NC0021211_SPECULATIVE LIMITS_19971013

NPDES DOCYNENT SCANNINS COVER SHEET •;
NPDES Permit: NCO021211
Graham WWTP
Document Type: Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits-?,l
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (6713)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date: October 13, 1997
This dooumeat is pri=ated on reuse paper-igzzore any
coateat oa the reverse side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, .
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality tiY
r�
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor [D E H
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 23, 1997
Mr. Chris Rollins
City Engineer
P.O. Box 357
Graham, NC 27253-0357
Subject: Speculative Discharge Limits
City of Graham WWTP
NPDES No. NCO021211
Alamance County
Dear Mr. Rollins:
Reference is made to the request, submitted by David A. Hamilton, P.E. of Finkbeiner,
Pettis & Strout, Inc., for speculative limits for the proposed expansion of the City of Graham
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). We are hereby supplying limits that would currently be
assigned to the WWTP if the plant capacity were increased from 3.5 to 5.0 MGD at the current
discharge point in the Haw River.
At the current Haw River discharge site, the river has a drainage area of 614 square miles
and a corresponding 7Q]0 flow of 39.1 cubic feet per second, according to the most recent
estimate from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The proposed discharge location is within
the Jordan Lake watershed and is therefore classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). In
1983, the Environmental Management Commission adopted an NSW strategy which includes
total phosphorus limits for all new and expanding discharges in order to reduce nutrient loading
to Jordan Lake and prevent nuisance algal blooms. The specific nutrient limit and other
applicable limits would be assigned as follows:
Parameter Units Limits (30 day avp,.
BOD5 (Sum/Win) mg/l 8/16
N143N (Sum/Win) mg/l 3/6
DO (minimum) mg/l 5.0
TSS mg/1 30
pH SU 6.0-9.0
Fecal Coliform /100 ml 200
Residual Chlorine ug/I 28 (daily max)
Total Phosphorus mg/I 2.0
P.O. Box 29535,Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper

Mr. Chris Rollins
Graham W WTP Expansion
October 23, 1997
Page 2
A whole effluent toxicity test (WET) requirement with quarterly monitoring will remain a
condition of the NPDES permit. As in the existing permit, the WET test required will be a 7 day
chronic (Ceriodaphnia) test with a pass/fail limit at a test concentration of 17% for a design flow
of 5.0 MGD. In addition, a complete evaluation of limits and monitoring requirements for metals
and other toxicants will have to be addressed at the time of formal NPDES application.
Under current DWQ procedure, dechlorination and chlorine limits are now required for all
new or expanding dischargers proposing the use of chlorine for disinfection. The level of
residual chlorine in your effluent necessary to ensure against acute toxicity in the Haw River is
given above. The process of chlorination/dechlorination or an alternate form of disinfection,
such as ultraviolet radiation, should allow the facility to comply with the total residual chlorine
limits.
As you may know, DWQ has adopted a whole river basin approach to water quality
management and protection, and the current Cape Fear Basin Plan was completed in October
1996. The plan indicates that DWQ will be developing a field calibrated water quality model for
the Haw River from Reedy Fork to Jordan Lake. At this time data collected on the River are
insufficient to calibrate the model. The area of the Haw River watershed in question has several
major wastewater treatment facilities with a combined discharge volume of 75 MGD, which
results in a cumulative instream waste concentration of about 59% during 7Q 10 low flow
conditions at Saxapahaw. However, all available data indicates that the instream dissolved
oxygen (DO) levels in this area of the river are typically well above the North Carolina
(minimum) daily average standard of 5.0 mg/I. As a result of these conditions, the limits given
herein for oxygen demanding parameters are based on no net increase in pollutant loading from
the current wasteload allocation for the Graham W WTP.
Once completed, the model will address the cumulative impacts of oxygen demanding
wastewater discharges in the Haw River system. As a result, more stringent limits than those
presented in this letter may be required for the Haw River discharge in order to maintain water
quality standards for dissolved oxygen levels instream. The City of Graham may want to
consider the possibility of more stringent limits for oxygen demanding wastes when planning its
WWTP design. The City may also want to take into account the potential implications of the
Clean Water Responsibility Act, as recently enacted by the legislature. Pending final
interpretation from our Attorney General's office, the Act may require that all facilities
discharging to NSW waters meet limits for total nitrogen, whether or not nitrogen has been
identified as a parameter of concern in the particular water body.
Please be advised that response to this request does not guarantee that the Division will issue
an NPDES permit to discharge treated wastewater into these receiving waters. It should be noted
that a new facility involving an expenditure of public funds or use of public (state) lands and
having a design capacity of 0.5 MGD or greater (or a facility proposing an expansion of 0.5
MGD or greater), or exceeding one-third of the 7Q 10 of the receiving stream will require the
preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) by the applicant. DWQ will not accept a

