECTS
Acute: 4.873
____ _________________________
Chronic: 0.436
Max MDL = 5
13 nondetects w/ 4 at < 0.5 ug/L over past yr No
Monitoring required.
Zinc
NC
201.4650 FW(7Q10s) 203.9853
ug/L
22 22
185.4
Acute: 1,255.3
____ ___________________________
Chronic: 1,464.1
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Chloroform
NC
2000 FW(7Q10s)
ug/L
3 2
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
21.69000
Default C.V.
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 14534.56221
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP for limited dataset (n < 8 samples). No
Monitoring required
Chlorodibromomethane
C
21 HH(Qavg)
ug/L
3 2
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
14.49000
Default C.V.
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 2161.64516
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP for limited dataset (n < 8 samples). No
Monitoring required
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, rpa
Page 4 of 19 1 /11 /2022

Graham WWTP
NC0021211
>
Outfall 001
Qw = 3.5 MGD
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Acute:
NO WQS
1,4-Dioxane
C
80
HH(Qavg)
ug/L
0
0
N/A
-- _ _ ----8234.83871
Chronic:
_ _ _ _ ---------------------------------
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, rpa
Page 5 of 19 1/11/2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
Effluent Hardness
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 11/4/2020 140 140 Std Dev. 18.6300
2 11/18/2020 80 80 Mean 80.0000
3 12/10/2020 76 76 C.V. 0.2329
4 12/21/2020 68 68 n 14
5 1/6/2021 72 72 10th Per value 68.00 mg/L
6 1/20/2021 72 72 Average Value 80.00 mg/L
7 2/3/2021 68 68 Max. Value 140.00 mg/L
8 2/17/2021 64 64
9 3/4/2021 80 80
10 3/17/2021 76 76
11 4/7/2021 92 92
12 4/21/2021 80 80
13 5/5/2021 72 72
14 5/19/2021 80 80
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
H2
Upstream Hardness
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/26/2021 28 28 Std Dev. 7.8655
2 7/27/2021 32 32 Mean 37.3333
3 7/28/2021 32 32 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 7/29/2021 40 40 n 6
5 7/30/2021 44 44 10th Per value 30.00 mg/L
6 5/14/2013 48 48 Average Value 37.33 mg/L
7 Max. Value 48.00 mg/L
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, data
- 6 - 1 /11 /2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
Date
7/12/2017
8/16/2017
9/20/2017
10/25/2017
11/15/2017
12/13/2017
1/24/2018
2/21/2018
3/14/2018
4/11/2018
5/23/2018
6/19/2018
8/24/2018
12/5/2018
3/6/2019
9/10/2019
11/20/2019
2/19/2020
4/15/2020
8/12/2020
12/10/2020
3/4/2021
Data
10
10
10
2
69
2
2
10
10
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
BDL=1/2DL
5
5
5
1
69
1
1
5
10
2.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
14.4178
5.2955
2.7227
22
2.09
69.0 ug/L
144.2 ug/L
Par03
Beryllium
Date Data
3/16/2017 <
6/19/2018 <
9/10/2019 <
BDL=1/2DL
5 2.5
5 2.5
0.5 0.25
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V. (default)
n
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
1.2990
1.7500
0.6000
3
Mult Factor = 3.00
Max. Value 2.50 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 0 DETECTS ug/L
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, data
- 7 - 1 /11 /2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par04
Cadmium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/12/2017 < 2 1 Std Dev.
2 8/16/2017 < 2 1 Mean
3 9/20/2017 < 2 1 C.V.
4 10/25/2017 < 2 1 n
5 11/15/2017 < 2 1
6 12/13/2017 < 2 1 Mult Factor =
7 1/24/2018 < 2 1 Max. Value
8 2/21/2018 < 2 1 Max. Pred Cw
9 3/14/2018 < 2 1
10 4/11/2018 < 2 1
11 5/23/2018 < 2 1
12 6/19/2018 < 2 1
13 8/24/2018 < 0.15 0.075
14 12/5/2018 < 0.15 0.075
15 3/6/2019 0.15 0.15
16 9/10/2019 < 0.15 0.075
17 11/20/2019 0.15 0.15
18 2/19/2020 < 0.15 0.075
19 4/15/2020 < 0.15 0.075
20 8/12/2020 < 0.15 0.075
21 12/10/2020 < 0.15 0.075
22 3/4/2021 < 0.15 0.075
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
0.4642
0.5864
0.7917
22
1.42
1.000 ug/L
1.420 ug/L
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, data
- 8 - 1 /11 /2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par07
Total Phenolic Compounds
Date Data
3/19/2017
6/19/2018
9/10/2019 <
21
47
10
BDL=1/2DL Results
21 Std Dev. 21.1975
47 Mean 24.3333
5 C.V. (default) 0.6000
n 3
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
3.00
47.0 ug/L
141.0 ug/L
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, data
- 9 - 1 /11 /2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par08
Chromium III
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A pg/L
N/A pg/L
Par09
Chromium VI
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A pg/L
N/A pg/L
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, data
- 10 - 1 /11 /2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par10
Chromium, Total
Date
7/12/2017
8/16/2017
9/20/2017
10/25/2017
11/15/2017
12/13/2017
1/24/2018
2/21/2018
3/14/2018
4/11/2018
5/23/2018
6/19/2018
8/24/2018
12/5/2018
3/6/2019
9/10/2019
11/20/2019
2/19/2020
4/15/2020
8/12/2020
12/10/2020
3/4/2021
Data
BDL=1/2DL
5 2.5
5 2.5
10 10
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
3 3
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
1.8945
2.2500
0.8420
22
1.45
10.0 pg/L
14.5 pg/L
Pal
Copper
Date Data
7/12/2017
8/16/2017
9/20/2017
10/25/2017
11/15/2017
12/13/2018
1/24/2018
2/21/2018
3/14/2018
4/11/2018
5/23/2018
6/19/2018
8/24/2018
12/5/2018
3/6/2019
9/10/2019 <
11/20/2019
2/19/2020
4/15/2020
8/12/2020
12/10/2020 <
3/4/2021
10
8
17
6
7
20
12
23
14
14
5
11
13
12
6
2
9
9
3
2
2
3
BDL=1/2DL
10
8
17
6
7
20
12
23
14
14
5
11
13
12
6
1
9
9
3
2
1
3
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
5.9964
9.3636
0.6404
22
1.34
23.00 ug/L
30.82 ug/L
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, data
- 11 - 1 /11 /2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par12
Cyanide
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/12/2017 < 5 5 Std Dev.
2 8/16/2017 < 5 5 Mean
3 9/20/2017 < 5 5 C.V.
4 10/25/2017 < 5 5 n
5 11/15/2017 < 5 5
6 12/13/2018 < 5 5 Mult Factor =
7 1/24/2018 7 5 Max. Value
8 2/21/2018 < 5 5 Max. Pred Cw
9 3/14/2018 < 5 5
10 4/11/2018 < 5 5
11 5/23/2018 < 5 5
12 6/19/2018 < 5 5
13 8/24/2018 < 8 5
14 12/5/2018 7 5
15 3/6/2019 < 5 5
16 9/10/2019 < 5 5
17 11/13/2019 < 5 5
18 2/19/2020 < 5 5
19 4/15/2020 < 5 5
20 8/12/2020 < 5 5
21 9/15/2020 < 5 5
22 12/10/2020 < 5 5
23 3/4/2021 < 5 5
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
0.0000
5.00
0.0000
23
1.00
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, data
- 12 - 1 /11 /2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14
Lead
Date
7/12/2017
8/16/2017
9/20/2017
10/25/2017
12/13/2018
1/24/2018
2/21/2018
3/14/2018
4/11/2018
5/23/2018
6/19/2018
8/24/2018
12/5/2018
3/6/2019
9/10/2019
11/13/2019
2/19/2020
4/15/2020
8/12/2020
12/10/2020
3/4/2021
10
10
0.5
10
0.5
0.9
0.5
1.7
10
10
10
0.5
0.9
1.4
1.9
2.2
0.7
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.6
BDL=1/2DL
5
10
0.25
5
0.25
0.9
0.25
1.7
5
5
5
0.5
0.9
1.4
1.9
2.2
0.7
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.6
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
2.5533
2.3119
1.1044
21
1.61
10.000 ug/L
16.100 ug/L
-13-
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, data
1 /11 /2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par16
Molybdenum
Date Data
7/12/2017 <
8/16/2017
9/20/2017
10/25/2017 <
11/15/2017 <
12/13/2018 <
1/24/2018 <
2/21/2018 <
3/14/2018 <
4/11/2018 <
5/23/2018
6/19/2018
8/24/2018
12/5/2018
3/6/2019
9/10/2019
11/20/2019
2/19/2020
4/15/2020
8/12/2020
12/10/2020
3/4/2021
BDL=1/2DL
5 2.5
8 8
11 11
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
6 6
5 5
7 7
3 3
2 2
9 9
6 6
2 2
10 10
9 9
2 2
2 2
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL- Par17 & Par18
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
3.0480
4.6364
0.6574
22
1.35
11.0 ug/L
14.9 ug/L
Nickel
Date
7/12/2017
8/16/2017
9/20/2017
10/25/2017
11/15/2017
12/13/2018
1/24/2018
2/21/2018
3/14/2018
4/11/2018
5/23/2018
6/19/2018
8/24/2018
12/5/2018
3/6/2019
9/10/2019
11/20/2019
2/19/2020
4/15/2020
8/12/2020
12/10/2020
3/4/2021
Data
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
4.8
3.3
2.6
3.9
4.3
2.3
1.9
2.8
2.3
1.9
BDL=1/2DL
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4.8
3.3
2.6
3.9
4.3
2.3
1.9
2.8
2.3
1.9
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
1.2156
4.0955
0.2968
22
1.16
5.0 pg/L
5.8 pg/L
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, data
- 14 - 1 /11 /2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19
Selenium
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/12/2017 < 10 5 Std Dev. 2.2467
2 8/16/2017 < 10 5 Mean 3.0000
3 9/20/2017 < 10 5 C.V. 0.7489
4 10/25/2017 < 10 5 n 22
5 11/15/2017 < 10 5
6 12/13/2018 < 10 5 Mult Factor = 1.40
7 1/24/2018 < 10 5 Max. Value 5.0 ug/L
8 2/21/2018 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw 0 DETECTS ug/L
9 3/14/2018 < 10 5
10 4/11/2018 < 10 5
11 5/23/2018 < 10 5
12 6/19/2018 < 10 5
13 8/24/2018 < 2 1
14 12/5/2018 < 2 1
15 3/6/2019 < 1 0.5
16 9/10/2019 < 1 0.5
17 11/20/2019 < 1 0.5
18 2/19/2020 < 1 0.5
19 4/15/2020 < 1 0.5
20 8/12/2020 < 1 0.5
21 12/10/2020 < 1 0.5
22 3/4/2021 < 1 0.5
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
Par20
Silver
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 7/12/2017 < 5 2.5 Std Dev. 1.1467
2 8/16/2017 < 5 2.5 Mean 1.4773
3 9/20/2017 < 5 2.5 C.V. 0.7762
4 10/25/2017 < 5 2.5 n 22
5 11/15/2017 < 5 2.5
6 12/13/2018 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor = 1.41
7 1/24/2018 < 5 2.5 Max. Value 2.500 ug/L
8 2/21/2018 < 5 2.5 Max. Pred Cw 0 DETECTS ug/L
9 3/14/2018 < 5 2.5
10 4/11/2018 < 5 2.5
11 5/23/2018 < 5 2.5
12 6/19/2018 < 5 2.5
13 8/24/2018 < 0.5 0.25
14 12/5/2018 < 0.5 0.25
15 3/6/2019 < 0.5 0.25
16 9/10/2019 < 0.5 0.25
17 11/20/2019 < 0.5 0.25
18 2/19/2020 < 0.5 0.25
19 4/15/2020 < 0.5 0.25
20 8/12/2020 < 0.5 0.25
21 12/10/2020 < 0.5 0.25
22 3/4/2021 < 0.5 0.25
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, data
- 15 - 1 /11 /2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21
Zinc
Date Data
1 7/12/2017
2 8/16/2017
3 9/20/2017
4 10/25/2017
5 11/15/2017
6 12/13/2018
7 1/24/2018
8 2/21/2018
9 3/14/2018
10 4/11/2018
11 5/23/2018
12 6/19/2018
13 8/24/2018
14 12/5/2018
15 3/6/2019
16 9/10/2019
17 11/20/2019
18 2/19/2020
19 4/15/2020
20 8/12/2020
21 12/10/2020
22 3/4/2021
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
56
71
90
98
109
109
152
75
83
118
29
60
39
49
37
78
90
52
50
94
69
53
BDL=1/2DL
56
71
90
98
109
109
152
75
83
118
29
60
39
49
37
78
90
52
50
94
69
53
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
30.3201
75.5000
0.4016
22
1.22
152.0 ug/L
185.4 ug/L
Par22
Chloroform
Date Data
3/16/2017
6/19/2018
9/10/2019 <
BDL=1/2DL
5.14 5.14
7.23 7.23
1 0.5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V. (default)
n
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
3.4446
4.2900
0.6000
3
Mult Factor = 3.00
Max. Value 7.230000 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 21.690000 ug/L
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, data
- 16 - 1 /11 /2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par23
Chlorodibromomethane
Date Data
3/16/2017 4.78
6/19/2018 4.83
9/10/2019 < 1
BDL=1/2DL
4.78
4.83
0.5
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V. (default)
n
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
Par24
1,4-Dioxane
2.4856
3.3700
0.6000
3
Mult Factor = 3.00
Max. Value 4.830000 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 14.490000 ug/L
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A ug/L
N/A ug/L
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, data
- 17 - 1 /11 /2022

