NC0023884_Permit Issuance_20051212

Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
December 12, 2005
Mr. Matt Bernhardt
Salisbury -Rowan Utilities
1 Water Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28144
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit 1NCO023884
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP
Rowan County
Dear Mr. Bernhardt:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the
subject permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit.
This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute
143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and. the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently amended).
The permit. authorizes Salisbury to discharge up to 12.5 MGD (as well as an
expansion phase to 20 MGD) of treated wastewater to the Yadkin River, a class WS-V
water in the Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin. The permit includes discharge limitations or
monitoring requirements for flow, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended
solids (TSS), ammonia, fecal coliform bacteria, total residual chlorine, ,total nitrogen, total
phosphorus, selenium, and other parameters.
The Division appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and other members of
the Salisbury -Rowan Utilities on November 16, 2005. Based on that meeting, your
written comments and further review of the draft permit, the Division has reviewed the
final NPDES permit, which includes the following:
■ Mercury monitoring will be done quarterly in the pretreatment program's Long
Term Monitoring Plan based on a reevaluation of the effluent data. Salisbury
will
,,be required to use EPA Method 1631 in the quarterly sampling for mercury.
Ae�
■ An effluent pollutant scan has been added to fulfill EPA's application
requirement for major municipal was treatment facilities. Salisbury
must conduct this scan three times with seasonal variation prior to the next
permit renewal. Special Condition A. (7.) of this permit details this requirement.
■ Effluent monitoring for copper, silver and zinc has been reduced from twice per
month to monthly based on the excellent toxicity testing compliance history of
the facility.
■ The whole effluent chronic toxicity testing limits have been corrected to 7% at
12.5 MGD and 6% at 20 MGD.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
[phone]
FAX [phone]
On the Internet at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/

Page 2
Letter to Mr. Barnhardt
• The treatment process units have been modified to include four primary
clarifiers and two trickling filters are in this final permit.
• The daily maximum limit of 73 ug/1 for selenium at 12.5 MGD (and 78 ug/l of
selenium upon expansion to 20 MGD) will become effective eighteen (18)
months from the effective date of the final permit (June 1, 2007). If within the
18 months, Salisbury can demonstrate that selenium is not a pollutant of
concern, you may request in writing the removal of this permit requirement.
In order to modify the Instream Waste Concentration (IWC) for the facility, the
Division of Water Quality would require Salisbury to conduct another model of
the discharge point of the facility and determine whether the revised flow
information and changes in the receiving stream would modify the dilution
results of the previous C.ORMIX model. DWQ cannot disallow the results of the
jointly agreed upon CORMIX model without updated modeling information that
indicates that the results are no longer valid.
The following modifications listed in the December 21, 2004 draft permit remain
the same.
• Summer and winter daily maximum limits for ammonia nitrogen have been
added to reflect the Division's current policy.
The City of Salisbury should also be aware that discharge limits for total nitrogen
and/or total phosphorus may be required in the future for compliance with the High Rock
Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in
this permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing
upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This
request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the
North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the office of Administrative Hearings,
6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such a
demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this.permit is not transferable. The Division may require
modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect
the legal requirements to obtain other permits, which may be required by the Division
of Water Quality, or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area
Management Act, or any other Federal or Local governmental permits may be required.

Page 3
Letter to Mr. Barnhardt
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms.
Jacquelyn Nowell at telephone number [phone], extension 512.
Sincerely,
,c,t---Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Mooresville Regional Office / Surface Water Protection
EPA/ Region IV/Attn: Marshall Hyatt
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Pretreatment Unit
PERCS/Jon Risgaard
Central Files
NPDES Permit File

Permit NCO023884
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and regulations
promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
City of Salisbury
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from the facilities located at the
Salisbury Rowan WWTP
1915 Grubb Ferry Road
Spencer
Rowan County
and
850 Heih9town Road
East Spencer
Rowan County
to receiving waters designated as the Yadkin River in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin in accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III, and IV
hereof.
The permit shall become effective January 1, 2006.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on June 30, 2009.
Signed this day December 12, 2005.
a�
rv2' Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NCO023884
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked,
and as of this issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore,
the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions,
requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
The City of Salisbury is hereby authorized to:
Continue to operate and maintain the existing 75 MGD Grants Creek Wastewater Treatment Train
consisting of
➢ Influent parshall flume
➢ Four mechanical bar screens
➢ Four grit chambers
➢ Aeration basin with mechanical floating aerators and mixers
➢ Two circular clarifiers and two rectangular clarifiers
➢ Four primary clarifiers
➢ Two trickling filters
➢ Screw pump lift station
➢ Two aerobic digesters
➢ Belt filter press
➢ Standby power generator
➢ Effluent pump station
➢ Flow measurement instrumentation
This treatment train is located on Grubb Ferry Road near Spencer in Rowan County.
2. Continue to operate and maintain the existing 5.0 MGD Town Creek Wastewater Treatment Train
consisting of:
➢ Two mechanical bar screens
➢ Two grit and grease removal units
➢ Two aeration basins with fixed mechanical aerators and mixers
➢ Two secondary clarifiers
➢ Screw pump lift station
➢ Two aerobic digesters
➢ Standby power generator
➢ Flow measurement
➢ Sludge dewatering facilities
➢ Effluent pump station
This treatment train is located on Heiligtown Road near East Spencer in Rowan County.
3. Continue to operate and maintain an ultraviolet or sodium hypochlorite disinfection system, cascade
post aerator, Parshall flume, effluent sampling station and diffuser at the Yadkin River treatment train.
4. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division, construct and operate a 20.0 MGD
wastewater treatment system.
5. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map through Outfall 001
into the Yadkin River, currently classified WS-V waters in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.

!U,
r/_ . `"'�" /rc�
�b/�.!I I. ',c 1 �`0!n`;>���:`i%a, 11!� •yt' l '''.pis ��.a`!�t"���°/5'.�\\li{`--v,�`•l✓.i"(.7'�
9
0
-' � --.��- • v v � , � , \ r� -tl `l � � /,• � _i f. If,� /r i � r` ) ti., . \: c:� l/ � j �c\ � h\f ri _. � , � -�i
---a <a w�_ \1 �f�rr � I \\ �. n f%/�t�t �%•� ii� \� �`/i N \•� / � ,r y t r,�x sA �.
:.-� '. �� , E � l •v e \. >i N i ,ri J/ � �`\., t \ \l -' \ f r �, ' I r
�. ` l/ v ✓^ ` -) t_�. si � �r C � (r Zi\ iL'] � ���"' 1 .� T�•'�/��Z�% red I�++r'•� ,� � ri (1,r�:� � _ jJ� f"`g � / ,` i�.`�l,f V ru �,)!/ /�I i� li �� t_> °' �4. r 7�'tSt\.�•- i r f r� �t3u �.\\� 1 � v('f�y �.��: t (,.� !" , ` f�"•.
N�
/:; �1 •3 \� \_r•'r.7 �, r � �. `•\ �., s.. �% >� � 7' `), 7!i \�.r.-.\- //���.,r ff'1� \`Si.��, <) � .
i
` � A � '� \ ..sx. �.. � �.i G •-f✓ _f t.4 + �" '� . t i'/J ! !�� r'\� � r I FI
t 44;� ,�,5�rJ �,_.'`�� 3� {.. �j31y„��.�..�t.� °l•i,�, _,��! : :E x /. I ✓/�•—. .\ �i�a.� �%r1 �i "t'����•,. F}
�Itt'n.��i 0 i/ J!_W ��+i i .'l \I f' F �, { � �r A, Y �-✓ c `' �J,r ( l!r•�ti .� i �y R, �1 %� 1 � l /-
1 \-,� f j / ��/ �\'!.t .{ *'][ �,�_�� „r t\• `, kit � r !f{
w�. ' /.-/1 /� f 7 5/ �., f ,.y,a• �yr^� �`�.--� � \ \ ) � �JIF2._,� \i� y \ \ � \ Ni
i! ,• E��/y' f - } ` `y\�,� •r.'\A' `�L 1��Y` ````5�a,-\\�jJ- Z'l�� �� '-
��1` ����� , %��.•�t t �\: J '• t`i Ra`,Q ti'1 '� �� •6,��` !`31 � � 4��: � � �� ��t►�,i{y �� .. ,\\
I � �•!i ���. 41�y/iI' ~�!' F/� l,t� '�\.� �_'� •�., ��y •,. �.»-'�'TAY'�4`. i'1: r i/'
. •I,�j r�i ., \ \- �rJ� y: �r X6rA. �'''-;cl`� (!'�' .'`;fir 'r � ,•c - 1:�, t,'+•�`:' t(` '''. •'.�
/f� , i /.-- •1 ��i�� � f i ; �\ ` t �J }` EJGp�' f�l�� � �\.� r _ 1� �''F�t� f t'" �� f . f �_%r!_ `�) / �
'VIt J
'•._�. s � 'v_ �� b �� � �\) ,Q !� �. ff �Y<' _.`i y� ( ) , f r!
1 \� a , �. y Y f \�`=-_ r. i' rr �� i J f 1� t '� • f /tZ7\ 1 {
\'� � � ,�� �y � 1 \ O t 1 4 i/. �74j / -\ 1 k'J St F r',\, ...`—� '•/i
j � Yk�-�%'`'_"1'!> t'i '•(% I '� '` �,/� ,r /�-� lt:�� J � / -�r� r
\ f t :• �! '.,1 \ ; :) h a lea / f� \_ , f r <�/' ^,o . i l� J f% XVL
"
,( \ (1 xl} y 111 �+ 1
\ �, ,j!Q.\+J r \ ✓\ \ .�
� fly (
/I' � i��`�..��s(..ro ��
J ►��.� 1, i ` '� l � :"\ : 1 i 1( [- yl � �\ ' ?I € \ 1 ,.. ��\.� � is - ram• --�\ / 1 i �/_,. % r\\ . „
',}It .� r`� �.. � / �}7 � (• r .\ I r � ! ` = '/ / .f� � ...�� Jam, �Str.-\ �i i. (�� 1. � _.,
�_', Ff.l /i, '.��6`'0 � � r� � : -;7<J��•i i �� ,l�\♦ 4`=='- � ; :. ; � /--j �..J1�'� . �„ , `�,
?04(._ / � ` �� ' � C_!�y 10' �' )Tt t \\� � � •�'eM 2 m \ � �% � 4V.�� � �oA
'• it 912 :: �� .�...� '`�. .1 . jp .� t b -S 7 /,:...` {(".;./! \ : �.�N 11J'k
all
Il� .• r t �- ' \(' `' . YI \ /'-'.r '$9jJ I jt; r '`'i nr
y. o,' I , : �, • ly' J\\ I �;l\.. \ ' ; 1\ ;t.�%ll
1, 1
+,�� I�Y^ \ .. �l as `)tom / • }r � \ J tk`\i J � ri t � ..r,y � �1
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP
State Grid/Ouad: E17NW/Salisbury Latitude:
35' 44' 07' N
Loneitude:
80° 26' 5V W
Receiving Stream: Yadkin River Drainsiee Basin:
Yadkin
Stream Class: WS-V Sub -Basin:
03-07-04
MIX
Facility Location :a
not to scale
NPDES Permit No. NCOO23884
l�lorth Rowan County .

Permit NCO023884
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (12.5 MGD)
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expansion beyond 12.5 MGD, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the
Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT-
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
WeeklYT
Measurement
Sample Type
;Sample
Aveira a ,..Maaumum
Fre uenc
,
.-l;ocationl .i
Flow
12.5 MGD7
Continuous
Recording
Influent or
Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20 °C
15.0 mg/L6
22.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
1 to October 31
Effluent
-(April
BOD, 5 day, 20 °C
30.0 mg/L6
45.0 mg/L
Daily'
Composite
Influent and
November 1 to March 31
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mg/L6
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
NH3 as N
6.0 mg/L
18.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Effluent
(April 1 to October 31
NH3 as N
12.0 mg/L
35.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Effluent
November 1 to March 31
Dissolved Oxygen2
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
(geometric mean
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
H3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine4
28 p g/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Silver
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Copper
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Selenium8
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Selenium9
73 p g/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Effluent Pollutant Scan 10
See Footnote
See Footnote
Effluent
10
10
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
I Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. Combined effluent from the Grant Creek and Town Creek treatment trains, except that flow, BOD, and TSS
shall be sampled separately at the Town Creek treatment train and the Grant Creek treatment train. BOD and
TSS removal efficiency shall be calculated by mathematically aggregating the values for the Grant Creek and the
Town Creek treatment train. (Refer to A. (6.).)
2. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. Monitoring only applies if chlorine is added to the treatment system.
5. Chronic Toxicity limit (Ceriodaphnia) at 7 % with testing in March, June, September and December (see A. (4)).
6. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
7. 7.5 MGD at Grant Creek treatment train. 5.0 MGD at Town Creek treatment train.

Permit NCO023884
8. Monitoring requirement may be deleted upon written notification from the permitting authority.
9. The limitation for total selenium will be effective eighteen months from issuance of permit Quly 1, 2007). This
limit may be deleted upon written notification from the permitting authority.
10. Effluent pollutant scan must be done three times with seasonal variation before next permit application. See A.
(7)•
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0023884
A. (2) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (20 MGD)
During the period beginning after expansion beyond 12.5 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as
specified below:
Flow
20 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20 °C
_5.0 mg/L6
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
1 to October 31
-(April
BOD,,5 day, 20 °C
November 1 to March 31
10.0 mg/L6
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
30:0 m /L6
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
NH3 as N
A ril 1-to October 31 ----
1.0 mg/L
--—
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
— -----
Effluent
- ----- -- - - - - --
NH3 as N
November 1 to March 31
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen2
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
H3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine4
28 p g/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Weekly -
Composite
Effluent
Total Silver
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Copper
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium?
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Selenium8
78 p g/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Effluent Pollutant Scan9
See Footnote 9
See Footnote 9
Effluent
Chronic Toxicitv5
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. Sample locations: Effluent - Combined Effluent from Grant Creeks and Town Creek
2. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. Monitoring only applies if chlorine is added to the treatment system for disinfection.
5. Chronic Toxicity limit (Ceriodaphnia) at 6 % with tests in March, June, September and December (see A. (5)).
6. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
7. Monitoring requirement may be deleted upon written notification from the permitting authority.-
8. The limitation for total selenium will be effective eighteen months from issuance of permit Quly 1, 2007). This
limit may be deleted upon written notification from the permitting authority.
9. Effluent pollutant scan must be done three times with seasonal variation before next permit application. See A.
(7)•
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NCO023884
A. (3) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Dissolved Oxygen
June -September
3/week
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
October -Ma
1/week
pH
June -September
3/week
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
October -Ma
1/week
Temperature
June -September
3/week
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
October -Ma
1/week
Total Phosphorus
June -September
1/month
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
-NO2+NO3
—June--September—
1/month—
Grab
U stream-& Downstream
NH3 as N
June -September
1/month
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Total K'eldahl Nitrogen
June -September
1/month
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Chlnrnnhvll-a
June -September
1/month
Grab
Downstream
Notes:
Upstream = at cast 200 eet upstream of thee sc arg point
p int ---- — — --
Downstream = 0.7 miles above Southern Railroad Bridge.
As a participant in the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Association, the instream monitoring requirements as stated above are waived.
Should your membership in the agreement be terminated, you shall notify the Division immediately and the instream monitoring
requirements specified in your permit shall be reinstated.
As per 15A NCAC 2B.0505 (c) (4), stream sampling may be discontinued at such time as flow conditions in the receiving waters
or extreme weather conditions will result in a substantial risk of injury or death to persons collecting samples. In such cases, on
each day that sampling is discontinued, written justification for the discontinuance shall be specified in the monitoring report for
the month in which the event occurred. This provision shall be strictly construed and may not be utilized to avoid the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2B.0500 when performance of these requirements is attainable. When sampling is discontinued
pursuant to this provision, stream sampling shall be resumed at the first opportunity after the risk period has ended.

Permit NCO023884
A. (4) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly) at 12.5 MGD
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 7 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or
"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent
versions. The tests will be performed during the months of March, June, September, and December. Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the.NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment
processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit limit,
then_multiple_concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum in each of the two following months as
described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or
subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest.
concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does
have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment," collection
methods, s, exposure regimes, an itirther statistic me hods are specified i tthe `North Carolina Phase II—C ronic
Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter code TGP3B for the
pass/fail results and THP313 for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the
following address:
Attention: NC DENR / DWQ / Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no later than 30 days
after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature.
Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the
permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility
name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow' in the
comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited
above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be
required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include
alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid
test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following
the month of the initial monitoring.

Permit NCO023884
A. (5) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly) at 20 MGD
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 6 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or
"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent
versions. The tests will be performed during the months of March, June, September, and December. Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment
processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit limit,
then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months as
described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or
subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest
concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does
have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment," collection
methods, exposure regimes, and rur er s a 's ucal-metlzozls are specifr�d-in-tire"North-Carolina Phase fI-Chroni
Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter code TGP3B for the
pass/fail results and THP313 for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the
following address:
Attention: NC DENR / DWQ / Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no later than 30 days
after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature.
Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the
permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility
name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the
comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited
above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be
required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include
alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid
test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following
the month of the initial monitoring.

Permit NCO023884
A. (6) AGGREGATE CALCULATION OF GRANTS CREEK AND TOWN CREEK TSS AND
BOD REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
TSS wwTP Infl = (TSSGC Iinfl X FlowGC) + (TSSTC Infl X F10wTC)
F10wGC + F1owTc
TSS wwTP Effl = (TSSGC Effl x F10wGC) + (TSSTC Effl x - FlowTc)
F10wGC + F1owrc
TSSREMOVAL = [1 - (TSSww- P Effl / TSSwwTP Infl)] x 100%
Notes:
"Effl" =
Effluent
"Infl" =
Influent
"GC" =
Grants Creek Treatment Train
"TC" =
Town Creek Treatment Train
"WWTP" = Salisbury -Rowan WWTP

Permit NCO023884
A. (7.) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The permittee shall perform three Effluent Pollutant Scans for all parameters listed in the table below
(in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136). The effluent pollutant scan samples shall represent seasonal
(summer, winter, fall, spring) variations over the 3-year permit cycle. Unless otherwise indicated,
metals shall be analyzed as "total recoverable." Additionally, the method detection level and the
minimum level shall be the most sensitive as provided by the appropriate analytical procedure.
Ammonia (as N)
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
1,1-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Dissolved oxygen
1,2-dichloropropane
Bis (27ethylhexyl) phthalate
Nitrate/Nitrite
1,3-dichloropropylene
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ethylbenzene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Oil and grease
Methyl bromide
2-chloronaphthalene
Phosphorus
Methyl chloride
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids
Methylene chloride
Chrysene
Hardness
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Antimony
Tetrachloroethylene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic
I o uene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Beryllium
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Cadmium
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromium
Trichloroethylene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Copper
Vinyl chloride
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Lead
Acid -extractable compounds: Diethyl phthalate
Mercury
P-chloro-m-cresol
Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Selenium
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Silver
2,4-dimethylphenol
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Thallium
4,6-dinitro-o7cresol
Fluoranthene
Zinc
2,4-dinitrophenol
Fluorene
Cyanide
2-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds
4-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
Volatile organic compounds:
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Acrolein
Phenol
Hexachloroethane
Acrylonitrile
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene
Base -neutral compounds:
Isophorone
Bromoform
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Acenaphthylene
Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Anthracene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine .
Chlorodibromomethane
Benzidine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Chloroethane
Benzo(a)anthracene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Chloroform
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Pyrene
Dichlorobromomethane
Benzo(ghi)perylene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
Benzo(k)fluoranthene.
1,2-dichloroethane
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane

Permit NC0023884
➢ Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPA1 or in a form
approved by the Director, within 90 days of sampling. A copy of the report shall be
submitted to each the NPDES Unit and the Compliance and Enforcement Unit to the
following address: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, , 1617 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.

Amended Fact Sheet - NPDES Permit
Salisbury —Rowan WWTP
NPDES No. NCO023884
Facility
Receivinq Stream
Facility Name:
Salisbury— Rowan
Receiving Stream:
Yadkin River
Permitted Flow (MGD):
12.5 MGD
Subbasin:
030704
Facility Class:
IV
Index No.:
Facility Status:
Existing
Stream Class:
WS-V
Permit Status:
Renewal
303(d) Listed:
No
County:
Rowan
Use Support:
Regional Office:
Mooresville
Drainage Area (mi2):
3,377
USGS Topo Quad:
E17NW
Summer 7010 (cfs)
1030 cfs
Salisbury, NC
Effective 7Q10
263.5 cfs (based on 14.6:1
dilution instream)
Average Flow (cfs):
4,879
IwC (%):
6.85
Facility
Receivinq Stream
Facility Name:
Salisbury — Rowan
WWTP
Receiving Stream:
Yadkin River
Permitted Flow (MGD):
20.0 MGD
Subbasin:
030704
Facility Class:
IV
Index No.:
Facility Status:
Existing
Stream Class:
WS-V
Permit Status:
Renewal
303(d) Listed:
No
County:
Rowan
Use Support:
Regional Office:
Mooresville
Drainage Area (mi2):
3,377
USGS Topo Quad:
E17NW
Summer 7010 (cfs)
1030 cfs
Salisbury, NC
Effective 7010
449.5 cfs (based on 15.5:1
dilution instream)
Average Flow (cfs):
4,879
IwC (%):
6.45
NCO023884 Permit Factsheet
Page 5

Corrections to the Factsheet
Per EPA comment the following paragraph should be corrected to include the last sentence:
Salisbury has a full pre-treatment program, with 4 SIUs (Significant Industrial Users) and 5 CIUs
(Categorical Industrial Users) per its application. DWQ recommends that Salisbury continue to
implement the full pretreatment program and its Long Term Monitoiring Plan through the
renewed .permitting cycle.
Correction to the Permit
■ A special condition requiring an annual effluent pollutant scan/priority pollutant analysis for
the City of Salisbury will be added to the final permit. This is an EPA requirement that must
be fulfilled with the permit renewal application. Per 40 CFR 122.21
■ The IWC for both wasteflows must be modified., The chronic toxicity testing condition
page for 12.5 MGD shows an IWC of 6.6 %. This is now corrected to 7% (rounded up
from 6.859/6) based on using the effective 7Q10 of 263.5 cfs. At 20 MGD, the IWC must be
corrected to 6 % (rounded from 6.459/6) based'on the effective 7Q10 of 449.5 cfs.
Salisbury Comments on the draft permit
1. Request that limitations/monitoring for selenium is dropped: The 35 ug/1 sample in 2004 is not
representative of the Salisbury effluent and should not be considered in the analysis of effluent data.
All other values are below detection. Recommend that it be monitored (quarterly) in the LTMP.
DWQ response: The 35 ug/1 sample in May 2004 was reported in an amended DMR submitted by
Salisbury in November 2004. Due to problems with instruments, metals and other parameters were
not run in time to report on the correct DMR. The data was reported as part of LTMP. The City
did not report that sample was not representative at the time of its submittal. No information from
lab that indicated that sample was contaminated.
Recommend that facility have delayed limit for selenium, with 18-month compliance schedule with
monthly .monitoring for selenium and limit will become effective eighteen months from effective
date of the .permit. If Salisbury submits a mumnum of 12 data points and the data does not show
reasonable potential to exceed the allowable concentration then facility can request that DWQ
reevaluate the data to determine if the selenium limit/monitoring in the NPDES permit will be
dropped.
Chronic selenium limits of 73 ug/1 and 78 ug/1 were given at 12. 5 MGD and 20 MGD, respectively.
The acute selenium value is based on selenite (+4) and may not be the most prevalent form.
Therefore, after consultation with EPA, the chronic selenium limit was placed in the permit.
2. Request that monitoring for mercury is dropped: The hits (0.4 and 0.3 ug/1) in 2002 are not
representative of the Salisbury effluent. Recommend that it be monitored quarterly in the LIMP.
All other values are below detection.
EPA response: An interim objection to the permit (rec'd 2/4/2005) due to RPA showing that Hg
limit should 'be given but only Hg monitoring was included. Also questioned that facility should be
using EPA Method 1631 in its analysis. After discussion of these issues in a January 27 2005
telecon, EPA recommended that facility have a delayed mercury limit of'0.180 ug/l with a 18 month
compliance schedule, i'f' collected data shows no RP, then limit/monitoring in the NPDES will be
dropped. Need to address the mercury sampling method and resolve.
Updated EPA response 12/1/2005 — re-evaluation of Hg data shows that since the February 2002
hits, all Hg values, (35 datapoints) have been below detection of 0.2 ug/l. EPA agrees that mercury
limit may ' not be needed. EPA will concur with quarterly Hg monitoring in the pretreatment
program LongTerm Monitoring Program,.however Salisbury must use Method 1631.
DWQ response: Concurs with Hg -monitoring in the LTMP.
NCO023884 Permit Factsheet
Page 2