^ Mr. Chris Rollins
Graham WWTP Expansion
October 23, 1997
Page 3
permit application for a project requiring an EA until the document has been approved by the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, and a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) has been sent to the state Clearinghouse for review and comment. The EA
should contain a clear justification for the proposed facility and an analysis of potential
alternatives, which should include a thorough evaluation of non-discharge alternatives. In
addition, an EA should show how water reuse, conservation and inflow/infiltration reductions
have been considered. Nondischarge alternatives, such as spray irrigation, water conservation,
inflow and infiltration reduction or connection to a regional treatment and disposal system, are
considered to be environmentally preferable to a surface water discharge. In accordance with the
North Carolina General Statutes, it will be required that the practicable waste treatment and
disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment be implemented. If the EA
demonstrates that the project may result in a significant adverse affect on the quality of the
environment, an Environmental Impact Statement would be required. Michelle Suverkrubbe of
the Water Quality Planning Branch can provide further information regarding the requirements
of the N.C. Environmental Policy Act.
Please note that the limits given herein are speculative and are not binding unless they are
part of an issued NPDES permit. All information pertaining to this request has been sent to our
Central Files for storage. If it becomes necessary to request an NPDES permit, please submit a
complete application package including fees appropriate for that point in time.
If you have any questions, please contact Jason Doll at [phone], extension 507.
Sincerely
onald Sa it, P.E.
Assistant Chi t Sources
Water Quality Section
cc: David A. Hamilton, P.E. —Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Inc.
Winston-Salem Regional Office
David Goodrich - NPDES Permits Group
Michelle Suverkrubbe - Planning Branch
Central Files

I
T 09 9711 50FR FPS•INC 910 555 5648 TO 19197339919 P.01/01
14,
i
lu PI hBEINtRIPFTIS�Ct STQIIT ' `C i
e
E
4 ( ( L 0 4 4 POSt-it'FaX Note 7871 D59 1� G) Oa9Bs�
k1� � ���� ,. To I
d� G1t
' _ F Pn rex Phone .
i � I
CO..%ULTING ENGINEERS On C FBx C 1�'
Mr. Do L. Safrit, P-E. ,I Chief Faxt . ,
ESTABLISHED NBD
ONECENIERYIEWORM Water uality Section
/')Iion of Water QualityNR4In. se 4..x rAxx 29535gh NC 27626-0535i /Q
u � Re: Graham, North Carolina
16.. I - col 0201 Facilities Plan
"It I" ,I u �� Oi, (Speculative Limits
y l V Request)
k I
Dear Don I I,
t r . . .
Oa;, behalf�`of the .Cicl of Graham, we are requesting
FPS ? speculative effluent•'limits for the Graham Wastewater Treatment i
*' Planti, (NPDES No.: N00021211), for the capacities of 3.5 MGD
i (existing .rated capacity). and! 5.0 MGD. This information will be II it
+4 i used `to include in a 201 Facilities Plan being prepared as
supportive documentationi forl!state funding programs.
f
We understand that 'a tiii11 currently under consideration
which applies to discharges to nutrient sensitive waters (NSW)
4' i,i t 'may limit Total 'Nitrogen in the near future. Knowing that Graham
ii tli E �� '
dischar es ito the' Jordan' Lake Watershed (NSW), we have been in
1 p� li ! �,;'
1 )j g I
IE1! I, �t.co ntact ;with Steve Pellei (DWQ-Permits and Engineering Section)
uiIto discuss the matter. Mr. Pellei indicated that Mr. Jason Do11
(wate'r quaiitymodeler for the Haw River basin) cited the "Jordan
1'5 Z. Lake NSW :kwbich ;,does not identifya need for a Total Nitrogen
i limit- :iAdditionally,' these two gentlemen were not aware of any
{t' localized iwater quality problems which would suggest the need for
4'•I �'I� ! ! �i'; a Total llNitrogen, lim>.t.
' { f J f# ;We 'erust this information is helpful to your staff in
�LII'evaluaung i speculative effluent limits for Graham. We look
forward 'to �hearing from you soon.
"''0iii!' . ' 'i '�' I I !' `l
t
I it�
Sincerely.
d'1
''�} '}�;'��• {� •x I�}� �3. �pla � '.� � it
A.I"5' e ,I i. ili •I
, . A. Hamilton, P.E. I,I .
G 1+ J; F ( �` LI , Project Manager 1
r: Chris Rollins, City Engineer
At ( �:
i
J:\GRA9701R\CDRRE4'\SrATE\S=IKf.LE7
r I I i
.•+
Na: TOTAL PRGE.01 >wR
�i I

