NC0023884_Wasteload Allocation_19900912

'URAFT
DES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0023884 I I
PERMITTEE NAME: City of Salisbury / Grants Creek WWTP
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major _q Minor
Pipe No.:
11
Design Capacity: 7.5 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 97.1 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 2.9 %
Comments:
pretreatment information attached
RECEIVING STREAM: Grants Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-07-04
Reference USGS Quad: E 17 NW
County:
Rowan
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
(please attach)
Previous Exp. Date: 12/31/90 Treatment Plant Class: Class IV
Classification changes within three miles:
none
Requested by: Rosanne Barona
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
we/&L
Date: 7/17/90
Date: q k'o
Date: `t It A v
Ala,
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
CMS
7 /7 y o
5'7 93
Drainage Area (mil) (o Avg. Streamflow (cfs):
7Q10 (cfs) b . Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 1Q.4 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC (D l % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters See be,Iou)
Upstream
Location
Downstream Location
------------- RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS -------------------'-----
Proposed New Limits Existing Limits
Monthly Average Daily Maximum
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (mgd): 7.50 7.50 Cr (ug/1) 75.0 See
BOD5 (mg/1): 15 30 Pb (ug/1) 37.0 Attached
NH3N (mg/1): 6 12 Hg (ug/1) 0.018 Existing
DO (mg/1): 5 5 F1 (mg/1) 2.7 Limits
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
pH (su): 6-9 6-9
Fecal Coliform (/100ml). 200 200
Recommend Effluent Monitoring for cadmium, copper, nickel, zinc, & silver,
cyanide, aluminum, chlorides, total dissolved solids, and toluene.
TOXICITY TESTING REQ.: Chronic/Ceriodaphnia/Quarterly at 67%
Facility will receive letter addressing chlorine toxicity
---------------------------- MONITORING -----------------------------------
Monitor instream for: temperature, D.O. fecal coliform, and conductivity
Upstream (Y/N): Y Location: -25 ft above discharge point
Downstream (Y/N): Y Location: 1) above the Town of Spencer WWTP outf
2) at mouth of Grants Creek
June -Sept (1/wk) monitor TP, PO4, TKN, NH3N, and NO2+NO3 at site 2 (dnstr)
----------------------------- COMMENTS ------------------------------------
Indication of where instream data is sampled is not clear in the DMR files.
Region should work with facility to locate the new instream sampling
locations and record these to ations in the DMR file.
Effluent nutrients are high.SPECIAL CONDITION should be placed in the
permit to advise the facility that nutrient controls may be required in
the future pending outcome of the High Rock Lake Study ongoing this summer.
Priority Pollutant Scan required with increased frequency of parameter scan
when the organic chemical manufacturer and the large GW remediation project
are added to the plant.? A P,'* ' ,ys ly' a,i.
Comments:

il
�F �1 Request No.: 3
------------ ------ WASTELOAD ALLOCA3�N��VAL FORM ----- - -
Facility Name: City of Salisbury / Grants Creek WWaFf��Jr'
NPDES No.: NCO023884
Type of Waste: 97.1% Domestic / 2.9% Industrial
Facility Status: Existing "ASFv
Permit Status: Renewal
Receiving Stream: Grants Creek
4
Classification: C
Subbasin: 030704 Drainage area: 65.800 sq mi
County: Rowan Summer 7Q10: 5.80 cfs
Regional Office: MRO Winter 7Q10: 12.40 cfs
Requestor: Rosanne Barona Average flow: 79.00 cfs
Date of Request: 7/17/98 30Q2: cfs
Quad: E17NW
-------------------- RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS --------------------------
Proposed New Limits Existing Limits
Monthly Average Daily Maximum
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (mgd): 7.50 7.50 Cr (ug/1) 75.0 See
BOD5 (mg/1): 15 30 Pb (ug/1) 37.0 Attached
NH3N (mg/1) : 6 12 Hg (ug/1) 0.018 Existing
DO (mg/1): 5 5 Fl (mg/1) 2.7 Limits
TSS (mg/1) : 30 30
pH (su) : 6-9 6-9
Fecal Coliform (/100ml): 200 200
Recommend Effluent Monitoring for cadmium, copper, nickel, zinc, & silver,
cyanide, aluminum, chlorides, total dissolved solids, and toluene.
TOXICITY TESTING REQ.: Chronic/Ceriodaphnia/Quarterly at 67%
Facility will receive letter addressing chlorine toxicity
---------------------------- MONITORING -----------------------------------
Monitor instream for: temperature, D.O. fecal coliform, and conductivity
Upstream (Y/N): Y Location: -25 ft above discharge point
Downstream (Y/N): Y Location: 1) above the Town of Spencer WWTP outf
2) at mouth of Grants Creek
June -Sept (1/wk) monitor TP, PO4, TKN, NH3N, and NO2+NO3 at site 2 (dnstr)
----------------------------- COMMENTS ------------------------------------
Indication of where instream data is sampled is not clear in the DMR files.
Region should work with facility to locate the new instream sampling
locations and record these locations in the DMR file.
Effluent nutrients are high. SPECIAL CONDITION should be placed in the
permit to advise the facility that nutrient controls may be required in
the future pending outcome of the High Rock Lake Study ongoing this summer,
Priority Pollutant Scan required with increased frequency of parameter scan
when the organic chemical manufacturer and the large GW remediation project
are added to the plant. (-tr +&Jc,- q� �
-------------------------------------------------------- - ------
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
Date: oil Cj 0
Date: 2 C�
Date:
ff
Date: g(
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: SEP 20 14s0

Request No.: 5793
------------------- WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM ------------
Facility Name: City of Salisbury / Grants Creek WWTP
NPDES No.:
NCO023884
Type of Waste:
97.1% Domestic /
2.9% Industrial
Facility Status:
Existing
Permit Status:
Renewal
Receiving Stream:
Grants Creek
Classification:
C
Subbasin:
030704
Drainage
area:
65.800
County:
Rowan
Summer
7Q10:
5.80
Regional Office:
MRO
Winter
7Q10:
12.40
Requestor:
Rosanne Barona
Average
flow:
79.00
Date of Request:
7/17/98
30Q2:
Quad:
E17NW
-------------------- RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT
LIMITS ------------------
Existing Limits
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (mgd) :
7.50 7.50
Pb (#/d)
1.75
BOD5 (mg/1) :
15 30
Cu (#/d)
1.02
NH3N (mg/1) :
6 12
Zn (#/d)
3.46
DO_ (mg/1) :
5 5
TSS (mg/1) :
30 30
pH (su) :
6-9 6-9
Fecal Coliform (/100ml):
1000 1000
Effluent monitoring for T. Phosphorus, T. Nitrogen, and Aluminum
TOXICITY TESTING REQ.: Chronic/Ceriodaphnia/ Quarterly at 610

