IDX ENV ASSMT ON NONDISCHARGE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL-OCR

*5911HSSF1066*
1111111111111111111111111111
DocumentlD NONCD0001814
Site Name HAMILTON BEACH/PROCTOR SILEX
QocumentType Site Assessment Rpt (SAR)
RptSegment 1
DocDate
DocRcvd
Box
Access Level
Division
Section
Program.
DocCat
11/30/1995
2/20/2007
SF1066
PUBLIC
WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUPERFUND
IHS (IHS)
FACILITY
•
•
•
RADIAN COR9tORATIO•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0 IN'IRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1 Site Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.2 Hydrogeologic Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.3 Feasibility Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.3.1 Discharge Rate Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.3.2 Nondischarge Disposal Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
3.0 CONCEPTUAL EXTRACTION SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 Hydrogeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.2.1 Hydraulic Gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.2.2 Hydraulic Conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.2.3 Saturated Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3.2.4 Effective Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3.3 Flow Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3.3.1 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-5
3.3.2 Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3.4 Modeling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
' 4.0 RESULTS OF FEASIBILITY EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1 Subsurface Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.2 Spray Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
5.0 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
6.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
ii
• RADIAN CORllORATIO•
1.0 INIRODUCTION
Hamilton Beach O Proctor-Silex, Inc. (HB 0 PS) operates a facility for final
assembly packaging and warehousing of small electric kitchen appliances and for building
electronic sub-assemblies in Washington, North Carolina. The building and property are
owned by the town and leased to HB OPS. A groundwater assessment performed at the
site by Engineering Tectronics, P.A. (1) in late 1992 indicated the presence of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater.
In anticipation of remediating the site, HB 0 PS planned to conduct a groundwater
pumping test to determine site hydraulic characteristics. Town officials cited a standing
policy of not accepting groundwater discharge into the city sanitary sewer system.
Therefore, in preparing for the pumping test, HB OPS submitted an "NPDES Application
• for Permit Discharge Short Form C-GW" to the North Carolina Division of.
•
Environmental Management (DEM) for authorization to discharge the groundwater to a
ditch draining to Trainers Creek.
DEM representatives responded that additional information was required,
including a report assessing non-discharge alternatives to the proposed surface water
discharge. Consequently, HB 0 PS requested that Radian assist them in the NPDES
application process.
Due to the comprehensive nature of the permit process, Radian recommended
performing an initial phase to simply evaluate the feasibility of different discharge
options for managing groundwater from the pumping test and, ultimately, from a
groundwater extraction system, if necessary .
jq/Hamilton/650-138 1-1
•
•
•
RADIAll CORl80.RAT IO•
This report presents the results of the feasibility evaluation. It also includes a
sunimary of RaC:Ifan's technical approacli, an estimate of wastewater discharge from a
conceptual groundwater extraction system, and the results of an on-site soil survey .
jq/Hamilton/650-138 1-2
•
•
•
RADIAN CORlltORATIO•
2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH
Radian's technical approach focused on evaluating the environmental feasibility of
implementing subsurface discharge and spray irrigation as possible alternatives for
wastewater disposal. The environmental feasibility of discharging to the local sanitary
sewer system was not evaluated as that option had previously been ruled out by the
town. The principal factors considered in the evaluation were two-fold:
2.1
• The anticipated discharge rate of a conceptual groundwater extraction
system; and
• The suitability and availability of sufficient land at the site to support
either a subsurface discharge or spray irrigation wastewater disposal
system .
Site Inspection
The facility was visited by a soil scientist on July 26, 1995. Soil in open land areas
located to the east and west of the plant building were inspected to determine the
suitability for a disposal system. Fourteen hand auger soil borings were advanced to
depths ranging from 48 to 96 inches. Soil samples obtained from the borings were
inspected for textural class, structure, Munsell color, depth, and wetness.
2.2 Hydrogeologi.c Data Collection
A search of incident reports on file at DEM's Washington Regional Office was
conducted on July 26, 1995 to identify the operating characteristics of any groundwater
extraction systems currently located in a hydrogeologic setting similar to that of the
HB <>PS site. Information on file was examined for estimates of aquifer characteristics
jq/Hamilton/650-138 2-1
•
•
•
RADIAN coa•oaaT•••
and pumping rates that may be typical for the general area. The information
supplemented currently available site data fu deveiopinga conceptual groundwater
extraction system for use in estimating a possible range of groundwater discharge rates.
2.3 Feasibility Evaluation
An evaluation of potential discharge rates and on-site soil conditions was
performed to assess the environmental feasibility of utilizing subsurface disposal or spray
irrigation to dispose of wastewater generated by a conceptual groundwater extraction
system.
2.3.1 Discharge Rate Estimate
An analytical groundwater flow modeling study was conducted to estimate the
potential wastewater discharge rate should a groundwater extraction system be installed
on-site. The estimated discharge rate, in tum, represents the amount of wastewater
requiring disposal by means of a discharge or nondischarge alternative. The modeling
assumptions and results are discussed in Section 3.0.
2.32 Nondischarge Disposal Alternatives
The results of the soil investigation were used to evaluate the environ-
mental feasibility of utilizing subsurface disposal and spray irrigation to dispose of
wastewater generated during groundwater remediation. The evaluation of the subsurface
disposal alternative was based on criteria established by the North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR)-Division of Environmental
Health. Similar criteria were applied to the evaluation of the spray irrigation alternative .
jq/Hamilton/650-138 2-2
•
•
•
RADIAN CORllORATIO•
The results of the feasibility evaluation are summarized in Section 4.0. The complete
evaluation· is provided-in the soil scientist's report (2) included as Appendix A
jq/Hamilton/650-138 2-3
• RADIAN CORlltORATIO•
3.0 CONCEPTUAL EXIRACTION SYSIBM
An analytical groundwater flow modeling study was conducted to evaluate the
impact of installing an extraction well system at the site. The objectives of the study
were two-fold: to design a conceptual extraction well system capable of capturing the
chemical plume underlying the site; and, to determine the discharge rate of such an
extraction system.
Historical groundwater monitoring data collected by Engineering Tectronics, P.A
in 1992 were used to prepare Figure 3-1. The figure illustrates the location of the plant
building and the inferred outline of the chemical plume. The figure is based on the
results of a single monitoring event involving only on-site wells. As such, the figure
represents only a gross approximation of chemical distribution in the groundwater for the
• sole purpose of estimating potential extraction system discharge rates.
•
3.1 Geology
The site geology was inferred from several geologic logs prepared in 1992 by
Engineering Tectronics, P.A. during monitoring well installation.· In general, the south
central portion of the site is underlain by interbedded layers of clayey sand, clay, and
fine sand. Clay appears to be the predominant deposit underlying the site at depths
between about 4 and 15 feet. Below the clay, the deposit consists primarily of fine sand
with a trace of clay. Based on s~mples from a single boring, the sand apparently extends
to a deeper clay layer located at a depth of about 38 feet.
jq/Harnilton/650-138 3-1
• RADIAN COR~ORATIO•
32 Hydrogeology
The site hydrogeology was inferred from data collected by Engineering Tectronics,
P .A during well installation, slug testing, and groundwater sampling. In general,
groundwater in the south central portion of the site occurs about 4 to 5 feet below land
surface under reportedly water table conditions. The base of the aquifer is assumed to
coincide with the clay layer encountered at approximately 38 feet. For purposes of the
two-dimensional analytical flow model, the important hydraulic characteristics include
hydraulic gradient, hydraulic conductivity, saturated thickness, and effective porosity.
