NC0021211_Report_19881021

NPDES DOCUWENT SCANNIMG COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit: NCO021211
Graham WWTP
Document Type: Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits
Performance Summary (metals)`'
Instream-Assessment.(67-B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date: October 21, 1988
This document ins pri:atea on reuse paper-more aay
content on the reirer-ae side

i
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 21 ,1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Mauney
FROM: Mike Scoville AU
THRU: David Vogt
.�tL� �J
Trevor Cleme t
Steve Tedder
SUBJECT: City of Graham WWTP (NPDES # NC0021211, Alamance County)
Metals Analysis
Attached is a copy of the City of Graham metals data for the summer of
1988, gathered in accordance with the facility's SOC. As you can see, the
values reported here are much lower than those reported in 1986, and further
support Technical Service's hypothesis that the 1986 data were biased by
laboratory analysis error. Nonetheless, due to the limited amount of dilu-
tion and the relatively high upstream metals concentrations in Town Branch,
at the current concentrations of metals in Graham's effluent the stream
standards are consistently being violated, particularly for Cd and Pb. It
is likely that this is true for other metals as well, such as Zn, which in
the past have also exhibited relatively high effluent and instream concen-
trations.
Technical Services recommends that the option of discharge relocation
directly into the Haw River be seriously and thoroughly investigated. The
current levels of effluent metals would not be predicted to cause problems
in the Haw River, whereas it appears that maintaining the current Town
Branch discharge site would require improvement of treatment capabilities.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please
contact me at (919) 733-5083, ext. 509.
cc: Ken Eagleson
<WLA file-
Central Files

li
�i of (Sra4am RECEIVE
P.O. Drawer 357
201 South Main Street OCT 1 " 1988
Graham, North Carolina 27253
[phone]
TECHNICAL SERVICES t3R.tiINlCP+
October 12, 1988
Mike Scoville
Water Quality Section
DEM NRED
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Scoville:
Attached is the information you requested-'concerning our study
on metals analysis for plant effluent,` up stream and down stream.
Should you have any questions, please advise.
Sincerely,
. Samps n W.-. .r n
Supervisor, Wastewater Treatment Plant
SWH/ems
Enclosure

�j
71f-
Zc 7-Tc 0
7
IS s
PLArT t7 U F, 57p- 51M=14111-q
cat . C,-.
. 0023 • 00,Z2 O/zo
-.0022 0073 , 0136
00 -, 00. 2- - Oc),5-3 33
27 TW-� o02-0 00 0/0/
-03 00 Z-3
Z 00 S,3
c02�
-2- 1 -Tq I FF ! 01,2 5- 1 , oo 2- oo62, oo 002 5-1
7 oo�7- -5 oe
WK. . AOE. C)DQ 3 . 0057 oc) ooZf7 Z
Av7 , F0 . 0030 6 O ;z -6- oo � 3 00,?-c> ac�2-Zi 00 06
00 / 9 eoo-7-6 0017 oo zo oo6l 0
0 ooz7 oo4
R3
�jv oo 32 'e oo /� oozc,> 1 ,oz
/ 0/40 00/9 �7 oo Z.3 ool o /L,)-.5--
q003,6 . 0
o0c) ao-
0/ 7 00,25' 0 Oo C) 00 6S 161
M�- A t'" L oo
0039 00 /9 1 , o 1A, 00 00/9 0 00j7/ 00 :z,? 0 0
00
00. 2-1 1-1 ,0 0 r7 I , 00g9 ao47 o o 0 13 F
lo 1'.v 1
27 '/)0 ;770 11 6) 2�j0 6 0 2-' �"O 0 1 0 2677 0031 02-2-
o o-�-o
oo 57 0 oo 2-7 Oo 0 b2oo 002 '2- -9
00,5 0
0 3 Co
C?
/71 0 0 D �z
0

1
I
_
, 00 -27 n✓Oo00 b 003 c�
oO
I . 00zS 0o3 /
7 , b/2 oo , 00961. 0018 1" 00 /7
r,, a� 6 �
00 00q/ 009� , od0 % i .ao (�� ` ,aosq ooZ / i
0076 00 7�
f, 00yD , 0070 , 00/ 0 I, cosy Oo53 , 003 I o
wfs, A U15. ooaS i . 00 3 �. ozal , 60 oo46 �, 6 /13 � • 00lS4. ao5-71. 0/bl4
003a 0036 orlg coo Q035 0.01 , 00z3t 0039 , Oo6z
3- _ , e°S8 0137. -D0// M-;'AaoS3 , 6o /7 8
/jv , ?� ' , 003� 00s3 0 3 0 00 /l I
OogS , oly8 00z7 . OD yB �Ep 3�=
1004 j ,loos/ o0 /3 ooz6 oats oogz� a0z6
Ir 8 3/ &
, 0030 1,0051 0356 „ 0oz61. 00 0 i, 02$S ., 002 i, G03/
W.fT, 4(1c1 eoo3� 1.0050 . 6272q . 0014 ie oUjj D ! . 0,16� , Uba$ . co91
'
�y ff✓7 2-{ 7 i041g f,00 9 41 0239 . 0033ac , D097 DZ7f
-3° 411/1 df ' 00 sa , 0G27 . 036'y oo/; , 0036 1, 0 /72, I1003� 003/ 1 , 0 ,7
3 Av.t tl 00 3)d , 0059 10z15-1 i , 000 L0020 ', 02-03 I. 003S • �D33 nyo
� 9
l S-74rr' aoz� � , o, qZ oog3 I, a�17 j, 00So '. 00zq � , 00z3�, 0090 �
i
l � l 1003 I., ao 6 0 /�o !, ac2� f .oa �{� ` ,o0g6 f. 00:9j , 006� , 00 0
wK AU , 003q I. 0(9 e023o �. 00 /9 0�8 . DlgS
j i, 0 , . oo3/ 1 . 0041 Da 15
io r, A•rc.
0 op 3 / 0033 0 07"\01 60 / 7 , 00 36 . 0 l3'�' . 09ag 60S3 D� I
i I
T I 1
t FF r l5 O• DOS 0, OS 0. 0A5
1 I i f

DIVISION OF ENVTRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 6, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: Larry Coble
FROM: Mike Scoville {(�
THRU: David Vogt
Trevor Cleme t
Steve Tedder
SUBJECT: City of Graham WWTP (NPDES ff NCO021211, Alamance County)
Metals Analysis
This memo is in regard to the discharge of toxics by the City of Graham
WWTP into Town Branch approximately 0.3 mile upstream from the mouth (at the
Haw River). Per the recent meeting in Raleigh with representatives of the
Region and the City, it is apparent that the facility will soon be under an
SOC while it attempts 'to correct the problem of effluent toxicity; options
being considered include treatment modification and relocation of the dis-
charge directly into the Haw River. As part of their preliminary stream
studies, the Graham WWTP took several instream water quality samples in 1986
from the Haw River and Town Branch. Of the upstream and downstream samples
collected, all of the analyses indicated unusually high concentrations of
metals (As, Cd, Cu, CN, Hg, Cr, Zn) . The City had asked the Division to
consider how it would act in light of this data. More recently, while the
facility's effluent data show a continuing high rate of non-compliance for
these parameters, the instream data no longer exhibit alarming metal concen-
trations.
Technical Services has further investigated this issue. Possible
sources of the originally reported high levels of instream metals are other
dischargers and/or sample contamination. Since the Haw River STORET ambient
stations (one upstream, one downstream) had not detected similar concentra-
tions of metals during the same time period in 1986, dischargers between the
ambient stations and Graham's sampling sites were investigated, as were any
dischargers upstream from the Graham WWTP on Town Branch. During this
investigation, two possible sources of heavy metal loadings, Collins & Aik-
man discharging to Town Branch and Lawrence Industries discharging to the
Haw River, were discovered. Due to the small wasteflows associated with
these effluents, however, it was determined that these facilities could not
cause the instream metal concentrations to be as high as those reported by
Graham. Since abnormally high metal concentrations were reported for both
Town Branch and the Haw River, and because it appears that no other dis-
chargers are responsible, the most plausible explanation of Graham' s metals
data is sample contamination.
Hence, contamination of the samples through improper sampling, storage,
and analysis techniques was subsequently investigated. Marvin Ragle, the
Superintendent of Plants for the City of Graham, said in a recent telephone

conversation that the facility' s in-house laboratory was (and still is)
responsible for all influent, effluent, and instream sampling as well as
laboratory analysis. The lab is certified and has passed all of the quality
assurance tests.
The Graham WWTP Plant Supervisor, Sam Herron, stated that all sampling
bottles and storage containers are used exclusively for their respective
purposes and are cleaned thoroughly between each use. The Town Branch
upstream sample is collected by dipping a clean glass bottle into the
stream, while the other three instream samples are taken from bridges by
lowering clean plastic buckets into the water.. Samples from the bridge
sites are transferred into clean, sealable 2-liter plastic jugs. All
samples are taken immediately to the lab. Mr. Herron is highly doubtful
that contamination would occur in this stage of data collection.
Per a telephone conversation with Martha Sexton, the Lab Operator at the
plant, BOD tests are performed immediately, while samples for metals analy-
sis are digested and stored :for an average period of one week. Although Ms.
Sexton felt that the digestion methods currently used are not causing conta-
mination, she admitted that in 1986 there probably was contamination of
those metal samples the lab analyzed using HCl in the digestion process (HCl
is no longer used in this procedure). However, Graham's summer (1988) daily
instream monitoring data show no unusually high metal concentrations or any
suggestion of sample contamination. Ms. Sexton reported that a metals prob-
lem is no longer evident according to the newest data and recommended that
the 1986 data not be used with confidence (especially for Ag and Zn), due to
the likelihood of sample contamination.
The City of Graham WWTP is forwarding a copy of the 1988 summer instream
metals data to DEM. You will be notified if these data indicate that
instream metals concentrations are still a potential problem. In addition,
Technical Support will follow up with speculative limits for a discharge to
the Haw River once this new information is received.
cc: Ken Eagleson
�WLA file
Central Files

