NC0023884_Fact Sheet_20220603

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO023884
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Gary Perlmutter, [e-mail].
Date: May 23, 2022
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Complex Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑X Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant / Facility Name:
City of Salisbury / Salisbury WWTP
Applicant Address:
132 N. Main Street, Salisbury, NC 28144
Facility Address:
1915 Grubb Ferry Road, Salisbury, NC 28144
Permitted Flow:
12.5 / 20.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal: 93% Domestic, 7% Industrial'
Facility Class:
Grade IV
Treatment Units:
Bar Screen, Grit Removal, Activated Sludge System (Aeration,
Clarifiers), Chlorine Disinfection, De -chlorination, Diffuser in Yadkin
River
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
Yes
County:
Rowan
Region
Mooresville
1 Based on permitted industrial flow of 1.0518 MGD.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Salisbury has applied
for NPDES permit renewal, and submitted a renewal application dated December 13, 2018 to DWR,
received on December 20, 2018. The application included three effluent pollutant scans, sampled on
9/20/2016, 6/13/2017, and 3/6/2018. A fourth pollutant scan was received on January 24, 2020 for a
Page 1 of 16

sampling in December 2019. Results of the four second species tests were reported in the application from
samples collected on 12/15/2017, 3/26/2018, 6/15/2018, and 9/18/2018.
This facility serves a total population of —52,475 residents, including the City of Salisbury (-7,008
residents), Town of Landis (-3,131 residents), Town of East Spencer (-1,512 residents), and Town of Faith
(-824 residents). The Salisbury WWTP consists of two facilities known as wastewater treatment trains
(WWTTs) that were combined into a single discharge starting September 1, 2000. The trains include the
7.5 MGD Grant Creek WWTT, located along Grant Creek north of Spencer, and the 5.0 Town Creek
WWTT, which is located 2.3 miles southeast along Town Creek just south of East Spencer. The facilty
dischages a permitted flow of 12.5 MGD with an expansion tier of 20.0 MGD flow that was first placed in
the permit in 1996. Salisbury WWTP treats a combination of domestic and industrial wastewater with a
pretreatment program involving seven Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) with five received by Grant Creek
WWTT and two received by Town Creek WWTT. See attached POC review form for details.
The facility land applies biosolids from each train, dewatered via belt press and stored onsite, under Division
permit WQ0001956.
In the permit application the Permittee requested removal of the UV system and the Grant WWTT's two
trickling filters. These changes were made to the component list in the Supplement to the Cover Sheet of
the permit.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001/Yadkin River
Stream Segment:
12-(108.5)
Stream Classification:
WS-V
Drainage Area (mi2):
3,377
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
735
Effective 7Q10 (cfs):
348 at 12.5 MGD (based on 18.9:1 dilution instream)
736 at 20.0 MGD (based on 24.8:1 dilution instream)
30Q2 (cfs):
NA
Average Flow (cfs):
4,879
IWC (% effluent):
5.28% at 12.5 MGD
4.04% at 20.0 MGD
303(d) listed/parameter:
Turbidity, PCB Fish Tissue Advisory
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Statewide TMDL for Mercury
Subbasin/HUC:
03-07-04/03040103
USGS Topo Quad:
E17NW/Salisbury, NC
According to the 2018 Final Integrated Report and the 2020 Final 303(d) list, the receiving stream segment
of the Yadkin River consists of two assessment units: 12-(108.5)bl, and 12-(108.5)b2. Both units are
impaired for PCB Fish Tissue Advisory; assessment unit 12-(108.5)bl is also impaired for Turbidity.
3. Effluent Data Summary
Page 2 of 16

Effluent data is summarized in Table 1 for the period of February 2018 through January 2022.
Table 1. Effluent Data Summary.
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Limit 1
Flow, Total
MGD
8.701
24.944
4.724
12.5
Flow, Grant Cr WWTT
MGD
5.992
18.057
1.965
7.5
Flow, Town Cr WWTT
MGD
2.709
15.421
0.572
5.0
BOD5
(April 1 - October 31)
mg/L
6.45
47.7
< 2.0
MA = 15.0
WA = 22.5
BOD5
(November 1 - March 31)
mg/L
7.00
72.7
2.6
MA = 30.0
WA = 45.0
BOD5 removal
%
96.5
98.6
' ''
> 85
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS)
mg/L
12.7
92.0
MA = 30.0
WA = 45.0
TSS removal
%
94.8
97.7
9.3
> 85
Ammonia-N (NH3-N)
m /L
g
0.50
6.77
< n i n
MA = 6.0
WA = 18.0
(April 1 - October 31)
Ammonia-N (NH3-N)
mg/Ln
Rh
1
MA = 12.0
WA = 35.0
(November 1 - March 31)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
mg/L
7.64
12.09
5.03
DA > 5.0
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
#/ 100 mL
8.4
> 2419.E
< 1.0
MA = 200
WA = 400
Temperature
°C
18.4
25.7
10.5
pH
SU
6.79
7.37
5.92
6.0-9.0
Total Residual Chlorine
(TRC)
µg/L
20.3
43
< 20
DM = 28
Total Nitrogen
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
mg/L
10.44
20.60
4.75
Total Phosphorus (TP)
mg/L
1.68
3.00
0.100
' MA = Monthly Average; WA = Weekly Average; DM = Daily Maximum.
For the calendar year 2021 total effluent flow averaged 7.5 MGD, 60% of the permitted flow. The Grant
Creek WWTT flow was 5.3 MGD or 71% of its limit, and Town Creek WWTT flow was 2.2 MGD or 43%
of its limit.
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
Page 3 of 16

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 eight parameters: DO, pH, Temperature, Total
Phosphorus (TP), Nitrate -Nitrite (NO2+NO3), Ammonia (NH3-N), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and
Chlorophyll -a. The receiving stream is impaired due to Chlorophyll -a, which the above nutrients (TP,
NO2+NO3, NH3-N and TKN) can contribute to. The upstream location in the current permit is at least 200
ft upstream of the discharge point, and the downstream location is 0.7 miles above the Southern Railroad
Bridge. The Permittee is a member of the Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Association (YPDRBA); collected
data are from YPDRBA stations Q2810000 - Yadkin River at US 63 at Yadkin College (upstream) and
Q4660000 - Yadkin River at NC 150 near Spencer (downstream).
Instream data were obtained from the DWR Water Sciences Section's Monitoring Coalition database for
review. Data were reviewed from February 2018 through June 2021, and were compared against state water
quality standards where applicable. As the data were not sampled synchronously at both locations, up- to
downstream differences were compared visually, and their averages along with the concurrent effluent
average were tested using Single Factor ANOVA test followed by two -sample t-test if differences were
found. Statistical ignificance level (p-value) was set at 0.05. Instream data review findings for each
parameter are summarized below.
Table 2. Summary of YPDRBA Data from February 2018-June 2021 - Yadkin River.
Parameter
Upstream - Q2810000
Downstream - Q4660000
Average
Max
Min
'verage
Max
Min
DO (mg/L)
8.6
12.2
6.3
8.1
11.4
6.1
pH (SU)
7.0
6.1
7.3
7.0
7.4
6.4
Temperature (°C)
18.6
28.7
5.8
18.8
28.2
5.9
TP (mg/L)
0.14
0.76
0.02
0.12
0.27
0.03
NO2-N + NO3-N (mg/L)
0.99
3.16
0.68
0.87
1.14
0.05
NH3-N (mg/L)
0.10
0.34
0.02
0.11
0.52
0.02
TKN (mg/L)
0.65
1.95
0.23
0.68
2.42
0.20
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
72
99
50
79
112
56
Fecal Coliform (geomean)
(cfu/100 mL)
230
8600
36
214
6000
3
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) - DO remains in the permit as a parameter of concern for aquatic life. The receiving
stream segment of the Yadkin River is meeting the criteria for DO (5 mg/L for aquatic life in freshwater)
according to the Final 2020 Integrated Report. Reviewed instream DO data showed seasonal patterns of
summer lows and winter highs. 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. Statistical differences were
found among instream and effluent averages, and between the instream averages themselves with the
downstream lower on avearge. Concurrent effluent DO averaged 7.6 mg/L (range: 5.0-12.1 mg/L).
pH - pH remains in the permit as a parameter of concern for aquatic life. The receiving stream segment of
the Yadkin River is meeting the criteria for pH (6-9 SU for aquatic life in fresh water) according to the
Final 2020 Integrated Report. A review of the data found both up- and downstream pH were within the
fresh surface water quality standard (WQS) for Class C waters of 6.0-9.0 SU, referenced in WQS for Class
Page 4of16

WS-V waters (15A NCAC 02B .0218). Statistical differences were found among instream and effluent
averages, but not between the instream averages themselves. Concurrent effluent pH averaged 6.80 SU
(range: 6.3-7.2 SU).
Temperature — Temperature remains in the permit as a parameter of concern for aquatic life. The receiving
stream segment of the Yadkin River is meeting the criteria for Temperature (32°C for aquatic life in lower
piedmont and coastal plain waters) according to the Final 2020 Integrated Report. Reviewed instream
temperature data showed seasonal patterns of summer highs and winter lows at both locations. Temperature
maxima were below the water quality standard of 32°C for lower piedmont and coastal plain waters (15A
NCAC 02B .0211) at both locations. Since instream samples were not synchronous between stations, up -
to downstream temperature increase was not assessed for a given day. However, no significant differences
were found between concurrent up- and downstream locations on average.
Total Phosphorus (TP) — The receiving stream is monitored for TP as this pollutant contributes to algal
blooms, expressed as Chlorophyll -a exceedences, resulting in stream impairment. Significant differences
were detected between the two sites with the downstream average higher than the upstream. Concurrent
effluent data were substantially higher with an average of 1.62 mg/L (range: 0.21-3.58 mg/L).
Nitrate -Nitrite Nitrogen (NO2+NO3) — The receiving stream is monitored for NO2+NO3 as this pollutant
contributes to algal blooms, expressed as Chlorophyll -a exceedences, and resulting in stream impairment.
No significant differences were detected between the two sites. Concurrent effluent data were substantially
higher with an average of 7.23 mg/L (range: 2.60-12.30 mg/L).
Ammonia -Nitrogen (NH3-IV) - The receiving stream is monitored for NH3-N as this pollutant contributes to
algal blooms, expressed as Chlorophyll -a exceedences, and resulting in stream impairment. No significant
differences were detected between the two sites. Concurrent effluent data were significantly higher with an
average of 0.66 mg/L (range: 0.10-5.60 mg/L).
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) — The receiving stream is monitored for TKN as this pollutant contributes
to algal blooms, expressed as Chlorophyll -a exceedences, and resulting in stream impairment. No
significant differences were detected between the two sites. Concurrent effluent data were substantially
higher with an average of 3.40 mg/L (range: 1.89-8.80 mg/L).
Chlorophyll -a (Chl-a) — The receiving segment of the Yadkin River downstream of the outfall is exceeding
criteria for Chl-a (40 ug/L for aquatic life in all state waters) and is on the 2018 NC 303(d) list of impaired
waters for this parameter. Data available from the downstream station are from September 2011—July 2013,
before the current permit cycle. The average during this period was 14.63 µg/L and data ranged from 1.5-
38.6 µg/L, all below the standard of 40 µg/L (15A NCAC 02B .0211). No more recent data are available.
The closest downstream station with more recent data is lake station YADHRL051, 7.8 river miles
downstream of the discharge and 5.8 miles downstream of monitoring station Q4660000, in an upper reach
of High Rock Lake. Most recent data provided by the DWR Intensive Survey Branch were from the May -
October 2016 sampling season. Lake levels of Chl-a at YADHRL051 averaged 26 µg/L (range: 6.5-64
µg/L), with 2 out of 9 data points over the 40 µg/L standard. By comparison, lake station YAD 152A, located
about midpoint in High Rock Lake, has a higher average Chl-a of 55 µg/L (range: 20-80 µg/L) with 8 out
of 9 data points over 40 µg/L.
Conductivity — Conductivity is a parameter of concern due to industrial discharges. Instream conductivity
monitoring is not in the permit, but data are available from coalition monitoring efforts. Instream data from
September 2018—June 2020 showed a statistical difference between upstream and downstream stations with
the downstream average higher than the upstream. Effluent conductivity monitoring is not in the permit; no
effluent data are available for comparison with the instream data. Per the Division's 2002 Instream
Conductivity and Fecal Coliform Monitoring Guidance, Conductivity is not required if the facility
Page 5 of 16

discharges treated 100% domestic wastewater. Salisbury WWTP has a combined discharge with a
pretreatment program involving seven SIUs. Therefore, effluent and instream conductivity monitoring will
be added to the permit.
Fecal Coliform — Fecal Coliform is a parameter of concern for aquatic life and human health. Instream
conductivity monitoring is not in the permit, but data are available from coalition monitoring efforts.
Instream Fecal Coliform geomeans appear similar between stations, and concurrent effluent coliform counts
were substantially lower with a geometric mean of 7 cfu/100 mL (range: < 1-517 cfu/100 mL). Per the
Division's 2002 Instream Conductivity and Fecal Coliform Monitoring Guidance, Fecal Coliform
monitoring is not required unless the receiving stream is either a Class B waterbody or is impaired due to
coliform. The receiving water is neither, and together with the lack of apparent effects by the effluent,
instream monitoring for coliform is not required and will not be added to the permit.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): YES..
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Association (YPDRBA).
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility has reported 15
limit exceedences over the past five years (March 2017—February 2022). Of these, two BOD exceedences
(one weekly average in April 2019 and one monthly average in May 2020) proceeded to Notices of
Deficiency (NODs); and nine flow exceedences each proceeded to an NOD. The flow exceedences included
three total effluent, four Grant Creek WWTT, and two Town Creek WWTT. The remaining exceedences
were not acted upon based on Best Professional Judgement; one was a reporting error.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): The facility passed 16 of 16 quarterly chronic toxicity tests from March 2018—December 2021,
as well as all second species chronic toxicity tests, collected on 12/15/2017, 3/26/2018, 6/15/2018, and
9/18/2018.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The most recent inspection (compliance
evaluation), conducted 09/29/2021, reported no compliance issues.
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): A
CORMIX model was run in 2006 to compare against an earlier model run in 1995. It was also run to
accommodate a revised 7Q10 of 735 cfs, a proposed closure of 2 of the 3 diffuser ports, and critical lake
level of 5 ft from full pool. The resulting dilution factors were 18.9 at 12.5 MGD and 24.8 at 20 MGD. The
current permit instream waste concentrations (% IWC) of 5.28% at 12.5 MGD and 4.04% at 20 MGD are
based on the CORMIX resulting dilutions.
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA.
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Page 6 of 16

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
monthly average limits of 15.0 mg/L (summer) and 22.5 mg/L (winter) were set from the Wasteload
Allocation analysis for the Salisbury -Grants Creek WWTP in 1984 prior to its discharge combination with
Towns Creek WWTP in 2000. These limits are based on results of a Level B model conducted prior to the
1984 WLA. No changes are proposed.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/L (summer) and 1.8 mg/L (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria, utilizing
a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 µg/L) and capped at 28 µg/L (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 µg/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 summer/winter monthly average limits of 6.0/12.0 mg/L at 12.5 MGD and 1.0/2.0 mg/L at 20 MGD were
set in 1996 for the proposed combined flow of Grants and Towns WWTTs, formerly separate WWTP
discharges. The 12.5 MGD limits were originally set for the Grants Creek WWTP from a WLA in 1984,
based on a Level B model.
The current TRC limit was established in 2002 for periodic cleaning of effluent pipes using chlorine, as the
facilities used UV as the system disinfectant at that time. UV disinfection was used until it was discontinued
and replaced with chlorination during the current permit term.
Ammonia and TRC have been reviewed in the attached Wasteload Allocation (WLA) sheets for each flow
tier, using the effective 7Q10 flows of 348 cfs at 12.5 MGD and 736 cfs at 20 MGD as determined from a
CORMIX model run in 2006 plus consultation with USGS. Current limits for NH3-N were found to be
more stringent than the toxicity -based calculated results in the WLA sheets. TRC results are capped at 28
µg/L, the same as current limit. No changes in limits are proposed.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, 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.
In accordance with dissolved metals criteria implementation, which include hardness -dependent metals,
effluent and instream, upstream of the discharge sampling of Total Hardness will be added to the permit.
From consultation with the ORC and DWR Ambient Monitoring staff, the upstream location will be at the
Salisbury WTP River Pump Station in the South Yadkin River near its confluence with the Yadkin River
at 35°44'50" N, 80°27'39" W. Quarterly upstream hardness monitoring began in September 2019.
Page 7 of 16

A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between March 2018 and
January 2022. 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 at both flow tiers.
• 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 at both
flow tiers.
• 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, and Zinc at both flow tiers.
• 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 at both flow tiers.
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 at both
flow tiers.
o The following parameters that showed detection will not receive a limit or monitoring,
since they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria: Antimony, Chloroform, Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate at both flow tiers.
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: Salisbury WWTP is a Major POTW discharging domestic
and industrial wastewater with chronic WET limits of 5.28% effluent at 12.5 MGD and 4.04% at 20 MGD,
monitored quarterly. The WET limits are based on the % IWCs designated from results of a CORMIX
model run in 2006 to incorporate updated input information.
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
Page 8 of 16

of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed the WQBEL
value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/L) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL value of 47 ng/L.
Table 3. Mercury Effluent Data Summary.
Parameter j
2018
2019
2020
2021
No. of Samples
1
0
5
Annual Average Conc. ng/L
3.9
18.1
NA
18.1
Maximum Conc., ng/L
; 90
18.10
NA
10.00
TBEL, ng/L
47
WQBEL, ng/L
227.54 at 12.5 MGD
296.90 at 20 MGD
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: The current permit has a mercury
minimization plan (MMP) requirement from a previous mercury evaluation. The summary report was not
included with the permit renewal application, but was received on March 27, 2020 per request.
Annual PPAs had reported Total Mercury from tests using EPA Method 1631E since 2016. Quarterly
monitoring for the pretreatment LTMP used EPA Method 245.1 with all DMR results being < 0.2 µg/L;
results using Method 1631E were reported beginning January 2021. Review of effluent PPA data from 2018
through 2021 plus DMR data from January 2021—January 2022 revealed no annual average mercury
concentrations that exceeded the WQBEL, 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 samples
showed mercury levels > 1 ng/L, a mercury minimization plan (MMP) is required. The MMP currently in
the permit has been modified toward its maintenance. The Permittee was informed via the draft permit
cover letter in April 2020 that all mercury samples shall be tested via EPA Method 1631E for compliance
with the TMDL.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within
this permit: Salisbury WWTP discharge could potentially become subject to TN &/or TP limits in the next
several years, given that nutrient criteria are being developed for High Rock Lake to address the lake's
impairment for Chlorophyll -a. The current permit has weekly effluent monitoring for TN and TP, which is
more stringent than the monthly monitoring as required by 15A NCAC 2B .0500. Because weekly
monitoring is not required, monitoring frequency for TN/TP has been reduced to monthly at both flow tiers.
The current permit has instream monitoring requirements for TKN, NO2+NO3, NH3, TP and Chl-a. The
current permit also has a nutrient reopener special condition, added in 2014, for the implementation any
nutrient requirements in accordance with any TMDL or nutrient management strategy for High Rock Lake.
The wording of the special condition will be modified to include nutrient criteria in addition to TMDL or
management strategy.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: Salisbury WWTP
discharges into a WS-V waterbody, and therefore is subject to the Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3-N) water quality
standard of 10.0 mg/L for water supply waters (15A NCAC 02B .0218). Reviewed effluent data from
February 2018—January 2022 averaged 7.20 mg/L (range: 1.17-15.9 mg/L) NO2+NO3. An RPA was run on
the NO2+NO3 data spanning July 2021—January 2022 (n = 30 samples) against the water supply NO3-N
WQS of 10 mg/L for both flow tiers. No reasonable potential to exceed the NO3-N allowable concentration
was found at either flow tier, with the maximum predicted value being < 50% of each tier's respective
allowable concentration. No monitoring or limits are required, and none were added to the permit.
Page 9 of 16

A Chemical Addendum was requested from the Town, which responded by e-mail on 4/7/2022 that no
additional pollutants are expected in the effluent. The Town has a pretreatment program for the WWTP
involving seven SIUs, some of which are in categories identified by the EPA as potential sources of PFAS
group of synthetic organic compounds. No effluent data on these pollutants are available; and only two
instream data (one upstream and one downstream) were obtained from the PFAST Network from samplings
in 2019: 4.6 ng/L upstream and 9.4 ng/L downstream PFOS+PFOA, both below the EPA Health Advisory
Level of 70 ng/L. Due to the paucity of data, a special condition for monitoring has been added to the permit
for PFAS to be effective 6 months after publication of a final EPA wastewater method in the Federal
Register.
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 /TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/L for BOD5/TSS for 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: NA.
9. Antibacksliding Review
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
Page 10 of 16

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.
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 of 2/week for BOD, TSS and NH3 based on DWR
Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities. Reduced monitoring frequencies for the above target parameters were granted in a
permit modification issued in March 2013, in response to a request made by the Permittee in February 2013
demonstrating that eligibility criteria were met. These parameters were evaluated for continuation of
reduced monitoring frequencies via analysis of three years of submitted DMR data, from February 2019—
January 2022.
Review of effluent data spanning the time period above found all target parameters to meet the criteria of
the 3-yr average < 50% of their respective monthly average limit and no more than 15 data points exceeded
200% of their respective monthly average limit. Reduced monitoring frequencies for BOD, TSS and NH3-
N are maintained at 2/week.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective December
21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
electronically. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to submit
additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic reporting,
consistent with Federal requirements.
12. Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions
Permit conditions, limitations and proposed changes at 12.5 MGD and 20 MGD flow tiers are in Tables 4
and 5, respectively.
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes at 12.5 MGD.
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow, Total
MA 12.5 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Page 11 of 16

Flow, Grant Cr
WWTT
MA 7.5 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Flow, Town Cr
WWTT
MA 5.0 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Biological Oxygen
Demand, 5-day
(BOD5)
Summer
MA 15.0 mg/L
WA 22.5 mg/L
Winter
MA 30.0 mg/L
WA 45.0 mg/L
Monitor 2/week
No change
WQBEL. Based on protection of
DO standard as derived from
Wasteload Allocation analysis.
DWR Guidance Regarding the
Reduction of Monitoring
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities.
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. DWR Guidance
Regarding the Reduction of
Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities.
Ammonia-N (NH3-N)
Summer
MA 6.0 mg/L
WA 18.0 mg/L
Winter
MA 12.0 mg/L
WA 35.0 mg/L
Monitor 2/week
No change
WQBEL. Wasteload allocation
analysis to protect the DO standard.
DWR Guidance Regarding the
Reduction of Monitoring
Frequencies in NPDES Permits for
Exceptionally Performing Facilities.
Dissolved Oxygen
(DO)
>_ 5 mg/L
Monitor daily
No change
WQBEL. Based on protection of the
DO standard, 15A NCAC 2B .0200
and .0500.
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
MA 200 /100 mL
WA 400 /100 mL
Monitor daily
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200.
Temperature
Monitor daily
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0500 —Surface
Water Monitoring: Reporting
pH
6.0— 9.0 SU
Monitor daily
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200 and .0500.
Conductivity
No requirement
Add effluent and
upstream monitoring
15A NCAC 2B .0500 — Surface
Water Monitoring: Reporting
Total Residual
Chlorine (TRC)
DM 28 µg/L
No change
WQBEL. State WQ acute standard,
15A NCAC 2B .0200.
Total Nitrogen (TN)
Monitor weekly
Monitor monthly
15A NCAC 2B .0500 —Surface
Water Monitoring: Reporting
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Total Phosphorus
(TP)
Monitor weekly
Monitor monthly
15A NCAC 2B .0500 — Surface
Water Monitoring: Reporting
Page 12 of 16