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
August 21, 1990
Memorandum
To: File
From: Carla
Subject: Salisbury - Grants Creek Permit Renewal
Issues to address following August 2 meeting
Chemical Specific Limits:
New PIRF form indicates that cyanide and mercury loads are based on default val-
ues or sewer use ordinances, therefore proposed limits should be changed to
monitoring only.
cyanide-- Domestic load = 1.4 #/d (default)
Permitted load = 0.023 #/d
Actual industrial = 0.025 #/d = 0.4 ug/l
Allowable = 7.5 ug/l
Monitor for cyanide
mercurv-- Domestic load = 0.03 #/d (actual reported) = 0.5 ug/1
Permitted load = 0.05 #/d (sewer use ordinance)
Allowable = 0.018 ug/l
Limit for mercury = 0.018 ug/1
copper and
zinc limits
Compliance
Data:
Date
MGD
Copper #/d
(ug/1)
zinc #/d
(ug/1)
5/89
3.4483
0.3977
(14.0)
1.2822
(45.0)
6/89
2.8433
0.3245
(14.0)
1.0477
(44.0)
7/89
2.5967
0.2585
(12.0)
0.7775
(36.0)
8/89
2.7161
0.2939
(13.0)
0.5369
(24.0)
9/89
4.4566
0.4660
(13.0)
1.5285
(41.0)
10/89
5.8193
0.5704
(12.0)
1.7372
(36.0)
11/89
4.8766
0.3970
(9.8)
1.8270
(45.0)
12/89
5.3580
0.6257
(14.0)
1.9910
(45.0)
1/90
5.6354
0.8336
(18.0)
1.9018
(40.0)
2/90
5.7250
0.4940
(10.0)
1.5865
(33.0)
3/90
5.5390
0.6395
(14.0)
1.6004
(35.0)
4/90
5.2966
0.4970
(11.0)
1.7825
(40.0)
If limits are developed for copper and zinc, the values would be:
copper = 10.0 ug/l (or 0.6255 #/d)
zinc = 75.0 ug/l (or 0.4.7 #/d)

Consideration has been made for limits or monitoring for other constituents in
light of the priority pollutant analysis (PPA) or the OPCSF contributor. After
review and comparison of the PPA and the OPCSF guidelines, the decision to
require a PPA scan was made. The PPA is a more extensive list of pollutants
and all (except 4,6-Dintro-o-cresol and 3,4-Benzofluoranthene) of the constitu-
ents listed in the OPCSF are in the PPA.
Monitoring for chlorides, TDS and Toluene were included in the renewal recommen-
dations.
Nutrients monitoring at the mouth of Grants Creek has been included with the
exception of chlorophyll -a. Per memo from Mary Jaynes (August 20, 1990), chlo-
rophyll -a monitoring is not recommended since the creek is flowing and well
shaded and these characteristics will not promote high algal growth.
A re -opener for nutrient limits based on the outcome of the High Rock SEdy will
be added in the permit.
Contact has been made with pretreatment (Nile Testerman) to request monitoring
for color (in units' of ADMI) in their headworks program rather than directly
into the permit. Nile informed me that the facility will be submitting their
monitoring program September 1, 1990, and he will request monitoring for color.

North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
August 20, 1990
MEMORANDUM
To: Carla Sanderson
From: Mary Jaynes A(17 -
Subject: Monitoring Recommendations for NPDES #NC0023884
In response to our telephone conversation of August 17, I am sending you
our summary of the 1989 water quality monitoring for High Rock Lake and its
tributaries. Also attached is a listing of all available data for the two Grants
Creek stations. Station G-1 is located upstream of the Salisbury WWTP
outfall. G-2 is located downstream of the discharge near the creek's mouth.
Regarding permit renewal for the Salisbury facility, I would not recommend
requiring chlorophyll monitoring. Grants Creek is lotic and well shaded, and
these physical characteristics have not permitted algal densities to reach
problem levels despite high nutrient concentrations. In other words,
although the potential for high chlorophyll concentrations exists (further
supported by AGPT results from 1989), this potential is not likely to be
realized instream. For this reason I believe that chlorophyll sampling would
provide minimal information regarding the facility's impact on Grants Creek
water quality. Nutrient data, however, would be beneficial, and I agree with
your recommendation for total phosphorous and nitrogen series monitoring.
Please call if you have questions or would like to discuss this further. I realize
that there may be permitting strategies or management concerns of which I
am not aware that will influence your decision. If our ongoing study of High
Rock Lake shows the need for chlorophyll sampling in Grants Creek, I will
certainly let you know.
Subbasin: 030704

G1/G2 DATA
DATE
STATION
TIME
DEPTH (m) FLOW (cfs) D.O. (mg/1) TEMP C
pH
COND.
SECCHI (m)
RESIDUE (total) RESIDUE (susp) TURBIDITY
CHL-A
NH3
TKN
NO2
TOTAL P
PO4
89/04/12
G-1
1435
0.15
47.4
10.6
10.9
75
110
8
14
0.05
0.2
0.43
0.06
0.01
89/04/12
G-2
1330
0.15
11.4
11.1
6.2
174
0.6
160
10
15
1
0.11
0.5
1.8
0.26
0.18
1
11.3
10.7
6.3
177
2
11.2
10.4
6.4
178
89/05/25
G-1
1350
0.15
36.98
8.1
18.9
7.2
95
130
26
22
0.06
0.3
0.39
0.09
0.01
89/05/25
G-2
1320
0.15
4.5
22.8
6.4
95
0.35
120
28
32
4
0.09
0.4
0.9
0.19
0.08
1
89/06/27
G-1
1305
0.15
8.35
7.3
24.6
117
130
22
23
0.07
0.3
0.44
0.14
0.02
89/06/89
G-2
1227
0.15
6.6
27.2
7.2
76
0.1
140
54
90
1
0.06
0.3
0.7
0.16
0.04
1
6
26.1
7
83
89/07/18
G-1
1430
0.15
24
7.8
21.4
120
140
26
23
0.05
0.3
0.39
0.06
0.02
89/07/18
G-2
1221
0.15
6.2
22.1
7.4
62
0.05
400
270
240
2
0.07
0.9
0.69
0.33
0.03
1
6.2
22.1
7.2
61
89/08/15
G-1
1145
0.15
13.8
7.8
21
124
140
26
17
0.05
0.2
0.44
0.08
0.02
89/08/15
G-2
1215
0.15
7
22.6
6.7
98
0.2
160
74
40
2
0.07
0.3
0.73
0.12
0.07
1
6.8
22.6
6.7
98
89/10/04
G-1
1230
0.15
7.5
18.9
7.05
103
140
41
39
0.03
0.4
0.35
0.12
0.01
90/05/24
G-1
1435
0.15
8.7
17
7.4
116
130
19
19
0.06
0.3
0.51
0.1
0.03
90/06/27
G-1
1320
0.15
18.795
8.9
22
7.8
125
100
12
13
0.04
0.1
0.53
0.06
0.01
90/06/27
G-2
1415
0.15
7.8
21.5
7.4
270
86
5
6.8
0.05
0.2
0.39
0.03
0.01
90/07/18
G-1
1350
0.15
6.65
23.4
7.5
131
90/07/18
G-2
1330
0.15
5.5
25.8
7.2
290
90/08/14
G-1
1200
0.15
15.87
7.68
23.1
7.6
123
90/08/14
G-2
1130
0.15
6.15
23.2
7.2
290