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par25
0
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Std Dev.
2 Mean
3 C.V.
4 n
5
6 Mult Factor =
7 Max. Value
8 Max. Pred Cw
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL -
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points
= 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
21211 RPA 3.5 MGD, data
- 18 - 1 /11 /2022

Date: 1 /11 /2022
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
Do NOT enter any data directly into this spreadsheet.
Enter data onto "Table 1" under the Input Sheet and enter
"Effluent Hardness" under the Data Sheet.
In accordance with 40 CFR 122.45 (c ), permits are, have and
must be written as total metals.
This calculator has been inserted into the RPA to calculate
Total Metal allowable allocations once Table 1 has been
completed (Input Sheet) and Effluent hardness has been
entered (Data Sheet).
1) Following the spreadsheet from left to right.
First the allowable allocations for the dissolved metals
will appear for all the metals listed once Table 1 is
complete and effluent hardness entered. Use a default
value of 25 mg/L if no hardness data is available.
Second, the Dissolved Metal allocations are divided by
the Translators to determine the Total Metals that can be
allocated to the Permittee. These Total Metals values are
automatically inserted into Table 2 and are the allowable
Total Metal allocations determined for the Permittee
prior to allowing for dilution. See Input sheet Table 2. The
final acute and chronic values shown under the RPA sheet
are the Total Metal values listed in Table 2 divided by the
acute and chronic IWC, respectively.
2) The Translators used in the freshwater RPA are the
Partition Coefficients published by US EPA in 1984. They
are TSS dependent equations and can be found listed
with the WQS hardness dependent equations under the
sheet labeled Equations. A fixed TSS value of 10 mg/L is
used to calculate the Translator values.
3) Pretreatment Facilities - PERCS will need a copy of the
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator spreadsheet and the
RPA sheet along with the Final Permit. Pretreatment
Facilities are required to renew their Headwords Analysis
after renewal of their permits. Since all their metal
allocations are likely to change PERCS needs to see any
new metal permit limits and the allowable allocations for
the dissolved metals to assess Maximum Allowable
Headworks Loading (MAHL) numbers for each metal
based on the Combined Hardness values used in the
permit writers RPA calculations.
4) For Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Chromium and Beryllium, if
all the effluent sampling data for the last three to five
years shows the pollutant at concentrations less than the
Practical Quantitative Level (PQL), it is not likely a limit or
monitoring will be put in the permit. However, if the
estimated NPDES permit limit is less than the Practical
Quantitative Limit (particularly, Cadmium and Lead) and
the pollutant is believed to be present, to assess
compliance with the new standards and for future permit
limit development, monitoring for the pollutant will be
required. If the facility is monitoring for the pollutant in
its Pretreatment LTMP, no monitoring is needed in the
permit.
FACILITY: Graham WWTP Outfall 001
NPDES PERMIT: NC0021211
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
In accordance with Federal Regulations, permit limitations must be written as Total Metals per 40 CFR 122.45(c)
Receiving
Stream
summer
7Q10 (CFS)
Receiving
Stream
summer 7Q10
(MGD)
Rec. Stream
1Q10
[MGD]
NPDES
Flow Limit
[MGD]
Total Suspended
Solids
-Fixed Value-
(mg/L)
Combined
Hardness
chronic
(mg/L)
Combined
Hardness
Acute
(mg/L)
Instream
Wastewater
Concentration
(Chronic)
Instream
Wastewater
Concentration
(Acute)
Upstream
Hardness
Average (mg/L)
Effluent
Hardness
Average
(mg/L)
34.0000
I 21.9355
18.0387
3.5000
10
43.204
44.267
I 13.7603
16.2498
1 37.3333333 I
80
PARAMETER
Cadmium (d)
Cd -Trout streams
Chromium III (d)(h)
Chromium VI (d)
Chromium, Total (t)
Copper (d)(h)
Lead (d)(h)
Nickel (d)(h)
Dissolved Metals
Chronic
Acute
[ug/I]
0.23
0.23
37
11
[ug/I]
1.35
US EPA
Translators- using
Default Partition
Coefficients
(streams)
0.252
Maximum Allowable Effluent Concentration
(MAEC) as a Total Metal
=Dissolved Metal = Translator
Chronic
Acute
Upstream Hard Avg (mg/L) = 37.33333
EFF Hard Avg (mg/L) = 80
0.841 0.2521
292
16
4.4 6.2
1.00 26
Ni - WS streams (t)
Silver (d)(h,acute)
Zinc (d)(h)
26 235
0.06
58
0.79
59
0.202
1.000
0.348
0.184
0.432
1.000
0.288
[ug/I]
[ug/I]
0.89 5.33
0.89 3.32
184.28 1445.14
11.00 16.00
N/A
N/A
12.58
17.94
5.43
143.13
59.14
543.55
25
N/A
0.06
0.79
201.46
203.99
Beryllium
Arsenic (d)
6.5 65 1.000
150 340 1.000
6
150
65
340
COMMENTS (identify parameters to PERCS Branch to maintain in facility's LTMP/STMP):
(d) = dissolved metal standard. See 15A NCAC 02B .0211 for more information.
(h) = hardness -dependent dissolved metal standard. See 15A NCAC 02B .0211 for more information.
(t) = based upon measurement of total recoveable metal. See 15A NCAC 02B .0211 for more information.
The Human Health standard for Nickel in Water Supply Streams is 25 mg/L which is Total Recoverable metal standard.
The Human Health standard for Arsenic is 10 µg/L which is Total Recoverable metal standard.
ACAH 44.26659
ACCH 43.2044