The following sections briefly describe available data concerning these properties.
3.2.1 Hydraulic Gradient
• Groundwater in the south central portion of the site flows toward the
•
southeast in response to an average horizontal hydraulic gradient of 0.006 ft/ft.
3.2.2 Hydraulic Conductivity
Hydraulic conductivity calculated from slug tests in three selected
monitoring, wells (MW-202, -203, and -204) ranges from 1.8 x 104 cm/sec (0.51 ft/day)
to 5.4 x 10-5 cm/sec (0.15 ft/day) with a mean value of 9.4 x 10-5 cm/sec (0.27 ft/day).
In general, the mean hydraulic conductivity value lies within the range expected of clayey
sand. Because the upper portion of the saturated zone consists primarily of interbedded
sand and clay, the calculated mean value most likely represents the hydraulic
conductivity value of the individual beds integrated over the length of the well screens.
Based on textural characteristics, the hydraulic conductivity of the deeper fine sand
deposits is anticipated to approach 1 x 10-3 cm/sec (2.8 ft/day) .
jq/Hamilton/650-138 3-3
• RADIAN CORllllORATIOM
3.2.3 Saturated Thickness
Water level across the site varies but is generally at an elevation of about
24 feet above sea level near the south central portion of the site. As discussed
previously, the base of the aquifer is inferred to be a clay layer encountered at a depth
of 38 feet, or at an elevation of 9 feet below sea level. Therefore, total saturated
thickness of the aquifer is assumed to be 33 feet.
3.2.4 Effective Porosity
From the standpoint of analytical modeling, data concerning effective
porosity are only necessary when modeling transient (unsteady-state) groundwater flow.
Therefore, for the steady state flow modeling conducted, porosity data was not needed.
• However, to facilitate calculation of flow lines only, a value of 23 percent was used based
on description of site lithology.
•
3.3 Flow Modeling
A groundwater model is designed to represent real conditions by quantitatively
mimicking the physical and hydraulic aspects of the actual hydrogeologic system. The
modeling provides a powerful quantitative tool in assessing groundwater flow systems
and the effects of pumping networks on them. Models, however, will always be less
complex than the real systems they represent.
Modeling was performed using QuickFlowllC (3). QuickFlowllC is an analytical
model that was developed to simulate two-dimensional steady-state and transient
groundwater flow. The steady-state model which is applicable to unconfined aquifers is
based upon equations derived by Otto Strack ( 4 ) .
jq/Hamilton/650-138 3-4
-..
•
•
•
RADIAN coamaoa-,T10•
QuickFlow™ allows selection of several analytic functions to simulate groundwater
-flow. These functions use the principle of superposition to compute the hydraulic head
at a point in the aquifer system. The total effect of applying several analytical functions
is equal to the sum of the individual effect of each separate analytical function. Based
on these calculations, QuickFlow™ produces equipotential contours and flowpaths that ,
illustrate the results of the model.
3.3.1 Assumptions
QuickFlow™ uses a number of simplifying assumptions inherent to many
analytical models. This section discusses some important assumptions as they apply to
the practical application of the model.
• QuickFlow™ was developed to solve 2-dimensional (2-D) groundwater flow
problems in a horizontal plane. Therefore, a primary assumption is that
flow is horizontal and occurs in an infinite aquifer. No data from the site
is available to assess the presence of vertical gradients in the aquifer.
However, as is typical of most layered sedimentary deposits, hydraulic
conductivity is expected to be much lower in the vertical direction then in
the horizontal direction. Consequently, horizontal flow is considered to be
dominant within the aquifer at the site and site conditions are assumed to
essentially meet this assumption.
• The aquifer hydraulic conductivity is assumed to be isotropic and
homogeneous. The geology of the HB <>PS site' is complex, particularly in
the upper zone. Consequently, the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer is
neither homogenous nor isotropic. Consequently, actual capture zones will
depart somewhat from those predicted.
• The reference hydraulic head, which is analogous to a constant-head
boundary condition in a numerical model, is constant throughout all
calculations. In this modeling study, the reference hydraulic head was
located some distance from the area of interest to minimize impacting
model predictions .
jq/Hamilton/650-138 3-5
•
•
•
RADIAll COR•ORATIOM
input:
• All wells are assumed to fully penetrate the aquifer and to be perfectly
efficient. Neither of these conditions are routinely met in the real world.
The consequence of not meeting these assumptions is that pumping rates
necessary to achieve the desired capture zone may not be attainable,
because drawdown in the actual well will be greater than predicted by the
model.
3.3.2 Input Parameters
For each simulation of groundwater flow, the following data is required as
•
•
•
• •
Regional gradient and direction of flow;
Hydraulic conductivity;
Aquifer top and bottom elevations;
Reference hydraulic head; and
Well locations, radii, and pumping rates .
Specific input parameters for the model are listed in Table 3-1. The input
parameters for the model runs are also included in the summary output files included in
Appendix B.
All input parameters for the model are derived from measurements made during
the field investigation conducted in 1992. The model was also run using a hydraulic
conductivity value of 1 x 10-3 cm/sec (2.8 ft/day) to observe the hydraulic response under
conditions where the properties of the fine sand are allowed to dominate the
hydrogeologic system. Testing of this scenario is warranted by the lithology described at
the site and provides an approximate upper limit to the predicted discharge rate .
jq/Hamilton/650-138 3-6
•
•
•
RADIAll COR ... ORATIOM
Table 3-1. Input Parame.ters for Conceptual Extraction System Model
(Mean Hydraulic Conductivity)
AQUIFER PROPERTIES
Hydraulic Conductivity (Permeability) 0.266 ft/ day
Aquifer top Elevation 24 feet
Aquifer Bottom Elevation -9 feet
Hydraulic Gradient 0.006 ft/ft
Angle of Gradient 310.4712°
Reference Hydraulic Head 25 feet
WELL SPECIFICATIONS
Radius 0.167 feet
Pumping Rate 96 ft3/day
WELL LOCATIONS
Well# X-coord. Y-coord.
1 1511.82 385.05
2 1432.97 226.69
"I 3 1679.83 226.69
jq/Hamilton/650-138 3-7
...
•
•
•
RADIAN CDR•DRATI••
Table 3-2. Input Parameters for Conceptual Extraction System Model
(Maximum Hydraulic Conductivity)·
AQUIFER PROPERTIES
Hydraulic Conductivity (Permeability) 2.83 ft/day
Aquifer top Elevation 24 feet
Aquifer Bottom Elevation -9 feet
Hydraulic Gradient 0.006 ft/ft
Angle of Gradient 310.4712°
Reference Hydraulic Head 25 feet
WELL SPECIFICATIONS
Radius 0.167 feet
Pumping Rate 578 ft3/day
WELL LOCATIONS
Well# X-coord. Y-coord.