Total Hardness
No requirement
Add effluent and
upstream 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)
Reword MMP toward
its maintenance.
In accordance with 2012 Statewide
Mercury TMDL Implementation, per
facility size and monitoring data
criteria.
PFAS
No requirement
Monitor 2/year with
delayed
implementation
Effluent data are needed to evaluate
potential instream impacts.
Implementation delayed until after
EPA certified method becomes
available.
Toxicity Test
Chronic
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Pass/Fail at 5.3 /0
effluent
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
amounts. 15A NCAC 02B .0200,
15A NCAC 02B .0500.
Effluent Pollutant
Scan
Three times per
permit cycle
Update sample years
to 2023, 2024, 2025
40 CFR 122
Electronic Reporting
Electronic Reporting
Special Condition
Update language,
Phase II to 2025
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD = Million gallons per day, MA = Monthly Average, WA = Weekly Average, DM = Daily Maximum.
Table 5. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes at 20 MGD.
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow, Total
MA 20 MGD
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0505
Biological Oxygen
Demand, 5-day
(BOD5)
Summer
MA 5.0 mg/L
WA 7.5 mg/L
Winter
MA 10.0 mg/L
WA 15.0 mg/L
Monitor daily
No change
WQBEL. Based on protection of
DO standard as derived from
Wasteload Allocation analysis.
Total Suspended
Solids (TSS)
MA 30.0 mg/L
WA 45.0 mg/L
Monitor daily
No change
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133/15A NCAC
2B .0406.
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Ammonia-N (NH3-N)
Summer
MA 1.0 mg/L
WA 3.0 mg/L
No change
WQBEL. Wasteload allocation
analysis to protect the DO standard.
Page 13 of 16

Winter
MA 2.O mg/L
WA 6.0 mg/L
Monitor daily
Dissolved Oxygen
(DO)
? 5 mg/L
No change
WQBEL. Based on protection of the
DO standard, 15A NCAC 2B .0200
and .0500.
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
MA 200 /100 mL
WA 400 /100 mL
Monitor daily
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200.
Temperature
Monitor daily
No change
15A NCAC 2B .0500 —Surface
Water Monitoring: Reporting
pH
6.0— 9.0 SU
No change
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200 and .0500.
Conductivity
No requirement
Add effluent and
upstream monitoring
15A NCAC 2B .0500 — Surface
Water Monitoring: Reporting
Total Residual
Chlorine (TRC)
DM 28 µg/L
No change
WQBEL. State WQ acute standard,
15A NCAC 2B .0200.
Total Nitrogen (TN)
Monitor weekly
Monitor monthly
15A NCAC 2B .0500 —Surface
Water Monitoring: Reporting
Total Phosphorus
(TP)
Monitor weekly
Monitor monthly
15A NCAC 2B .0500 — Surface
Water Monitoring: Reporting
Total Hardness
No requirement
Add effluent and
upstream 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)
Reword MMP toward
its maintenance.
In accordance with 2012 Statewide
Mercury TMDL Implementation, per
facility size and monitoring data
criteria.
PFAS
No requirement
Monitor 2/year with
delayed
implementation
Effluent data are needed to evaluate
potential instream impacts.
Implementation delayed until after
EPA certified method becomes
available.
Toxicity Test
Chronic
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Pass/Fail at 4.0%
effluent
No change
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
amounts. 15A NCAC 02B .0200,
15A NCAC 02B .0500.
Effluent Pollutant
Scan
Three times per
permit cycle
No change
40 CFR 122
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Electronic Reporting
Electronic Reporting
Special Condition
Update language,
Phase II to 2025
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD = Million gallons per day, MA = Monthly Average, WA = Weekly Average, DM = Daily Maximum.
Page 14 of 16

13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 04/08/2020, 04/21/2022.
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. NPDES Division Contact:
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact Gary
Perlmutter at [phone] or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): Comments to the draft
were received by NCDWR/Mooresville Regional Office/Public Water Supply (PWS), the City of Salisbury
(Permittee) and the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC). PWS concurred with the draft permit as
is, while the other parties requested changes/further actions to the permit. The City requested: 1) removal
of low level mercury testing; 2) monitoring frequencies be reduced for nutrients at both flow tiers; 3)
monitoring frequencies for BOD, TSS, Ammonia and Fecal Coliform be reduced at the 20 MGD flow tier;
4) a CORMIX model be rerun to lower the IWC; and 5) correct the latitude/longitude on the permit map.
SELC requested DEQ to require the City to disclose any discharge PFAS data to evaluate whether permit
limits are required. In response, DWR has retrieved instream sample PFAS data from the NC PFAST
sampling network upstream and downstream of the WWTP outfall in the Yadkin River. Concentrations
from samples collected in summer 2019 were 4.6 ng/L (ppt) upstream and 9.4 ng/L (ppt) downstream, well
below the EPA Health Advisory Level of 70 ng/L (ppt) for PFOA+PFOS.
The Division requested a Chemical Addendum from the Permittee on 3/15/2022 with a follow-up on
3/31/2022. The Permittee responded on 4/7/2022 that they have no additional parameters to report. A
special condition for PFAS monitoring was added to the draft and sent for a second public notice on
4/21/2022.
Comments to the second draft were received by NCDWR/Aquatic Toxicity Branch (ATB), the Permittee
and SELC. ATB offered a couple minor edits in the cover letter for clarity.
The Permittee had a number of comments for the Fact Sheet and Permit; the former for clarity, and the
second with requests for changes.
SELC made comments regarding PFAS: 1) suggest adding a statement that there is no permit shield for
PFAS discharge because of a lack of disclosure, and 2) consider addressing PFAS as a whole, not just
PFOA and PFOS.
DWR responses to the comments are provided in the 1st draft and 2nd draft fact sheet addenda, attached.
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
Page 15 of 16

Changes to the first draft:
• Effluent monitoring for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus has been reduced from weekly to
monthly per 15A NCAC 02B .0508.
• Effluent and instream monitoring for Conductivity has been added to the permit per 15A NCAC
02B .0508.
• Outfall coordinates were corrected on the permit map per Permittee's request.
• A Special Condition for PFAS monitoring, 2/year to be effective 6 months after the publication of
an approved EPA test method, has been added the permit, based on the need to gather data for
evaluation.
Changes to the second draft:
• The permit expiration date was extended to June 30, 2027 to better cover the five-year permit term.
Accordingly, the three years to sample for Effluent Pollutant Scan have been adjusted to 2024,
2025, and 2026.
• The system component list in the Supplement to Cover Sheet has been updated to reflect plant
upgrades communicated by the Permittee
• The effective date for effluent Conductivity monitoring has been delayed six months to allow the
Permittee to acquire equipment and lab certification.
• Instream Conductivity monitoring was added to the permit in agreement with the Fact Sheet, as
based on 15A NCAC 02B .0500.
• Footnotes in the Instream Monitoring section have been modified to clarify the waiver as member
of monitoring coalition for all parameters except Hardness.
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• Primary Pollutant Scans, December 2019 and June 2021
• Pretreatment POC review form
• 2020 NC Integrated Report, pages 1246-1247
• Effluent data trend charts and data summaries
• Instream monitoring trend charts and data summaries
• Monitoring Report (MR) Violations sheet
• WET Testing and Self Monitoring sheet, page 87
• Compliance Evaluation Report, 09/29/2021
• IWC Calculations sheets (one for each flow tier)
• RPA Spreadsheet Summaries (for each flow tier)
• Dissolved Metals Fact Sheet Memo - FW
• Mercury Data Statistics table and data sets (for each flow tier)
• MMP Summary Action Report
• 1st draft fact sheet addendum
• Comments to first draft from:
o DWR—PWS
o City of Salisbury
o SELC
• Chemical Addendum request and response from the Permittee
• 2nd draft fact sheet addendum
• Comments to second draft from:
o DWR — ATB
o City of Salisbury
o SELC
Page 16 of 16

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0023884
Outfall 001
Month December
Year 2019
Parameter
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Chloride
Methylene Chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Parameter
Code
34501
34541
77163
34371
34413
34418
34423
81549
34475
34010
34506
34511
39180
39175
Sample
Type
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Analytical
Method
EPA 624
Quantitation
Level
10
Sample
Result
< 10
Units of
Measurement
EPA 624
10
< 10
ug/L
ug/ L
EPA 624
EPA 624
10
< 10
ug/ L
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 624
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 624
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 624
EPA 624
10
10
EPA 624
EPA 624
EPA 624
EPA 624
10
10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
10
< 10
ug/L
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 624
EPA 624
10
10
< 10
< 10
ug/L
ug/L
Acid -extractable compounds
P-chloro-m-creso
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
34452
34586
34601
34606
34657
34616
34591
34646
39032
34694
34621
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
50
< 50
ug/L
EPA 625
50
< 50
ug/L
Composite
EPA 625
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
50
< 50
ug/L
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
50
< 50
ug/L
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Base -neutral compounds
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
34205
34200
CO220
39120
34526
34247
34230
34521
34242
34278
34273
34283
39100
34636
34292
34581
34641
34320
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 625
50
< 50
ug/L
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
22
ug/L
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
10
< 10
< 10
ug/ L
ug/L
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Form - DMR- PPA-1
Page 2

Annual Monitoring and Pollutant Scan
Permit No. NC0023884
Outfall 001
Month December
Year 2019
Parameter
Parameter
Code
Sample
Type
Analytical
Method
Quantitation
Level
Sample
Result
Units of
Measurement
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
39110
34596
34556
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
34536
34566
34571
34631
34336
34341
34611
C0626
34346
C0376
34381
C0700
39702
34386
34396
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
20
< 20
ug/L
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
Composite 1
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite I
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 625
50
< 50
ug/L
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4,-trichlorobenzene
34403
34408
34696
34447
34428
34438
34433
34461
34469
34551
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
Composite
Composite
EPA 625
EPA 625
10
< 10
ug/L
10
< 10
ug/L
"I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance
with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of
the person or persons who managed the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information
submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations."
Sonja Basinger
Authorized R,earesentative name
Cm
Signa �i re
01 // l *' ao ZO
Date
Form - DMR- PPA- 1
Page 3

NPDES/Aquifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form back
Check all that apply
from PERCS:
Date of Request
1/30/2020
municipal renewal
X
Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data we said should be
on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for you
Requestor
Gary Perlmutter
new industries
(or NOV POTW).
Facility Name
Salisbury WWTP
WWTP expansion
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific POC
Permit Number
NC0023884
Speculative limits
in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next permit
Region
Mooresville
stream reclass.
renewal.
Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
outfall relocation
- Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
Send
7Q10 change
PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA if
other
changes.
other
check
applicable PERCS staff: 'Other Comments to PERCS:
BRD, CPF, CTB, FRB, TAR
Vivien Zhong (807-6310) Facility is rated 12.5 MGD wtih 8 Sills listed in its application, and is listed
CHO, HIW, LTN, LUM, NES, NEW, ROA, YAD in POTW with pretreatment spreadsheet.
X
Monti Hassan W07-6314)
PERCS
PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
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
'-
:) facility has SlUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEV" if program still under development)
3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b) Modified Program with STMP
4
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
Flow, MGD
Perviitted
Actual
Time eriod for Actual
STMP time frame:
Industrial
l . C./ `�,�
Q.3 \ 5
" L.Q l c
Most recent:
Uncontrollable
n/a
Next Cycle:
I POC In LTMP/
Il STMP
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
POC due to
NPDES/ Non-
Disch Permit
Limit
Required by
EPA*Sludge**below)****
Required
by 503
to due
POTW POC
(Explain
STMP
Effluent
Freq
LIMP
Effluent
Freq
—
BOD
l
l
4
Q M
TSS
/
4
Q M
Q = Quarterly
'NH3
,/
4
Q M
M = Monthly
—Arsenic
—
✓
4
Q M
NI
Cadmium
Ni
/—
4
Q M
\I
Chromium
4
4
Q M
Copper
—
•%1
—'
4
Q M
yanide
l
4
Q M
Is all data on DMRs?
q
Lead
if
4
Q M
YES
t/
_Mercury
4
Q M
NO (attach data)
—Molybdenum
...----
4
Q M
d
Nickel
v`
—
/
4
Q M
—Silver
r
4
Q M
Selenium
l
4
Q M
'
Zinc
v
4
Q M
Is data in spreadsheet?
Total Nitrogen
—
4
Q M
YES (email to writer)
—Phosphorus
f
4
Q M
NO
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M
4
Q M
*Always in the LTMP/STMP ** Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge and app or composte (dif POCs for incinerators)
*** Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW **** Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concem to POTW
Comments to Permit Writer ex. ex anation of an POCs' info ou have on IU related in sti ations i o NPDES r 'ems :
�l
( �r { rv,� Stu �-� rip r 1,11I ki 3 Li is
23884 PERC NPDES_Pretreatment.request.xlsx
Revised: July 24, 2007

2018 NC Category 5 Assessments "303(d) List" Final
Lower Yadkin Subbasin
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
a
0 a)
L L.
W
-J
_1
I-
c
la co <
o '
•-
= ai >
0.1 7
00
01
4,
Ln
Parameter of Interest
00
47)
CC
Assessment Criteria Status
4- 4-
C
0 0
C.J
0 0
oI GI
A A
MI "0
C C
03 CO
00
1-1
Aj A
•)7_
•
0)
To
ro
WI
CL
0
To
5 •
0
Tu
_
a)
o
44V
,
0
CC
00
0
C
•
0
o 1 • '1.7,
0.;
cu E
O.
0.• cu
1 •
ba
C u
10 I 2
2,9
c
cc: 2
LLI 1 C.)
>
f0
2 "
— (.9
4-
0
CE
E
E
....
2
u_
4-1
.0
Lfl
4-4
Previous AU Number' 12-(108.5)b
'
Length or Area
13;
CD CO
s7
'C)
00 00
c c
i73 6
01 a)
a) a)
u u
x X
LLJ W
4-
0
-0
+-)
0
4-
0
0)
E
(0
10
. 0
7u !
! U
C (1)
c
.po
(13
u
GJ
O. 0
0
o
E
0 4-
C 0
E
a) 0)
to • 0
-1 a
—v 3
00
0 -a
0)
00
E
0
0 4-
a,
c
0 -
0 . u
a.
ec
_c
O. 2
3 ;
oa:1
I_
:5 CCU
= CU
7J C
c =
Z.7... (0 ' >
0 ())
CC
.4—.;
U.1I
0 4—,
C .
C2 co a ;
0_ 0 I
Z 47, '
2 E
ac ns I
u !
0cu
c/) i
u i cc !
u
i 2 ..o.0 LL.,
E cap,
u_ u)
2 3
Parameter of Interest
00
cc
5
4-
0
V)
cc
CL3
CC
z
LS.
LI-
0 I
5 ,
-0 1
0 1
a I
0)1
Id)!
.(4
I--
co
0 0!
.1— ..0.
4-
0
L.)
0)
-10
0
1-1
-
0
0.
A
"CS
0
A 1 A
Exceeding Criteria
.Chlorophyll a (40 ug/I, AL, NC)
Page 250 of 262
2018 NC Category 5 Assessments "303(d) List" Approved by EPA May 22,2019

2018 NC Intergrated Report
Lower Yadkin Subbasin
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
If)
00
O
N
r-I
Assessment Criteria Status
Parameter of Interest
Meeting Criteria
Arsenic (10 µg/l, HH, NC)
l LL I ILL
u-IjQ
i
Vf
a)
co
>
U 1 I U
C ; C
0; 0
-01t
-C I V i V
V;;�
> ! >
a)l 11—
> 0 ! 0
—
0 t�ifi I H
E E
�I i-0 :
Q' D0HV
O O:
N ' N
I
1
co L
r.
17
aJ 0)
7 •a) 1 •a)
o ;U 00 U1 !U
OD - I on U CIO ; ` OD
C C C C1C
=; I +J . ++
a I a) +' ' 0 � a�i
2 {2 a 2I 2
Chlorophyll a (40 µg/I, AL, NC)
O 0 0
N N N
r-1 I a--1
LL
u-
V
w
CC
Page 1677 of 1747
2018 NC Integrated Report
iI

2018 NC Intergrated Report
M
O
O
iot
0
M
O
Lower Yadkin Subbasin
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
Zinc Dissolved Chronic (varies, AL, FW)
4-
O
o
o .a
E ul
4- 06
O
a)o
-o
v) lV
E _ .
: ( L
Q) v
4-, S2
C
,3 c
o z
a▪ ) <
L In
o o
++ _
0)
> Lw.
O a
to V
C v
++ I l(G
i U to
a) 4- CA
Q. O u
O .t <
E o
E u-
L
O 4-
E v1
C 0 '
G)
_O I a
03
N E N
co
Y 21 N
CO C
V I 0
0 I' -a
re G)
.c .
110 +-.
▪ E a
0
0 o 4 Q
C Y o
Oi J �
i Y C
Q, o J
L
cc
N 'i
Q. tto
Q.
3 IA
V)
C I 2
:11 I m
_3 v
V c
C N
N
In
OD
O
ai
N
�
Classification
Collection Year
Assessment Criteria Status
a
v
co
C.)
Parameter of Interest
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/I, AL, FW)
N
ri
v
N
iJ
LL
Q
lD
0
Data Inconclusive
(G
M VI
Page 1678 of 1747
2018 NC Integrated Report

Salisbury WWTP
Effluent Monitoring NC0023884
16
14
12
10
0 8
2
6
4
2
Flow
Eff MA Eff Limit GC MA GC Limit TC MA TC Limit
• •
•• • • ••. •St •••
•. ••• •••• • ea • •••••• ••• •a••.••.
• r r .0.rr •• •••••. •u••!.
• •• ••• ■•• •
~-•••••••• ••• •w-e•••• `• •••••••
0
otio' otio otio oti1 otio otio otio otio' otio' oti°
\tiy\� tic'''. w\"' "5\o\ti c)\ti\ti o\ti°\� 1°\�,�\ti �\��\� ,'1' (0\ti$\�
MA = monthly average; Eff = Combined Effluent; GC = Grant Creek Wastewater
Treatment Train; TC = Town Creek Wastewater Treatment Train.
Wk Avg
50
45
40
35
30
o▪ n ▪ 25
20
15
10
5
BOD
Mo Avg WA Limit MA Limit
•
•
— Y♦_ —� . I
sr , a * • •
0
O,y ,O O,O O,� O,A O O • O _o• f
y��ti y\�ti�ti \y°oti 3\��ti c)\ti�ti oNN. ,s9C'�ti h\y��ti \ti�ti y��ti
50
45
40
35
30
.74 25
20
15
10
5
0
Wk Avg
TSS
Mo Avg WA Limit MA Limit
•
• •
•
•
• • • ♦
•
• • •t •40.414•44 el •
•
• t •• •
• •
O,y otio O,6 O,� O,� O,� oti$ )
419N.4)
\1 y\� �\�\o\ti o�ti�\� oti°\� tio�tiA\� h\tih\� y\� ��ti�\�
Summary Statistics
Effluent
n 1461
Avg 8.748
SD 2.787
Min 4.837
Max 23.94
Grant Cr WWTT
n 1461
Avg 6.069
SD 1.579
Min 1.358
Max 18.362
Town Cr WWTT
n 1461
Avg 2.679
SD 1.394
Min 1.034
Max 12.441
Summary Statistics
Summer
n 254
Avg 5.1
SD 3.4
Min 2.0
Max 47.7
Winter
n 181
Avg 7.4
SD 7.6
Min 2.5
Max 72.7
Summary Statistics
n 437
Avg 14.1
SD 9.9
Min 4.2
Max 92.0
Page 1 of 4 GB Perlmutter, 2/13/2020

Salisbury WWTP
Effluent Monitoring NC0023884
40
35
30
25
o"i 20
£ 15
Ammonia-N (NH3-N)
Wk Avg Mo Avg WA Limit MA Limit
10 - - - I - -
5----�#--�
0 AA iiluaA se. Aa.aLAA k_►.i, ALAAwA
Oh
�,• Co
O O,‘ �O�OHO
ti$\h\� �\O��\O� �O�,.,,,O
Atiti�\ti4 o\ a� o�ti,o
14
12
10
o. 8
E 6
4
2
0
0 O,O O,6 O,A O,A O,� O,� • O,� O,•
� O1,
��1y� ti��y\� (b\y4\'L �\�\ti ��� a\ti61' yo�ti1\� h�ti41' 1n\titi \N�\�
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
•
1000
Fecal Coliform
Wk Avg Mo Avg WA Limit MA Limit
•
o 04 • •
.. ▪ 10 • ♦♦ ■ •
sysiresi gir
lb • qt• • • II tmA‘ t
1 ~ •
%CP ON" '0,'' OS' O,A .0* 0,� O,' ON' 01'
��„41' ti�y\ ��ti41' ��to\� o��� o�ti61' tio�'\\' ��ti41' titiy� ��ti(\'
Summary Statistics
Summer
n 253
Avg 0.49
SD 0.75
Min 0.10
Max 6.77
Winter
n 181
Avg 0.86
SD 1.13
Min 0.10
Max 7.17
Summary Statistics
n 1026
Avg 7.42
SD 1.05
Min 5.03
Max 12.40
Summary Statistics
n 240
Geomean 10
Min 1
Max 5700
Page 2 of 4 GB Perlmutter, 2/13/2020

Salisbury WWTP
Effluent Monitoring NC0023884
60
50
40
- 30
20
10
0
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
• Effluent — — — Limit Compliant
•
•
• M •• •
AMP
oti' otio ooti oti oti' oti oti • ti' oti°
\�\�°\�h\�\�
Summary Statistics
n 1026
Avg 18.6
SD 4.8
Min 7.9
Max 26.1
Summary Statistics
n 1026
Avg 6.80
SD 0.23
Min 5.92
Max 7.80
Summary Statistics
n 995
Avg 20
SD 2
Min 20
Max 47
Page 3 of 4 GB Perlmutter, 2/13/2020

Salisbury WWTP
Effluent Monitoring NC0023884
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
oa 2.5
E 2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Summa Statistics
n 213
Avg 3.62
SD 1.36
Min 1.00
Max 9.10
NO2+NO3
n 213
Avg 10.00
SD 4.31
Min 1.17
Max 27.00
TKN
n 213
Avg 13.61
SD 4.37
Min 4.75
Max 30.50
Summary Statistics
n 214
Avg 2.12
SD 0.79
Min 0.21
Max 4.40
Page 4 of 4 GB Perlmutter, 2/13/2020