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
MIMI
Table 1. Project Information
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
Graham WWTP
Class 4
NC0021211
001
5.000
Haw River
03030002
WS-V; NSW
■ Apply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q1Ow (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
34.00
85.00
114.00
553.00
1 Q10s (cfs)
. 27.96
Effluent Hardness
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
80 mg/L (Avg)
37.33 mg/L (Avg)
45.25 mg/L
46.59 mg/L
DMR data from May 2017 - June 2021, 3 Effluent
Scans, and facility -provided Hardness data
Data Source(s)
• CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
CHECK WQS
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Name
WQS
Type Chronic Modifier
Acute
PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health
Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
0.9238
FW
5.5780
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
mg/L
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
♦ Total Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
191.4092 1
FW
1507.0596
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
13.0851
FW
18.8271
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
5.7160
FW
151.5173
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
61.5082
FW
567.6207
tag/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
tag/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
0.8648
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
209.5322
FW
213.0334
ug/L
Chloroform
Water Supply
NC
60
WS
ug/L
Chlorodibromomethane
Water Supply
C
0.8
WS
ug/L
21211 RPA 5.0 MGD, input
1 /11 /2022

21211 RPA 5.0 MGD, input
1 /11 /2022

Graham WWTP
NC0021211
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 5.00
1Q10S (cfs) = 27.96
7Q1OS (cfs) = 34.00
7Q1OW (cfs) = 85.00
30Q2 (cfs) = 114.00
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 553.00
Receiving Stream: Haw River HUC 03030002
WWTP/WTP Class: Class 4
IWC% @ 1Q10S = 21.70260431
IWC% @ 7Q1OS = 18.56287425
IWC% @ 7Q1OW = 8.355795148
IWC% @ 30Q2 = 6.36550308
IW%C @ QA = 1.382077575
Stream Class: WS-V; NSW
Outfall 001
Qw = 5 MGD
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 46.59 mg/L
Chronic = 45.25 mg/L
YOU HAVE DESIGNATED THIS RECEIVING
STREAM AS WATER SUPPLY
Effluent Hard: 1 value > 100 mg/L
Effluent Hard Avg = 80 mg/L
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Ci
H
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Chronic Applied Acute
Standard
II# Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Arsenic
Arsenic
C
C
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
ug/L
22 2
144.2
Acute (FW): 1,566.6
_ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic (FW):----808.1 -----------------------------------
N_ o_value_> Allowable _Cw_ _ _ _
Chronic (HH): 723.5
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max <- 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65
ug/L
3 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
NO DETECTS
Acute: 299.50
____ ___________________________
Chronic: 35.02
Max MDL = 5
No RP for limited dataset (n < 8 samples); no detects
at < 5 ug/L. No monitorig required.
Cadmium
NC
0.9238 FW(7Q10s) 5.5780
ug/L
22 2
1.420
Acute: 25.702
____ ---------- ___-----------------------
Chronic: 4.977
No value > Allowable Cw
_____
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A(30Q2)
ug/L
3 2
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
141.0
Default C.V.
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 4,712.9
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP for limited dataset (n < 8 samples). No
Monitoring required
Chromium III
NC
191.4092 FW(7Q10s) 1507.0596
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 6,944.1
_ _ _ _
-- ---- ------------------------------------
Chronic:1,031.1
Chromium VI
NC
11 FW(7Q10s) 16
µg/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: 73.7
-- _ _ ------ _ _ ------------------------------------
Chronic: 59.3
Chromium, Total
NC
µg/L
Tot Cr value(s)
22 2
< 50 and < Cr VI
14.5
Allowable Cw
Max reported value = 10
No Monitoring required if all Total Chromium samples
are < the Chromium VI Allowable Cw
Copper
NC
13.0851 FW(7Q10s) 18.8271
ug/L
22 20
30.82
Acute: 86.75
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 70.49
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 22
10
ug/L
23 2
5.0
Acute: 101.4
____ _____________________________
Chronic: 26.9
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Lead
NC
5.7160 FW(7Q10s) 151.5173
ug/L
21 13
16.100
Acute: 698.153
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 30.792
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Page 3 of 5
21211 RPA 5.0 MGD, rpa
1 /11 /2022

Graham WWTP
NC0021211
Outfall 001
Qw = 5 MGD
Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
Molybdenum
NC
2000 HH(7Q10s)
ug/L
22 14
14.9
Acute: NO WQS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 10,774.2
No value > Allowable Cw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Nickel
Nickel
NC
NC
61.5082 FW(7Q10s) 567.6207
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
lug/
ug/L
22 10
5.8
Acute (FW): 2,615.4
_ _ _ _ --- _ _ -----------------------------------
Chronic (FW):-331.4
N_ o_value _> A_llo_w_a_bl_e_Cw____________________________________________
Chronic (WS): 134.7
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7Q10s) 56
ug/L
22 0
NO DETECTS
Acute: 258.0
____ ____________________________
Chronic: 26.9
Max MDL = 10
13 non -detects at < 10 ug/L, 2 at < 2 ug/L and 2 at <
1 ug/L. No monitoring required.
Silver
NC
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.8648
ug/L
22 0
NO DETECTS
Acute: 3.985
____ ____________________________
Chronic: 0.323
Max MDL = 5
13 nondetects w/ 4 at < 0.5 ug/L over past yr No
Monitoring required.
Zinc
NC
209.5322 FW(7Q10s) 213.0334
ug/L
22 22
185.4
Acute: 981.6
____ ___________________________
Chronic: 1,128.8
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Chloroform
NC
60 WS(7Q10s)
ug/L
3 2
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
21.69000
Default C.V.
Acute: NO WQS
____ ____________________________
Chronic: 323.22581
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP for limited dataset (n < 8 samples). No
Monitoring required
Chlorodibromomethane
C
0.8 WS(Qavg)
ug/L
3 2
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
14.49000
Default C.V.
Acute: NO WQS
____ _________________________
Chronic: 57.88387
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP for limited dataset (n < 8 samples). No
Monitoring required
21211 RPA 5.0 MGD, rpa
Page 4 of 5 1 /11 /2022