1 1511.82 385.05
2 1584.799 223.98
3 1410.07 223.98
4 1738.07 227.05
jq/Hamilton/650-138 3-8
•
•
•
RADIAN COR•ORATIOM
3.4 Modeling Results
Figures 3-2 and 3-3 illustrate the steady state capture zones produced by
simulations using hydraulic conductivity values of 9.4 x 10-5 cm/sec (0.27 ft/day) and 1 x
10-3 cm/sec (2.8 ft/day), respectively. The conceptual extraction system includes 3 wells
in the first case and 4 wells in the second case. Under conditions of lower hydraulic
conductivity, each well is pumped at 0.5 gpm (96 ft3 /day) to effect plume capture, while
under higher hydraulic conductivity, each well is pumped at 3 gpm (578 ft3 /day) to effect
capture. Based on these modeling runs, the estimated discharge from an extraction
system operated at the site ranges from 2,160 to 17,280 gallons per day .
jq/Hamilton/650-138 3-9
.•
• RADIAll CORllOR&TIO•
4.0 RESULTS OF FEASIBILITY EVALUATION
This section summarizes the feasibility of using subsurface disposal and spray
irrigation at the facility as alternatives to surface discharge for wastewater generated by a
groundwater extraction system. Evaluation of both non-discharge alternatives was based
on a process described in the NCDEHNR-Division of Environmental Health, On-Site
Wastewater Selection, Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems.
The entire evaluation is found in the soil report included in Appendix A.
4.1 Subsurface Disposal
Utilizing suitability criteria developed by NCDEHNR, soil in the open area
located east and west of the plant building is deemed unsuitable for use in a subsurface
• system. The overall Un.suitable rating is based on unsuitable ratings for expansive clays
and for soil wetness in the eastern area and for soil wetness in the western area.
•
Due to poor drainage characteristics, caused by clay subsoil and landscape
position, the soil in each area also appears unsuitable for alternative or modified
subsurface disposal systems. Recent experience in North Carolina indicates that several
modified subsurface systems used on soils similar to those observed on-site have failed
and allowed wastewater to pond, even at very low application rates.
4.2 Spray Irrigation
Soil in the open areas east and west of the plant building is also not suitable for a
spray irrigation system because of poor drainage characteristics. Due to the presence of
the clay subsoil and the anticipated low rate of soil water movement through it, on-site
jq/Hamilton/ 650-138 4-1
•
•
••
RADIAN CORlltORATIO•
soil will not adequately assimilate wastewater. Consequently, during wet periods, applied
wastewater will pond on the surface and will likely produce runoff from the site.
Because the on-site soil is not suitable for use for either a spray irrigation or
subsurface disposal system, no application rates are recommended for the site .
jq/Hamilton/650-138 4-2
•
•
•
RADIAll CORllllORATIO•
5.0 CONCLUSION
Analytical modeling suggests that operating an extraction well system at the site to
remediate groundwater contamination could generate from 2,160 to 17,280 gallons of
wastewater per day. However, due to the poor drainage characteristics of the on-site
soil, neither spray irrigation, nor a subsurface disposal system is deemed an
environmentally feasible alternative to surface discharge of the wastewater. Because
municipal officials cite a policy of not accepting groundwater discharge into the sanitary
sewer system, surface discharge under a NPDES permit is the only viable option for
disposing of wastewater from the groundwater extraction system at this site .
jq/Hamilton/650-138 5-1
•
•
•
RADIAll coa..,oaaT•••
6.0 REFERENCES
1. Groundwater Assessment, Hamilton Beach<> Proctor-Silex, Washington, North
Carolina. Winston-Salem, North Carolina: Engineering Tectronics, P.A, January
1993.
2. Groundwater Subsurface Disposal & Spray Irrigation Soils Evaluation. Cary,
North Carolina: E.D. Black, August 1995.
3. QuickFlow Analytical 2D Groundwater Flow Model. Reston, Virginia: Geraghty
& Miller, Inc. Modeling Group, December 1993.
4. Strack, O.D.C., Groundwater Mechanics. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1989 .
jq/Hamilton/650-138 6-1
. .
•
•
•
)>
'O
'O Cl> :J a. :x·
)>
• RADIAll co•1t•••T•••
• APPENDIX A
Soil Report
• jq/Hamilton/650-138
•
•
•
HAMILTON-BEACH PROCTOR SILEX ·
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
GROUNDWATER
SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL & SPRAY IRRIGATION
SOILS EVALUATION
BY
E.D. BLACK
AUGUST, 1995
•
•
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to the poor drainage characteristics of the soils at the Hamilton-Beach Proctor Silex
Washington Plant, neither the spray irrigation nor the subsurface disposal system is
recommended .
• 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION IMPORTANCE
The suitability of a site to provide adequate treatment and assimilation of a wastewater is
dependent upon the soil characteristics, desired treatment and the wastewater. Deep
sandy soils provide excellent assimilation of the wastewater from subsurface disposal or
spray irrigation systems. However deep sandy soils provide very limited treatment of the
wastewater components. The wastewater moves through the soil at such a fast rate that
the soil treatment processes do not have sufficient time to assimilate and treat the
wastewater. Because the wastewater moves through the soil with limited treatment, the
potential for groundwater contamination is high.
Well drained soils with clay, silty clay, sandy clay, clay loam, sandy clay loam and loam
textural class provide the greatest treatment. These soils have a lower saturated hydraulic
conductivity and soil water moves through the soil at a slower rate. Because the soil
water moves through the soil at a slower rate, the soil treatment mechanisms have more
time to assimilate the wastewater components.
• These soils do provide greater treatment of the wastewater components, however when
these soils are located in a low landscape position the slow hydraulic conductivity can
result in these soils being naturally water saturated for extended periods of time. Soils
that are saturated with soil water for extended periods are referred to as poorly drained or
very poorly drained soils. Because poorly drained and very poorly drained soils are
saturated with soil water for extended periods, it is likely that wastewater applied through
a subsurface disposal or spray irrigation system frequently will pond on the soil surface
and may flow from the site as surface water runoff.
•
Because of the impact that the soil characteristics can have on the treatment and
assimilation of the wastewater, it is necessary to characterize the site soils prior to the
initiation of a subsurface or spray irrigation system.
1.2 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SUBSURFACE AND SPRAY IRRIGATION POLICY
Industrial subsurface disposal and spray irrigation systems are regulated by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources -Division of
Environmental Management (DEM). The specific rules for the regulation are contained
in Administrative Code Section: 15A NCAC 2H .0200 -Waste Not Discharged to
•
•
•
Surface Waters. These rules are commonly referred to as the 200 rules by the DEM staff.
Specific references to subsurface disposal systems is provided on pages 8 and 9
(Appendix A). Requirements for a spray irrigation system are provided on page 10
(Appendix A). Although the 200 rules identify specific items for the soil
characterization such as texture, color, depth, and structure; specific acceptance criteria
are not established for the soils evaluation. However the Division of Environmental
Health-On-Site Wastewater Section has established soil evaluation criteria for domestic
wastewater subsurface disposal and these criteria are commonly used as acceptance
criteria for DEM subsurface evaluations. These acceptance criteria also serve as an aid in
the evaluation of soils for spray irrigation systems, since many of the criteria used in
evaluating soils for subsurface disposal are similar to spray irrigation criteria evaluations.
For subsurface disposal and spray irrigation systems that meet the 200 requirements, the
DEM will issue a permit. A major condition in the typical permit is that the subsurface
disposal and spray irrigation system provide adequate treatment of the wastewater and
that no runoff from the subsurface disposal or spray irrigation system occur to surface
waters or adjacent property. In the 200 rules a recommendation by a soil scientist is
required as part of the evaluation process. This recommendation pertains to the observed
soils characteristics and the ability of the soils to provide adequate treatment of the
wastewater and that off site runoff will not occur from the subsurface disposal or spray
irrigation system under normal operations .