�c� fk�n.c calf _ vt�{h �M—f�e:rr�n� �ar{-(•a SeX[-o� (�L-°P-� -
I
CLAN x - --.�1.0_S.Lr_i_aM_�1MOII.LS R/�h �Tj J PP—`J=-I 5� SS--
fNJ/1_
Ss" (e-s nnU ,
_ Aka,n PlasFt'� - b�c{ce l s usc� GnJ �� ,'s ll
'Yor .
arc —/—gSJ USE '�n�y JT fk _
purPD�e. - an�- -C ✓uL— r_ Ill AltrLl /e..Ckk w�c .
- I . - . skM __Nerrdn- rCe_�:5= —�eiy r�k�� � r�_cen a✓rrn. Y"ii, 6ccc,rs _
,I
_ .'��O�t PttiSerJa'�(�n =-�"},,��✓hP�,cs Rrc �i_gzs.�cL anL S'��rc� -l'�r �ba�,,l`
� J —
,, t, _(rfGk 0, ay2.Lt_ C-
— _., _ .... .. _. CJ�FQ✓rltna�(—"16�-.Sa✓✓iP LCS - - Q4�=\-�r�__1L5� c��
k �
— ;.: _ SN.�-fin r.c—aci�j (n 'rah prow SS_, 0.✓I.d TVi.. d.G1�y sgS�ct_�
- sPks dog+ f'd«C1 _any ptoblerh ._ s
4-6

it
e wsaTE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Date
NL MEMO: To Od �121 �
•.���„• Subject
L Gys )aa0 bh4UM
Me IU11 mrA rvuY�S i .
11(4W t�lV�• HM�I G/tl �-(,Yl(��-S
S4tA j tOiO�I 100'Z . Ur 5- r /n 3.1 Mi Ics
Cad M u d 1027 a 0209 6 500
-
Cyani e 9ZO
�w„ �+reent 13,Nz
I ead (0 s1- It 020 9 6s-79
Het(utl
l IgUO
N 1067
fS�Iver/ 10�7
�0lgl �hroMtUM 103Ll
_ 1ji

Town et GradnNl NOT To 'MALE
3KLIC.� Ana��zis j- Mck is
Haw Rae/ 70
-US65
A. b;en4 S+e4ro^ WWTP
D2o96500 /m
4 ._.� .
Nos{
lY1
roh.m
wwTP 3>`�
�O T wn (11" HO�SC
L1PShGM / IN
SAC` q
�Towr 3rnncbt) .
i
pe.+as�ralw^+
S4MPI•e' S��'[
(T.»•� auecti� ® Nendw Po`+er E7w pMtri'f• �,1 LK.
Cre:atnt *:Biel i
D.unsFr{wn 41
54
�. - � SncPSOMrtlt

Haw River Metals Data
Ambient Station Limit or
City of Graham 02096500 Action Level
--------------------------------------------------
Arsenic 29 10 50
Cadmium 2.8 10 2
Copper 97 10 15 (AL)
Cyanide 48 5
Lead 11 50 25
Nickel 38 50 50
Silver 11 10 (AL)
Chromium 128 25 50
Zinc 160 10 50 (AL)
All units ug/l .
City of Graham data represents mean value of samples collected
June 17, 18, 19,20,23, 1986.
Ambient Station data gathered June 16, 1986. The ambient
station is 3. 1 miles upstream from the Town of Graham
sampling site.
Ambient station data represent detection limits.

Haw River Metals Data
160 From June, 1986
150
140
130
120
110
100
? 90
a
0
80
U 70
U° 60
50
40
30
20
10
0
As Cd Cu CN-Tot Pb Ni Ag Cr-Tot Zn
City of Graham Ambient Station ® Limit or AL

N DS
�'Ssvh MP.ry s.� �c�r vl� Grw�1 r.M. rn/.f"�` _ r�2�'c.lS liia blc.�✓l�
�. To el 3rA✓fck - - --"p.s 1Ya✓✓1_ =.(S�_�_� -Z.�G_ -. yIX r�S o,d�a✓e. o fr.tj
c!Uv✓n5+.r[A/y __ f� _F�n -_$I� ZiO I
4
' UU
L P�nrgTor 4noj4sc _ (frbrn t� or, c II w4 M-V;; (Zay(L -$nPtr n{cn dtll •( �L�r)
-rk, 1fI_ I—t.�d�✓�n�y
gtnts�-loR \ Town 03- _Cir o_k&m 14b, Th ey - �(�[ S tf,er i'eJ / � i
f-- .44 �wa�, v.n s.�fj
t eL _ y .� _fit"^ r -fes+- / AhaAy
I/ _f �s//s e✓eIr l &nln__ e II S J` / �
- C,ence nY ft-7i'on
V f ` I
AkNt dso su'�_ . f ��
- J Z
/1 -rnaI- -�'�u �vc _end .. ..-�5- - WrrR I _s'v _ "f.'-v�cc M•./.
lxnncc.��ai/l�/ i� y(, . term -6, O rw ze
r: �ne� ACl _ .IIMfI [PC WI(t/M.. TcS� WG.s VCr� 0.CcU
i

AmUlttk
L 645 10000 NONUM q1 5 s „ C�I
UPSTRF-W 3,1 m Les Z (AL) (( z5 sp //Sn 50 b
645 6MK 01002 01027 01042 00720 01051 00719 01067 O10% 01034 01077
646 DATE TIME OR ARSENIC CADMIUM COPPER CYANIDE LEAD CN FREE NICKEL ZINC CHROMIUM SILVER
647 FROM OF DEPTH AS,TOT CD,TOT CU,TOT CN-TOT PB,TOT HBB METH NI,TDTAL ZN,TOT CR,TOT AG,TOT
648 TO DAY MEDIUM (FT) UG/L UG/L UG/L MG/L U6/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L US/L
649
650 85/01/07 1055 WATER 0 IOK 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 20K 50K
651 95/04/04 1145 WATER 0 IOK 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 20K 50K
652 65/05/21 1110 WATER 0.327997 IOK 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 20 50K
653 85/06/10 1120 WATER 0 IOK 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 50 50K
654 85/07/01 1200 WATER 0 IOK 20K 2OK LOOK LOOK 50 50K
655 85/08/06 1115 WATER 0.327999 IOK 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 20 50K
.656 85107/03 1125 WATER 0.327999 IOK 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 20K 50K
657 85/10/01 1105 WATER 0.327997 IOK 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 30 50K
658 85/11/05 1105 WATER, 0.327999 IOK 20K 30 LOOK LOOK 50 50K
659 85/12/02 1100 WATER 0.327999 IOK 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 20K 50K
660 86/01/02 1100 WATER 0.327799 IOK IOK IOK 50K 50K 10 25K
661 86/02125 1135 WATER 0.327999 10K IOK IOK 50K 50K 13 25K
662 86/03/20 1200 WATER 0.327999 IOK IOK IOK 50K 50K 15 25K
663 86/04/15 1330 WATER 0.327979 IOK IOK lOK 50K 50K 20 25K
664 86/05/27 1730 WATER 0.327999 10K IOK 21 50K 50K 22 25K
665 86106/16 1145 WATER 4 327999 10K inr 10K 5OY 50K IOK 25K
666 86/07/29 1115 WATER 0.327999 IOK IOK IOK 50K 50K 35 25K
667 86/06/14 1130 WATER 0,327979 IOK 10K 11 50K 50K 41 25K
668 86/09/17 1305 WATER 0.327999 IOK IOK 14 50K 50K 32 25K
669 86/10/21 1100 WATER 0.327999 IOK IOK 16 50K 50K 33 25K
670 87/01/28 1150 WATER 0.327999 IOK IOK IOK 50K 50K 16 25K
671 87/04/23 1420 WATER 0,327797 IOK IOK IOK- 50K 50K 11 25K
672 87/07/28 1330 WATER 0.327999 IOK IOK IOK 50K 50K 27 25K
673 87/1n/19 1015 WATER 0.327997 IOK IOK IOK 50K 50K 50 25K
674 88/01/14 1315 WATER 0.327999 IOK 2K IOK IOK 50K 23 25K
675 BS/04/19 1335 WATER 0,327799 IOK -0 17 12 50K 52 25K
676 STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 88/08/07 PGM=RET PAGE: 2
677 B2000000 CPF048 030602008 02096979
67B 35 53 42.0 079 15 30.0 1
679 HAW RIVER NEAR SAXAPAHAW NC
680 37001 NORTH CAROLINA ALAMANCE
681 SOUTHEAST 030602
6B2 CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN /TYPA/AMBNT/FISH/STREAM/SOLIDS
683 21NCOIWO HO 03030002011 0000.700 OFF
684 0001 FEET DEPTH
685 tx dzo�I6F179
6B6 Down s ��cnm . 13 . �I2 rn 1 le-s
687
688 SMK 01002 01027 01042 00720 01051 00719 01067 01092 01034 01077
689 DATE TIME OR ARSENIC CADMIUM COPPER CYANIDE LEAD CN FREE NICKEL ZINC CHROMIUM SILVER
690 FROM OF DEPTH AS,TOT CD,TOT CU,TOT CN-TOT PB,TOT HBG METH NI,TOTAL ZN,TOT CR,TOT AG,TOT
691 TO DAY MEDIUM (FT) U6/L UG/L UG/L MG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L
672
693 85/01/07 0950 WATER 0 IOK 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 20K 50K
694 85/04/04 1350 WATER 0 IOK 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 20K 50K
695 85/05/21 1220 WATER 0.327999 IOK 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 20K 50K
696 85/06/10 1235 WATER 0 IOK 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 40 50K
697 85/07/01 1325 WATER 0 IOK 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 20 50K
696 85/08/08 1230 WATER 0.327759 IOK 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 20K 50K
699 85/09/03 1340 WATER 0,327999 IOK 20K 20K LOOK 100K 20K 50K
700 85/10/01 1310 WATER 0.327999 IOK 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 20K 50K
701 85/11/05 1300 WATER 0.327979 IOK 20K 20 LOOK LOOK 40 50K.
702 65/12/02 1215 WATER 0.317999 10K 20K 20K LOOK LOOK 20K 50K
703 86/01/02 1215 WATER 0.327979 IOK IOK IOK 50K 50K IOK 25K
704 06/02/25 1315 WATER 0,327999 !OK IOK IOK 50K 50K 14 25K