INTRODUCTION
The High Rock Lake Eutroph-ication Study was initiated and
conducted by, the Environmental Sciences Branch and the Technical - -
Support Branch to document the quality of this lake's - water in -
relation to point source nutrient inputs. The three specific goals of
this study include: measuring the existing -nutrient loading and -
assimilative capacity of- the tributaries and lake; providing data --for
predicting the effects -of changing nutrient loading on the quality of
receiving waters; and documenting spatial-" differences in water
quality with particular concern for cove areas.. Since the modeling of
High Rock Lake's water quality will be performed -by Technical
Support after the 1990 monitoring, this summary specifically
addresses the spatial variability in eutrophication from 1989 data. -
Figure 1 shows -the stream flow and lake sampling station -
locations. Table 1 lists these stations and the- -parameters: that. were
measured at each.. . Sampling was scheduled -one: -time . per month for
six months beginning in April and continuing until September._ ,
Sampling was impossible in September because 'of heavy -rains, ,so the
final month of data was collected on October 4.
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY
Flow -
In 1989, precipitation in the High Rock Lake. vicinity and -the
resultant lake flow were relatively high. Figure 2 shows that the
Central Piedmont's total monthly precipitation from April to October
exceeded mean values for the period of record 1951-1980 ._. ever
month except -August. Since flow measurements are taken daily on
North - Potts Creek, it serves as a - reference Point'- for .flow in the rest
of the. Lake. ..Figure 3 depicts dramatic .peaks.: in flow. on this .:Creek - in
1989 as compared to the mean period of record flow (1979-1988).
A stepwise regression was performed to indicate which
parameters of water quality were related to flow (Feldman, , 1986)
Although no parameters were - related to the variability in- . flow,
turbidity values generally corresponded to flow and frequently'
exceeded the state standard of 25 NTU (Figure 4a and b). Following:-
two days- of precipitation, the highest turbidity value of 190 NTU was
recorded at YAD1391A, the uppermost lake station .(Figure-.4b).;_

Nutrients
Although nutrient levels were generally high throughout the high_
Rock Lake sampling area, Figure 5 shows the dramatic nitrogen and
phosphorus levels -on Town Creek at station T-3 . Analysis ofJ
Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the mean nitrogen and
phosphorus levels at all stations. Both nutrient levels were
significantly higher (0.05 significance level) at T-3 than any other
station in* the study. ' This station is located directly below - the -
Salisbury -Town Creek WWTP. These excessively high nutrient. levels
pinpoint Town - Creek as an area of special management concern.
Moreover, YAD1391A, the uppermost lake station-, has a
n
significantly higher, mean nitrogen level, than any station on Flat
Swamp Creek (the reference tributary) and SC-1 and SC-2 on Second -
Creek. No other stations' mean nitrogen levels were significantly
different from one another. Nitrogen entering . High Rock Lake from
the Yadkin River..... is -also cause for concern and should be- - addressed- from a management standpoint.--.. _.
Phytoplankton and Chlorophyll -a ,
Phytoplankton and chlorophyll -a . samples were collected only at-
lake stations (indicated by circles on. Figure 1).. In August, the only
month when precipitation was average," phytoplankton biovolume
exceeded the bloom threshold of 5000 mm3/m-?' at every station
except the mouth of Church Creek (T-2) and- two stations on the
mainstem of the lake (YAD1391A -and YAD169B). However;
throughout the rest of the, sarrlpling period, phytoplankton biovolume
at each station remained relatively low. Phytoplankton density
reached bloom levels (10,900 units/.m1;.oz,__greater):.,fro.m June_wthrou-g.h
August at all -lake sampling stations except- SW -I, SC-2, P=1, and FS-1.__ .
The species ;most,. often dominant- include-- An.abaenopsis racit orskii
and Oscillatoria geminata, _small . filamentous blue-green. algae. _These
species are commonly found in eutrophic,. waters. throughout North
Carolina.
The state, .standard -.for chlorophyll a- of 40 ug/I -was. -violated
-numerous times , .throughout the- . study period (Figure 6). Most -of
these violations .occurred in August, but some. stations' chlorophyll=a
levels: exceeded the state standard in May, July, and October.
Chlorophy_11-a. levels were all relatively low in June, most likely -
because of heavy rains three days .prior to sampling. The .
chlorophyll - a standard was . exceeded three out of six months in
Potts, Swearing, and Town Creeks ,and.. at- YAD 169A.

Although phytoplankton density and chlorophyll -a levels often
- - greatly surpassed the bloom threshold, rel-atively -high --flows -within--
High Rock Lake -probably inhibited some phytoplankton growth.
Heavy rains and resultant high flows flush phytoplankton
populations as well-- as cause considerable turbidity that h-inders 1-ight
penetration. Phytoplankton and chlorophyll -a data from Abbotts
Creek (0212160350) near Southmont in 1987, 1988, and 1989 serve
as a point of comparison between years (Figure 7). Phytoplankton
densities were - legs ---than those` in 1987 and especially 1988, - a -__--
particularly dry year. ----Using ANOVA, a significant difference was also
found between mean chlorophyll; --a levels in 1988 and 1989.
CONCLUSION
Data from the 1989 sampling of High Rock Lake clearly support
the need for a management strategy -for Town Creek. Excessive.
nutrient __levels in conjunction with moderately high phytoplankton
growth suggest that nutrient limitations. for the Salisbury -Town
Creek WWTP's discharge are:. needed to. protest this tributary.
Although phytoplankton populations s remained .low - at YAD1391A
because -of high. flows and turbidity, nutrient levels were also
excessive at ­this this station. The Yadkin `River appears, to be another
important source of nutrients in High Rock .Lake.
Because of relatively high ffow' s..within this lake, phytoplankton'
growth -was probably inhibited... Moreover, nutrient inputs. from
point _ sources may have been diluted. Additional monitoring under'
conditions of lower flow -is. necessary to- determine whether problems
in other .tributaries and -arms of this lake were masked by high* flow
conditions in 1989. _

TABLE.1.- Station Nu-mber-,-Station-Description, and Parameters Measured— -
HIGH ROCK LAKE EUTROPHICATION STUDY
- - - 1989-MONITORING PLAN
Station No.
Station Description
Parameters*
- _ G-1 — -
Grants -Creek t SR 1915
a ree s
_
p,_ �F: C-
G-2
-Grants Creek at mouth
P,C,B
YAD1391A
High Rock Lake ups South Potts Creek
P;C,B
04740000
North Potts Creek at SR 1134 (USGS gauge)
P,C..
P-1 . _
North Potts Creek near mouth
P;C,B
SWA
Swearing Creek at mouth
P,C,B
T-3
Town Creek at I-85
P,C,F
T-4
Crane Creek at SR 1915
P,C,F
Crane (a.k.a. Town) Creek ups SR 2168
P,C,-B
T-2
Mouth of Crane Creek near Craven
P,C,B
YAD152C
High ]Rock Lake. near Rockwell _
P,C,B
SC-3
Second Creek at SR 2370
P,C;F
SC-1
`
Seaorid'Creek ups SR 1002
P,C,B.
SC-2
otSecond Creek near granite quarry
P,C,B
YAD169A
Abbotts Creek at NC Hwy 8
P,C,B
_YAD169B
High Rock Lake ups Panther Creek
P;C;B -
FS-3
Flat Swamp Creek at NC Hwy 47
.. P,C,F
FS-4
Fourmile Branch at SR 2310
P,C,F
FS-1
Flat Swamp Creek dns. NC Hwy 8
P,C,B
FS-2 -
_
Mouth of'Flat Swamp ups.railroad bridge
P,C,B-_
* P (Physical parameters) = dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature,. conductance
C (Chemical parameters) = solids, turbidity, nutrients
B- (Biological parameters) = phytoplankton, chlorophyll a
F =Flow measurement

CENTRAL PIEDMONT'
6 -
INCHES 4
3
2
- 0
APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST .O.CTOBER
MONTH
• 1989
® 1951-1980
FIGURE 2. Total Monthly Precipitation in 1989 and Total 'Monthly --
Precipitation for Period of Record (1951-1980) -
.(_From: Climatological --Data. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. North Carolina. 1989.)
160 236 2A 1 200oe 34�3 21 1
140 _.
— 120
100
�S _ .
CFS r. r �...
80 i i; i$ r i
60 i :1
140
20
MEAN
1989
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MONTH ...
FIGURE 3. Mean Period of Record Flow (1979-1988) Compared ao
1989-Flow for North Potts Creek