Date: 1 /11 /2022
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
Do NOT enter any data directly into this spreadsheet.
Enter data onto "Table 1" under the Input Sheet and enter
"Effluent Hardness" under the Data Sheet.
In accordance with 40 CFR 122.45 (c ), permits are, have and
must be written as total metals.
This calculator has been inserted into the RPA to calculate
Total Metal allowable allocations once Table 1 has been
completed (Input Sheet) and Effluent hardness has been
entered (Data Sheet).
1) Following the spreadsheet from left to right.
First the allowable allocations for the dissolved metals
will appear for all the metals listed once Table 1 is
complete and effluent hardness entered. Use a default
value of 25 mg/L if no hardness data is available.
Second, the Dissolved Metal allocations are divided by
the Translators to determine the Total Metals that can be
allocated to the Permittee. These Total Metals values are
automatically inserted into Table 2 and are the allowable
Total Metal allocations determined for the Permittee
prior to allowing for dilution. See Input sheet Table 2. The
final acute and chronic values shown under the RPA sheet
are the Total Metal values listed in Table 2 divided by the
acute and chronic IWC, respectively.
2) The Translators used in the freshwater RPA are the
Partition Coefficients published by US EPA in 1984. They
are TSS dependent equations and can be found listed
with the WQS hardness dependent equations under the
sheet labeled Equations. A fixed TSS value of 10 mg/L is
used to calculate the Translator values.
3) Pretreatment Facilities - PERCS will need a copy of the
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator spreadsheet and the
RPA sheet along with the Final Permit. Pretreatment
Facilities are required to renew their Headwords Analysis
after renewal of their permits. Since all their metal
allocations are likely to change PERCS needs to see any
new metal permit limits and the allowable allocations for
the dissolved metals to assess Maximum Allowable
Headworks Loading (MAHL) numbers for each metal
based on the Combined Hardness values used in the
permit writers RPA calculations.
4) For Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Chromium and Beryllium, if
all the effluent sampling data for the last three to five
years shows the pollutant at concentrations less than the
Practical Quantitative Level (PQL), it is not likely a limit or
monitoring will be put in the permit. However, if the
estimated NPDES permit limit is less than the Practical
Quantitative Limit (particularly, Cadmium and Lead) and
the pollutant is believed to be present, to assess
compliance with the new standards and for future permit
limit development, monitoring for the pollutant will be
required. If the facility is monitoring for the pollutant in
its Pretreatment LTMP, no monitoring is needed in the
permit.
FACILITY: Graham WWTP Outfall 001
NPDES PERMIT: NC0021211
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
In accordance with Federal Regulations, permit limitations must be written as Total Metals per 40 CFR 122.45(c)
Receiving
Stream
summer
7Q10 (CFS)
Receiving
Stream
summer 7Q10
(MGD)
Rec. Stream
1Q10
[MGD]
NPDES
Flow Limit
[MGD]
Total Suspended
Solids
-Fixed Value-
(mg/L)
Combined
Hardness
chronic
(mg/L)
Combined
Hardness
Acute
(mg/L)
Instream
Wastewater
Concentration
(Chronic)
Instream
Wastewater
Concentration
(Acute)
Upstream
Hardness
Average (mg/L)
Effluent
Hardness
Average
(mg/L)
34.0000
I 21.9355
18.0387 5.0000 , 10
45.253
46.593
r 18.5629
21.7026
1 37.3333333 I
80
PARAMETER
Cadmium (d)
Cd -Trout streams
Chromium III (d)(h)
Chromium VI (d)
Chromium, Total (t)
Copper (d)(h)
Lead (d)(h)
Nickel (d)(h)
Dissolved Metals
Chronic
Acute
[ug/I]
0.23
0.23
39
11
[ug/I]
1.41
US EPA
Translators- using
Default Partition
Coefficients
(streams)
0.252
Maximum Allowable Effluent Concentration
(MAEC) as a Total Metal
=Dissolved Metal = Translator
Chronic
Acute
Upstream Hard Avg (mg/L) = 37.33333
EFF Hard Avg (mg/L) = 80
[ug/I]
[ug/I]
0.92 5.58
0.88I 0.2521 0.92 3.47
305 0.202
16
4.5 6.5
1.05 28
Ni - WS streams (t)
Silver (d)(h,acute)
Zinc (d)(h)
27 245
0.06
60
0.86
61
1.000
0.348
0.184
0.432
1.000
0.288
191.41 1507.06
11.00 16.00
N/A
N/A
13.09
18.83
5.72
151.52
61.51
567.62
25
N/A
0.06
0.86
209.53
213.03
Beryllium
Arsenic (d)
6.5 65 1.000
150 340 1.000
6
150
65
340
COMMENTS (identify parameters to PERCS Branch to maintain in facility's LTMP/STMP):
(d) = dissolved metal standard. See 15A NCAC 02B .0211 for more information.
(h) = hardness -dependent dissolved metal standard. See 15A NCAC 02B .0211 for more information.
(t) = based upon measurement of total recoveable metal. See 15A NCAC 02B .0211 for more information.
The Human Health standard for Nickel in Water Supply Streams is 25 mg/L which is Total Recoverable metal standard.
The Human Health standard for Arsenic is 10 µg/L which is Total Recoverable metal standard.
ACAH 46.59311
ACCH 45.25349

Permit No. NC0021211
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, 1.1g/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151[ln hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER* { 1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^ {0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451 }
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 • e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 • e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 • e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^ {1.273 [In hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Permit No. NC0021211
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 • e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 • e^{0.8473[In hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WQBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1Q10 using the formula 1Q10 = 0.843 (s7Q10, 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. NC0021211
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
= (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L) + (s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1Q10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any
have been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss = 1
Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [ SS( i+a)] [10-6] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between dissolved
and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each hardness -dependent
metal can also be found in the RPA program under a sheet labeled DPCs.
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwqs) — (s7Q10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
s7Q 10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
1Q10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
Page 3 of 4

Permit No. NC0021211
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water,
fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data
results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results
based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for
total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium III and
chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the
accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
70 5
DMR data from May 2017 -
December 2019
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
44.4
Five data points in 2013 provided
by facility
7Q10 summer (cfs)
34.0
From previous permit
1 Q 10 (cfs)
27.96
Calculated in RPA
Permitted Flow (MGD)
3.5
Permit application
Date: February 11, 2020
Permit Writer: Gary Perlmutter
Page 4 of 4

1/11/22 WQS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name Graham WWTP / NC0021211
/Permit No. :
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s =
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow =
7/12/17 6.23
8/16/17 5.96
9/20/17 8.65
10/25/17 2.39
11/15/17 6.9
12/13/17 6.9
1/24/18 2.7
2/21/18 4.62
3/14/18 3.63
4/11/18 2.59
5/23/18 3.16
6/19/18 5.15
8/24/18 15.9
12/9/18 7.4
3/6/19 8.63
9/10/19 5.74
11/20/19 3.53
2/19/20 3.11
4/15/20 1.2
8/12/20 5.62
12/10/20 2.64
3/4/21 3.49
No Limit Required
MMP Required
6.23
5.96
8.65
2.39
6.9
6.9
2.7
4.62
3.63
2.59
3.16
5.15
15.9
7.4
8.63
5.74
3.53
3.11
1.2
5.62
2.64
3.49
34.000
3.500
cfs
WQBEL =
87.21 ng/L
47 ng/L
6.2 ng/L - Annual Average for 2017
5.6 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018
6.0 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
3.1 ng/L - Annual Average for 2020
3.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2021

1/11/22 WQS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name Graham WWTP / NC0021211
/Permit No. :
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION V:2013-6
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s =
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow =
7/12/17 6.23
8/16/17 5.96
9/20/17 8.65
10/25/17 2.39
11/15/17 6.9
12/13/17 6.9
1/24/18 2.7
2/21/18 4.62
3/14/18 3.63
4/11/18 2.59
5/23/18 3.16
6/19/18 5.15
8/24/18 15.9
12/9/18 7.4
3/6/19 8.63
9/10/19 5.74
11/20/19 3.53
2/19/20 3.11
4/15/20 1.2
8/12/20 5.62
12/10/20 2.64
3/4/21 3.49
No Limit Required
MMP Required
6.23
5.96
8.65
2.39
6.9
6.9
2.7
4.62
3.63
2.59
3.16
5.15
15.9
7.4
8.63
5.74
3.53
3.11
1.2
5.62
2.64
3.49
34.000
5.000
cfs
WQBEL =
64.65 ng/L
47 ng/L
6.2 ng/L - Annual Average for 2017
5.6 ng/L - Annual Average for 2018
6.0 ng/L - Annual Average for 2019
3.1 ng/L - Annual Average for 2020
3.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2021

CITY
G
I
January 3, 2022
OF I
R A H A M
IVIr. IVlichael Montebello
N .C. Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting - NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
NON 11.1 C AROI INA I
Re: City of Graham
Graham WWTP
NPDES Permit Renewal — Chemical Addendum
Permit No. NC0021211
Dear Mr. Montebello:
As a supplement to the Graham Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES Application package that is
currently under review, the City of Graham is submitting additional information per Session Law
2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r). At the request of the Division of Environmental Quality
(DEQ), the City conducted additional WWTP influent sampling in July, August, and September
2019 for 1,4-Dioxane. This analysis was done in accordance with EPA IVIethod 624.1 which is a
certified method in 40 CFR Part 136. Accordingly, the City is providing a Chemical Addendum to
the NPDES Application for the 1,4 Dioxane influent sampling results.
Additionally, at the request of DEQ, the City performed WWTP influent sampling for a series of
P FOA/PFAS analytes in July, August, and September 2019. This sampling is not certified by the
City as there is not a 40 CFR Part 136 certified analysis method for these analytes. This data was
previously provided to DEQ following the three sampling events in 2019. Although This data is not
being certified by the City and was already provided to DEQ, we are providing a summary of the
results as an attachment to this for clarity.
The following three attachments are being provided as a supplement to the Graham VVWTP
N PDES Permit Application.
Attachment 1: Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application
O Attachment 2: Lab Reports from 1,4 Dioxane Sampling Results
© Attachment 3: Uncertified Emerging Compound Sampling Data Summary
Please let us know if you have any questions on the information provided.
Respectfully,
11&ta''-
Tonya'A. Mann
Utilities Director

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Number
Facility Name
Outfall Number
FRS ID: 110000761890
Pollutant (Required)
NC 0021211
Method Number (if
CAS number Applicable)
City of Graham WWTP
001
Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge
Estimated Concentration (If
Known)
1,4 Dioxane
123-91-1
EPA 624.1
Influent sampling results (July, August, and September 2019)
Median of three influent
sampling events (July, August,
and September 2019) was
1.59 pg/L

Meritech, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
Laboratory Certification No. 165
Contact: Shelby Smith
Client: Graham, City of
P.O. Drawer 357
Graham, NC 27253
Report Date: 7/25/2019
NPDES #: NC0021211
Date Sample Rcvd: 7/15/2019
Meritech Work Order # 07151915
Parameters
1,4 Dioxane + Trip Blank
Results
Attached
Sample: Plt. influent Grab
Analysis Date
7/17/19
Remitting Limit
7/15/19
Method
EPA 624.1
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Lan)
0
esentative
642 Tamco Road, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
tel.[phone] fax.[phone]