3. Correction of the instream waste concentration based on a normal calculation that reflects
the actual, documented riverine conditions at the diffuser and the 7Q10 of 833 cfs at the
diffuser.
DWQ response:
Background on development of Salisbury effluent limits.
CORMIX model used by DWQ in 1995. Objective was to predict mixing and develop effluent
Emits for alternative outfall designs.
Design conditions: combination of riverine and lacustrine conditions
7Q10 = 1030 cfs (29.1 m3/s)
Full pool scenario used to develop toxics limits.
Mixing zone not to exceed 1 /3 of channel width.
Standard must be met at edge of mixing zone.
Toxics limits based on dilution at the edge of mixing zone.
To improve mixing between the effluent and the Yadkin River. Salisbury constructed a 3 port
diffuser with a minimum 14.6 :1 dilution ratio at 12.5 MGD.
At 12.5 MGD, dilution is 14.6:1 (based on CORMIX model results), Dilution = 1 /IWC , IWC =
0.0685 * 100 = 6.85%
The effective 7Q10 at 14.6:1 is 263.5 cfs; which is backcalculated from the dilution ratio. This
effective 7Q10 is used as input for analysis of metals limits.
At 20 MGD, dilution is 15.5:1 (based on CORMIX model results), Dilution = 1/IWC, IWC =
0.0645 * 100 = 6.45%
The effective 7Q10 at 15.5:1 dilution ratio, is 449.5 cfs, which is backcalculated from the dilution
ratio. This effective 7Q10 will be used as input for analysis of metals limits.
Therefore, at 12.5 MGD, the IWC=7% and at 20 MGD, the IWC is 6%.
Note: An error was made in the previous permit when the effective 7Q10 of 263.5 cfs (instead
of 449.5 cfs) was also used for the expansion flow of 20 MGD. The incorrect IWC of 10.5%
at 20 MGD was listed in the previous permit and whole toxicity testing requirement. The
correct IWC of 6.45% —6% will now be used.
In order to modify the Instream Waste Concentration (IWC) for the facility, the Division of Water
Quality would require Salisbury to conduct another model of the discharge point of the facility and
determine whether the revised flow information and changes in the receiving stream would modify
the dilution results of the previous CORMIX model.
4.Correction of the description of the Grant Creek Treatment train.
DWQ response: Will include four (4) primary clarifiers and two (2) trickling filters on the permit
supplement cover page.
DATE: �3—
NC0023884 Permit Factsheet
Page 3

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Salisbury - Rowan WWTP
Outfall 001
NCO023884
Ow = 12.5 MGD
Time Period 1/2002-9/2005
Qw (MGD) 12.5,
WWTP Class IV
7Q10S (cfs) 263.5
IWC (%) @ 7Q10S 6.8493
701OW (cfs) 0
@ 7Q10W WA
30Q2 (cfs) 0
@ 30Q2 N/A
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 4879
@ QA 0.3955
Rec'ving Stream Yadkin River
Stream Class WS-V
STANDARDS &
PARAMETER
TYPE
CRITERIA (2)
POL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NCWQS1 %FAV/
n #Det. MaxPredCw AllowableCw
11I
Chronic Acute
Acute: N/A
Arsenic
NC
50
ug/L
12 0
9.2
_ _ _ _
Chronic: 730
_ _ _
No action, all'values"beloWidetection'
Acute: 15
�: ...
Cadmium
NC
2 15
ug/L
15 1
5.4
_____------ _
__ __
Chronic: 29
___
No action 14 of`15 values :below detection
V.
Acute: 1,022
Chromium
NC
50 1,022
ug/L
12 4
309.7
_ _ _ _
Chronic: 730
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _
No action, no exceedance of allowable cone.
Acute: 7
Continue'rronitoring, reduce to 1/month due to;good tox ;� ,
Copper
NC
7 AL 7.3
ug/L
55 11
79.0
_ _ _ _
resufts _ _
Chronic: 102
Acute: 22
Drop quaRedy;monitorihg.
Cyanide
NC
5 N 22
10
ug/L
34 1
13.9
_ _ _ _ _
_ ___ _ _° _ _ _ _
Chronic: 73
_
Acute: 34
No.actioo, no°exoeedance'of allowable cone. "
Lead
NC
25 N 33.8
ug/L
15 2
24.1
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 365
_ _
Acute: N/A
Monthly monitoring recommended based.on 35 non detects
Mercury
NC
0.012
0.0002
ug/L
43 2
0.7304
_ _ _ _
since the Feb. 2002 hits —Monitoring must use the"new ,-
Chronic: 0.18
Method 1631
Acute: 261
No action, no exceedance of'allowable conc.
Nickel
NC
88 261
ug/L
16 1
11.9
__ _ __ _
_ --------
Chronic: 1,285
___
Acute: 56
Add daily maxa mit based on chronic allowabfe due to dilutic
Selenium
NC
5.0 56
ug/L
17 2
273.5
i
Max fpred. exceeds allowable cenc,',Delayed limit m_$'mo_h
_ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 73
_
for fact ity W find source of. Se wiii monitor monthly
before"delayed limit iseffective. <.
Acute: 1
Continue'monitoring, reduce to 1/month due to good tox "
Silver
NC
0.06 AL 1.23
ug/L
57 3
10.8
-- --
results
-- — --- --- — — — — — ---
_ _
Chronic:
Acute: 67
Continue:monitoring, reduce to'lffronth due to"good tox
Zinc
NC
50 AL 67
ug/L
17 13
181.1
_
results:
— — -----_
c:
Chroni730
— - ----------------
' Legend: " Freshwater Discharge
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
23884.rpal2.5mgd.updt, rpa
11 /18/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Salisbury - Rowan WWTP
NCO023884
Time Period 1/2002-912005
Qw (MGD) 20
WWTP Class IV
7Q10S (cfs) 449.5
IWC (%) @ 7QIOS 6.4516
7010W (cfs) 0
@ 701OW N/A
3002 (cfs) 0
@ 30Q2 N/A
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 4879
@ QA 0.6314
Rec'ving Stream Yadkin River
Stream Class WS-V
Outfall 001
Qw = 20 MGD
STANDARDS &
PARAMETER
TYPE
CRITERIA (2)
POL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
11)
NCWQS/ FAV/
n NDet. MaxPredCw AllowableCw
Chronic Acute
Acute: N/A
Arsenic
NC
50
ug/L
12 0
9.2
--------------------------------------------
Chronic: 775
No action; all values below detection
Acute: 15
Cadmium
NC
2 15
ug/L
15 1
5.4
Chronic: 31
No action 14 of 15 values below.detection
Acute: 1,022
Chromium
NC
50 1,022
ug/L
12 4
309.7
---------------------
Chronic: 775
No action, no exceedance of allowable Cont.
Acute: 7
Continue monitoring, reduce to -1/month due to good tox
Copper
NC
7 AL 7.3
ug/L
55 11
79.0
_ _ _ _ _
results. — — — — — ---°
— — —
Chronic: 109
- -
-'
Acute: 22
Drop quarterly monitoring
Cyanide
NC
5 N 22
10
ug/L
34 1
13.9
_ _ --a
-- -----— --
Chronic: -
--- ----------- --
Acute: 34
No action, no exceedance`of allowable cony
Lead
NC
25 N 33.8
ug/L
15 2
24.1
_ _ _ _
---- ---- ---------------------
Chronic: 388
Acute: N/A
Monthly monitoring recommended based on 35 non detects
Mercury
NC
0.012
0.0002
ug/L
43 2
0.7304
_ _ _ _
since the Feb. 2002 hits. ,Mo_nitoring m_ust_use-the-n_ew__
Chronic: 0.19
Me1166d•1631 -
Acute: 261
No action, no exceedance of allowable cone.
Nickel
NC
88 261
ug/L
16 1
11.9
------ ------------------------
Chronic: 1,364-
Acute: 56
Add daily max' limit based on chronic allowable due,to dilutic
Selenium
NC
5.0 56
ug/L
17 2 "
273.5
Max. Pred. exceeds allowable cone. Delayed limif in 1.8_m_on
_ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 78
for facility to find source.of Se: Will monitor monthly
before delayed limit is effective.
Acute: 1
Continue monitoring, reduce to 1/month due to good tox
Silver
NC
0.06 AL 1.23
ug/L
57 3
10.8
_ _ —1—
results.
--- —.-----------------
Chronic:
— — —^—
Acute: 67
Continue'monitoring, reduce to 1/month due to good tox
Zinc
NC
50 AL 67
ug/L
17 13
181.1
_ _ _ _
results.
-------------------------------
Chronic: 775
-
Legend: " Freshwater Discharge
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
23884.rpa20mgd.updt2, rpa
11 /18/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Date
1 Sep-2005
2 Juk2005
3'. 'May-2005
4 Mar-2005
5 Jan-2005
6 Jul-2004
7 May-2004
8 Mar-2004
9 Dec=2003
10 Oct 2003
11 Jul-2003
12 May-2003
13 Mar-2003
14 Oct-2002
15 Jul-2002
16 May-2002
17 Mar-2002
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Data
Selenium
BDL=1/2DL
10 5.0
10' 5.0
10 5.0
10 5.0
100 50.0
10 5.0
35 35.0
5 2.5
10 5.0
1 1.0
10 5.0
10 5.0
10 5.0
110 5.0
10 5.0
10 5.0
10 5.0
Results
Std Dev
Mean
C.V.
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
12.9210
9.0294
1.4310
17
5.4700
50.0 ug/L
273.5 ug/L
-1-
23884.rpa20mgd.updteff7g10, data
11 /16/2005

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
9
Mercury
�
. .�.
° $
E1
,§\o
{
E1
<
+»
E1
\\
/
E4
:\0.2
E1
\:
-
E1
§' /
E1
\
/0 }
E1
2
:
0.1
\d0
}
E1
\?§o
:
0.1
2
ai
§ƒ/
E1
\\
{
0.1
w
7
E1
} $
0.1
\
: /
0.1
«
ai
\
062
0.1
.\
E1
d/\\
®1
?»0.21
E1
$
&1
: $
&1
\ Z
E1
\ \
E1
:
\
0.1
\
E1
:
2,
ai
$
E1
ƒ «:
\ 2
0.1
2§
\
E1
.
.
E1
/
&1
?.
\
E1
A
E4
x
..3
Ea
\»
ƒ\
E1
»
0.1
E1
:.0.2,
E1
{
E1
<
,¥$
E1
� \
�
.\\
»
z.\
E1
Results
@dDv
0.0568
Mean
0.1116
C.V.
E2m
n
4
UdFcr=
tmm
Max. Value
E4
Max. P@dC■
E7
-1-
2m49aom &9am7q10,d!a
gde2Z ms

lgw.54wl
G�til�
h�-5
AIZ, H--

- Qw
7910
Ow
CA
1q�3157 13.6 = .Zlo3,s C6
C
31 tT t Its,
20 Afcew C6

*vim /c 3/, w �a yet-
U d/G 1'Se. Q <d �'11 �C U�✓�� I.JG /'L Ga l✓!� � 7��J /�f✓L
f/2
.) z
� t79/o 1
*"79to
��y

(�rP 79(0�,
jvj c
l +
U. o�4s (it fi 70 os ) : 31
?Qr°5 c
C4
us rx) 0 A
7005; = (o �a is
(2•5AlcD - M38J-5
6 7q r o5
�WGa
y f;F t 7p cl�
(�.38
t4.38 r7���s
7Q/c� a
N M-ox (_ (?)
1 Q(os h7 ?OOL 79, s sc,EYO+2c o z'o/L j6 p cs
7Q(os k; 5 Sao" i�vk__rboL PATIa
Ckt-rQ 5ru sou wy WA-5 ON CeAf(Ap4- Gt S )

sail S�U
_.f._._ �1���.Sf✓ �� GvicC��i' � J�r'�.yh,. � �-e�-t,
? ..v

'� �✓ d-r��j£.Z� ��/J , rjS�,���/ G�G�/G's'// �v /��t'7 �' _�i w�
Olt Aw
JX
t44—me' C>*1 9 XoN ' lJLM"Mo^-Allylf.�66G1t•v
� �_ ✓�G�M �_ � � l� //.tit l7— `� t UJS,��iG.�
!unti A?
7Q/o '51� _66 krA 4"

dS�rf
E'17Nc,
.W. L
79<r- i o c j
79.(s'a = /Y8a c6�
3w z . /ego ct
K C�-�►i,vs�a.. �ldE/.i✓G �- �.�Cv fi�il.✓� 4M���►tl

f ,
W $7
AjL002- 3f4q f en ewk l 4ev1e-1ofw(eff-1--CJ
tm,o�a 4.,,, ef&frP -
/Z, r 46v ri+NG� ( 7,s-'�qnJ 6�✓ Jr `r/r a,- �t / /o. a f �G �G✓ Try,,. .
�w o-ovw I C�I� -
7—W
F
kc,
7plo /-I-
--e
/ - Wdl""
!/f6:zr 7016 -A)C -- Z, 3 %a x-7o
w/ /� /�,C

ff33. /
/"64
C
C, o 6�4�e j7p
✓ �w,,�r• 710
� e- k""j
s
d L T .•c,r� KW6 /fit ✓ c-, .� ✓� ��r�✓ � / /,r�Y,,� E� /,-, Z ".
%�Gvw
7qRRLlll

dr CGy /7 v�,✓z�l � a /,st vt�r'tic
.70 C75
�l til SGf�t/i✓t o JfE � ZU � c l l�tG�
?ovt C C*-(, rA-'
kwTWLc Mel 1p`' � ate
-- 7 dw c (/v4i4
4f/X`•✓( 7MJ6.
/,'l oa

Residual Chlorine
Salisbury WWTP @ 20 MGD
"corrected effective 7910
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7010 (CFS)
449.5
7Q10 (CFS)
449.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
20
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
20
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
31
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
31
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%) 1
6.45
IWC (%)
6.45
Allowable Concentration (ugi
263.50
Allowable Concentration (m
12.31
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS) F ' .
Fecal Limit 200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 20
Ratio of 14.5 :1 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 31
STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL 0.22
IWC (%) 95.68
Allowable Concentration (m 1.87
8/25/2005

Salisbury WWTP @ 12.5 MGD
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
263.5
7Q10 (CFS)
263.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
12.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
12.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
19.375
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
19.375
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%) 1
6.85
IWC (%)
6.85
Allowable Concentration (up
248.20
Allowable Concentration (m
11.61
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS) 4
Fecal Limit 200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 12.5
Ratio of 13.6 :1 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 19.375
STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL 0.22
IWC (%) 93.26
Allowable Concentration (m 1.91
8/25/2005

Residual Chlorine
Salisbury WWTP @ 20 MGD
*corrected effective 7Q10
Ammonia as NI•13
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
263.5
7Q10 (CFS)
263.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
20
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
20
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
31
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
31
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%) 1
10.53
IWC (%)
10.53
Allowable Concentration (ugj
161.50
Allowable Concentration (m
7.63
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
Fecal Limit 200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
Ratio of 8.5 :1 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (m
20
31
1.8
0.22
95.68
1.87
8/25/2005

-It f'V4 l Mi E�
8/11/O.
Salisbury WWTP — Permit Issues
Internal Meeting
August 11, 2005
Permitted at 12.5 MGD and 20 MGD. Discharges into Yadkin River
IWC at 12.5 MGD = 6.6%, IWC @ 20 MGD = 10.5 %
Grant Creek WWTP and Town Creek WWTP discharges combined
Draft permit on 12/21/2004
Salisbury Comments on 2/14/2005
EPA comments and interim objection letter 2/2/2005
Issues
7Q10 and IWC - City wants a different 7Q10 used to calculate limits.
11
DWQ used an effective 7Q10 based on dilution from diffusers. 263.5 cfs.- used
to calculate toxic limits
DWQ used flow of 1030 cfs in the CORMIX model. �Ql0 from USGS station
@US 29 nr Salisbury (11/3/87). Model design notes combination of rive enn and
Salisbury has contracted ENSR and CH2M Hill to determine 7Q10 flows.
Revised flow at discharge point should be 735 cfs.
USGS or ENSR previous estimate of 833 cfs.
IWC at 12.5 MGD =2.6%
• USGS 11/2004 email —Salisbury contacted them. Estimates of 750 cfs—900cfs
given. USGS not able to provide any further clarification on 7Q10 for this
location. Lakes are a problem for them.
Mercury - City not using method 1631 since contesting IWC and 7Q10 used
• Ok'd until flow issues resolved
• EPA draft permit review — 1) should be using new method, 2) RP shown, 3)
recommended a delayed limit for 18 months. If below the allowable 180 ng/1
then the limit will be removed.
Notes from meetin -
t er attendees:- Dave Goodrich, Susan Wilson, Teresa Rodriguez
DAG- velocities are very important in CORMIX. Drought conditions are not critical in
CORMIX. Need to do a dye study at full pool and 7Q10 conditions from upstream
instead of CORMIX. It will be hard to have both those conditions met.
The CORMIX model calculates the dilution.
1/3 channel width used in the CORMIX was developed from research study of other
states. Keep 2/3 of stream open for passage of fish.
TROD- a dye study would give them another dilution and other velocities.

CORMIX is the model to use. Salisbury can re -run but with the lower 7Q10 flows that
they are requesting. The model results could be more stringent for toxics. The
CORMIX model used 1030 cfs. The effective 7Q10 that was used in running the RPA
was the dilution determined by the model. It is the inverse of the dilution back
calculated.
TO DO/Things to check on
1. What is the cutoff IWC for new mercury method?
2. Find out where the 10.5% IWC @ 20 MGD came from? The effective 7Q1.0 at
20 MGD should be 449.5 cfs. New tWC at 20 MGD? Calculate.
6. 1 �s90
3. What is their flow now? 12.5 MGD, still combining the flows from Grants
Creek WWTP and "Town Creek WWTP. No new plant built yet.
4. Check with pretreatment, to see if they know anything about the Se hit? Is it
suspect? Are there any industries discharging selenium?
&C' /-t 7

f
0
�.Giv �GtC/n%
chi 7� i v 6044V
�/�/06/
E" i141�01 /t
AWE Awl,-4� �wl� OIIZ��
I I- A�/ A SMI'l
/,� ', ovw --` / OV/
�i„j� ate" �-✓�...� /b, d" % �e/G � � .�llrt� �, -�*�
I-K

Salisbury WWTP @ 12.5 MGD
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
263.5
7Q10 (CFS)
263.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
12.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
12.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
19.375
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
19.375
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
6.85
IWC (%)
6.85
Allowable Concentration (ugj
248.20
Allowable Concentration (m
11.61
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS) E ,0
Fecal Limit
200/100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
12.5
Ratio of 13.6 :1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
19.375
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
100.00
Allowable Concentration (m
1.80
8/10/2005

Sa/isbury/P`waS
February 14, 2005
i
VIA U.S. MAIL & FACSIMILE TO [phone]
Ms. Jacquelyn M. Nowell
NPDES Unit
Division of Water Quality
DENR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 28144
p � �
F E B 17 2005
DE;:a 2 - WAIT LR QUALITY
POINT SOU'tCE BRANCH
Re: Comments on Draft NPDES Permit NCO023884 for the Salisbury -Rowan WWTP
Dear Ms. Nowell:
SRU has reviewed the Draft NPDES Permit No. NCO023884 for the Salisbury -Rowan
WWTP and timely submits these comments pursuant to an extension of the comment period
through February 14, 2005 that was granted by DWQ. SRU requests that the following
modifications and corrections be reflected in the final permit:
Modification of the proposed changes to the monitoring requirements, as follows:
a) Zinc — No change requested.
b) Mercury — SRU requests deletion of monitoring requirement.
c) Selenium — SRU requests deletion of monitoring requirement.
2. Modification of the proposed changes to the permit limits as follows:
a) Ammonia (NH3 as N) — No change requested.
b) Selenium — SRU requests deletion of limit (regardless of decision on selenium
monitoring).
3. Correction of the in -stream waste concentration ("IWC") based on a normal calculation that
reflects the actual, documented riverine conditions at the diffuser and the 7Q10 of 833 cfs at
the diffuser.
4. Correction of the description of the Grant Creek Treatment train.
1 Water Street Telephone [phone]
Salisbury, NC 28144 Salisbury -Rowan Utilities Fax [phone]

MODIFICATION OF PROPOSED MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SRU requests that the monitoring requirements proposed in the draft permit for selenium
and mercury be deleted. The additional monitoring is expensive and is not supported by the
effluent data.
Mercury: The cover letter for the draft permit states that the mercury monitoring was
added based on an analysis of effluent data. However, the data reveal that mercury has been
consistently below detection limits with the exception of a single sample which is not
representative of SRU's effluent. The effluent data are summarized in Attachment 1. The
sampling for mercury is very expensive and operating cost is an important issue for SRU. SRU
requests that the monitoring requirement be deleted. SRU would continue to monitor mercury
through the Long Term Monitoring Plan of the SRU Pretreatment Program.
Selenium: The cover letter for the draft permit states that the selenium monitoring was
added based on an analysis of effluent data. However, the data reveal that selenium has been
consistently below detection limits with the exception of a single sample, which is not
representative of SRU's effluent. The effluent data are summarized in Attachment 1. The
sampling for selenium is expensive and operating cost is an important issue for SRU. SRU
requests that the monitoring requirement be deleted. SRU would continue to monitor selenium
through the Long Term Monitoring Plan of the SRU Pretreatment Program.
MODIFICATION OF PROPOSED LIMITS
Selenium: The cover letter for the draft permit states that selenium limits were added
based on an analysis of effluent data. However, as discussed above, the data reveal that selenium
has been consistently below detection limits with the exception of a single sample which is not
representative of SRU's effluent. SRU would continue to monitor selenium through the Long
Term Monitoring Plan of the SRU Pretreatment Program.
CORRECTION OF IN -STREAM WASTE CONCENTRATION
In -stream waste concentration is usually calculated as the permitted flow divided by the
sum of the permitted flow and the 7Q10 flow in the receiving stream. However, SRU
understands that the LWC.£or SRU's permit was not calculated based on 7Q10 and permitted
flow. The IWC is the result of arbitrar modifications of a model. The model was used and the
modifications of the model were made based on an erroneous assumption that the river is noI
riverine at the diffuser. As discussed below, SRU's direct observations, reports by CH2MHill
and ENSR, and a DWQ report all confirm that the river is riverine at the diffuser and that the
IWC should be calculated using the normal method applied to other dischargers.
Direct Observation: SRU has observed the Yadkin River at the diffuser, including low -
flow conditions. The river is a flowing river — "riverine.' This makes sense because the diffuser
is more than 16 miles upstream of High Rock dam.
1 Water Street Telephone [phone]
Salisbury, NC 28144 Salisbury -Rowan Utilities Fax [phone]

ENSR and CH2MHill Reports: SRU has previously provided DWQ with a report by
CH2MHi11(Attachment 2) that concluded that the Yadkin River is riverine at the location of,
SRU's diffuser under low -flow conditions and that CORMIX modeling was unnecessary for the;
proper calculation of IWC. Attachment 3 is thetENSR report documenting the calculation of the
7Q10 of 833 cfs at the diffuser. The ENSR report also provides an update of 7Q10 that would
reduce the 7Q10 by taking into account the drought of 2002, which may be an appropriate 7Q10,
but only if such updated values are being applied to the other dischargers in the Yadkin River
basin. Attachment 4 is a copy of records that document USGS concurrence with the ENSR
7Q10 calculations.
DWQ Report: SRU has recently reviewed DWQ's Water Quality Data Review for High
Rock Lake, North Carolina (August 12, 2004) (DWQ Report). Excerpts of the DWQ Report are
included as Attachment 5. The entire report is available on the DWQ website. The DWQ
Report agrees with SRU's observations and CH2MHill's conclusion in characterizing the Yadkin
River both at and downstream of the diffuser as riverine:
High Rock Lake is River -Like: The DWQ Report characterizes the entire "High Rock
mainstem" as a "dynamic, river -like environment." DWQ Report p. 1-4. The lake "more
closely resembles a slow -moving river than a typical lake," DWQ Report p. 3-1 (quoting an
EPA study), and is characterized by "short residence time and large through flow." DWQ
Report p. 4-3. Moreover, the DWQ Report makes it clear that the location of the diffuser is
so much more riverine than the rest of High Rock Lake that the river at that point is not
treated as part of High Rock Lake, but a tributary to the lake.
Diffuser is Upstream of High Rock Lake: The DWQ Report identifies sampling station
YAD1391A as "the most upstream lake station" used by DWQ in a water quality model for
High Rock Lake. DWQ Report p. 3-4. That station is more than three miles downstream of
the SRU diffuser. DWQ Report p. 4-2.
Locations Downstream of Diffuser are Riverine: The sampling station Q4660000 in the
Yadkin River near Spencer is not considered a High Rock Lake sampling station, but a
tributary sampling station, DWQ Report pp. 5-18 and 5-19, because it has "a primarily
riverine nature." DWQ Report p. 5-1. This station is downstream of the diffuser.
The DWQ Report's descriptions are completely consistent with SRU's observations of
consistent riverine conditions at the diffuser. SRU is not aware of any study or report that
contradicts the observed riverine nature of the Yadkin River at the diffuser. 46RU requests that
the permit take into account the riverine character of the river and not require SRU to incur the
substantial expense of data collection and modeling.
1 Water Street Telephone [phone]
Salisbury, NC 28144 Salisbury -Rowan Utilities Fax [phone]