90
80
70
60
NTU 50
40
30
20
10
0
Turbidity
Standard"
-n G) 0 -u- Cn CO CD Cn
Cn 0
ro W
Stations
FIGURE 4a., Box Plots. of Turbidity in the Tributaries of High Rock Lake, 1989
he box represents the,25, 50, and.75th' p erpentiles. The Whiskers
indicate the 10 and 90th percentiles, and any values above and below
these percentiles are represented as. data Points.)
-2
NTU
YAD1391A YAD152C YAD1 69A YAD16913-
Stations'
FIGURE 4b. Box Plots for Turbidity in the Mainstern-of High Nock Lake, 1989
9

J
A
'
-FS 2
...
FS. 2
F5 '1
FS I
FS 4
YPDI69B
YADI6QB
+YAD169A
YAD169A
.
•
r
-
+
..
SC 2
-
'SC 2
o
i
SC 7
-SC 3o
+
..
u
m
,i
<
YAD152C •.
YADI52C.t
..
. 0 ..
-
T 2-
T 2
T 1
-T- I
T 4
T 4
..
T 3
T 3
SW I
SW I
P I
P I
CO
ON
"
04740000
04740000
.---
0)
-
YAD 1391A
YAD 139 I A
Y
fQ
J
N
01
0I
Y
,O N N Q n H N
FS 2
-
PS 2
=
FS 1
FS I
C
to
FS 4
17AD169B
FS 4
7
FS 7
FS 3
YADI 698
N
YAD169A
YAD169A
O '
SC 2
SC 2
N
O
SC 1
sc 1
a
<
SC 3 0
SC 3 =
C
L
F
YAD152C
N
YAD152C F
fC
C
m
0)
T,.2
T 2
O
.
T I
T 1
+�.+
Z
T4
T4
..
A
TJ
T3
L
•
SW I
SW 1
a.+
p
-
P 1
P I
N
.
04740000
04740000 -
UJ
YAD 1391 A
YAD 13 I I A
D
.
O
D 1
LL.
�
'
1
0
Z
1

1c
9
8
7
6
5
u g /:I 4
3
2
1
_i

-
1987
160000
100
-- --- - - 140000
-- ----- ---- - -
-
--80-
-LL -
120000
100000
60
MM3/MM3 80000
.
- - - - 60000
UNITS/ML
40
UG/L - - --- - --- -
40000
20
20000
ZA
0
0
-
APRIL JUNE JULY SEPT OCT
MONTH
1988
160000
100
-
140000
120000
80
160
100000
_...
80000
60000'
40
40000
20
-
20000
Fm----
0
0
_
-
APRIL MAYJUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT
1989
160000
100
140000
_
1200001
80
100000-
, ._.... _
60
80000
.
60000
40
BIO;VOL'UME,-:.
40000
DENSfTY
20
20000
-•*- CHLa, : -
0
0
APRIL MAYJUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT
FIGURE 7. Phytoplankton
Biouolume (mm3%63), Density (units/mi), and
Chlorophyll -a (ug/I)
at 0212160350 on Hbbott's Creek In 1987, 1988, and 1989

REFERENCES
Climatological Data. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. North Carolina. 1989.
Feldman, Daniel S. et al. 1986. Statview 512+. Brainpower, Inc.
Calabasas, CA.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL KAlZAGEMENT
August 2,
MEMORANDUM
To= Salisbury -Grants Creek WLA File
From: Trevor Clements
Subject: Notes Regarding 8i2i90 Meeting with City
Name
Trevor Clements
Rex Gleason
Rosanne Barona
Kelly Patton
John C. Vest
Don Safrit
Steve Zoufaly
Steve Tedder
Attendees
Representing
DEM - Technical Support
DEM - Mooresville R. 0.
DEM - Permits & Eng.
City of Salisbury
City of Salisbury
DEM - Permits & Eng.
DEM - W. Q. Planning
DEM - Water Quality
919/733-5083
704/663-1699
919/733-5083
704/638-5370
704/638-5204
919/733-5083
919/733-5083
919/733-5083
The City of Salisbury requested to know whether DEM would allow
the City to have flow based limits. Steve Tedder indicated that
regulations, although allowing for alternative design flows to
7Q10, contain difficult criteria to meet for flow based limits.
They must demonstrate that higher level of water quality
protection will result. Compliance data indicate that City
shouldn't need to pursue this.
Trevor Clements reviewed probable changes in the NPDES
permit for Grants Creek. Oxygen consuming waste limitations are
unlikely to change, unless further expansion is considered.
Metals limits were reviewed (see attached). Toxicity limit (as
opposed to current monitoring) would be revised to 67 percent.
Nutrient limits are not expected at this permit renewal
(December), however, nutrient limits are very likely in the
fixture (next 2-3 years). Monitoring requirements are likely to
increase; instream may require once per week collection of
nutrients and chlorophyll -a at a second downstream site during
the summer months of June -September.

I
The City discussed the addition of a very large groundwater
_�...i `. ... -Loll ProjGctG %hcit EPA (Lhrough RC.R-A) .
National Starch & Chemical Corp. (formerly Proctor) will add
200,000 - 250,000 gpd of pretreated contaminated groundwater.
City will apply OPCSF guidelines. Biggest problems expected
to be 1,2-dichlorethane, toluene, acetone, zinc and
dissolved salts. City will require numeric limits (OPCSF
guidelines) and extensive monitoring (daily on OPCSF, monthly
on full scans) including toxicity monitoring.
We discussed toxicity testing issues with City, including
placing emphasis on treatability and on acute effect on WWTP.
Extensive pretreatment will be required: settling, bioreactor,
air -stripping and carbon filtration. City is most worried about
residual dissolved salts. Ultrafiltration was discussed as
possible pretreatment for salts if problem actually arises.
Expect system to be tied on in about one year.
Salisbury was also warned by staff to expect changes to their
pretreatment program requirements and to read through that
portion of their permit closely. Major changes will include
long-term monitoring plan for headworks analysis and a formal
enforcement management strategy requirement.
Salisbury would like a copy of the draft permit ASAP.
Rosanne Barona indicated that it might be possible to send
it by late September or early October.
Issues for Modeler to Address
Chemical specific limits:
—new PIRF form for Grants Creek seems to indicate that
cyanide and mercury loads are based on default values or.
sewer use ordinances. If true, then proposed limits
should be changed to monitoring only.
-- should existing copper and zinc limits be maintained
since they are action levels and since plant is passing its
whole -effluent toxicity test? Suggest converting each.
observation for the past year from lbsiday to mg/1 using
actual wasteflows and reviewing the corresponding
concentrations. Discuss with Environmental Sciences and
the region.
-- consider limits or monitoring for other constituents in
light of OPCSF contributor? Recommend monitoring for
chlorides or TDS, and toluene. Priority pollutant scan
available? Scan more often when National Standard.
Groundwater remediation water added?

n
• Nutrients:
-- recommend a,specific reopener clause be added to allow
for nutrient limits based on outcome of High Rock Lake
watershed study.
--discuss with Environmental Sciences Branch (Diane Reid
or Karen Lynch) whether monitoring nutrients and
chlorophyll -a at the mouth of Grants Creek during summer
months would be appropriate. What is accessibility?, etc.
Other:
-- if textile wastewater is treated, we recommend
monitoring for.color in units of ADMI). This might be
worked into headworks monitoring plan rather than directly
into NPDES permit.
TC/as
cc$ Doug Finan
Rex Gleason
Don Safrit

10/89
Facility Name of a bvr - Pennit # 'ktco S 93 $S`f'
CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING REQUIREMENT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity in any two consecutive toxicity tests,
using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is .(pZ% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure
document). The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish
compliance with the permit condition. The. first test will be performed after thirty days from
issuance of this permit during the months of i rh1 , Mon. eD f�eG . Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below
all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1(original) is to be sent to the following address: -
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in -.association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response.data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring will begin` immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the Nortii Carolina
Division of Environmental Management 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 and appropriate environmenuil controls, shall constitute an itivalid test
and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 E • g cfs
Permited Flow '7..h MGD
IWC% ej7
Basin & Sub -basin O&V(/
Receiving Stream f rAtI8 0-regK
County Eouy h
Recommended by,:
Date
**Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at P 7% QY 69 4?6, See Part 3 , Condition.