Client:
Project:
Client Sample ID:
Sample Collection:
MERITECH, INC.
Environmental Laboratories
Laboratory Certification #165
City of Graham W W TP
1,4 Dioxane
P1t. Influent
07/15/19
Meritech ID#:
Analysis:
Analyst:
Dilution Factor:
Report Date:
EPA 624.1 VOLATILE ORGANICS
Parameter
1,4-Dioxane (p-Dioxane)
Trip Blank
Batch Blank = Below Reporting Limit
Internal Standards method criteria acceptable
Surrogate Recoveries
Toluene-d8
Bromofluorobenzene
Spike Cone
30 ug/L
30 ug/L
* - If "no" is selected, see second page for details.
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Result
3.29 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
(Yes)/No
(Yes) / No
Spike Recovery
98%
95%
07151915
07/17/19
VWV
1
07/19/19
Limits
67-151%
45-161%
642 Tamco Road * Reidsville, NC 27320
[phone] * [e-mail]

(D
3
Hind Delivery
Fed Ex
lethod of
hipment:
c
N
A
�,
�,a3
^__
�.....0.
Are these results for regulatory purposes? Yes
n
3
3
*** Dechlorination (<0.5 ppm) of Ammonia, Cyanide, Phenol and TKN samples must be done in the field prior to preservation. ***
o—o�
)N
d.
27
i
h®
Cr**,
J
m
3
\
1
XJ
Cd7
Z
0 n
How would y
Circle all that apply:
n
W
-Plou o _ tea, r 7
aQ��n, i JC a7a53
o
ak
'v
Date/ . Tims:9 ., ,.
o(i"o
51
`.A
N
\l
i
�N
fenort results in me/1
rt
V)
7s
_Nrn
CD
03
<
`S
3
og
Om
Turn Around Ti
*RUSH work needs prii
C r es A
1'
U.
Compositor #
Jug#
Temperature Upon
Receipt: e_
O Ice?
Yes) No
Lab Use Only
N A
a
0 0
A
I
N
N
ry
y J
N?

Meritech, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
Laboratory Certification No. 165
Contact: Shelby Smith
Client: Graham, City of
P.O. Drawer 357
Graham, NC 27253
Report Date: 8/23/2019
NPDES #: NC0021211
Date Sample Rcvd: 8/19/2019
Meritech Work Order # 08191910
Parameters
1,4 Dioxane + Trip Blank
Results
Attached
Sample: Plt. Influent Grab
Analysis Date
8/19/19
Reporting Limit
8/19/19
Method
EPA 624.1
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Laboratory epresentative
642 Tamco Road, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
tel.[phone] fax.[phone]

Client:
Project:
Client Sample ID:
Sample Collection:
MERI TECH, INC.
Environmental Laboratories
Laboratory Certification #165
City of Graham WWTP
1,4-Dioxane
Plt. Influent
08/19/19
Merited' ID#:
Analysis:
Analyst:
Dilution Factor:
Report Date:
EPA 624.1 VOLATILE ORGANICS
Parameter
1,4-Dioxane (p-Dioxane)
Trip Blank
Batch Blank = Below Reporting Limit
Internal Standards method criteria acceptable
Surrogate Recoveries
Toluene-d8
Bromofluorobenzene
Spike Cone
30 ug/L
30 ug/L
* - If "no" is selected, see second page for details.
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Result
1.18 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
(Yes) / No
(Yes) / No
08191910
08/19/19
VWV
l
08/20/19
Spike Recovery Limits
104%
101%
67-151%
45-161%
a.S1 atory Rep P ative
642 Tamco Road * Reidsville, NC 27320
[phone] * [e-mail]

a
I
Sample Location and/or ID #
8/9(18 Chain of Custody Record (COC)
m
coo
Q
m
Vend Delivery
C
hod
fi
S
4
MERITECH
ENVIRONMENTAL LAB(
'.: 642 Tamco Rd. Phone:
Reidsville NC 27320 Fax: :
Email: info@meritechl
www.meritechlabs.co
RinquXshed by: Date: ' Time:
Are these results for regulatory purposes? Yes L4e1 No
Comments:
*** Dechlorination (<0.5 ppm) of Ammonia, Cyanide, Phenol and TKN samples must be done in the field prior to preservation. ***
Do
O
w
Sampling Dates & Times
MnlWL--
tz
cs
d
Time
N
Date
m
3
m
3
a
QM
Loa®
Ldwoj
P rso TakinTnr}ple ( g / rint)J
How would +ou like your report sent
Circle all that apply Email (preferred Fax,
W
�
APo[
ncvsk N C- `vn53
Received by Lab: atp �) Time: .,,
RIGedb*: rDatet ` Time:
1
it 1 Report results in: mg/L
g
v l
1
Re(
m
CIVp
).)5)
•
3
cu
c
ail:SSrr` f rac
w
Turn Around Ti
*RUSH work needs pri
ar_es A..
cd
Compositor #
Jug #
Temperature Upon
Receipt: r~
a
On Ice?
(Yes / No
Lab Use Only
me*
or approval,
Iv
pH OK?
CI OK?
L
e.

Meritech, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
Laboratory Certification No. 165
Contact: Shelby Smith
Client: Graham, City of
P.O. Drawer 357
Graham, NC 27253
Report Date: 9/25/2019
NPDES #: NC0021211
Date Sample Rcvd: 9/17/2019
Meritech Work Order # 09171916
Parameters
1,4 Dioxane + Trip Blank
Results
Attached
Sample: Plt. Influent Grab
Analysis Date
9/18/19
Renorting Limit
9/16/19
Method
EPA 624.1
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Lab • ratory Repre entative
642 Tamco Road, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
tel.[phone] fax.[phone]

Client:
Project:
Client Sample ID:
Sample Collection:
MERI TECH, INC.
Environmental Laboratories
Laboratory Certification #165
City of Graham WWTP
1,4 Dioxane
Plt. Influent
09/16/19
Meritech ID#:
Analysis:
Analyst:
Dilution Factor:
Report Date:
EPA 624.1 VOLATILE ORGANICS
Parameter
1,4-Dioxane (p-Dioxane)
Trip Blank
Batch Blank = Below Reporting Limit
Internal Standards method criteria acceptable
Surrogate Recoveries
Toluene-d8
Bromofluorobenzene
Spike Conc
30 ug/L
30 ug/L
* - If "no" is selected, see second page for details.
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Result
1.59 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
(Yes) / No
(Yes) / No
09171916
09/18/19
VWV
1
09/23/19
Spike Recovery Limits
104%
96%
67-151%
45-161%
642 Tamco Road * Reidsville, NC 27320
[phone] * [e-mail]

`FjandDelivery
Y1
0
4)
Sample Location and/or ID #
8/9/18 Chain of Custody Record (COC)
Fed Ex
UPS
hod
MERITEC
ENVIRONMENTAL
642 Tamco Rd. Ph
Reidsville NC 27320 Fa
Email: info@mer
www.meritechlab:
Relinquishe path` 7 / re:/V�S'
mquished by: Date' ime:
Are these results for regulatory purposes? Yes No
Comments:
*** Dechlorination (<0.5 ppm) of Ammonia, Cyanide, Phenol and TKN samples must be done in the field prior to preservation.***
s`
4-
0
d
co
Start
Sampling Dates & Times
r L a ate
,
o
a
N
_1
ro
Date
m
T'
1
3
7
❑.
J
3
a
CAQ
\^
V'
GI‘'
G)o
How would yo
Circle all that apply:
9
n
CO
W
# of
Cont.
d
ha, , t k f .7D.53
Received by Lab: ,� „ }.{4 Pat!:g"/ Time:
rDi
cm
Cr
..
0
1\
3\�
Received b ' 9Dat�i7P
Report results in: mg/L mg/kg
\_i
rS
1^r
0
r--.
�
• TD-
?.
J
est(s) R
l
4
CI
r
1
Cs`p '
(Ad
V,
Turn Around Ti
*RUSH work needs pri
Char es A..
7
r-d.
CD
-Sl
S
tn
Compositor #
Jug #
Temperature Upon
Receipt: j;
K
IrT p
n
ani
Lab Use Only
'�Oo
1
ug/L
�W
VI
0
me*
or approval,
Iv
LNO IU
LIO Hd
a
3