The draft permit reflects an "effluent concentration of 6.6%" at a permitted flow of 12.5 mgd and
an "effluent concentration of 10.5%" at a permitted flow of 20 mgd. SRU requests that the IWC
be recalculated using a normal calculation and the 7Q10 value of 833 cfs. Using that approach,
the IWC is calculated as follows:
At permitted flow of 12.5 MGD:
19.4 cfs - (19.4 cfs + 833 cfs) x 100% = 2.3%
At permitted flow of 20 MGD:
31.0 cfs _ (31.0 cfs + 833 cfs) x 100% = 3.6%
CORRECTION OF DESCRIPTION OF GRANT CREEK TREATMENT TRAIN
SRU requests that the description of the Grant Creek Treatment Train be corrected to
include the following:
4 primary clarifiers
2 trickling filters.
Thank you for your consideration of SRU's comments and requests for modifications and
corrections of the draft permit. We look forward to working with you on the permit.
Sincer y,
Ma t Bernhardt
Assistant City Manager for Utilities
Attachments
cc: V. Randall Tinsley
1 Water Street Telephone [phone]
Salisbury, NC 28144 Salisbury -Rowan Utilities Fax [phone]

Attachment 1
Summary of Effluent Data
Historical Selenium Results:
2000 Priority Pollutant Scan - <5 ug/l
-'2001 Priority Pollutant Scan -. <5 ug/l
2004 Priority Pollutant Scan - <10 ug/l
/02 - <10 ug/l
5/02 - <10 ug/l
7/02 - <10 ug/l
10/02 - <10 ug/l
5/03. - <10 ug/l
7/03 - <10 ug/l
10/03 - <10 ug/l
3/04 - <l0 ug/l
5/04 - 35 ug/l
7/04 <10. ug/l
Historical Zinc Results:
2000 Priority Pollutant Scan - 50 ug/l
2001 Priority Pollutant Scan - 57 ug/l
2004 Priority Pollutant Scan - 35_ug/1
2/02. - < 50ug/1
5/02 - 65ug/l
8/02 - 58ug/l
8/02 < 50ug/1 .
9/02 - <.50ug/1:
9/02 - 55ug/l
,10/02,- 93ug/1
10/02 - 71ug/1
3/03 - 54ug/l
5/03 - 54ug/1
7/03 - 53ug/1
10/03 - 2.3ug/1
3/04 - < 50ug/1
5/04 - 91.ug/1
7/04 < 50ug/1
Historical Mercury Results:
2000 Priority Pollutant Scan.- <0.2 ug/l
2001 Priority Pollutant Scan = 0.31 ug/l
2004 Priority Pollutant Scan - <0.2ug/1
2/02 - <0.2 ug/l,
5/02 - <0.2 ug/l
7/02 - <0.2 ug/l
10/02 - <0.2 ug/l.
3/03 - <0.2 ug/l
5/03 - <0.2 ug/l
7/03,- <0.2 ug/1
3/04 <0.2 ug/1
5/04 - <0.2 ug/l

r -
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL
7Q10 Instream Waste Concentration for the Salisbury -
PREPARED FOR: City of Salisbury
PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL
COPIES: Randy Tinsley, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard
Ruth Swanek/RDU
Bill Kreutzberger/CLT
DATE: April 14, 2004
Contents
This technical memorandum is divided in the following sections:
• Background
• Approach/Data
• Existing Conditions
• Conclusions
• Recommendations /
Background G % �V
/
The Salisbury -Rowan WWTP NPDES permit states that the instream waste concentration
(IWC) under 7Q10 conditions is 6.6"/o at a flow of 12.5 MGD. The IWC, expressed as a
percent, represents the portion of the receiving stream volume comprised of wastewater
effluent discharged from the pipe during low flow conditions.
Salisbury's IWC was originally determined using a CORMIX application. DWQ applied
CORMIX because it believed that the Yadkin River at the discharge point exhibits lacustrine
(lake -like) conditions. The City of Salisbury retained CH2M HILL to evaluate lacustrine
characterization at the discharge point. If lacustrine conditions were found, CH2M HILL
was to develop a mixing zone model to determine dilution.
Approach/Data
Flow and water elevation data sets were compiled to complete this study. Daily flow and
elevation data for the period July of 2002 to April of 2003 was obtained for the USGS
gauging station located at Yadkin College at US Highway 64. Daily water elevation levels at
the City's intake and at High Rock Lake were also collected from July 2002 to April 2003.
The City's intake is located at the confluence of the Yadkin and South Yadkin Rivers,17.3
miles downstream from the Yadkin College gauging station. The Salisbury -Rowan WWTP
discharge point is located 2.8 miles downstream from the City's intake. The High Rock Lake
HNVISALISBURY RIVERINE TM V3.DOC

7Q10 INSTREAM WASTE CONCENTRATION FOR THE SALISBURY-ROWAN WWTP -ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Dam (where the High Rock Lake water elevation data were collected) is located 16.2 miles
from the City's discharge. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the study area.
Figure 1. Schematic of the study area.
Yadkin College Intake at confluence of Yadkin
Gauging Station and S. Yadkin Rivers
Discharge High Rock
17.3 mules Lake Dam
2.8 mules
16.2 mules I
NOT TO SCALE
The City requested ENSR to review the 7Q10 flow conditions. Revised 7Q10 flows were
calculated for four USGS gauges in the river basin by including an additional two years of
flow data. The new 7Q10 flow is lower than the previous estimate provided by USGS as the
two additional years were drought years. The revised 7Q10 flow at the discharge point is
735 cfs as compared to the previous USGS estimate of 833 cfs. The 7Q10 flow at the Yadkin
College gauging station was estimated to be 591 cfs.
In order to determine if the Yadkin River at Salisbury's NPDES discharge point is riverine or
lacustrine during low flow conditions, the available flow data, river elevation, and lake
elevation data sets were examined.
Existing Conditions
7010 Flow
CH2M HILL obtained USGS daily flow and elevation data at the Yadkin College gauging
station. Water elevation levels collected by the City at its intake on the Yadkin River were
also available. To determine whether lake operations cause a lacustrine environment at the
discharge point during low flow, daily water elevation levels (recorded at midnight) were
obtained from ALCOA for High Rock Lake Dam for July 2002 to April 2003. Figure 2 shows
low flows and water elevations collected during July and August of 2002.
From July 3, 2002 to August 31, 2002 there were 40 days where flow at Yadkin College was
equal to or less than 591 cfs. On those dates, the water surface elevations: (1) at the Salisbury
intake ranged from 615.68 ft to 616.75 ft; (2) at the Salisbury discharge ranged from 614.68 ft
to 615.75 ft (based on analysis of USGS topo maps indicating elevations to be 1.0 ft less than
the elevations at the intake); and (3) at High Rock Lake ranged from 599.86 ft to 606.72 ft.
During these periods, the water surface elevations of High Rock Lake were 8.32 ft to 15.63 ft
lower than the water surface elevations at the discharge point. Thus, under low flow
conditions, the Salisbury -Rowan WWTP discharge is located in a riverine environment.
HNV/SALSBURY RIVERINE TM V&DOC

7Q10 INSTREAM WASTE CONCENTRATION FOR THE SALISBURY•ROWAN WWTP -ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Figure 2. Water elevations at different locations and flows at the Yadkin College Gauging
Station as a function of time (July - August, 2002)
645
- -._.. _ ___ _-._ _--- --_ ..__- -. - --- _ - _..-_ _ __ _-. _- _. _ __-_..r----.___-_ ___-----_.__---
1000
640
00
900
635
w
800 v
630
700 OT
625
c
--------- - --- -- - -------------------------- 591cfs
----- --------
600 U
0
620
500
>
615
W
...
400 co
>-
610
300 0
605
200 C
LL
600
100
595
0
61231p2 ��31p2 ��i31�2 ��23132 gl?�p2 8112�p2 aj22�p2 g111a2 g�11132
Date
—-Water Intake High Rock USGS datum -3 Yadkin College USGS Station —'r—Flow at Yadkin College
Conclusions
The data available on the Yadkin River and High Rock Lake demonstrate that the City of
Salisbury's discharge is in a riverine environment during low flow conditions. Thus, a
simple dilution calculation can be used to estimate the IWC. CORMIX or other dilution
modeling is not necessary to calculate the IWC.
The 7Q10 flow at the Yadkin College gauging station is 591 cfs while the revised 7Q10 flow
at the discharge point is 735 cfs. Applying this flow and allowing full dilution (as is the
normal procedure of DWQ for riverine discharges) results in an IWC7Q10 of 2.6%. The
calculation of the new IWC is shown below:
HNV/SALISBURY RIVERINE TM V3.DOC 3

7010 INSTREAM WASTE CONCENTRATION FOR THE SALISBURY-ROWAN WWTP - ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Qw * 19.4(cfs)
IWC(%) = Qw + QU 100 = 19.4(cfs) + 735(cfs) 100 = 2.6%
Recommendations
Based on the foregoing analyses, the 1WC for the City's outfall should be 2.6%. The 1WC is
conservative because it incorporates an updated 7Q10 estimate that includes recent drought
data.
HNVISAUSBURY RIVERINE TM V&DOC

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
facsimile trammift9
To: Fax:
From: <�/ 4 ^� �✓W E l� Date: �k Z 6 , 2006
Phone: 13 3 - 5_0P x SY2. Pages: 7 including cover
E-mail: J4� . ('Wc /l La
❑ Urgent [9 [Er Review ' Please Comment ❑Please Reply
Subject: CaY! Jf.11.41 &W—f�
G`i1ty E
t487 Axe ,,o, vas Dr� 3Y�2 , ; 7f���s. _ /0 3 d czq,
r..

Memorandum
To: Jim Behmer Date: 24 October 2003
Salisbury -Rowan Utilities Department
From: Steve Cibik File:
Marcia Greenblatt
RE: Yadkin River Low Flow Estimates CC:
At Salisbury's request, ENSR has summarized below the low river flow conditions on the Yadkin River in the
vicinity of the City of Salisbury's water supply intake and treated wastewater diffuser. The intake is located at the
confluence of the Yadkin and South Yadkin Rivers, while the discharge diffuser is located on the Yadkin River just
upstream of the mouth of Grant's Creek.
Low flows are quantified in terms of statistical analyses, and the typical low flow statistic applied to represent a
worst -case low flow situation is the 7Q10. flow, the minimum 7-day average flow that is likely to occur once every
10 years. The calculation of a 7Q10 flow requires a record of daily streamflows at or near the location of interest,
or appropriate watershed analysis to develop this record. Once the streamflow record is developed, statistical
software is available to facilitate the calculation of the 7Q10 flow based on a Log -Pearson Type III distribution. This
memo provides a summary of the methodology applied to develop the low flow estimates at the two locations.
Several USGS continuous recording stream gages are located throughout the watershed. Figure 1 identifies
several gages in the upper Yadkin and South Yadkin basins that provide relevant data for the hydrologic analysis
presented below, including one gage (Yadkin College), which is approximately 14 miles upstream of the intake.
Table 1 presents a summary of these gages. For each gage, the most recent USGS-published 7Q10 value is
presented, along with the period of record used for calculations. In most cases, the entire period of record is used
in the statistical analysis. At the Yadkin College gage, only data from 1963 forward are used, when the W. Kerr
Scott Reservoir upstream of the gage impounded river flows.
Table 1. USGS Gaging Stations
Basin
Period
Prelim
Period
Gage
Station
Subbasin
Area
7Q10
1
of
Updated
7Q12
of
Record
number
(mi2�
(cfs)
Record
(cfs)
Yadkin College
02116500
Upper
Yadkin
2280
683
4/1/63-
3/31 /01
591
4/1/63-
3/31 /03
South Yadkin
02118000
South
Yadkin
306
60
4/1/39-
3/31 /00
45
4/1/39-
3/31 /03
Hunting Creek
02118500
South
155
37
4/1/51-
30
4/1/51-
Yadkin
3/31 /98
3/31 /03
Second Creek
02120780
South
118
9.3
4/1/79-
4.8
4/1/79-
Yadkin
3/31 /01
3/31 /03
1 7Q10 values are the most recent published by the USGS and do not include the entire period of record
2 Preliminary updated 7Q10 flows calculated by the USGS include recent drought flows. These values have not been
published or otherwise made public by the USGS to date.
3 Due to missing data, the USGS is in the process of calculation of this value for the extended period of record. A formal
analysis is currently being performed by the USGS, and results should be available in mid -November. The value
presented here is calculated by ENSR (with estimates for the missing data). Low -flow values calculated by ENSR are
within 1 % of USGS values, and the USGS value is not expected to differ significantly from this value.
CADocuments and Settings\ttool\Local Settings\Temporary
Internet Files\OLK96\Low Flow Summary Memo Fina12 10-24-
n. rinr.

W
14. 2005
Because there is no USGS streamflow gage in the immediate vicinity of the intake and discharge, available gage
data throughout the Yadkin/South Yadkin watershed were collected and used to scale flows at these two points
based on total watershed areal To scale the data, a basin area scaling factor (i.e., basin area at the point of
prediction/basin area at the stream gage) was calculated for each gage. Basin area scaling factors are presented
in Table 2. To scale the flow for each subbasin, the gaged flow was multiplied by the appropriate scaling factor.
The resulting value represents total river flow from each subbasin.
The intake structure is located at the confluence of the Yadkin River and the South Yadkin River. Given its
location at the confluence of the two rivers, two 7Q10 values were calculated, one from flow only from the Yadkin
River, and one using flow from both rivers. To calculate the 7Q10 in the Yadkin River at the intake location, the
USGS 7Q10 at Yadkin College was scaled by the Yadkin College basin area scaling factor. The second value,
including flows from both rivers, was calculated by summing the total flows from each subbasin (i.e., each value in
the record was multiplied by the appropriate scaling factor, and the four scaled flow records were summed).
Once summed, the 7Q10 of the total flow was calculated using the Duration Frequency© software program.
These values are presented in Table 3.
Finally, the 7Q10 at the discharge location was calculated. The discharge is located approximately 2.5 miles
downstream of the intake, immediately above the Yadkin River confluence with Grants Creek. The additional
watershed between the intake and the discharge was measured, and a basin area scaling factor calculated.
Because the upstream basin (including both Upper Yadkin and South Yadkin subbasins) is so much larger than
the additional watershed area between the intake and the discharge, the basin area scaling factor was essentially
unchanged from that at the intake (1.004). The additional watershed below the confluence of the Yadkin and
South Yadkin Rivers would potentially increase the estimated 7Q10 by 2 to 3 cfs.
Table 2. Basin Area Scaling Factors
Gage
Scaling Factor,
Yadkin College
1.03
South Yadkin
1.65
Hunting Creek
1.45
Second Creek
1.27
Table 3. 7Q10 Flow Estimates at Salisbury -Rowan Facilities
Location
7Q10
(cfs)
Period of
Record
Prelim. New
7Q,o (cfs)
Period of
Record
Intake (above the confluence)
. 703
4/1/63-3/31/01
609
4/1/63-3/31/03
Intake (below the confluence)
833
4/1/63-3/31/01
735
4/1/63-3/31/03
Discharge
833
4/1 /63-3/31 /01
735
4/1 /63-3/31 /03
CADocuments and Settings\ttool\Local Settings\Temporary Page 2
Internet Files\OLK96\Low Flow Summary Memo Fina12 10-

February 14, 2005
Figure 1. Yadkin River Watershed
U High Rock Lake Watershed
Lower Yadkin Watershed
A USGS Gages N
0 5 10 20 30 4(
files
CADocuments and Settings\ttool\Local Settings\Temporary Page 3
Internet Files\OLK96\Low Flow Summary Memo Fina12 10-

S ' .
_NT Op
United States Department of the Interior
y O
� r b
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
�4RCH 3`,s,a 391.6 Sunset Ridge road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27 607
November 12, 2003
Dr. Marcia Greenblatt, Ph.D., Hydrologist
ENSR International
2 Technology Park Drive
Westford, Massachusetts 01886
Dear Dr. Greenblatt:
In response to your request for law -flow data, the U.S. Geological Survey (USES) provides the following
low -flow characteristics for the continuous -record gaging station at Hunting Creek near Harmony, NC (sta-
tion id 02118500, drainage area 155 mi2). The low -flow data that are provided on the attached sheet have
been computed based on techniques used by the USGS for assessing the low -flow characteristics at contin-
uous -record gaging stations having 10 or more years of record. Please note that the flow estimates only
account for the effects of any upstream diversions or regulation that have occurred during the period of
record at the gaging station.
The gaging station on Hunting Creek has been in operation since October 1950. The available full period
of record was used in the analyses and includes the flows that were observed during the recent (1998--2002)
drought conditions in effect across much of North Carolina. The 7-day, 10-year (7Q 10) low -flow discharge
based on this period is 299 ft'/s, or 0.1929 ft3/s/mi2 of drainage area (termed as the 7Q10 yield). A 7Q10
yield of this magnitude indicates moderate potentials for sustained base flows relative to other areas in parts
of North Carolina, The 30-day, 2-year (30Q2) low -flow discharge based on this period is 78.5 ft'/s, or a
30Q2 yield of 0.5065 ft3/s/mil.
The low flows that occurred during 2002 have resulted in some decreased low -flow characteristics for this
site as well as other sites across North Carolina. The analyses re-emphasize the importance of knowing the
period of record associated with a given low -flow statistic. Please refer to the email that I sent you on Octo-
ber 7 summarizing previous low -flow statistics for this site and other selected sites in the upper Yadkin
River basin.
A charge for accessing and processing information has been assessed to partially offset these costs. Your
requested data and an invoice covering processing costs for these data are enclosed. Please forward the
original bill with your check to the U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 271, Reston,
Virginia 20192.
These data are preliminary and subject to revision pending approval for publication by the Director of the
U.S_ Geological Survey, and are made available through our cooperative program of water -resources inves-
tigations with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
If you have any questions regarding.this information, please contact us at [phone].
Sincerely,
1. Cartis Weaver
i-Iydrologist
Enclosures
(9191 71-4000 a FAX (919157I-4t041

SUMMARY OF LOW -FLOW ESTIMATES IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST
REQUEST NO: 91622 SITE NO: 01 DATE: 10/27/2003
SOURCE: Consulting, ACTION: :Existing,
STATION NUMBER: 02118500 STATION TYPE: Continuous -record (01)
STATION NAME: Hunting Creek near Harmony, NC
LOCATION: At Secondary Road 2115, and 3.5 miles northeast of Harmony
LATITUDE: 36°00102" LONGITUDE: 80°4444"
QUANDRANGLE NAME AND NUMBER: Lone Hickory [C-16-SWI
COUNTY CODE: Iredell i0971 STATE CODE: NC F371 DISTRICT CODE: NC f 371
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 03040102 ENR BASIN CODE: 03-07-06
DRAINAGE AREA: 155 mi''
Flow statistics as follows:
AVERAGE FLOW: Estimated using
1.30
fo/s/mil-
200
ft3/s
see note
[ A 1
ANNUAL 7Q10 MINIMUM PLOW:
0.1929
ft3/s/mi''
29•9
fO/s
see note
L
ANNUAL 30Q2 MINIMUM FLOW:
0.5065
ft3/s/mi2
78.5
fe/s
see note
f A
WINTER 7Q10 MINIMUM FLOW:
0.3774
ft3/s/mi2
58.5
ft3ls
see note
L A
ANNUAL 7Q2 MINIMUM FLOW:
0.4452
ft3/s/mi2
69.0
ft3/s
see note
[ A ]
NOTES:
[A] Estimate is based on records collected at or near the request site.
[B] Estimate is based entirely on runoff characteristics observed at nearby streams.
[C] Estimate based on procedures given in USGS Water Supply Paper 2403 "Love -flow Characteristics
of Streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason,1993).
[D] Estimate based on procedures given in USES Water Supply Paper 2403 and in conjunction with
strearnilow records collected at or near the request site.
[E] See remarks.
These data are considered provisional and subject to revision pending approval by the Director, USGS.
REMARKS:
• Low -flow estimates based on discharge records collected at gaging station during 1951-2002 climatic _years
(12-month period from April 1 through March 31 and designated by the year in which the period begins,
used in low -flow analyses at continuous -record gaging stations) and includes the recent drought period.
• Requested by Ms. Marcia Greenblatt, ENSR International
ENTERED BY: JCW FEE CHARGED: $ 150

Water Quality Data Review for
High Rock Cake,
North Carolina
[Waterbody IDs 12-(108.5)b, 12-(114), 12-(124.5)a,
and 12-118.5]
00//212004
NC DWQ Contract Number EW03018, Project Number 2-2
Yadkin — Pee Dee River Basin
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
'1617 flail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
By:
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Cape Fear Bldg., Suite '105
3200 Chapel Hill -Nelson Highway
PO Box `1 A09
Research Triangle Park.. NC 27709

L4+aterQuaNyData Re- ewfor KghRod, Lake Nayust2004
for the ke. Hot; e,-er, any model is likely to confront a hi :t degree of nanu-al :ariabitity in the
dynamic, river-Li-ke euriroument of the sigh P,.:l, mainstenL
Report at p. 1-4.
3.1 USEPA 1973
The first detailed e4 mi=ion of water Quality coY:dbions in Hi,,h Pork Lake was lmdertaken by
the Nauo=l Etitrophicadon Survey in 1973 (USEPA, i 9751. EPA s3=]c i the lake three times
at three srations in 39; 3. and sampled triaurries motuhly between Mx-ch 1973 and Febrt=,r
1974. T-ae -rudy concluded that the lake is highly eturophic —but. becau---e of the sh,oit residence
time (estimated at 27 daySI,, more closet: re-eembles a slow-mo:S£:nver than a :picaL lake.
Report at p. 3-1.
Surface water temperarares ranged Lori 25-30'C with a maximum in June- Elevated pF- values
were seen d-tou_hout tL• a Lake aith the exceutim of the mast upstream lake station CY A71391A)
dtaing May through August. Turbidity , aloes reflex daffe a ,ces iu precipitation al d flow
Report at p. 3-4.
Figum 9
Mode! Segmentation and Lake Sampling Stations
Figure 6- BATHTUB Segmentation for Hugh Rock Lake (NCDWQ, 1997)
Report at 4-2.