706 86/04/15 1030 WATER 0,327999 10K IOK IOK 50K 50K 10K 25K
707 86/05/27 1030 WATER 0.327999 10K IOK 15 50K 50K IOK 25K
708 66106/16 1500 WATER 0,327999 IOK IoK 10K 50K 50K 12 25K
709 86/07/29 1430 WATER 0.327999 10K 10K IOK 50K 50K 22 25K
710 86/08/14 1400 WATER 0.327999 IOK IGK 13 50K 50K 34 25K
711 86/09/17 1010 WATER 0.327999 10K IOK IoK 50K 50K 15 25K
712 66/10/21 1350 WATER 0.327999 IOK IOK 10K 50K 50K 46 25K
713 87/01/28 1400 WATER 0.327999 IOK IOK IOK 50K 50K 10 25K
714 87/04/23 1640 WATER 0.327999 10K 10K IoK 50K 50K IOK 25K
715 87/07/28 1500 WATER 0.327999 10K, IOK IOK 50K 50K 21 25K
716 87/10/19 1215 WATER 0.327999 10K IOK 10K 50K 50K 38 25K
717 88/01/14 1435 WATER 0.327999 IOK 2K IOK 10K 50K 23 25K
718 88/04/19 1445 WATER 0.327999 10K 2K 13 IOK 50K 34 25K
719 THAT'S ALL FOLKS
720 STBRET RETRIEVAL DATE 80/08/09
721 PUSE/STA
722 R1
723 H N
724 DSCXT
725 J Y
726 1000000999999850101999999 Mitill 77777777 F
727 400107020008 54999
728 400104001002 55000
729 400107001008 55001
730 400101001054 55002
731 400102001023 55003
732 400102025001 55004
733 400108001017 55005
734 400105001024 55051
735 400106001040 55052
736 400103001048 55053
737 400104007016 55054
738 400104001005 55055
739 400107011006 55057
740 400105026006 55056
741 400102027002 55071
742 400104026020 55072
743 400107030024 55073
744 EXTRACT/MASKING OPTION NOT PERFORMED
745 621NE01WO 02076500
746 621NCOING 02096879
747 CLROOOOOO
748
749 STATIONS SELECTED = 2
750 STDRET RETRIEVAL DATE 88108/09 - ECHO OF ORIGINAL REDUEST
751 00000010 P6M=RET,A=21NCO1WD,PRT=DATA,PURP=USE/STA,
752 00000020 S=02096500, S=02096879,
753 00000030 P=1002, P=1027, P=1042, P=720, P=1051, P=719, P=1067,
754 00000040 P=1092, P=1034, P=1077,
755 00000050 BM50101,
756 00000060 SHIFT,
757 00000070 ./MGMMS JOB (A207STORP,MMDS),MMBM,MSBLEVEL=(I,i),PRTY=4
758 00000080 ItJOBPARM LINES=20
759 00000090 3lROUTE PRINT HOLD
QUEUE

r
i
-- �- nc ca_{G h=O�h_._ IevclS_ _o _incfa�S AGco�.lr�---�- - - c�6 [� 5lu�rgns -
_-._ (r w_ _R1'Ve_( --_-11M K_.__L.5.Y,1T -- Mkc.N_.__. c7J __n �/o b-�GN�� nli'✓IQl vi'1
- - _ --__ j''th l-_ -�LYL.L tt.O/f-_ .ILVG�S_ _- + __ ..-���c{�__ � -_.�^emu Ml t'S__-__0.Iv L('.I.�G.Ir �!-!G_� -Ilk
W,j( tw 4, _-
_
Ii
C�(UC_ _ _nn
- - - -___ . —..L.�JJ2U.G. . _ J[ . ___�.IO,✓_.—!r�___._rIQW-11u/Gf r_./V�.- /.__ .S'�C,.--._ . -.— _ __ — _--
I
—yl
1.�
I ,
ii
I
i

m1DS
�(ow 1\.'v[r Am6`en4- - _ 5t++a toa_ I�IIa( - 7 ! T
_W4.`tfti(S-- . 'ifx_.—(.�_r _ -StC)�C_EI_ _ ...._IIS. _ _On l-/ ��.✓i1 to
,�.-.feCt.4''(/
_. On[ILAS/On - -'(rhA�_-r=.a"n- --JCS{wkt
C U.n.M n.u�4�s
_f_vll" _ c..v�ee/I'� rg.rironS ��._ _{�"n^M Cnn__ K�lt-
I
,i! tSchac .2 fS -
`cfr 4/u
-- - - - -CApT �52 -F,.-ro °ram_ ._ _ ��sS,�l.c....
fk— -
- (D _Lawftincc--- �n�s�<tts :—J{- �eP—
to �`'-- "�'�1_ .t—e_ ' 5 s4M _ (Ceil�/ra.l. 7`6�G S,., IOl1ar
WWTe --✓ tcG re Si-----��'"M_ kLs
_ _—CO W'1..-- � I.M I4�_ _-m44ah. __- C'�OI. __ 0 1`2"3 _fnGr (it/ _ -
- - s -p G{t� •- —� sPccia(_ malt _ ate__ t�, _ L __ O;o d�
1,ndiCa .. 41�_I --t�.c�- may _ h� _ _�}h! cnf,�:�� (o-s s7r yef)
.� JJ �II••� �/ryyr
I _ —l_�nr-r
4, rv4.}a�S _f"�_ �t4L'SY,
me (,V\, _W P_ E �,,Scn'�-.__.✓Kan!-�0(. �y d-To !S AaCIc[J(..
lh•6 _ C�C_114t c.S _ wgq ao �aCL crte�_ c k014 C"(j
'-c "_y9nS,L'lt_ -lof l4 ryt,+uI5 (oaJ:,j -(o Kaw Rr✓Ct.

pppppp,
I�
'__ .—ta_.CqL+.___-_Ibw✓L._ __oS=__ �.f,A✓lYVLB_--/"G�Y(�_-
f1
_ j'1;;_�A1I---��-- �'"cr--la'b—=-1✓{af _�Sout_ _f�.�—_eGr���e�1 /�6_?
1 ,
- - Aal
Ilee—I
I ' —V'Vy!f---I-LSOI[.t�lJ/l- t�1 —�cyLG7[O/1 /cUGI,$,
i
ti-`,��SG { aAee_ Creek
RY
V4-j IiftcS—._—_YL L,xfwec� �ral'u._r `gr�/QQ�.L._KO S( - N000Z 244C.
ttonLA DawO c — �US -nM1tn�" K�AP071
.05 Pik c _YAfgS_____. —__ NCOooiS"3f -
- -------- ----
',��cu r Zo=i
- - pock O `��# i -✓ C: % eC —Ne6r L _^p �b —nlc o02147_y_
- ✓_� -Collins— �- Ar Coo S-1

IL RGr �6
• Scp4c�n�c 9 ' � �l1 -�:�
i
ti
S1.4 2r--- - --- 0,0 3
j- 6�9'8k- H9.2 Z-- -. - l2,03- - - -_3Zj_ `f o
--- -- ----- - --
2'fofgg _ _ zy_27-- - .G7--- - - --o 3c- -- - -= 0,572-- - -- -I.I
0,07- ---- - - 0, 673
---30
fo ra b e,Nl 55-- - O,rY --- o.-777-
I
SIU� s7 W,ly— - zb o,oy o. Eoz 3�
o,-LC z z,
c
- 6/2 3/ft7------z8 1.70- -- - Z9 - -- - °'-07
5�s/x7 9,SS 3 f,o o,oy- - -- --- -°:y6 o zs.13
- -- ;!j - -3�i�a-r - -7,52 26.0 0 03_----- - 0.Y7S -- - -c,7
C�,2oq C,y
S.0 -- -�g`� - -- �_L)-- -- - =Z�y - -UI, D
— I 711 f. IS6 >q0.0 0.11 - - �,11 11, o
----- ---- - ---- ---- - -- --
- ----� -1�IZ�gG---- � �-• S - - 82,�- -- - -�,096-- ---- c�, 53�- - -�3. �4