81011- Solids, Total Suspended. % Removal 81010 - BOD. 5-day. % Removal
Month Day Year Date Effluent Month Day Year Date Effluent
1 31 2016 1/31/2016 95 1 31 2016 1/31/2016 97.6
2 29 2016 2/29/2016 95.2 2 29 2016 2/29/2016 96.4
3 31 2016 3/31/2016 95.7 3 31 2016 3/31/2016 97.9
4 -30 2016 4/30/2016 93.7 4 30 2016 4/30/2016 96.8
5 31 2016 5/31/2016 93.8 5 31 2016 5/31/2016 96.7
6 30 2016 6/30/2016 95.6 6 30 2016 6/30/2016 98.3
7 31 2016 7/31/2016 93.1 7 31 2016 7/31/2016 96.9
8 31 2016 8/31/2016 91.9 8 31 2016 8/31/2016 98
9 30 2016 9/30/2016 92.9 9 30 2016 9/30/2016 97.3
10 31 2016 10/31/2016 95.2 10 31 2016 10/31/2016 97.4
11 30 2016 11/30/2016 93.7 11 30 2016 11/30/2016 96.7
12 31 2016 12/31/2016 94 12 31 2016 12/31/2016 96.8
1 31 2017 1/31/2017 93.2 1 31 2017 1/31/2017 97.1
2 28 2017 2/28/2017 95.6 2 28 2017 2/28/2017 97.9
3 31 2017 3/31/2017 95.1 3 31 2017 3/31/2017 97.8
4 30 2017 4/30/2017 91.8 4 30 2017 4/30/2017 96.3
5 31 2017 5/31/2017 95.1 5 31 2017 5/31/2017 97
6 30 2017 6/30/2017 93.8 6 30 2017 6/30/2017 96.4
7 31 2017 7/31/2017 94.4 7 31 2017 7/31/2017 96.9
8 31 2017 8/31/2017 95 8 31 2017 8/31/2017 97.5
9 30 2017 9/30/2017 94.8 9 30 2017 9/30/2017 97.4
10 31 2017 10/31/2017 95.4 10 31 2017 10/31/2017 97.3
11 30 2017 11/30/2017 95.5 11 30 2017 11/30/2017 97.8
12 31 2017 12/31/2017 95.3 12 31 2017 12/31/2017 97.7
1 31 2018 1/31/2018 93.8 1 31 2018 1/31/2018 96.4
2 28 2018 2/28/2018 96.2 2 28 2018 2/28/2018 97.8
3 31 2018 3/31/2018 95.8 3 31 2018 3/31/2018 98.1
4 30 2018 4/30/2018 94.3 4 30 2018 4/30/2018 97
5 31 2018 5/31/2018 95.4 5 31 2018 5/31/2018 98
6 30 2018 6/30/2018 96.5 6 30 2018 6/30/2018 98.6
7 31 2018 7/31/2018 96.1 7 31 2018 7/31/2018 98.4
8 31 2018 8/31/2018 94.3 8 31 2018 8/31/2018 97.2
9 30 2018 9/30/2018 96.1 9 30 2018 9/30/2018 97.9
10 31 2018 10/31/2018 96.4 10 31 2018 10/31/2018 97.9
11 30 2018 11/30/2018 95.3 11 30 2018 11/30/2018 97.7
12 31 2018 12/31/2018 92.5 12 31 2018 12/31/2018 96.1
1 31 2019 1/31/2019 95.2 1 31 2019 1/31/2019 97.6
2 28 2019 2/28/2019 92.9 2 28 2019 2/28/2019 96.3
3 31 2019 3/31/2019 93.4 3 31 2019 3/31/2019 97.4
4 30 2019 4/30/2019 91 4 30 2019 4/30/2019 95.2
5 31 2019 5/31/2019 95 5 31 2019 5/31/2019 97.1
6 30 2019 6/30/2019 95.3 6 30 2019 6/30/2019 96.2
7 31 2019 7/31/2019 95.8 7 31 2019 7/31/2019 96.7
8 31 2019 8/31/2019 95.9 8 31 2019 8/31/2019 98
9 30 2019 9/30/2019 96.1 9 30 2019 9/30/2019 98.4
10 31 2019 10/31/2019 95.7 10 31 2019 10/31/2019 98
11 30 2019 11/30/2019 94.7 11 30 2019 11/30/2019 96.8
12 31 2019 12/31/2019 93 12 31 2019 12/31/2019 97
n 48 n 48
Avg 94.6 Avg 97.3
SD 1.3 SD 0.7
Min 91.0 Min 95.2
Max 96.5 Max 98.6

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent Standard
2016-01-11 10.1 8.4 5.0
2016-01-12 10.9 5.0
2016-02-22 9.9 9.9 5.0
2016-02-23 9.4 5.0
2016-03-21 9.5 6.7 5.0
2016-03-22 9.9 5.0
2016-04-18 9.4 7.9 5.0
2016-04-19 9.2 5.0
2016-05-16 8.6 6.7 5.0
2016-05-17 8.4 5.0
2016-05-27 7.7 7.8 6 5.0
2016-06-13 6.9 6.7 5.0
2016-06-14 7.2 5.0
2016-06-28 6.8 7 7.3 5.0
2016-07-18 6.7 7 5.0
2016-07-19 6.7 5.0
2016-07-29 6.5 6.5 6.3 5.0
2016-08-15 6.6 6.4 5.0
2016-08-16 6.6 5.0
2016-08-30 7.1 7 6.1 5.0
2016-09-19 7.1 7.1 5.0
2016-09-20 7 5.0
2016-09-30 7.2 7.2 6.4 5.0
2016-10-17 7.9 7.2 5.0
2016-10-18 8.1 5.0
2016-11-14 10.2 9.1 5.0
2016-11-15 10 5.0
2016-12-12 10.1 9.1 5.0
2016-12-13 10.1 5.0
2017-01-17 9.9 8.2 5.0
2017-01-18 9.9 5.0
2017-02-13 9.7 6.7 5.0
2017-02-14 9.9 5.0
2017-03-27 7.9 5.1 5.0
2017-03-28 8.5 5.0
2017-04-24 6.9 6.8 5.0
2017-04-25 6.9 5.0
2017-05-08 7.3 8.4 5.0
2017-05-09 7.5 5.0
2017-05-23 7.1 6.5 5.0
2017-05-30 7.1 5.0
2017-06-19 6.9 5.7 5.0
2017-06-20 7.2 5.0
2017-06-30 7.1 7.1 6.6 5.0
2017-07-17 7 5.8 5.0
Page 1 of 4 GB Perlmutter 2/18/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent Standard
2017-07-18 6.9 5.0
2017-07-28 6.5 6.5 8.4 5.0
2017-08-14 7.1 10.2 5.0
2017-08-15 7.1 5.0
2017-08-25 6.8 6.8 6.5 5.0
2017-09-18 7.2 6.6 5.0
2017-09-19 6.9 5.0
2017-09-29 7.1 6.9 6 5.0
2017-10-16 7.4 6.8 5.0
2017-10-17 7.7 5.0
2017-11-13 9.4 8.1 5.0
2017-11-14 9.8 5.0
2017-12-11 11.1 8.8 5.0
2017-12-12 10.9 5.0
2018-01-22 10.1 8.7 5.0
2018-01-23 10.2 5.0
2018-02-19 9.6 9 5.0
2018-02-20 9.2 5.0
2018-03-19 9.6 8.8 5.0
2018-03-20 9.5 5.0
2018-04-09 9.1 8.2 5.0
2018-04-10 9.4 5.0
2018-05-14 6.9 7.5 5.0
2018-05-15 6.8 5.0
2018-05-31 6.8 6.6 6.2 5.0
2018-06-18 6.5 8.3 5.0
2018-06-19 6.7 5.0
2018-06-29 6.7 6.7 7.2 5.0
2018-07-16 6.7 8.3 5.0
2018-07-17 6.9 5.0
2018-07-27 6.9 6.8 6.6 5.0
2018-08-11 7.5 6.1 5.0
2018-08-27 6.8 6.8 5.0
2018-08-28 6.8 5.0
2018-09-20 7.7 7.2 5.0
2018-09-21 6.7 5.0
2018-09-30 7.8 6.9 5.0
2018-10-17 8.7 9 5.0
2018-10-18 8.3 5.0
2018-11-07 9.2 8.9 5.0
2018-11-08 9.4 5.0
2018-12-05 10 9.2 5.0
2018-12-06 8.8 5.0
2019-01-09 9.3 7.41 5.0
2019-01-10 9.1 5.0
Page 2 of 4 GB Perlmutter 2/18/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent Standard
2019-02-06 8.9 7.79 5.0
2019-02-07 9.1 5.0
2019-03-06 10.1 7.81 5.0
2019-03-07 9.5 5.0
2019-04-10 9 8.23 5.0
2019-04-11 8.7 5.0
2019-05-01 8.1 8.59 5.0
2019-05-02 8 5.0
2019-05-22 8.2 7.4 5.0
2019-05-23 7.2 5.0
2019-06-03 8.1 6.64 5.0
2019-06-04 7 5.0
2019-06-19 7.6 6.17 5.0
2019-06-20 7.3 5.0
n 59 59 57
Avg 8.1 8.0 7.5
SD 1.3 1.3 1.2
Min 6.5 6.1 5.1
Max 11.1 10.9 10.2
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Equal Variances
Upstream Dnstream
Mean 8.077966 7.971186
Variance 1.69692 1.777259
Observations 59 59
Pooled Variance 1.737089
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 116
t Stat 0.440036
P(T<=t) one -tail 0.330365
t Critical one -tail 1.658096
P(T<=t) two -tail 0.66073
t Critical two -tail 1.980626
Page 3 of 4 GB Perlmutter 2/18/2020

Salisbury WWTP
Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent Standard
12
10
8
▪ 6
own
E 4
2
0
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
♦ Upstream Effluent • Dnstream Standard
• 4
EN
mm ill" kit
. � • Wt r
am
ti� A` titi
ti�yy � (co
• � 1 • ti� ti�� ti� ti�
yh 3ti 4f yw A�A tih �ti
p'y A3 Qoi
Page 4 of 4 GB Perlmutter 2/18/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
pH (SU)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent L. Std U. Std
2016-01-11 7.4 6.8 6.0 9.0
2016-01-12 7.4 6.0 9.0
2016-02-22 7.4 6.7 6.0 9.0
2016-02-23 7.2 6.0 9.0
2016-03-21 7.3 6.8 6.0 9.0
2016-03-22 7.3 6.0 9.0
2016-04-18 7.3 6.7 6.0 9.0
2016-04-19 7.3 6.0 9.0
2016-05-16 7.3 6.9 6.0 9.0
2016-05-17 7.1 6.0 9.0
2016-05-27 7.2 7.2 6.8 6.0 9.0
2016-06-13 7.2 6.7 6.0 9.0
2016-06-14 7.1 6.0 9.0
2016-06-28 7.1 7 6.8 6.0 9.0
2016-07-18 6.9 6.8 6.0 9.0
2016-07-19 7 6.0 9.0
2016-07-29 7 7.1 6.9 6.0 9.0
2016-08-15 7.2 6.8 6.0 9.0
2016-08-16 7.1 6.0 9.0
2016-08-30 7.2 7.1 6.9 6.0 9.0
2016-09-19 7 6.9 6.0 9.0
2016-09-20 7.1 6.0 9.0
2016-09-30 7.1 7.1 6.9 6.0 9.0
2016-10-17 7.1 6.8 6.0 9.0
2016-10-18 7.1 6.0 9.0
2016-11-14 7.1 6.9 6.0 9.0
2016-11-15 7.2 6.0 9.0
2016-12-12 7.2 6.8 6.0 9.0
2016-12-13 7.2 6.0 9.0
2017-01-17 7.2 6.7 6.0 9.0
2017-01-18 7.2 6.0 9.0
2017-02-13 7.2 6.5 6.0 9.0
2017-02-14 7.3 6.0 9.0
2017-03-27 7.2 6.8 6.0 9.0
2017-03-28 7.2 6.0 9.0
2017-04-24 7 6.7 6.0 9.0
2017-04-25 7 6.0 9.0
2017-05-08 7.1 6.6 6.0 9.0
2017-05-09 7 6.0 9.0
2017-05-23 7 6.7 6.0 9.0
2017-05-30 7 6.0 9.0
2017-06-19 7 6.5 6.0 9.0
2017-06-20 7.1 6.0 9.0
2017-06-30 7.1 7 6.7 6.0 9.0
2017-07-17 7 6.7 6.0 9.0
Page 1 of 4 GB Perlmutter 2/18/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
pH (SU).
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent L. Std U. Std
2017-07-18 7 6.0 9.0
2017-07-28 7.1 7.1 6.5 6.0 9.0
2017-08-14 7 6.5 6.0 9.0
2017-08-15 7 6.0 9.0
2017-08-25 7.1 7.1 6.5 6.0 9.0
2017-09-18 7.1 6.5 6.0 9.0
2017-09-19 7 6.0 9.0
2017-09-29 7 7 6.5 6.0 9.0
2017-10-16 7.2 6.6 6.0 9.0
2017-10-17 7.1 6.0 9.0
2017-11-13 7.3 6.4 6.0 9.0
2017-11-14 7.3 6.0 9.0
2017-12-11 7.3 6.6 6.0 9.0
2017-12-12 7.2 6.0 9.0
2018-01-22 7.3 6.9 6.0 9.0
2018-01-23 7.1 6.0 9.0
2018-02-19 7.1 7 6.0 9.0
2018-02-20 7.1 6.0 9.0
2018-03-19 7.1 7 6.0 9.0
2018-03-20 7.1 6.0 9.0
2018-04-09 7.1 6.9 6.0 9.0
2018-04-10 7.1 6.0 9.0
2018-05-14 7.1 7 6.0 9.0
2018-05-15 7 6.0 9.0
2018-05-31 7 7 7 6.0 9.0
2018-06-18 7.1 6.9 6.0 9.0
2018-06-19 7.1 6.0 9.0
2018-06-29 7.1 7 7.2 6.0 9.0
2018-07-16 7.1 7 6.0 9.0
2018-07-17 7 6.0 9.0
2018-07-27 7.1 7.1 7 6.0 9.0
2018-08-11 7.2 7.1 6.0 9.0
2018-08-27 7.1 6.9 6.0 9.0
2018-08-28 7 6.0 9.0
2018-09-20 6.8 7 6.0 9.0
2018-09-21 6.9 6.0 9.0
2018-09-30 7.2 7.3 6.0 9.0
2018-10-17 7 7.1 6.0 9.0
2018-10-18 7.3 6.0 9.0
2018-11-07 6.6 6.3 6.0 9.0
2018-11-08 6.6 6.0 9.0
2018-12-05 7.3 6.9 6.0 9.0
2018-12-06 7.2 6.0 9.0
2019-01-09 7.2 7.03 6.0 9.0
2019-01-10 7.2 6.0 9.0
Page 2 of 4 GB Perlmutter 2/18/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
pH (SU)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent L. Std U. Std
2019-02-06 7.3 6.95 6.0 9.0
2019-02-07 7.2 6.0 9.0
2019-03-06 7.1 7.15 6.0 9.0
2019-03-07 7.1 6.0 9.0
2019-04-10 6.9 6.9 6.0 9.0
2019-04-11 6.8 6.0 9.0
2019-05-01 7.1 6.79 6.0 9.0
2019-05-02 6.9 6.0 9.0
2019-05-22 7.2 7 6.0 9.0
2019-05-23 6.9 6.0 9.0
2019-06-03 6.9 6.96 6.0 9.0
2019-06-04 7.2 6.0 9.0
2019-06-19 6.5 6.91 6.0 9.0
2019-06-20 6.4 6.0 9.0
n 59 59 57
Avg 7.11 7.08 6.80
SD 0.2 0.2 0.2
Min 6.5 6.4 6.3
Max 7.4 7.4 7.2
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Equal Variances
Upstream Dnstream
Mean 7.108475 7.083051
Variance 0.026651 0.026259
Observations 59 59
Pooled Variance 0.026455
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 116
t Stat 0.848973
P(T<=t) one -tail 0.198822
t Critical one -tail 1.658096
P(T<=t) two -tail 0.397645
t Critical two -tail 1.980626
Page 3 of 4 GB Perlmutter 2/18/2020

Salisbury WWTP
Instream Monitoring NC0023884
pH (SU)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent L. Std U. Std
9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
pH
Upstream Effluent Dnstream L. Std -U. Std
aft101111:Call
e yliggildialli,
i
N '4V y4� Aro 1'L y0 ,y1 yh Ay
A1�ti poi 0'3 A1i ADt y A`' N.
�ayh �oy� yoyV �oy1' �oyA �oof
yw �0 �0 �0
Page 4 of 4 GB Perlmutter 2/18/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Temperature, water (°C)
Date Upstream Date Dnstream D-U Diff Effluent Standard
2016-01-11 8.4 2016-01-12 6.9 -1.5 13 32
2016-02-22 8.4 2016-02-23 7.9 -0.5 13 32
2016-03-21 10 2016-03-22 10 0 13.8 32
2016-04-18 15.2 2016-04-19 15.6 0.4 15.8 32
2016-05-16 17.2 2016-05-17 17.6 0.4 17.9 32
2016-05-27 22.3 2016-05-27 21.3 -1 20.5 32
2016-06-13 24.6 2016-06-14 23.4 -1.2 22.8 32
2016-06-28 25.2 2016-06-28 24.9 -0.3 23.8 32
2016-07-18 27.3 2016-07-19 26.4 -0.9 24.8 32
2016-07-29 28.1 2016-07-29 28.2 0.1 26 32
2016-08-15 28.1 2016-08-16 27.3 -0.8 25.7 32
2016-08-30 25.3 2016-08-30 25.2 -0.1 25.4 32
2016-09-19 25.6 2016-09-20 24.6 -1 24.6 32
2016-09-30 24.3 2016-09-30 24.3 0 23.7 32
2016-10-17 18.6 2016-10-18 17 -1.6 20.9 32
2016-11-14 12.9 2016-11-15 11.1 -1.8 15.8 32
2016-12-12 9 2016-12-13 9.5 0.5 12.9 32
2017-01-17 11.3 2017-01-18 10.6 -0.7 14.2 32
2017-02-13 12.2 2017-02-14 10.3 -1.9 15 32
2017-03-27 15.6 2017-03-28 15.7 0.1 16 32
2017-04-24 16 2017-04-25 17 1 17.3 32
2017-05-08 17.1 2017-05-09 16 -1.1 18.4 32
2017-05-23 21.1 2017-05-30 23.1 2 21.2 32
2017-06-19 27.1 2017-06-20 24.8 -2.3 23.1 32
2017-06-30 25.1 2017-06-30 24.9 -0.2 22.5 32
2017-07-17 26.4 2017-07-18 26.4 0 24.5 32
2017-07-28 27 2017-07-28 26.5 -0.5 25.1 32
2017-08-14 26.1 2017-08-15 25.6 -0.5 24.8 32
2017-08-25 25.2 2017-08-25 25.1 -0.1 24.9 32
2017-09-18 22.6 2017-09-19 23.1 0.5 23 32
2017-09-29 24.3 2017-09-29 24.5 0.2 23.6 32
2017-10-16 21.3 2017-10-17 17.7 -3.6 22.1 32
2017-11-13 10.1 2017-11-14 12.5 2.4 15.2 32
2017-12-11 7.1 2017-12-12 8 0.9 12.3 32
2018-01-22 7 2018-01-23 10.4 3.4 10.9 32
2018-02-19 12.2 2018-02-20 13.8 1.6 13.1 32
2018-03-19 13.3 2018-03-20 13.5 0.2 14 32
2018-04-09 12.1 2018-04-10 13.3 1.2 14 32
2018-05-14 23.2 2018-05-15 22.4 -0.8 20.5 32
2018-05-31 25.3 2018-05-31 25.4 0.1 22 32
2018-06-18 27.5 2018-06-19 26 -1.5 23.9 32
2018-06-29 26.2 2018-06-29 26.3 0.1 24.2 32
2018-07-16 26.8 2018-07-17 26.2 -0.6 24.6 32
2018-07-27 26 2018-07-27 26.1 0.1 25 32
2018-08-11 25.7 2018-08-11 25.8 0.1 32
Page 1of 3 GB Perlmutter 2/28/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Temperature, water (°C
Date Upstream Date Dnstream D-U Diff Effluent Standard
2018-08-27 26 2018-08-28 25 -1 23.8 32
2018-09-20 22.7 2018-09-21 23.5 0.8 24.1 32
2018-09-30 22.1 2018-09-30 22.6 0.5 32
2018-10-17 19.5 2018-10-18 18.9 -0.6 22.4 32
2018-11-07 13.6 2018-11-08 14.2 0.6 19.1 32
2018-12-05 8.8 2018-12-06 7.8 -1 14.3 32
2019-01-09 9.4 2019-01-10 8.7 -0.7 14.2 32
2019-02-06 8.6 2019-02-07 10.3 1.7 13.7 32
2019-03-06 7.7 2019-03-07 7.4 -0.3 11.3 32
2019-04-10 16.1 2019-04-11 17.1 1 16 32
2019-05-01 20.4 2019-05-02 20 -0.4 18.4 32
2019-05-22 22.5 2019-05-23 22.4 -0.1 20.9 32
2019-06-03 23.7 2019-06-04 23.3 -0.4 21.7 32
2019-06-19 21.9 2019-06-20 22.1 0.2 22.5 32
n 59 59 59 57
Avg 19.23 19.08 -0.15 19.62
SD 6.9 6.7 1.1 4.7
Min 7 6.9 -3.6 10.9
Max 28.1 28.2 3.4 26
No. occurrences downstream
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Upstream Dnstream
Mean 19.22712 19.07627
Variance 48.09201 44.66598
Observations 59 59
Pearson Correlation 0.986575
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 58
t Stat 1.013229
P(T<=t) one -tail 0.15758
t Critical one -tail 1.671553
P(T<=t) two -tail 0.315159
t Critical two -tail 2.001717
Page 2of 3 GB Perlmutter 2/28/2020