NCO023884 - Salisbury's Draft Permit
Ago VO 4V--
Subject: NCO023884 - Salisbury's Draft Permit
From: Michael Parker <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:04:25 -0500
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Jackie,
John Lesley and I sat down with the folks with Salisbury yesterday to discuss
changes that have been incorporated into the subject draft permit. There primary
concerns are:
New limit for Selenium - They don't think it's justified and want to petition the
Divison to have the new limit not take effect until they've had a year to collect data
to show that Se is not present in their wastestream.
We didn't tell them that we would support a schedule that would allow them a year
to collect the data, but if they request such a time frame, we may be able to support
it.
Monthly monitoring for Hg and Zn - They can accept the Zn monitoring,
however, they don't think that they have Hg coming in so they would prefer to not
have to monitor for this parameter.
What we can't figure out is that based on their IWC, why Salisbury isn't required to
perform the new Hg monitoring that everyone else has to do? I saw your comments
on the fact sheet regarding Hg, however, they probably should be brought in line
with everyone else, right?
Descrepancy with 7QI0 data - Salisbury feels like our 7Q10 data (263.5 cfs) is
wrong and should be much higher. The cite a study that another firm did that
reflected a 7Q10 of over 700 cfs. They will attempt to get this figure reexamined.
We feel like the USGS data we have can support itself, so Salisbury will probably
get nowhere with this issue.
Lastly,
The supplement to cover page of the draft permit should reflect the Grants Creek
WWTP as also having primary clarifiers and trickling filters.
1 of 2 2/10/2005 1:43 PM

NCO023884 -.Salisbury's Draft Permit
You will probably be getting written comments from Salisbury in the near future
about the issues they raised to us in our meeting. I just wanted to give you a heads
up.
Mikey
Michael Parker - [e-mail]
Environmental Engineer II
North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
610 East Center Avenue
Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Ph: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Michael Parker <[e-mail]>
Environmental Engineer II
NC DENR - Mooresville
Division of Water Quality
2 of 2 2/10/2005 1:43 PM

J�'JED STgr-S
m A yJ
z Z
a
w
i
3� 1,44 PROAC6�0
�
JAN 3 1 2005
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
Alan W. Klimek, Director
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJ: Review of Draft NPDES Permit
Salisbury Grants Creek WWTP - NPDES No. NCO023884
Dear Mr. Klimek:
The EPA, EPA, Region 4, is in receipt of the draft permit for the above referenced facility. Based
on our review, it is not clear if the permit's mercury provisions are consistent with the assumptions
and requirements of North Carolina's November 2, 1999, mercury total daily maximum load for
the Lumber River, that was subsequently approved by EPA on September 15, 2000. Because the
information provided is inadequate to determine whether the draft permit meets the guidelines and
requirements of the Clean Water Act, I request that clarification regarding this issue be provided.
Pursuant to federal regulatory requirements and language of Section VH.A. of the North
Carolina/EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA), this letter constitutes an interim objection to the issuance of this permit.
In accordance with the MOA and federal regulations, the full period of time for review of
this draft permit will recommence when the requested information is received by this Office. I look
forward to receipt of the information. If you have any questions, please call me or have your staff
contact Mr. Marshall Hyatt at 404/562-9304.
Sincerely,
James D. Giattina, Director
Water Management Division
cc: Matt Bernhardt, Salisbury -Rowan Utilities
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.apa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

Re: Sahsbury-Rowan WWTP
Subject: Re: Salisbury -Rowan WWTP
From: Deborah Gore <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:19:56 -0500
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Hey Jackie,
Salisbury's last HWA was done in 2002, so I don't have any more
recent data in my file. I looked at the data quickly and there were
4 data points, all less than 0.2 ug/1 at both plants. Their LTMP
only requires quarterly samples. We recommend, but do not require,
POTWs to do monthly sampling the year before the HWA is due.
Salisbury chooses to only do quarterly all the time. Hopefully, all
of the data is on the DMRs. They don't use 1631 because they
haven't been required to. They are not on the list of facilities
required to use 1631. Their 7Q10 is such that their limit would be
over 0.2 ug/l. I know that when you look at reasonable potential
there doesn't have to be values over the limit to show a reasonable
potential to violate the limit. Perhaps you can write a special
condition for them to do a certain number of mercury samples using
method 1631 to demonstrate that there is not a reasonable
potential. I'm not sure how many samples that would be, how quickly
you need them or what.level the results would have to be at to show
no reasonable potential.
Sorry I'm not of more help. Let me know if I can help in
communicating with the Town.
Deborah
� Jackie Nowell wrote:
Hi Deborah,
I have recently drafted and sent this facility to notice. EPA has
commented on reasonable potential results for Hg.
I retrieved Hg data from the DMRs which appeared only quarterly.
Do you have any recent LTMP data for this facility so I can verify
my data? Also, what is their opposition to using the new 1631
method? It seems that they only used the old method. Most
quarterly data was reported as <0.2 ug/l.
Jackie
1 of 1 , 1/28/2005 10:41 AM

F4.1
41
'�'� ��I v — •� �i /��i-- ,�/�/�� lam/ � ��Gh/ � (��
,0�, ✓'rc,r►� C t I w
. 0
C)l 4orakr— 7e lb3/ E isr-crE
/4(w-c4e-l/ Lt4�"t 117A-

��� ����
� � _
%� %/
C�

Salisbury
Subject: Salisbury
From: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:18:34 -0500
To: Jackie Nowell <Jackie.Nowell @ ncmail.net>
CC: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Jackie - Dave just told me that Salisbury had sent in some
information some time ago to try and get out of doing the new method
for mercury. He indicated that we would not agree with them - but
he was unsure if we'd ever formally responded back to them. Could
you make sure you look through the file and see if we have their
info, see if we ever responded back to them. If we have never
formally responded back to them - it is likely that you need to give
them the opportunity to come in and discuss (and then i guess
they'll want to discuss the entire draft permit). Let me know what
you find from the files. After they submit their comments - we'll
likely have to schedule a meeting. Now they are in a bad
situation if they haven't been using the new method (when that's
what we really wanted them to be doing).
1 of 1 1/26/2005 5:38 PM

Re: re cpmments on NCO023884
Subject: Re: re comments on NCO023884
From: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:23:55 -0500
To: [e-mail]
Hello Marshall,
I will try to respond on comment #2 by Wednesday, Jan. 26th. I need
to consult with Tom on where NC is on the Hg issue.
Regarding comment #1 - the boilerplate package that is attached to
the permit will include standard pretreatment program language.
Regarding comment #3, I will change total suspended "residue" to
total suspended "solids" in footnote 6.
Please be advised that the City of Salisbury requested additional
comment time due to the Christmas and New Years holidays and their
comments on the permit are now due on February 14, 2005. They have
indicated that they will thoroughly review their permit.
Thanks
Jackie
[e-mail] wrote:
will you be able to respond to my 1/11 comments? our deadline is
this
fri and I need to know where we are at very soon. thanks!
1 of 1 2/14/2005 3:44 PM

Draft Permit reviews (2)
Subject: Draft Permit reviews (2)
From: John Giorgino <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:34:10 -0500
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Hi Jackie,
I have reviewed the following: Salisbury -Rowan (NC0023884) and Bear
Creek WWTP (NC0050903). I have no comments.
Thanks for forwarding them to me.
John
1 of 1 1/12/2005 2:39 PM

comrn.an -,on NC0023884, Salisbury -Rowan WWTP 1
` I C
Subject: comments on NC0023884, Salisbury -Rowan WWTP
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:09:17 -0500
To: [e-mail]
hope these are useful. will you be able to provide a response by
Jan
21?
1. The fact sheet indicates that the Salisbury has a pretreatment
program. It needs to include the standard language that the permit
will require the facility to continue to implement its current
program.
2. The fact sheet indicates there is RP for Hg, but monitoring only
is
required in the permit. If I interpret why there is no limit, you
are
saying that NC's strategy isn't in place yet and monitoring with
Method
1631E? has not yet begun?. If that is correct, if RP is determined
to
exist regardless of what method was used to analyze the effluent, it
seems a limit is needed. Is the facility going to conduct more
monitoring using Method 1631E? If so, would you consider a Hg
limit
that becomes effective in 18 months, and they can conduct monthly
monitoring for a year to show there really is no RP. We call this a
delayed limit. If they can make that demonstration, you can write
the
permit to say the Hg limit would not longer be effective.
3. For Footnote 6 in Parts A.1 and A.2, recommend changing "total
suspended residue" to "total suspended solids".
1 of 1 1/11/2005 4:34 PM

Draft NPDES Permit NCO023884 Salisbury -Rowan WWTP
Subject: Draft NPDES Permit NCO023884 Salisbury -Rowan WWTP
From: "John C. Vest" <j vest@ salisburync.gov>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:16:51 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, "Randy Cauble" <[e-mail]>,
"Carol Hamilton" <[e-mail]>, "Jim Behmer"
<[e-mail]>, "Larry Chilton" <[e-mail]>, "Larry
Lyerly" <[e-mail]>, "Matt Bernhardt" <[e-mail]>,
"Mike West" <[e-mail]>, "Patrick Kennerly"
<Pkenn @ salisburync.gov>
As per our telephone conversation, Salisbury -Rowan Utilities is hereby formally requesting
an extension of the comment period on our draft NPDES Permit to no later than February
28, 2005. Thank you for your approval of our request.
1of1

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
December 21, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Britt Setzer
NC DENR / DEH / Regional Engineer
Mooresville Regional Office
From Jackie Nowell
NPDES Unit
Subject: Review of Draft NPDES Permit NCO023884
Salisbury - Rowan VAWP
Rowan County
1 • •
NCDENVI
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the draft permit and return this form by January 28,
2005. If you have any questions on the draft permit, please contact me at the telephone number or e-mail address
listed at the bottom of this page.
RESPONSE: (Check one)
F�]Concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained properly, the stated effluent limits
are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the designated water quality standards.
❑ Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
F-1
Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 919 733-5083, extension 512 (fax) 919 733-0719
VISIT us oN THE INTERNET @ http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES Jackie.Nowell@ ncmail.net

Fact Sheet - NPDES Permit
Salisbury —Rowan WWTP
NPDES No. NCO023884
Facilit
Receiving Stream .
Facility Name:
Salisbury
uy — Rowan
Receiving Stream:
Yadkin River
Permitted Flow (MGD):
12.5 MGD
Subbasin:
030704
Facility Class:
IV
Index No.:
Facility Status:
Existing
Stream Class:
WS-V
Permit Status:
Renewal
303(d) Listed:
No
County:
Rowan
Use Support: -
Regional Office:
Mooresville
Drainage Area (mi2):
3,377
USGS Topo Quad:
E17NW
Summer 7010 (cfs)
263.5
Salisbury, NC
Winter 7010 (cfs):
3002 (cfs):
-
Average Flow (cfs):
4,879
IWC (-/.y
6.85
FACILITY OVERVIEW
The facility is currently permitted for 12. 5 MGD and 20 MGD. The City of Salisbury recently
combined two wastewater treatment permits (Grants Creek and Town Creek) into one permit. The
permit name is the Salisbury -Rowan WWTP. Both wastewater treatment trains discharge under a
common effluent line via diffusion to the Yadkin River. The combined discharge started on
September 1, 2000.
The Grant Creek Treatment train — facility consists of 4 bars screens and grit chambers, 4 primary
clarifiers, dual trickling filter, 1 — 6.1 mgd aeration basin, 4 secondary clarifiers, 2 aerobic digesters,
one belt press for sludge dewatering. Primary and secondary treatments using a high rate trickling
filter and sludge digestion.
The Town Creek Treatment train — facility consists of dual bars screens and grit chambers, dual
aeration basins, dual secondary clarifiers, dual aerobic digesters, one plate and dewatering facility.
Also, a biological system with primary and secondary treatment.
The effluent flows are combined and disinfected using UV light. The combined effluent then go
over cascade aeration and is discharged through a diffuser into the Yadkin River.
In addition to the City of Salisbury, the facility also serves the Towns of China Grove, Landis,
Spencer and East Spencer, for a total population of 38, 620 people.
Salisbury has a full pre-treatment program, with 4 SIUs (Significant Industrial Users) and 5 CIUs
(Categorical Industrial Users) per its application. DWQ recommends that Salisbury continue to
NCO023884 Permit Factsheet
Page 1

implement the full pretreatment program and its Long Term Monitoiring Plan through the
renewed permitting cycle.
RECEIVING STREAM
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP discharges treated municipal and industrial wastewater to the Yadkin
River in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin. The stream classification of this segment of the Yadkin
River is WS-V. The facility discharges upstream of the High Rock Lake and is included in the High
Rock Lake watershed.
Instream monitoring is required for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, Ttoal phosphorus,
NO2+NO3, Nh3, Total Kjeldah Nitrogen, and chlorophyll a. However, Salisbury is a member of
the Yadkin -Pee Dee Association Coordinated Monitoring Program. Instream monitoring
requirements are waived as long as Salisbury remains a member. .
TOXICITY TESTING
Type of Toxicity Test: Chronic P/F
Existing Limit: 001: Chronic P/F @ 7%
Recommended Limit: 001: Chronic P/F @ 7%
Monitoring Schedule: March, June, September, and December
The facillity has passed all quarterly toxicity tests from March 2000 through September 2004.
Correction: Upon expansion to 20 MGD, the quarterly toxicity test will be 6.45%. At 20 MGD, the
effective 7Q10 of 449.6 cfs is used to calculate the IWC of 6.45%. The previous IWC of
10.5% for 20 MGD was incorrect and was calculated using the effective 7Q10 of 263.5 cfs
(which is based on the 12.5 MGD).
COMPLIANCE HISTORY
The Town appears to have had an excellent compliance record for the past three years with minimal
violations.
In 2002, all permit limitations were met with the exception of a TSS exceedance in January.
In 2003, all permit limitations were met with the exception of a flow exceedance in April.
Through October 2004, all permit limitations are being met.
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
The following metal parameters are monitored through the NPDES permit: Silver and Copper.
These parameters are monitored twice per month. Cyanide is also monitored quarterly.
Data for the following parameters was reported in the discharge monitoring reports and a
RPA was also done: As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Zn. The facility is under a full pretreatment
program.
Reasonable potential analysis was conducted based on data from 2002 through 2004. Results and
data analysis are attached.
Additional information: Facility conducted four PPAs in 2001-2003. Data included in application.
RPA RESULTS:
Based on the Reasonable Potential Analysis: (See attached results)
• Limits should be added for selenium based on RPA.
Selenium results had max. predicted values that exceeded the allowable concentration.
NCO023884 Permit Factsheet
Page 2

Daily maximum limit will be added to the permit at 12.5 MGD. Daily maximum and
weekly average limit will be added at 20 MGD.
• Monitoring for mercury should be added based on the RPA.
Mercury results had max. predicted values that exceeded the allowable concentration.
Under normal procedure, daily maximum limit would be added to the permit. However,
DWQ is currently working on strategy for implementation of mercury monitoring with
revised laboratory method. Therefore at this time will add 2/month mercury monitoring
until strategy is resolved.
• Monitoring for zinc should be included in the permit. RPA results showed the
maximum predicted value exceeding the allowable action level concentration. Due to
the excellent toxicity test compliance history, will recommend 2/month monitoring.
• Monitoring for copper and silver should continue to be included in the permit.
Both parameters showed reasonable potential to exceed the allowable action level
concentration. Due to the excellent toxicity test compliance history, will recommend
continuance of 2/month monitoring.
• Quarterly monitoring for cyanide can be deleted from the permit. Results of the
RPA showed no reasonable potential for exceedance of allowable concentration.
• Results of the RPA for Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, and Nickel showed
no reasonable potential for exceedance of allowable concentrations. No limits or
monitoring for these parameters are needed.
PROPOSED CHANGES
• Addition of daily maximum limits and/or weekly average limit for selenium.
• Addition of 2/month monitoring for mercury.
• Addition of 2/month monitoring for zinc.
• Deletion of quarterly monitoring for cyanide.
• Summer and winter weekly average limits for ammonia nitrogen have been added to
the permit, based on DWQ procedure for all NPDES dischargers.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: December 21, 2004 (est.)
Permit Scheduled to Issue: February 14, 2005 (est.)
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact
Jackie Nowell at [phone] ext. 512.
DATE:
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT:
NC0023884 Permit Factsheet
Page 3

Followup—Salisbury 7Q10
Subject: Followup ... Salisbury 7Q10
From: "John C Weaver" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:01:24 -0500
To: "McCarthy, James" <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], "Jeanne C Robbins"
<[e-mail]>, "John C Weaver". <[e-mail]>
Jim,
Follow-up to our discussions a few weeks ago about the 7Q10 value used for
the Yadkin River near Salisbury, I spoke with Jackie Nowell with the NC
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) earlier today about the source of the
"263.5 cfs" cited for this location.
Jackie stated that this value was calculated by a DWQ staff member in 1995
by using a dilution model called the "Cornell mixing zone expert system,"
referred to using the CORMIX acronym. In effect, the value is calculated
to account for the dilution and other lake -setting characteristics
associated with having an intake in the impounded reach of High Rock Lake
as opposed to being a true riverine-type setting.
The values of 7Q10 discharge in the range of 750 to nearly 900 cfs that
were considered several weeks ago are estimates based on assuming a true
riverine-type setting (pro -rated by drainage area using a couple of
upstream streamgages).
Based partly on the lack of site -specific discharge data for this reach of
Yadkin River as well as questions associated with the presence of High Rock
Lake, the USGS is not presently able to provide any further clarification
on a proper 7Q10 estimate for this particular location.
I suspect this email will raise additional questions on this matter, but as
discussed several weeks ago, I'm just making you aware of my conversation
with DWQ.
As I told Jackie, there are two settings in which USGS efforts to estimate
low -flow discharges hit a snag: lakes and tidal reaches. I am not familiar
with the CORMIX model to be able to offer any additional comments on the
value computed from its use. And while it is easy to speculate that a 7Q10
value for this particular location may be higher than that computed by the
model, it will be difficult (my opinion) to further quantify a range
without, at the least, any additional -data for this reach. Perhaps there
may be others in the USGS that have dealt with this type of situation and
could offer other insight, but I'm not immediately familiar with anyone and
would have to investigate further on this matter.
I have cc:ed Jackie as well as Teresa Rodriguez of DWQ on this matter.
Jackie informed me that Teresa has worked with the CORMIX model. If either
have any additional comments on this, those are welcome as well. Or you
may wish to contact them on your own as appropriate.
Hope this information is helpful in some way... thanks.
Curtis Weaver
***********************************************************************
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
U.S. Geological Survey
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
E-mail address -- [e-mail]
1 of 2 1/26/2006 3:17 PM

Salisbury.IWC
Subject: Salisbury IWC
From: Teresa Rodriguez <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:31:17 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Mr. Vest,
Division's staff discussed the request from Salisbury to modify the IWC for the WWTP
permit. The report by CH2MHILL does not contain sufficient information to support a
decision on the IWC, specifically the data collected and the methodology used to
calculate the 7Q 10. In addition there are no comments or concurrence from the USGS;
normally the flow estimates come from the USGS. The IWC in the permit was
established by dilution modeling, Salisbury has not demonstrated that the dilution
modeling results are no longer valid. The conditions under which the study was done
were extremely unusual conditions for the summer, when the policy is to keep the lake
within 5 feet of full pool. Under this conditions the discharge environment would be
riverine-like, but under normal summer conditions the site is transitional, as determined
when the permit was developed in 1995.
If you would like to set up a meeting where we can discuss this issue, please let me
know and I would arrange it.
Teresa
Teresa Rodriguez, P.E.
Division of.Water Quality
NPDES Unit
919-733-5083
1 of 1 9/14/2004 8:31 AM

high rock lake levels
Subject: high rock lake levels
From: Jim Blose <jim.blose @ ncmail.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:27:24 -0400
To: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>, Teresa Rodriguez <[e-mail], Jackie Nowell
<[e-mail], Todd Kennedy <[e-mail]
Per the
Per the High Rock Lake modeling report I wrote way back when (not the Cormix modeling'for the
discharge), full pool elevation at the dam is approx 624 feet. Per the CH2MHILL memo, elev at the
dam during the July -August 2002 period they looked at ranged from 599.86 to 606.72 ft, ie about 17
to 24 feet below full pool. These are extremely unusual conditions for the summer; when the policy is
to keep the lake within 5 feet of full to support recreational activity and homeowner access. Under
these conditions, the elevational difference between the Salisbury discharge site and the dam would be
much greater than normal and the discharge environment probably is riverine--water levels at the
discharge site would not be controlled by the dam, as is normally the case. [See attached photo,
which I received in.July 2002. I'm not sure when it was taken, but I assume it was soon before I
received it.] Recall that this was during a record breaking drought. Under more normal summer
conditions, I think the site is clearly a transitional one (as we told Salisbury years ago),
notwithstanding that even at full pool it would probably be normal for there to be a small elevational
difference between the dam and the head of the reservoir in such a long waterbody.,
Jim
Jim Blose Planning Branch
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[e-mail] 919-733-5083 ext. 503 fax: [phone]
1 of 2 11/16/2005 11:34 AM

,_,rr ZW( -
jf1Af,4(W s i�
Id
--a

any)
e► wc�_ �+ woo
TV
u - alp c6�t
v
analc
rue,

1� �o>
ICC)Q hb�nr T

Mercury 1631 List on NPDES Website
Subject: Mercury 1631 List on NPDES Website
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:10:19 -0400
To: "DENR.NPDES.DWQ" <[e-mail]>, "DENR.PSCU.DWQ"
<[e-mail]>, "DENR.PU.DWQ" <[e-mail]>
Just an FYI about the list of wastewater treatment facilities subject to low level mercury analysis by
EPA Method 1631. This list is on the NPDES website and will need to be updated occasionally. A very
limited number of facilities have gotten off the list and are no longer subject to Method 1631
requirements, based on re -analysis of streamflow dilution, or based on phased permit limits, which
result in an instream waste concentration <6%. If you get such a request for removal from the list,
please run it by me, and if the request has merit I'll coordinate with Toya Fields to take the facility off
the list.
Toya- please make the following changes to the list:
• Remove NCO023884 City of Salisbury/Grants Creek WWTP. They are currently re-evaluating
their instream dilution, but will need to be added back to the list if the IWC remains > 6%.
• Remove NC0041696/Town of Valdese Lake Rhodhiss WWTP. They have phased limits, and the
current phase has an IWC< 6%. They will need to be added back to the list if they expand above
7.5 MGD.
• Change the text to "Updated through May 19, 2004."
• Change the text to "This list includes 152 facilities..."
Note: We already removed NCO025071/City of Eden from the list back in August 2003, based on
recalculated instream dilution.
Once again, any facility on this list that collects an effluent sample for mercury analysis must use EPA
Method 1631, whether the effluent sample is collected for Pretreatment requirements, NPDES Effluent
Sheet, Priority Pollutant Analysis, or NPDES Permit Renewal Requirements.
I of 1 8/24/2005 5:57 PM

MINE
Sa/isbur-IPlwaa �`
T/L/T/ES
April 30, 2004
VIA FACSIMILE (919-733-0719)
Mr. David Goodrich
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Correction of IWC for the Salisbury -Rowan WWTP
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
As discussed with you previously, the City of Salisbury ("Salisbury") retained CH2MHill
to evaluate the conditions in the Yadkin River and make the appropriate calculation of
instream waste concentration ("IWC") for the Salisbury -Rowan WWTP. The CH2MHil1
report is enclosed.
• IWC at 12.5 MGD Flow. Based on that report the City requests that the NPDES
Permit No. NCO023884 be amended to reflect that the IWC is 2.6% at the permitted
maximum flow of 12.5 mgd. The 2.6% value stated by CH2MHil1 uses a more
stringent updated 7Q10 value. The published USGS 7Q10 would yield an IWC of
2.3%. If updated 7Q10s are not being used for other similarly situated dischargers in
North Carolina, Salisbury requests that DWQ consider, in the alternative, using the
2.3% IWC.
• IWC at 20 MGD Flow. Salisbury also requests the correction of the IWC that is
stated in the permit for the future maximum permitted flow of 20 mgd.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
John C. Vest, P.E.
Deputy Utilities Director
JCV:jcv
Enclosure
iI

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL
7Q10 Instream Waste Concentration for the Salisbury -
Rowan WVVrTP
PREPARED FOR: City of Salisbury
PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL
COPIES: Randy Tinsley, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard
Ruth Swanek/RDU
Bill Kreutzberger/CLT
DATE: April 14, 2004
Contents
This technical memorandum is divided in the following sections:
• Background
• Approach/ Data
• Existing Conditions
• Conclusions
• Recommendations
Background
The Salisbury -Rowan WWTP NPDES permit states that the instream waste concentration
(IWC) under 7Q10 conditions is 6.0% at a flow of 12.5 MGD. The IWC, expressed as a
percent, represents the portion of the receiving stream volume comprised of wastewater
effluent discharged from the pipe during low flow conditions.
Salisbury's IWC was originally determined using a CORMIX application. DWQ applied
CORMIX because it believed that the Yadkin River at the discharge point exhibits lacustrine
(lake -like) conditions. The City of Salisbury retained CH2M HILL to evaluate lacustrine
characterization at the discharge point. If lacustrine conditions were found, CH2M HILL
was to develop a mixing zone model to determine dilution.
Approach/Data
Flow and water elevation data sets were compiled to complete this study. Daily flow and
elevation data for the period July of 2002 to April of 2003 was obtained for the USGS
gauging station located at Yadkin College at US Highway 64. Daily water elevation levels at
the City's intake and at High Rock Lake were also collected from July 2002 to April 2003.
The City's intake is located at the confluence of the Yadkin and South Yadkin Rivers,17.3
miles downstream from the Yadkin College gauging station. The Salisbury -Rowan WWTP
discharge point is located 2.8 miles downstream from the City's intake. The High Rock Lake
HNVISALISBURY RIVERINE TM VIDOC