1.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Hamilton-Beach Proctor Silex Plant in Washington, North Carolina; is evaluating a
groundwater remediation project. As part of that evaluation, Hamilton-Beach Proctor
Silex is reviewing alternatives for the discharge of the groundwater pumped to the
surface. Two of the alternatives include subsurface disposal and spray irrigation. This
project specifically addresses the suitability of the soils located at the plant site for a
subsurface disposal and a spray irrigation system .
2
•
•
•
2 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 LOCATION
The Hamilton-Beach Proctor Silex Washington Plant is located in the coastal plain
region of North Carolina in Beaufort County (Fig. 2-la). To reach the Hamilton-Beach
Proctor Silex Plant from the City of Washington, travel is made on US 1 7 heading north
for approximately 2 miles. The Hamilton-Beach Proctor Silex Plant is located on state
road (SR) 1509 which intersects US 17 (Fig. 2.1 b ).
2.2LANDUSE
Land use in the immediate vicinity of the Hamilton-Beach Proctor Silex Plant is a
mixture of commercial, farming, timber and residential development. Immediately
adjacent to the Hamilton-Beach Proctor Silex Plant are a farm, a business, an elevated
water tank, timber land and residences. Occupied homes are located adjacent to the
western plant boundary along SR 1509. The backyards of the homes run up to the plant
boundary. Land adjacent to the southern boundary of the plant is farmed and is currently
planted in crops. Along the eastern boundary the adjacent land is farmed or is wooded .
The parking lot and grassed area cover the area from the plant to SR 1509 which forms
the northern boundary.
2.3 ADJACENT SURFACE WATER
The closest surface water body is the Cherry Run Creek which is located approximately
1/2 to 3/4 mile to the north and west of the plant. In addition a drainage water channel
runs along the plant southern boundary and between the plant building and the wooded
area in the eastern section of the plant grounds. It appears that the drainage water
channel is connected to the Cherry Run Creek.
2.4 POTENTIAL AREAS FOR SPRAY IRRIGATION OR
SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL
Two potential areas at the Hamilton-Beach Proctor Silex Plant exist for either a spray
irrigation or subsurface disposal system. One area is located in the eastern section of the
plant property and for the purposes of this report will be referred to as the eastern area
(Fig 2.3). The eastern area is currently covered with hardwoods and occupies
3
•
Fig, 2-la, General site location map ,
• 4
Alllqal l. Lake
,L
• -.. -..:..-
•
,--
\
) .
I "
/ / I
IP\ ' I I -
I
/ . . . . I .. · ............... .
.. ' . -~..=
(
. . . . . : .
I
WARl~EN
FIELD
'' " " \. _, . . \
. 1
W.1\1:•
/,
I~ ,,
"' ~
\\ . II \38
\
l /j'· .........
( \ \1
'"
:, i'
I , . / ? :
,;" ,:'~~ (.,
/ /• "
"' <;. ..
"-
Fig. 2.1 b. -USG Quad map for the Hamilton-Beach Proctor ilex Washington Plant
5
I
/
---
' ....
o ·
'\ \
' \
'
(
I :
•
Fig. 2.3 -Hamilton-Beach Proctor Silex Washington Plant map
•
6
•
•
approximately 2.5 acres. A farm road along the eastern and southern boundary notes the
apparent plant boundaries. Along the northern boundary an old fence notes the apparent
boundary. A drainage ditch channel runs along the western edge. The eastern area also
has a small unimproved drainage ditch that runs through the area. The eastern area has
an apparent slope of 0 to 2% with a few small low spots.
The second area is located in the western section of the plant property and for the
purposes of this report will be referred to as the western area. This area is covered with
grass and occupies an area of approximately 0. 75 acres. The area appears to have been
leveled and the apparent slope is 0 to 2%.
2.4 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE EASTERN AND
WESTERN AREAS SOILS
2.4.1 Soils Background Information
The eastern and western areas are located on nearly level soils in the coastal plain
uplands. Because of the landscape position, soil characteristics and rainfall; many of the
soils in the general area of the Hamilton-Beach Proctor Silex Plant are wet for extended
periods throughout the year. Local areas that are farmed typically have drainage ditches
to remove excess soil water from the wet soils. During periods when the soils are
saturated with water, it is not uncommon to observe surface water runoff from fields.
According to the Beaufort County USDA-Soil Conservation Service soil survey field
sheet, the eastern area contains a Leaf soil (Fig. 2.4). On the soil survey field sheet the
Leaf soil is noted as mapping unit #85. The western area is marked as urban and the
soils are not noted on the soil survey field sheet. Residential and commercial lands are
not typically described in the USDA-Soil Conservation Service soil survey and these
lands are generally marked as urban.
Areas mapped as containing the Leaf soil typically have a silt loam surface soil horizon
overlying a deep subsoil of clay or silty clay. The very sticky and plastic clay or silty
clay subsoil typically extends from 6 to 50 inches. Due to the clay texture, structure and
landscape position; soil water moves very slowly through the Leaf soil. The Soil Survey
of Pitt County (USDA, 1974) reports that the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the
subsoil ranges from 0.06 to 0.20 inches per hour. This compares to an excessively
drained Lakeland soil that has a hydraulic conductivity of 6 to 20 inches per hour or a
well drained Norfolk soil that has a hydraulic conductivity of 0.63 to 2.0 inches per hour
(USDA, 1974). Both the Lakeland and the Norfolk soils are commonly used in spray
irrigation and subsurface disposal systems; whereas the Leaf soil is typically not used for
• spray irrigation or subsurface disposal systems.
7
•
•
Fig. 2.4 -Hamilton-Beach Proctor Silex Washington Plant soils map
•
8
•
•
•
The typical Leaf soil is a poorly drained soil. The soil horizons are typically dark-gray in
color at the surface with a dark gray to gray color subsoil. A typical Leaf soil profile
description is provided in Appendix B. The dark gray and gray soil colors typically
indicate that the soil is saturated with water for an extended period during the year.
These soils also tend to have a high water table.
Soil colors are also expressed in a Munsell color notation. An example of a typical
Munsell color notation is 10 YR 411. For spray irrigation and subsurface disposal soil
evaluations, the 1 in the 411 is the most important component. The 1 denotes the Munsell
color chroma. Generally subsoils with Munsell color chroma numbers of 2 or less have a
black, gray or olive color. These subsoil colors indicate that the soil horizon is saturated
with water for extended periods during the year. Surface soil horizons may also have a
dark color; how.ever for surface soil horizons the dark color may also be due to the soil
organic matter that tends to darken the soil color.
Soil horizons may have the same color throughout the entire soil horizon or the soil
horizon may be a mixture of colors. The mixed colored horizon is common especially in
soils that are wet periodically during the year. These soils will display bands of gray,
yellow, tan or brown soil colors. These bands are referred to as mottles.
Soils that are light gray and generally mottled from the surface downward through the
soil profile are typically described as poorly drained soils. These soils are wet for long
periods. Poorly drained soils are typically not suited for subsurface disposal systems or
spray irrigation systems.
2.4.2 Eastern and Western Areas Soil Characterization
On July 26, 1995; the eastern and western areas soils were reviewed by a soil scientist to
determine the suitability of the areas for use in a spray irrigation or subsurface disposal
system. Hand auger soil borings were extended to a depth of 48 to 96 inches. Soil
samples were obtained from the hand auger boring for use in the review of the soils in
the two areas. Soils information relating to textural class, structure, Munsell color, depth
and wetness was obtained from the soil samples.