�PQ4�,QNT OF ryF=�
United States Department of the Interior
o m
9
a U.S.GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
,RCN 3 �e Raleigh,North Carolina 27607
October 9, 1997
Mr. Jason Doll
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Doll:
In response to your request for low-flow data, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) does not have site-specific
data for Haw River below NC 54 near Swepsonville(station id 0209651875, drainage area 614 mi2), Haw River
above Big Alamance Creek at Swepsonville(station id 02096589. drainage area 697 mi'), and Big Alamance
Creek at mouth at Swepsonville (station id 0209681305. drainage area 262 mi'). The low-flow characteristics
that are provided on the attached sheets have been computed by correlating the runoff characteristics from nearby
sites.
Low-flow characteristics for the two request sites on the Haw River were determined by prorating,using drainage
area, the low flows at a nearby long-term, continuous-record gaging station located upstream (Sta. 02096500,
Haw River at Haw River,drainage area 606 n1i2). Examination of the topographical quadrangle reveals the pres-
ence of dams between the request sites and the index site. However, no information is currently available to indi-
cate that these dams are used to actively regulate streamflows. Therefore, low-flow characteristics for the two
Haw River sites were computed on the basis of`run-of-river" flow conditions through these dams.
The low-flow characteristics at the mouth of Big Alamance Creek were computed by correlating the runoff char-
acteristics at two upstream partial-record sites (Big Alamance Creek near Bellemont,drainage area 242 mil: and
Little Alamance Creek near Graham, drainage area 13.5 mi2). The low flows for this site reflect natural stream-
flow conditions and do not account for the effects of any diversion or regulation that may be present in the basin.
These data are preliminary and subject to revision pending approval for publication by the Director of the U.S.
Geological Survey, and are made available through our cooperative program of water-resources investigations
with the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact us at [phone].
Sincerely,
. '�/ *e aa"!�-cam
J. Curtis Weaver
Hydrologist
Enclosure
P.O. BOX 30728, RALEIGH, NC 27622• [phone] • FAX[phone]

SUMMARY OF LOW-FLOW ESTIMATES IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST
REQUEST NO: 9283 SITE NO: 01 DATE: 10/09/97
SOURCE: NC EHNR ACTION: Existing
STATION NUMBER: 0209651875 STATION TYPE: Un2aged (estimate only)
STATION NAME: Haw River below NC 54 near Swepsonville. NC
LOCATION: 0.2 mile below NC 54 and 1.7 miles north of Swepsonville
LATITUDE: 36002'47" LONGITUDE: 79°22'06"
QUANDRANGLE NAME AND NUMBER: Mebane [C-21-SE]
COUNTY CODE: Alamance [0011 STATE CODE: NC [371 DISTRICT CODE: NC [371
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 03030002 EHNR BASIN CODE: 03-06-02
DRAINAGE AREA: 614 mi2
Flow statistics as follows:
AVERAGE FLOW: Estimated using 0,99, ; ft3/s/mi2 60$ ft3/s see note [A]
ANNUAL 7Q10 MINIMUM FLOW: 0.0637 ft3/s/mi2 39.1 ft3/s see note [A
ANNUAL 30Q2 MINIMUM FLOW: 0.1815 ft3/s/mi2 11 ft3/s see note [A]
WINTER 7Q10 MINIMUM FLOW: 0.1474 @3/s/mi2 90:5 ft3/s see note [ A ]
ANNUAL 7Q2 MINIMUM FLOW: 01`320 ft3/s/mi2 81.0 ft3/s see note [A]
NOTES:
[A] Estimate is based on records collected at or near the request site.
[B] Estimate is based entirely on runoff characteristics observed at nearby streams.
[C] Estimate based on procedures given in USGS Water Supply Paper 2403 "Low-flow Characteristics
of Streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason, 1993).
[D] Estimate based on procedures given in USGS Water Supply Paper 2403 and in conjunction with
streamflow records collected at or near the request site.
These data are considered provisional and subject to revision pending approval by the Director, USGS.
REMARKS:
Requested by Mr. Jason Doll, NC Division of Water Quality (EHNR)
ENTERED BY: JCW
FEE CHARGED: $ 0

'V� !� �- 1, �,j � �� ,•�n,L �� �-� ��
• � I
it � w
x
600
' J ! ��••• m ir�o /
if,
3987
J s>d 1
.__ ,��_g°�--!'�� •�'1 � ° •\� - \� O �� � q� I 1`mil
1_.. J
FEET
M� ,.:�
1 µ9 1 :6W 20'
3679 22'30" iaeo 000 FEET `�

(I mean the big WE here.) all agree upon, then the WMP can be
developed to include the wetland creations, buffer
aquisitions/implementations, and urban and ag BMPs deemed neccessary
to achieve the needed nutrient reductions.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide comment. Let me know if you
need anything else on this issue.
Jason

SUMMARY OF LOW-FLOW ESTIMATES IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST
REQUEST NO: 9283 SITE NO: 02 DATE: 10/09/97
SOURCE: NC EHNR ACTION: Existine
STATION NUMBER: 02096589 STATION TYPE: Ungafed (estimate only)
STATION NAME: Haw River above Big Alamance Creek at Swepsonville. NC
LOCATION: 0.1 mile above Bit Alamance Creek and 0.25 mile southwest of Swepsonville
LATITUDE: 36'01'05" LONGITUDE: 79°21'55"
QUANDRANGLE NAME AND NUMBER: Mebane [C-21-SE]
COUNTY CODE: Alamance [0011 STATE CODE: NC [371 DISTRICT CODE: NC [371
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 03030002 EHNR BASIN CODE: 03-06-02
DRAINAGE AREA: 697 mil
Flow statistics as follows:
AVERAGE FLOW: Estimated using 0.99 ft3/s/mi2 690 ft3/s see note [A]
ANNUAL 7Q10 MINIMUM FLOW: -0.0637 ft3/s/mi2 44.4 ft3/s see note [ A ]
ANNUAL 30Q2 MINIMUM FLOW: "0.1815 'i ft3/s/mi2 127 ft3/s see note LA-]
WINTER 7Q10 MINIMUM FLOW: 0.1474 ft3/s/mi2 103 ft3/s see note [A]
ANNUAL 7Q2 MINIMUM FLOW: 0.1320 ft3/s/mi2 92.0 ft3/s see note A ]
NOTES:
[A] Estimate is based on records collected at or near the request site.
[B] Estimate is based entirely on runoff characteristics observed at nearby streams.
[C] Estimate based on procedures given in USGS Water Supply Paper 2403 "Low-flow Characteristics
of Streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason, 1993).
[D] Estimate based on procedures given in USGS Water Supply Paper 2403 and in conjunction with
streamflow records collected at or near the request site.
These data are considered provisional and subject to revision pending approval by the Director, USGS.
REMARKS:
Requested by Mr. Jason Doll, NC Division of Water Quality (EHNR)
ENTERED BY: JCW
FEE CHARGED: $ 0

m r
,
2 30, l JJo
zloo '� ram•', ` JJo \ \
606
\� ��,^i� 3156 pJ � •�V 19 � \\��
- •col , • � \ .��i. �, � /I .\ ��
a •��� I 7159 .. '' � •1�. O I �i
1 1✓_�,p tea /, �'\
MA—;
' D
N
Ni
820000
. mod. � \ '� :�, "� • � II(� r O C:1 irk �I;L,�,l(/� i�
�• 1
•� � ice. + � -.S i � Im �1\.. S' � J
FEET `�
36.00' 11 690000 FEET l yg l µg :e50 20'
79.22'30' -
u-___J ..I:�...1 e�.l ..��4.G�i.nA by fFo Gcnlneirpi Sn NOV - -

Aaa
Request No. Site No. Change
F Delete
USGS MASTER FILE - CODING SHEET
Station Number Type Station
rt
Station Name r
z
Latitude Longitude,
Sequential Number C . 0 Quadrangle Number . • . I^
County Code State Code .3 . 7 . District Code
Hydrologic Unit Code , i 2 i i j i i j NRCD Basin Code
Caged High Flow 1 e Computed High Flow o
Drainage Area ,
Percent Sock Type °A° "B°, °C° °D" ,
nEn+ I Fn + nGi:, Type `J I
i
Average Flow, a Range cfs to cfs _ 70 [ ]
i
7Q2 Min Flow . 0 Range cfs to cfs _ % [
i
3OQ2 Min F:1owi o Range cfs to cfs
7/C10 Min Flo % [
(Summer)
I�
r
7010 Min Flow m Range cfs to cfs
(Winter)
Geographic Factor Cleared Land in Basin
Channel Factor Tidal
Notcs:
[a] Estimate is based on records collected at or near the site, and the range
indicates approximate interval in which the actual value may .lie.
[b] Estimate is based entirely on runoff observed a, nearby streams and
therefore no degree of reliability is attached.
[c] The error in this estimate probably exceeds accuracy of the method used
and therefore only a range is given.
[d] Approximately.
Location:

SUMMARY OF LOW-FLOW ESTIMATES IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST
REQUEST NO: 9283 SITE NO: 03 DATE: 10/09/97
SOURCE: NC EHNR ACTION: Existing_
STATION NUMBER: 0209681305 STATION TYPE: UnQaged (estimate only)
STATION NAME: Big Alamance Creek at mouth at Swepsonville. NC
LOCATION: At mouth and 0.4 mile south of Swepsonville
LATITUDE: 36001'01" LONGITUDE: 79021'57"
QUANDRANGLE NAME AND NUMBER: Mebane [C-21-SE1
COUNTY CODE: Alamance [0011 STATE CODE: NC [371 DISTRICT CODE: NC [371
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 03030002 EHNR BASIN CODE: 03-06-02
DRAINAGE AREA: 262 mil
Flow statistics as follows:
AVERAGE FLOW: Estimated using -, 0.9.. ! ft3/s/mi2 ! 236, ft3/s see note [B]
ANNUAL 7Q10 MINIMUM FLOW: , 0.0122 ft3/s/mi2 3•2 ft3/s see note [ A/B l
3
ANNUAL 30Q2 MINIMUM FLOW: 0.0702 ft3/s/mi2 18.4 ft3/s see note A/B
WINTER 7Q10 MINIMUM FLOW: 0:0557 ft3/s/mi2 14.6 ft3/s see note A/B j
ANNUAL 7Q2 MINIMUM FLOW: 0.0408 ft3/s/mi2 10.7 ft3/s see note A/B ]
NOTES:
[A]Estimate is based on records collected at or near the request site.
[B]Estimate is based entirely on runoff characteristics observed at nearby streams.
[C] Estimate based on procedures given in USGS Water Supply Paper 2403"Low-flow Characteristics
of Streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason, 1993).
[D] Estimate based on procedures given in USGS Water Supply Paper 2403 and in conjunction with
streamflow records collected at or near the request site.
These data are considered provisional and subject to revision pending approval by the Director, USGS.
REMARKS:
Requested by Mr. Jason Doll, NC Division of Water Quality (EHNR)
ENTERED BY: JCW
FEE CHARGED: $ 0

l�
are "JI
600
5-,�\
1 J��� V�L ♦~ " �� sso s 0 / � ��h •� ���,t
•to ..� •� _ .n
taTii "�f�• 215d _ G.�1 i,(a ....r• �• � I I /"_l�/
. . ... iJ sew � r , l i \�.• �-� ' ��%i , //J/
ly
f)_�
6 Jap ' \ yy
NI
FEET a� ���/��_ Ai� �i�5p - �(( I✓� i.�'lli�%/ �.�
- 36.00' 11890000 FEET Iy8 149 1 650 20'
79.22'30"
Siirvov ....

�s y�� �� •fit �• pumpin Sta"1p
� n
1 I
nSah
�, � ,� s , r� � � f. � l9• i
if
�.7,. i. _, :.�� tir -t a �.>t:;' ^sso �• '• \ y �' � � /�.
„1 Via : � r _ o `� � Er Ot�# 't' �\�� • 1r
r.. •-x� - � �.. Z�r� � �G I�`v I � � II _ _. •eta/:S
r�J">s. z •820000 �-,� � � � � / 11 I �� ` � _i� �� I�
FEET
+- 36°00' t890000 FEET Isgg - Isgg i65O 20'
79*22
Mapped, edited, and published by the Geological Survey
Control by USGS and USC&GS
d MN
Topography by photogrammetrit methods from aerial ON
Yt
photographs taken 1967. Field checked 1969
Polyconic projection: 1927 North American datum ItM MI
LS
00,
10,000-foot grid based on North Carolina coordinate system to8 MILS
_ 1000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid ticks,
zone 17,shown in blue'
. Red tint indicates area in which only landmark buildings are shown
VTM GRID AND MAGNETIC NDRTH
AT C
r..- •,� �� DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEEP
cH-

DATE * ( /"-7 REQUEST No.
USGS Flow Data Request
Requested by: �T Sart no/1 — ��� �o%✓ of t,)a Leta (.
SITE No. 1 County River Basin Canel 2.-r -
-NRCD Sub Basin 00(e Oil _ Map No. or Nome A
Station No. n ' n26-5 LY- 5 Secondary or Primary Rood No.
PDX 6L/
Stream Name 14443 K'je,(-
Data Requested: Drainage Area Average Flower 30 Q 2
Winter 7 Q 10 Summer 7 Q 10 1L_
SITE 0. 2 County 4:10, erLrnn,: cr River Basin cAle- �Ar
NRCD Sub Basin
Q30(O0p- Mop No. or Name Me- Qlle=
0
Station No. Secondary or Primary Road No. - A
_V (
a (rJL(" pli(JD1F2 [`D11t� < vi � t1rTY1 (71 C
Stream Namea'^� Q v
Data Requested; Drainage Area L/ Average Flow✓ 30 Q 2
e �
Winter 7 0 IC) ✓ Summer 7 Q 10
N
1
7
Q
Q
N SITE No. 3 County River Basin
D3DG0� Map No. or Nome �lLrjiaAP
NRCD Sub Basin_ -
$ oaD9/es��3OS —Secondary or Primary Rood A-1A
a Station No.
Stream Name
Data Requested: Drainage Area --AeL Average Flow_ 30 Q 2
E Winter 7 Q 10 ✓ Summer 7 Q 10_+�
t
s
0