7010 INSTREAM WASTE CONCENTRATION FOR THE SAUSBURY-ROWAN WWTP - ATTORNEY-CUENT PRIVILEGE
Dam (where the High Rock Lake water elevation data were collected) is located 16.2 miles
from the City's discharge. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the study area.
Figure 1. Schematic of the study area.
Yadkin College
Gauging Station
17.3 miles
NOT TO SCALE
Intake at confluence of Yadkin
and S. Yadkin Rivers
Discharge
2.8 mules
16.2 miles
High Rock
Lake loam
The City requested ENSR to review the 7Q10 flow conditions. Revised 7Q10 flows were
calculated for four USGS gauges in the river basin by including an additional two years of
flow data. The new 7Q10 flow is lower than the previous estimate provided by USGS as the
two additional years were drought years. The revised 7Q10 flow at the discharge point is
735 cfs as compared to the previous USGS, estimate of 833 cfs. The 7Q10 flow at the Yadkin
College gauging station was estimated to be 591 cfs.
In order to determine if the Yadkin River at Salisbury's NPDES discharge point is riverine or
lacustrine during low flow conditions, the available flow data, river elevation, and lake
elevation data sets were examined.
Existing Conditions
M 0 Flow
CH2M HILL obtained USGS daily flow and elevation data at the Yadkin College gauging
station. Water elevation levels collected by the City at its intake on the Yadkin River were
also available. To determine whether lake operations cause a lacustrine environment at the
discharge point during low flow, daily water elevation levels (recorded at midnight) were
obtained from ALCOA for High Rock Lake Dam for July 2002 to April 2003. Figure 2 shows
low flows and water elevations collected during July and August of 2002.
From July 3, 2002 to August 31, 2002 there were 40 days where flow at Yadkin College was
equal to or less than 591 cfs. On those dates, the water surface elevations: (1) at the Salisbury
intake ranged from 615.68 ft to 616.75 ft; (2) at the Salisbury discharge ranged from 614.68 ft
to 615.75 ft (based on analysis of USGS topo maps indicating elevations to be 1.0 ft less than
the elevations at the intake); and (3) at High Rock Lake ranged from 599.86 ft to 606.72 ft.
During these periods, the water surface elevations of High Rock Lake were 8.32 ft to 15.63 ft
lower than the water surface elevations at the discharge point. Thus, under low flow
conditions, the Salisbury -Rowan WWTP discharge is located in a riverine environment.
HNV/SAUSBURY RIVERINE TM V&DOC

70101NSTREAM WASTE CONCENTRATION FOR THE SALISBURY-ROWAN WWTP • ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Figure 2. Water elevations at different locations and flows at the Yadkin College Gauging
Station as a function of time (July - August, 2002)
645
-- --- - - --- -- - _ _ _ - --
1000
640$©�
868 001"
900
635
800 V
630
700 p'
$ 625
C
--------- - --- -- - ----- ------------ 591cfs
O
'9 620
500 5
Y
>
W 615
400 }
610
300 W
605
B.
200 O
LL
600
100
595
0
61231p2 '1131p2 -11�31p2 1123102 glyp2 a1�21p2 FjIvjo2 g111p2 91�11rj2
Date
- 0 Water Intake --M—High Rock USGS datum X -Yadkin College USGS Station - c Flow at Yadkin College
Conclusions
The data available on the Yadkin River and High Rock Lake demonstrate that the City of
Salisbury's discharge is in a riverine environment during low flow conditions. Thus, a
simple dilution calculation can be used to estimate the IWC. CORMIX or other dilution
modeling is not necessary to calculate the IWC.
The 7Q10 flow at the Yadkin College gauging station is 591 cfs while the revised 7Q10 flow
at the discharge point is 735 cfs. Applying this flow and allowing full dilution (as is the
normal procedure of DWQ for riverine discharges) results in an IWC7Qio of 2.6%. The
calculation of the new IWC is shown below:
HNWSALISBURY RIVERINE TM V3.DOC 3

Qw + Qu
Recommendations
7010 INSTREAM WASTE CONCENTRATION FOR THE SAUSSURY-ROWAN WWTP - ATTORNEY-CUENT PRIVILEGE
19.4(cfs) * 100 = 2.6%
19.4(cfs) +735(cfs)
Based on the foregoing analyses, the IWC for the City's outfall should be 2.6%. The 1WC is
conservative because it incorporates an updated 7Q10 estimate that includes recent drought
data.
HNWSAUSBURY RIVERINE TM V&DOC

TECHNICA-L MEMORANDUM.
CH2PAHILL
7Q10 Iristroam Waste Concentration for the Salisbury -
Roan WW-rP
PREPARED FOR:, City of "Salisbury
PREPARED:BY: CH2M HILL
COPIES, Randy Tinsley, Brooks; Pierce,'McLendon; Humphrey & Leonard
Ruth-Swanek/RDU
Bill_ Kreutzberger/CLT
BATE; April.14;.2064
:Contents.
This: technical'men orandum. is -divided in the fgllow' im sections:
Background
Approach/.Data
• Existing. Conditions:
• Conclusions
Recommendations
Background
9. l
The Salisbury -Rowan WWTP NPDES,permit:states that -the instream waste:.concentration
(IWC) under 7Q10.con ditions is 6.P/o at a flow of .12.5 MGD. The.IWC, expressed as a
percent, 'represents.'the portion of the r"eceiving stream volume comprised of wastewater
.effluent discharged from the pipe during 1ow flow conciitions.
Salisbury's IWC was originally determined using a CORMIX application. I7WQ applied.
CORMIX because it believed that thdYadkin River at the discharge point exhibits lacustrine
(lake; -like) conditions: The City of Salisbury 'retained CH2M HILL to evaluate lacustrine
characterization at the ;discharge point. If lacustr rle'conditions were found, !C' HILL
was to develop a mixing zone model`to.determine dilution.
Approachlbata
Flow arid.,,vater elevation data sets were compiled to complete this study. Daily flow and
elevation data.for the period July of 2002 to April of 2003 was obtained for the USES'
gauging station located at Yadkin College at US Highway 64. Daily water elevation levels at
the City's intake and,at High. Rock Lake were also collected from July 2002 to April 2003.
The City's intake is, located at the confluence of the. Yadkin and. South Yadkin. Rivers,17.3
miles downstream from the Yadkin College gauging station. The Salisbury -Rowan WWTP
discharge point is located 2.8 miles downstream from the City's intake. The High Rock Lake
HNVISAISBURY RIVERINE TM ViDOG,

7010INSTREAM WASTE CONCENTRATION FOR THE SALISBURY-ROWANWWTP -ATTORNEY-CLIMPRIVILEGE
Ddin (wheretheHigh Rock Lake-Water`eleVAtibn data -were collected) ;is located 16.2,niilLis
from the C--ity,'s,,disch,#'ge..'Fizure 1-shows a. scherna'ticof the study, axlea,
..figure 1. Schematic -6f the lstudy;area.
Yadkin QqHe'ge
Gauging'5iation
: Station
17.3'adles
NOT. TO SCALE_
'Intake at confluence of Yadkin
'and, S. Yadkin,'Rlivers
Discharge
2.&maies I
162'rniles
High Rock
Lake:Dam
The City.re,qu estedENSRtore "view the'7Q10'flow conditions. Revised 7010 flows were
calculated leulated for four USGS;1gauges in the�fivek,basin additional
a by including an addi A two Yom of
flow data. 'The new 7Q10 -flow is lower. than the previous estimate provided by USG S'as the
two: additional'years were drought years. The revised 7Q10 flow at the discharge point is
735cfsas.connpared to the previous USGS estimate of 833 cfs.� The, 7Q10 flow. at the Yadkin
CoHege-gaugirfg station was estimated to be 591 tfs.
In order to determineif the Yadkin River at:Salisbury'sNP15ES dischargepoffit isriverine or
lacust-nne during low flow conditions, the available -flow data, river elevation, and lake
elevation data sets were,,exantined.
Existing Conditions-
7010 How
042-M HILL obtained,,US . GS daily flow, .and -elevation data at the, Yadkin- Collegegauging
station, Water , , elevation levels .co1lecItedbythe City at its intake on ;the.Yadkin River-were,
also, available. To detem-dne -Whether lake Operations cause a lacustrine'envir6nmLmt At the
discharge point during low flow, daily,water elevation levels.(recorded at midnight) were,
I
of from ALCOA forl-ligh'Rock Lake Dam for July 2002 to April.2003. Tigpre, Z-'shows
low,flows and water -elevations collected during July, and August of 2002.
From July 3, 2002 to Auzust 31, 2002,there were, 40 days where flow at Yadkin College was,
equal: to, or less than 591 icfs; On,those dates, the. water surface elevations. (1) at the Salisbury
intake ranged from 615.68 ft to. 616.75 ft;. (2) at'the, Salisbury discharge ranged from 614.68ft
to 615.75-ft (Based onanalysis of USGSI'topb maps indicatinb, elevafionslo be 1.0 ft less than
the elevations at the -intake) - and (3) at High Rock Lake,ranged from"599-86 ft to 606.72 ft.
During these.periods; the "water, surface elevations Pf,1-1ig4Rock Lake were 8.52 ftto 15.63 ft,
lower than the watersurface elevations at the discharge point. Thus, under low flow
conditions, the Salisbury=Rowan WWTP discharge is located in a rivenne:environment.
HNVISAUSBURY RIVERINE TM VIDOG

.7010 INSTREAM WAS I TE CONCENTRATiON FOR THE.SALISSUSY-ROW.'N VAVrP - ATr()Rt,JEY-C,LlEf-ITPPitIlLEGE
Fig�xr�,2. Waterelevailons'-at dfferenf. locations and f I I ows--at the Ya:dki . n Col . 16�66-'Gauafn . - '- I " I - 0. 9
.stai.ioi,i.as.afu-ticti,oii;,of tiiiie (It ily--Att-fist,,2002Y
645', 1000
rX �40
900
oo"Wi: W,
A, 806'
5 91 Cf 3
625- ------- ------------- ------------ 6OG ro
'62
0
A
615- -400-
LLI
>
610 --Soo-
Zt
605% --200, 0
LL
600- 100
-0.
Date
Intake —M—High Rock ;QSGS.datum --Yadkiri Cblk6.gb USG$'Stafibn ----,L —. Flovjat YtL dkfn College.
--j
Conclugi*on8
The data available on the Yadkin.'River and kligh- Rock Lake demo.nstratethat the -City of
Sahkury'a discharge is,fit a r1vei'm'e:ehViioiinAAnt durin- low flow conditions. Thus, a
smjpledilution calculation. can be used-to,esffinafe the.!WC. CORIMIX-ototlierdilatibii
modeling is-Aot necessaiy f6cal . culate the DVC.
The, 7Q.1.0 flow at the YAdkiii, Colloge.gaughng stationds-591 cfs'while the revised 7QI0flow
at the discharge point is, 735 .cfs. A . lying -this flow and,'.'allowino� full �dilutloi L,
pp, -(a8 is, the
normal procedure: of DWQ-for river'uiiiie'.dikhai-es) re8ults iii an
MC7W,of 2,6%. -Th&
cKculaLion of the new IWC is, shown.below:
HNVISAUSSURY RIVERINETNI.r.,DOC

7010 INSTREAWWASTE CONCENTRATION FORTHESAIJSPURY-RCWAN.WV4TP--, ATTORNEY, CUENT PRIVILEGE
-0,0 19,4(Cfs)
IWCOC/0' ) .*.I ---400'= 2.69o'.
Qw +041 19. 4 (ei) + 7. 3 5 (�f-s)
Recommendations
Based.6h, the foregoing analyses; the' WC forth6'Cityls outfa]Ishoi.Ad be,2.6%. TheJW, C is
conservative because it incorporates -an.,.updated 7Q10 estimate: that includes recent drought
data.
HNVISAUSBURY SIVEF31NE T?4 VIDOC

Attachment 3
ENSR Report

To; Jim Behme ,r
Salisbury -Rowan , ,
From: Steve Cibik.
Marcia, G,re.enblat!
L'I'M 77417717P-
Date;, 24,,Octbbler,260
Utilities Department..
File:
RE: Yadkin
n River Low Flow Estimates CC:
At'Salisbury's-'r6quest, ENSR h6s.,sunimarized below the low river fibw conditions On the,Yadkin River
Ver,in the
vicinity of the City of Salisbury's,water supply intake and treated Wastewater diffuser. The intake is. located at the
confluence, 6f thie Yadkiii'and'South Yadkin Rivers, while the discharge diffuser is located 6h.the Yadkin River just
upstream of the Mouth of Graht!6 Cre6k.
Low flows: are, quantified in 1prrns of steitistical analyses, and the typical low flow statistic -applied to represent a
worst -case 16W flow situation ls'the 7Q10 floW,'thb , Minimum. 7-day.av'erag6 flow'that is likely to occur onceevery
0- 10 years: Thd,calculation of a 7Q1flbWreq6ires'8t record of daily str'eamfldws at
t of near, , the location of interest,
or:appropria'tei,w'aitershed analysis to develop this record. Once the strearriflow',record is developed, statistical
software is available to,fabilitafe the calculation of the 7Q1.0 flow based onza Log -Pearson Type I . 11 distribution. This
memo providbs,a summary-"of,the ffieth6d6l6gy'applied to dbvelop'the low*flow estimates at the two locations.
Several ral USGS continuous recording stream gages are located throughout,the. watershed. Figure 1 iden ti flos
several. gage"s ve n
inthe upper Yadkin and South ,Yadkin'ba siins that, provide relevant data for the hydrologic analysis
presented below,. including 666 gage {Yadkin College), which is approXimately 14 miles upstream of !he intake.
Table 1 presents Ia,surrim ary of these gages. For each gage,- the most recent USGS-published 7Q 6 value is
presented, along ,with the period of record used for calculations. In most cases, the entire, period of record is used
in 'the statistical analysis. At the Yadkin.College gage, only data from, 1963 fbrw'?rd are used, when the W. Kefr
Scoft Reservoir upstream of the -gage impbu.nded.'riVer flows.
Table 1. USGS Gaging Stations
-`
:Basirl:l
Area
7
Period
'Of
Prid I i m
AGa&;
Peribd.
oStat�
numbel,
Sa66aein
(
Reco.rd,
79,id:,.
2'
Record
Yadkin College
0.21165010,
Upper
��80
683
4-11/63-
591
4/1/63-�
Yadkin
3/31/01
3/31103
Sbuth Yadkin
02118000
South
306
60
4h/3q-�
45
4/1,139-
Yadkin
3/31/00
3/31/03
Hunting,Creek
02118500:
South
Yadkin
1,55
37
4/1'/51-
3i3l/98'
3,0
4?1/51-
Second Creek.
6212078,"Q
South
118
9.3�
411/79-
4.8
4/1/719-
Yadkin
3131101'
3131/03
7Qj6 Values are the most recent published by the US65-and do not inclucle.tMe entire period of record
2- PrelirninM updated ,MQflowsacalculated by the USGS include redentdrouQ htfloWs . These values have, not been
published or otherwise made.public by the USGS to date.
3 Due to missing datai the USG S, is in the process of calculation of th is value, for the extended period of record. Aformal
analysis is currentlybeing performed, by the.USGS, and results should be available in mid -November. The Value
presented here is calculated by ENSR (with,estimates for the missing data). LowAow values calculated by y ENSR are
within 1% of I US - dS,values, andthe Us'GS,va. lue is not expected to differ significantly from this'value.,
CADocumdnts and SeWnqilt1:op1\LoqbI settings Temporary
Internet Fil6tOLK961bw Flow Sum 11 Mary Memo Fi6a12 iCk24=
rv,A dnc

Because there is no USGS strear'Iflow,gage in :fhe immediate vi6inify of the; intake. and disch&ge, available gage
data throughout theYadkin/8outh°Yadkin watershed were;collected and used to scale flows at thds6 turo.poihts
based ontotal watershed area. To scale the data,,a.basin, area scaling factor (i.e., basin area at the;point.of
predictionlbasin area, at the.stream gage) was calculated for each gage Basin area scaling factors are presented
in Tablet. To scale -the flow for each subbasin, the gaged flow was multipliedby the appropriate scaling factor.
The. resulting valmrepresents total river flow from. each subbasin.
The intake structure is'located.at'the confluence of the Yadkin liver and the South Yadkin River. Given its
I of the confluence of the'two rivers, tw9 7Qao "values werecalculated, one from flowonly from the Yadkin
River, and one using flow' -from both rivers. To calculate the; 7010 in the Yadkin River at the intake location, the.
USGS .7Q,,o at Yadkin College -was scaled by the Yadkin College basin area'scaling factor. The. second':value,
including flows from .,both rivers, was calculated bysumming the total flows from .each,subbasin (i.e., each -value in
the record -was multiplied' by the•:appropriate'scaling factor, and the four• scaled flow records were summed).
Once summed, the Mio of the total flow was. calculated using the Duration Frequency©: software program.
These values are presented in Table 3.
Finally, the 7Q,a at the discharge location,was calculated. The.. discharge, isjocated approximately 2:5 miles.
downstream of the intake,. immediately above the Yadkin River confluence with .Grants Creek: The additional
watershed between the intake and the:discharge was measured., and a basin area,scaliri factor calculated,
Because the. upstream basin (includingboth Upper Yadkin and South Yadkin subbasins) isso much larger than
the additional watershed area between the, intake arfc the discharge, the basin area scaling factor was essentially
unchanged from that afthe intake (1,004). The additional watershed'b:elow the confluence of the Yadkin,and.
South Yadkin Rivers would potentially. increase the estimated 7Q�o by,2 to,3 cfs.
Table 2. Basin Area_.ScalingFactors
Gage:
: Scalrng:Factor;
Yadkin College
1;0.3
South Yadkin
1.65:
Hunting Creek.
1.45
Second Greek
Table,3., 7010 Flowi Estimate's at Salisbury -Rowan Facilities
Lacatrori._
7Q901
Pedotl of
Record-:
P..,relim -:New
741� (cfs)' :
Peri6d 6f
Recoird ,'
Intake (above. the confluence)
703
4/1 /63-3131101
609
0 /63-3t31103.
'Intake (below the confluence)
$33
4/1/63-3/3110.1
735
4/1163-3%31/03.
Discharge
I 833
411/63-3/31/01
735
4/l/63-3131/03
C:1Documents;and,Settingslttool\Local_SettingslTemporary Page 2
IntemetFiles10LK9mLoi; FlowSummary Memo F6alM

'Figure. I... Yald.kin Ritter Watershed
1 Hign NqCK LaKe-watersnea
Lower'Yadki,n Watershed
A USGS Gages N
'0 -5 10 20 30 40
- lmzzzzz�� Miles
CADocurnents and SettingsVtooRLocal SetfingskTernpojW.. Page .3
Internet, Flleikak*Low Flow summary Merno rinaM 10-

Attachment 4
CotiPirti-aticd? of USGS'c6ncurrencd with ENSR 7Q 10 calculations

LKr:opof tho hit ILI*,O
T
- lei
r-OLOGICA1 SURVEY
5.A9 a.9`lti Sunsat idt"'e %)% d
`:ull".�t� 'if)Y�_� � nrC•.iri � C:.Uf '
N verriber.'12, ?0ti
I7r.11r1arcia Grec f:blatt Ph_D:, Hydrologist
°I�.i�iSR I"fttzriatitinal
,2 Techn6l6gy Par; Drive
[%srford,,Massachusc:tts ll1SSCi
'Dear Dr. Greenblatt:
In -response to your request for lox -allow :lata, the-U-S. Qeolt gical Survey (USGS:)'proVides the fbil6wing
`low -flaw characteristics. for the c6ntinuous=record gagirig'station atHunting Cie& near`Harmony, NC {"star
tion'i .0211So00.>.cirainabe arert,l rni2)., The low=.flgik dan.,that, are ,.pfavided oil the attached sheet have
been computed based on techniques used by th .,USGS for assessing the low -flow characteristics at<contin-
uous=record';gagit%g stauorisliavin 10 `or more years ofrec6rd. Please note that the t1or4 estimates only
account for the eftecmof any upstteam diversions or regulation that. have, occurred during the period of
rec'brd.at thegaging station..
The. gaging station on Hunting Creels: has;:been in:operarion since:October 1950. The available ft lI'period
of record was used:in the analyses and,i icla es the iloti�;s. ha were olaserved.during the recent { 19�)3- 2002)
drought con-d tions in effec:taacross much of North Carolina. The 7-day; 10-year (7Q0) low -flow discharge
based -on this period is 29.9.:tt'is,:or:0.1'929 ft3tslrrti' of:draihatke area (termed'as, the•7tQ yield).:.t17Q10
yield of tlrls r*iagnitude indicates moderate p6tentials forsustained base ;Lows relative to:at'ierareas in p?rts.
of North Carolina. The 30-day, 2-year (30Q2) low -flow discharge based on this period is 78.5 ft3' or a
�OQ2 yield i f0:S0'C� ft1/s/n i2.
The tow -flows that, occurred'duriha 2002-11ave resal[ed'iti sci'irie del rcasi d low-tivw. characteristics for this
site as velbas other sites.across North Caroff ia. The analyses re-emphasize the-impctrtance of knowing the
period of fenrd associated tivith a given low. -flow statistic: Please refer to the email that.1 sent you:on Octo
bar 7 sttrnm r zing preares for rhos site and.mlier selected Site". in tha upper'Yadkin
River basin.
A charge for accessing and processing information:has:lii en assessed to pariially'offset these costs. Your,
requested date and; an.invoige covering.pfrocessrn'g'i:osts fiat these: data are enclosed. Please forward the
original br11 with your check to the US. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive...;Y(S 371„Reston,
1!ir�Yini. ,2..0I4?.
7:h6se,daia,ase preliminary and subject to revision ponc!rng apprcival for publicltior .hy the Director cxf the
U.S. Geological Sur-e, and are made availuhfe: through Our coopemtive program of water-resottrcos inVes-
tigation(. wittl the Pnvit nM' nteanil Natural°Resources.
IF }You have any gaestions regarding this intormation. please contact us at'
(91 .) 571-4000
Sincerely,
J. Curtis`Weaker
Hydrologist
Er:closures

SU11'lNNL&RY,0V NIT RESPO'NSE, T6'k-V0TJTv,,ST,
REQUESYN-10- 91622 SITENO: 01 1)ATE:
SO'iJRC-E'.: Consulfins ti'CTION'- Existin:(;"
ST,XTION. ", ER0-2'l-IISS"008 TATIO i TYPEdhtirubuslrk6rd(01)
SUMOIN NAME: HuniinCre
ek regk near garm'�L NC -
LOCATION:. .. Atseco , ndan,.Road'21,13. and 3.� miles -nort heasuof . ffiirniony
LATITTJD&W00102" — LONGITUDE-. 80q44447
QUANDRANGLE NAME, AND'NUMBER: LoneFfickorv- fC-16-Wl'
'0tNTV*C0Dt.- Bedell 1097j 'sT-ATE,C, j), n: -, 6 B' NC, F,371 -1?!S-'C-.RICT C_oDtNC [311
RYDRbLOGIC UNIT CODE: 03040102,
ENR,BASIN CODE:
03-07-06
DRAINAGE AREA: 15 mi'
11DO statistics A910116WS"
AVERAGE FLOW- Estimated using
1-30
ft3/,/nJiz 200
fV/s-
see'noie
I A I
ANNUAI 7 WMININ",ITLOW:
0,1929
i7folsym -2) 9. 0 '
fo/S
see note
IM 0
ANNUAL 30Q2 TNILN I UM FLOW:
0-5065•
78.5 'ftIjSj 2
see note
—A]
WINTER 7QIO MINIMUM FLOW:
0-3774
ft3/SlMi2 581.5
W/s
see note
rA I
ANKNUO, -1,0 WININfUm FLOW:
04452
ft31S/m 0 09-0
WYs
see note.
I A
INIOTES�
[A] Estimate is based on records collected attor.near'the reqpeA site.
Estimate is based ent irel s I y on -runoff cb,ar.acteriifics-observedat nearby- streani.s.
[C].Estiiiiate,:b,lsed..oxi,iaro-ced-ures given. n OSGS `hater Supply Paper 2443"I'L6W-116w Characteristics
-'of Stjwrns in Noirth-Cai6linie'(Gi6se and Mason 1993).
fD]--EstimAte basdd on,pro6dures.,oven in TJSGS'-W-k6r. SPOp.1y Taper 1463 and in1conjunction with
Streamflo',vv records collected at or near the re.questsife-
E �$ee`rernarlts. l�
TlieSe"ti$i�3:aire considered provisional., aiari&ijbje&tb 170'risibri&iidin :apjjr6vAJ by the 'Director; USG&
REMARKS:
• LQw, -416w estimates based on discharge records collectedga
ging station aur,n'a,.1951��-100,2c]ijifAtic years
W.
`(12-M-6nth Period from April !.through March 3 I'and designated by- the year in which theperiod begins,
used hi.low-flow analyses at continuous-.record,gagging stations) apd.includes the, recent. drou aht period..
-Requ.ested,by, Ms. Marcia Greenblatt, t-NISR.Intemaltional
ENTERED BY JCW -FERCHARGED: $ 1.56

Water Oijality Data Review for
High Rock Lake,.
North Carolipa
fyv�aterbody IlDs, 12,(10&6)bi 12=(I 14) 12-(124.5)a.,
and 12-11,18.51
08.11212004
NC DWO Cbntratt'Nurhber.EVV03M, Project NUmber 2-2
-RiV&r Yadkin; -Ded( Basin
Prepared for
NC Depa*rtme�t-of,Enviroiiment and Natural Resbbrces'
Division of Water Quality
,16 i ! ma. it Service Center
Raleigh, NC 2.7699-1617
By;
TtraT6C'hi Inc.
Cape F6ar Bldg., Suite 'l 05"
3200 Chapel Hill -Nelson Highvtay.
PO Box,14409
Research Triangle Park, NC-,277

I-Valer ftcRa6k4, A..:n!2 ,
Rqp,Q,Tt,,at,p. 14..
11 USEPA 1973
-1973). EPA s3nU;2c-d,the ;2,:(e see =ES
at -.hrec-. tt:6mvja -97 :mod sai*,1-26 S MOOL,-;b A-meen Mj:chA97 -, it d Fe7cmmv
Report ,zit p.
-SurfICO Cai?CtaMPE.3S:L?Sri.nd:tc= :5-30'C*aj-bar—x-=um!a Via. ar-adp.Evalues
W ,en Ehrm�,,=T the Lk YAD 13 ; IA)
are e -.%th Ln exce-�� or., -�ftifi most =-.Zem b1:4
d!r. aW- Z, ' ETE=E3 D2 P-
ckifins'.%-Imy tb:,-qgi, Augg.ut a-L"' TC�!PitltibC =6 IIIAV
Report -at p. 34..
Model Segmeation and Lake
e Sampling Statf6ft
idure.g. BATHTUB Sqmentaiion forHigh Rock W(NCDWQ, ISS71
Rbport.014-2—

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: No: YES_ NO_
If Yes, SOC No.
To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Charles Weaver
Date: February 24, 2004
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
County: Rowan
NPDES Permit No.: NCO023884
MRO No.: 04-02
PART I- GENERAL INFORMATION F E B 2 6 2004
1. Facility and address: Salisbury -Rowan WWTP
City of Salisbury
1915 Grubb Ferry Road
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
2. Date of investigation: February 20, 2004
3. Report prepared by: Samar Bou-Ghazale, Env. Eng. I
4. Person contacted and telephone number: Mr. Mike Frick, ORC;[phone].
5. Directions to site: From the junction of SR 1915 (Hollywood Drive) and SR 1820 (Grubb
Ferry Road) in the Town of Spencer, travel east on SR 1820 approx. 0.2 mile. The
WWTP is located on the right side of SR 1820.
6. Discharge point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 35' 44' 07" Longitude: 80' 26' 50"
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment plant site and discharge point on map.
USGS Quad No.: E 17 NW
7. Site size and expansion are consistent with application?
Yes x No_ If No, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Slopes range from 5 to 15%; the
WWTP is not located within the 100 year flood plain.