The eastern area contains soils that have poorly drained characteristics similar to the Leaf
soil. Eleven hand auger soil borings were extended to a depth of 48 to 96 inches. The
approximate locations of the 11 hand auger soil borings are presented in Fig. 2.4.2a. Soil
samples from the 11 hand auger soil borings were similar except for variations in depth
and the presence of a thin sand layer at approximately 40 to 50 inches in three of the soil
borings. No water saturated soil conditions were observed for any of the soils during the
eastern area soil review .
9
•
•
•
Table 2.4.2a contains a soil profile description of soil samples from a hand auger soil
boring typical of the 11 soil borings. The older soil descriptive terms were used in the
table to match the terms used in the Leaf soil description. The soil profile has a deep
subsoil horizon that extends from 10 to 48 inches. The textural class is clay throughout
the subsoil. The clay is very firm and sticky. Soil peds from the subsoil are difficult to
break when finger pressure is applied to the peds. The A horizon has a silt loam textural
class with granular structure.
The soil Munsell color ranges from 10 YR 3/1 in the A horizon to 10 YR 6/2 in the C
horizon. Throughout the subsoil the soil Munsell chroma is 2. Also brown colored
mottles appear in the B3t soil horizon. Based on the soil Munsell color 2 chroma, the
soils in the eastern area are poorly drained and some low spots may be very poorly
drained.
Based on the texture and structure observed in the soil samples, the overall rate of soil
water movement through the soil is expected to be very slow. Water on the soil surface
will likely infiltrate into the A horizon at a high rate and move through the A horizon at a
moderate rate due to the soil texture and structure in the A horizon. At the interface of
the A and B horizons, the overall rate of the soil water movement will likely be
dramatically reduced and the soil water will likely back up into the A horizon.
Depending on the rainfall intensity and the duration, it is likely that the infiltration of the
water into the A horizon will be impacted by the low saturated conductivity of the clay
subsoil such that the water will not infiltrate into the soil and, as a result, will pond on the
surface. It is anticipated that a portion of the ponded water may migrate from the area as
surface water runoff to the nearby drainage ditch channel.
Table 2.4.2a. -Typical soil characteristics of the soils in the eastern area.
HQriZQD llip_th Munsell QQ}Qr Iexturnl Q}ass StruQture
A 0-10 10 YR 3/1 Silt loam Granular
B2t 10-32 10 YR4/2 Clay Wk blocky
B3t 32-48 10 YR 5/2 Clay Wk blocky
mottles
c 48-72 10 YR 6/2 Sandy clay Massive*
* Estimated due to soil depth
The western area also contains a poorly drained soil. It is likely that during the wetter
periods of the year that the western area soils are saturated with soil water. Depending
on the rainfall, it is likely that surface ponding of water occurs and that a portion of the
water may flow from the area as runoff .
11
• Three hand auger soil borings were extended to a depth of 48 inches in the western area .
The locations of the three hand auger soil borings are noted in Fig. 2.4.2a. The soil
samples observed from two of the hand auger soil borings were similar in surface and
subsoil characteristics. The third hand auger soil boring which was located closest to the
truck plant entrance road had soil samples which indicated fill material. Like the other
two western area soils, a deep clay subsoil was observed at 30 to 48 inches. Table
2.4.2b. contains a soil profile description for the two soils that did not have the fill
material. No soil water saturated conditions were observed during any of the hand auger
soil borings.
Like the subsoil horizon in the eastern area soils, the subsoil also contained a clay
horizon. The clay layer was at least 16 inches thick. Soil Munsell color chroma ranged
from 1 to 2 throughout the soil profile. Based on the soil Munsell color chroma numbers
of 1 and 2, the soils would be described as poorly drained soils.
It is likely that water will readily infiltrate into the soil. However the overall rate of soil
water movement through the soil will be controlled by the clay subsoil horizon. Once
the soil water front reaches the clay subsoil, the overall rate of soil water movement will
be dramatically reduced as compared to the initial soil infiltration rate. As a result it is
anticipated that during the wetter periods of the year that the soil will be saturated with
soil water.
• Table 2.4.2b. -Typical soil characteristics of the soils in the western area.
HQrizon* ~ Munsell QQ!Qr Iextural Qlass StruQture
A 0 -10 10 YR4/1 Silt loam Granular
AB 10 -14 10 YR4/2 Sandy clay loam Granular
B 14-24 10 YR4/2 Silty clay loam Wk blocky
Btl 24-32 10 YR6/2 Sandy clay Blocky
Bt2 32 -48 10 YR 5/1 Clay Wk blocky
* General soil horizonation
•
12
•
•
•
3 -SOIL SUBSURFACE AND SPRAY IRRIGATION
3.1 -SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL EVALUATION
The Division of Environmental Health, On-Site Wastewater Section has developed a
detailed soil evaluation process for subsurface systems and these criteria will serve as the
basis for the evaluation of the site soils for a subsurface system. The evaluation process
is described in the NCDEHNR-Division of Environmental Health, On-Site Wastewater
Section Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (Julyl, 1995). A
copy of the Laws and Rules that pertain to the soil evaluation is contained in Appendix
C. The evaluation is based on topography and landscape position, soil characteristics,
soil wetness, soil depth, restrictive soil horizons and available space. Except for
available space, these site soil characteristics will be discussed in the remaining portion
of this section. Depending on the site soil characteristics, a site soil is rated as suited,
provisionally suited or unsuited.
3.1.1 ... Topography and Landscape Position
Sites are grouped into topography groups of 1to15%, 15 to 30% and greater than 30%
slope (Table 3.1.1). Sites with 1 to 15% slope are rated as suited, 15 to 30% as
provisionally suited and greater than 30% slope as unsuited. Since the proposed eastern
and western areas' slopes are less than 15%, both of the areas are rated as suited with
respect to topography.
Landscape position is evaluated with respect to depressions and designated wetlands.
Based on visual observations neither the eastern or western proposed areas are located in
an apparent large depressions such as a Carolina Bay. Also it is assumed that the
proposed areas are not designated wetlands. Based on the visual observations and the
non-designated wetland assumption, both proposed areas are suited with respect to
landscape position.
Overall with respect to topography and landscape position, the eastern and western areas
are rated as suited.
3 .1.2 -Soil Characteristics
The soil characteristics used to determine the suitability are soil texture, structure, clay
mineralogy and the presence of an organic soil profile. The USDA soil textural classes
are grouped into four groups numbered one through four with group 1 containing the
soils with the largest sand component and group 4 the soils with the largest clay
13
•
•
•
component (Table 3 .1.2). Groups 1 and 2 are rated as suited while groups 3 and 4 are
rated as provisionally suited. Because the soil samples from the eastern and the western
areas contain a soil horizon with a clay textural class, the soils are classified as group 4
soils and are rated as provisionally suited with respect to texture.
Table 3.1.1-Proposed eastern and western areas' slope and topography suitability rating
based on the NCDEHNR-Division of Environmental Health, On-Site Wastewater
Section Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (Julyl, 1995).