Salisbury WWTP
lnstream Monitoring NC0023884
Temperature, water (°C
Date Upstream Date Dnstream D-U Diff Effluent Standard
Page 3of 3 GB Perlmutter 2/28/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Phosphorus (mg/L)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
2016-01-11 0.07
2016-01-12 0.09 1.5
2016-02-22 0.07
2016-02-23 0.09 2.1
2016-03-21 0.06
2016-03-22 0.08 2.1
2016-04-18 0.1
2016-04-19 0.1 2.4
2016-05-16 0.2
2016-05-17 0.13 2.3
2016-06-13 0.22
2016-06-14 0.19 3.4
2016-07-18 0.17
2016-07-19 0.16 3
2016-08-15 0.18
2016-08-16 0.17
2016-08-17 3.4
2016-09-19 0.29
2016-09-20 0.25 3.5
2016-10-17 0.2
2016-10-18 0.2 1.4
2016-11-14 0.17
2016-11-15 0.2
2016-11-16 3
2016-12-12 0.16
2016-12-13 0.13 2.8
2017-01-17 0.13 1.7
2017-01-18 0.13
2017-02-13 0.16
2017-02-14 0.13 2.4
2017-03-27 0.22
2017-03-28 0.16 2.5
2017-04-24 0.79
2017-04-25 0.49 2.6
2017-05-08 0.14
2017-05-09 0.18 1.8
2017-06-19 0.59
2017-06-20 0.32
2017-06-21 1.2
2017-07-17 0.16
2017-07-18 0.19 2.5
2017-08-14 0.17
2017-08-15 0.23 3.2
2017-09-18 0.23
2017-09-19 0.29 2.8
Page 1of 3 GB Perlmutter 2/21/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Phosphorus (mg/L)
Date Upstream
2017-10-16 0.17
2017-10-17
2017-11-13 0.16
2017-11-14
2017-12-11 0.17
2017-12-12
2017-12-13
2018-01-22 0.16
2018-01-23
2018-01-24
2018-02-19 0.12
2018-02-20
2018-03-19 0.13
2018-03-20
2018-04-09 0.17
2018-04-10
2018-04-11
2018-05-14 0.14
2018-05-15
2018-06-18 0.22
2018-06-19
2018-07-16 0.15
2018-07-17
2018-08-27 0.13
2018-08-28
2018-09-19
2018-09-20 0.22
2018-09-21
2018-10-16
2018-10-17 0.08
2018-10-18
2018-11-06
2018-11-07 0.08
2018-11-08
2018-12-04
2018-12-05 0.04
2018-12-06
2019-01-08
2019-01-09 0.06
2019-01-10
2019-02-05
2019-02-06 0.05
2019-02-07
2019-03-05
2019-03-06 0.08
Dnstream Effluent
0.19 2.6
0.17 2.1
0.12
2.3
0.14
3.4
0.15 1.3
0.12 1.6
0.15
2.1
0.17 2.5
0.19 2.5
0.16 3.1
0.12 2
1.1
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.9
1.2
2.6
0.208
3.58
1.22
Page 2of 3 GB Perlmutter 2/21/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Phosphorus (mg/L)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
2019-03-07 0.07
2019-04-09 2.25
2019-04-10 0.11
2019-04-11 0.08
2019-05-21 1.1
2019-05-22 0.09
2019-05-23 0.08
2019-06-18 2.18
2019-06-19 0.26
2019-06-20 0.27
n 42 42 42
Avg 0.17 0.16 2.22
SD 0.13 0.08 0.80
Min 0.04 0.05 0.208
Max 0.79 0.49 3.58
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Upstream Dnstream
Mean 0.173095 0.157619
Variance 0.017637 0.006545
Observations 42 42
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 68
t Stat 0.644975
P(T<=t) one -tail 0.260557
t Critical one -tail 1.667572
P(T<=t) two -tail 0.521113
t Critical two -tail 1.995469
E
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Total Phosphorus (TP)
�- Upstream
Effluent Dnstream
• A`
a
a
= ■ ▪ r • ■!a ■ ■■ •
■ •
■ ■
• ■• • •
♦ ■
♦
■ •-fttirt• iheida:. 1 -. -..+i L1 - - A g
3ti ti% A(O 51. do tiA ye oti
oNo`" 03 p° o°` ti° o`' ti1
L°yam ti°tip 'L°yA' 'L°yA 'LQ 'LQ 'Loyd tio,-
■
■
•
•
■
Page 3of 3
GB Perlmutter 2/21/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) (mg/L)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
2016-01-11 1.11
2016-01-12 1.14 10.3
2016-02-22 0.95
2016-02-23 1.03 26.6
2016-03-21 1.07
2016-03-22 0.98 14.7
2016-04-18 1.02
2016-04-19 0.97 13.8
2016-05-16 1.64
2016-05-17 1.19 15.1
2016-06-13 1.34
2016-06-14 1.32 12.1
2016-07-18 1.32
2016-07-19 1.17 9.9
2016-08-15 1.3
2016-08-16 1.24
2016-08-17 13
2016-09-19 1.45
2016-09-20 1.46 11.8
2016-10-17 1.41
2016-10-18 1.35 12
2016-11-14 0.96
2016-11-15 1.08
2016-11-16 11.9
2016-12-12 1.23
2016-12-13 1.09 17.2
2017-01-17 1.45 12.7
2017-01-18 1.26
2017-02-13 1.46
2017-02-14 1.26 10.8
2017-03-27 1.09
2017-03-28 0.93
2017-04-24 0.68
2017-04-25 0.74 3.97
2017-05-08 0.68
2017-05-09 0.71 11.7
2017-06-19 0.96
2017-06-20 0.87
2017-06-21 5.2
2017-07-17 1.28
2017-07-18 1.08 13.1
2017-08-14 0.85
2017-08-15 0.86 11.8
2017-09-18 1.04
2017-09-19 0.9 11.1
Page 1 of 3 GB Perlmutter 2/21/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) (mq/L)
Date Upstream
2017-10-16 0.59
2017-10-17
2017-11-13 1.13
2017-11-14
2017-12-11 1.4
2017-12-12
2017-12-13
2018-01-22 1.29
2018-01-23
2018-01-24
2018-02-19 0.87
2018-02-20
2018-03-19 1.1
2018-03-20
2018-04-09 1.03
2018-04-10
2018-04-11
2018-05-14 1
2018-05-15
2018-06-18 3.16
2018-06-19
2018-07-16 0.98
2018-07-17
2018-08-27 1.11
2018-08-28
2018-09-19
2018-09-20 0.91
2018-09-21
2018-10-16
2018-10-17 0.68
2018-10-18
2018-11-06
2018-11-07 0.81
2018-11-08
2018-12-04
2018-12-05 1.03
2018-12-06
2019-01-08
2019-01-09 0.85
2019-01-10
2019-01-05
2019-02-06 0.9
2019-02-07
2019-03-05
2019-03-06 0.79
Dnstream Effluent
0.84 18.3
1.02
1.08
14.5
1.18
7.39
0.98 7.38
0.85 7.37
0.94
10.4
0.97 2.96
0.98 8.21
1.07 10.1
1.02 9.55
3.39
0.88
0.7
0.79
1.03
0.87
0.98
6.52
6.39
6.95
2.86
3.19
2.18
Page 2 of 3 GB Perlmutter 2/21/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) (mq/L)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
2019-03-07 0.83
2019-04-09 3.87
2019-04-10 0.8
2019-04-11 0.73
2019-05-21 7.75
2019-05-22 0.84
2019-05-23 0.88
2019-06-18 11.4
2019-06-19 0.7
2019-06-20 0.7
n 42 42 40
Avg 1.10 1.00 9.99
SD 0.41 0.19 4.92
Min 0.59 0.7 2.18
Max 3.16 1.46 26.6
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Upstream Dnstream
Mean 1.101429 0.99881
Variance 0.170154 0.034411
Observations 42 42
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one -tail
t Critical one -tail
P(T<=t) two -tail
t Critical two -tail
0
57
1.470406
0.073475
1.672029
0.146951
2.002465
30.0
25.0
20.0
■
Nitrate -Nitrite (NO2+NO3)
♦ Upstream
• Effluent • Dnstream
■ •
15.0 •
oU • •M •• • %• • •
• 10.0 ■ ■ •
•
e, • _ ■
5.0 •
• ■♦ • • ma •
0.0 ►,id"ha i lea 44.*4a lia � � # � A;Mt el � OA
N. 3ti N. oo titi do A ti`' 00 O'ti At' o'i Doi Q NQ of N.
Page 3 of 3
GB Perlmutter 2/21/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Ammonia -nitrogen (mg/L)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
2016-01-11 0.05
2016-01-12 0.07 0.26
2016-02-22 0.17
2016-02-23 0.2 0.24
2016-03-21 0.05
2016-03-22 0.03
2016-03-23 0.24
2016-04-18 0.04
2016-04-19 0.08 0.76
2016-05-16 0.14
2016-05-17 0.11 0.31
2016-06-13 0.08
2016-06-14 0.07 0.48
2016-07-18 0.08
2016-07-19 0.06 0.28
2016-08-15 0.06
2016-08-16 0.07 0.27
2016-09-19 0.07
2016-09-20 0.12 0.32
2016-10-17 0.04
2016-10-18 0.1 0.31
2016-11-14 0.34
2016-11-15 0.14 0.41
2016-12-12 0.07
2016-12-13 0.03 0.3
2017-01-17 0.06 0.34
2017-01-18 0.07
2017-02-13 0.04
2017-02-14 0.08 0.31
2017-03-27 0.08
2017-03-28 0.06 0.39
2017-04-24 0.22
2017-04-25 0.29 2.1
2017-05-08 0.14
2017-05-09 0.1 0.27
2017-06-19 0.64
2017-06-20 0.08 1.1
2017-07-17 0.07
2017-07-18 0.16 0.24
2017-08-14 0.12
2017-08-15 0.17 0.18
2017-09-18 0.06
2017-09-19 0.1 0.27
2017-10-16 0.11
2017-10-17 0.12 0.22
Page 1 of 3 GB Perlmutter 2/21/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Ammonia -nitrogen (mg/l)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
2017-11-13 0.02
2017-11-14 0.03 0.34
2017-12-11 0.14
2017-12-12 0.04
2018-01-22 0.03 0.2
2018-01-23 0.05
2018-02-19 0.04 0.68
2018-02-20 0.09
2018-03-19 0.03
2018-03-20 0.14 0.47
2018-04-09 0.06
2018-04-10 0.06 0.43
2018-05-14 0.05
2018-05-15 0.16 0.32
2018-06-18 0.05
2018-06-19 0.07 0.27
2018-07-16 0.09
2018-07-17 0.02 0.21
2018-08-27 0.09
2018-08-28 0.09 0.24
2018-09-20 0.18
2018-09-21 0.11 0.22
2018-10-17 0.09
2018-10-18 0.13 0.4
2018-11-07 0.08
2018-11-08 0.05 0.39
2018-12-05 0.03
2018-12-06 0.08 0.16
2019-01-09 0.13
2019-01-10 0.09 2.55
2019-02-06 0.17
2019-02-07 0.09 0.67
2019-03-06 0.03
2019-03-07 0.26 5.6
2019-04-10 0.12
2019-04-11 0.1 1.34
2019-05-22 0.34
2019-05-23 0.16 0.68
2019-06-19 0.16
2019-06-20 0.16 0.59
n 42 42 41
Avg 0.11 0.10 0.62
SD 0.11 0.06 0.93
Min 0.02 0.02 0.16
Max 0.64 0.29 5.6
Page 2 of 3 GB Perlmutter 2/21/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Ammonia -nitrogen (mg/L)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Upstream Dnstream
Mean 0.110952 0.1021429
Variance 0.012292 0.0033392
Observations 42 42
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 62
t Stat 0.456651
P(T<=t) one -tail 0.324759
t Critical one -tail 1.669804
P(T<=t) two -tail 0.649518
t Critical two -tail 1.998972
Ammonia -Nitrogen (NH3-N)
♦ Upstream
6.0
5.0
4.0
J
E 3.0
2.0
■
Dnstream Effluent
■
1.0 ■
■ ■
•
0.0 ���-_
;'-' ' IIAI
N. 3ti ti� ADO titi y0 A' b� A,
0A 0ti 0� 03 0°' 0°` N 0`� titi
tiON'y tiON" tiON' tiON' tiON' tiON* tiON' tiON' tiON'
Page 3 of 3 GB Perlmutter 2/21/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Kieldahl nitrogen (mq/L)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
2016-01-11 0.32
2016-01-12 0.28 2.9
2016-02-22 0.22
2016-02-23 0.25 3.9
2016-03-21 0.45
2016-03-22 0.2 3.4
2016-04-18 0.36
2016-04-19 0.32 3.2
2016-05-16 0.47
2016-05-17 0.62 3.2
2016-06-13 0.38
2016-06-14 0.38 3.4
2016-07-18 0.27
2016-07-19 0.46 3.6
2016-08-15 0.32
2016-08-16 0.4
2016-08-17 3.5
2016-09-19 0.39
2016-09-20 0.39 4.3
2016-10-17 0.3
2016-10-18 0.36 3.4
2016-11-14 0.57
2016-11-15 0.45
2016-11-16 4.3
2016-12-12 0.44
2016-12-13 0.45 4.3
2017-01-17 0.43 3.2
2017-01-18 0.51
2017-02-13 0.28
2017-02-14 0.36 3.2
2017-03-27 0.43
2017-03-28 0.46 4.2
2017-04-24 1.92
2017-04-25 1.39 6
2017-05-08 0.52
2017-05-09 0.47 4.2
2017-06-19 1.15
2017-06-20 0.84
2017-06-21 3.1
2017-07-17 0.4
2017-07-18 0.68 4.8
2017-08-14 0.7
2017-08-15 0.62 3.6
2017-09-18 0.48
2017-09-19 0.39 3.7
Page 1 of 3 GB Perlmutter 2/21/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/L)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
2017-10-16 0.61
2017-10-17 0.66 3.1
2017-11-13 0.32
2017-11-14 0.21 3.2
2017-12-11 0.39
2017-12-12 0.36
2017-12-13 2.5
2018-01-22 0.28
2018-01-23 0.93
2018-01-24 9.1
2018-02-19 0.47
2018-02-20 0.56 3.4
2018-03-19 0.3
2018-03-20 0.2 3.3
2018-04-09 0.3
2018-04-10 0.51
2018-04-11 2.9
2018-05-14 0.38
2018-05-15 0.41 2.7
2018-06-18 0.4
2018-06-19 0.41 2.9
2018-07-16 0.33
2018-07-17 0.35 2.7
2018-08-27 0.44
2018-08-28 0.46 3.6
2018-09-19 5.6
2018-09-20 0.92
2018-09-21 0.81
2018-10-16 4.2
2018-10-17 0.51
2018-10-18 0.93
2018-11-06 3.8
2018-11-07 0.54
2018-11-08 0.42
2018-12-04 7.8
2018-12-05 1.24
2018-12-06 0.56
2019-01-08 1.89
2019-01-09 0.49
2019-01-10 0.46
2019-02-05 2.1
2019-02-06 0.81
2019-02-07 0.42
2019-03-05 4.35
2019-03-06 0.77
Page 2 of 3 GB Perlmutter 2/21/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
lCjeldohl nitrogen (mq/L)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
2019-03-07
2019-04-09
2019-04-10 0.92
2019-04-11
2019-05-21
2019-05-22 0.81
2019-05-23
2019-06-18
2019-06-19 1.48
2019-06-20
1.01
8.8
1.21
2.79
0.73
2.59
2.42
n 42 42 42
Avg 0.56 0.58 3.87
SD 0.35 0.39 1.55
Min 0.22 0.2 1.89
Max 1.92 2.42 9.1
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Upstream Dnstream
Mean 0.559762 0.5788095
Variance 0.123476 0.1533912
Observations 42 42
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 81
t Stat -0.2346
P(T<=t) one -tail 0.407555
t Critical one -tail 1.663884
P(T<=t) two -tail 0.81511
t Critical two -tail 1.989686
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
♦ Upstream
Effluent Dnstream
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0 4,
E 5.0 ,.
4.0 a • _ s i
11"at,
3.0 1 male . 1- I ihr•.. it ■'!
2.0
¢.
0.0 w'='6 ARIA. y.: gAsk♦IAAc
yh .5y N. CO titi y0 ,L'1 'yh ON'
o oN' O` A3 O°' Q. do Q .1:
Page 3 of 3
GB Perlmutter 2/21/2020

Salisbury WWTP
Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Chlorophyll a (ug/L)
Yadkin River High Rock Lake
Date Q4660000 Lake Std Date YADHRL051 YAD152A Lake Std
2010-09-14 1.5 40 11-May-16 6.6 54 40
2011-05-03 14.2 40 25-May-16 10 43 40
2011-06-28 38.6 40 08-Jun-16 6.5 20 40
2011-07-19 20.1 40 22-Jun-16 64 45 40
2011-08-30 12.9 40 10-Aug-16 24 80 40
2011-09-27 9.7 40 24-Aug-16 47 56 40
2012-05-08 28.2 40 31-Aug-16 33 61 40
2012-06-26 26 40 15-Sep-16 11 73 40
2012-07-17 34.3 40 05-Oct-16 30 64 40
2012-08-14 7.8 40
2012-09-18 2.3 40 n 9 9
2013-05-14 4 40 Avg 25.79 55.11
2013-06-04 8 40 SD 19.97 17.81
2013-06-04 8 40 Min 6.5 20
2013-07-30 3.8 40 Max 64 80
n 15
Avg 14.63
SD 12.02
Min 1.5
Max 38.6
Yadkin River Chlorophyll -a
•4,— Q4660000 —Lake Std
45
40
35
J 30
25
20
15
10
5
0
y� yo yo NN y'N. yti ,ti titi titi titi ) ,y3 y3 ,y3
�aa PNV �04 �e9 �.0 309 Oe` PQ� ��\ �& �a� 2a JQO °,
ci NS) y' 4' ono tip; ti3 oy N y� 1. 0�� tip;P 1,1,E
Page 1 of 1
GB Perlmutter 2/25/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Specific conductance (uS/cm)
Date Upstream Dnstream
2016-01-11 114
2016-01-12 133
2016-02-22 127
2016-02-23 143
2016-03-21 139
2016-03-22 137
2016-04-18 122
2016-04-19 139
2016-05-16 128
2016-05-17 140
2016-05-27 109 120
2016-06-13 112
2016-06-14 126
2016-06-28 135 131
2016-07-18 123
2016-07-19 131
2016-07-29 114 120
2016-08-15 124
2016-08-16 138
2016-08-30 120 134
2016-09-19 135
2016-09-20 144
2016-09-30 124 124
2016-10-17 127
2016-10-18 136
2016-11-14 112
2016-11-15 118
2016-12-12 125
2016-12-13 127
2017-01-17 122
2017-01-18 133
2017-02-13 138
2017-02-14 139
2017-03-27 120
2017-03-28 122
2017-04-24 110
2017-04-25 112
2017-05-08 130
2017-05-09 121
2017-05-23 109 133
2017-06-19 114
2017-06-20 109
2017-06-30 129 132
2017-07-17 126
2017-07-18 132
Page 1 of 4 GB Perlmutter 4/6/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Specific conductance 1uSlcm)
Date Upstream Dnstream
2017-07-28 136 141
2017-08-14 133
2017-08-15 125
2017-08-25 129 146
2017-09-18 119
2017-09-19 124
2017-09-29 120 119
2017-10-16 119
2017-10-17 128
2017-11-13 119
2017-11-14 119
2017-12-11 128
2017-12-12 122
2018-01-22 128
2018-01-23 119
2018-02-19 128
2018-02-20 131
2018-03-19 124
2018-03-20 137
2018-04-09 132
2018-04-10 142
2018-05-14 131
2018-05-15 132
2018-05-31 148 142
2018-06-18 136
2018-06-19 143
2018-06-29 145 139
2018-07-16 134
2018-07-17 132
2018-07-27 140 138
2018-08-11 76 83
2018-08-27 129
2018-08-28 124
2018-09-20 72
2018-09-21 77
2018-09-30 85 78
2018-10-17 50
2018-10-18 63
2018-11-07 76
2018-11-08 87
2018-12-05 79
2018-12-06 82
2019-01-09 50
2019-01-10 68
2019-02-06 71
Page 2 of 4 GB Perlmutter 4/6/2020

Salisbury WWTP lnstream Monitoring NC0023884
Specific conductance (uS/cm)
Date Upstream Dnstream
2019-02-07 74
2019-03-06 60
2019-03-07 68
2019-04-10 75
2019-04-11 78
2019-05-01 76
2019-05-02 84
2019-05-22 73
2019-05-23 85
2019-06-03 80
2019-06-04 86
2019-06-19 53
2019-06-20 62
1 /11 /2016 - 8/11/2018 8/27/2018 - 6/20/2019
n 59 57 Overall Upstream Dnstream Overall Upstream Dnstream
Avg 112.58 117.83 127.21 124.73 129.69 76.61 73.50 79.71
SD 26.06 24.76 11.98 12.00 11.56 17.54 19.64 15.24
Min 50 62 76 76 83 50 50 62
Max 148 146 148 148 146 129 129 124
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Overall data Upstream Dnstream
Mean 112.5763 117.83051
Variance 678.9725 613.17767
Observations 59 59
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 116
t Stat -1.12274
P(T<=t) one -tail 0.131933
t Critical one -tail 1.658096
P(T<=t) two -tail 0.263866
t Critical two -tail 1.980626
No sig difference
Conductivity (Specific Conductance)
♦ Upstream • Dnstream
160
140 ♦_r�
120�'1�! ,
100 -
E 80 -
-- 60 -
= 40 -
20 -
0 — I_ L
ti`' 3ti N. o`° 1, yo ti1 yh oti
AA, oti A4i 6), Ao' o°r ,yo oy ,Q
♦ ♦ ♦
Page 3 of 4 GB Perlmutter 4/6/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Specific conductance (uS/cm)
Date Upstream Dnstream
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Jan 11, 2016 - Aug 11, 2018 Upstream Dnstream
Mean 124.7333 129.68889
Variance 144.0182 133.58283
Observations 45 45
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 88
t Stat -1.99521
P(T<=t) one -tail 0.024557
t Critical one -tail 1.662354
P(T<=t) two -tail 0.049114
t Critical two -tail 1.98729
t-Test: Two -Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Aug 27, 2018 - Jun 20, 2019 Upstream Dnstream
Mean 73.5 79.714286
Variance 385.8077 232.21978
Observations 14 14
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 24
t Stat -0.9353
P(T<=t) one -tail 0.179475
t Critical one -tail 1.710882
P(T<=t) two -tail 0.35895
t Critical two -tail 2.063899
Dnstream sig higher
No sig difference
Page 4 of 4 GB Perlmutter 4/6/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Fecal coliform (cfu/100 mLt
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
2016-01-11 94
2016-01-12 390 2
2016-02-22 58
2016-02-23 50 10
2016-03-21 52
2016-03-22 40 52
2016-04-18 44
2016-04-19 37 4
2016-05-16 106
2016-05-17 230 50
2016-06-13 54
2016-06-14 33 4
2016-07-18 72
2016-07-19 46 66
2016-08-15 92
2016-08-16 146 28
2016-09-19 84
2016-09-20 50 13
2016-10-17 78
2016-10-18 96 27
2016-11-14 56
2016-11-15 62 74
2016-12-12 66
2016-12-13 148 450
2017-01-17 76 8
2017-01-18 74
2017-02-13 66
2017-02-14 92 3
2017-03-27 72
2017-03-28 3400 2
2017-04-24 133
2017-04-25 4000 2
2017-05-08 50
2017-05-09 165 24
2017-06-19 120
2017-06-20 2400 4
2017-07-17 64
2017-07-18 58 81
2017-08-14 80
2017-08-15 102 12
2017-09-18 86
2017-09-19 121 14
2017-10-16 62
2017-10-17 137 55
2017-11-13 74
Page 1 of 3 GB Perlmutter 2/24/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Fecal coliform (cfu/100 mil
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
2017-11-14 98 1
2017-12-11 62
2017-12-12 144 2
2018-01-22 66
2018-01-23 20 3
2018-02-19 74
2018-02-20 98 1
2018-03-19 60
2018-03-20 58 1
2018-04-09 68 5
2018-04-10 74
2018-05-14 66 1
2018-05-15 34
2018-06-18 66 1
2018-06-19 80
2018-07-16 68 22
2018-07-17 210
2018-08-27 70 20
2018-08-28 257
2018-09-20 655 5
2018-09-21 400
2018-10-17 600
2018-10-18 470 1
2018-11-07 510
2018-11-08 1000 3
2018-12-05 52
2018-12-06 98 14
2019-01-09 90
2019-01-10 84 3.1
2019-02-06 110
2019-02-07 44 5.2
2019-03-06 177
2019-03-07 70 1
2019-04-10 470
2019-04-11 430 172
2019-05-22 98
2019-05-23 64 10.6
2019-06-19 6000
2019-06-20 6000 7.3
n 42 42 42
Geomean 100 143 8
Min 44 20 1
Max 6000 6000 450
Page 2 of 3 GB Perlmutter 2/24/2020

Salisbury WWTP Instream Monitoring NC0023884
Fecal coliform (cfu/IOU ml)
Date Upstream Dnstream Effluent
Upstream
10,000
Fecal Coliform
Effluent Dnstream
a
•
1,000
E • #
•
• RI
to .. ■ lib
e e1 • ae •e■ i
1 1-1 it _mil!— —.-
,yh '),N.Ng) 00 titi y0 ' , ,y<1 O,
01 A'y 0� 0'i poi ODt ,y0 (1, N.
O,� O,O O,O O,�' O,� O,� O,� O,O IS*
ti ti ti 1,1, ti 1, '1, ti
Page 3 of 3 GB Perlmutter 2/24/2020

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Program Category: NPDES WW
Violation Action: Rio
0
CD
0
7
E _t
' C
O N
0 .0
U co
c
0
0
0
Param Name
Facility Name:
Major Minor: %
REGION: Mooresville
FACILITY: City of Salisbury - City of Salisbury WWTP
NC0023884
VIOLATION ACTION
VIOLATION TYPE
eo
0
W
5W
7
D
J
0
U
H
J
LLLLI
CC
F CO
Z W
FREQUENCY
PARAMETER
Z
J
LL
H
O
C 0
Z.
CC D!
> O W
OK
Proceed to NOD
No Action, BPJ
No Action, BPJ
No Action, BPJ
No Action, BPJ
Proceed to NOD
Proceed to NOD
Proceed to NOD
No Action, BPJ
Proceed to NOD
Proceed to NOD
Proceed to NOD
No Action, BPJ
Proceed to NOD
.8. or E E E E 0) o) o) Z 0) lt 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
E a a 3 a 7 a a a a:11, a E a a R a a a a
Q m CO 0 m m m m m m Q m Q m Q m Q m Q m Q m Q m Q m Q m
>, m 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 m - m , m c m �, m a m a m a, 8 a. m n, o
U U U U y U U U U
Y X >, X >. X >. X T X X fa, X t_. .t_. X t-. X E X X ..s X X
m W W W W WW A c W c W c W -dui 0 W C W
3 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 W 0 Q 0 .2 0 0 2 2
M O 00 10 0) O M CO M O) 0) N co a0
01 co N .�- fV — C7co
1-- P 0) CO
n CO M M N ON) 0 N
N M 1D ti co W GD Ip 1(7
to
coCO CO0
N N N (V
u u- U-J
N 0
co to u) U) In u')
1- n r; c-
c� a a a a a a a a a
E >' 3) >' 3) E E E m E E E E E E
N m m m m (0 m m m
m m 0)) m m 0 0 0 m 0 0 7 0 0 7
3 3 0 0 3 c c c 0 c c c c c c
c c c c c c c c c
x x x X x 0 0 o X 0 0 0 0 0 0
N in in in ID U 0 U to U 0 0 U 0 0
D) CO ID O) 0) CO 0) 0) 0) CO COO) D) in co
N N M M N N M M M N M M
0 a- 00 0 - 0 0
U o•
3 3 3 > > 3 2 > > 2 0 2
N
a_ • v_ a_ w r £ Y
0° o m o m o Ica 0 W o m o m O W o m 0 m
0 E a •j a 5 a 5 a 5 a 5 a 5a 5a •j a
v C m R R IaR C E C C C C = C C '2C c C C C C C C
m 8coy E co) E co) E a 8 E 8 E co) E $ E coi ,,F 8E
C G) m N m c l0 c co its W 0 N c N C l6 c /0 c l0
0 O O O O 0 0 O~ 8 0 0 O O 0
m U U U U u- u_LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
doi
iloi
dol
C C 0 0 0 C C 0 C 0 C C c C 0
a) a) co a) a)m a) a) a) a) a) a) a)m m
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
U
O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O) CO CO 0) 0) co O) 0) O) co co O) O) In CO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0 0 a- CO a- a- 0 0 0) a- a O 0 a- a-