-k'� -(Io w = Q1. �3 "a
MEMO �
DATE: ,1�o
TO: �`� SUBJECT: C' --S'-G5 6
/Cj
�� . 6► a feu wu t� `.�d
o Seuoev 0c e Gr.
(4 �SCu-ko v Lf--Ie ovo�
i I I U .Oaf#/d a 5 -� hQ� �t� vv� eto e v-*
�°I � o � vv� _ , o I oa 5#j�l = . � 15 c��l us► �c�r -�.e � �,`c� �
From:
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
August 2, 1990
Mr. Roy Miller
Plant Supervisor
Grants Creek Regional Wastewater Plant
City of Salisbury
405 North Jackson Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28144
Subject: Chlorine Toxicity
NPDES Permit No. NCO023884
Rowan County
Dear Mr. Miller
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
�cks
Chlorine, a widely used wastewater disinfectant for the treatment of coli-
form organisms, often remains instream in residual amounts that may prove to be
toxic under critical low stream flow conditions. In the last decade, EPA
assessed the potential adverse effects of chlorine to the aquatic environment
and has taken steps to reduce the impacts through the development of federal
criteria. In 1986, EPA recommended that all states have a chlorine standard by
their next triennial review of water quality standards.
In revising its water quality standards in 1989, North Carolina developed
an action level for chlorine of 17 ug/l (freshwater classes only). In addition,
the fecal coliform limit was reduced from 1000 colonies/100 ml to 200 colonies/
100 ml. Under a new DEM procedure, dechlorination and chlorine limits are now
recommended for all new or expanding dischargers proposing the use of chlorine
for effluent disinfection. The Division is reviewing chlorine levels from all
existing dischargers as part of their NPDES permit renewal process.
Our records indicate that chlorine from your facility's effluent discharge
is considered toxic to the receiving stream under low flow conditions, i.e., the
amount of chlorine discharged causes a violation of the instream action level
for chlorine (17 ug/1) under 7Q10 (the lowest consecutive 7 day average flow in
a 10 year period) conditions. Action should be taken to reduce the effluent
concentration of chlorine to an acceptable level. Based on your facility's
instream waste concentration of 67%, an acceptable level of chlorine in your
effluent is 25 ug/1 (0.025 mg/1). If this level is not feasible, you should
consider dechlorination or alternate methods of disinfection for your facility
to ensure that both chlorine and bacterial limits are met. In addition, if your
facility plans to undertake any phase of construction, dechlorination or alter-
nate disinfection should be included. However, please note that an authoriza-
tion to construct must be obtained from this Division prior to any alteration to
your treatment plant.
Ponudon Pnwndon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

The Division is currently reviewing its water quality regulations pertain-
ing to chlorine. In the future, effluent limits and/or dechlorination may be
required of existing facility's with chlorine problems. If the chlorine levels
in your facility's effluent remain unchanged, a chlorine limit ora whole efflu-
ent toxicity testing requirement may be added to your permit limitations.
Please feel free to call Mr. Rex Gleason of the Division's Regional Office
at [phone], if you have any questions or comments regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Steve Tedder
Water Quality Section Chief
SWT/cros
cc: Mooresville Regional Office
Central Files

�1rI6
-1RP VPu)A l q1 iSOAL H (�rartt- Greed (!
"Oct u-p64v& A-
G at4; vvt u V" - A 1 Imul u Vj Cat. • .— —
Sovu Y�e.V YWCA it
vikowm�-1 ate►
LP qw
w&Q4
Cr� occ) coo QC61
t� rm#jd aS ug�l 6� . oaf w��l
Conn I oa /d (�lyl� cnti �V�+ = 11.'"1'I
----- ------

- � IcC'o�rcl.'► v� -� Lox �rP�1�..�4- '•
tipYu - j V j� V CAC W,� o V�kCO pp , ►G , �i Y�C., Si �e i(
r-I►tic.. t, coppev a ire U nw;
Z i VU- _
Cow�pU cLPIPA —k-�CL•k CL '.
"a Coapey �3c�1 `� i mu*/cl my �iMug
6 0 �33tc �.t,35y 1.2 I• qo 1 g 5• (,3�I �{
0.4c140 �.'la5 1.0:3 .6SLOE
o-U-AA 5 5.6aq 1.44 u UN4 5.isa°I �.
5. QcWU •� .off
6U41 Wk►1 Y�J) 4 b_o QIOV -to YWU4 "
t %0
V
LAAk dx.p kwt 6L UCA
56t0u4A _YYtuv, -�!-u V�, L
u4vievt----. b,�g� - 4 /o�o

mo
vn�i vwlw_ QV41)
L
V�Q Aro ou4 o w �AIQ
LA, yw��S: mt3L Alt---k
.�b 39
I I No I I /nArl.,%N I --% (It %rAtAit)-b /OOLAi , 1 �7
Cal Ll co Vd) 000 �3o
- --- -------
��6ed oy\ T,-� ou-� i0-- Lj-+ S'e'vJ -tt � .-T iwv

It) VV nu OA bind oV� TE CieVa� ai�t'ul,, ss= n u��I
-lllcxabtL _ k3DuA�1 D� .13vv�c��l o� �.►3 /ca
ou6rlo--1 vtna d SS
- VAR �l2 Gl V Vlnc� . (co c -see 7i
T L-)+ w&
�� 1

s-� 136
(Jf _�ezv�l5,'z�a�,�-
Ttn pgD. —en o
l
�40
_3�1,5 io � CS.y�
- -53& �0?5X6) _ �[� JOS 60.13;?Rltla.
Dais
16- 16.1_(10.3) 076 t,50)>
a 1 ��o. 39
NO I 03666) —
13 // �4 143 $ (�)
� Ib ��.3 (�o.$)
aaS�F l4alce)
ib 1�.3 Ua) 35�o y�ri0
�5 (4 _C'1.B)
)(P08
I'7 fi•'7 C7./)
5Y� �5�00�
1`1 8.`l f7.a) 630(��_cno�.
N111
as S 36,9 (dPb 6e!L
_ys 7)
IsSv (552�W)
(.µ
ao6l_ca�� _
as _�'��_(�� 1638i,3[a�'�54�
(S.G)
16�4 (3k660)
iN ll1 (b tiJ � i S�oa)
[s' lo.? 1b.7) w8 .5630>
�oa+lt�/j oub tze v DUL ---f i� _
- - o 44 .� e-Yv� d ��c.�n an -e� w�.us-t i "C)e d,