Page Two
9. Location of Nearest Dwelling: None within 500 feet of the WWTP.
10. Receiving Stream or Affected Surface Waters: Yadkin River
a. Classification: WS-V
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Yadkin 030704
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: The receiving
stream is the main segment of the Yadkin River, which is used for primary and
secondary recreation.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: 12.5 MGD (Ultimate Design Capacity)
a. What is the current capacity of the wastewater treatment facility? 12.5 MGD
b. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current design capacity)? 12.5
MGD
C. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous Authorizations to
Construct issued in the previous two years: N/A
d. Description of existing or substantially constructed WWT facilities: The existing
wastewater treatment facilities consist of two wastewater treatment plants, Grants
Creek (7.5 MGD) and Town Creek (5.0 MGD). The existing facilities at the
Town Creek wastewater treatment plant consist of two (2) mechanical bar screens,
two (2) grit and grease removal units, two (2) aeration basins with fixed
mechanical aerators and mixers, two (2) secondary clarifiers, four (4) screw pump
lift stations, two (2) aerobic digesters, sludge dewatering facilties, flow
measurement, an effluent pump station, and standby power generator. The
existing facilities at the Grants Creek wastewater treatment plant consist of an
influent parshall flume, four (4) mechanical bar screens, four (4) primary clarifiers,
four (4) grit chambers, an aeration basin with mechanical floating aerators and
mixers, two (2) trickling filters, two (2) circular clarifiers and four (4) rectangular
clarifiers, six (6) screw pump lift stations, two (2) aerobic digesters, a belt filter
press, standby power generator, four (4 Trojan UV4000 system) disinfection units,
cascade aeration, an effluent pump station, a flow measurement instrumentation
and a back-up hypochlorite disinfection system.
e. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: N/A
f. Pretreatment Program: Approved

9N
2. Residual handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied specify DWQ Permit No. WQ0001956.
b. Residuals Contractor: Sino-Gro, Inc.
c. Telephone No. [phone]
d. Residual Stabilization: PSRP
3. Treatment Plant Classification: Class IV (No change from previous rating)
4. SIC Code(s): 4952 2099 2261
Wastewater Code(s): Primary: 01 Secondary: 81, 55, 58
5. MTU Code(s): 04003
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
L Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grants Funds (municipals only)?
Public monies were used in the construction of this facility.
2. Special monitoring requests: N/A
3. Additional effluent limits requests: None at this time.
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Salisbury (the City), has requested the renewal of the subject permit. The
wastewater discharge from the Town creek WWTP is pumped to the Grants Creek WWTP where
the discharges are combined and disinfected prior to discharge via diffusion into the Yadkin River.
Both wastewater treatment plants appeared to be in good condition at the time of inspection.
Pending receipt and approval of the P&E, it is recommended that the Permit be reissued as
requested.
Signature of Repo reparer Date
Water Quality Regional Supervisor JDate

j
December 30, 2003
Mrs. Valery Stephens
NC DENR / DWQ / Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Renewal Application for NC 0023884
In accordance with requirements set forth in our current NPDES permit, we
hereby request renewal of the above permit scheduled to expire July 31, 2004.
There have been no changes to the facility since the effective date of July 1,
2002. The new permit application forms were received by the City of Salisbury
on December 5, 2003. We were unaware of the requirements for three Priority
Pollutant Analyses and four toxicity tests using two organisms. Toxicity samples
using Ceriodaphnia and fat -head minnows were collected between Dec 8th and
12th. Samples for a Priority Pollutant Scan were also collected during the same
week. (PPS were analyzed in 2000 and 2001 as required by permit) Both toxicity
tests "passed" and are included in this package. Fat -head minnow toxicity tests
are scheduled for January, February and March of 2004. PPS collected in
December is currently being analyzed. Since Thallium, Total Phenolic
Compounds and Hardness was not required in 2000 and 2001, these parameters
will also be run in January and February of 2004.
Every effort has been made to complete the application in a very short time. As
soon as results are received, they will be forwarded as an amended permit
application.

Salisbury — Rowan WWTP
NC0023884
Grant Creek Treatment Train — The facility consists of 4 bar screens and grit chambers, 4
primary clarifiers, dual trickling filters, 1 - 6.1 mgd aeration basin, 4 secondary clarifiers,
2 aerobic digesters, one belt press for sludge dewatering. The biological treatment system
provides both primary and secondary treatment using a high rate trickling filter and
separate sludge digestion.
Town Creek Treatment Train — The facility consists of dual bar screens and grit
chambers, dual aeration basins, dual secondary clarifiers, dual aerobic digesters, and one
plate and frame dewatering facility. This treatment train is also a biological system which
provides both primary and secondary treatment.
Grant Creek and Town Creek effluent flows are combined and disinfected using
ultraviolet light. (Trojan UV4000 System) The combined effluents then go over a
cascade to increase DO before being discharged through a diffuser into the Yadkin River.

Saiisbury�Rawan)
APR 2 8 M
April 14, 2004
Mrs. Valery Stephens
NC DENR / DWQ / Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject-. Updated Renewal Application for NC 0023884
Dear Mrs. Stephens,
As stated in the renewal application that was submitted on December 30, 2003, we
were unaware of the requirements for three Priority Pollutant Scans and four toxicity
tests using two organisms. Thallium, Total Phenolic Compounds and Hardness were
not required when our last Priority Pollutant Scan was analyzed. All of these have been
completed and are reflected in the enclosed amended application for renewal required
for NC 0023884.
If there are any questions regarding the enclosed information, please feel free to
call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Carol Hamilton j
Environmental Services Manager
Salisbury -Rowan Utilities
SALISBURY - ROWAN UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1915 GRUBB FERRY ROAD
SALISBURY, N.C. 28144-1248

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884 renewal Yadkin
FORM
A",
2A M 2A.
NPDES -�
APPLICATION OVERVIEW
Form 2A has been developed in a modular format and consists of a "Basic Application Information" packet
and a "Supplemental Application Information" packet. The Basic Application Information packet is divided
into two parts. All applicants must complete Parts A and C. Applicants with a design flow greater than or
equal to 0.1 mgd must also complete Part B. Some applicants must also complete the Supplemental
Application Information packet. The following items explain which parts of Form 2A you must complete.
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION:
A. Basic Application Information for all Applicants. All applicants must complete questions A.1 through A.8. A treatment works
that discharges effluent to surface waters of the United States must also answer questions A.9 through A.12.
B. Additional Application Information for Applicants with a Design Flow z 0.1 mgd. All treatment works that have design flows
greater than or equal to 0.1 million gallons per day must complete questions 13.1 through B.6.
C. Certification. All applicants must complete Part C (Certification).
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION:
D. Expanded Effluent Testing Data. A treatment works that discharges effluent to surface waters of the United States and meets
one or more of the following criteria must complete Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data):
1. Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1mgd,
2. Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place), or
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to provide the information.
E. Toxicity Testing Data. A treatment works that meets one or more of the following criteria must complete Part E (Toxicity Testing
Data):
1. Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1 mgd,
2. Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place), or
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to submit results of toxicity testing.
F. Industrial User Discharges and RCRAICERCLA Wastes. A treatment works that accepts process wastewater from any
significant industrial users (SIUs) or receives RCRA or CERCLA wastes must complete Part F (Industrial User Discharges
and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes). SIUs are defined as:
1. All industrial users subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 403.6 and
40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N (see instructions); and
2. Any other industrial user that:
a. Discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the treatment works (with certain
exclusions); or
b. Contributes a process wastestream that makes up 5 percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic
capacity of the treatment plant; or
c. Is designated as an SIU by the control authority.
G. Combined Sewer Systems. A treatment works that has a combined sewer system must complete Part G (Combined Sewer
Systems).
ALL APPLICANTS,MUST COMPLETE PART C (CERTIFICATION)
s
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Page 1 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
k
"
BASIC APPLICATION At -116N INFORMATION'
I
Ail -
PART A.
M
�xu
'A
All treatment works must complete questions A.1 through A.8 of this Basic Application Information Packet.
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 2 of 22

Please print or type in the unshaded areas only
/fill-in nraac aro znararl fnralifn tuna i a 19 rharartarclnrh)
For Approved. OMB No. 2040-0086. Approval expires 5-31-92
FORM
-- U S. ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY ;
I: EPA'I:D. NUMBER
�d
tGENERp►L INFORMATIONS
s
F `
TiA°
D
7:i
CoRsohdated Permits Program
GENERgAL._
�'° r Reatl "General lnstruct�ons", beforestarfing.
1,
2
the
..
LABEL ITEMS
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS °
If:' a �reprti�ted label has been provided
I� EPA I b. NUMBER �
affix tt m the designated pace Review the �.
r
Information carefully i any of it )s
tncorrct� =f toss° through it ;and enter the
FIicorrec
,-III, FACILITY, NAME �,- T �
a a m the: a ropilate fill-in area
beelow Altsio'If'anay m e.pr"e nnte`d data Is
`_
`
a bsenfi are r e•�le' of t1,e label'
��% � PLEASE PL ZE LABEL 1N� THIS SPACES
space Ists the" information that should
FACILITY Or
_47-m
appear) (ease provide It.inthe properfiiF''
MAILING LIST '
arears��below. If the ,label )s-eomppfete"
correct need not�complete Items'
s.,
and you
I, III, U and vt(except V1 a which must be '
completed'regardless) Qomplete all Items
VI FgClLITIf °
tf,no label has been roved Refer tothe
"defal
,:
)nsfrucfions for ed)temdeserlptions ;
LOCATION s_ g
„,
andforthe le alauthonzation und`erwh)ch
vt1his data is co lected'
II P,OLLUTiNT CHARACTERISTICS
INSTRUCTIONS Complete A;thiough"J`to determine whetherdyoU need to°submit`a17y permit application forms
to the' EPA I -"du answer "yes" to any'
questions you_musfTsubrtlu this form and;the supplemental ii0m fisted=in the parenthesls,following the question:
Mark 'X' In the`box In the third column If°`
the �stipplementai form is'attached elf you answer "'no".,to each question you,need nofi submit any of these fors
You may�answer' no'; if,your activity is,=
excluded from°dermit,re uirements aee5ection C of the instructions: See also,�Seetion D=of the instructions
for`definitions ofbola-facetl•terms:
_, ,.
MARK"X";
� � � MARK'X",
SPECIFIC,QUESTIONS '
SPECIFIC QUIESTIOt�S F _
" YES
k'
r FORM
YES
NO .
fr1TACHED 'ATTACHED
NO =>
- A = Is this facility a publicly owned treatment° works
B Doe or a wilt' this facility (either ewsbng or
which risuits=m a discharge. to waters='of "'the.,
X
❑ X
proposed) include ,a concentrated nlnial;' ❑ X ❑
U S"7 (FORM°2A)',
�a feeding .e` of„ animal
,operation ,aquatic
production facility which results`Ina discharge
of tte U S.:?"(FORM 2B} N „e , s • 20 21
_ ._ °
:: 1s'
17 ' 1&,5,to.waters
C Isil this fadllty which . currently results in
❑
X ❑
D Is this proposal facilely (other than those described, ❑ X ❑
discharges to meters of the ° U S..other tF an
�` In R_or B above which mill .resq)t-in a discharge''
those described In A or B above?(FORM,2C
„r to waters of th`e U S., F;QRW,,2D .,25 ,a;�2s � ." 27 ...ff
22r�
23 . - " 24
E Does or NAIl3hls faality,4treat store or dispose of,.
F Do you or will you,inJ at this.tacility industrial or-
hazardous wastes? (FORM 3
❑
X ❑
mgnic"pai efflrJent belovrthe lowerrriost straturri . ❑ X ❑
°' ,�
confalrnng, within one°quarter mI(e�of,the welt`
r
bore, underground sources of dnnlong water?
(FOfM 4)� , 31 '32, 33 x
��
f 26�a
29 30
G Do, ywx or vv�ll ,you infect at this facility any,
H Do. you or will you injecta this facility flwds for
by the
produced water other fluids which are brought -to 4
the�surface eonnection with,conventional o"I or `;
❑
X ❑
special processes such a mining'of surfer
Frasch process solution mining of minerals; in ❑ X
❑
to
natural gas production° inject `fiords used for ,
situ§combustion of fos'silAfel orrecovery
enhanced recoveryof o11 or natural gas for inject
geothermal energy? (FORM 4)
fluids for storage ,off IIq`uid' hydrocarbons? ;
34
36
(FORM' '
I Is..thls #acility apropgsed stationary:�source =,
J Is this facility a proposed stationary'source;
which Is oriel? the 28 Ind ustriai;categones fisted :
' ❑
X ❑
which Is NOT one of the 28 industrial categdfi&r X ❑
` ❑
ri-, Ittstrucfions and irlhlch will potentially @mit
listed In the Iristructlnns and which will potentially=
10b. to per,�� ear�of any air pollu#ant regulated ;;
emit 25p toils perms=year of any aIr pollutant,
�
y or lie
re g and mar affect.
�4b " 42
_ .- ,
ems, located+n areattaioment rea?t FORM 5�t t 40, ..
4 �.. , _
- ° -
e?. FORl�543t_4� _46 _
pe Iocat d inranattaininent art
``III NAME:OF FACILITY,. �'
e SKip.. Salisbury -Rowan Wastewater Treatment
Plant
15 1829 ma's=
-:69
e.. ,k�..
=1
=IV.'FACILITY,CONTACT •`
A': NAME
&TITLE last; first, 8 title �. _ _ " .
B. PFIONE` area code &ono: _ �D , Mx
c Randy Cauble, Plants Manager 704 638 ' 4478
z.Z
15 - 16� 45,°'.:46e' 48t'- 49 51 52, -` ° 55 ".
V. FACILITY,,MAILINGAD it
u
q.=$TREETAR P.O. BOXa
c 1915 Grubb Ferry Road 'x
. B. CITY OR TOWN C.,,STATE D t ZIP CODE .
b
c Salisbury NC 28 144
5
5 �& `40 : _: 5 : 41 =42 47 51
VI FACIL' ITY LOCATION
A STREET:•ROUTE"NO OR OTHER SPECIFICIDENTIFIER =
c " 1915 Grubb FerryRoad
` .f5
­',
15 16
d
�. PIP
, �-
B. COUNTY NAME
3, 3 Q
Rowan
u
.. , 4 .max. C Cli YORTOWN D STATE ° ,. , > E ZIP; CgDE, F.,'000NTY CODE•
�o '
_.
Salisbury
NC
1 74717T
28144
a •._
00
16 a.z ' `` -_ ; 40` ,
EPA FORM 3510-1 (8-90) CONTINUED ON REVERSE

CONTINUED FROM THE FRONT
1' Vtl41C.COD'ES -4=dr -it' °in: older of ricirlf _ .
B° SECOND
o
a
(specify)
7
(specify)
_7 ;
15"1MI6.
'J'1721
,_ . £. D'.-.FOURTH "
�¢ C.,THIRD _ g.
c (specify). (specify)
_7
15.,„v16 � t 16.. g . •19, ..
VIII ,,OPERA , "INFORMATIO 4 ='
A. NAME ' _ ° B °Is the name listedin Item
,g s`
Mike Frick ORC 9VIU A also the ovmer?
$ ES ENO
`;C. STATUS OF Of?ERATQR.Moterthe,a ro riate`lett6fitto,the answertiox, if Otlier,4 s „eci .° '
" ;w °`D: PHONE, are&,.1code'& no
F
Fk=FEDERAL'��,a� , M = PUBLIC (other than federal orstate) M
,
(specify)
C
704
638
5374
SSTATt �` O = OTHER (specify)
A
I6' 18
= 19 21
22, n- 25
P PRIVATE } 56 -
15;
E:;STREET OR=RO BQX .
�
1915 Grubb Ferry Road
26 f 55
r. f
R' CITY OR TOWN
G. STATE H. ZIP CODE IX. INDIAN,LAND '
� " : .tea
NC 28144 Is the facility located on Indiala n nd ?
c
Sabsbury
B
_ ❑YES X NO
42 42 47 51 _
15 - ;�16.40 ;
X. EXISTING ENVIRONM,ENT.AL PERMITS=.
.= A NPDES Diseha " es`to. Surface Water,
.
b. PSD A'r'EmissionsAom`!?ro osed-Sources
c: :r s „.: • .
94= P
15'=18417e1g >",30 .;a ".
c
T'
NC 0023884
N�
g5
8:
17�6
���„ t30;
4 . • B. UIG. Urzde round /n ectio"n,of F/uids ._ ..
_ E. OTHER; s ea . _ 's• pl ' `
is
Land Application
mac"
T'
'`
a
WQ 0001956
1515'.
.17
6 30.ter`°,
'30'
=:a C RCRA Hazadous>Wastes;° E: OCHER s _ecl (Specify)
C SST
g rR 9 P
15 . :16, , i7- 4 8 ;:>> _. `: k°' a. 30.:!, 15 T:. 16 ..17;: ,' 16 ,' ,' „_ ,_ ' ' 30 .
X. MAR,
Attach to this application a fopographlc map ofgthe area e . i , ng'tofiat least one rnlle Beyond property boundaries Tt a map rr ust
show the outline; of thefaclllty, the oration �f -each of its existingL and proposed retake ".and ,discharge structures, each Hof Its
hazartlouszwasfe treatment„storage or disposal=aclllhes; and each wel['. wher`elt Injects fluids untlerground: include all springs,
nvers,and ather6 urFace water,bodiesain the ma ,area. See instructions for recise`re ulrements . '` `'° ._ -
XII. NATURE OFE: BUSINESS° 0rovrde4br►ef descrl tion
Treatment of Wastewater from Collection System
XIII`.CERTIFICATION `see rnstructions `` "
I cerfrfy Oro, oflaw that'l have personally exarrrined and'am familiar with the information submitted in this appli '66n:and
all attachmentsand that, based onmy inqurryof (hose personsimmediately`responsible for o[itarning the tnforrnatron° contained in
� the;;ap�r/tca`ton,l.beheve;that fhe�information rs true,.accurate and complefe� IN�am aware that there -are srgnifcant°penalties.. for
'_
submtttn falsenformatiori; includn :fhe�' ossibilit �•of one andm rrso ` ent: y � ` " � ° ' `�
_�
A. NAME &OFFICIAL TITLE (type or print) B. SIGNATURE
C. DATE SIGNED
H. Matthias Bernhardt,
Assistant City Manager of Utilities
"rCOMMENTS FOR OFFICIAL VS;E.ONLY a'
c
EPA FORM 3510-1 (8-90)

• A.I. Facility Information.
Facility Name
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Title
Telephone Number
Facility Address
Salisbury -Rowan Wastewater Treatment Plant
1915 Grubb Ferry Road
Salisbury, North Carolina
Randy Cauble
Plants Manager
[phone]
1915 Grubb Ferry Road
(not P.O. Box) Salisbury, NC 28144
A.2. Applicant Information. If the applicant is different from the above, provide the following:
Applicant Name
Mailing Address
Contact Person
City of Salisbury
PO Box 479
Salisbury, N.C. 28145
Title Assistant City Manager for Utilities
Telephone Number [phone]
Is the applicant the owner or operator (or both) of the treatment works?
X owner X operator
Indicate whether correspondence regarding this permit should be directed to the facility or the applicant.
X facility ❑ applicant
A.3. Existing Environmental Permits. Provide the permit number of any existing environmental permits that have been issued to the treatment works
(include state -issued permits).
NPDES NC0023884 PSD
UIC Other
RCRA Other Land Application WO0001956
A.4. Collection System Information. Provide information on municipalities and areas served by the facility. Provide the name and population of each
entity and, if known, provide information on the type of collection system (combined vs. separate) and its ownership (municipal, private, etc.).
Name
Population Served
Type of Collection System
Ownership
City of Salisbury
26,631
Separate
City of Salisbury
Town of China Grove
3,850
Separate
Town of China Grove
Town of Landis
3,023
Separate
Town of Landis
Town of East Spencer
1,742
Separate
Town of East Spencer
Town of Spencer
3,374
Separate
City of Salisbury
Total population served
38,620 Data obtained from NC League of Municipalities
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 3 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884 renewal Yadkin
A.5. Indian Country.
a. Is the treatment works located in Indian Country?
❑ Yes X No
b. Does the treatment works discharge to a receiving water that is either in Indian Country or that is upstream from (and eventually flows
through) Indian Country?
❑ Yes X No
A.6. Flow. Indicate the design flow rate of the treatment plant (i.e., the wastewater flow rate that the plant was built to handle). Also provide the
average daily flow rate and maximum daily flow rate for each of the last three years. Each year's data must be based on a 12-month time period
with the 12th month of "this year" occurring no more than three months prior to this application submittal.
a. Design flow rate 12.5 mgd
Two Years Ago Last Year This Year
b. Annual average daily flow rate 6.0 mqd - 2001 7.0 mqd - 2002 9.5 mqd - 2003
C. Maximum daily flow rate 15.4 mqd 16.3 mqd 22.14 mqd
A.7. Collection System. Indicate the type(s) of collection system(s) used by the treatment plant. Check all that apply. Also estimate the percent
contribution (by miles) of each.
x Separate sanitary sewer 100 %
❑ Combined storm and sanitary sewer %
A.8. Discharges and Other Disposal Methods.
a. Does the treatment works discharge effluent to waters of the U.S.? x Yes ❑ No
If yes, list how many of each of the following types of discharge points the treatment works uses:
I. Discharges of treated effluent 1
ii. Discharges of untreated or partially treated effluent none
iii. Combined sewer overflow points none
iv. Constructed emergency overflows (prior to the headworks) none
V. Other
b. Does the treatment works discharge effluent to basins, ponds, or other surface impoundments
that do not have outlets for discharge to waters of the U.S.? ❑ Yes X No
If yes, provide the following for each surface impoundment:
G.
d.
Location:
Annual average daily volume discharge to surface impoundment(s)
Is discharge ❑ continuous or ❑ intermittent?
Does the treatment works land -apply treated wastewater? (land application for dried sludge on next page) ❑ Yes
If yes, provide the following for -each land application site:
Location:
Number of acres:
Annual average daily volume applied to site:
Is land application ❑ continuous or ❑ intermittent?
Does the treatment works discharge or transport treated or untreated wastewater to another
treatment works?
mgd
mgd
X No
❑ Yes X No
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 4 of 22 �

.11- ., -la.1 V"I z I s y
-Lin "I I
'171 1"
!�I- s 0'5*I.
-3v lye :,,,I
lwl -:I
X7
I
IS I G
7-is
l— —7 E
r 'a.:L
L V
i� R: J i` 7 b ' I i. ;—%�1r , F=1,—= j � r.—...� :.a:' _� , y�_�__-�^ ,.,
Y�i 1) 071)
5,
!AlYA :Mljslx
I it I a YJ A 21141

Djewatedng
BuEdinq
B-gr Screen Opprg,ti,.vns
:SuL'-din ,
al Ch.am.
7-jvF
TOWn Cre--k VNp.5.0
E]
.EffluMt PUMP St,allon
CL.AJP 9
Irc-
j q
I-c: At: -r,
h, rs
ms j -14 1& r, -1 1 1-)-.