N
N
O)
a
N
0
0
0
a
N
Ce
MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Program Category:
Violation Category: ,fnit Viotatio7
Violation Action:
Subbasin:
o
o c
y O
c4
C-d
MRs Between
E
C)
a
Param Name
Facility Name:
REGION: Mooresville
FACILITY: City of Salisbury - City of Salisbury WWTP
VIOLATION ACTION
VIOLATION TYPE
00
0
w
5w
U
>
U
H
i
J
LL
_N CO
z W
2
FREQUENCY
z
oW
p
MONITORING
PARAMETER
z
O
0
J
J
J
LL
H
0
O
0 0
w
Proceed to NOD
o
N
O)
E
W
O
7
C
O
U
O)
o
N
0

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
2d a a a 2
O 0
O
0
Feb May Aug Nov
NC0026816/001
Roseboro WWTP
O
v
LL
NonComp: Single
U7
0
0
vl
0
vt
62 2a n a a
o_ o_
UI U�
0 O
en ut
0 Od LL a a O Od a a a
Qa d d d
C
C
era1
m
'
a r
0 0
Jan Apr Jul Oct
0
0
cc
w
u-
3
1LL a d d '
a a C
Mar Jun Sep Dec
O Cf
v O v
'd
LL LL
a
d a s a c V)
o a-1
a-1 n
Jar
0 3 a 3
c c?Q. coa,Q
E vi c m
.N y
m CC
d m d
c O. C
N E o
v i a,
a c a
2 Q d a a s
T T
C C
o 7
o O
U U
NC0003042/001
Roxboro WTP
•
O>
c0
L
U
00
0
O
C
•1
c a a a a
a
v
n
01
U
0
0 0 r 0 a0 m n
0 0
N N N N
NC0021024/001
Roxboro WWTP
NonComp: Single
chrlim:90%
00
0
N
e-1
ati
C
03
CO
C
Q
e n m m
0000
N N N N
y
N z
00
Feb May Aug Nov
U
0
vt
H m H d n
O ^.1
N �
M;
!:1
:i'
Q i a a a co
LL
aL aL
C
O IA
C [L E
(00
s E
7 U L
0 c U
Z'Caa a a
NC0025909/001
Rutherfordton WWTP
chr lim: 1MGD @ 45
0
O
U
NC0038300/001
NonComp: Single
chrlim:90%
0
0
N
N
N
ei
C C
00 1 Of
ma a a a a)
1 '
'
a d a
�o r oo 0m
0 0 0
O
O
00
01
K
NC0023884/001
Salisbury -Rowan Regional WWTP
7Q10: 263.5
NonComp: Single
chr lim: 5.3%; exp 20
Begin: 12/1/2014
a
n
u
1d a d a
ti
1
Pass >10.6(P) >10.6(P)
1n r oo a+
0 0 0 0
Page 87 of 109
Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas). H=No Flow (facility is active). s = Split test between Certified Labs

United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Forrn 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 2 E 3 I NC0023884 111 121 19/06/13 117
Type
18 i ,. i
I I I I I
Inspector Fac Type
19 Li i 201 I
211111 1 1 I I I 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
I II I I I I I 166
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA
67I 1 701LJ � I 71 LI 72 i i i
I " I
Reserved
73I I I74 751111111180
LJJ
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
City of SalisburyWWTP
1915 Grubb Ferry Rd
Salisbury NC 281444261
Entry Time/Date
09:17AM 19/06/13
—
Permit Effective Date
14/12/01
•
Exit Time/Date
12:25PM 19/06/13
Permit Expiration Date
19/06/30
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
Sonja Basinger,1915 Grubb Ferry Rd Salisbury NC 281444261/Env. Services
Manager/704-638-5375/ No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance III Records/Reports
III Self -Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review in Compliance Schedules
111 Effluent/Receiving Waters • 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
Roberto Scheller DWR/MRO WQ/252-946-6481/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
W. Corey Basinger DWR/Division of Water Quality/704-235-2194/
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1

NPDES
31 NC0023884 111 12
yrlmo/day
19/06/13
Inspection Type
17 18 u21
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page# 2

Permit: NC0023884
Inspection Date: 06/13/2019
Owner - Facility: City of Salisbury WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
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
MOOD
❑ ❑ 111 ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
MOOD
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Renewal application was received by the Division on December 20, 2018. Permit is for the
operation of two wastewater treatment trains. Grant Creek wastewater treatment train.
wihich is a 7.5 MGD. and Town Creek which is a 5.0 MGD wastewater treatment train with a
common discharge (Outfall #001) into the Yadkin River.
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 operator
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 Tess 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: Reviewed annual report on-line for 2018.
Yes No NA NE
MOOD
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
MOOD
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
MOOD
•
•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
MOOD
MOOD
MOOD
MOOD
MOOD
• ❑ ❑ ❑
DOOM
Page# 3

Permit: NC0023884 Owner - Facility: City of Salisbury WWTP
Inspection Date: 06/13/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Compliance Schedules
Is there a compliance schedule for this facility?
Is the facility compliant with the permit and conditions for the review period?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑•❑
❑ ❑•❑
Comment: Review of 12 month compliance history for subject facility found 3 - NOD's issued for
Monthly Average Flow violations during months of 12/2018, 01/2019, 02/2019 (All flows were
<20%). NOD was issued for Weekly Average BOD violation during month of 04/2019.
Resorted weekly average limit violation was 9.3% over permit limit value.
Operations & Maintenance
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Laboratory
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?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ OD
• ❑ DO
O D ❑ �
O 11
❑
Comment: Grant Creek WWTP has an on -site laboratory, Certification #112and also uses contract lab
Research Analytical Laboratory Certification #34. Meter calibration sheets should indicate
meter serial number to link meter to calibration sheet for both Grant Creet and Town Creek
WWTP's.
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?
Is the unit in good condition?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
11000
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 4

Permit: NC0023884
Owner - Facility: City of Salisbury WWTP
Inspection Date: 06/13/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
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:
Yes No NA NE
•
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE
# 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 11112 ❑ ❑
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit? t ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: At time of inspection Grant Creek influent sampler was recorded at 0 degrees Celsius.
Pump Station - Influent
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:
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?
Yes No NA NE
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
DOWD
M ❑ ❑ ❑
11000
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 5

Permit: NC0023884 Owner - Facility: City of Salisbury WWTP
Inspection Date: 06/13/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Primary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
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:
Trickling Filter
Is the filter free of ponding?
Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of filter's distribution arms?
Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms?
Is the filter free of uneven or discolored growth?
Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth?
Are the filter's distribution arms orifices free of clogging?
Is the filter free of excessive filter flies, worms or snails?
❑ ❑ ❑
✓ ❑ ❑ ❑
111 ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ D.
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑• ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
Comment: 2 trickling filters located at Grant Creek WWTP are being converted into EQ basins.
Chemical Feed
Is containment adequate?
Is storage adequate?
Are backup pumps available?
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
Comment: DefoamerSPolvtec - 3181 is being added to control foam in aeration basin.
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 Tess than 25% of the basin's surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
III ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
Ext. Air
Surface
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
Page# 6

Permit: NC0023884
Inspection Date: 06/13/2019
Owner - Facility: City of Salisbury WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Aeration Basins
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/I)
Comment:
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?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/< of the sidewall depth)
Comment:
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Are pumps in place?
Are pumps operational?
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment: The Grant Creek facility has 2 sets of screw lift ;_,um:'s.
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?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ DO
▪ ❑ DO
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
MI ❑ DO
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ DO
• ❑ ❑ ❑
III❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ DO
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
MOOD
•❑ ❑ ❑
MOOD
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
MOOD
MOOD
MOOD
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 7

Permit: NC0023884
Owner - Facility: City of Salisbury WWTP
Inspection Date: 06/13/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Disinfection -Liquid Yes No NA NE
Comment: At time of Grant Creek inspection effluent from 2 rectangular secondary clarifiers was clear
with few visible suspended soilds. Effluent from #4 circular secondary clarifier was clear
with few visible suspended solids. Effluent from #3 circular secondary clarifier contained
large amounts of suspended solids going over weirs. Suspended solids were noted in
chlorine contact basin.
Effluent Sampling
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
representative)?
Yes No NA NE
MOOD
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑•
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
01000
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: At time of inspection effluent sampler was recorded at 2.5 degrees Celsius. Effluent at
outfall #001 was clear with random particles of suspended solids. Effluent temperature was
recorded at 21.0 to 20.9 degrees Celsius. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) was recorded at head of
step aeration at 6.67 mg/I. TRC was recorded at 14 uq/l.
Pump Station - Effluent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
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?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Effluent is pumped to a common discharge with Town Creek WWTP at Outfall #001.
De -chlorination
Type of system ?
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
Yes No NA NE
Liquid
❑ 0010
❑ ❑•❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑•❑
Page# 8

Permit: NC0023884 Owner - Facility: City of Salisbury WWTP
Inspection Date: 06/13/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
De -chlorination
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
Number of tubes in use?
Yes No NA NE
DO MO
Comment: At time of inspection effluent TRC collected at head of step aerationwas recorded at 14
ua/l.
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: New flow meters have been installed at Grants Creek and Town Creek. Calibration records
from installation for both meters were reviewed.
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?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
M ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Bio-solids are moved through digester for volatile reduction and pumped to belt -filter press to
dewater. Solids are land applied under Water Quality Permit #WQ001956. Solids are stored
on covered pad until land apoication.
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:
Yes No NA NE
MOOD
O 0EIMI
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 9

IWC Calculations
Facility: SalisburyWWTP
NC0023884
Prepared By: Gary Perlmutter
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
12.5
348
348
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) •
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/l)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
348
12.5
19.375
17.0
0
5.27
322
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)
200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
18.96 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mgll)
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
4. BAT for Minor Domestics: 2 mg/I (summer) and 4 mg/I (winter)
5. BAT for Major Municipals: 1 mg/I (year-round)
348
12.5
19.375
1.0
0.22
5.27
15.0
348
12.5
19.375
1.8
0.22
5.27
30.2
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)
NPDES Server/Current Versions/WLA; TB 1/16/2009

IWC Calculations
Facility: Salisbury WWTP
NC0023884
Prepared By: Gary Perlmutter
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
20
736
736
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/l)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
736 s7Q10 (CFS)
20 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
31 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
4.04 IWC (%)
421 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)
24.74 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
4. BAT for Minor Domestics: 2 mg/I (summer) and 4 mg/I (winter)
5. BAT for Major Municipals: 1 mg/I (year-round)
736
20
31
1.0
0.22
4.04
19.5
736
20
31
1.8
0.22
4.04
39.3
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)
NPDES Server/Current Versions/WLA; TB 1/16/2009

tal Translator
7
0
C
0
0
0
0
O
0)
95% Probabilit
a
Freshwate
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
CHECK WQS
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
J
0
a
at
V
a
r
co
3
N
E
'o
14 J
7
,J`
m
7
`
O
7
`
O
7
=
O
7
`
O
7
=
O)
7
=
m
1
=
O
1
J
�7
7
=
O)
7
J
7
J
7
J
-Of
7
J
C)
S
J
=
`
m
a
J
a
a
J
c
=
m
a.
J
D)
l
=
O
a_
`
E
O
N'
to
O
1 340 1
Q
z
c0
L 4.0526
CD
r
CO
Q
Z
13.3342
N
N
co
O
O
416.4265 1
Q
Z
Qp
`o
0.4607 I
N
CO
co
LL
co
2
2
LL
LL
LL
Q
Q
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
_
=
LL
N
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
2
2
U?
150
10
O
6
0.7091
230
a-
300
143.7106
Z
9.7030
co
W
3.8671
2000
45.7462
25.0000
O
CO
Q
155.7671 1
F,9
C
o
0
0
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
C.)
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
0
Z
w
L
Nw
Human Health
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
g
a)
io
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life I
Aquatic Life
Human Health
g
J
V
>
<
Water Supply
J
>
<
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Human Health
a
7
a,
io
Arsenic
Arsenic
E
m
E
E
0
N
O
V
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
* Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
0
_
Z
Nickel
E
N
0)
>
co
_
N
T
E
Q
L_ Chloroform
0
CD
0
-c
L
O.
N
7.
t
a)
N
in -
Eli
Nitrate Nitrogen
O O
coo is
a a
0 O O O O O O O ' N 'R 0 n O O N N N NV
N
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO A A CO M CO CO W CO CO m CO m CO m CO
a a a a a a a O. a O. a. a C. a. a a a O. a a a O. a
N
co-
0
F
R
H
s
7,-, . N
.V. v ._
O O N
1 1 o g, Es
1 OD
N 0 gyp)
I, o
IC_o ' E .-
�O O U
N N 0 a)
14 0 N
IEo N.-
1 � N j Z
. j) J E' O
J J E EI° N oa
E �cocQ�r
I •
co E c�i I'c a v 2 0
co triM M M' j O Ts t
> 5)
co1co Z 0 c
ICe N p U
1200 IoN_ o NZ 0
E a) ai co a)
0_o ash
E as
15) (S a)N 0)
I ❑ 0 Mc N Q
C)
0
t
0
a)
in
d
0
x
as
C
.0
E
0
0

co
z
z
>
w
W
(4>.
Fa.
o
ta co
K
W
pp fA
M M Q
m II j
II .2 d
o
O N>-
M 10
i0 =NOO M
N y CO M M '0 `>
i V N N a M
(9cc; it;
II II II II II
2
n �U
=
U U U
V N
O
C
o a
v Q 47) Q
e
w �
7,71
is
.0
a
e Q o
. o
� o
0
a a 'x
c
vs
0Uoo�0,Y
Hr co CO Q A 9
d r CO M M Z co
V
LL II II II II II I E"
U'als U U U U Y.
rA
v. 0col
0 Op
Oa a
O'CYRO M
2
ob
RECOMMENDED ACTION
All nondetects at < 1 and < 2 ug/L. No monitoring
required.
All nondetects at < 1 ug/L. No monitoring required.
All nondetects at < 0.5 and < 1 ug/L. No monitoring
required.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
'All nondetects at < 5 ug/L. No monitoring required.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
All nondetects at < 5 ug/L and < 1 ug/L. No
monitoring required.
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
ri # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 5,281.5
Chronic (FW) 2,844.2
Max MDL=2_
Chronic (1111-1) 2,528.2
Max MDL = 2
Acute: 1,009.69
- Chronic: 123.25
Max MDL = 1_
Acute: 62.952
- Chronic: 13.446
Max MDL = 1
Acute: NO WQS
- Chronic: 4,361.1
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic: IWC?
Acute: NO WQS
—
Max MDL 5
Acute: 17,345.1
- Chronic: 2,724.9
Acute: 248.5
- Chronic: 208.E
Max reported value = 2.5
Max MDL=
1.3
NO DETECTS
1.30
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
0.625
NO DETECTS
d
z
d
zz
6.5
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
¢
zz
d
zz
3.3
NO DETECTS
0
4 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
0
0
0
0
0
4 0
Note: n <_ 9
Limited data set
0
0
0
0
0
SLINn
t
t
t
t
t
t,
t
t
t
lDd
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Applied
Chronic Acute
Standard
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
0
a
4.1
0.7091 FW(7Q10s) 4.0526
0
a
0o
N
o
_
a
g
M
143.7106 FW(7Q10s) 1116.6157
0
a
r
O.
V
0
Z
0
Z
0
0
0
Z
Z
PARAMETER
V
a
2
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chlorides
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total

Translators 4tW = '11.0 MUU
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
All nondetects at < 10 ug/L and < 5 ug/L. No
monitoring required.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
All nondetects at < 2 ug/Lnd ug/L" a < 1 uNo
monitoring required.
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
dicted Max
No RP, Pre < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
All nondetects at < 1 ug/L. No monitoring required.
No RP for Limited Dataset (n<8) - no limit or 1
monitoring required
No RP for Limited Dataset (n<8) - no limit or
monitoring required
No RP for Limited Dataset (n<8) - no limit or
monitoring required
No R.P tonng for Limitedrequired Dataset (n<8) - no limit or
mam
Acute: 207.13
- Chronic: 183.98
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 341.7
- Chronic: 94.8
Max MDL =10
Acute: NO WQS
- Chronic: 34,130.3
Acute: 1,564.115MIA.,- Chronic: 73.325
Max M, 2
Acute: NO WQS
- Chronic: 227.5
Acute: NO WQSron37 - Chic: ,922.E
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 6,468.6
Ch- ronic (FW):867.4
No value > Allowable f _
Chronic (WS):474.0
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 869.9
- Chronic: 94.8
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 7.157
- Chronic: 1.138
Max MDL =1
Acute: 2,426.6
- Chronic: 2,953.5
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic: 12135.22581
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
- Chron806 ic: 37922.55
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic: 93.54316
No value > Allowable Cw
ility/95% Confidence Using Metal
N
5.0
NO DETECTS
Z
rn
h
U
Z
°
a
N-"
0.500
NO DETECTS
w
12.95000
C.V. (default)
39.10900
C.V. (default)
86.24700
C.V. (default)
O
0
0
0
M
-
O
,�+
4 2
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4 2
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4 3
Note: n<_9
Limited data set
a
a
t
a
t
a
t
a
t
a
t
t
a
t
a
t
a
`
t
a
t
tW
a
t
i
0
'/1
0
NC0023884 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probab
9.7030 FW(7Q10s) 13.3342
5 FW(7Q10s) 22
N
O
a
m
3.8671 FW(7Q10s) 100.6919
12 FW(7Q10s)
y
0
a
x
o
N
45.7462 FW(7Q10s) 416.4265
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
5 FW(7Q10s) 56
i-
S
,t.
O
oa
0
O
155.7671 FW(7Q10s) 156.2144
y
O
a
0
2000 FW(7Q10s)
0.37 HH(Qavg)
0
Z
U
z
U
z
0
z
0
z
U
z
0
z
U
z
Selenium NC
U
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Copper
Cyanide
m
'O
c
li
1
v
d
J
Mercury
Molybdenum
m
u
Z
,
u
Z
m
2
N
m
E
N
t
o
E
Chloroform
m
W
W
t
t
a
0
T
t
9'
N
tl!
O
N
m
0.

0
N
N
a
a
oc
L

etal Translators
/95% Confidence Usi
95% Probabilit
a
Freshwate
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
A
J
0
a
-o
U
0
0
co
0
d
E
Z
['CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
...IJ
7
0)
7
J
0)
7
-I4
O)
7
M.
E
J
O)
7
J=......
0)
7
0)
7
0)
1
J
0)
1
-I
0)
7
-I
6
7
-I
0)
7
-I
0)
7
-
..
=
0)
7
J
0)
1
J
a)
1
=
0)
7
-I0
0)
7
0)
7
0)
1
0)
7.
0)
7.
0)
E
0
0
O
oar
r)
Q
Z
65
3.9950
1101.7232
CO
-
¢
Z
13.1298
N
N
98.8587
N.
o
COO
p
v .-
Q
Z
CD
Lo
0
szt
o
154.0595
LL
U)
2
2
LL
LL
LL
<
Q
LL
LL
U
LL
LL
LL
LL
U
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
L_
LL
i
LL
N
Zi
u
lL
LL.
LL
L-
LL
U.
2
1
CO
t0
(D
ti
O
ti
O
230
•
300
O
ti
6
O
CV
V'
Q
Z
9.5880
to
1,800 J
3.8071
ZL
2000
45.2095
25.0000
to
O
O
O
153.9366
I__65 1
2000
0.37
O
0
0
Z
0
2
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
0
Z
Aquactic Life
Human Health
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life 1
Aquatic Life
(o
cc
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
U
cr3 <
Aquatic Life
J
U
3
<
Human Health
Aquatic Life
Water Supply
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
Aquatic Life
w
J
G
J
a
Human Health
Water Supply
U
0
Q
U
c
0
Q
E
m0
Cadmium
N
'a
9
O
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
# Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Lead
N
M
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nickel
E
C
0)
v)
Silver
Zinc
C
0
o
to
a
Chloroform
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl )phthalate
Nitrate Nitrogen
Q N P) d' N (D I.. CO T 0 N 0) a 0 CO P CO 01 0 N 0) } 0
O O O O O O O O N N N N
a co a a a a a a a a CO a CO CO a a CO a CO CO CO a a a a
CI. a a d a a C a R a d d R a d d d d C d 0 d a a a
Salisbury WWTP
Facility Name
2
N
N
a
0
a.
a.
a
NC0023884
NPDES Permit
O
O
0 0
O O
CV
0
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Yadkin River
Receiving Stream
Cc')
0
0
O
0
HUC Number
co
Stream Class
O O
M M
0
0)
J
D)
o E
(.0
co
tri
CD
0
0
0
T
J
0)
E
0
0
J
O)
E
to
0
U
0
0
0
oo &
❑ N n N O
N
o -0 N N Z
a Cj -NO a
�
�0003EZ

000,
r N
% co 0)
O
- Of N N
L C9avvzo$
rn II II II II .II N
ra
,.Vi�3NQ
U o 2 o 0 c U
D
V
Z
0a
oQ
r �
co D
us
a M
0 0
u� a
o
0
a
cr o
o doh
3 o ro o 0 0 E
O 0 0 cy Y
` N h h Z a)-
LL II II II II II II
U U U U L"
cnc,o)r.4..ybo oo
c, Oa ac
a d d M 30 ' S
8
eh
h
H O
eo0
co Z
RECOMMENDED ACTION
All nondetects at < 1 and < 2 ug/L. No monitoring Y
required.
All nondetects at < 1 ug/L. No monitoring required.
All nondetects at < 0.5 and < 1 ug/L. No monitoring
required.
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
All nondetects at < 5 ug/L. No monitoring required.
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
All nondetects at < 5 ug/L and < 1 ug/L. No
monitoring required.
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 6,837.6
Chronic (FW) 3,711.3
Max MDL =2__ _ _ _ _
Chronic (HH) 1,583.9
Max MDL = 2
Acute: 1,307.19
Chronic: 160.82
Max MDL = 1
Acute: 80.343
- Chronic: 17.361
IMax MDL =1
Acute: NO WQS
- Chronic: 5,690.E
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic: IWC?
Acute: NO WQS
- Chronic: IWC?
Acute: 22,156.4
- Chronic: 3,515.3
- Acute: 321.8
— Chronic: — — 272.2
Max reported value = 2.5
Max MDL
1.3
NO DETECTS
1.30
C.V. (default)
NO DETECTS
0.625
NO DETECTS
z
¢
z
a h
,3Z q
L.
¢
z
Q
z
3.3
IVO DETECTS
0
4 0
rote: n < 9
Limited data set
0
o
o
0
o
0
<r
0
©
0
o
0
slINn
t t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
lbd
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
Chronic Applied Acute
Standard
150 FW(7Q10s) 340
10 1-11-1/WS(Qavg)
6.5 FW(7Q10s) 65
0.7017 FW(7Q10s) 3.9950
Vl
©
a
oM
,..1M
o
M_
'-
0
M_
Q
o
142.0779 FW(7Q10s) 1101.7232
11 FW(7Q10s) 16
yd
0 C.
0
2
0
0
2
z
z
2
S
w
w
I
a
C g
1 42
E
m
Cadmium
L
o
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Chromium, Total