NCDEHNR-Division of Environmental Health, On-Site Wastewater Section Laws and
Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (Julyl, 1995) topography (slope)
criteria. ·
% slope
0 to 15
15 to 30
>30
Site soils slope and suitability
Site soils
Eastern area
Western area
Estimated slope (%)
0 to 2
0 to 2
Suitability
Suited
Provisionally Suited
Unsuited
Suitability
Suited
Suited
Soil structure impacts the rate of soil water movement through the soil. Soils with platy,
blocky with large soil peds or prismatic soil structures have lower rates of soil water
movement as compared to similar soils with granular structure or blocky structure with
small soil peds. Since soil samples from the eastern and western areas contained soil
samples with granular or block-like soil structure with small soil peds, the soils are rated
as provisionally suited with respect to soil structure.
The suitability of a soil is also determined by the shrink-swell or expansive
characteristics of the soil. Some dry soils tend to swell as water is added to the soil. As
the soil swells, the rate of soil water movement down through the soil profile is reduced
and, as a result, surface ponding of the soil water is more likely to occur as water is
applied to the soil. The shrink-swell characteristic of the soil is due primarily to the
presence of 2: 1 type clay minerals in the clay fraction of the soil. The 2: 1 type clay
14
•
•
•
minerals are referred to as shrink-swell or expansive clays as compared to 1: 1 type clay
minerals which are not expansive upon wetting. Soils with slightly expansive clay
Table 3 .1.2 -Proposed eastern and western areas' texture suitability rating based on the
NCDEHNR-Division of Environmental Health, On-Site Wastewater Section Laws and
Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (Julyl, 1995).
a. NCDEHNR-Division of Environmental Health, On-Site Wastewater Section Laws and
Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (Julyl, 1995) soil textural groups and
suitability.
Soil group
1
2
3
4
USDA soil textural classes
Sand and loamy sand
Sandy loam and loam
Silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam,
clay loam and silty clay loam
Sandy clay, silty clay and clay
Site soils texture and suitability
Sites soils
Eastern area
Western area
USDA soil textural class
Clay
Clay
Soil group
4
4
Suitability
Suited
Suited
Provisionally suited
Provisionally suited
Suitability
Provisionally suited
Provisionally suited
mineralogy are considered suited whereas soils with moderate to high expansive clay
mineralogy are considered as unsuited.
Although no clay mineralogy characterization was conducted as part of this project, the
Soil Survey of Pitt County (1974) notes that typical Leaf soil at the 6 to 70 inch soil
depth has a high shrink swell potential. In addition, the USDA Soil Taxonomic
description of the Leaf soil notes a mixed mineralogy (Soil Survey of Pitt County, 197 4 ).
Based on this information, it is assumed that the soils from the eastern area have a mixed
clay mineralogy which contains expansive clay minerals and that the soils would be rated
as unsuited with respect to clay mineralogy. Clay mineralogy composition is unknown
for the western area soils.
Soils rated unsuited with respect to clay mineralogy may be rated provisionally suited
after an investigation indicates that a modified or alternative system may be installed .
However discussions with Ray Silverthorn, Craven County Environmental Health
15
•
•
•
Specialist (Personal Communication), notes that alternative and experimental systems
have not functioned properly when used on the Leaf or similar soils in Craven County.
Soils can also be grouped into organic and mineral soils. Organic soils are typically
observed in peat bogs and swamps and are rated as unsuited. The soils examined in the
eastern and western areas are both mineral soils and with respect to the organic soil
criteria, soils in both areas would be rated as suited.
3.1.3 Soil Wetness
Soils that are extensively wet either as the result of seasonal high water table, perched
water table, tidal water, seasonally saturated soils or lateral water movement cannot
adequately assimilate the water from a subsurface system. Wastewater applied to these
wet soils will not be readily assimilated by the soil and the wastewater will pond on the
soil surface. Soils which are wet extensively through the year are unsuited for subsurface
systems.
The On-Site Wastewater Section uses soil Munsell color chroma as an indicator of the
degree of soil wetness (Table 3.1.3). Generally the lower the soil Munsell color chroma,
the wetter the soil. Soils that are wet throughout extended periods of the year, typically
Table 3 .1.3 -Proposed eastern and western areas' wetness suitability rating based on the
NCDEHNR-Division of Environmental Health, On-Site Wastewater Section Laws and
Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (Julyl, 1995).
a. NCDEHNR-Division of Environmental Health, On-Site Wastewater Section Laws and
Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (July 1, 1995) soil wetness criteria.
Soil Munsell color chroma
2 or less
2 or less
2 or less
>2
b. Site soils wetness suitability
Soil depth (in.)
0-36
36-48
>48
0 -80
Soil suitability
Unsuited
Provisionally suited
Suited
Suited
Site soils Soil Munsell color chroma Soil depth (in.)
0-48
Soil suitability
Unsuited
Unsuited
Eastern area 2
Western area 1 & 2 0-48
16
•
•
•
have soil Munsell color chroma of2 or less. The low chroma is displayed either in
mottles in the soil horizon or in the bulk of the soil horizon. Soils with soil Munsell
color chroma of 2 or less within the 0 to 48 inch soil depth are classified as unsuited or
provisionally suited;
Soils with soil Munsell color chroma of2 or less in the 0 to 36 inch soil depth are rated
as unsuited with respect to wetness. If soil Munsell color chroma values of 2 or less are
observed at a soil depth of 36 to 48 inches, the soil is rated as provisionally suited with
respect to wetness. Soils with soil Munsell color chroma or 2 or less at a depth of greater
than 48 inches are rated as suited with respect to wetness. Based on the observation of
soil Munsell color chroma of 2 or less throughout the soil profile, the eastern and western
areas soils are rated as unsuited with respect to wetness.
3.1.4 Soil Depth
Shallow soils are unsuited for subsurface systems. The On-Site Wastewater Section has
determined that at least 48 inches of soil is required for adequate assimilation of the
wastewater. Soils with at least 48 inches to saprolite, rock or parent material are rated as
suited. Provisionally rated soils are soils with 36 to 48 inches of soil .above saprolite,
rock or parent material. Soils with less than 36 inches to saprolite, rock or parent
material are classified as unsuited. Because no saprolite, rock or parent material was
encountered within 48 inches of the soil surface at either the eastern or western areas,
both area soils are rated as suited with respect to soil depth.
3 .1.5 Restrictive Soil Horizons
Restrictive soil horizons impede the downward movement of soil water and if
wastewater from a subsurface system was applied to soils with a restrictive soil horizon,
it is likely that the applied wastewater would pond at the surface and possibly flow as
runoff to surface waters. Restrictive soil horizons are typically hardpans, fragipans and
organic matter and sand cemented horizons. Soils with a 3 inch or greater restrictive soil
horizon within 36 inches of the soil surface are rated as unsuited. If the 3 inch or greater
restrictive soil horizon is between 36 and 48 inches of the soil surface, the soil is rated
as provisionally suited. Soils without a restrictive soil horizon or with a restrictive soil
horizon of less than 3 inches or were the 3 inch or greater restrictive soil horizon occurs
at a soil depth greater than 48 inches are rated as suited with respect to restrictive
horizons. Because no restrictive soil horizon was observed within 48 inches of the soil
surface in the soils at either the eastern or western areas, soils in both areas are rated as
suited with respect to restrictive soil horizons .
17
•
•
•
3 .1.6 Alternative or Modified Systems
The Wisconsin mound system is an alternative subsurface disposal system that is used on
somewhat poorly drained soils. However; the Wisconsin mound systems are typically
placed on soils that have at least one foot of soil that has good drainage characteristics.