Enter data ONLY in blue cells!
POTW Name:
City of Graham
I N PDES #:
I NC0021211 I
Influent Grab (ng/L)
CAS Number
Analyte Name
Acronym
7/23/2019
*
8/22/2019
*
9/18/2019
335-67-1
Perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOA
6.5
8.97
8.37
1763-23-1
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
PFOS
ND
U
12.8
9.59
375-22-4
Perfluorobutanoic acid
PFBA
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
375-73-5
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
PFBS
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
335-77-3
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
PFDS
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
335-76-2
Perfluorodecanoic acid
PFDA
1.25
1.44
2.14
307-55-1
Perfluorododecanoic acid
PFDoA
ND
U
0.726
J,B
ND
U
375-92-8
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
PFHpS
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
375-85-9
Perfluoroheptanoic acid
PFHpA
ND
U
4.28
ND
U
355-46-4
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
PFHxS
ND
U
0.144
J,B
ND
U
307-24-4
Perfluorohexanoic acid
PFHxA
ND
U
11.8
0.822
68259-12-1
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
PFNS
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
375-95-1
Perfluorononanoic acid
PFNA
1.77
1.62
2.46
754-91-6
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
PFOSA
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
2991-50-6
2-(N-Ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamido) acetic acid
N-EtFOSAA
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
2355-31-9
2-(N-Methylperfluorooctanesulfonamido) acetic acid
N-MeFOSAA
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
2706-91-4
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
PFPeS
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
2706-90-3
Perfluoropentanoic acid
PFPeA
65.6
ND
U
ND
U
376-06-7
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
PFTeA
NR
NR
2.82
B
ND
U
72629-94-8
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
PFTriA
ND
U
2.02
B
0.776
2058-94-8
Perfluoroundecanoic acid
PFUnA
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
757124-72-4
4:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid
4:2 FTS
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
27619-97-2
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid
6:2 FTS
3.19
1.33
B
1.48
39108-34-4
8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid
8:2 FTS
0.769
0.354
J,B
ND
U
62037-80-3
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoicacid(Gen-X)
HFPO-DA
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
ENTER OTHER PARAMETERS TESTED
_
Sum of PFOA and PFOS
6.5
21.77
17.96
Total
79.079
48.304
25.638
Influent Grab (ug/L)
7/15/2019
8/19/2019
9/16/2019
1, 4 - Dioxane
3.29
1.18
1.59
* Please enter applicable lab qualifiers

Reduction in Frequency Evalaution
Facility:
Graham WWTP
Permit No.
NC0021211
Review period (use 3
yrs)
06/2018 - 05/2021
Approval Criteria:
Y/N?
1. Not currently under SOC
Y
2. Not on EPA Quarterly noncompliance report
Y
3. Facility or employees convicted of CWA
violations
N
Weekly
average limit
Monthly
average
limit
50%
MA
3-yr mean
(geo mean
for FC)
< 50%?
200%
MA
# daily
samples
>200%
<15?
200%
WA
# daily
samples
>200%
< 20?
# of non -
monthly
limit
violations
> 2?
#civil penalty
asessment
> 1?
Reduce
Frequency?
(Yes/No)
BOD (Weighted)
mg/L
25.5
17
8.5
6.2
Y
34
1
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
TSS
mg/L
45
30
15
2.6
Y
60
1
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Ammonia (weighted)
mg/L
17
5.7
2.8
1.5
Y
11.3
1
Y
1
N
0
N
Y
Fecal Coliform
#/100
400
200
100
2.8
Y
800
2
Y
0
N
0
N
Y
Y/N
Y/N
Y/ N
**From
Y/N **From BIMS Y/N
BIMS

1/11/22, 12:03 PM Mail - Perlmutter, Gary - Outlook
RE: City of Graham TN and TP loading calculations
Cris Routh <[e-mail]>
Wed 8/9/2017 3:49 PM
To: Perlmutter, Gary <[e-mail]>
Mr. Perlmutter,
Good afternoon.
Tonya Mann forwarded your e-mail to me regarding our TN and TP monthly loadings. After
taking a closer look at our December eDMR, I have found the issue.
The Loadings results for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus that I submitted on the eDMR are
correct. The issue is with the Total Flow results. Our total flow for December 2016 was 40.10
MG. However, on the eDMR under the column "Flow", there are missing values for the days of
December 23, 26 and 27 which were observed Holidays for the City of Graham. The sum of
these missing values (1.20 MG, 1.15 MG, and 1.32 MG, respectively) is the difference between
the actual monthly Total Flow of 40.10 MG that we recorded here at the City of Graham WWTP
and the monthly Total Flow of 36.43 MG that you calculated from the eDMR.
December 2016 was the City of Graham's first attempt at using the eDMR system. It is my
determination that I originally entered the daily flow for those three days. However, in the "No
Reporting Reason" column, I selected "No reporting — Holiday" thinking that it would
automatically enter an "H" for five parameters of our Effluent that would normally be sampled on
those three days. Evidently, selecting that option must have cleared any data that I had already
reported.
I have reviewed all of our 2017 eDMR's and this seems to be an isolated issue. Please advise
on any action that the City of Graham needs to take to remedy this situation. If a re -submittal of
the December 2016 eDMR is needed, please let me know.
Thanks,
Cris Routh
ORC, Plant Superintendent
City of Graham WWTP
336-570-6721
From: Tonya Mann
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 2:39 PM
To: Cris Routh
Subject: Fwd: TN and TP loading calculations
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Perlmutter, Gary" <[e-mail]>
Date: August 9, 2017 at 2:37:22 PM EDT
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AQMkADE1 OGJhNDZkLTMOMmItNGNiMi1 iN2Y3LTZhNGY2MTdiMzVkMABGAAADeuk2rMgxnk2yiGFZdoFPpwc... 1/2

1/11/22, 12:03 PM
To: Tonya Mann <[e-mail]>
Subject: TN and TP loading calculations
Mail - Perlmutter, Gary - Outlook
Hi Ms. Mann,
In my permit review, I'm checking the calculations of our total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus
loadings, and I found a couple discrepancies between my calculated values and the data submitted
in your DMRs. Do you mind checking these for me?
Month/Year
Total Flow
Avg Total N
TN Loading
Calculated
DMR
% Differnce
Dec 2016
36.43 MG
5.24 mg/L
1592 Ib/mo
1752 Ib/mo
9%
Month/Year
Total Flow
Avg Total P
TP Loading
Calculated
DMR
% Differnce
Dec 2016
36.43 MG
0.18 mg/L
53.17 Ib/mo
59 Ib/mo
10%
Thanks,
Gary B. Perlmutter, M.S.
Enivronmental Senior Specialist
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting
919 807 6385 office
919 707 9000 main office
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St.,Raleigh, NC, 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AQMkADE1 OGJhNDZkLTMOMmItNGNiMi1 iN2Y3LTZhNGY2MTdiMzVkMABGAAADeuk2rMgxnk2yiGFZdoFPpwc... 2/2

Fact Sheet Addendum
Comments and responses to Graham WWTP NPDES permit renewal draft.
A set of comments were sent by the City of Graham on 2/4/2022; these and the responses by DWR are as
follows:
Comment: The City requests "that the monthly monitoring requirement for 1,4-Dioxane be qualified to
end after a 2-year period (24 samples collected) as there is no reasonable potential to exceed the water
quality standard."
Response: The permit reopener for 1,4-Dioxane special condition [A. (10.)] adequately addresses this
comment; no further changes have been made.
Comment: "Plant influent wastewater characteristics are not anticipated to change significantly upon the
expansion of the plant from a 3.5 mgd capacity to a 5.0 mgd. Additionally, plant treatment processes will
be modernized during the expansion effort and WWTP effluent quality is anticipated to be improved
following the expansion. Request that monitoring frequency reduction from daily to 2 x week sampling
for BOD, TSS, Ammonia, and Fecal Coliform be initiated one year after the 5.0 mgd expansion if the WWTP
maintains compliance with all monitoring frequency reduction standards."
Response: Based on the proposed change of disinfection from chlorination to UV at 5.0 MGD, monitoring
frequency reduction of Fecal Coliform will be considered after three years of data have accumulated under
the UV treatment or at the next permit renewal. Similarly, based on the change in limits for BOD and
Ammonia at 5.0 MGD, monitoring frequency reduction for these parameters will be considered after three
years of data have accumulated under the 5.0 MGD limits or at the next permit renewal. Since limits for
TSS at 5.0 MGD have not changed, monitoring frequency reduction will be considered after one year data
accumulation after expansion to 5.0 MGD. A footnote to this effect has been added to the 5.0 MGD
effluent limitations page [A. (2.), Footnote 3].
Comment: The City requests "that BOD sampling be reduced from daily frequency to 3 x week frequency
given that the plant is already meeting monitoring frequency reduction standards prior to modernization
efforts. This will still provide 3 weekly samples to characterize BOD in the effluent."
Response: BOD monitoring is already set at 2/week at 3.5 mgd.
Comment: The City requests "that effluent conductivity sampling be reduced from daily frequency to
weekly. This will provide 52 results in a calendar year than can be used to evaluate effluent conductivity."
Response: Effluent conductivity frequency is set by rule 15A NCAC 02B .0508, and conductivity is not
among the target parameters listed in the Division's Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities (DWQ 2012). No changes have been
made.
Comment: "Request that toxicity testing be reduced from quarterly to annually given that the instream
waste concentration calculated is only 14% (at 3.5 mgd) and 19% (at 5.0 mgd)."
Response: Quarterly toxicity monitoring is designed to capture any seasonal differences as well as provide
a screening tool to assess effluent quality. Any reduction in toxicity monitoring frequency may miss
potential events of effluent quality affecting instream quality. And in addition, the Division expects toxicity

Fact Sheet Addendum
to be performed in conjunction with the effluent pollutant scan and should represent seasonal variability.
No changes have been made.