Outfall 001
a
To
co
Translators Qw = 20 MGD
N• o RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
A• ll nondetects at < 10 ug/L and < 5 ug/L. No
monitoring required.
i
I
I
I
A▪ ll nondetects at < 2 ug/L and < 1 ug/L. No
monitoring required.
i
I
I
I
No RP , Predicted Max z 50% of Allowable Cw
apply Quarterly Monitoring
^ No • RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Monitoring required
No • RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
L_ _1 _____ __________________
All nondetects at < 1 ug/L. No monitoring required.
No • RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Monitoring required
_ I
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Monitoring required 1
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw- No
Monitoring required
~ RP for Limited Dataset (n<8 samples) - apply
Quarterly Monitoring
Acute: 264.05
- Chronic: 237.23
No value > Allowable
Acute: 442.4
- Chronic: 123.7
Max MDL = 10
Acute: NO WQS
- Chronic: 44,535.5
Acute: 1,988.112
- Chronic: 94.194
Max MDL _ 2
Acute: NO WQS
- Chronic: 296.9
Acute: NO WQS
- Chronic: 49,483.9
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute (FW): 8,259.3
Chronic (FW) 1,118.E
No value > Allowable Cw
Chronic (WS):618.5
,No value > Allowable Cw
r Acute: 1,126.2
- Chronic: 123.7
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 91008 —
- Chronic: 1.485
Max MDL = 1
Acute: 3,098.2
- Chronic: 3,808.7
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
- Chronic: 15834.83871
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
- Chronic: 49483.87097
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
- Chronic: 58.60323
No value > Allowable Cw
sing Metal
Na;
5.0
NO DETECTS
Q
z
1.290
NO DETECTS
Q
\%.
`R
V
c--
N
o
V
o
o
u,
ul
°O
ri
m
12.95000
2.V. (default)
39.10900
C.V. (default)
86.24700
C.V. (default)
)5% Confidence U
4 2
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4 2
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
4 3
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
t
' t
t
O➢
t
t
t
00
t
t
t
t
t
o
0
NC0023884 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probabi
9.5880 FW(7Q10s) 13.1298
N
N
V)
O
a
1800 FW(7Q10s)
3.8071 FW(7Q10s) 98.8587
V)
O
a
2000 HH(7Q10s)
45.2095 FW(7Q10s) 410.6907
25.0000 WS(7Q10s)
,D
y
Si
O
a
0.06 FW(7Q10s) 0.4479
153.9366 FW(7Q10s) 154.0595
N
O
a
1
Si
O
a
o
N
0.37 HH(Qavg)
U
Z
C.)
Z
U
Z
Q
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
U
Z
0
Z
0
Z
U
Z
0
Z
U
Copper
v
U
s
s
a
L
o
J
Z
R
Molybdenum
d
z
m
2
Z I
E
2
o
m
co
m
W
t.1
E
N
Antimony
Chloroform
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
N
0
❑ N
N
QI
a
co

O
r
N
H
2
.N
co
C% rn
-a
c
O
V
e
1
_
co
.0
L
0
o>
a
L
m
s
d
L
Z
EL
co
2- cc;
0a
N
Q
d
CO
CO
CO
CO
0
M
c
a

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
Effluent Hardness
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Date Data BDL=I/2DL Results
1 10/1/2019 62 62 Std Dev. 5.8422
2 10/8/2019 60 60 Mean 65.8571
3 10/15/2019 66 66 C.V. 0.0887
4 10/22/2019 56 56 n 14
5 10/29/2019 74 74 10th Per value 60.00 mg/L
6 11/5/2019 68 68 Average Value 65.86 mg/L
7 11/12/2019 60 60 Max. Value 76.00 mg/L
8 11/19/2019 68 68
9 11/25/2019 60 60
10 12/4/2019 72
11 12/10/2019 68 68
12 12/17/2019 68 68
13 12/23/2019 76 76
14 12/31/2019 64 64
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
H2
Upstream Hardness
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" than "COPY'
. Maximum data
points = 58
Date Data BDL=II2DL Results
1 9/12/2019 32 32 Std Dev. 2.8284
2 12/16/2019 28 28 Mean 30.0000
3 C.V. (default) 0.6000
4 n 2
5 10th Per value 28.40 mg/L
6 Average Value 30.00 mg/L
7 Max. Value 32.00 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
-1-
26884 RPA_12.5 MGD, data
4/6/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par01 & Par02
Arsenic
Date Data BDL=112DL Results
1 3/15/2017 < 1 0.5 Std Dev.
2 6/13/2017 < 1 0.5 Mean
3 6/21/2017 < 1 0.5 C.V.
4 9/27/2017 < 1 0.5 n
5 12/13/2017 < 1 0.5
6 1/24/2018 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor =
7 3/6/2018 < 1 0.5 Max. Value
8 4/11/2018 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw
9 7/11/2018 < 2 1
10 10/10/2018 < 2 1
11 2/13/2019 < 2 1
12 5/8/2019 < 2 1
13 8/7/2019 < 2 1
14 11/6/2019 < 2 1
15 12/4/2019 < 2 1
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 "PATE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = Six
0.2582
0.7333
0.3521
15
1.29
1.0 ug/L
1.3 ug/L
Par03
Beryllium
Date Data BDL=1l2DL Results
1 9/20/2016 < 1 0.5 Std Dev.
2 6/13/2017 < 1 0.5 Mean
3 3/6/2018 < 1 0.5 C.V. (default)
4 12/4/2019 < 1 0.5 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
Usa "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" Men `COPY"
Maximum data
points • 58
0.0000
0.5000
0.6000
4
2.59
0.50 ug/L
1.30 ug/L
2
26884 RPA_12.5 MGD, data
4/6/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par04
Cadmium
Date Data BDL=112DL Results
1 3/15/2017 < 1 0.5 Std Dev.
2 6/13/2017 < 0.5 0.25 Mean
3 6/21/2017 < 0.5 0.25 C.V.
4 9/27/2017 < 1 0.5 n
5 12/13/2017 < 0.5 0.25
6 1/24/2018 < 0.5 0.25 Mult Factor =
7 3/6/2018 < 0.5 0.25 Max. Value
8 4/11/2018 < 0.5 0.25 Max. Pred Cw
9 7/11/2018 < 0.5 0.25
10 10/10/2018 < 0.5 0.25
11 2/13/2019 < 0.5 0.25
12 5/8/2019 < 0.5 0.25
13 8/7/2019 < 0.5 0.25
14 11/6/2019 < 0.5 0.25
15 12/4/2019 < 0.5 0.25
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
the "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" than "COPY"
Maximum data
points - 58
Par05
Chlorides
0.0880
0.2833
0.3105
15
1.25
0.500 ug/L
0.625 ug/L
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Use 'TASTE SPECIAL -
Values'. dean "COPY" -
Maximum data points
5K
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A mg/L
N/A mg/L
-3-
26884 RPA_12.5 MGD, data
4/6/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par06
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Std Dev.
2 Mean
3 C.V.
4 n
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
ifae "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values" then "DOPY"
Maximum data
points = 55
Par07
Total Phenolic Compounds
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
Mult Factor = N/A
Max. Value N/A uglL
Max. Pred Cw N/A ug/L
Date Data
9/20/2016 < 5
6/13/2017 < 5
3/6/2018 <
12/4/2019 <
BDL=1l2DL Results
2.5 Std Dev.
2.5 Mean
2.5 C.V. (default)
2.5 n
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
us* "PASTE sPEClp4
Vaktes' then `GOPY^
Maximum auta
points = 5a
0.0000
2.5000
0.6000
4
2.59
2.5 ug/L
6.5 ug/L
-4
26884 RPA_12.5 MGD, data
4/6/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par08
Chromium III
Date Data BDL=II2DL 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 SPECLAL- Par09
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
NO DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A pg/L
N/A pg/L
Chromium VI
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
NC DATA
NO DATA
NO DATA
0
N/A
N/A pglL
N/A Ng/L
-5-
26884 RPA_12.5 MGD, data
4/6/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par10
Chromium, Total
Date Data BDL=112DL Results
1 3/15/2017 < 2.5 Std Dev.
2 6/13/2017 < 2.5 Mean
3 6/21/2017 < 5 2.5 C.V.
4 9/27/2017 < 1 0.5 n
5 12/13/2017 < 5 2.5
6 1/24/2018 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor =
7 3/6/2018 < 1 0.5 Max. Value
8 4/11/2018 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw
9 7/11/2018 < 5 2.5
10 10/10/2018 < 5 2.5
11 2/13/2019 < 5 2.5
12 5/8/2019 < 5 2.5
13 8/7/2019 < 5 2.5
14 11/6/2019 < 5 2.5
15 12/4/2019 < 5 2.5
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 Pall_
Values" then "COPr'
Maximum data
points ='w
Copper
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Use "PASTE SPECIAL.
Values' Bien "COPY -
Ma sue urn data
points = 58
0.8281 1 3/15/2017 8 8 Std Dev. 4.3837
2.1000 2 6/13/2017 11.4 11.4 Mean 9.7400
0.3943 3 6/21/2017 8.3 8.3 C.V. 0.4501
15 4 9/27/2017 14 14 n 15
5 12/13/2017 9.6 9.6
1.32 6 1/24/2018 19.8 19.8 Mult Factor =
2.5 pg/L 7 3/6/2018 6 6 Max. Value
3.3 pg/L 8 4/11/2018 7 7 Max. Pred Cw
9 7/11/2018 18 18
10 10/10/2018 7 7
11 2/13/2019 7 7
12 5/8/2019 6 6
13 8/7/2019 10 10
14 11/6/2019 9 9
15 12/4/2019 5 5
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
1.37
19.80 ug/L
27.13 ug/L
6
26884 RPA_12.5 MGD, data
4/6/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par12
Cyanide
Date Data BDL=I/2DL Results
1 3/15/2017 < 10 5 Std Dev.
2 6/13/2017 < 10 5 Mean
3 6/21/2017 < 10 5 C.V.
4 9/27/2017 < 10 5 n
5 12/13/2017 < 10 5
6 1/24/2018 < 10 5 Mult Factor =
7 3/6/2018 < 10 5 Max. Value
8 4/11/2018 < 10 5 Max. Pred Cw
9 7/11/2018 < 10 5
10 10/10/2018 < 10 5
11 2/13/2019 < 10 5
12 5/8/2019 < 5 5
13 8/7/2019 < 5 5
14 11/6/2019 < 5 5
15 12/4/2019 < 5 5
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
fuse "PASTE SPECIAL,Par13
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points z 58
Fluoride
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Us* "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
0.0000 1 Std Dev. NO DATA
5.00 2 Mean NO DATA
0.0000 3 C.V. NO DATA
15 4 n 0
5
1.00 6 Mult Factor = N/A
5.0 ug/L 7 Max. Value N/A ug/L
5.0 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw N/A ug/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
-7-
26884 RPA_12.5 MGD, data
4/6/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par14
Lead
Date
3/15/2017 < 1
6/13/2017 < 1
6/21/2017 < 1
9/27/2017 < 1
12/13/2017 < 1
1/24/2018 < 1
3/6/2018 < 1
4/11/2018 < 1
7/11/2018 < 2
10/10/2018 < 2
2/13/2019 < 2
5/8/2019 < 2
8/7/2019 < 2
11/6/2019 < 2
12/4/2019 < 2
BDL=1/2DL Results
0.5 Std Dev.
0.5 Mean
0.5 C.V.
0.5 n
0.5
0.5 Mult Factor =
0.5 Max. Value
0.5 Max. Pred Cw
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ux "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 5ES
Par15
Mercury
Uwe "PASTE SPECIAL,•
Values' then "COPY"
Maxi mum data
points = 5S
Date Data BDL=112DL Results
0.2582 1 Std Dev. NO O.4TA
0.7333 2 Mean NO DATA
0.3521 3 C.V. NO DATA
15 4 n 0
5
1.29 6 Mult Factor = N/A
1.000 ug/L 7 Max. Value N/A ng/L
1.290 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw N/A ng/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
-8-
26884 RPA_12.5 MGD, data
4/6/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
3/15/2017 30.9
6/13/2017 26.6
6/21/2017 23
9/27/2017 26
12/13/2017 34.4
1/24/2018 19.4
3/6/2018 15
4/11/2018 26
7/11/2018 22
10/10/2018 21
2/13/2019 18
5/8/2019 32
8/7/2019 22
11/6/2019 15
Par16
Molybdenum
Date Data BDL=112DL Results
30.9 Std Dev.
26.6 Mean
23 C.V.
26 n
34.4
19.4 Mult Factor =
15 Max. Value
26 Max. Pred Cw
22
21
18
32
22
15
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
Par17 & Par18
Nickel
6.0135
23.6643
0.2541
14
1.21
34.4 ug/L
41.6 ug/L
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/15/2017 < 5 2.5 Std Dev.
2 6/13/2017 < 5 2.5 Mean
3 6/21/2017 < 5 2.5 C.V.
4 9/27/2017 2 2 n
5 12/13/2017 < 5 2.5
6 1/24/2018 < 5 2.5 Mult Factor =
7 3/6/2018 2 2 Max. Value
8 4/11/2018 2 2 Max. Pred Cw
9 7/11/2018 < 5 2.5
10 10/10/2018 < 5 2.5
11 2/13/2019 < 5 2.5
12 5/8/2019 < 5 2.5
13 8/7/2019 < 5 2.5
14 11/6/2019 < 5 2.5
15 12/4/2019 < 5 2.5
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
0.2070
2.4000
0.0863
15
1.07
2.5 pglL
2.7 pg/L
-9-
26884 RPA_12.5 MGD, data
4/6/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par19
Selenium
Date Data BDL=112DL Results
1 3/15/2017 < 1 0.5 Std Dev.
2 6/13/2017 < 1 0.5 Mean
3 6/21/2017 < 1 0.5 C.V.
4 9/27/2017 < 1 0.5 n
5 12/13/2017 < 1 0.5
6 1/24/2018 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor =
7 3/6/2018 1 1 Max. Value
8 4/11/2018 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw
9 7/11/2018 < 5 2.5
10 10/10/2018 < 5 2.5
11 2/13/2019 < 5 2.5
12 5/8/2019 < 5 2.5
13 8/7/2019 < 5 2.5
14 11/6/2019 < 5 2.5
15 12/4/2019 < 5 2.5
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
Lye "PASTE SPECIAL,
Values" lime "COPY"
Maximum data
points = 58
Par20
Silver
Date Data BDL=112DL Results
Ilse "PASTE sPECiAL
Values" Pan -COPY-
Maximum data
po1rb=58
1.0083 1 3/15/2017 < 1 0.5 Std Dev. 0.0000
1.4667 2 6/13/2017 < 1 0.5 Mean 0.5000
0.6875 3 6/21/2017 < 1 0.5 C.V. 0.0000
15 4 9/27/2017 < 1 0.5 n 15
5 12/13/2017 < 1 0.5
1.58 6 1/24/2018 < 1 0.5 Mult Factor = 1.00
2.5 ug/L 7 3/6/2018 < 1 0.5 Max. Value 0.500 ug/L
4.0 ug/L 8 4/11/2018 < 1 0.5 Max. Pred Cw 0.500 ug/L
9 7/11/2018 < 1 0.5
10 10/10/2018 < 1 0.5
11 2/13/2019 < 1 0.5
12 5/8/2019 < 1 0.5
13 8/7/2019 < 1 0.5
14 11/6/2019 < 1 0.5
15 12/4/2019 < 1 0.5
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
-10-
26884 RPA_12.5 MGD, data
4/6/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21
Use 'PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY'
. Maximum data
points = 58
Zinc
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 3/15/2017 47.7 47.7 Std Dev. 13.1937
2 6/13/2017 38.6 38.6 Mean 42.8267
3 6/21/2017 21.9 21.9 C.V. 0.3081
4 9/27/2017 39 39 n 15
5 12/13/2017 46 46
6 1/24/2018 70.2 70.2 Mult Factor = 1.25
7 3/6/2018 35 35 Max. Value 70.2 ug/L
8 4/11/2018 38 38 Max. Pred Cw 87.8 ug/L
9 7/11/2018 42 42
10 10/10/2018 53
11 2/13/2019 42 42
12 5/8/2019 24 24
13 8/7/2019 50 50
14 11/6/2019 64 64
15 12/4/2019 31 31
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
Par22
Antimony
lUse "PASTE SPECIAL•
Values" then "COPY"
, Maximum data
points = 58
1 1.9149
2 3.5000
3 0.6000
4 4
5
6 Mult Factor = 2.59
7 Max. Value 5.000000 pg/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 12.950000 pg/L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
9/20/2016 < 10 5 Std Dev.
6/13/2017 < 10 5 Mean
3/6/2018 1 1 C.V. (default)
12/4/2019 3 3 n
-11
26884 RPA_12.5 MGD, data
4/6/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
fPar23
Chloroform
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 9/20/2016 11.6 11.6 Std Dev.
2 6/13/2017 15.1 15.1 Mean
3 3/6/2018 < 10 5 C.V. (default)
4 12/4/2019 < 10 5 n
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Liu "PASTE SPECjAL•
Values" then "COPY"
Maxanum data
points = 58
Par24
B is(2-ethyl hexyl)phtha late
5.0282
9.1750
0.6000
4
Mult Factor = 2.59
Max. Value 15.100000 pg/L
Max. Pred Cw 39.109000 pg/L
Use -PASTE SPEClAL-
Values'thun "COPY"
Maximum Clain
puu�u = Sfl
1 11.9183
2 18.8000
3 0.6000
4 4
5
6 Mult Factor = 2.59
7 Max. Value 33.300000 pg/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 86.247000 pglL
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
Date Data BDL=1l2DL Results
5 Std Dev.
33.3 Mean
14.9 C.V.default)
22 n
9/20/2016 < 10
6/13/2017 33.3
3/6/2018 14.9
12/4/2019 22
-12-
26884 RPA_12.5 MGD, data
4/6/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par25
Nitrate Nitrogen
Date Data BDL=112DL Results
1 6/4/2019 11.2 11.2 Std Dev. 2.5411
2 6/11/2019 9.43 9.43 Mean 9.3536
3 6/18/2019 11.4 11.4 C.V. 0.2717
4 6/25/2019 9.58 9.58 n 33
5 7/1/2019 10.2 10.2
6 7/9/2019 4.58 4.58 Mult Factor = 1.08
7 7/16/2019 6.68 6.68 Max. Value 15.900000 mg/L
8 7/23/2019 8.65 8.65 Max. Pred Cw 17.172000 mg/L
9 7/30/2019 12.8 12.8
10 8/6/2019 9.15 9.15
11 8/7/2019 9.28 9.28
12 8/13/2019 11.9 11.9
13 8/20/2019 8.78 8.78
14 8/27/2019 13.4 13.4
15 9/3/2019 10.8 10.8
16 9/10/2019 8.57 8.57
17 9/17/2019 7.27 7.27
18 9/24/2019 7.25 7.25
19 10/1/2019 7.22 7.22
20 10/8/2019 15.9 15.9
21 10/15/2019 11.3 11.3
22 10/22/2019 10.1 10.1
23 10/29/2019 7.38 7.38
24 11/5/2019 10.8 10.8
25 11/6/2019 9.25 9.25
26 11/12/2019 12.3 12.3
27 11/19/2019 11.4 11.4
28 11/25/2019 8.18 8.18
29 12/4/2019 3.94 3.94
30 12/10/2019 8.07 8.07
31 12/17/2019 6.29 6.29
32 12/23/2019 9.25 9.25
33 12/31/2019 6.37 6.37
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'
. Mawmum data
paints = 58
-13-
26884 RPA_12.5 MGD, data
4/6/2020

Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
a must be written as Total Metals per 40 CFR 122.45(c)
In accordance with Federal Regulations, permit lim
COMMENTS (identify parameters to PERCS Branch to maintain in facility's LTMP/STMP):
§
0
Cal
0 0
0
CO
CO
k
0
%
§
§
0
CO
/
§
2
G
3
0
2
§
0)
A
0.
0
CO
0
0
§
CO
d
0
cs
I.
)
\
0
/
z
}
cn
■
z
0
CO
0
d
0
co
co
0
I
k
b.
§
e
(
co
co
0
\
%
/
0
2
G
co
2
a
0
m
0

Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
In accordance with Federal Regulations, permit limitations must be written as Total Metals per 40 CFR 122.45(c)
Rec. Stream
O p
d U
1�
0
co
M
O
O
0
N
N
o
c)
r
7
0
N.
ti
M cO
co
qq
1 II
EE
Q Q
V
co OS
2 S
E LL
( LL
N W
co.
COMMENTS (identify parameters to PERCS Branch to maintain in facility's LTMP/STMP):
U
0)
01
O
Q
O
r
O
CO
CO
N
O
O
rqcsi
N N
O O
W
0
Cadmium Ld)
W
O
0
✓
U
N
O
O
0
ry
D)
N
O
9
O
O
•
O
O
co
CO
C)
O
D)
ID
co
O
D)
W
CO
Tr
03
03
O
10
O
N
O
D)
10
O
N
0)
N
('1
o
5
E E E J s V
O 3 0
L Z S 0 C) X.
O U O U J Z Z
0)
O
(D
O
G]
O
O
O
0
O
O
0
V
(O
u
N
9
sr
0)
Cr?
(C)
r
CO
CO
(1
O
sr
sr
co
O
O
O
O
C3
r)
E
n
C

Permit No. NC0023884
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, µg/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 indissolved 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-[In hardness](0.041838)) • e^{0.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.9151[in hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[In hardness](0.041838)) • e^{0.7998[In hardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 • el" {0.8190[In hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 • e^{0.8190[In hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 • e^{0.9422[In 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[1n hardness]-4.705 }
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 • e^{0.8460[In hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584}
Page 1 of 4

Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Permit No. NC0023884
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 • e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 • e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the
numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness
and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that
below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/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. NC0023884
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) + (s7010, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q 10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 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 =
Ctotal
1
1 + f [Kpo] [SS(1+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)
s7Q10 = 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. NC0023884
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)
65.8
Weekly data from DMR for CY2019
(Total as, CaCO3)
Average Upstream Hardness
30
Instream data provided by Permittee
(mg/L) (Total as, CaCO3)
CORMIX model dilution results:
7Q10 summer (cfs)
348/736
18.9:1 at 12.5 MGD
24.8:1 at 20 MGD
281.59 at
1Q10 (cfs)
12.5 MGD;
592.43 at
Calculated in RPA spreadsheets
20 MGD
Permitted Flow (MGD)
12.5; 20
Permit application
Date: 3/2/2020
Permit Writer: Gary Perlmutter
Page 4 of 4

m
I-1 J J
O
IN0.0 O
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
L•
N
(-4
II
J
w
on
CI
m
1
0
ri
d
N
Permitted Flow =
a
O
on oho
c 00
M
N
0 Ls
0
U c
N Z w
ri
I— o ro
p
tl1
II O
(1) LsII N
J `7-
> d i,
a O
.� w 2
cn r-I
N m
ko
E O ri
Z z
L h
ti O roo a c CI'NIu.
c0
cNi
m H
ri ri ri
O O O O
N N N N
O %O 4.O �O
N OJ N N
00 00 0A 00
CO 00 00 CO
L I. L. I-
CU CV 0) 0)
CO f0 f0 c0
c c c c
c c c c
Q Q Q Q
J J _I J
00 00 00 co
c c c c
N N C ri
O `i ^I o0
r-1 .4 M ri
N N Ol r-I
O ri N o0
ri M ri
1.0 N. 00 cm
i rri ri r1
O M
\M
O1 r-1

41
0
N
'--I
r-I
W
a -I
a —I
M
M
Q1
N
M
N
r-I
0
N
r-I
r-I
V)
a)
IZ
E
as
N
4.-
0
4#
a-i
4
N
0
a -I
J
t1Q
c
di
00
M
a)
Q
Ta
C
C
Q
N
J
0.0
J
W
CO
H
Ln
N
N
N

0
m
0 -I -I
NOD
C
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
0
•• N
LO
rn
N
I I
J
W
m
Cf
O O
m N
N
Cf
N
Permitted Flow =
D N co al
O O O o
N N N N
4J 4) 4) 0)
MO OA OA OA
(0 CO (0 (0
L L L L
OJ 4) 4) 4)
(0 CO CO (0
7 O O =
CCCC
CCCC
Q Q Q Q
I I i
J J J J
00 OD 00 OD
CCCC
N m ' I
o ,i [r; 0al 000
N N Ol )--I
O `i N 00
N N Ol %-I
O `i N 00
)-I 'Cr M c1
o m Ct
rn L m CV

rn
r-I
0
CV
r-I
00
r1
CO
r-I
0
N
r-I
CO
M
N
r-I
O
N
lC
O
N
r-I
r-I
a)
Q
E
(0
0
e-i
N
O
ri
J
ao
C
a)
(0
E
E
X
(0
2
h
4
J
0.0
J
W
co
I-
01
to
01
N
J
110
J
W
CO

March 27, 2020
Gary Perlmutter, Environmental Specialist II
NCDEQ/Division of Water Resources
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: Mercury Minimization Plan Summary
City of Salisbury WNWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0023884
Rowan County
Dear Mr. Perlmutter,
The aty of Salisbury (City) submits the following Mercury Minimization Plan Summary (MMP) on the
subject permit application renewal:
The City has performed the following activities in terms of the MMP:
• Mailed 36 One Time Compliance Report forms to Rowan County dentists (received 9 completed forms to
date)
• Participate in the Annual Rowan County Medicine Drop Off and Special Waste Recycling Event for
residential customers (annually since 2014)
• The City's Water and Wastewater labs use non -mercury thermometers in samplers, refrigerators and
incubators
• The City's Wastewater lab recycles the used COD vials (through the Hach Company)
• The Cis website (Salisbury -Rowan Utilities homepage) has a section for Household Mercury appropriate
uses and disposal practices for our customers
• The City's FOG Program ensures that automotive and hospital facilities are hauling off hazardous waste
• The City's Pretreatment Program requires Mercury monitoring in the Industrial User permits, and samples
the influent and effluent mercury quarterly per the Long Tern Monitoring Plan (effluent data is reported
on eDMRs and Priority Pollutant Analysis forms and submitted to state)
Please contact me at [phone] or email [e-mail] if you require any clarification or
additional information regarding the subject matter.