In regards to the eastern area soils, the clay subsoil occurs at a soil depth of 10 inches and
in the western area soils the soil horizon at 10 to 14 inches is sandy clay loam with a
Munsell color chroma of 10 YR 4/2. Based on the observed eastern and western areas
soil characteristics, the soils may not be appropriate for a Wisconsin mound system.
Also Dr. Mike Hoover, Soil Specialist for the North Carolina State University
Cooperative Extension Service, notes that no Wisconsin mound system is operating in
the North Carolina. He notes that the only "mound type" systems operating in North
Carolina are one or two gravity fed mound systems in Brunswick County. Overall North
Carolina experience with any type of mound system is very limited.
In addition, Ray Silverthorn, Craven County Environmental Health Specialist, (Personal
Communication) stated that several modified subsurface systems have been used in
Craven County on soils similar to those observed in the eastern and the western areas and
the systems have failed. Even at very low application rates, the systems have failed and
wastewater has ponded on the surface .
Due to the poor drainage characteristics of the soils in the eastern and western areas, the
limited mound experience and the failure of modified systems using similar soils; it is
recommended that current alternative or mound systems not be used for the western and
eastern areas soils.
3.1.7 Overall Suitability
Based on the suitability criteria developed by the NCDEHNR-Division of Environmental
Health, On-Site Wastewater Section Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal
Systems (Julyl, 1995) both the eastern and western areas soils are unsuited for the use in
a subsurface system. A summary of the suitability criteria is presented in table 3 .1. 7.
The overall unsuited rating was based on the unsuited ratings for the expansive clays and
soil wetness for the eastern area and soil wetness for the western area soils. In addition
the site soils received provisionally suited ratings for texture and structure .
18
•
•
•
Table 3.1.7 -Overall soil suitability for use in a subsurface system based on NCDEHNR-
Division of Environmental Health, On-Site Wastewater Section Laws and Rules for
Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (Julyl, 1995).
Suitability criteria
Topography and landscape position
Soil characteristics
Texture
Structure
Clay mineralogy
Organic soil
Soil wetness
Soil depth
Restrictive soil horizon
Suitability
Suited
Provisionally suited
Provisionally suited
Unsuited
Suited
Unsuited
Suited
Suited
3.2 SPRAY IRRIGATION EVALUATION
The western and eastern areas are not recommended for a spray irrigation system. Due to
the clay subsoil and the anticipated low hydraulic conductivity of soil water movement
through the clay subsoil, it is anticipated that the soils in the western and eastern areas
will not adequately assimilate the wastewater. Because the soils will not adequately
assimilate the wastewater, it is likely that during the wetter periods of the year that the
applied wastewater will pond on the soil surface and that a portion of the ponded water
will migrate from the site as runoff. As a result it is likely that during the wetter periods
of the year that a spray irrigation system would be in violation of the permit conditions.
Many of the soil characteristics that were reviewed as part of the subsurface disposal
evaluation are also appropriate for the evaluation of the spray irrigation system. The
major limitation for the use of the soils in the western and the eastern areas in a spray
irrigation system is the poor drainage characteristics. Both areas contain soils with a
subsoil that contains a clay textural class soil horizon. Soil water does not readily move
through the subsoil and, as a result, soil water will likely back up into the soil horizon
above the clay subsoil horizon during extended wet weather periods of the year. Based
on the soil Munsell color chroma numbers of 1 or 2 throughout the soil profile, it appears
that the soils in both the eastern and the western areas are saturated with soil water during
extended periods of the year.
Due to the likely period of extended soil water saturation in the eastern and western soils,
it is likely that wastewater applied by a spray irrigation system may result in wastewater
ponding on the soil surface. Depending on the rainfall intensity and duration, the ponded
wastewater may migrate from the soil surface as runoff to the near by drainage ditch
19
•
•
•
channel in the eastern area and to the small drainage ditch in the western area. Once the
wastewater is in the drainage ditch channel or the small drainage ditch, it is likely that the
wastewater will migrate off site .
20
•
•
•
4 RECOMMENDED APPLICATION RATE
Because the soils are not recommended for use in either a spray irrigation or a subsurface
disposal system, no recommended application rate is provided for the site .
21
•
•
•
5 SUMMARY
The fields immediately adjacent to the plant contain soils that are characterized as poorly
drained and, as a result, are not suited for use in either a spray irrigation system or a
subsurface disposal system. Both of the areas contain soils with a clay subsoil. Due in
part to the clay subsoil and the landscape position, the soils are poorly drained. Soil
Munsell color chroma numbers are 1 or 2 throughout the entire soil profile in all soils
reviewed during the hand auger soil borings.
The Munsell color chroma numbers 1 and 2 indicate that the soil is likely saturated with
soil water for extended periods during the year. Wastewater applied by either a spray
irrigation or subsurface disposal system would likely result in frequent surface ponding
of the wastewater. It is possible that the ponded wastewater would migrate from the site
as surface runoff water into the adjacent drainage ditch channel on the western area or the
drainage ditch adjacent to the eastern area. Because of the potential wastewater runoff
and associated spray irrigation and subsurface disposal permit violation due to the runoff
and the inability of the soils to assimilate the applied wastewater, the soils are not
recommended for use in a spray irrigation or a subsurface disposal system .
22
•
•
•
REFERENCES
United States Department of Agriculture, 1974. Soil Survey of Pitt County, Soil
Conservation Service, US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C .
•
APPENDIX A
DEM 200 RULES
•
•
~:\'R -ENVIRON~!ENTAL MANAGEMENT TlSA: 02R .0200
•
•
•
to be utilized for treatment and disposal down to a depth of seven feet to include, but is not
limited to, field descriptions of texture; color; structure, the depth thickness and type of
restrictive horizons; pH; the presence or absence and depth of evidence of any seasonal high
water table; recommendations concerning application rates of liquids, solids, and other wastewater
constituents; field estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity in the most restrictive horizon;
and cation exchange capacity. Applicants may be required to dig pits when necessary for proper
evaluation of the soils at the site;
(B) design data;
(C) plans of complete system including plan and profile and cross section views for all relevant
system components;
(D) a map of the site, with topographic contour intervals not exceeding two feet and showing all
facility-related structures and fences within the treatment, storage and disposal areas, all test
auger borings or inspection pits and the location of all wells, springs, lakes, ponds, or other
surface drainage features within 500 feet of the principal waste treatment/disposal site(s);
(E) For systems treating industrial waste and any system with a design flow of over 25,000 gpd, a
hydro geologic and soils description of the subsurface to a depth of 20 feet or bedrock. whichever
is less. The number of borings shall be sufficient to define the following for the area underlying
each major soil type at the disposal site:
(i) significant changes in lithology underlying the site;
(ii) the vertical permeability of the unsaturated zone and the hydraulic conductivity of the
saturated zone, and
(iii) depth to the mean seasonal high water table (if definable from soil morphology or from
evaluation of other applicable available data).