STATION: 02096500
Haw River @ Haw River
DATE FLOW TEMP DO %SAT BOD pH CONDTOTPNH3N NOx TKN TSS Fecal Cd Cr Pb Ni Cu Zn
(cfs) (deg C)(mg/I (%) (mg/1) (SU)(umhos (mg/1)(mg/l)(mg/1)(mg/l)(mg/l)/loom] (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1)(ug/1) (ug/I) (ug/1)
01/30/90 1360 8 102 86.2 1.6 6.8 94 0.21 0.03 0.73 03 86 <2 <25 <10 <10 11 24
02/20/90 2340 10 9.4 83.3 6.4 72 62 <2 <25 <10 <10 7 19
03/19/90 649 16 8.8 89.2 7.5 106 34 <2 <25 <10 <10 8 15
04/24/90 358 21 9.2 103.2 1.9 7.5 173 0.21 0.02 1.4 0.3 10 <2 <25 <10 <10 3 <10
05/23/90 705 18 8.2 86.6 7.1 239 42
06/18/90 183 24 8.2 97.4 7.5 306 20
07/23/90 129 29 7.4 96.2 1.2 7.7 359 0.68 0.05 3.8 0.9 16 <2 <25 <10 <10 10 20
08/29/90 167 28 7.2 92.0 7.6 282 31
09/19/90 100 20 8.4 92.4 7.9 550 610
10/24/90 11100 17 9 932 2.4 6.7 64 0.25 0.08 0.28 0.7 120 <2 <25 <10 <10 13 30
11/27/90 247 11 11.2 101.6 7.9 230 15
12/11/90 418 10 11 97.5 6.8 130 42
O1/28/91 562 9 11.2 96.9 1.2 6.8 145 0.2 0.28 1.3 0.7 21 <2 <25 <10 <10 8 <10
04/18/91 1000 20 8.6 94.6 2.4 7.5 83 0.12 0.02 0.45 23 <2 <25 <10 <10 4 <10
05/22/91 1870 21 8.2 92.0 7.1 86 40
06/19/91 2560 24 7.4 87.9 6.4 61 350
07/30/91 197 24 7.8 92.7 1.5 7.3 245 0.4 0.06 2 0.6 13 <2 <25 <10 11 9 18
08/26/91 124 24 7.4 87.9 7.5 510 3
09/23/91 173 19 9.4 101.4 7 252 10
10/30/91 178 16 9.8 993 3.4 7.7 401 0.55 0.03 2.9 1 7 <2 <25 <10 <10 13 27
11/19/91 170 14 10.2 99.0 7.9 366 3
12/11/91 307 11 10.2 92.5 7.3 256 4
O1/29/92 333 8 9.6 81.1 2 8 197 0.25 0.13 1.7 0.6 4 <2 <25 22 <10 6 22
02/14/92 7 12.2 100.5 7.2 95 0.12 0.29 0.51 0.9 27 340 <2 <25 <10 <10 8 13
02/25/92 455 13 9.2 873 7.7 230 18
03/30/92 327 14 9.4 91.2 7.8 207 1.3 1.3 0.56 2.9 15 1100 <2 <25 <10 <10 20 25
04/20/92 214 22 8.6 98.4 7.8 297 0.35 0.06 2.3 0.6 2 180 <2 <25 <10 <10 6 17
05/21/92 21 7.8 87.5 7.8 340 0.26 0.1 2.5 0.8 7 120 <2 <25 <10 12 23 40
06/11/92 23 7.6 88.6 7.5 104 0.19 0.06 0.74 0.5 22 500 <2 <25 <10 <10 8 321
07/21/92 118 27 7.2 90.4 7.7 480 0.72 0.06 3.7 0.7 3 10 <2 <25 <10 13 14 16
08/31/92 144 24 9.4 111.7 7.4 286 0.34 0.03 2.3 0.8 5 40 Q <25 <10 <10 11 16
09/24/92 435 19 9.2 99.2 7.6 325 0.49 0.04 2.5 0.8 21 780 <2 <25 <10 <10 <2 36
10/22/92 130 16 10.4 105.4 7.9 484 0.68 0.02 1.9 0.8 2 30 3 <25 <10 <10 11 51
11/19/92 267 10 11 97.5 75 156 0.14 0.06 0.98 0.4 4 100 <2 <25 <10 <10 7 <10
12/21/92 924 9 10.4 90.0 7.6 198 0.26 0.22 1.6 0.6 36 330 <2 <25 <10 <10 4 24
O1/13/93 1840 9 11.6 100.4 7.2 66 0.15 0.11 0.45 0.4 41 180 <2 <25 11 <10 7 <10
02/17/93 1940 8 12 101.4 7.4 108 0.2 0.17 0.48 0.5 50 3500 <2 <25 <10 <10 7 14
03/24/93 4810 13 10.8 102.5 6.8 89 0.28 0.12 0.52 0.8 150 6300 <2 <25 <10 <10 13 24
04/20/93 1060 19 9.4 101.4 7.1 0.1 0.05 0.52 0.3 1 100 <2 <25 <10 <10 22 11
05/18/93 290 23 8.4 98.0 7.5 224 0.2 0.06 1.5 0.5 7 390 <2 <25 <10 <10 6 11
06/22/93 153 25 9.2 111.4 7.4 445 0.56 0.05 2 0.8 7 10 <2 <25 <10 <10 9 23
07/20/93 416 29 7.8 101.4 6.6 193 0.32 0.04 1 30 1800 <2 <25 <10 <10 7 18
08/19/93 139 27 7.4 92.9 7.5 576 0.69 0.05 2.8 0.9 II 260 <10 <25 <10 <10 <2 41
Page 1