SELF MAN:TORIXG TOXICITY TESTING SUMMARY July 21,1908 1
�1
RED FACILITY ='o DL51 BEGIN FREO YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAT JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 7010 PF INC(1) 1
IRC XLv1,Y tLiTl' .VCO W]014 Ofi/Ol/BB Q P/F 1985 n.I'FIt41'I' (IIN VNII; I,IHIMS:FY 1 an n.25 100
8
MOK I'IIS:FEIf MAY AUG NOV 1981
•TRO NRIiN I<I:SVI1.1.1:A!IbU I'S CIi. W'N'IP NC0021261 04/01/00 O P/4 1985
PERMIT CHRONIC LIM1T:99E 1986 0.00 0.30 100.00
MONTHS: 1987 NR 79 13 81 P20
1993 22.3 57 01 1 BE I --- ---
ARO KINNr,,'S MfN..%CGILS NC002.0795 02/01/88 M 1985
LETTER ACUTE TARGET:NO ACUTE 1986 0.20 1.00 68.55
RONTHS: 1987
Inas >91 Nii NR IN NR
ADO K1N'G'S M'LN.-PIW:' Ca. 6NTl' NC002073Y 11/20/81 0 P/f' 1985
PE3KI7 CM.R LIMT:19%, 249 0 131,G0 1986 19.60 i 3.00 19.17
MONTHS DEC :AR JUN SIR 198] --- _- ---
SOC:Ii/B]-]/69 CHR O RIF 23,51 1988 ___ (___1 ___ NR (___1 ___ ___ ___ 1 _ 1 V2 1 i
IARO FINS O::-P EACH TH E 't%TP N00020541 01/01/98 0 P/F 19a5
P PPM I ' CINBN'IC I,I V;r:3.5N 1986 282.8 6.]5 3.50
MONTHS:FV.H MAY ALG NOV 19%
JOG:./PP-]/E9 TO% L:MIT AS IN PEN.E IT 198a ( NR ) --- FAIL (---) --- --- 1 1
PRO KN'IGIITDALG NET? NC0026638 02/01/86 D 1995
OFFLIFE 1986 0.00 0.20 100.00
MONTHS 1587
1 LIS ---
FPO LALRINMURG 'n'RTP NCU020656 01/01/88 Q Piv 1985
PERMIT CHRONIC LI:NIT:319 1986 13.80 4.00 31.00
MONTHS:FEO MAY AUG NOV 1987
1968 (FAIL) PASS --- (FAIL) PASS --- ( 1
FRO L\URINCURO-MA%TON AIRPORT SC0044725 OS/01197 Q P/F 1985 --- --- 89 72 P30 100 10 NONE NONE 111.0 1 1.00 1.37
PERMIT CHRONIC LIMIT:1.4% 1986 ]2.5 84.5 NONE NONE. 83 75 NONE NR NONE ]].5 FAIL WEC:1
MONTHS:SEP DEC MAR JUM1' 1911 --- 63 --- 27PASS 25.'16 NR (PASS) --- --- (---1 PASS
1988 ( -) PASS ( -) PASS ( )
FSRO LAHRUNCE INDUSTRIES NCO0449B9 02/01/86 M 1985 --- --- ___ _ 0.00 1 0.005 100.00
LETTER ACUTE TARGET: >90i 1986 �BE <5 NR M.R NR <S NONE NONE <5 , YR 1536' I1
MONTHS: 1987 ;NR NR 7.58 `:R 9.85 28.1 BE 14'14 ].12 8.41 1 .8' Hal
`
1988 6.48' 24.21' 6.0' 3.12, 30.1' 19,2 wS Ro 1.5
IC Pil,,iICS KC0036366 1n/01/87 M 1985 ?oI1(A+:AI Bra
LETTER ACUTE TAROET:NO ACUTE 1986 0.00 100.00
MONTHS: 1987 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 5.0 70 10 26
1988 23.9 16.5 ]9.5 13.7 <5.0 28
MRO LENTO-n BT TI IC0023981 07/01/87 0 P/F 1985
PERMIT THEQN-IC IdMiI10A 1986 9.3 4.OB 40.43
I.ONTHS:AUO NOV FEB MAY 1987 1 NR 1 ( -)J0C 9/8]-6/89 NO TO%,<LTTR 8/1/08 AC M> 1988 (---1 --- ___ (___) _-_ ___
W5RO LEXINGT,ON REGIONAL NNTP NCOOSS786 07/01/88 0 P/F 1985 S.1] !FI'.NY,Ii III IR(1.:1(: I.I.NIT:1;1 I'rX(. S.SO l].A')
1988 NONE NONE NONE NUNS NONE PASS
-SRO LIBERTY N'N'TP NCO025992 06/01/87 M P/F IS85
LETTER CHRONIC LiMIT:991 1986 0.00 1 0.63 100.00
MO%TIIS: 1987 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ NR FAIL --- FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL
1988 FAIL FAIL FA[I, FAIL FAIL NR
ARO L:NVILL-o EAR, HARBOR UTILITY N'C0022756 it/01/e7 M 1985
LETTER ACUTF. TARGET:NO A(:UTE 198, 5.0 0.073 2.2]
I:/y/-I/'rl NJ Pl I:, l::: I.ra'I _..
t IS IC I'I'Y NI<V I91e 9L 30 P].n 'a NII II.i
LEGEND:
COLUMN READERS: PEG-Reg10.^.al Office, FREQ-Moni[oring (zequCnCy, (Q-Qua r[orly, M-MonLul , BM.9imhuthly, A-Annually, SA-Semiannually, OFD-Only when discharging, D-D is continue
tl
nl:oring requirenen[, I5-Cchd.cling independent study) P/F-P.Iss/Fail chronic binassay, AC-Acute, BEGIN-Firs[ month required, PF-Permitted mow, 1Y/C-InsLean v
RECORD NOTATION: PFatheaC Minmv Test, ' Cerioaaphnia sp. Acute Test, my-Mysid Shrimp Test, Chv-Chronic value, P-Mortality of stated percentage at piy pest concentration, as.e con c.
at-Pe:..rued bV DEM, ginning or Quarter, NR-Ro..ired Test Not Reported, ----Ua:a Not RCGu1rcE, pt-Batl TeSC, [�InaeC ive, N-Nevl H-AetiVe Mu: Not Oiscpa rging Y Issced(To Cory trueU, "
I
1n �
i

i
Burlington Research, Inc. Burlington
P.O. Box 2481. Burlington. NC 27215. Telephone [phone] Research
ANALYTICAL REPORT
CUSTOMER: LAWRENCE INDUSTRIES
FACILITY: Haw River, NC
SAMPLE: Monthly NPDES - February
Composite Effluent
WORK ORDER #: 88-02-039-01
SAMPLE FEUD: 02/10/88
REPORT DATE: 02/25/88
REPORT TO: Mr. Robert A. Jones
PARAMETER UNITS RESULTS
LC50 $ 24 .27
pH SU 9.93
Total Suspended Solids mg/L 67.0
Copper, T'tl. mg/L 0. 36
Zinc, T'tl. mg/L 0.572

MOS
n Fit oft�
44 —CC
I ,
--� '------ III ��,-F> �^�/�----- ---- --
III Z��� Ca�rh�on Chronuuri _ — er ___ Lend - Mtrcur- _ N�ck[I
31v ` ICU G,'I 31 cl2 L ,2 r3
-- - -- --- - -- - -
I2'17�KG_4l _Z30 - --310 - -- -�I,� —. 13, 0 ---6z - - -- �12 - 4
0,2 S
- - —
II ze K6 I,'
I.i
I�
II19 t'G 24o ZIQ --("o ' — - 012 3
330--- e1,0 --- V.3 ---- 36 -- - 412 eo,Z S
<),O I4 zL2 �a.2_ _ 30
—21110 I. 400_itnt
g6- 140 ---- -�I=O--- -- -- ------ - --- --
-- 7I16 _ 1330 — - -- ---4I,0 ------- --- -- -- - — —
ICU -
r
�'y� - -- --- - - - ' - -
- -- - -- - --- -
6�� --- fit--- -------- - —L6 -- 3,� ---------- ----- - - --- -- - --
5/7 ---Iy- -
--- ---- - --- --- - --
- - yl - - 6,0 ----- - ---- i9 - - - -- - - - - -
-- I� - - 260 3,0 - -
ll <6,v

t
Titjj of Grzt4am
P.O. Drawer 357
201 South Main Street
Graham, North Carolina 27253
[phone]
August 9, 1988
Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Director
N. C. Division of Environmental Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 /, p
Re: NPDES PERMIT LIMITS, GRAHAM WWTP h
NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0021211, ALAMANCE COUNTY �C
Dear Mr. Wilms:
The City of Graham request a Water Quality Special Order of Consent
(SOC) concerning the metal limits (particularly cadmium) and, if
necessary, toxicity. This would designate a schedule, determined by
the Division of Environmental Management and the City of Graham.
This would allow time to conduct test to determine different violations
and methods of reducing metals in our effluent.
The City of Graham also request an SOC to determine the condition
of our existing outfall line from the Graham Wastewater Treatment
Plant to the Haw River. This would allow us a new effluent discharge
point, therefore having less stringent metal limits.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
Ray Fog3eman
City Manager
RF/em
cc: Mr. Steven Mauney, DEM, Winston Salem, N. C.
Mr. George Everett, DEM, Raleigh, N. C.
Mr. Arthur Mouberry, DEM, Raleigh, N. C.
✓Mr. Trevor Clements, DEM, Raleigh, N. C.
Mr. Marvin Ragle, City of Graham
Mr. Sam Herron, City of Graham

TUB of Gra4 am
P.O. Drawer 357
201 South Main Street -A
Graham, North Carolina 27253 T
[phone]
r
January 27, 1988 rUn C7
p ;t
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management =✓
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
ATTN: Mr. R. Paul Wilms , Director
RE: Graham Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES
Permit #NC0021211 , Alamance County
Dear Mr. Wilms,
The City of Graham is in receipt of the new permit dated January
II , 1988. As you are aware , we have previously commented and
objected to the draft permit dated November. 5, 1987.
We have continued our review of the new permit and wish to ad—
vise your office of the following:
1 . We feel very uncomfortable with the new permit limits
concerning the new parameters shown on the permit with
monitoring and limits, such as , total phosphorus,
toxicity, priority pollutants, cadmium, chromuim, lead,
cyanide, nickel, copper and zinc. The City request
some consideration due to the following:
A. SOC, Part 1 , Section B. The schedule proposed is
not realistic concerning the engineering plans for
phosphorus removal by April 1 , 1988 . However,
the City feels it will be in compliance by January
1 , 1990.
B. We would like to evaluate . the test results from the
effluent for toxicity, rather than be cited for
of permit conditions .
C. The monitoring of priority pollutants appears to
be another test for toxicity analysis, in which
the City is opposed to.
D. The new metal limits are not known at this time,
the City does not know if such limits can be met
at the present time.

2. Priority Pollutants GC/MS
A. According to the National Academy of Sciences
there is no information on-toxic effects for about
70% of the chemicals in commerce. The City opposes
implementing the requirement to identify the
largenst 10% of the GC/MS peaks other than priority
pollutants.
B. The requirement to identify the unknowns , would
require reproducing peaks on the GC/14S by mixing
the right elements and/or compounds in the right
portion, and too time consuming as well as an
economic disaster for the City.
3. Effluent Chanel Request
A. The City owns the property on both sides-,of:`Town
Branch to Haw River. The effluent from the plant
should not impair the 0.3 mile of Town Branch.
to the Haw River.
B. As the City was advised to use the '7Q10 of the Haw
River for the "Headwork Analysis", the City -of
Graham requests that Town Branch be considered for
a effluent Chanel and a model be run on the Haw
River for effluent limitations .
C. The Haw River effluent limitations should give the
City of Graham more leniency on the metal limits .
D. A map is enclosed with the points of discharge marked.
4 . Request to make effluent study
A. The City has concerns over performance and there—
fore requests that all limits be held in obeyance
for a period of 2 years , to allow the City time
to conduct sampling and testing, to study the
impact and ramification of the new limits in the
permitted effluent.
B. If acceptable, the City of Graham will monitor the
parameters as contained in the new permit, if we
find we are out of limits of the new permit the
City will continue in identifying the source of
pollutants, if any.
The Graham Wastewater Plant personnel are concerned with and com—
mitted to protecting both the surface waters of North Carolina
and the environment. The Citys ' compliance with the NPDES- permit
substantiates this.