NCDEQ/DWR
Page 2
March 27, 2020
Sincerely,
Sonja Basinger
Environmental Services Manager
Cc: PT files
1 Water Street Telephone [phone]
Salisbury, NC 28144 Salisbury -Rowan Utilities Fax [phone]

From: Cook, Clinton <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 8:40 AM
To: Perlmutter, Gary <[e-mail]>; Kaufman, Tammy <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hudson, Eric <[e-mail]>; Whitner, Raymond A <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Salisbury WWTP draft permit
Mr. Perlmutter and Ms. Kaufman,
I appreciate the opportunity to review the subject draft NPDES permit and have included my response
below in bold to satisfy the new paperless standards.
I concur with issuance of the above permit as I have no appreciable expertise in implementation of
the Clean Water Act requirements and have minimal understanding of the information provided. As a
result, I have no basis for opposing the permit.
(The nearest downstream raw water intake for a public water system is associated with the Town of
Denton and is located approximately 17 miles downstream.)
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please let me know.
Thanks,
Clint
Clinton O. Cook, PE
Regional Engineer
Division of Water Resources — Public Water Supply Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
704 663 1699 office
704 663 6040 fax
[e-mail]
Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

May 6, 2020
Certified Mail 7015 0640 0001 5803 2710
Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Gary Perlmutter, Environmental Specialist 11
DEQ/ Division of Water Resources
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: Comments on Draft NPDES Permit
City of Salisbury Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
NPDES Permit No. N00023884
Rowan County
Dear Mr. Perlmutter,
The City of Salisbury submits the following comments on the subject draft permit dated April 8,
2020:
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) currently uses for the WWTP a 5.3% Instream Waste
Concentration (IWC) at 12.5 MGD and 4% IWC at 20 MGD at 7Q10 levels and an 1WC < 1% for
typical river conditions. The City requests the removal of the 1631 mercury requirement based
upon (1) the Dental Amalgam Rule and (2) < 6% IWC.
The City also requests the monitoring for the WET testing be reduced from quarterly to two
times per year based upon (1) past compliance history and (2) low IWC; the decrease
monitoring of the Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus parameters from weekly to two times
per month based upon the parameters stating monitor only; and at 20 MGD, reducing the daily
monitoring of BOD, TSS, Ammonia -nitrogen and Fecal Coliform to three times per week based
upon the City's exceptionally performing facility status.
The IWC values used by DWR are too high. The City requests recalculation of the IWC using
CORMIX based on robust scientific and engineering studies that demonstrate riverine conditions
at the discharge point and demonstrate that the feature that produces riverine conditions —the
High Rock Lake sediment delta — is permanent. At Salisbury's request the studies were subjected
to scientific peer review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The FERC 2008 Final EIS
for the Yadkin Project relicensing discusses the studies and the sediment delta. The sediment
delta occupies several miles of the Yadkin River. Where the sediment delta is located there are
1 Water Street Telephone [phone]
Salisbury, NC 28144 Fax [phone]

Mr. Gary Perlmutter
May 6, 2020
Page 2
higher (riverine) water velocities because the delta raises the elevation of the river bed (roughly
14feet higher). Lower (lacustrine) water velocities occur between the downstream edge of the
sediment delta and High Rock Dam. Once the sediment delta reaches the dam, riverine
conditions will occur throughout the reach. The discharge point is miles upstream from the
downstream edge of the delta. Enclosed is the Numerical Sedimentation Investigation of the
Yadkin River conducted by Ronald R. Copeland, P.E., PhD of Mobile Boundary Hydraulics
(February 20, 2007). We can provide additional reports if needed.
The latitude and longitude in the facility map legend is incorrect. The correct latitude is 35° 43'
37.84" N, and longitude is 80° 25' 28.37" W.
Please contact me at [phone] or email [e-mail] if you require any
clarification or additional information regarding the subject draft permit.
Sincerely,
Sonjd Basinger
Environmental Services Manager
Enclosures
cc: W. Lane Bailey, City Manager, City of Salisbury
Jim Behmer, Utilities Director, Salisbury -Rowan Utilities
Robert Loper, WWTP Operations/Bio-Solids Su pervisor-O RC, Salisbury -Rowan Utilities
Corey Basinger, Regional Supervisor, DEQ/DWR/MRO

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone]
601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516-2356
May 7, 2020
Via U.S. e-mail
Gary Perlmutter
NCDEQ/DWR/NPDES
Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[e-mail]
RE: Southern Environmental Law Center Comments on NPDES Wastewater
Permit NC0023884 — City of Salisbury WWTP
Dear Mr. Perlmutter:
The Southern Environmental Law Center offers the following comments on Draft
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit NC00238884, released by
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") to the City of Salisbury on
April 8, 2020. The permit allows Salisbury to discharge wastewater from its wastewater
treatment plant into the Yadkin River, a source of drinking water for Denton and Albemarle and
other downstream communities. The drinking water for the City of Albemarle has previously
contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which are known to harm human
health.' In order to protect those living in Denton, Albemarle, and others downstream —and as
required by the Clean Water Act —we urge DEQ to take a close look at Salisbury's wastewater.
DEQ must require the disclosure of any PFAS in the City's discharge. If Salisbury is
discharging PFAS, DEQ must include limits in the City's permit.
A. The Salisbury wastewater treatment plant receives industrial wastewater that is
likely to contain PFAS, which could cause the City to discharge PFAS into the
Yadkin River —a drinking water source.
The Salisbury wastewater treatment plant receives wastewater from 8 significant
industrial users.2 Several of these significant industrial users appear to be types of industry that
use PFAS in their manufacturing processes and, therefore, might discharge PFAS into
Salisbury's treatment plant. Because the treatment plant is not equipped to remove PFAS, it is
possible that Salisbury is releasing PFAS into the Yadkin River, a source of drinking water for
North Carolinians.
' EPA, Occurrence Data for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) 3, available at
https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/occurrence-data-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule#3 (last visited May 4,
2020).
2 City of Salisbury WWTP, Permit Renewal, Application No. NC0023884 ("Permit Application"), 24, Jan. 8, 2019.
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington, DC
100% recycled paper

PFAS are found in a variety of personal care products, including creams and lotions,3
shaving products,4 makeup,5 hair products,6 sunscreen, and shampoo.8 The Salisbury treatment
plant receives wastewater from at least two industries that produce chemicals in personal care
products: (1) Nouryon Surface Chemistry (previously, Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry), which
produces organic chemicals for personal care products;9 and (2) Innospec Performance
Chemicals, which produces "surfactants used in soaps, shampoos, body washes, and other
personal care products." Innospec's industrial processes include "batch manufacturing of
primarily esterification processes using reactor vessels, [and] flaking process of solid soaps.„1°
PFAS are also widely used in the textile industry "in order to achieve water, oil and dirt
repellency of the fabric, while [...] maintaining breathability;" as well as "repellency to alcohol
and a high level of washing and dry cleaning durability.i11 The treatment plant receives
wastewater from at least one textile manufacturer: Thorneburg Hosiery, which produces
"sports/activity specific hosiery products (socks)." The facility's industrial processes include
washing, dyeing, drying, and finishing socks; and its raw materials include "synthetic fibers and
yarn, process waxes, oils, soaps, dyes, softeners, water treating and boiler chemicals.i12
PFAS are further used to manufacture plastics and fluoropolymers, rubber, and
compression mold release coatings; fluoroplastic coatings, and composite resins.13 The
3 Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark — Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment of
Fluorinated Substances in Cosmetic Products (2018), available at
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/10/978-87-93710-94-8.pdf (last visited May 4, 2020).
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Schultes et al., Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and fluorine mass balance in cosmetic products from the
Swedish market: implications for environmental emissions and human exposure, 20 ENVIRON. SCI.: PROCESSES &
IMPACTS 1680-90 (2018), available at
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/EM/c8em00368h#!divAbstract (last visited May 4, 2020).
Id.
8 WI Dept. of Health Services, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, available at
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/pfas.htm (last visited May. 4, 2020); ATSDR, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances (PFAS) — Frequently Asked Questions, available at
https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/investigations/drinkingwaterresponse/dots/atsdr_pfas_factsheet.pdf (last
visited May. 4, 2020); ATSDR, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Your Health, available at
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/pfas-exposure.html (last visited May. 4, 2020).
9 Permit Application at 24.
10 Section F Attachment to Permit Application.
11 Danish Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, Alternatives to Perfluoroalkyl and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Textiles, 7 (2015), available at
https: //legislature.vermont. gov/Documents/2020/W orkGroups/Senate%20Health%20and%20W elfareB ills/S.295/W
ritten%20Testimony/S.295—Martin%20Wolf DK-PFAS-AlternativesTextiles15-2-28-2020.pdf (last visited May 4,
2020); see also Ministry of Environment and Food, The Danish Environmental Protection Agency Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances (PFASs) in Textiles for Children (2015), available at
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2015/04/978-87-93352-12-4.pdf (last visited May 4, 2020); Interstate
Technology Regulatory Council, History and Use of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) ("ITRC Fact
Sheet"), 5 (2020), available at https://pfas-
l.itrcweb.org/fact_sheetspage/PFAS_FactSheet_History_and_Use_Apri12020.pdf (last visited May 4, 2020).
12 Section F Attachment to Permit Application.
13 ITRC Fact Sheet at 5; Rebecca Hersher, Scientists Dig Into Hard Questions About the Fluorinated Pollutants
Known as PFAS, NPR, Apr. 22, 2019, available at https://www.npr.org/sections/health-
2

treatment plant receives wastewater from HBD Industries, which produces industrial hose,
rubber bands, and rubber covered rolls.14 The facility's raw materials include: "polymers, carbon
blacks, plasticizers, vulcanizers, protective waxes, colorants, [and] accelerators."15
Because PFAS are used in a broad array of industries, it is possible that PFAS are being
used and discharged by other facilities. Other industries that release wastewater to Salisbury's
treatment plant include Agility Fuel Solutions, which produces compressed natural gas fuel
systems for commercial vehicles; CSP Composites, which produces truck hoods, bumpers,
doors, golf cart bodies, and HVAC cabinet components; Frelrich Foods, which includes beef,
pork, sugar, sodium phosphate, sodium nitrite, sodium lactate, liquid smoke, and spices; and
Hitachi Metals North Carolina, which produces ferrite magnets used in the automotive industry.
Furthermore, the treatment plant likely receives wastewater from other non -significant industrial
facilities that are not listed in the City's permit application —industries that are potentially
discharging PFAS.
B. PFAS are harmful to human health and the environment.
PFAS are a threat to human health and the environment. Two of the most commonly
studied PFAS—perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS")—
have been found to cause developmental effects to fetuses and infants, kidney and testicular
cancer, liver malfunction, hypothyroidism, high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, lower birth weight
and size, obesity, decreased immune response to vaccines, reduced hormone levels, and delayed
puberty.16 EPA established a lifetime health advisory of 70 parts per trillion ("ppt") for the
combined concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.17
Since then, in June 2018, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry released
an updated Draft Toxicological Profile for PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS—suggesting that many
of the chemicals are much more harmful than previously thought. For instance, the minimum
risk levels, or the amount of a chemical a person can eat, drink, or breathe each day without a
detectable risk to health, was determined to be only 11 ppt for PFOA, and 7 ppt for PFOS.18
Epidemiological studies show that many of these same health outcomes result from exposure to
other PFAS.19 Given these harms, states like Michigan, New York, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, and Vermont have acknowledged the dangers of these compounds and have either
proposed or finalized drinking water standards for various PFAS at 20 ppt and lower.20
shots/2019/04/22/708863848/scientists-dig-into-hard-questions-about-the-fluorinated-pollutants-known-as-pfa (last
visited May 4, 2020).
14 Section F Attachment to Permit Application.
15Id.
16 Arlene Blum et al., The Madrid Statement on Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs), 123 ENVTL. HEALTH
PERSPECTIVES 5, A 107 (2015); U.S. EPA, Fact Sheet: PFOA & PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories, 2.
17 EPA, Fact Sheet: PFOA & PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories at 2.
18 Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA), CFPUA Statement on Recently Released DHHS Report (June 21,
2018); see also ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls, Draft for Public Comment (June 2018) ("Draft
2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls").
19 Draft 2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls at 5-6, 25-26.
20 Press Release, Mich. Dep't of Env't, Great Lakes, and Energy, Michigan moves forward on PFAS in drinking
water rules (June 27, 2019), available at https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3308_3323-500772--
,00.html (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); New York to set limits for industrial chemicals in water, AP, July 8, 2019,
3

PFAS are also harmful to the environment. PFAS have been shown to cause damaging
effects in fish,21 amphibians,22 mollusks,23 and other aquatic invertebrates24—resulting in
developmental and reproductive impacts, behavioral changes, adverse effects to livers, disruption
to endocrine systems, and weakened immune systems.25 Moreover, PFAS are extremely
resistant to breaking down in the environment, can travel long distances, and bio-accumulate in
organisms.26
available at https://apnews.com/63bffd42efaf49d08d114ea4443491f0 (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); Annie Ropeik,
N.H. Approves Unprecedented Limits for PFAS Chemicals in Drinking Water, NHPR, July 18, 2019, available at
https://apnews.com/63bffd42efaf49d08d114ea4443491f0 (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); Press Release, Vt. Agency of
Nat. Res., Agency Of Natural Resources Initiates Rulemaking Process To Adopt Maximum Contaminant Level For
PFAS Compounds, available at https://anr.vermont.gov/content/agency-natural-resources-initiates-rulemaking-
process-adopt-maximum-contaminant-level-pfas (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); James M. O'Neill, NJ proposes strict
new drinking water standards for cancer -linked chemicals, NORTH JERSEY RECORD, Apr. 1, 2019, available at
https://www.northj ersey.com/story/news/environment/2019/04/01/nj -sets-stringent-drinking-water-standard-cancer-
linked-chemicals-pfoa-pfos-pfas/3334281002/ (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); Interstate Tech. Regulatory Council,
PFAS Fact Sheets, Section 4 Tables (Aug. 2019).
21 Huang, et al., Toxicity, uptake kinetics and behavior assessment in zebrafish embryos following exposure to
perfluorooctanesulphonicacid (PFOS), 98 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 139-147 (2010); Jantzen, et al., PFOS, PFNA,
and PFOA sub -lethal exposure to embryonic zebrafish have different toxicity profiles in terms of morphometrics,
behavior and gene expression, 175 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 160-170 (2016); Hagenaars, et al., Structure —activity
relationship assessment of four perfluorinated chemicals using a prolonged zebrafish early life stage test, 82
CHEMOSPHERE 764-772 (2011); Du, et al., Chronic effects of water -borne PFOS exposure on growth, survival and
hepatotoxicity in zebrafish: A partial life -cycle test, 74 CHEMOSPHERE 723-729 (2009); Rotondo, et al.,
Environmental doses of perfluorooctanoic acid change the expression of genes in target tissues of common carp, 37
ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 942-948 (2018); Liu, et al., The thyroid -disrupting effects of long-term
perfluorononanoate exposure on zebrafish (Danio rerio), 20 ECOTOXICOLOGY 47-55 (2011); Chen, et al.,
Multigenerational Disruption of the Thyroid Endocrine System in Marine Medaka after a Life -Cycle Exposure to
Perfluorobutanesulfonate, 52 ENVIRON. SCI. & TECH. 4432-4439 (2018); Chen, et al., Perfluorobutanesulfonate
Exposure Causes Durable and Transgenerational Dysbiosis of Gut Microbiota in Marine Medaka, 5 ENVIRON. SCI.
& TECH. LETTERS 731-738 (2018); Chen, et al., Accumulation of perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) and impairment
of visual function in the eyes of marine medaka after a life -cycle exposure, 201 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 1-10 (2018).
22 Ankley, et al., Partial Life -Cycle Toxicity And Bioconcentration Modeling of Perfluorooctanesulfonate in the
Northern Leopard Frog (Rana Pipiens), 23 ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2745 (2004); Cheng, et al., Thyroid
disruption effects of environmental level perfluorooctane sulfonates (PFOS) in Xenopus laevis, 20 ECOTOXICOLOGY
2069-2078 (2011); Lou, et al., Effects ofperfluorooctanesulfonate and perfluorobutanesulfonate on the growth and
sexual development of Xenopus laevis, 22 ECOTOXICOLOGY 1133-1144 (2013).
23 Liu, et al., Oxidative toxicity ofperfluorinated chemicals in green mussel and bioaccumulation factor dependent
quantitative structure -activity relationship, 33 ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2323-2332 (2014); Liu, et al.,
Immunotoxicity in green mussels under perfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) exposure: Reversible response and
response model development, 37 ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 1138-1145 (2018).
24 Ji, et al., Oxicity of Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid and Perfluorooctanoic Acid on Freshwater Macroinvertebrates
(Daphnia Magna and Moina Macrocopa) and Fish (Oryzias Latipes), 27 ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2159
(2008); Houde, et al, Endocrine -disruption potential ofperfluoroethylcyclohexane sulfonate (PFECHS) in
chronically exposed Daphnia magna, 218 ENVIRON. POLLUTION 950-956 (2016); Liang, et al., Effects of
Perfluorooctane sulfonate on immobilization, heartbeat, reproductive and biochemical performance of Daphnia
magna, 168 Chemosphere 1613-1618 (2017); MacDonald, et al., Toxicity Of Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid and
Perfluorooctanoic Acid to Chironomus Tentans, 23 ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2116 (2004).
25 See supra notes 21-24.
26 Draft 2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls at 2, 534; see also EPA, Technical Fact Sheet -
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), 1, 3 (Nov. 2017).
4

C. DEQ must require Salisbury to disclose any PFAS that the City is discharging
from its treatment plant.
The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant, including PFAS, without a
NPDES permit. The discharge of a specific pollutant (or group of pollutants) cannot be
permitted if it is not disclosed in a NPDES permit application. As discussed, it is likely that the
industries that discharge to Salisbury's treatment plant use PFAS, and, therefore, possible that
the City is releasing PFAS into the Yadkin River. If so, DEQ must require the City to disclose
its discharge of PFAS in the City's NPDES permit application.
DEQ has acknowledged that disclosure of toxic pollutants, including PFAS, is required
by the Clean Water Act and state water quality laws. In its enforcement action against The
Chemours Company, LLC for the company's discharge of GenX and other PFAS into the Cape
Fear River, the agency stated:
Part of the permit applicant's burden in this regard is to disclose all relevant
information, such as the presence of known constituents in a discharge that pose a
potential risk to human health. The permit applicant is required to disclose "all
known toxic components that can be reasonably expected to be in the discharge,
including but not limited to those contained in a priority pollutant analysis." 15A
N.C.A.C. 2H .0105(j) (emphasis added). [...] These disclosure obligations are
critical, in part, because they define the scope of the Clean Water Act's "permit
shield." While compliance with the express terms of an NPDES permit generally
"shields" the permittee from liability for violations of 33 U.S.C. § 1311, the
permit does not shield the permittee from liability where the pollutant being
discharged was not within the "reasonable contemplation" of the permitting
agency when it issued the permit due to nondisclosure by the permittee.27
The agency further acknowledged that the company had violated its NPDES permit and
state water quality laws by "failing to fully disclose all known toxic components reasonably
expected to be in [the company's] discharge."28
DEQ's position in the Chemours enforcement case was correct. The Clean Water Act
generally prohibits discharges to streams and rivers.29 The NPDES permitting program is a
limited exception to that prohibition,30 and discharges under the program cannot be approved
unless they are adequately disclosed.31 The Environmental Protection Agency has stressed the
need for disclosure of pollutants during the permitting process:
27 Amended Complaint, N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality v. Chemours, 17 CVS 580, 6-7 (N.C. Super. 2018)
(hereinafter "N.C. DEQ Amended Complaint") (citing 33 U.S.C. § 1342(k), Piney Run Pres. Ass 'n v. Cty. Comm 'rs
of Carroll Cty., MD, 268 F.3d 255, 265 (4th Cir. 2001)).
28 Id. at 33.
29 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).
30 Nat'l Ass 'n of Home Builders v. Def. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 650 (2007).
31 See In re Ketchikan Pulp Co., 7 E.A.D. 605 (EPA) (1998); Piney Run Pres. Ass 'n v. Cty. Comm 'rs of Carroll Cty.,
Maryland, 268 F.3d. 255 (4th Cir. 2001); Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. A & G Coal Corp., 758 F.3d
560 (4th Cir. 2014).
5