Salisbury — Rowan WWTP
NC0023884
Grant Creek Treatment Train — The facility consists of 4 bar screens and grit chambers, 4
primary clarifiers, dual trickling filters, 1 - 6.1 imgd aeration basin, 4 secondary clarifiers,
2 aerobic digesters, one belt press for sludge dewatering. The biological treatment system
provides both primary and secondary treatment using a high rate trickling filter and
separate sludge digestion.
Town Creek Treatment Train — The facility consists of dual bar screens and grit
chambers, dual aeration basins, dual secondary clarifiers, dual aerobic digesters, and one
plate and frame dewatering facility. This treatment train is also a biological system which
provides both primary and secondary treatment.
Grant Creek and Town Creek effluent flows are combined and disinfected using
ultraviolet light. (Trojan UV4000 System) The combined effluents then go over a
cascade to increase DO before being discharged through a diffuser into the Yadkin River.

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
If yes, describe the mean(s) by which the wastewater from the treatment works is discharged or transported to the other treatment works
(e.g., tank truck, pipe).
If transport is by a party other than the applicant, provide:
Transporter Name
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Title
Telephone Number
For each treatment works that receives this discharge, provide the following:
Name
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Title
Telephone Number ( )
If known, provide the NPDES permit number of the treatment works that receives this discharge
Provide the average daily flow rate from the treatment works into the receiving facility.
mgd
e. Does the treatment works discharge or dispose of its wastewater in a manner not included
in A.8. through A.8.d above (e.g., underground percolation, well injection): ❑ Yes
X No
If yes, provide the following for each disposal method:
Description of method (including location and size of site(s) if applicable):
Annual daily volume disposed by this method:
Is disposal through this method ❑ continuous or ❑ intermittent?
Sludge Management Plan: Salisbury -Rowan Utilities has a land application permit
WQ0001956 that allows up to 3,538 tons of dried sludge to be land applied on 1,275.2
acres. SRU operates a belt press and a filter press.
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 5 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884 renewal Yadkin
WASTEWATER DISCHARGES:
If you answered "Yes" to question A.8.a, complete questions A.9 through A.12 once for each outfall (including bypass points) through
which effluent is discharged. Do not include information on combined sewer overflows in this section. If you answered "No" to question
A.8.a, go to Part B, "Additional Application Information for Applicants with a Design Flow Greater than or Equal to 0.1 mgd."
A.9. Description of Outfall.
a. Outfall number 001
b. Location City of Salisbury 28144
(City or town, if applicable) (Zip Code)
(County) (State)
35 degrees 44' 7" N 80 degrees 26' 50" W
(Latitude) (Longitude)
C. Distance from shore (if applicable) 535 ft.
d. Depth below surface (if applicable) 9 ft.
e. Average daily flow rate 7_ (2002) mgd
f. Does this outfall have either an intermittent or a periodic discharge? ❑ Yes X No (go to A.9.g.)
If yes, provide the following information:
Number f times per year discharge occurs:
Average duration of each discharge:
Average flow per discharge:
Months in which discharge occurs:
g. Is outfall equipped with a diffuser?
X Yes ❑ No
mgd
A.10. Description of Receiving Waters. .
a. Name of receiving water Yadkin River
b. Name of watershed (if known) Yadkin
United States Soil Conservation Service 14-digit watershed code (if known): unknown
C. Name of State Management/River Basin (if known): Yadkin River Basin
United States Geological Survey 8-digit hydrologic cataloging unit code (if known): 02116500
d. Critical low flow of receiving stream (if applicable) August 12, 2002 — Lowest recorded flow on record for Yadkin River
acute 236 cfs chronic
e. Total hardness of receiving stream at critical low flow (if applicable): 25
cfs
mg/I of CaCO3
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 6 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884 -
renewal
Yadkin
A.11. Description of Treatment
a. What level of treatment are provided? Check all that apply.
X Primary X Secondary
❑ Advanced ❑ Other. Describe:
b. Indicate the following removal rates (as applicable):
Design BOD5 removal or Design CBOD5 removal 85 %
Design SS removal 85 %
Design P removal NA %
Design N removal NA %
Other %
C. What type of disinfection is used for the effluent from this outfall? If disinfection varies by season, please describe:
Ultraviolet Disinfection
If disinfection is by chlorination is dechlorination used for this outfall? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Does the treatment plant have post aeration? X Yes ❑ No
A.12. Effluent Testing Information. All Applicants that discharge to waters of the US must provide effluent testing data for the following
parameters. Provide the indicated effluent testing required by the permitting authority for each outfall through which effluent is
discharged. Do not include information on combined sewer overflows in this section. All information reported must be based on data
collected through analysis conducted using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with QA/QC requirements of
40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate QA/QC requirements for standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. At a
minimum, effluent testing data must be based on at least three samples and must be no more than four and one-half years apart.
Outfall number: 001 (Test results are based on data from 2002)
MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
"' 'a AVERAGE DAILY VALUE'.
PARAMETER
Value
�: Units.
Value :'
Units __g:
Number of $amples .
pH (Minimum)
6.4
S.U.
on
pH (Maximum)
7.1
s.u.
Flow Rate
16.3
mgd
7.0
mgd
365
Temperature (Winter)
20.4
Deg C
13.9
Deg C
365
Temperature (Summer)
27.4
Deg C
22.7
Deg C
365
For pH please report a minimum and a maximum daily value
MAXIMUM' DAILY `
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
`
POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE
ANALYTICAL'
r
11ALlMDL,' =
Number of
= METHOD
Conc.:Units.
Conc.
Units_'
Samples
-
CONVENTIONAL AND NON CONVENTIONAL COMPOUNDS
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN
BOD5
12.5
mg/l
3.9
mg/l
251
SM5210
2.0 mg/I
DEMAND (Report one)
CBOD5
FECAL COLIFORM
870
Colonies
12
Geo
251
SM9222D
1 colony /
/100 ml
mean
100 ml
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS)
53.2
mg/l
16
mg/1
251
SM2540D
1 mg/I
EN®' OF PART A , " W.
REFER TO THE APPL' ICATLON OVERVIEW (PAGE 1),=TO DETERMINE`WHICF OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A,Y OU=MUST COMPLETE
0;
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 7 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION~°
a� z ,
,
PARTZ.. =.ADDITIONAL APPL` ICATION INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT$ 'WITH'A DESIGN,FLOW GREATER'THAN`OR ,
s ,EQUAL TO 0 1 MGD4100;0669allons per day).
All applicants with a design flow rate z 0.1 mgd must answer questions B.1 through B.6. All others go to Part C (Certification).
B.I. Inflow and Infiltration. Estimate the average number of gallons per day that flow into the treatment works from inflow and/or infiltration.
1,000,000 (based on difference in 2002 & 2001 flows) gpd
Briefly explain any steps underway or planned to minimize inflow and infiltration.
The City's GIS crew has mapped about 30% of the system in the past 2 years. An I & I crew inspects problems areas.
Over $1,250,000 has been spent in the past 2 years to reduce I & I through repairs, etc.
B.2. Topographic Map. Attach to this application a topographic map of the area extending at least one mile beyond facility property boundaries. This
map must show the outline of the facility and the following information. (You may submit more than one map if one map does not show the entire
area.) (attached)
a. The area surrounding the treatment plant, including all unit processes.
b. The major pipes or other structures through which wastewater enters the treatment works and the pipes or other structures through which
treated wastewater is discharged from the treatment plant. Include outfalls from bypass piping, if applicable. (no bypass piping)
c. Each well where wastewater from the treatment plant is injected underground. (none)
d. Wells, springs, other surface water bodies, and drinking water wells that are: 1) within '/A mile of the property boundaries of the treatment
works, and 2) listed in public record or otherwise known to the applicant. (We have no records of drinking water wells)
e. Any areas where the sewage sludge produced by the treatment works is stored, treated, or disposed.
f. If the treatment works receives waste that is classified as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by truck, rail,
or special pipe, show on the map where the hazardous waste enters the treatment works and where it is treated, stored, and/or disposed.
(none)
B.3. Process Flow Diagram or Schematic. Provide a diagram showing the processes of the treatment plant, including all bypass piping and all
backup power sources or redundancy in the system. Also provide a water balance showing all treatment units, including disinfection (e.g.,
chlorination and dechlorination). The water balance must show daily average flow rates at influent and discharge points and approximate daily flow
rates between treatment units. Include a brief narrative description of the diagram. (attached)
B.4. Operation/Maintenance Performed by Contractor(s).
Are any operational or maintenance aspects (related to wastewater treatment and effluent quality) of the treatment works the responsibility of a
contractor? X Yes ❑ No
If yes, list the name, address, telephone number, and status of each contractor and describe the contractor's responsibilities (attach additional
pages if necessary). (see attached sheet for 2nd contractor info)
Name: Carolina Technical Services, Inc
Mailing Address: PO Box 268
China Grove, NC 28023
Telephone Number: [phone]
Responsibilities of Contractor: Quarterly calibration of all wastewater flow meters
B.S. Scheduled improvements and Schedules of Implementation. Provide information on any uncompleted implementation schedule or
uncompleted plans for improvements that will affect the wastewater treatment, effluent quality, or design capacity of the treatment works. If the
treatment works has several different implementation schedules or is planning several improvements, submit separate responses to question B.5
for each. (If none, go to question B.6.)
a. List the outfall number (assigned in question A.9) for each outfall that is covered by this implementation schedule.
NA
b. Indicate whether the planned improvements or implementation schedule are required by local, State, or Federal agencies.
❑ Yes X No
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 8 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
C. If the answer to B.5.b is "Yes," briefly describe, including new maximum daily inflow rate (if applicable).
d. Provide dates imposed by any compliance schedule or any actual dates of completion for the implementation steps listed below, as
applicable. For improvements planned independently of local, State, or Federal agencies, indicate planned or actual completion dates, as
applicable. Indicate dates as accurately as possible.
Schedule Actual Completion
Implementation Stage MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY
Begin Construction
End Construction
Begin Discharge
Attain Operational Level
e. Have appropriate permits/clearances concerning other Federal/State requirements been obtained? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Describe briefly:
B.6. EFFLUENT TESTING DATA (GREATER THAN 0.1 MGD ONLY).
Applicants that discharge to waters of the US must provide effluent testing data for the following parameters. Provide the indicated
effluent testing required by the permitting authority for each outfall through which effluent is discharged. Do not include information
on combine sewer overflows in this section. All information reported must be based on data collected through analysis conducted
using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate
QA/QC requirements for standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. At a minimum effluent testing data must be
based on at least three pollutant scans and must be no more than four and on -half years old.
Outfall Number: 001 (2002 data)
°
MAXIMUM DAILY
°
`AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE
° °° , 4
ANALYTICAL
MUMDL
Number of
, � Units
METHOD
a
Cone. Units.;
C0 . Samples.
CONVENTIONAL AND NON CONVENTIONAL COMPOUNDS
AMMONIA (as N)
1.0
mg/I
0.44
mg/1
251
SM4500-NH3D
0.10 mg/I
CHLORINE (TOTAL
NA
RESIDUAL, TRC)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
9.7
mg/I
8.3
mg/1
251
SM4500-0 G
0.05 mg/I
TOTAL KJELDAHL
2.9
mg/I
2.4
mg/I
33
SM4500-NH3C
1.0 mg/l
NITROGEN (TKN)
NITRATE PLUS NITRITE
12.8
mg/I
11.0
mg/I
33
EPA 353.2
0.05 mg/l
NITROGEN
OIL and GREASE
NA
PHOSPHORUS (Total)
2.6
mg/I
2.3
mg/I
33
SM450OP-E
0.01 mg/l
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
NA
(TDS)
OTHER
Wl
END OF PART B
REFER TOHAPPLATON OIRVIEW(PAGE1)TO DETERMINE°WHICH ®TREK PARTS
"OF FORM 2A YOU'MUST° COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 9 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
v
BASIC, APPLICATION INFORMATION
,RARTIC. CERTIFICATION
All applicants must complete the Certification Section. Refer to instructions to determine who is an officer for the purposes of this
certification. All applicants must completeall applicable sections of Form 2A, as explained in the Application Overview. Indicate below which
parts of Form 2A you have completed and are submitting. By signing this certification statement, applicants confirm that they have reviewed
Form 2A and have completed all sections that apply to the facility for which this application is submitted.
Indicate which parts of Form 2A you have completed and are submitting:
X Basic Application Information packet Supplemental Application Information packet:
X Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data)
X Part E (Toxicity Testing: Biomonitoring Data)
X Part F (industrial User Discharges and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes)
❑ Part G (Combined Sewer Systems)
ALL APPLICANTS MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWIN&CERTIFICATION.
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
manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information 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 fine and imprisonment
for knowing violations.
Name and official title H. Matthias BpZha 4 01
Signature
Telephone number [phone]
Date signed —
Upon request of the permitting authority, you must submit any other information necessary to assure wastewater treatment practices at the treatment
works or identify appropriate permitting requirements.
SEND COMPLETED FORMS TO:
NCDENR/ DWQ
Attn: NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 10 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART D. EXPANDED EFFLUENT TESTING DATA
Refer to the directions on the cover page to determine whether this section applies to the treatment works.
Effluent Testing: 1.0 mgd and Pretreatment Works. If the treatment works has a design flow greater than or equal to 1.0 mgd or it has (or is required
to have) a pretreatment program, or is otherwise required by the permitting authority to provide the data, then provide effluent testing data for the following
pollutants. Provide the indicated effluent testing information and any other information required by the permitting authority for each outfall through which
effluent is discharged. Do not include information on combined sewer overflows in this section. All information reported must be based on data collected
through analyses conducted using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, these data must comply with QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR Part 136 and
other appropriate QA/QC requirements for standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. Indicate in the blank rows provided below
any data you may have on pollutants not specifically listed in this form. At a minimum, effluent testing data must be based on at least three pollutant
scans and must be no more than four and one-half years old.
Outfall number: 001 (2000 PPS, 2001 PPS, 2002 LTMP & 2003 PPS data used) (Complete once for each outfall discharging effluent to
waters of the United States.) "2003 PPS is currently being analyzed
MAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
POLLUTANT
ANALYTICAL
ML/MDL
Number
Conc.
Units
Mass
Units
Conc.
Units
Mass
Units
of
METHOD
Samples
METALS (TOTAL RECOVERABLE), CYANIDE, PHENOLS, AND HARDNESS.
ANTIMONY
<50
ug/I
<16
ug/I
4
SM3113B
3 to 50
ug/I
ARSENIC
<5
ug/I
<5
ug/I
4
SM3113B
5 ug/I
BERYLLIUM
<25
ug/I
<15
ug/I
2
SM3113B
4 to 25
ug/I
CADMIUM
<2
ug/I
<1
ug/I
9
SM3113B
1 to 2 ug/I
CHROMIUM
<5
ug/I
<3
ug/I
5
SM3113B
2 to 5 ug/I
COPPER
<100
ug/I
<82
ug/I
10
SM3113B
2 to 100
SM3111 B
ug/I
LEAD
6
ug/I
<6
ug/I
9
SM3113B
3 to 10
ug/I
MERCURY
0.3
ug/I
<0.2
ug/I
10
SM3112B
0.2 ug/I
NICKEL
<10
ug/I
<5
ug/I
9
SM3113B
5 to 10
ug/I
SELENIUM
<10
ug/I
<8
ug/I
4
SM3113B
5 to 10
ug/I
SILVER
2
ug/I
<2
ug/I
10
SM3113B
2 ug/I
THALLIUM
0.023
mg/I
0.02
mg/I
4
EPA 200.7
.010 mg/I
ZINC
90
ug/I
61
ug/I
9
SM3113B
SM3111B
50 ug/I
CYANIDE
11
ug/I
<10
ug/I
12
SM4500 CN-E
10 ug/I
TOTAL PHENOLIC
.011
mg/I
.011
mg/I
4
EPA 420.1
.010 mg/I
COMPOUNDS
HARDNESS (as CaCO3)
80.1
Mg
equivvale
71,8
mg
eui
CaCO3/1
4
SM23406
0.662mg
equivale
CaCO3/1
CaCO3/1
CaCO3/1
Use this space (or a separate sheet) to provide information on other metals requested by the permit writer
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 11 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
Outfall number: 001 (based on 2000, 2001 PPS &. 2003 PPS3
of the United States.) Note: ND = not detected
MAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE
POLLUTANT _.
Conc.-
'Units
Mass
`-_Units
Conc.
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
ACROLEIN
ND
ND
ACRYLONITRILE
ND
ND
BENZENE
ND
ND
BROMOFORM
ND
ND
CARBON
ND
ND
TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
ND
ND
CHLORODIBROMO-
ND
ND
METHANE
CHLOROETHANE
ND
ND
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL
ND
ND
ETHER
CHLOROFORM
ND
ND
DICHLOROBROMO-
ND
ND
METHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
ND
ND
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
ND
ND
TRANS-I,2-DICHLORO-
ND
ND
ETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLORO-
ND
ND
ETHYLENE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
ND
ND
1,3-DICHLORO-
ND
ND
PROPYLENE
ETHYLBENZENE
ND
ND
METHYL BROMIDE
ND
ND
METHYL CHLORIDE
ND
ND
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
ND
ND
1,1,2,2-TETRA-
ND
ND
CHLOROETHANE
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
renewal Yadkin
(Complete once for each outfall discharging effluent to waters
LVER'AGE DAILY DISCHARGE
ANALYTICAL_
Number ML/MDL .
Units Masse Units of METHOD
,Samples
3
EPA 8260E &
50 -100
EPA 624
ug/I
3
EPA 8260B &
10 - 200
EPA 624
ug/I
3
EPA 8260E &
1- 50 u /1
g
EPA 624
3
EPA 8260E &
1- 50 u /I
g
EPA 624
3
EPA 8260B &
1- 50 u /l
g
EPA 624
3
EPA 8260B &
1- 50 u /I
g
EPA 624
3
EPA 8260B &
1- 50 ug/I
EPA 624
3
EPA 8260E &
5- 50 ug/l
EPA 624
3
EPA 8260B &
5- 50 ug/I
EPA 624
3
EPA 8260B &
1- 50 u /I
g
EPA 624
3
EPA 8260B &
1- 50 ug/I
EPA 624 '
3
EPA 8260B &
1- 50 u /I
g
EPA 624
3
EPA 8260B &
1- 50 ug/I
EPA 624
3
EPA 8260B &
1- 50 ug/I
EPA 624
3
EPA 8260B &
1- 50 ug/I
EPA 624
3
EPA 8260B &
1- 50 ug/I
EPA 624
3
EPA 8260B &
1- 50 ug/I
EPA 624
3
EPA 8260B &
1-100
EPA 624
ug/I
3
EPA 8260E &
10- 50
EPA 624
ug/I
3
EPA 8260B &
10- 50
EPA 624
ug/I
3
EPA 8260B &
1- 50 u /l
g
EPA 624
3
EPA 8260B &
1- 50 ug/I
EPA 624
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 13 of 22

TETRACHLORO-
ND
ND
3
EPA 8260E &
1- 50 ug/l
ETHYLENE
EPA 624
TOLUENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 8260B &
EPA 624
1- 50 ug/I
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
Outfall number: 001 (based on 2000 & 2001 PPS. 2003 PPS is currently being analyzed) (Complete once for each outfall
discharging effluent to waters of the United States.)
QMAXIMtMDAILYDISCHARGE
AVERAGE
DAIL`XDISCHARGENumber
POLLUTANT
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
ML/MDL
—.Conc
:-. Units
Mass
Units
Conc .y
ri is U-Mass
UnICs of
515"Sample's,
ND
ND
3
EPA 8260B &
1-50 ug/l
TRICHLOROETHANE
EPA 624
ND
ND
3
EPA 8260E &
1-50 ug/I
TRICHLOROETHANE
EPA 624
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 8260B &
EPA 624
1-50 ug/l
VINYL CHLORIDE
ND
ND
3
EPA 8260B &
EPA 624
5-50 ug/I
Use this space (or a separate sheet) to provide information on other volatile organic compounds requested by the permit writer
ACID -EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS
P-CHLORO-M-CRESOL
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10-20 ug/1
2-CHLOROPHENOL
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/l
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/1
4,6-DINITRO-0-CRESOL
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10-50 ug/I
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10-50 ug/1
2-NITROPHENOL
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
4-NITROPHENOL
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10-50 ug/I
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10-50 ug/I
PHENOL
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
TRICHLOROPHENOL
Use this space (or a separate sheet) to provide information on other acid -extractable compounds requested by the permit writer
BASE -NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS
ACENAPHTHENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/l
ANTHRACENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
10-100
BENZIDINE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
ug/I
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 14 of 22

BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
BENZO(A)PYRENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/1
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 15 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:-
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
Outfall number: 001 (based on 2000 & 2001 PPS. 2003 PPS is currently being analyzed) (Complete once for each outfall
discharging effluent to waters of the United States.)
MAXIMUM DAILY; DISCHARGE
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
POLLUTANT_
ANALYTICAL
ML'IMDL
Number
Conc,
Units
-Mass
" :Jnits
Cdrlc:
Units
Mass ,
Units
o of
METFjOD°
Samples 1;.
3,4 BENZO-
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(GHI)PERYLENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
BENZO(K)
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
FLUORANTHENE
BIS (2-CHLOROETHOXY)
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
METHANE
BIS (2-CHLOROETHYL)-
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
ETHER
BIS (2-CHLOROISO-
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
PROPYL)ETHER
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10-20 ug/I
PHTHALATE
4-BROMOPHENYL
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
PHENYLETHER
BUTYL BENZYL
NO
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/1
PHTHALATE
2-CHLORO-
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
NAPHTHALENE
4-CHLORPHENYL
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
PHENYLETHER
CHRYSENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
DIBENZO(A,H)
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
ANTHRACENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/1
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
3,3-DICHLORO-
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10-20 ug/I
BENZIDINE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
1,2-DIPHENYL-
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/l
HYDRAZINE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 16 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
Outfall number: 001 (based on 2000 & 2001 PPS. 2003 FPS is currently being analyzed) (Complete once for each ouffall
discharging effluent to waters of the United States.)
MAXIMUM, -DAILY DISCHARGE
AVERAGE DAILYDISCHARGE., -
POLLUTANT,—
ANALYTICAL
ML/ I M I DL---- -
Number
Conc.
Units
Mast
Units
Conc.
Units
Mass
Units
;�,6f
METHOD
Samples
FLUORANTHENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
FLUORENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
HEXACHLORO-
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
BUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLO-
ND
ND
.3
EPA 625
10-50 ug/I
PENTADIENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ugli
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 Ug/I
PYRENE
ISOPHORONE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
NAPHTHALENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
NITROBENZENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
N-NITROSODI-N-
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
PROPYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI-
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
METHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI-
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
PHENYLAMINE
PHENANTHRENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
PYRENE
ND
ND
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
1,2,4-
TRICHLOROBENZENE
ND
ND
L
L
L
3
EPA 625
10 ug/I
Use this space (or a separate sheet) to provide information on other base -neutral compounds requested by the permit writer
Use this space (or a separate sheet) to provide information on other pollutants (e.g., pesticides) requested by the permit writer
,,END OF PART D
NOR -
'REFER TOHEAPPLICATION, VtkVIEW,(DAGE 1) TO DETERMINE OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOV,MUST'COMPLETE'-, Wl'
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7650-6 & 7550-22. Page 17 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884 renewal
Yadkin
6A
51 PPLEMENTAL"APPLICATION INFORMATION a
E
PART'E. TOXICI Y�TESTING
POTWs meeting one or more of the following criteria must provide the results of whole effluent toxicity tests for acute or chronic toxicity for each of the
facility's discharge points: 1) POTWs with a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1.0 mgd; 2) POTWs with a pretreatment program (or those that are
required to have one under 40 CFR Part 403); or 3) POTWs required by the permitting authority to submit data for these parameters.
• At a minimum, these results must include quarterly testing for a 12-month period within the past 1 year using multiple species (minimum of two
species), or the results from four tests performed at least annually in the four and one-half years prior to the application, provided the results
show no appreciable toxicity, and testing for acute and/or chronic toxicity, depending on the range of receiving water dilution. Do not include
information on combined sewer overflows in this section. All information reported must be based on data collected through analysis conducted
using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate QA/QC
requirements for standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136.
• In addition, submit the results of any other whole effluent toxicity tests from the past four and one-half years. If a whole effluent toxicity test
conducted during the past four and one-half years revealed toxicity, provide any information on the cause of the toxicity or any results of a
toxicity reduction evaluation, if one was conducted.
• If you have already submitted any of the information requested in Part E, you need not submit it again. Rather, provide the information
requested in question EA for previously submitted information. If EPA methods were not used, report.the reasons for using alternate methods.
If test summaries are available that contain all of the information requested below, they may be submitted in place of Part E.
If no biomonitoring data is required, do not complete Part E. Refer to the Application Overview for directions on which other sections of the form to
complete.
E.1. Required Tests.
Indicate the number of whole effluent toxicity tests conducted in the past four and one-half years.
X chronic ❑ acute
E.2. Individual Test Data. Complete the following chart for each whole effluent toxicity test conducted in the last four and one-half years. Allow one
column per test (where each species constitutes a test). Copy this page if more than three tests are being reported.
Test number: 1 March 2003 Test number: 2 June 2003 Test number: 3 Sept 2003
a. Test information:
Ceriodaphnia dubia,
Ceriodaphnia dubia,
Ceriodaphnia dubia,
Test Species &test method number
Method1002.0
Methodl002.0
Method1002.0
Age at initiation of test
16 hours
18.25 hours
18.25 hours
Outfall number
001
001
001
Dates sample collected
3/10-3/11 & 3/13 —3/14
6/9-6110 & 6/12-6/13
918-9/9 & 9/11-9112
Date test started
3/12/03
6/11 /03
9/10/03
Duration
3/12 — 3/19
6/11 — 6/18
9110-9/17
b. Give toxicity test methods followed.
Short-term Methods for
Short-term Methods for
Short-term Methods for
Estimating Chronic Toxicity
Manual title
Estimating Chronic Toxicity of
Estimating Chronic Toxicity of
of Effluent & Receiving
Effluent & Receiving Waters to
Effluent & Receiving Waters to
Waters to Freshwater
Freshwater Organisms
Freshwater Organisms
Organisms
Edition number and year of publication
3rd Edition, July 1994
3rd Edition, July 1994
3rd Edition, July 1994
Page number(s)
144-189
144-189
144-189
c. Give the sample collection method(s) used. For multiple grab samples, indicate the number of grab samples used.
24-Hour composite
X
X
X
Grab
NA
NA
NA
d. Indicate where the sample was taken in relation to disinfection. (Check all that apply for each.
Before disinfection
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 18 of 22

After disinfection X X X
After dechlorination
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Yadkin
Test number: 1 March 2003 Test number:: 2 June 2003 Test number: 3 Sept 2003
e. Describe the point in the treatment process at which the sample was collected.
Sample was collected:
Effluent after disinfection
Effluent after disinfection
Effluent after disinfection
f. For each test, include whether the test was intended to assess chronic toxicity, acute toxicity, or both
Chronic toxicity
Mini -Chronic
Mini -Chronic
Mini -Chronic
Acute toxicity
g. Provide the type of test performed.
Static
Static -renewal
X
X
X
Flow -through
h. Source of dilution water. If laboratory water, specify type; if receiving water, specify source.
Laboratory water
Receiving water
Lake Riedsville
Lake Riedsville
Lake Riedsville
i. Type of dilution water. If salt water, specify "natural' or type of artificial sea salts or brine used.
Fresh water
X
X
X
Salt water
j. Give the percentage effluent used for all concentrations in the test series.
6.6%
6.6%
6.6%
k. Parameters measured during the test. (State whether parameter meets test method specifications)
pH
7.88,7.93,8.02,7.96,7.95 & 7.91
7.95,7.98,7.97,7.99,7.97 & 7.95
8.0,8.02,7.96,7.98,8.01, & 8.0
Salinity
NA
NA
NA
Temperature
NA
NA
NA
Ammonia
NA
NA
NA
Dissolved oxygen
7.56,7.27,7.59,7.03,7.70, & 7.09
7.74,7.06,7.79,7.08,7.49 & 7.08
7.48,7.0,7.60,7.0,7.53 & 6.93
I. Test Results.
Acute:
Percent survival in 100%
effluent
NA'/o o
NA %
NA %
LC50
NA
NA
NA
95% C.I.
NA %
NA %
NA %
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 19 of 22

Control percent survival
NA %
NA %
NA %
Other (describe)
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Yadkin
Chronic:
NOEC
NA %
NA %
NA %
IC25
NA %
NA %
NA %
Control percent survival
100 %
100 %
100 %
Other (describe) %
Reduction
Passed: -5.57% Reduction
Passed: 6.83% Reduction
Passed: 5.36% Reduction
m. Quality Control/Quality Assurance.
Is reference toxicant data available?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Was reference toxicant test within
acceptable bounds?
Yes
Yes
Yes
What date was reference toxicant test
run (MM/DD/YYYY)?
03/12/2003
06/25/2003
09/17/2003
Other (describe)
E.3. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation. Is the treatment works involved in a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe:
EA. Summary of Submitted Biomonitoring Test Information. If you have submitted biomonitoring test information, or information regarding the
cause of toxicity, within the past four and one-half years, provide the dates the information was submitted to the permitting authority and a summary
of the results.
Date submitted: / / (MM/DD/YYYY)
Summary of results: (see instructions)
END OF 'PART'E
HER'PARTSERVIE
REFER TOTEJPPLIATOW (PAGE 1) TODETERIMN,E WHICW&w
= " OF FORM 2AYOU MUST_COMPLETE.`�
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 20 of 22 -

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION°~
PART E. °TOXICITY TESTING; DATA
POTWs meeting one or more of the following criteria must provide the results of whole effluent toxicity tests for acute or chronic toxicity for each
of the facility's discharge points: 1) POTWs with a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1.0 mgd; 2) POTWs with a pretreatment program (or
those that are required to have one under 40 CFR Part 403); or 3) POTWs required by the permitting authority to submit data for these
parameters.
• At a minimum, these results must include quarterly testing for a 12-month period within the past 1 year using multiple species (minimum of two
species), or the results from four tests performed at least annually in the four and one-half years prior to the application, provided the results show no
appreciable toxicity, and testing for acute and/or chronic toxicity, depending on the range of receiving water dilution. Do not include information on
combined sewer overflows in this section. All information reported must be based on data collected through analysis conducted using 40 CFR Part
136 methods. In addition, this data'must comply with QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate QA/QC requirements for
standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136.
• In addition, submit the results of any other whole effluent toxicity tests from the past four and one-half years. If a whole effluent toxicity test
conducted during the past four and one-half years revealed toxicity, provide any information on the cause of the toxicity or any results of a toxicity
reduction evaluation, if one was conducted.
• If you have already submitted any of the information requested in Part E, you need not submit it again. Rather, provide the information requested in
question EA for previously submitted information. If EPA methods were not used, report the reasons for using alternate methods. If test summaries
are,available that contain all of the information requested below, they may be submitted in place of Part E.
If no biomonitoring data is required, do not complete Part E. Refer to the Application Overview for directions on which other sections of the form to complete.
E.I. Required Tests.
Indicate the number of whole effluent toxicity tests conducted in the past four and one-half years.
X chronic ❑ acute
E.2. Individual Test Data. Complete the following chart for each whole effluent toxicity test conducted in the last four and one-half years.
Allow one column per test (where each species constitutes a test). Copy this page if more than three tests are being reported.
Test number: 4 Dec 2003 Test number: 5 Dec 2003 Test number: 19 Jan 2004
a. Test information.
Ceriodaphnia dubia,
Fathead Minnow
Fathead Minnow
Test Species &test method number
Method1002.0
Method 1000.0
Method 1000.0
Age at initiation of test
18 hours
20.5 hours
Outfall number
001
001
001
Dates sample collected
12/8-12/9 & 12/11-12/12
12/8-12/9-12/10& 12/11-12/12
1/19-1/20-1/21 & 1/20-1/21
Date test started
12/10/03
12/9/03
1/20/04
Duration
12/10-12/19
1219-12/16
1/20-1/27
b. Give toxicity test methods followed.
Short-term Methods for
Short-term Methods for
Short-term Methods for
Estimating Chronic Toxicity of
Estimating Chronic Toxicity of
Estimating Chronic Toxicity of
Manual title
Effluent & Receiving Waters to
Effluent & Receiving Waters to
Effluent & Receiving Waters to
Freshwater Organisms
Freshwater Organisms
Freshwater Organisms
Edition number and year of publication
3`d Edition, July 1994
3`d Edition, July 1994
3`d Edition, July 1994
Page number(s)
144-189
58-108
58-108
c. Give the sample collection method(s) used. For multiple grab samples, indicate the number of grab samples used.
24-Hour composite
X
X
X

Grab
NA
NA
NA
d. Indicate where the sample was taken in relation to disinfection. (Check all that apply for each.
Before disinfection
After disinfection
X
X
X
After dechlorination
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NC0023884
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Yadkin
Test number: 4 Dec 2003 Test number: 5 Dec 2003 Test number: 19 Jan 2004
e. Describe the point in the treatment process at which the sample was collected.
Sample was collected:
Effluent after disinfection
Effluent after disinfection
Effluent after disinfection
f. For each test, include whether the test was intended to assess chronic toxicity, acute toxicity, or both
Chronic toxicity
Mini -Chronic
X
X
Acute toxicity
g. Provide the type of test performed.
Static
Static -renewal
X
Daily Renewal
Daily Renewal
Flow -through
h. Source of dilution water. If laboratory water, specify type; if receiving water, specify source.
Laboratory water
Synthetic Water
Synthetic Water
Receiving water
Lake Riedsville
i. Type of dilution water. If salt water, specify "natural" or type of artificial sea salts or brine used.
Fresh water
X
X
X
Salt water
j. Give the percentage effluent used for all concentrations in the test series.
6.6%
1.65,3.3,6.6,13.2 & 26.4
1.65,3.3,6.6,13.2 & 26.4
c
k. Parameters measured during the test. (State whether parameter meets test method specifications)
pH
7.96,7.93,7.88,8.0697.96 & 7.98
7.85,7.97,7.83,7.83,6.92,7.93,6.92,7
.90,7.10,7.88,7.07,7.92,7.09 & 7.89
7.82,7.9297.84,7.95,7.93,7.98,7.9
1,7.95,7.69,7.69,7.77,7.82,7.73 &
7.79
Salinity
NA
NA
NA
Temperature
NA
25.,24.9,25,24.9,25,24.9,25,24.8,25,
24.8,25,24.7,025 24.7
25,24.8,25,24.7,25,24.7,25,24.8,2
5,24.8,25,24.8,25 & 24.7

Ammonia
NA
7.79,7.19,7.80,7.17,7.82,6.92,7.89,E
7.86,6.96,7.89,6.99,7.75,797.78,6.
Dissolved oxygen
7.83,7.12,7.6596.94,7.75 & 7.02
9297.68,7.10,7.69,7.07,7.71 &7.09
98,7.96,7.01,7.87,7.02,7.71 &
6.98
1. Test Results.
Acute:
Percent survival in 100%
NA %
NA %
NA %
effluent
LC50
NA
NA
NA
95% C.I.
NA %
NA %
NA %
Control percent survival
NA %
NA %
NA %
Other (describe)
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NC0023884
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Yadkin
Chronic:
NOEC
NA %
26.4 %
26.4 %
IC25
NA %
NA %
NA %
Control percent survival
100 %
100 %
100 % %
Other (describe)
Passed:-21.46% Reduction
Passed: Chronic Value >26.4
Passed: Chronic Value>26.4
in. Quality Control/Quality Assurance.
Is reference toxicant data available?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Was reference toxicant test within
acceptable bounds?
Yes
Yes
Yes
What date was reference toxicant test
run (MM/DD/YYYY)?
12/12/2003
12/09/03
02/03/04
Other (describe)

E.3. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation. Is the treatment works involved in a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe:
EA. Summary of Submitted Biomonitoring Test Information. If you have submitted biomonitoring test information, or information regarding
the cause of toxicity, within the past four and one-half years, provide the dates the information was submitted to the permitting authority
and a summary of the results.
Date submitted: (MM/DD/YYYY)
Summary of results: (see instructions)
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
SUPPLEMENTAL'APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART E. TOXICITY TESTING DATA-.'.' ._
POTWs meeting one or more of the following criteria must provide the results of whole effluent toxicity tests for acute or chronic toxicity for each
of the facility's discharge points: 1) POTWs with a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1.0 mgd; 2) POTWs with a pretreatment program (or
those that are required to have one under 40 CFR Part 403); or 3) POTWs,required by the permitting authority to submit data for these
parameters.
• At a minimum, these results must include quarterly testing for a 12-month period within the past 1 year using multiple species (minimum of two
species), or the results from four tests performed at least annually in the four and one-half years prior to the application, provided the results show no
appreciable toxicity, and testing for acute and/or chronic toxicity, depending on the range of receiving water dilution. Do not include information on
combined sewer overflows in this section. All information reported must be based on data collected through analysis conducted using 40 CFR Part
136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate QA/QC requirements for
standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136.
• In addition, submit the results of any other whole effluent toxicity tests from the past four and one-half years. If a whole effluent toxicity test
conducted during the past four and one-half years revealed toxicity, provide any information on the cause of the toxicity or any results of a toxicity
reduction evaluation, if one was conducted.
• If you have already submitted any of the information requested in Part E, you need not submit it again. Rather, provide the information requested in
question E.4 for previously submitted information. If EPA methods were not used, report the reasons for using alternate methods. If test summaries
are available that contain all of the information requested below, they may be submitted in place of Part E.
If no biomonitoring data is required, do not complete Part E. Refer to the Application Overview for directions on which other sections of the form to complete.
E.1. Required Tests.
Indicate the number of whole effluent toxicity tests conducted in the past four and one-half years.
X chronic ❑ acute
E.2. Individual Test Data. Complete the following chart for each whole effluent toxicity test conducted in the last four and one-half years.
Allow one column per test (where each species constitutes a test). Copy this page if more than three tests are being reported.
Test number 2 Feb 2004 Test number: 1 March 2004 Test number:
a. Test information.
Test Species & test method number
Fathead Minnow
Method 1000.0
Fathead Minnow
Method 1000.0
Age at initiation of test
Outfall number
001
001
Dates sample collected
2/2-2/3-2/4 & 2/5-2/6
3/1-3/2-3/3 & 3/4-3/5

Date test started
2/3/04
3/2/04
Duration
2/3-2/10
3/2-3/09
b. Give toxicity test methods followed.
Manual title
Short-term Methods for
Estimating Chronic Toxicity of
Effluent & Receiving Waters to
Freshwater Organisms
Short-term Methods for
Estimating Chronic Toxicity of
Effluent & Receiving Waters to
Freshwater Organisms
Edition number and year of publication
3`d Edition, July 1994
3`d Edition, July 1994
Page number(s)
58-108
58-108
c. Give the sample collection method(s) used. For multiple grab samples, indicate the number of grab samples used.
24-Hour composite
X
X
Grab
d. Indicate where the sample was taken in relation to disinfection. (Check all that apply for each.
Before disinfection
After disinfection
X
X
After dechlorination
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NC0023884
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Yadkin
Test number: 2 Feb 2004 Test number:: 1 March 2004 Test number:
e. Describe the point in the treatment process at which the sample was collected.
Sample was collected:
Effluent after disinfection
Effluent after disinfection
f. For each test, include whether the test was intended to assess chronic toxicity, acute toxicity, or both
Chronic toxicity
X
X
Acute toxicity
g. Provide the type of test performed.
Static
Static -renewal
Daily Renewal
Daily Renewal
Flow -through
h. Source of dilution water. If laboratory water, specify type; if receiving water, specify source.
Laboratory water
Synthetic Water
Synthetic Water
Receiving water
i. Type of dilution water. If salt water, specify "natural' or type of artificial sea salts or brine used.
Fresh water
X
X

Salt water
F_
j. Give the percentage effluent used for all concentrations in the test series.
1.65,3.3,6.6,13.2 & 26.4
1.65,3.3,6.6,13.2 & 26.4
k. Parameters measured during the test. (State whether parameter meets test method specifications)
p Ii
7.79,8.09,7.77,8.05,7.92,7.9,7.95,7.9
2,7.86,7.9,7.9,7.93,7.93 &7.97
8.07,7.96,8.06,7.96,8.04,8.14,8.02,8
.08,8.05,8.03,8.06,8.02,8.07 & 8.05
Salinity
NA
NA
Temperature
25,24.9,25,24.9,25,24.8,25,24.9,25,2
4.8,25,24.9,25 &24.8
25,24.7,25,24.7,25,24.8,25,24.9,25,
24.9,25,24.8,25 & 24.7
Ammonia
Dissolved oxygen
7.46,6.96,7.48,6.97,7.66,6.99,7.7,6.9
9,7.74,6.94,7.7,6.9,7.72 & 6.93
7.57,6.92,7.6,6.97,7.76,6.94,7.8,6.9
9,7.72,7.02,7.75,7.05,7.76 & 7.05
1. Test Results.
Acute:
Percent survival in 100%
effluent
NA /°
NA
LC50
NA
NA
95% C.I.
NA %
NA %
%
Control percent survival
NA %
NA %
%
Other (describe)
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Yadkin
Chronic:
NOEC
26.4 %
26.4 %
%
IC25
NA %
NA %
%
Control percent survival
100 %
100 %
%
Other (describe)
Passed: Chronic Value>26.4
Passed: Chronic Value>26.4
m. Quality Control/Quality Assurance.
Is reference toxicant data available?
Yes
Yes
Was reference toxicant test within
acceptable bounds?
Yes
Yes
What date was reference toxicant test
run (MM/DD/YYYY)?
03/02/2004
03/17/2004
/ /

Other (describe)
F_
I
E.3. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation. Is the treatment works involved in a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe:
EA Summary of Submitted Biomonitoring Test Information. If you have submitted biomonitoring test information, or information regarding
the cause of toxicity, within the past four and one-half years, provide the dates the information was submitted to the permitting authority
and a summary of the results.
Date submitted: / / (MM/DD/YYYY)
Summary of results: (see instructions)

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884 renewal Yadkin
SUPPLEMENTAL
i7l
jh&0111
APPL11CAT,,l[dW MATl0N,','-i!n111_�'
W
WASTES v
USEWDIKHARGES1 --RCR'_,,10Ek6tA
P FA` 606i* AND-,
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRACERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.I. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject of, an approved pretreatment program?
X Yes D No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SlUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (ClUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
a. Number of non -categorical SlUs. 4
b. Number of ClUs. 5
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU. (Others Attached)
F.3.- Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Freirich Foods
Mailing Address: 815 W. Kerr Street PO Box 1529
Salisbury, N.C. 28145-1529
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SILI's discharge.
Thaws, Cures, Cooks and Smokes Beef and Pork Products
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Processed Meat
Raw material(s): Beef & Pork, sugarsodium phosphate and sodium Nitrite
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
60,280 (2002 avq) — gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd).and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. (do not monitor flow of non -process WW separately)
gpd continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes El No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards [] Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 21 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes X No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
. ❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remedlation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) X No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART'F.
a.REFER TOTHE APPLICATION`OVERVIEW, (PACE 1).TO DETERMINE WHICI=1 OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2AYOU=MUST COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 22 of 22

F.3.
Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit
additional pages as necessary.
Name: RWBT Inc
Mailing Address: 220 West Ritchie Road
Salisbury N.C.2814
FA.
Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Transportation Equipment Cleaning / inside and outside
F.5.
Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Clean interior of tanker trucks after hauling material
Raw material(s): MGO 98 Sulfuric Acid and Polymer (used in pretreatment of Wastewater
F.6.
Flow Rate.
q. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
1,405 (2002 avg) gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
r. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in
gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. (do not monitor flow of non -process WW separately)
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7.
Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR 442.15 — Transportation Equipment Cleaning
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
F.8.
Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3.
Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit
additional pages as necessary.
Name: Hitachi Metals LTD of NC
Mailing Address: 1 Hitachi Metals Drive
China Grove, NC 28023
FA.
Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Manufacture Ferrite Magnets
F.S.
Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Ferrite Magnets
Raw material(s): Ferric Oxide, Strontium Carbonate, Sulfur Dioxide, Calcium Carbonate, Aluminum Oxide, Chromium Oxide
F.6.
Flow Rate.
o. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
157,130 (2002 avg) gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
p. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in
gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. (do not monitor flow of non -process WW separately)
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7.
Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR 471, Subpart J — Metal Powders
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
F.8.
Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3.
Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit
additional pages as necessary.
Name: Norandal USA
Mailing Address: 1709 Jake Alexander Blvd PO Box 1388
Salisbury, N.C. 28145-1388
FA.
Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Aluminum Sheet and Foil Fabrication / remelts, casts and rolls aluminum sheet into foil
F.5.
Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Aluminum foil
Raw material(s): Aluminum ingot and various alloys
F.6.
Flow Rate.
M. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons
per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
34,635 (2002 avg) gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
n. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in
gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. (do not monitor flow of non -process WW separately)
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7.
Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR Part 467, Subpart A Aluminum Forming, Rolling with neat oils
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
F.8.
Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3.
Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit
additional pages as necessary.
Name: General Electric
Mailing Address: 1114 Old Concord Road
Salisbury, N.C. 28145
FA.
Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Sheet Metal Fabrication including painting and assembly
F.S.
Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Lighting Panel boards
Raw material(s): Hot rolled sheet steel, cold rolled sheet steel, galvanized sheet steel, copper bar, aluminum bar, powder paint
F.6.
Flow Rate.
k. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
11,255 (2002 avg) gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
1. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in
gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. (do not monitor flow of non -process WW separately)
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7.
Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR 433 Subpart A, Metal Finishing
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NC0023884
renewal
Yadkin
F.B.
Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

"1 t
F.3.
Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit
additional pages as necessary.
Name: National Starch & Chemical Co
Mailing Address: 485 Cedar Springs Road
SalisburyN.C.28147
F.4.
Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Manufacture Organic Chemicals for personal care products
F.5.
Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Organic Chemicals
Raw material(s): Sara 312 List
F.6.
Flow Rate.
g. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
121,655 (2002 avg) gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
h. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in
gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. (do not monitor flow of non -process WW separately)
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7.
Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR Part 414 Subpart H —Specialty Organic Chemical Manufacturing OCPSF Standards (SIC Code 2869)
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
F.8.
Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

.• •
F.3.
Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit
additional pages as necessary.
Name: GDX Automotive
Mailing Address: 2121 Heilig Road
Salisbury, N.C. 28146
FA.
Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Process involves the extrusion of rubber onto metal to form automotive weatherstripping and the extrusion of PVC combined with sponge rubber to
form weatherstripping
F.S.
Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Automotive extruded rubber manufacturing
Raw material(s): rubber, solvents sealants coatings alcohols metals etc. (313 reportable chemicals)
F.6.
Flow Rate.
e. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
70,705 (2002 avg) gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
f. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in
gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. (do not monitor flow of non -process WW separately)
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7.
Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NC0023884
renewal
Yadkin
F.B.
Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes XNo If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit
additional pages as necessary.
Name: HBD Industries. Inc.
Mailing Address: 1820 South Boundary Street PO Box 948
SalisburyN.C.28145-0948
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Processor of rubber, manufacturer of rubber hose, rubber rolls & rubber bands
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Industrial Rubber Hoses
Raw material(s): All common rubber compounding ingredients (polymers, fillers, activators, protectorants, curatives)
F.6. Flow Rate.
c. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
8,135 (2002 avg) gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
d. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in
gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. (do not monitor flow of non -process WW separately)
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NC0023884
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Yadkin
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through
F.8 and provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit
additional pages as necessary.
Name: Thorlo
Mailing Address: 319 Link Street TO Box 577
Rockwell, NC 2 813 8-0577
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Wash dye and dry Hosiery
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Snorts/Activity Specific Socks
Raw material(s): Synthetic fibers and yarn process waxes oils dyes softners, water treating chemicals and boiler chemicals
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
111,660 (2002 avg) gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in
gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. (do not monitor flow of non -process W W separately)
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits XYes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Salisbury -Rowan WWTP, NCO023884
renewal
Yadkin
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SILT caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.