If you have any comments or questions on this matter, please
advise.
cerely,
.M rvin Ragle
Superintendent of Plant
enc: Map
cc: Ray Fogleman, City Manager
George Everett, DEM, Raleigh
Arthur Mouberry, DEM, Raleigh
y,Prevor Clements , DEM, Raleigh
Larry Coble, DEM, Winston—Salem
Sam Herron, Plant Supervisor
MR/dd

�5rA7Z DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
�`- Date !
To Subject
MEMO:
on
`c,'o�
OAA SOS �o -��MC�J a S0(c..'�L;,n -to vlety-
Je cs�s r�(oc�-4 d t J- --kQ { w
Ll
oli r 465.
C��s�
VITA
�w2 �li�C¢ treeuS ;' e ; GLw

CADMIUM = Cd
DATE Cd DAILY f7iMiTs Cd PERMIT DAILY LIMITS PERCENT OF LIMIT
02/02/88 0.01 0.002 rA (� 500.
02/09/88 0.009 J 0.002 450.
02/15/88 0.0017 0.002 85.
02/23/88 0.001 0.002 50.
03/01/88 0.0025 0.002 125.
03/08/88 0.0019 0.002 95.
03/15/88 0.0013 0.002 65.
03/22/88 0.0019 0.002 95.
03/29/88 0.0016 0.002 80.
04/05/88 0.0036 0.002 180.
04/12/88 0.0043 0.002 215.
04/19/88 0.0029 0.002 145.
04/26/88 0.0032 0.002 160.
O5/03/88 0.0023 0.002 115.
05/10/88 0.0025 0.002 125.
05/17/88 0.0026 0.002 130.
05/24/88 0.0025 0.002 125.
06/07/88 0.0017 0.002 85.
06/14/88 0.0017 0.002 85.
06/21/88 0.0013 0.002 65.
06/28/88 0.0016 0.002 80.
Total 0.0611 0.042 3055.
Average 0.00291 0.002 145.48
Maximum 0.01 0.002 500.
Minimum 0.001 0.002 50.
Note: Was out of Compliance 52.4% of the time

CYANIDE = Cn
Aq U
DATE Cn DAILY L,M-PT- Cn PERMIT DAILY LIMITS PERCENT OF LIMITS
02/02/88 0.0052 0.005 _104.
02/09/88 0.0044 0.005 88.
02/16/88 0.0067 0.005 128.
02/23/88 0.0044 0.005 88.
03/01/88 0.0055 0.005 110.
03/08/88 0.0037 0.005 74.
03/15/88 0.0013 0.005 26.
03/22/88 0.0044 0.005 88.
03/29/88 0.0069 0.005 138.
04/05/88 0.006 0.005 120.
04/12/88 0.004 0.005 80.
04/19/88 0.004 0.005 80.
04/26/88 0.006 0.005 120.
05/03/88 0.0025 0.005 50.
05/09/88 0.0050 0.005 100.
05/17/88 0.0051 0.005 102.
05/24/88 0.0030 0.005 60.
06/07/88 0.0044 0.005 88.
06/14/88 0.0060 0.005 120.
06/21/88 0.0039 0.005 78.
06/28/88 0.0057 0.005 114.
Total 0.098 0.105 1956.
Average 0.00467 0.005 93.14
Maximum 0.0069 0.005 138.
Minimum 0.0013 0.005 26.
Note: Was out of compliance 47.6% of the time

' 1
LEAD = Pb
DATE Pb DAILY-Tr Pb PERMIT DAILY LIMITS PERCENT OF LIMITS
02/02/88 0.020 0.025 80.
02/09/88 0.020 0.025 80.
02/15/88 0.014 0.025 56.
02/23/88 0.015 0.025 60.
03/01/88 0.013 0.025 52.
03/08/88 0.014 0.025 56.
03/15/88 0.004 0.025 16.
03/22/88 0.006 0.025 24.
03/29/88 0.007 0.025 28.
04/05/88 0.018 0.025 72.
04/12/88 0.042* 0.025 168.
04/19/88 0.020 0.025 80.
04/26/88 0.009 0.025 36.
05/03/88 0.015 0.025 60.
05/10/88 0.017 0.025 68.
05/17/88 0.022 0.025 88.
05/24/88 0.021 0.025 84.
06/07/88 0.011 0.025 44.
06/14/88 0.015 0.025 60.
06/21/88 0.008 0.025 32.
06/28/88 0.012 0.025 48.
Total 0.323 0.525 1292.
Average 0.0154 0.025 61.52
Maximum 0.042 0.025 168.
Minimum 0.004 0.025 16.
Note: Out of Compliance 4.8% of the time

CHROMIUM = Cr
DATE Cr DAILY Cr PERMIT DAILY LIMITS PERCENT OF DAILY LIMITS
02/02/88 0.008 0.05 16.0
02/09/88 0.006 0.05 12.0
02/15/88 0.004 0.05 8.0
02/23/88 0.0025 0.05 5.0
03/01/88 0.0021 0.05 4.2
03/08/88 0.0026 0.05 5.2
03/15/88 0.0057 0.05 11.4
03/22/88 0.0044 0.05 8.8
03/29/88 0.0040 0.05 8.0
04/05/88 0.0021 0.05 4.2
04/12/88 0.0009 0.05 18.0
04/19/88 0.0019 0.05 3.8
04/26/88 0.0020 0.05 4.0
05/03/88 0.0043 0.05 8.6
05/09/88 0.0050 0.05 10.0
05/17/88 0.0051 0.05 10.2
05/24/88 0.0091 0.05 18.2
06/07/88 0.0039 0.05 7.8
06/14/88 0.0043 0.05 8.6
06/21/88 0.0044 0.05 8.8
06/28/88 0.0038 0.05 7.6
Total 0.0861 1.05 188.4
Average 0.0041 0.05 8.97
Maximum 0.0091 0.05 18.20
Minimum 0.0009 0.05 3.8
Note: Out of Compliance 0% of the time

FEBRUARY AVERAGES
DATE Cn Cr Cd Pb
02/02/88 0.0052 0.008 0.01 0.020
02/09/88 0.0044 0.006 0.009 0.020
02/16/88 0.0067 (2/15)0.004 0.0017 0.014
02/23/88 0.0044 0.0025 0.001 0.015
D .005175 o . 00S�zr a.00s -s- 0 .6172s-
MARCH AVERAGES
03/01/88 0.0055 0.0021 0.0025 0.013
03/08/88 0.0037 0.0026 0.0019 0.014
03/15/88 0.0013 0.0057 0.0013 0.004
03/22/88 0.0044 0.0044 0.0019 0.006
03/29/88 0.0069 0.0040 0.0016 0.007
o o .0037(o 0.00184
APRIL AVERAGES
04/05/88 0.006 0.0021 0.0036 0.018
04/12/88 0.004 0.0009 0.0043 0.042
04/19/88 0.004 0.0019 0.0029 0.020
04/26/88 0.006 0.0020 0.0032 0.009
4).005- o.opi�zs 0.0035 0.o222S
MAY AVERAGES
05/03/88 0.0025 0.0043 0.0023 0.015
05/09/88 0.0050 (5/10)0.0050 (5/10)0.0025 (5/10)0.017
05/17/88 0.0051 0.0051 0.0026 0.022
05/24/88 0.6030 0.0091 0.0025 0.021
o.0o 37 0.0058'7`,f o .002471� p. oig7S�
JUNE AVERAGES
06/07/88 0.0044 0.0039 0.0017 0.011
06/14/88 0.0060 0.0043 0.0017 0.015
06/21/88 0.0039 0.0044 0.0013 0.008
06/28/88 0.0057 0.0038 0.0016 0.012
p. oO.S 0.00�1 L,7.op15-73"' 0 . oitS'

MONTHLY AVERAGES
MONTH CN 0.005 Pb 0.025 Cr 0.05 Cd 0.002
February 1988 0.005 0.017 0.0051 0.0054
March 1988 0.0044 0.0088 0.0038 0.0018
April 1988 0.005 0.022 0.0017 0.0035
May 1988 0.0035 0.019 0.0058 0.0024
June 1988 0.005 0.0115 0.004 0.0016
Total 0.0229 0.0783 0.0204 0.0157
Average 0.00458 0.01566 0.00408 0.00314
= 0.00458 0.01566 0.00408 0.00314
0.005 0.025 0.05 0.002
91.6 62.64 8.16 157%

. i
CADMIUM = Cd
MONTH Cd MONTHLY AVERAGE
February 1988 0.0054 plant x 100 = 270,g
0.002 percent
March 1988 0.0018 plant
0.0020 percent x 100 = 90,g
April 1988 0.0035 plant
0.0020 percent x 100 = 175.E
May 1988 0.0624 plant
0.0020 percent x 100 = 120.%
June 1988 0.0016 plant
0.0020 percent x 100 = 80,g
Note: Out of Compliance 60% of the Time.

CYANIDE = Cn
MONTH Cn MONTHLY AVERAGE
February 1988 0.005 plt.0.005 8 x 100 1008
March 1988 0.0044 plt. x 100 88%
0.005 %
April 1988 0.005 plt.
0.005 % x 100 100%
May 1988 0.0035 plt. x 100 70%
0.005 %
June 0.005 plt. x 100 100%
0.005 %
Note: Reached the limit 40% of the time.