08/01/90
ver 3.1
T O X I C
S R E V
I E W
Facility:
Grants Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No.:
NC0023884
Status (E, P, or M) :
E
Permitted Flow:
7.5 mgd
Actual Average Flow:
3.9 mgd
Subbasin:
1030704
Receiving Stream:
Grants Creek
I--------- PRETREATMENT DATA -------------- I ---- EFLLUENT DATA----
1
Stream Classification:
C
I
ACTUAL
PERMITTEDI
I
7Q10:
5.8 cfs
I
Ind. +
Ind. + I
FREQUENCY
I
IWC:
66.71
I
Domestic
PERMITTED
Domestic I
OBSERVED
of Chronicl
Stn'd / Bkg
I Removal Domestic
Act.Ind.
Total
Industrial
Total I
Eflluent
Criteria
I
Pollutant
AL Cone.
I Eff. Load
Load
Load
Load
Load I
Conc.
Violationsl
(ug/1) (ug/1)
----------------
I % (#/d)
-------- --------
(4/d)
--------
(4/d)
--------
(#/d)
---------
(#/d) I
-------- I
(ug/1)
--------
(#vio/#sam)I
--------- I
---------
Cadmium
--
S
2.0
I
l 92% 0.0
0.0
0.04
0.0
0.059 I
I
Chromium
S
50.0
l 76% 0.0
0.1
0.14
1.0
1.030 I
l 1
Copper
AL
7.0
1 82% 1.0
0.1
1.08
0.7
1.700 1
780.0
I N
Nickel
S
88.0
I 32% 0.0
0.1
0.11
0.3
0.360 I
I P
Lead
S
25.0
I 811, 0.3
0.0
0.38
0.7
1.010 I
10.0
I U
Zinc
AL
50.0
l 77% 4.5
0.4
4.85
1.5
5.900 l
870.0
I T
Cyanide,
S
5.0
I 59% 1.4
0.0
1.43
0.0
1.423 I
I
Mercury
S
0.012
i 86% 0.0
0.0
0.03
0.1
0.080 1
1 S
Silver
AL
0.06
1 94% 0.2
0.0
0.17
0.1
0.264 l
l E
Selena}
S
5.00
1 0%
0.00
1
l C
'IOVv �tk
S
1,800.00
l 0%
4.6
4.55
10.9
10.900 I
I T
r
Phenols
S
NA
I 89%
0.1
0.09
0.4
0.380 I
l 1
NH3-N
C
l 0%
I
6,200.0
1 0
T.R.Chlor.AL
17.0
I 0%
111,700.0
1 N
1,800.0
1 0.0%
I
4.6
10.9
I
I
I
I
1---------------
I
ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D
PRDCT'D
PRDCT'D
I
--------- MONITOR/LIMIT ---------
I
1--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S-- I
1
Effluent Effluent
Effluent
Instream
I Recomm'd
I
1
Cone. using
using
Cone.
Based on
Based on
Based on
I FREQUENCY
INSTREAM 1
1 Allowable
CHRONIC ACTUAL
PERMIT
using
ACTUAL
PERMITTED
OBSERVED
1 Eff. Mon.
Monitor. I
Pollutant
I Load
Criteria Influent
Influent
OBSERVED
Influent
Influent
Effluent
1 based on
Recomm'd ? 1
I (#/d)
(ug/1) (ug/1)
(ug/1)
--------
(ug/1)
--------
Loading
--------
Loading
--------
Data
---------I
I OBSERVED
---------
(YES/NO) 1
-------- I
---------
Cadmium
--
S
I---------
I 1.59
-----------------
2.998 0.098
0.145
0.00
Monitor
Monitor
1
I A
Chromium
S
i 13.29
74.946 1.033
7.601
0.00
Monitor
Limit
I
I N
Copper
AL
i 2.48
10.492 5.994
9.409
520.37
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
I Weekly
YES I A
Nickel
S
1 8.25
131.905 2.363
7.528
0.00
Monitor
Monitor
l
1 L
Lead
S
l 8.39
37.473 2.203
5.901
6.67
Monitor
Limit
Limit
1 NCAC
NO 1 Y
Zinc
AL
l 13.87
74.946 34.301
41.728
580.42
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
l Weekly
YES 1 S
Cyanide
S
l 0.78'
7.495 17.966
17.940
0.00
Limit
Limit
I
1 I
Mercury
S
1 0.01
0.018 0.129
0.344
0.00
Limit
Limit
1
1 S
Silver
AL
1 0.06
0.090 0.315
0.487
0.00
Monitor
Monitor
I
I
Selen um
S
I 0.32
7.495 0.000
0.000
0.00
1
1 R
e
S
I 114.82
2698.065* 139.912
335.174
0.00
Monitor
Limit
l
1 E
Phenols
S
I
0.000 0.304
1.285
0.00
Limit
Limit
1
1 S
NH3-N
C
1
0.000
4136.30
S.O.P
1 NCAC
YES 1 U
T.R.Chlor.AL
1
25.482
7805.60
Sendltt'r1 NCAC
YES 1 L
I
I
IT
I
I
I
I
I S
I

07/31/90
ver 3.1
T O X I C
S R E V
I E W
Facility:
Grants Creek
WWTP
NPDES Permit No.:
NC0023884
Status (E, P, or M) :
E
Permitted
Flow:
7.5
mgd
Actual Average
Flow:
3.9
mgd
Subbasin:
1030704
Receiving Stream:
Grants Creek
I--------- PRETREATMENT DATA -------------- I ---- EFLLUENT
DATA----
l
Stream Classification:
C
I
ACTUAL
PERMITTED]
I
7Q10:
5.8
cfs
I
Ind. +
Ind. + I
FREQUENCY
I
IWC:
66.71
%
I
Domestic
PERMITTED
Domestic I
OBSERVED
of Chronic[
Stn'd /
Bkg
I Removal
Domestic
Act.Ind.
Total
Industrial
Total I
Eflluent
Criteria
I
Pollutant
AL
Cone.
I Eff.
Load
Load
Load
Load
Load I
Cone.
Violationsl
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
I 6
(#/d)
(i/d)
(4/d)
(#/d)
(#/d) I
(ug/1)
(9vio/$sam)I
---------
Cadmium
--
S
----------------
2.0
I --------
I 92%
--------
0.03
--------
0.0fa
--------
0.04
---------
0.0,;2�
-------- I
0.059 [
--------
---------
i
I
Chromium
S
50.0
i 76%
0.03
0.11
0.14
1.0
1.030 I
I I
Copper
AL
7.0
I 8296
1.03
0.1
1.08
0.7
1.700 [
780.0
I N
Nickel
S
88.0
I 32%
0.03
0.1
0.11
0.3
0.360 I
I P
Lead
S
25.0
I 81%
0.31
0.0
0.38
0.7
1.010 [
10.0
[ U
Zinc
AL
50.0
I 77%
4.5
0.4
4.85
1.5
5.900 [
870.0
I T
Cyanide
S
5.0
I 59%
1.4
0.0
1.43
0.0
1.423 [
I
Mercury
S
0.012
I 86%
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.1
0.080 I
I S
Silver
AL
0.06
I 94%
0.2
0.0
0.17
0.1
0.264 I
I E
Selenium
S
5.00
I OB
0.00
I
I C
Arsenic
S
50.00
I 08
I
I T
Phenols
S
NA
I 89%
0.1
0.09
0.4
0.380 I
[ I
NH3-N
C
I 0%
I
6,200.0
1 0
T.R.Chlor.AL
17.0
I 08
111,700.0
I N
1,800.0
I 0.0%
I
4.6
10.9
I
I
I
I
---------------
I
ALLOWABLE
PRDCT'D
PRDCT'D
PRDCT'D
I
--------- MONITOR/LIMIT --------- 1--ADTN'L
I
RECMMDTN'S-- [
I
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Instream
I
Recomm'd
I
I
Cone.
using
using
Cone.
Based on
Based on
Based on I
FREQUENCY
INSTREAM [
I Allowable
CHRONIC
ACTUAL
PERMIT
using
ACTUAL
PERMITTED
OBSERVED I
Eff. Mon.
Monitor. 1
Pollutant
I
Load
Criteria
Influent
Influent
OBSERVED
Influent
Influent
Effluent I
based on
Recomm'd ? I
($/d)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
--------
(ug/1)
--------
Loading
--------
Loading
--------
Data [
---------I
OBSERVED
---------
(YES/NO) I
-------- I
---------
Cadmium
--
S
I---------
I
1.59
--------
2.998
---------
0.098
0.145
0.00
Monitor
Monitor
I
I A
Chromium
S
I
13.29
74.946
1.033
7.601
0.00
Monitor
Limit
I
I N
Copper
AL
1
2.48
10.492
5.994
9.409
520.37
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor I
Weekly
YES ] A
Nickel
S
1
8.25
131.905
2.363
7.528
0.00
Monitor
Monitor
I
I L
Lead
S
1
8.39
37.473
2.203
5.901
6.67
Monitor
Limit
Limit I
NCAC
NO I Y
Zinc
AL
1
13.87
74.946
34.301
41.728
580.42
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor I
Weekly
YES I S
Cyanide
S
I
0.78
7.495
17.966
17.940
0.00
Limit
Limit
I
I I
Mercury
S
I
0.01
0.018
0.129
0.344
0.00
Limit
Limit
I
I S
Silver
AL
I
0.06
0.090
0.315
0.487
0.00
Monitor
Monitor
I
I
Selenium
S
I
0.32
7.495
0.000
0.000
0.00
I
I R
Arsenic
S
I
3.19
74.946
0.000
0.000
0.00
I
I E
Phenols
S
I
0.000
0.304
1.285
0.00
Limit
Limit
I
I S
NH3-N
C
I
0.000
4136.30
S.O.P I
NCAC
YES [ U
T.R.Chlor.AL
l
25.482
7805.60
Sendltt'rl
NCAC
YES [ L
I
I
IT
I
I
I
I
I S
I