CITY
G
I
January 3, 2022
OF I
R A H A M
IVIr. IVlichael Montebello
N .C. Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting - NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
NON 11.1 C AROI INA I
Re: City of Graham
Graham WWTP
NPDES Permit Renewal — Chemical Addendum
Permit No. NC0021211
Dear Mr. Montebello:
As a supplement to the Graham Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES Application package that is
currently under review, the City of Graham is submitting additional information per Session Law
2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r). At the request of the Division of Environmental Quality
(DEQ), the City conducted additional WWTP influent sampling in July, August, and September
2019 for 1,4-Dioxane. This analysis was done in accordance with EPA IVIethod 624.1 which is a
certified method in 40 CFR Part 136. Accordingly, the City is providing a Chemical Addendum to
the NPDES Application for the 1,4 Dioxane influent sampling results.
Additionally, at the request of DEQ, the City performed WWTP influent sampling for a series of
P FOA/PFAS analytes in July, August, and September 2019. This sampling is not certified by the
City as there is not a 40 CFR Part 136 certified analysis method for these analytes. This data was
previously provided to DEQ following the three sampling events in 2019. Although This data is not
being certified by the City and was already provided to DEQ, we are providing a summary of the
results as an attachment to this for clarity.
The following three attachments are being provided as a supplement to the Graham VVWTP
N PDES Permit Application.
Attachment 1: Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application
O Attachment 2: Lab Reports from 1,4 Dioxane Sampling Results
© Attachment 3: Uncertified Emerging Compound Sampling Data Summary
Please let us know if you have any questions on the information provided.
Respectfully,
11&ta''-
Tonya'A. Mann
Utilities Director

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Number
Facility Name
Outfall Number
FRS ID: 110000761890
Pollutant (Required)
NC 0021211
Method Number (if
CAS number Applicable)
City of Graham WWTP
001
Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge
Estimated Concentration (If
Known)
1,4 Dioxane
123-91-1
EPA 624.1
Influent sampling results (July, August, and September 2019)
Median of three influent
sampling events (July, August,
and September 2019) was
1.59 pg/L

Meritech, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
Laboratory Certification No. 165
Contact: Shelby Smith
Client: Graham, City of
P.O. Drawer 357
Graham, NC 27253
Report Date: 7/25/2019
NPDES #: NC0021211
Date Sample Rcvd: 7/15/2019
Meritech Work Order # 07151915
Parameters
1,4 Dioxane + Trip Blank
Results
Attached
Sample: Plt. influent Grab
Analysis Date
7/17/19
Remitting Limit
7/15/19
Method
EPA 624.1
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Lan)
0
esentative
642 Tamco Road, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
tel.[phone] fax.[phone]

Client:
Project:
Client Sample ID:
Sample Collection:
MERITECH, INC.
Environmental Laboratories
Laboratory Certification #165
City of Graham W W TP
1,4 Dioxane
P1t. Influent
07/15/19
Meritech ID#:
Analysis:
Analyst:
Dilution Factor:
Report Date:
EPA 624.1 VOLATILE ORGANICS
Parameter
1,4-Dioxane (p-Dioxane)
Trip Blank
Batch Blank = Below Reporting Limit
Internal Standards method criteria acceptable
Surrogate Recoveries
Toluene-d8
Bromofluorobenzene
Spike Cone
30 ug/L
30 ug/L
* - If "no" is selected, see second page for details.
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Result
3.29 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
(Yes)/No
(Yes) / No
Spike Recovery
98%
95%
07151915
07/17/19
VWV
1
07/19/19
Limits
67-151%
45-161%
642 Tamco Road * Reidsville, NC 27320
[phone] * [e-mail]

(D
3
Hind Delivery
Fed Ex
lethod of
hipment:
c
N
A
�,
�,a3
^__
�.....0.
Are these results for regulatory purposes? Yes
n
3
3
*** Dechlorination (<0.5 ppm) of Ammonia, Cyanide, Phenol and TKN samples must be done in the field prior to preservation. ***
o—o�
)N
d.
27
i
h®
Cr**,
J
m
3
\
1
XJ
Cd7
Z
0 n
How would y
Circle all that apply:
n
W
-Plou o _ tea, r 7
aQ��n, i JC a7a53
o
ak
'v
Date/ . Tims:9 ., ,.
o(i"o
51
`.A
N
\l
i
�N
fenort results in me/1
rt
V)
7s
_Nrn
CD
03
<
`S
3
og
Om
Turn Around Ti
*RUSH work needs prii
C r es A
1'
U.
Compositor #
Jug#
Temperature Upon
Receipt: e_
O Ice?
Yes) No
Lab Use Only
N A
a
0 0
A
I
N
N
ry
y J
N?

Meritech, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
Laboratory Certification No. 165
Contact: Shelby Smith
Client: Graham, City of
P.O. Drawer 357
Graham, NC 27253
Report Date: 8/23/2019
NPDES #: NC0021211
Date Sample Rcvd: 8/19/2019
Meritech Work Order # 08191910
Parameters
1,4 Dioxane + Trip Blank
Results
Attached
Sample: Plt. Influent Grab
Analysis Date
8/19/19
Reporting Limit
8/19/19
Method
EPA 624.1
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Laboratory epresentative
642 Tamco Road, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
tel.[phone] fax.[phone]

Client:
Project:
Client Sample ID:
Sample Collection:
MERI TECH, INC.
Environmental Laboratories
Laboratory Certification #165
City of Graham WWTP
1,4-Dioxane
Plt. Influent
08/19/19
Merited' ID#:
Analysis:
Analyst:
Dilution Factor:
Report Date:
EPA 624.1 VOLATILE ORGANICS
Parameter
1,4-Dioxane (p-Dioxane)
Trip Blank
Batch Blank = Below Reporting Limit
Internal Standards method criteria acceptable
Surrogate Recoveries
Toluene-d8
Bromofluorobenzene
Spike Cone
30 ug/L
30 ug/L
* - If "no" is selected, see second page for details.
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Result
1.18 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
(Yes) / No
(Yes) / No
08191910
08/19/19
VWV
l
08/20/19
Spike Recovery Limits
104%
101%
67-151%
45-161%
a.S1 atory Rep P ative
642 Tamco Road * Reidsville, NC 27320
[phone] * [e-mail]

a
I
Sample Location and/or ID #
8/9(18 Chain of Custody Record (COC)
m
coo
Q
m
Vend Delivery
C
hod
fi
S
4
MERITECH
ENVIRONMENTAL LAB(
'.: 642 Tamco Rd. Phone:
Reidsville NC 27320 Fax: :
Email: info@meritechl
www.meritechlabs.co
RinquXshed by: Date: ' Time:
Are these results for regulatory purposes? Yes L4e1 No
Comments:
*** Dechlorination (<0.5 ppm) of Ammonia, Cyanide, Phenol and TKN samples must be done in the field prior to preservation. ***
Do
O
w
Sampling Dates & Times
MnlWL--
tz
cs
d
Time
N
Date
m
3
m
3
a
QM
Loa®
Ldwoj
P rso TakinTnr}ple ( g / rint)J
How would +ou like your report sent
Circle all that apply Email (preferred Fax,
W
�
APo[
ncvsk N C- `vn53
Received by Lab: atp �) Time: .,,
RIGedb*: rDatet ` Time:
1
it 1 Report results in: mg/L
g
v l
1
Re(
m
CIVp
).)5)
•
3
cu
c
ail:SSrr` f rac
w
Turn Around Ti
*RUSH work needs pri
ar_es A..
cd
Compositor #
Jug #
Temperature Upon
Receipt: r~
a
On Ice?
(Yes / No
Lab Use Only
me*
or approval,
Iv
pH OK?
CI OK?
L
e.

Meritech, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
Laboratory Certification No. 165
Contact: Shelby Smith
Client: Graham, City of
P.O. Drawer 357
Graham, NC 27253
Report Date: 9/25/2019
NPDES #: NC0021211
Date Sample Rcvd: 9/17/2019
Meritech Work Order # 09171916
Parameters
1,4 Dioxane + Trip Blank
Results
Attached
Sample: Plt. Influent Grab
Analysis Date
9/18/19
Renorting Limit
9/16/19
Method
EPA 624.1
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Lab • ratory Repre entative
642 Tamco Road, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
tel.[phone] fax.[phone]

Client:
Project:
Client Sample ID:
Sample Collection:
MERI TECH, INC.
Environmental Laboratories
Laboratory Certification #165
City of Graham WWTP
1,4 Dioxane
Plt. Influent
09/16/19
Meritech ID#:
Analysis:
Analyst:
Dilution Factor:
Report Date:
EPA 624.1 VOLATILE ORGANICS
Parameter
1,4-Dioxane (p-Dioxane)
Trip Blank
Batch Blank = Below Reporting Limit
Internal Standards method criteria acceptable
Surrogate Recoveries
Toluene-d8
Bromofluorobenzene
Spike Conc
30 ug/L
30 ug/L
* - If "no" is selected, see second page for details.
I hereby certify that I have reviewed and approve these data.
Result
1.59 ug/L
< 1.00 ug/L
(Yes) / No
(Yes) / No
09171916
09/18/19
VWV
1
09/23/19
Spike Recovery Limits
104%
96%
67-151%
45-161%
642 Tamco Road * Reidsville, NC 27320
[phone] * [e-mail]