DATE FLOW TEMP DO %SAT BOD pH COND TOT NH3N NOx TKN TSS Fecal Cd Cr Pb Ni Cu Zn
(cfs) (deg C)(mg/l (%) (mg/1) (SU)(umhos (mg/1)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)/IOOml (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1)(ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1)
09/23/93 169 23 8.2 95.6 7.3 281 0.23 0.05 1.4 0.6 9 10 <2 <25 <10 <10 11 15
10/14/93 118 16 10.4 105.4 7.8 543 0.74 0.12 4.3 0.9 4 50 2 <25 <10 14 13 29
11/18/93 124 16 9.6 97.3 8 543 0.64 0.05 3.5 1 5 260 <2 <25 <10 10 10 55
03/16/94 12 10.2 94.7 7.4 166 0.19 0.72 0.91 1 12 110 <2 <25 <10 <10 5 72
04/25/94 20 9 99.0 7.5 253 0.18 0.01 1.7 0.4 7 190 <2 <25 <10 <10 5 <10
06/28/94 26 8.8 108.5 7.4 255 0.36 0.06 1.6 0.4 22 110 <2 <25 <10 <10 7 26
07/19/94 27 7.2 90.4 7.4 500 0.52 0.07 4 0.7 4 60 <2 <25 <10 <10 8 36
O8/24/94 26 8.4 103.6 7.3 171 0.21 0.04 0.78 0.4 15 680 <2 <25 <10 <10 6 <10
09/26/94 24 9.2 109.3 7.8 479 0.58 0.05 4.3 0.7 9 1100 <2 <25 <10 <10 5 49
10/20/94 17 9.4 97.3 7.6 464 0.52 0.08 2.2 0.6 4 70 2 <25 <10 <10 18 32
11/17/94 12 10 92.8 7.6 435 0.51 0.08 2.3 0.8 6 450 <2 <25 <10 <10 5 28
12/21/94 8 12.8 108.1 7.7 174 0.2 0.09 0.87 0.4 12 <2 <25 <10 <10 16 22
01/19/95 10 12 106.3 7.6 III 0.16 0.11 0.55 0.5 20 680 <2 <25 <10 <10 7 11
02/23/95 10 12.4 109.9 7.9 143 0.17 0.61 0.77 0.9 11 130 <2 <25 <10 <10 14 <10
03/22/95 17 10.8 111.8 8.1 151 0.16 0.07 0.9 0.4 9 1900 <2 <25 <10 <10 4 <10
04/20/95 23 9.2 107.3 8.1 354 0.38 0.05 2.6 0.8 4 1900 <2 140 <10 <10 23 31
05/18/95 24 7.6 90.3 7.8 367 0.38 0.08 2 0.6 5 190 <2 <25 <10 <10 8 38
06/21/95 23 8.2 95.6 369 0.43 0.09 2.9 0.5 14 220 <2 <25 <10 <10 8 110
07/24/95 31 8.9 119.8 8.1 414 0.61 0.05 3.5 0.7 6 I10 <2 <25 <10 <10 9 31
O8/28/95 25 8 96.8 6.9 60 0.28 0.09 0.26 0.7 190 9200 <2 <25 12 <10 21 59
09/26/95 21 8.8 98.7 7.5 286 0.36 0.08 1.5 0.5 10 210 <2 <25 <10 <10 10 42
10/23/95 16 9.5 96.3 7.4 112 0.16 0.11 0.52 0.4 19 2700 <2 <25 <10 <10 7 22
11/21/95 10 10.8 95.7 7.4 247 0.23 036 1.8 0.7 6 <2 <25 <10 <10 7 110
12/20/95 6 11.6 93.2 7.6 208 0.19 0.16 2.4 0.5 7 420 <2 <25 <10 <10 4 30
01/25/96 5 11.6 90.9 73 124 0.32 0.25 0.53 0.5 130 2300 <2 <25 18 <10 18 64
02/26/96 15 11.4 113.1 7.7 198 0.23 0.2 1.6 0.6 8 73 <2 <25 <10 <10 5 28
03/26/96 14 11.4 110.7 7.7 201 0.12 0.23 13 0.4 15 110 <2 <25 <10 <10 4 40
04/17/96 16 11.4 115.5 8.6 177 0.17 0.01 0.86 03 14 150 <2 <25 <10 <10 8 I10
05/29/96 20 8.4 92.4 7.5 121 0.19 0.05 0.65 0.3 56 5100 <2 <25 <10 <10 11 15
06/24/96 30 9.6 127.0 8 450 0.49 0.06 1.8 0.6 4 120000 <2 <25 <10 <10 6 41
07/24/96 29 8.2 106.6 7.9 552 0.66 0.03 3 0.6 2 18 <2 <25 <10 14 7 82
08/27/96 26 8 98.6 7.5 167 0.24 0.02 1.1 0.6 25 600 <2 <25 <10 <10 10 37
09/24/96 21 9.4 105.5 7.7 313 0.2 0.01 1.4 0.5 1 170 <2 <25 <10 <10 3 24
10/23/96 16 10 101.3 7.6 248 0.17 0.04 1.1 0.5 2 680 <2 <25 <10 <10 4 83
11/19/96 11 12.1 109.8 7.9 275 0.27 0.14 022 0.6 1 360 <2 <25 <10 <10 4 32
12/17/96 8 11.4 963 134 0.12 0.1 0.9 0.4 5 240 <2 <25 <10 <10 15 49
01/30/97 6 12.4 99.6 7.4 110 0.1 0.12 0.56 0.5 12 100 <2 <25 <10 <10 11 26
02/26/97 10 11.4 101.0 182 0.09 0.54 0.94 0.9 2 18 <2 <25 <10 <10 <2 14
03/26/97 16 11.4 115.5 7.5 153 0.19 0.25 0.97 0.7 12 230 <2 <25 <10 <10 2 57
04/28/97 14 11.6 112.6 6.9 92 0.2 0.1 0.44 0.7 100 910 <2 <25 <10 <10 <2 34
05/27/97 20 9 99.0 7.5 242 0.35 0.1 1.6 0.4 42 400 <2 <25 <10 <10 3 52
Page 2