[D]ischargers have a duty to be aware of any significant pollutant levels in their
discharge. [...] Most important, [the disclosure requirements] provide the
information which the permit writers need to determine what pollutants are likely
to be discharged in significant amounts and to set appropriate permit limits. [...]
[P]ermit writers need to know what pollutants are present in an effluent to
determine approval permit limits in the absence of applicable effluent
guidelines.32
The EPA Environmental Appeals Board's decision in In re: Ketchikan Pulp Company
further emphasized the importance of disclosure,33 and this decision has been adopted by the
Fourth Circuit. In Piney Run Pres. Ass 'n v. Cty. Comm'rs of Carroll Cty., Maryland, the Fourth
Circuit stated:
The Ketchikan decision therefore made clear that a permit holder is in compliance
with the [Clean Water Act] even if it discharges pollutants that are not listed in its
permit, as long as it only discharges pollutants that have been adequately
disclosed to the permitting authority. [...] To the extent that a permit holder
discharges a pollutant that it did not disclose, it violates the NPDES permit
and the [Clean Water Act].34
Moreover, municipalities that own and operate wastewater treatment plants are
required to "fully and effectively exercise[] and implement[]" their authority to
"[i]dentify the character and volume of pollutants contributed to the [publicly owned
treatment works]" by Industrial Users.35
If Salisbury were to discharge PFAS and fail to disclose it in its NPDES permit
application, it would violate the Clean Water Act. Moreover, DEQ would not have the
information it needs to make a fully informed decision to issue the permit,36 and the
public would not have adequate information to meaningfully comment on it. DEQ must
require Salisbury to disclose any discharges of PFAS in the City's permit application.
D. If Salisbury is discharging PFAS, DEQ must analyze appropriate effluent limits.
If Salisbury is discharging PFAS from its treatment plant, DEQ must consider what
permit limits are appropriate. Salisbury can then comply with any PFAS limits in its permit by
properly regulating its industrial users —for instance, by requiring industries to use alternative
chemicals, or to install treatment technology to remove PFAS from their wastewater before
sending it to Salisbury's treatment plant.
32 Consolidated Permit Application Forms for EPA Programs, 45 Fed. Reg. 33,526-31 (May 19, 1980).
33 See In re Ketchikan Pulp Co., 7 E.A.D. 605 (EPA) (1998).
34 Piney Run, 268 F.3d. at 268 (emphasis added).
35Id. § 403.8(f)(1)(vi)(B).
36 See Southern Appalachian, 758 F.3d at 566.
6

The Clean Water Act requires permitting agencies to, at the very least, incorporate,
technology -based effluent limitations on the discharge of pollutants.37 Technology -based
effluent limits are "the minimum level of control that must be imposed in a permit."38 If
Salisbury is discharging PFAS from its treatment plant, DEQ must consider the feasibility of
industrial users installing effective treatment technology, such as granular activated carbon.
North Carolina water quality laws further state that municipalities must be treated like an
industrial discharger if an industry "significantly impact[s]" a municipal treatment system.39 In
this situation, the agency must consider technology -based effluent limits for the municipality,
even if effluent limits and guidelines have not been published and adopted.49
In addition to including technology -based effluent limits in the permit, DEQ must ensure
that water quality standards will not be violated. If there is a "reasonable potential" that water
quality standards will be exceeded, DEQ must include water quality -based effluent limits in the
permit as well.41 PFAS are known to harm human health, and their discharge threatens to violate
multiple water quality standards. For instance, the state toxic substances standard requires that:
the concentration of toxic substances, either alone or in combination with other
wastes, in surface waters shall not render waters injurious to aquatic life or
wildlife, recreational activities, public health, or impair the waters for any
designated uses.42
North Carolina defines toxic substances as:
any substance or combination of substances [...], which after discharge and upon
exposure [...], either directly from the environment or indirectly [...], has the
potential to cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic
mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions or suppression in
reproduction or growth) or physical deformities in [...] organisms or their
offspring.43
PFAS certainly have the potential to cause adverse health effects, and qualify as toxic
substances under state law. DEQ itself has stated in its lawsuit against Chemours that PFAS
"meet the definition of `toxic substance' under North Carolina rules.44
37 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(a); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311.
38 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(a) (emphasis added).
39 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02B .0406 (a), (e).
4° 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02B .0406 (a), (e).
41 40 CFR § 122.44(d)(1)(i), see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(C); (1)(i); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0112(c) (stating
that DWR must "reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality standards and regulations.").
42 15A N.C. Admin Code 2B.0208(a).
43 15A N.C. Admin Code 2B.0202(64) (emphasis added).
44 N.C. DEQ Amended Complaint at 32 (stating that "the process wastewater from [Chemours]
Fluoromonomers/Nafion® Membrane Manufacturing Area contains and has contained substances or combinations
of substances which meet the definition of "toxic substance" set forth in 15A N.C.A.C. 2B .0202," referring to
GenX and other PFAS).
7

DEQ must also reasonably ensure compliance with North Carolina's prohibition against
allowing "[o]ils, deleterious substances, colored, or other wastes" in waters classified as Class C
waters —which include the section of the Yadkin River that would receive Salisbury's
discharge45—"to render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic
life and wildlife, or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters
for any designated uses."46
Once appropriate limits are included in a wastewater treatment plant's NPDES permit,
the municipality that runs the treatment plant is required to regulate its industrial users so that
industries do not cause the treatment plant to violate its own NPDES permit.47 This is how the
Clean Water Act "assures the public that [industrial] dischargers cannot contravene the [Clean
Water Act's] objectives of eliminating or at least minimizing discharges of toxic and other
pollutants simply by discharging indirectly through [wastewater treatment plants] rather than
directly to receiving waters."48 As is appropriate, the pretreatment program is intended to place
the burden of treating polluted discharges on the entity that creates the pollution, rather than on
the taxpayers that support municipally owned treatment plants. Moreover, municipalities that
own and operate wastewater treatment plants are required to "immediately and effectively to halt
or prevent any discharge of pollutants to the [publicly owned treatment works] which reasonably
appears to present an imminent endangerment to the health or welfare of persons."49 Together,
these laws ensure that municipally owned treatment plants do not become dumping grounds for
uncontrolled industrial waste.
Salisbury cannot allow industries to cause its treatment plant to violate the City's own
NPDES permit.50 If DEQ includes strict PFAS limits in Salisbury's permit, therefore, the City is
required to "fully and effectively exercise[] and implement[]" its authority to meet those limits
by properly regulating any industrial users that release PFAS into the City's treatment plant.51
Salisbury could prevent violations of its permit by requiring industries to use alternative
chemicals, or to install treatment technology to remove PFAS from their wastewater before
sending wastewater to Salisbury's treatment plant. In Michigan, for instance, municipalities
have been effectively reducing their PFAS discharges by requiring industrial users to install
treatment technology. Municipalities in Michigan had discovered that industries, such as metal
finishers, paper manufacturers, and fabric/leather treaters, were sending PFAS-contaminated
wastewater to their treatment plants.52 After industrial users installed granular -activated carbon
45 Salisbury's treatment plant discharges to Water Supply V waters, which are also protected as Class C waters.
N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality, Draft NPDES Permit Renewal — Permit NC 0023884, Salisbury WWTP, 3,
Apr. 8, 2020; 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02B .0218.
46 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02B .0211(12) ("[o]ils, deleterious substances, colored, or other wastes shall not render
the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife, or adversely affect the
palatability of fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any designated uses").
47 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(1).
48 General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources, 52 Fed. Reg. 1586, 1590 (Jan. 14, 1987)
(codified at 40 C.F.R. § 403).
49Id. § 403.8(f)(2)(ii).
50 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(1).
51 Id.
52 Michigan.gov, Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, Wastewater Treatment Plants/Industrial Pretreatment
Program, available at https://www.michigan.gov/pfasresponse/0,9038,7-365-88059_91299---,00.html (last visited
May 4, 2020).
8

to remove PFAS, PFOS levels in the discharges of several treatment plants were reduced by up
to 99 percent.53 By including appropriate limits for PFAS in Salisbury's —and other
municipalities'—NPDES permits, therefore, DEQ can put the burden of cleaning up toxic PFAS
pollution on the industries that create it.
In summary, DEQ must require Salisbury to disclose any discharges of PFAS so that
DEQ can evaluate whether technology -based effluent limits or water quality -based effluent
limits are required in the City's permit. Otherwise, the agency puts downstream communities
such as Denton and Albemarle at risk of drinking contaminated water. Thank you for
considering these comments. Please contact me at 919-967-1450 or [e-mail] if you
have any questions regarding this letter.
53 Id.
Sincerely,
Jean Zhuang
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
601 W. Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919-967-1450
9

Perlmutter, Gary
From: Sonja Basinger <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 9:24 AM
To: Perlmutter, Gary
Subject: [External] RE: Additional information request
Importance: High
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good morning Gary,
The City of Salisbury (NC0023884) has no additional pollutants to report; therefore the Chemical Addendum Form is not
included with Salisbury's application.
Best regards,
Sonja Basinger
Environmental Services Manager
Salisbury -Rowan Utilities I I Environmental Services
City of Salisbury I 11915 Grubb Ferry Rd, Salisbury, North
Carolina 28144
Office: [phone] I I Cell: [phone] I I Fax: (704)
797-4025
[e-mail] I I www.salisburync.gov/SRU
,41C—Viskorigitge
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the N.C. Public Records Law "NCGS. Ch.132" and may
be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state or city official.
From: Perlmutter, Gary <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 11:35 AM
To: Sonja Basinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Additional information request
CAUTION: *** This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ***
Hi Sonja,
I have previously sent a request for the Chemical Addendum to your ORC, so I am forwarding it to you. Please let me
know if you have any questions.
1

Thanks,
Gary
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.
From: Perlmutter, Gary
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 2:06 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Subject: Additional information request
Dear Mr. Amaral,
I am the assigned permit writer for the Salisbury WWTP NPDES permit renewal. I am requesting documentation of any
potential pollutants you may suspect to be in your effluent such as 1,4-Dioxane or PFAS chemicals be submitted as an
addendum to your permit renewal application. See the wording from our website
(https://link.edgepilot.com/s/f24e6eec/WhygZspKlkgikWPCJ7gE6Q?u=https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-quality-permitting/npdes-wastewater/npdes-permitting-process) below:
Permitting Applications NC DEQ
Renewing your existing permit? Federal [40 CFR 122] and State [15A NCAC 02H .0105(3)] regulations require
that permit renewal application be submitted at least 180 days prior to expiration of the current permit. To
find out when your permit renewal application is due, check this table: Click Here List of Individual Permits
deq.nc.gov
"As required by Session Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall submit
documentation of any additional pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if
their discharge is anticipated. These pollutants may be found in 40 CFR Part 136, which is incorporated by
reference. If there are additional pollutants with certified methods to be reported, please submit the Chemical
Addendum to NPDES Application table with your application and, if applicable, list the selected certified
analytical method used. If there are no additional pollutants to report, this form is not required to be included
with your application."
Attached is the Chemical Addendum form to complete plus a supplemental form to use to complete with any PFAS
results (these parameters do not yet have an approved 40 CFR 136 method) you may have. When complete, please
return the forms to me (e-mail is ok). Please let me know if you have any questions.
2

Thank you,
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.
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be
analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If
suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.
3

Salisbury WWTP 2"d Draft Fact Sheet Addendum NC0023884
Draft of the Salisbury WWTP NPDES Permit (NC0023884) was sent for public comment period, noticed
April 10, 2020. Comments were received and responded to in the form of a second draft that was sent
for public comment period, notice April 21, 2022. Comments were received by DWR-Aquatic Toxicity
Branch (ATB), the Permittee, and SELC.
Comment from Zachary Thomas, DWR-ATB and DWR responses:
Comment: The ATB contact cc'd in the cover letter needs to be updated.
Response: Corrected.
Comment: Please confirm that Permittee is responsible for submitting the AtC/Engineering
Certificate before operating under 20 MGD requirements.
Response: This is noted in the Supplement to Cover Sheet (Item 4) and in Section A. (1.)(a.).
Comments from Sonja Bassinger (Permittee) and DWR responses:
Comment: The City requests extension of the permit expiration date to June 30, 2027, for a five-year
permit term.
Response: Extension granted.
Comment: The City requests changes to be made to the Grant Creek WWTT to reflect current pant
upgrades.
Response: Corrections made.
Comment: The City requests a four -month extension of permit effective date for effluent
Conductivity monitoring to allow the City to acquire equipment and certification.
Response: The effective date has been delayed six months.
Comment: The City requests clarification of instream monitoring parameters and the waiver of
instream monitoring as a member of the monitoring coalition.
Response: The parameter list was reviewed; Conductivity was added, and Fecal Coliform was
confirmed it is not necessary and not added. The footnotes were revised to clarify which
parameters (all but Hardness) are waived.
Comment: The City requests monitoring for WET testing be reduced from quarterly to two times per
year based upon (1) past compliance history and (2) low IWC.
Response: WET testing is a screening test for all toxicants in the effluent, and quarterly sampling is
needed to account for seasonal differences in effluent quality. Further, 15A NCAC 2B .0508 states
that toxicity testing frequency will be defined as a minimum of quarterly (footnote **):
"**Specific test type, conditions, and limitations will be defined by permit. Toxicity limits will be
applied to all major discharges and all discharges of complex wastewater. Toxicity limitations and
monitoring requirements may be applied to permits for other discharges when, in the opinion of the
Director, such discharge may impair the best use of the receiving water by the discharge of toxic
substances in toxic amounts. Specific frequency will be defined by individual permit conditions.
Page 1 of 2

Salisbury WWTP 2"d Draft Fact Sheet Addendum NC0023884
For most facilities with continuous and regularly occurring discharges, frequency will be defined as a
minimum of quarterly."
Comment: The City suggests corrections to be made to the Fact Sheet:
• Permitted industrial flow is 1.0518 MGD
• Number of Sills is 7
• Number of effluent pollutant scans submitted is 4
Response: Corrections made.
Comments from SELC and DWR responses:
Comment: Recommend stating in the final documents that "The permittee has no permit shield for
the discharge of PFAS compounds because no such chemicals were disclosed in the permit
application or otherwise."
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: "DEQ must look beyond PFOA and PFOS when addressing PFAS in NPDES permitting and,
at the very least, begin applying EPA's draft analytical method 1633—which EPA has already begun
applying."
Response: Comment noted. Currently the only regulated PFAS chemicals are PFOA and PFOS via a
Health Advisory Level, and currently there is no multilaboratory-validated method yet published in
the Federal Register. The current approach is appropriate.
Page 2 of 2

From: Thomas, Zachary T
To: Perlmutter, Gary
Cc: Moore, Cindy
Subject: RE: Salisbury WWTP 2nd draft permit
Date: Monday, April 25, 2022 2:16:14 PM
Attachments: imaaeool.onq
Hi Gary,
The main aspects for Tox look good, I did want to point out a few things on the cover page:
• The cc'd contact for ATB is listed as Hannah Headrick. You may want to update that to me or
Cindy for the final copy.
• The cover letter states that the tox wording was changed and that "as a result, the
special condition for Chronic Tox Permit Limit at 20MGD has been removed from the
permit".
o The 20MGD appears to still be in the permit, so just wanted to make sure I
wasn't missing anything and that they will still be responsible for submitting the
AtC/engineering cert before operating under the 20MGD requirements.
Please let me know if I missed anything or if you have any questions!
Thank you,
Zach Thomas
Environmental Specialist II
Aquatic Toxicology Branch, Compliance and Enforcement Officer
NCDEQ— Division of Water Resources — Water Sciences Section
Based on the current guidance to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the Department of
Environmental Quality has adjusted operations to protect the health and safety of the staff and
public. Many employees are working remotely or are on staggered shifts. To accommodate these
staffing changes, all DEQ office locations are limiting public access to appointments only. Please
check with the appropriate staff before visiting our offices, as we may be able to handle your
requests by phone or email. We appreciate your patience as we continue to serve the public during
this challenging time.
919.743.8439 Office
919.743.8517 Fax
[e-mail]
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Submit ATForms electronically to: [e-mail]

EQ
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
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 4:19 PM
To: Sonja Basinger <[e-mail]>; Basinger, Corey <[e-mail]>; Kinney,
Maureen <[e-mail]>; Vander Borgh, Mark <[e-mail]>;
Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>; Moore, Cindy <[e-mail]>;
Cook, Clinton <[e-mail]>; Jean Zhuang <[e-mail]>
Subject: Salisbury WWTP 2nd draft permit
Dear everyone,
Attached please find the second draft permit and fact sheet for the Salisbury WWTP NPDES renewal
(NC0023884) noticed for public comment today. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
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.

May 13, 2022
Certified Mali 7015 3430 0000 4523 3783
Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Gary Perlmutter, Environmental Specialist II
NCDEQ/ Division of Water Resources
NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: Comments on Second Draft NPDES Permit
City of Salisbury WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0O23884
Rowan County
Dear Mr. Perlmutter,
The City of Salisbury (City) submits the following comments on the subject draft permit and
Fact Sheet received by email on April 21, 2022:
Draft NPDES Permit
Cover letter
• Special Condition A (6) Effluent Pollutant Scan states sampling dates of 2021, 2022
and 2023. Please update dates to 2023, 2024 and 2025.
Permit Expiration Date
• The City respectfully requests that the proposed 4-year permit cycle be changed to a
5-year permit cycle with an expiration date of June 30, 2027.
Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet
• Grant Creek Treatment Train treatment units need to be updated to reflect the
current plant upgrades:
Influent pump station
Two mechanical bar screens
One manual bar screen
Two mechanical vortex grit removal units
Two 620,000 gallon flow equalization basins
RAS & WAS pump station (remove screw pump lift station )
1 Water Street Telephone [phone]
Salisbury, NC 28144 Fax [phone]

Mr. Gary Perlmutter
May 13, 2022
Page Two
Part I. A (1) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements (12.5 MGD)
• The Conductivity parameter has been added to effluent monitoring. The City
respectfully requests a four -month extension from the permit effective date in order
for the City's in house lab to obtain equipment and receive state certification.
Part I. A (3) Instream Monitoring requirements
• Fecal Coliform and Conductivity parameters are not listed in the Effluent
Characteristics chart with Monitoring Requirements.
• Please clarify in the permit draft if the Total Phosphorus, NO2+NO3, NH3-N, TKN
and Chlorophyll -a parameters are provisionally waived by the City as a member of
the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Association.
Part I. A (4) Chronic Toxicity Permit Limit (Quarterly)
• The City respectfully requests that the monitoring for the WET testing for single
species be reduced from quarterly to two times per year based upon 1) past
compliance history and 2) low IWC of 5.3%.
Fact Sheet
Basic Facility Information
• Permitted Industrial Flow is 1.0518 mgd (Fact Sheet states 0.87 mgd).
• There are currently seven SIUs (Fact Sheet states 7 & 8 SIUs). HBD's pretreatment
permit #0011 was rescinded on April 27, 2022.
• Four effluent pollutant scans (sampled 9/20/2016, 6/13/2017, 3/6/2018 and
12/4/2019) were submitted to NCDEQ.
Please contact me at [phone] or email [e-mail] if you require any
clarification or additional information regarding the subject draft permit
Sincerely,
So i4a Basinger
Environmental Services Manager
cc: Jim Behmer, Utilities Director, Salisbury -Rowan Utilities
Jim Amaral, Water Resources Manager, Salisbury -Rowan Utilities
Charles Wood, Jr., WWTP ORC, Salisbury -Rowan Utilities
Corey Basinger, Regional Supervisor, NCDEQ/DWR/MRO

SOUTHERN
ENV RONMENTAL
CENTER
Via U.S. e-mail
Gary Perlmutter
NCDEQ/DWR/NPDES
Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[e-mail]
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 Telephone 919-96'7-1450
Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Facsimile 919-929-9421
May 17, 2022
RE: Southern Environmental Law Center Comments on 2nd Draft NPDES
Wastewater Permit NC0023884 - City of Salisbury WWTP
Dear Mr. Perlmutter:
The Southern Environmental Law Center offers the following comments on the 2nd
Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit NC00238884,
released by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") to the City
of Salisbury.
First, DEQ should make clear in Salisbury's final permitting documents that any
undisclosed discharges of PFAS are not covered by the City's permit and violate the Clean
Water Act. As DEQ stated in the draft fact sheet, Salisbury did not disclose the release of
any PFAS in its permit application: "A Chemical Addendum was requested from the Town,
which responded by e-mail on 4/7/2022 that no additional pollutants are expected in the
effluent."' As further noted in the fact sheet, Salisbury's treatment plant receives
wastewater from several industries "which are in categories identified by the EPA as
potential sources of PFAS..."2 Because Salisbury has industries suspected to discharge
PFAS, DEQ should make clear in final permitting documents that any undisclosed
pollutants, including PFAS, are not permitted.3 The Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation has made clear that undisclosed discharges of PFAS are unpermitted for
at least one permit for a facility that manufactures coated paper products:
The facility's application did not report any forms of PFAS as chemicals that
there was the potential to discharge. The permittee has no permit shield for
1 NCDEQ, Fact Sheet, NPDES Permit No. NC0023884, City of Salisbury, Salisbury WWTP, at 10
(2022) ("Fact Sheet").
2 Fact Sheet at 10.
3 See In re Ketchikan Pulp Co., 7 E.A.D. 605 (EPA) (1998); Piney Run Pres. Ass'n v. Cty. Comm'rs of
Carroll Cty., Maryland, 268 F.3d. 255 (4th Cir. 2001); Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards v.
A & G Coal Corp., 758 F.3d 560 (4th Cir. 2014).
Charlottesville Chapel Hill Atlanta Asheville Birmingham Charleston Nashville Richmond Washington, DC

the discharge of PFAS compounds because no such chemicals were disclosed
in the permit application or otherwise...4
DEQ should do the same here.
Second, when addressing PFAS in NPDES permitting, DEQ must look beyond
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS"). Particularly after
the crisis caused by the Chemours Fayetteville Works Facility, DEQ is well -aware that
other PFAS are dangerous to human health and must be controlled. EPA's guidance for
EPA -issued NPDES permits goes far beyond PFOA and PFOS and includes analytical
methods for 40 different PFAS and organic fluorine.5 Yet DEQ's draft fact sheet for
Salisbury's permit only focuses on PFOA and PFOS discharges from the facility. Discussing
upstream and downstream sampling, the agency states that PFOA and PFOS levels were
"both below the EPA Health Advisory Level of 70 ng/L."6
By focusing on PFOA and PFOS, the agency ignores what DEQ has learned about
other PFAS based on its experience with the Chemours' facility. And by using EPA's
outdated health advisory level, the agency ignores updated toxicity assessments for the
chemicals, suggesting that the health advisory levels for the chemicals should be
magnitudes lower.? DEQ must look beyond PFOA and PFOS when addressing PFAS in
NPDES permitting and, at the very least, begin applying EPA's draft analytical method
1633—which EPA has already begun applying.8 This is particularly important here, given
that Salisbury discharges into a source of drinking water for Denton and Albemarle and
other downstream communities, and Albemarle's drinking water has been found to have
PFAS.9
4 TDEC, NPDES Permit NO. TN0002330 (2020), Holliston Holdings, LLC, Addendum to Rationale,
https://perma.cc/4RKY-PKFG (emphasis added).
5 Memorandum, EPA, Addressing PFAS Discharges in EPA -Issued NPDES Permits and Expectations
where EPA is the Pretreatment Control Authority, at 2-3 (Apr. 2022), https://perma.cc/8GRQ-FY44
("EPA NPDES Guidance").
6 Fact Sheet at 10.
7 The updated toxicity assessments would translate to health advisories of .006 ppt for PFOA and
.029 ppt for PFOS. Garret Ellison, No Safe PFAS Exposure Level? EPA Toxicity Drafts Point That
Way, MLIVE (Nov. 20, 2021), https://perma.cc/8FYG-NRJP; see EPA, PROPOSED APPROACHES TO THE
DERIVATION OF A DRAFT MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL GOAL FOR PERFLUOROOCTANOIC ACID (PFOA)
(CASRN 335-67-1) IN DRINKING WATER, External Peer Review Draft (2021), https://perma.cc/K3DN-
7BHU: EPA, PROPOSED APPROACHES TO THE DERIVATION OF A DRAFT MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL
GOAL FOR PERFLUOROOCTANE SULFONIC ACID (PFOS) (CASRN 1763-23-1) IN DRINKING WATER,
External Peer Review Draft (2021), https://perma.cc/8L5B-YUNA.
8 When there is no approved analytical method, the Clean Water Act states that permit applicants
"may use any suitable method but must provide a description of the method." 40 C.F.R. §
122.21(g)(7)(i); EPA NPDES Guidance at 2-3.
9 EPA, Occurrence Data for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) 3,
https://perma.cc/LWL5-4GWV.
2

Thank you for considering these comments. Please contact me at 919-967-1450 or
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Y)'-'j
Jean Zhuang
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
601 W. Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919-967-1450
3