`FjandDelivery
Y1
0
4)
Sample Location and/or ID #
8/9/18 Chain of Custody Record (COC)
Fed Ex
UPS
hod
MERITEC
ENVIRONMENTAL
642 Tamco Rd. Ph
Reidsville NC 27320 Fa
Email: info@mer
www.meritechlab:
Relinquishe path` 7 / re:/V�S'
mquished by: Date' ime:
Are these results for regulatory purposes? Yes No
Comments:
*** Dechlorination (<0.5 ppm) of Ammonia, Cyanide, Phenol and TKN samples must be done in the field prior to preservation.***
s`
4-
0
d
co
Start
Sampling Dates & Times
r L a ate
,
o
a
N
_1
ro
Date
m
T'
1
3
7
❑.
J
3
a
CAQ
\^
V'
GI‘'
G)o
How would yo
Circle all that apply:
9
n
CO
W
# of
Cont.
d
ha, , t k f .7D.53
Received by Lab: ,� „ }.{4 Pat!:g"/ Time:
rDi
cm
Cr
..
0
1\
3\�
Received b ' 9Dat�i7P
Report results in: mg/L mg/kg
\_i
rS
1^r
0
r--.
�
• TD-
?.
J
est(s) R
l
4
CI
r
1
Cs`p '
(Ad
V,
Turn Around Ti
*RUSH work needs pri
Char es A..
7
r-d.
CD
-Sl
S
tn
Compositor #
Jug #
Temperature Upon
Receipt: j;
K
IrT p
n
ani
Lab Use Only
'�Oo
1
ug/L
�W
VI
0
me*
or approval,
Iv
LNO IU
LIO Hd
a
3

Enter data ONLY in blue cells!
POTW Name:
City of Graham
I N PDES #:
I NC0021211 I
Influent Grab (ng/L)
CAS Number
Analyte Name
Acronym
7/23/2019
*
8/22/2019
*
9/18/2019
335-67-1
Perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOA
6.5
8.97
8.37
1763-23-1
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
PFOS
ND
U
12.8
9.59
375-22-4
Perfluorobutanoic acid
PFBA
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
375-73-5
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
PFBS
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
335-77-3
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
PFDS
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
335-76-2
Perfluorodecanoic acid
PFDA
1.25
1.44
2.14
307-55-1
Perfluorododecanoic acid
PFDoA
ND
U
0.726
J,B
ND
U
375-92-8
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
PFHpS
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
375-85-9
Perfluoroheptanoic acid
PFHpA
ND
U
4.28
ND
U
355-46-4
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
PFHxS
ND
U
0.144
J,B
ND
U
307-24-4
Perfluorohexanoic acid
PFHxA
ND
U
11.8
0.822
68259-12-1
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
PFNS
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
375-95-1
Perfluorononanoic acid
PFNA
1.77
1.62
2.46
754-91-6
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
PFOSA
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
2991-50-6
2-(N-Ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamido) acetic acid
N-EtFOSAA
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
2355-31-9
2-(N-Methylperfluorooctanesulfonamido) acetic acid
N-MeFOSAA
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
2706-91-4
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
PFPeS
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
2706-90-3
Perfluoropentanoic acid
PFPeA
65.6
ND
U
ND
U
376-06-7
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
PFTeA
NR
NR
2.82
B
ND
U
72629-94-8
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
PFTriA
ND
U
2.02
B
0.776
2058-94-8
Perfluoroundecanoic acid
PFUnA
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
757124-72-4
4:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid
4:2 FTS
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
27619-97-2
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid
6:2 FTS
3.19
1.33
B
1.48
39108-34-4
8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid
8:2 FTS
0.769
0.354
J,B
ND
U
62037-80-3
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoicacid(Gen-X)
HFPO-DA
ND
U
ND
U
ND
U
ENTER OTHER PARAMETERS TESTED
_
Sum of PFOA and PFOS
6.5
21.77
17.96
Total
79.079
48.304
25.638
Influent Grab (ug/L)
7/15/2019
8/19/2019
9/16/2019
1, 4 - Dioxane
3.29
1.18
1.59
* Please enter applicable lab qualifiers

1/12/22, 3:51 PM Mail - Perlmutter, Gary - Outlook
RE: Graham WWTP draft permit
Kirby, Ben <[e-mail]>
Wed 1/12/2022 3:09 PM
To: Perlmutter, Gary <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hudson, Eric <[e-mail]>
WJ 2 attachments (2 MB)
NC0021211_PWS Memo.pdf; 21211 Draft Permit 2022 pkg_signed_WSROKirbyReview.pdf;
Mr. Perlmutter,
I attached the signed PWS review memo. I revised the year of the requested return date on the memo from 2017
to 2022.
In addition, Draft Permit pages 2 and 3 (of 19) appear to have typos (see red highlights in attached
WSROKirbyReview PDF)
o Page 2 should delete the "and" (unless an additional document is required)
o Page 3 should read "lasting until expansion"
Thanks,
Ben Kirby, E.I.
Assistant Regional Engineer
Public Water Supply Section
NC Dept. of Environmental Quality
Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 W Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Office: 336-776-9668
Work Cell: 336-403-1090
[e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Hudson, Eric <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:34 AM
To: Perlmutter, Gary <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kirby, Ben <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Graham WWTP draft permit
Hello Gary,
In the future please copy my Assistant Regional Engineer, Ben Kirby, on your emails. I have tasked Ben with
reviewing NPDES permits for the WSRO. Ben will review the draft permit and provide you comments.
Thanks,
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADRjNGZkNGYwLWNjOTctNGQ4MS1 hZDQ3LWJjMGMOYmRiN2M3NwAQAHsSjh79pZJFtdimycMKll... 1/2

1/12/22, 3:51 PM Mail - Perlmutter, Gary - Outlook
Eric Hudson, P.E.
Regional Engineering Supervisor
Public Water Supply Section
Department of Environmental Quality
336-776-9665 office
336-776-9797 fax
[e-mail]
Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Perlmutter, Gary <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:20 AM
To: Hudson, Eric <[e-mail]>
Subject: Graham WWTP draft permit
Hi Eric,
Attached is the draft permit for Graham WWTP (NC0021211), which I've sent to Public Notice today.
Also attached is the PWS memo for you to complete as you review this permit. Please let me know if
you have any questions.
Thanks,
Gary Perlmutter
Gary Perlmutter, Environmental Specialist II
NCDEQ/Division of Water Resources
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
919-707-3611 Office
919-306-1017 Cell
[e-mail]
Physical Address: 512 N Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC 27604
Mailing Address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADRjNGZkNGYwLWNjOTctNGQ4MS1 hZDQ3LWJjMGMOYmRiN2M3NwAQAHsSjh79pZJFtdimycMKll... 2/2

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
January 11, 2022
Eric Hudson
NC DEQ / DWR / PWS Regional Engineer
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Gary Perlmutter
919-707-3611
NPDES Municipal Unit
Review of Draft NPDES Permit NC0021211
Graham WWTP
Alamance County
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the draft permit and return this form by February
10, 2022. If you have any questions on the draft permit, please feel free to contact me at the telephone number
shown above.
RESPONSE: (Check one)
Concur 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.
Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
Signed
Date: 02-/ Z
NORTH CAROLINA D E _
Department of Environmental Duality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707.9000

February 4, 2022
Gary Perlmutter
Environmental Specialist II
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
NC DEQ
512 N Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC, 27699
Re: Graham WWTP Draft NPDES Permit Renewal (NPDES: NC0021211)
Dear Mr. Perlmutter:
The City of Graham has reviewed the Draft NPDES Permit that was released on January 13th, 2022 and
has the following comments.
• Request that the monthly monitoring requirement for 1,4-Dioxane be qualified to end after a 2-
year period (24 samples collected) as there is no reasonable potential to exceed a water quality
standard.
• Plant influent wastewater characteristics are not anticipated to change significantly upon the
expansion of the plant from a 3.5 mgd capacity to a 5.0 mgd. Additionally, plant treatment
processes will be modernized during the expansion effort and WWTP effluent quality is
anticipated to be improved following the expansion. Request that monitoring frequency
reduction from daily sampling to 2 x week sampling for BOD, TSS, Ammonia, and Fecal
Coliform be initiated one year after the 5.0 mgd expansion if the WWTP maintains compliance
with all monitoring frequency reduction standards.
• Request that BOD sampling be reduced from daily frequency to 3 x week frequency given that
the plant is already meeting monitoring frequency reduction standards prior to modernization
efforts. This will still provide 3 weekly samples to characterize BOD in the effluent.
• Request that effluent conductivity sampling be reduced from daily frequency to weekly. This
will provide 52 results in a calendar year than can be used to evaluate effluent conductivity.
• Request that toxicity testing be reduced from quarterly to annually given that the instream
waste concentration calculated is only 14% (at 3.5 mgd) and 19% (at 5.0 mgd).
We appreciate your consideration of our comments and please let me know if you have any questions
about anything we have requested or need any additional information.
Respectfully,
C ?ttilAAAAj
Tonya Mann
Utilities Director