FINKBEINER, PETTIS & STROUT, INC.
May 7, 1997
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ESTABLISHED 1900 Mr. DonZality
t, P.E. , Chief
ONE CENTERVIEW DRIVE Water Qction
GREENSBORO,NC 27407 Division of Water Quality
910-292-2271 NCDEHNR
9VNS55-5648 FAX PO Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Re: Graham, North Carolina
201 Facilities Plan
(Speculative Limits
Request)
Dear Don:
On behalf of the City of Graham, we are requesting
?S speculative effluent limits for the Graham Wastewater Treatment
Plant (NPDES No. NC0021211) for the capacities of 3.5 MGD
(existing rated capacity) and 5.0 MGD. This information will be
used to include in a 201 Facilities Plan being prepared as
supportive documentation for state funding programs.
We understand that a bill currently under consideration
which applies to discharges to nutrient sensitive waters (NSW)
may limit Total Nitrogen in the near future. Knowing that Graham
discharges to the Jordan Lake Watershed (NSW) , we have been in
contact with Steve Pellei (DWQ-Permits and Engineering Section)
to discuss the matter. Mr. Pellei indicated that Mr. Jason Doll
(water quality modeler for the Haw River basin) cited the "Jordan
Lake NSW" which does not identify a need for a Total Nitrogen
limit. Additionally, these two gentlemen were not aware of any
localized water quality problems which would suggest the need for
a Total Nitrogen limit.
We trust this information is helpful to your staff in
evaluating speculative effluent limits for Graham. We look
forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
I mavid A. Hamilton, P.E.
Project Manager
c: Chris Rollins, City Engineer
J:\GRA9701R\CORRESP\STATE\SPECLIMT.LET