L
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 18, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Trevor Clements
FROM: Carla-SandersoncA
Ruth Swanek'9CS
SUBJECT: City of Salisbury
Grants Creek WWTP
Town Creek WWTP -
- NC0023884 - Rowan County
NC0023892 - Rowan County
We have compiled the information for your meeting with the
City of Salisbury. The front pages of the most recent wasteload
allocations (Attachments 1 and 2) are attached for each facility
along with compliance data (Attachments 3 and 4) from the past
year. Other information pertaining to the two facilities is as
follows:
7010
The 7Q10 flow estimate for the Grants Creek WWTP was high in
the last allocation. Updated flow estimates at the mouth of Grants
Creek indicate that the flow is 5.9 cfs. The 7Q10 flow at the
outfall is probably closer to 5.8 cfs than the 6.7 cfs used in the
last WLA. The winter 7Q10 flow is approximately 12.4 cfs.
The 7Q10 estimate of 1.4 cfs for the Town Creek WWTP appeared
to be adequate.
Oxygen Demanding Wastes
The BODS and NH3-N limits assigned to both WWTPs may be high
since they were based on the old Level B model. In addition, the
CBOD:BODS ratios used in each allocation were too low. Long term
BOD data indicate that ratios of 3.7 and 3.3 are appropriate for
the Grants Creek and Town Creek facilities respectively.
Toxics
Updated PIRF forms (7/11/90) for both facilities indicate the
following new and additional limits for toxics:
Grants Creek
WWTP
(See
chromium
75.0
ug/1
cyanide
7.5
ug/1
mercury
0.018
ug/1
Attachment 5)
(new additional limit)
(new additional limit)
(new additional limit)

copper 1.0.0 ug/l (change from 1.02 #/d limit (16ug/1))
zinc 75.0 ug/l (change from 3.46 #/d limit (55ug/1))
lead 37.0 ug/l (change from 1.75 #/d limit (28ug/1))
monitor for silver and aluminum
The current permit has limits for copper and zinc with no
indication in the WLA notes of why these limits were given.
Town Creek WWTP (See Attachment 6)
cadmium
2.4
ug/1
(new additional -limit)
cyanide
5.9
ug/l
(new additional
limit)
mercury
0.014
ug/1.
(new additional
limit)
chromium
59.0
ug/l
(change from 57
ug/1)
nickel
104.0
ug/1
(change from 60
ug/1)
lead
30.0
ug/1"
(change -from 36
ug/1)
monitor.for copper,. zinc,.and silver
Both facilities have been performing.chronic toxicity tests
since 1988. The Town Creek facility has passed each of its tests
except the initial one in September, 1988. Six other tests have
been submitted since that date.
The Grants Creek facility has been doing chronic tests since
March 1988 by administrative letter at a concentration of 610. The
updated USGS flows indicate that a IWC of 67%-is more appropriate,
and this change should be noted upon permit renewal. The Grants
Creek facility has passed each of its chronic_tests since December
1988.(6 tests submitted). Prior to that the facility had failed
three tests and passed one.
Neither facility meets the ammonia criteria in its permit, but
due to the results of the toxicity tests, no limit will be added at
this time. The summer (winter) limits needed at the Grants Creek
and Town Creek facilities are 1.4 mg/1 (3.5 mg/1) and 1.1 mg/1 (2.0
mg/1) respectively.
Finally, both facilities would need chlorine limits to meet
the State's action level. At their current design flows, the
Grants Creek and Town Creek facilities would need to meet 25 ug/1
and 20 ug/l in their effluent. The DMR sheets indicate that both
effluents are well above these concentrations.
Eutrophication
A nutrient sampling plan was initiated last summer on High
Rock Lake (see Attachment 7 for sampling locations). Precipitation
and flow data indicate that last summer's flows were above average
(Attachment 8), and nutrient concentrations may be more severe
under lower flow conditions. Despite the high flows, the data
indicate that high nutrient concentrations occur in the Town Creek
arm of High Rock Lake (Attachment 9), and nutrient management plans
should be implemented on that arm of the lake. -Therefore, Salis-
bury should expect nutrient limits for its Town Creek facility.upon
permit renewal. Violations of the chlorophyll a standard occurred

in every arm of the lake, and in all but one main lake station
(Attachment 10).
The AGPT data (Attachment 11) indicate that there is potential
for algal blooms, but the results are much lower than those seen
in the arms of Falls Lake. 'The high flows last year may have
flushed nutrients through the system quickly, and three sites are
being sampled again this summer for comparison with a lower flow
year.
Grants Creek Study 1986
An intensive water quality survey of Grants Creek from the
Salisbury WWTP outfall to the mouth of Grants Creek (total distance
1 mile) was conducted in August, 1986 (see attached). The time
of travel dye study produced a traveling time of 4.33 hours. The
attached report has highlighted areas which may be of concern for
review of the creek's conditions. There was no indication of D.O.
problems during the study, but'substantial nutrient loading to the
creek which was mostly contibuted by,the Spencer WWTP (effluent
levels at 11 mg/l NH3N & 6 mg/1 P.