LEAD = Pb
MOINIT-I Pb MONTHLY AVERAGE
February 1988 0.017 plant
0.025 percent x 100 = 68:00g
March 1988 0.0088 plant
0.025 percent x - 35.20%
April 1988 0.022 plant x 100 = 88.00�
0.025 percent
May 1988 0.019 plant
0.025 percent x 100 = 76.00g
June 1988 0.0115 plant
0.025 percent x 100 = 46.00�

CHROMIUM = Cr
MONTH Cr MONTHLY AVERAGE
February 1988 0.0051 plant
0.05 percent x 100 = $gg
March 1988 0.0038 plant
0.05 percent x 100 = 7.60%
April 1988 0.0017 plant
0.05 percent x 100 = 3.40%
May 1988 0.0058 plant
0.05 percent _x 100 = 11.60%
June 1988 0.004 plant x 100 -
0.05 percent - 8.00%
out of compliance 0% of the time

czT y _ of
WASTE wA � TRrw►�.�T f���9�/ 7"
N�A D WOlel�'S TV A �/ - —L' --L L�6 ,
• amp STW7 a� T
D -
(Zh1 51, VDG Sfld FED o ui 23 zA 2s 26
1! -
T
l Z VE� MAX �ji iN AVE. e c w e>
57 70 33o o s6o /07
D
3 . q7 /2 S 22o .S8
oS$ /g, S. 31, ?q s�
9 . 6. s9 6;62 �. s7 a 7s
. 3 2 339
g ' II 0, 00.5' , 00 0, OD 0, DZZ- o.vSd's o. a� q
D, 08
/• / 0, OM D. Oz2 D,027 O, O/Q
0. l06 0. al
i 7 0 y/l� o, oil 0. o CO)S
0. o?7 0. /33
► iR 6, 2 , 2� o.js 0. 2-3a Lo 08 �1
,
9 `� 0,000 D, AA/n o. 0,10
• 98/. 0, 213 1 0. o O. oz( 0 , v/-z_._
a, z►z 0. 016
17. os.,,9/� . l3 pg�l D. Ov
D, . ss' O, lgq °, 0/2` D, 0%s o , 0/ 0
D, //z
.3
--- /3
D 16 0 . 07'? D, ozS
i 82S

OF 99AIM-►vi
T2
PgAD woPirs -L#77-04
F17'* 4,
�oR /�ATFS: � 5�1� , Feb , wI✓�►-��, 1 9g'6
Ave. ' MAX
AP✓.ELA. I T
/.
l' I3o ✓ a ► . 3 a66 / 93 02 , 90 �• 9 /, 7/
• SS /S/. 3 !S(, / 8 6. 92 D, 0 3.
3 .
� Q o z9; 7 23 , 3 1, 9 313
r
-S• /✓ aS. O 29, A 21, 6 1. 71 l• 90 34
6N IJ3 Al aa. 41 0?6. 96 0. 38 0. 95 o, 31
, e 7o 0 , 6o 3. ;Lq ,� /, 7o
8 .
to Ab I tl; •Ic D63S D. o7/6 0. D9BS D,04SS 0,00 D, ao/z
e-tJ ; C. o. 0q 0. //S o. of 6. 042, D. 0 0 0, vvZ
d m V- ( 4, 06/ o• 121 0 . o l/ , 0, D/ 0, 041 a. oo S
o e 0.' 65 0, a13 6, /2 0 0, '0 0, 0700 0. of z
D, . 03 0, 00 D, 030
3 . .�e d ( 0. , . G;; D l 6 0,075 0. 18 0. 0 /3
/9 �Phc 6, onj 0, 00?2, 0•00 0 0. 0023 oaJ090 0, or)o5
l S. o. /99 0.-�;23 0. og 0. d63
A. e F 0, o / 0, 070 0, 096 0. o // o, 0/6 0. aa�S
17. - ✓UD. O 3 D. D S D, ogS _ D.o3 0. 00
18 . o: 4 83 0, ?5-? 0, J,57 0, /G 5' 0. /3
lyeMAAS a. S . 3 . 85
o, dog
��• ToIAL P, 7, 06 g. 76 ssa a . a6 0, s's
23 , o i ] 38 S 1. �j 3S. l 7. 7 10, 3 -57 6
' f
f `

i
csTy OF & 9Ago+ w►
W sTE w,47�FR 7-,e947-MgA)7- T
NFA D WoRirs ��'v A ��
7-2sc�an1 Bf�r),-Jc
I�o(Z DATES: 7-/9n1. F�ES. mARC-H ) 98G
_ m,* O w Ti' 6ti1
I'' �Z VE. MA-A Milv A✓E. MA X. ;0-
3 1, 7 a. s 0. s i. .3 a, o0, 8
2 . SS a . o .2 , o :2,. 0 .2,, 4 q, 0 2
a
3 .
4 Q /5, 38 17, 0 l31 6 / . /z s, / /3. S
9 . 7. / 7. 3 Z0 70 7 / 70
S nl 1 /, 68 23' L 7.5' t z/A /, / Z-
6 • N IJ3 IV 0136 o. q5' 0, 31 V. 3 /• lz o , 31
I O 3 LV 0, 0/V d,010 0,0039 , 7// 5; /,f 5;1M
g o Q. O231 D, d 3/S 0.0033 D, G 7A 0. 76 _r1lo
e is O.006 � 0. 007 0, 0o2 0, 00,s3 0. 00? a , 002.
/O . W7 Q 0. 035 0.0a? o
0. 0Z , o:S3 o, oiz /JA o . of
, 0, 01 S-1 0. 0254 D, 036 0• o3� 0. o3
3 • .LeC, d 0. 0 0•25-9 0, ol3 D. ol 0. 0/7 0 . 0 /6
/y • el-C 0. M2q 0. 009 0, 0008 0. 00 5' d ,00l?
l S 'c Irr L 0. /20 0, 02$ 0, 0 , oN 0. D ,Z.S
l6• e 0. 026 0, 042 0, 013 0, 02 0. 03/ 0. 0 /0
7 - c A L4m Q D, 0/ � 0, o�,5" 0,001 0, 0 �IQQ, 060 0• 0/3
� S • o:oS7 0, 075 o,036 0. )9S 0. 25.3 o , os3
l9� Mea 4 S 0- 4A 0, 92 0, 37 0, 31 0, 11 0 , z z-
0� 0, 166 04,66 1 D, /6(o o, 14 a , /Al 0, /k
.a+ .-�..--...:. •.... '. Tr .. iN.. r - •c.^a4F ..'. w.^• X"' :cam: a � .. .'-'.>; _
aa. � . 7s
Toy-� d , 5-5- 0, 2s , ,2g s, / �

:i GZTy ._ of G- jZAIJArvi
T /XWI / T
NSA D WoPifs s�'v � �r
N,4 tit R v E P,
�o R HATE_ S� / 7 /u /9 .�o �,� 23 �c.�•+a b'.6
I, �� Z VE. hIAX A✓E. MAX. i nl,
ss g /a z
3 ,
40 IT 0, 8 13 , 6 / , 2 /,?, ,
9 ! 7. 1 �, 6, L 7. a �. �, /
S /✓ �, �� a qb ID � 13 /• S7
6 /. z3 f a. /
3, g,7 g, 39 a , 30 6. 39 —
g o 0, 0/5- n 131 o. o gD o.029-0 0. D//t
C- O, o 0. 033 o, oz o. o2q o. 036 0, o2/
wl 0, 002-8,lo, 00- p, 002 p ao26, 0, o03 a, 06 z
' I o P o.0y7 o, /ss 0.orb o. /0 o , os8' o. os8
/�• — �o 098� DOSS 0, 0N1 ,, Oq-7 0,0510 0 , 041
3 ' .�e d D• of 0, oiS D , Do D, -) 0, o/` o. aoS
/9 erf if v o. oo07 o,00/o o, o0o3 o, 0006 0, 006 9 0 , oao z
o, o38 o• o'Ig o• oyb 0. oql o , oy7 0 , 03S
0, 0/ 0. OIL 0 . aoe 0, 0/0 0 , 0/2 0, 00F
17. I - p, /28 o. �4 . 026 p, 04 o, /8'3 10. olt/
1g • D /6a a.323 0. 093 0 . / 6 D, Zz� D• 070
�y IMeWs 0. 0 o, 0 0 , 06 0. 06 0, 09 O, D
V2, 6. offl o, D, o5[ o. /A88 0, 27F 0. 064
r2a , I a , z, • us Z 0 7
i
i

----- -- --- -- -- - - - -- -- - --- - - _ - - -- ----
i
- ---- — --w,=x�-ys-mac �n- s l:ii»�-;a�91 t� -�-i�i��j- -�c)--ice-- -r�•� - r,�y�� --: i---- -- ----
i
-50pw--- -- --- - -- ------- -- - -- -- -

i
duk ^1�
s �a�o�0aoo, -
© 1�jcnaJa U2o uo 5-s060o0o0 ca
(Q 0
AA oZog3s�'q _
1
�zoq 65
14 I�AV� '�•Vt( (Q 114 0000)
iVSax aPo.ln" 0 �0qb 6 0
70 - — -
� MD n cv,rc -
I -
t