. 7/U190
5, 8 CfS Ct = 5.9 C4.3 ak r x1oled Ik
11.(1 z5 cF
n.uzs
Lau - 7 °l _
N1J
.2z) ttl.(A,2 5)Oc (2-.02-5)(I 2
1
x = 25 ,uc D
Q
Daft:
. es u t E - --
3188
Fa, I
yl%-Y
PaZ.,-)
DGm
c , ci
AJ 56
hr
Cevo s�a6c.
C)r1
7 lQa l8
7 ,
L.CSD
= 2 Q _
13�g�
aC,15
31 gq
c�t8y
Pc,bs
9lei
S Cowl40 - ja 3.7
n.,
co,

WHOLE EFR.Ur_NT TOXICITY TESTING 0[SELF-MONITORING SUMMARY] Fri, Jun 15, 1990
YEAR JAN
FEB
APR MAY
RJN
JUL G NOV as
F ca.rrY
REOUMEMENT
PERMIT CHRONIC LIvJIT:28% TO QUARTERLY 4/91
'86
ROCKIN GHAM WWTP
NPDESB: NC0020427
Begin:4/1/90 Fr q=W. M P/F
'87
County: RICHMOND Region: FRO
Months:
'88
89
}
PF: 6,0000
SOC/JOC Req:
'90
FAIL PASS
7Q10:23.4 IWC(%):28A
P15
- - NONE - -NR
ROCKWFILSOUTHWWTP
PERM TTCHRONIC LIMTf:99%
Y '86 -
'87 (FAIL)
- 6,>90
FAO. FAIL
- -
(FAIL) FAIT,
FAIL
(FAIL) FAIL FAIL (-) -- FAIL
NPDEStI: NC0021768
Begin 5/1/88 FmT=nvy: 9 PIP
Months: JAN APR JUL OCT
88 (FAIL)
FAIL FAIL
(FAIL)
FAIL
FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FALL
F,17ChV FAIL PASS
County: ROWAN Rcgion:MRO
'H9 FAII.
FAIL FAIL
bt bt,FAIL
FAIT.
FAIL FAIL FAIL
PF: 0.2o
7Q30: 0.00 Ttl'C(%):100.00
SOC/JOC Req:
SOC:1/85-3/88 NO TOX REQ
90 F,28ChV
FAIL bt
FAIL PAIL
ROCKY MOUNT REGIONAL W WTP
PERMIT CHRONIC MONTT.21%,LIMf 10/89
'86
-
-
- - 31 5.9 11.3 67.1
NPDESA: NCDC30317
Begin: II/1/88 Ftequ-y_- Q P/F
Months: JAN APR JUL OCT
�� -
188 45•at
-
NONE* NR
-
PASS' PASS"
PPAASS•
87PASS NR NRR _- NR
FAAIL NR
County: FDGFCOMBE Region: RRO
PASS
PASS
PASS
bt
PF: 14.0
7Q10: 83.00 IWC(%):20.73
SOC/JOC Raq:
JOC:9/87.6/91 NO TOX,d TTR 11/4/89 Chr Q>
50 PASS
'9
- -
PASS
ROMAC INDUSTRIES
PERMIT CHRONIC LIMIT: 99%
'86
NPDE.SM: NCMA1785
Begin 10/2189 Frequency: Q PIP A
'87
County: GASTON Region: MRO
Months: JAN APR JUL OCT-
PF: 0.0175
SOC/JOC Roq:
'89 -
'90
-
NR
7Q10:0.0 IWC(%):300.0
PASS
- -
ROSE HILL WWTP
PERMIT CHRONIC LIMTT:99%
'86
NPDES4: NCO056863
Begin 2/1/89 Frequency. Q P/F
'87
County: DUPLIN Region: WIRO
Months: JAN APR JUL OCT
'88
'89
NR -
FAIL
- - --- -
FAIL NR
PI': 0.45
SOC/JOC Rc 4�
-
'90
- -
NR
7Q10: IWC(%):100.00
FAIL
- -
ROSMAN W W'IP
LETTER ACUTE TARGETNO ACUTE (24HR F'HD)
'86
NPDESO: NCO021946
Begin 1/1188 prop sy'. Q P!F
'87
'88 (PASSf
- -
(PASSf -
PASSf
- -- FA[Lf
(-) PASSf (-)
'( County: TRANSYLVANIA Region: ARO
Months:
'89 (-)
- PASSf
(-) -
PASSf
- - PASSf - -- PASSf
PF:0.09
SOC/TOCRegt
VO _
- PASSf
7Q10: 56.0 IWC(%): 0.24
ROXBOROWWTP
PERMIT CHRONIC LIMIT:99%
'87
-
-
(NR) PASS (---)
- _
NPDES0: NCO021024
Bc in 4/15/88 Frequency: Q•P/F
B
'87 -
'88
- -
(PASS) -
-
(PASS)
-
- (-) FAIL - - PASS
County: PERSON Region: RRO
Months: SEP DEC MAR JUN
NR
egg
PASS
_ -
PASS
- - PASS - - PASS
PF: 5.00
SOC/JOC Rcq:
-
PASS
-
7Q10:0.00 IWC(%):99.87
r RUTHERFORD FURNITURE CO.
LETTER CHRONIC TARGET:41%
'86
NPDESA: NC0 005461
Begin 8/1/89 Frequency: Q P/F d
'87
'88
NONE" 38.3"
61.3•
NR NGNIi• NONfi• NR V R NR
`
= County: RUITIERFORD Rcgim: ARO
Months: FEB MAY AUG NOV
-
'89 NR
- -
NONE* NONE*
NR 69.1•
NONE*
-PASS-
P45• 29.8',1' PASS
t PF: 0.045
SOC/JOC Req:
'90 -
PASS -
- PASS
7Q10:0.10 IWC(%):41.09
RUTHERFORDTONWWTP
LETTER CHRONICTARGET:37%
NPDESB: NCO025909
Begim7/l/88 Frequency: Q P/F
Months: JUL OCT JAN APR
''86
87
'88 FAIL
PASS PASS
PASS PASS
PASS
- -- _
PASS bt PAII-
Counry:RUT'}IERFORD Rcgion:ARO
'89 PASS
- -
PASS -
-
PASS - - PASS -- -
rr•: o.6a
Soc/Ioc Req:
'90 PASS
- -
FAIL
7Q10:1.70 IWC(%):36.80
SALISBURY-GRANTS CREEKWWTP
LETTER CHRONICTARGET:61%
'86
-
-
- - -PIS ,ONE NONE
NPDESM: NCO023884
Bc rn 3 8
8 /1B FO4�Y
Mmttu:MAR1UNSEPDEC
'87 -
'89
-
F NONE AIL
-
PASS -
FAIL
- - FAIL - PASS
County: ROWAN Rcgion:MRO
'89 -
- PASS
- -
PASS
- - PASS - PASS
PF: 6.70
SOC/JOC Raq
90 -
- PASS
-
7Q10:6.70 fWC(%):60.78
H 0 2 r-msocutive faflums = sigx iricam nmcampliance
V 1985 data available
LEGEND: M-Matthl , BM-BimontW SA-Scmiss uallr A -Annually;
stmeamlow flow criterion (cfs), IWC%=hwft= wa m concentration. Begitn.Firrt tttmthtegttimd. F�eque�cy'{Mmitoriag fioqumcY):1Q-Qaar'tedY: Y Y:
f"=,
PF=Permitted flow (MGD),7Q10=Receiving
requhe+nuu; IS -Conducting Independent stady), P/P-Pass/Fail chrome biaauay. Ac^AwLo, Chr�uonic, A-quartatly monimrmg incMms to monthly
upon single
OWD-Only when discharging: D-Discontinued monitoring DBM Aq Tot Group, bt=Bad mat],
"doriodsp� sp., my.Mysid alffitmtp. ChV..Cbronk value, P-Mortality of stand pencontage at hest cartemo Armed
act),t.
'r ( Data Notation): (f=Fathead Minnow. construct), H b
owly b
( Reporting Notation): [---=Dan not mqu'ued, NR-Not mepemmd, ( )-Begirming of Qttarmr), (Facgity Activity Stoma):11-huetiw, NarPlewly hnued(I'o eorstract), }IwAelivO but not discharging)
34