?t m{1`°r15�Ln ' .i i 4 t •p i • q ! mt'µ$ rY �" ` ri .Y { Y` rj. � , , . ' `'�, F�.
�"�s��lf}
t M:..n'S!{�1
,thK I) Sjart"yZ1e�, �d};�n sy
�{7�Aq�J�UI,1y�p]r1, T}4 Lf+q�.r � t � I•
t�� fSt�Or�I��T iN.Yl�$,p' r' K9d�� 1'41� 'v'/ v �T � ��< °f'ax. ����5�� F � Pf•1
n , �If v. n °S♦ ,F K'^ �'� �' t
•A ' , r r iy y�y�.ra! 'S' �,,,•a .,�, r. q `� � � 'yy���' r�, �_
%M jrNT
UR
I r l�, 4R�kil»r�i �t w1.�t 'kr`'r � t }+��•� � i � 4. f � r T6F.rsl � , 1•� f�j
el
h , ° �. �1,�,q +af n�n,�i�3d•r ♦ v'",aS'I'^q+ r 3 t' \ , ,
J ° 5� SJ .,, �. •ti°�., . {v Ya, t.aa•• � , lra14 r` • t ,�iy r
'yl�� " •`�'k�4 j: .If' n i ,r�a�!°�-} n�'flt }��i'.V� y .S. \4� qW� 'I
!,'"T tq't��'� 1�,� j' a,{ ? ta!k�"','� �r �t ���•''S� ` y� s� ��4i"'�� � t °� v
�.. �y� .5. M1 d h,l`'rr,�� i�.51¢2�'k�`., 4 r it p ,•, 1 � �.. t`'`'�h'n�<�{*'
d � k � 4r r. �r.L, � r. �+Y , '1.q�w�7.: 4+ 4 • hqt'nli t� K 'F
l�t4w�5 � ���{g>'�T;:� �����,�� F��' ;r s 4 c ! • "'cr 3i � `�:.
v },li.',� r Ay M1rl X !'.t•c.Zy a � y , J .q r S +t '
,
i d Y
�s
y ,°• .r✓3t� r pry,. r
r
t� r�,p '' , P A �yy5rp � ,•
�}"6 � I• � t � �".> �f �° ^¢ ::. t t LM'� ' /lf 2 3'^.dss �7Y,s, "1
�I•Yt , ` R, i� 'J. } Y °aVy "K "'[ rr ,"ir ;+, ,, ,r `•
fe ar ,u, .�'- y � - U :� ��r •� t h,f f 41
�'�p k k ,��gXt��t� � � � 1 Y , ry f t,, F t r1'. '}, ,i`�• � , �'" M1 f.T. '°h�^'
Ott{ •F5i� 7 °"r sfr•r+ } �1' w i ,ttiK 1 °a 7y �' q �{tF t"1i. �.� J e.,;
�r jL M1� ���....1�'b tJ 5 f`�•�,� `5 � 'f• S , .,{�, �r j ,� �I tft'°a i
�p�rr1 � M, a� � S'j� t r, t}�M? AP�rH Sj �• ��•� s n/ ` billy ;, i %�' i�a4
�f 'LlI'�[ 1 4 f}� r yyyyy4y,• YW39
�.,�1-
Jt
'S. rC t i r 3 �q .V. " �J .a.. 'f'`rl,/,n:lar5 �
..
#F4 ,'
�� tl,r+/ +nPt �€�.sF� i ��d^1 �� � �''�� L= •� �3,,i �:7$.. �� � y�5 't
4 RSM• ,���}yy.� y
�Rl,�'.�h'�� } ��r 1•P:✓ ,i �'V i t�i � �. 91 � � �{ � � L I y�F} �`gTF�'I, e
•+'�4 ia���;aa_tP @+ } ' if' { f '�'6 ,�P,iq7
,s<j,t`o-..+��lysn;•- vs �,?''Wilt'•t ��' S i � , < t Jrr ,�t/`'
3 4 r`'ia� -t'v°i�1r°�qv a'' 6YY� h � �°`7;• M r. r � �i �@
I F?��gr}� �,•!Q`;p Kr �'l°n;,�llll! r �� � fn7'zh it+•F�^' ,$I��,i yr
' vYM j Alt' ��a id:,Zvi r Yr�•f'17y P' 1: +�* r j , Y ^.V
d /
q�7 i Q ���fii• �° s+rlr,KF y, • n 7 '� v r S 11 \�{✓",!°<,P ',<
t t"Wtti,f'i 1..•'irk y•{• Yam.. x, r. � ' a ivy I �•.,[�y�r q=•,'
�..,�� r�•-lr"'J• � t � s kYr".Y d'� '',l��.�.. e .� �', r� n r FC,
�° ) 1xT{1. y" 'y�T-wT 'la� `AY►•q .�° ' � ` � ° � '�Y! 4
S?ps,ts�l,Ml a. frTa l i rf {YI t ,� ,1' 5+�� S) 1. r•+l+U4Li' ,.,,} �•,.
Arv� q'
INDEX:
rr\/r��r•r+•�nr.�Yt try r� �sf'' , �, S '
Yellow line indicates ' y
property „� a
owned by the City of Graham 3 '+
A. Point of effluent into the n
may ' i'ahli' 't r : Town Branch `
A 1 r+ t+s I.rvy � i 4 � r drN + '�
; �b {Afi' 7F v, 'ty B. Point on confluence of Town
Branch with Haw River 1 `
rlWi
�� S�R'�i�c1��r\\r, y°r "�'t(N• _.d; ,
e r. Pt!, t Y. }� .y t C. Point of confluence of Back
1k;
Creek with Haw 'River
r ,
r
4 a 3
'L1.j..."'T..i':J'I,..y..ar:W ,M�...S...r � • J�^ 1�gr'�yp+g "u 'q�`` ..
i'

(9itla of Groilm
P.O. Drawer 357
201 South Main Street
Graham, North Carolina 27253
[phone]
August S, 1988
jEGHhiCA�StR�d,E� 6;tr:.•
Mr. Trevor Clements
NC Div. of Environmental Management
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
RE: Data Requested
Dear Mr. Clements,
Enclosed please find materials requested at the meeting
on August 4, 1988 in Raleigh.
The data is recorded in mg/L-
Should you need more information, please advise.
Sincerely,
Mar/vinT�Ragl-e
Superintendent of Plants
enc.
cc: Mr. Jessie Howell, WSRO

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 9, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: Arthur Mouberzy/,/�/
THROUGH: Steve Tedder
FROM: Trevor Clements �'�
SUBJECT: Comments regarding City of Graham letter
NPDES No. NC0021211
Alamance County
I have reviewed the letter (12/15/87) from the City of Graham regarding
their objections to certain conditions contained in their draft NPDES permit.
The specifics are addressed by item below:
1. Instream HOD monitoring:
The City is permitted to discharge 3.5 MGD into a stream with a 7Q10 of less
than 0.1 cfs. Due to this domination of the receiving waters by the effluent,
and given the facility's status as a "major" discharger, instream HOD monitoring
is recommended. The BOD measurement will help to determine the cause should DO
problems occur instream.
2. Total Phosphorus Limits:
A. DEM sent formal comments to the Piedmont Triad COG disagreeing with the
interpretation of the data and conclusions drawn within the report. In fact,
data within the report strongly support the Environmental Management Commis-
sion's decision to apply phosphorus limits to the Haw Arm of Jordan Lake.
B. DEM already took this into consideration, and a greater percentage of
removal than will be provided by the ban is needed to achieve water quality
objectives.
C. EMC considered economics in making their decision.
D. No comment.
3. Priority Pollutant Analysis:
No comment. 1
4. Metals limits:
A. The 7Q10 is 0.07 cfs and not 0.7 cfs as is shown in the letter. Also,
DEM also uses the Headwork Analysis data to estimate the need for metals limits.
B. Mass balance equations indicated the need for metals limits. Technical
Support agrees with the City that, if their proposed effluent limits are met,
the effluent will not impair the receiving waters of Town Branch. However,

exceedances of the limits could result in toxic effects being exerted during low
flow periods.
C. DEM must impose limits to comply with State regulations. Should moni-
toring data (after 12 months) indicate that a limit is not needed, then DEM will
reconsider the limits.
The comments raised in a subsequent letter (1/27/88) are similar to those
addressed above and will not be further addressed here. Please let me know if
additional clarification is required.
JTC
cc: Larry Coble
Ken Eagleson
Central Files

TItU of Gra4am
P.O. Drawer 357
201 South Main Street 10.37
Graham, North Carolina 27253
PI 9) 226-6362 10.,
December 15, 1987
`7771
N.C.Division of Environmental Management
P. 0. Box 27637
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 29 P67
Attn: R. Paul Wilms, Director iTy
Re: Graham Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit # NCO021211
Dear Mr. Wilms:
The City of Graham would like to offer the following comments
ard objectknsconcerning the above draft of the NPDES permit:
1. BOD The City desires that upstream and downstream
sampling for BOD be deleted as in our present permit ,
effective Nov. 4 , 1985.
2. Total Phosphorus.
A. The phosphorus study of the Haw River b-v the Viedmnnt
Triad Council of Governments nines not support "point source"
phosphorus removal . The study did indicate that the phosphorus
from point sources were snublp which would not settle in the
bottom of the stream.
B. The new law banning phosphate in detergents which will be
implemented January 1 , 1988, has not been evaluateA, thernfore
the City is unsure of how much phosphorus will need to be
removed, if any, until that time.
C. The amount of phosphorus that will need to be removed will
Dave a direct impact on financing, design,construction and
operation of a phosphorus removal facility.
D. SOC,Part !, Section B Schedule proposed is not realistic concerning
coostruzVop tlme,However, we will be in a p-sition to meet
2.0 mg. phosphorus removal by 1990.
3. Priority Pollutants.
A. Since the priority pollutant monitoring appears to be another
test for toxicity nnslysis, the City of Graham opposes this
monitoring.
B. The City also opposes implementing the requirement to identify
the largest 10% of the GCIMS peaks other than priority pollutants.
According to the National Academy of Sciences there is no information
on toxic effects for about 70% of the chemical in commerce.

-2-
12/15/87
C. The above requirement seeks to identify the unknowns which
would require reproducing peaks on the GC/MS by mixing the
right elements and/or compounds in the right portion, and which
would be too time consuming as well as an economic disaster
for the City.
4. Metals.
A. The City was advised to use the 7 Q 10 of Haw River to
calculate the "Headwork Analysis". This gave the City more
leniency on the metal limits.
B. The City owns the property on both sides of Town Branch
to Haw River. The effluent from the Graham Wastewater
Treatment Plant should not impair the 0.3 miles of Town Branch
with a 7 Q 10 of 0. 7 CFS flow.
C. Metal limits should not be imposed at the present time.
A monitoring program should be implemented to gather data to
provide the City with decision making.
The City of Graham as well as the Wastewater Plant personnel, are both
committed to protecting the environment. Compliance with our NPDES
permits substantiates this matter. In our opinion the Graham Wastewater
Treatment Plant is doing an outstanding job of protecting the surface
waters of North Carolina.
if you have any comments, or any questions on this matter, please
let me know.
Very truly yours,
Ray Fog eman
City Manager
RF:jgm
cc: Marvin Ragle

TUB of CGroilttm
! P.O. Drawer 357
201 South Main Street
Graham, North Carolina 27253 Y 5m%e
a^.e
[phone] JAN ,..',0 1988
January 27 , 1988 PEft'c,ii5 Y
7
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687 'r 5
ATTN: Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Director
RE: Graham Wastewater 'treatment Plant NPDES
Permit #NC0021211 , Alamance County
Dear Mr. Wilms,
The City of Graham is in receipt of the new permit dated January
11 , 1988. As you are aware, we have previously commented and
objected to the draft permit dated November 5, 1987.
We have continued our review of the new permit and wish to ad-
vise your office of the following:
1 . We feel very uncomfortable with the new permit limits
concerning the new parameters shown on the permit with
monitoring and limits , such as , total phosphorus ,
toxicity, priority pollutants , cadmium, chromuim, lead ,
cyanide, nickel , copper and zinc . The City request
some consideration due to the following:
A. SOC, Part 1 , Section B . The schedule proposed is
not realistic concerning the engineering plans for
Ok phosphorus removal by April 1 , 1988 . However,
the City feels it will be in compliance by January
1 , 1990.
B. We would like to evaluate the test results from the
effluent for toxicity, rather than be cited for
failure of permit conditions .
C . The monitoring of priority pollutants appears cc
be another test for toxicity analysis , in which
the City is opposed to.
D. The new metal limits are not known at this time ,
the City does not know if such limits can be met
at the present time .

2. Priority Pollutants GC/MS
A. According to the National Academy of Sciences
there is no information on toxic effects for about
70% of the chemicals in commerce . The City opposes
implementing the requirement to identify the
largenst 10% of the CC/MS peaks other than priority
pollutants .
B. The requirement to identify the unknowns , would
require reproducing peaks on the GC/MS by mixing
the right elements and/or compounds in the right
portion, and too time consuming as well as an
economic disaster for the City.
3. Effluent Chanel Request
A. The City owns the property on both sides. of :Town
Branch to Haw River. The effluent from the plant
should not impair the 0.3 mile of Town Branch
to the Haw River.
B. As the City was advised to use the 7Q10 of. the Ha,,,
River for the "Headwork Analysis" , the City of
Graham requests that Town Branch be considered for
a effluent Chanel and a model be run on the Haw
River for effluent limitations .
C . The Haw River effluent limitations should give the
City of Graham more leniency on the metal limits .
D. A map is enclosed with the points of discharge marked .
4 . Request to make effluent study
A. The City has concerns over performance and there-
fore requests that all limits be held in obeyance
for a period of 2 years , to allow the City time
to conduct sampling and testing, to study the
impact and ramification of the new limits in the
permitted effluent .
B. If acceptable, the City of Graham will monitor the
parameters as contained in the new permit , if we
find we are out of limits of the new permit the
City will continue in identifying the source of
pollutants , if any.
The Graham Wastewater Plant personnel are concerned with and com-
mitted to protecting both the surface waters of North Carolina
and the environment . The Citys ' compliance with the NPDFS permit
substantiates this .

If you have any comments or questions on this matter, please
advise .
Sincerely,
1
Mary n Ragle
Superintendent of Plants
enc: Map
cc: Ray Fogleman, City Manager
George Everett, DEM, Raleigh
,,,Arthur Mouberry, DEN,, Raleigh
Trevor Clements, DEM, Raleigh
Larry Coble , DEM, Winston-Salem
Sam Herron, Plant Supervisor
MR/dd

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
March 7 , 1989
MEMO TO: Arthur Mouberry -
FROM: Bill Kreutzberger� -
SUBJECT : Effluent Channel Request for the City of Graham
I have reviewed the City of Graham' s January 27 , 1988
request for designation of Town Branch as an effluent channel .
This stream is clearly a low flow, urban stream that does not
meet the qualifications for an effluent channel .
An effluent channel is defined as follows in 15 NCAC 2B
. 0202 (8 ) :
Effluent channel means a discernable confined and discrete
conveyance which is used for transporting treated
wastewater to a receiving stream or other body of water
provided that such channels shall :
( a ) be contained entirely on property owned ( or otherwise
controlled ) by the discharger ( to be demonstrated by
the discharger ) ;
( b ) not contain natural waters er.ceDt when such waters
occur in direct response to rainfall events by
overland runoff ;
( c ) be so constructed or modified to minimize the
migration of fish into said channel ;
( d ) be identified and designated on a case-by-case basis
prior to permit issuance.
Town Branch is a classified stream ( Class C-Index No :
16-17 ) with a drainage area of 3 . 01 sq . miles at the discharge
point of the City of Graham' s WWTP . The stream has a 7010 low
flow of 0 . 07 cfs and 3002 low flow 1 . 3 cfs . Clearly , the stream
has flow most of the time and this does not meet the requirements
of (b ) above.
If you have any questions , please give me a call .
cc : Alan Klimek
Steve Tedder
Chuck Waki ld �
MAR 9 Mb

WUUvf Gr wn
P.O. Drawer 357
201 South Main Street R EC E IVEtD
Graham, North Carolina 27253
[phone]
APR i ? 1988
April 14, 1988
TiEGIINKAL SERVICES BRANCH
Mr. Arthur Mouberry, P.E.
Supervisor, Permits and Engineering
Division of Environmental Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Re: Graham Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit #NCOOZ1Zll
Alamance County
SOC Part 1, Section B, Par. l-A
Dear Mr. Mouberry:
Enclosed is an engineering proposal to study the biological, chemical
removal of phosphorus in the City of Graham Wastewater Treatment Plant,
along with the cost of construction of the equipment.
I believe this should suffice to meet the requirements as set forth in the
permit.
Should you need more information, please advise.
Sincerely your
Il�
Marvin Ragle
Superintendent of Plants
MR/em
cc: Mr. Ray Fogleman, City Manager, Graham
Mr. George Everett, DEM, Raleigh
Mr. Trevor Clements, DEM, Raleigh
Mr. Larry Coble, DEM, Winston Salem .
Mr. Sam Herron, Plant Supervisor, Graham

W.M. PIATT AND COMPANY CONSULTING, DESIGNING AND SUPERVISING ENGINEERS
PHONE [phone] • 216 RIGSBEE AVENUE • P.O. DRAWER 971 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702
W.M.RATE.RI,P.E MORRIS V.RROONMART.P.E. WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL
R.W.DURANT.P.E. 8.T.MART.P.E. WATER DISTRISURON STREETS
WASTEWATER COLLECTION DIESEL WWER PLANTS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION
INSTRUMENTATION REPORTS AND APPRAISALS
EMERGENCY POWER 6 COGENERATION
ENERGY CONSERVATION STUDIES
February 26, 1988 %61.
City of Graham
Post Office Box 357 FCB c 1c 3
Graham, North Carolina 27253
Attention: Mr. Ray Fogleman V'Ii
City Manager /
Gentlemen:
Re: Wastewater Treatment Plant
Phosphorus Removal
We are pleased to submit a proposal for engineering services in
connection with phosphorus removal at your wastewater treatment plant
in order to comply with your new NPDES permit.
We propose that- you tentatively plan on chemical removal for budget
purposes. Chemical removal is well proven and we can provide budget
estimates for engineering and construction based on past actual
experience. Before proceeding with design for chemical removal, a
study of biological phosphorus removal, which may be possible in your
plant, should be investigated thoroughly. If the present worth cost
including both initial construction and 20 year operating cost turn
out to be less for biological facilities than chemical facilities, we
could switch to design for biological removal.
An agreement covering the proposed study is enclosed. Du ri.^.g the
study, we will work with your plant personnel to maximize phosphorus
removal in the existing facilities using operational changes and/or
minor additions or revisions to the plant. This would be done during
the study period. The final report of the study will present results
of optimizing the existing plant and alternative methods of phosphorus
removal. Preliminary designs of additions and revisions to your
treatment plant and a present worth cost .analysis of construction
costs and projected operating costs will be included. As a minimum,
the following systems will be evaluated:
1. Chemical Phosphorus Removal
2. The Phostrip Process of Biological Phosphorus Removal
3 . The A/0 Process of Biological Phosphorus Removal

i
City of Graham "
Attention: Mr. Ray Fogleman
Page Two
February 26, 1988
We have also enclosed a proposed agreement for design of a chemical
removal system. We would not begin work under this agreement until
the results of the study discussed above are available. Of course, it
is your option to delete the study and proceed with plans for chemical
removal.
As you are aware, most phosphorus removal at wastewater treatment
plants in this country has been accomplished by chemical
precipitation. More than 80 wastewater treatment plants in the Great
Lakes area in the United States and Canada have used chemical removal
successfully. In the last few years, there have been only a few
plants where biological phosphorus removal has been achieved. The
three patented systems for biological removal: all claim broad rights.
Biological phosphorus removal has the advantage of avoiding the cost
of chemicals and increased sludge quantities resulting from chemicals.
It has been reported that it is relatively difficult to maintain
biological removal without having upsets of the process. Apparently,
the State is attempting to encourage biological removal by the way the
IIPDES permit is written. It is noted that total phosphorus in the
effluent of 2 mg/l is a quarterly average limitation with monthly
measuring frequency. This might permit you to be upset one month out
of three and still meet a limit of 2 mg/l. Also helpful , you can
expect a reduction of phosphorus in the plant influent as a result of
elimination of phosphates in detergents.
The schedule we propose for compliance with the IMES Proposal is
listed below. Budget estimates of cost are also shown.
Study $20,000.00
Begin April 1988
Complete September 1988
Design (Preparation of Plans and Specifications
for facilities for Chemical Removal) $12,000.00
Begin October 1988
Complete January 1989
Construction $120,000.00
Construction Engineering 6 Contingencies $ 18,000.00
Begin April 1989
Complete September 1989
Start-up Period - October through December 1989
TOTAL BUDGET COST $170,000.00

City of Graham
Attention: Mr. Ray Fogleman
Page Three
February 26, 1988
We spoke with Mr. Coy Batten in the Construction Grants Branch of the
State Division of Environmental Management regarding possible grants
or loans. He indicated that phosphorus removal facilities required by
NPDES Permits are eligible and that you should write a letter to his
office requesting Federal financial assistance through the loan and
grant program. In order to receive State matching funds , an
application would have to be submitted by September of this year.
We appreciate your request for this proposal. We believe our approach
provides flexibility so that the best long term solution for
Graham can be implemented but also provides you with some firm numbers
you may reliably use for budgeting.
Very truly yours,
W. M. PIATT AND COMPANY
W. M. PIATT, III
WMP/kr
Enclosures

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor January 29, 1988 R. Paul Wilms
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary Director
Mr. Marvin Ragle
Superintendent of Plants
City of Graham
P.O. Box 357
Graham, NC 27253
SUBJECT: ., Permit Modification Request
_. .._
NC0021211
City of Graham
Alamance County
Dear Mr. Ragle:
Your request for permit modification was received by - the Division of
Environmental Management on January 28, 1988. 1 Your request to hold all limits .
in abeyance for . two years and to have the receiving stream designated as an
effluent channel is being reviewed _by the :Division's staff to see if 'any
of the issues can be resolved. You will be notified of the Division's position upon
completion of this review. Until a final decision is made you are to continue
monitoring as required by your permit. If your concerns have not been addressed at
that time, you may request a hearing in accordance with the requirements of Chapter
150B of the General Statutes.
If you have any questions on this matter, please call the -undersigned at (919)
733-5083.
Sincerely,
Arthur Mouberry, P.E.
Supervisor, Permits and Engineering
cc: Winston-Salem Regional Office ��
Permit File CEIVE® - - - - --
Technical Services
Planning FEB 1
TECHNIC 1988
_ . . �-SERVI _
Pollution Prevention Pays RES BRANCH
.. P.O. Box 27687,-Rakigh, North Cardiro 27611-7687 Tckphonc 919-733-7015