(F) For all projects with a design flow of greater than 25,000 gpd, a determination of transmissivity
and specific yield of the unconfined aquifer based on withdrawal or recharge test;
(G) Information on the location, construction details, and primary usage (drinking water, process
water, monitoring, etc.) of all wells within 500 feet of the waste treatment/disposal area;
(H) Degree of treatment (primary, secondary, tertiary);
(I) For industrial waste a complete chemical analysis of the typical wastewater to be discharged, may
include but not limited to Total Organic Carbon, BOD, COD, Chlorides, Phosphorus, Ammonia,
Nitrates, Total Nitrogen, Calcium, Sodium, Magnesium, Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)
Calculations, Phenol, Total Trihalomethanes, Toxicity test parameters, Total Volatile Organics,
Total Coliforms and Total Dissolved Solids;
(J) proposed location and construction details of a monitoring well network;
(K) Any additional information required by the Director in order ito adequately evaluate the disposal
facility.
(6) For land application of residuals on other than dedicated sites:
(A) a map of the site with topographic contour intervals not exceeding ten feet or 25 percent of total
site relief, whichever is less, and showing all facility related structures within the treatment,
storage and land application areas and the location of all wells, pits and quarries, springs, lakes,
ponds, or other surface drainage features within 500 feet of the utilization/disposal site;
(B) a soil scientist's recommendations, or the recommendations of an individual with at least three
years experience in the comprehensive evaluation of soils for application of residuals, concerning
application rates of liquids, solids, minerals and other wastewater constituents;
(C) a project evaluation conducted by an agronomist including recommendations concerning cover
crops and their ability to accept the proposed application rates of liquids, solids, minerals, and
other wastewater constituents;
(D) project description for the land application system, including treatment, storage, land application
method, equipment, and a receiver management plan;
(E) for industrial wastes, a complete chemical analysis of the typical wastewater or residuals to be
applied may include, but is not limited to percent Total Solids, pH, Ammonia, :Kitrates, TKN, .
Total Phosphorus, Potassium, Toxicity test parameters, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead,
Nickel, Zinc, Mercury, Arsenic, Selenium, Calcium, Sodium, Magnesium and Sodium
Adsorption Ration (SAR) Calculations;
(F) information on the location, construction details, and primary usage .(drinking water, process
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 02114194 Page 9
•
APPENDIXB
LEAF SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
•
•
•
•
•
LEAF SOIL SERIES DESCRIPTION
The soil series description lists the major soil characteristics for the typical Leaf soil
series. The description includes characteristics commonly used in the evaluation of the
soil for either a subsurface or irrigation system. The Leaf soil description includes
horizons, depths, color, texture class, mottles, structure and acidity. Soil series are
described first according to soil horizons which are layers of soil approximately parallel
to the soil surface that differ in properties from the adjacent soil layers above and below.
Examples of soil horizons include Ap, B, C and II. Each horizon is described according
to depth, general color, Munsell color, USDA textural class, structure, presence of roots,
acid condition and boundary to the underlying horizon.
The soil mapping portion of the Soil Survey of Beaufort County is completed; however
the final report was not available at the time this report was prepared for Radian.
Because the Soil Survey of Beaufort County was not available, Leaf soil description for
Leaf soil was obtained from the Soil Survey -Pitt County. The typical Leaf soil series is
described in the Soil Survey Pitt County, North Carolina (USDA, 1974) as follows:
Ap -0 to 6 inches, dark gray (lOYR 4/1) silt loam; weak, medium, granular structure;
very friable; many small and medium roots; strongly acidic; clear, wavy boundary.
B21tg - 6 to 19 inches, gray (lOYR 6/1) clay; common, medium, distinct, brownish-
yellow (10 YR 6/6 mottles and few, fine, distinct, dark-gray mottles; weak, prismatic
structure parting to moderate, medium, angular blocky structure; very firm, very sticky
and very plastic; many small roots and root channels; few medium roots and root
channels; patchy clay films on faces of peds; very strongly acidic; gradual, wavy
boundary.
B22tg -19 to 35 inches, gray (10 YR 5/1) silty clay; common medium, distinct,
brownish-yellow (10 YR 6/8) mottles and a few, fine, prominent red mottles; moderate,
medium, angular blocky structure; very firm, very sticky and very plastic; few small and
medium roots and root channels; patchy clay films on faces of peds; very strongly acidic;
gradual, wavy boundary.
B3tg -36 to 50 inches, gray (10 YR 6/1) clay; many, coarse, distinct, brownish-yellow
(10 YR 6/8) mottles and few, fine prominent, red mottles; moderate, medium angular
blocky structure; very firm, very sticky and very pastic; patchy clay films on faces of
peds; very strongly acidic; gradual wavy boundary .
•
•
•
Clg -50 to 70 inches, gray (10 YR 6/1) clay; few, fine, distinct, brownish-yellow
mottles; massive; very firm, very sticky and very plastic; extremely acid; gradual, wavy
boundary.
UC2g -70 to 80 inches, grayish-brown (10 YR 5/2) sandy loam containing lenses of
clay; few, medium, faint, gray ( 10 YR 5/1) mottles; massive; friable; extremely acid .
•
•
•
APPENDIXC
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
ON-SITE WASTEWATER SECTION
•
•
•
• RADIAll co••••ATIOM
• APPENDIXB
Summary Data Sheets for Modeling Runs
• jq/Hamilton/650-138
================================================================================
QuickFlow • Analytical Model of 2D Ground-Water Flow
Developed by
James o. Rumbaugh, III
(c) 1991 Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
================================================================================
Date: 10/17/1995
Time: 14: 4:26.18
Input File: hbl-3.qfl
Map File
ham-heh.map================================================================================
Model Entities
Number of Linesinks Defined by Infiltration Rate O
~umber of Linesinks Defined by Head 0
Number of Ponds = 0
Number of Wells 3
Well #1
Center of Well --x: 1511.822021 y: 385.048615
Radius = 0.167000
Pumping Rate = 96.000000
Head at Well Radius = -9.000000
Well #2
Center of Well --x: 1432.968018 y: 226.694000
Radius = 0.167000
Pumping Rate = 96.000000
Head at Well Radius = -9.000000
Well #3
Center of Well --x: 1679.828979 y: 226.694000
Radius = 0.167000
Pumping Rate = 96.000000
Head at Well Radius -9.000000
Reference Head = 25.000000 Defined at --x: 2181.039062 • Aquifer Properties
y: 1475.404053
•
•.•. Steady-State Flow Model ••.•.
Permeability ••••••••• · ••••••• = 0.266000 (L/T]
Porosity ••••••••.••••••••••• = 0.230000
Elevation of Aquifer Top •••• = 24.000000
Elevation of Aquifer Bottom.= -9.000000
Uniform Regional Gradient ••• = 0.006000
Angle of Uniform Gradient ••• = 310.471191
Recharge •••••••••••••••••••• = 0.000000 ================================================================================
Contour Matrix
Number of nodes in the X-direction =
Number of nodes in the Y-direction =
Minimum x Coordinate = -189.151093
Minimum y Coordinate = -531.105408
Maximum x Coordinate 2914.668945
Maximum y Coordinate = 2234.115967
Minimum Head 1.123887
Maximum Head = 41.104664
CONTOUR GRID -----
.ow 1
26.854139 26.268948
23.847683 23.213253
20.469538 19.735674
16.736158 16. 020723
13. 724671 13.341471
12.462937 12.343419
11.940149 11. 827759
Row 2
2·7 .133924 26.540144
24.071148 23.424030
20.593754 19.825838
16.634966 15.866853
13.480789 13.123434
12.469097 12.410569
12.200990 12.124370
Row 3
27.420532 26.818502
24.302305 23.641470
20. 720711 19.915062
16.492252 15.654784
13.145242 12.823371
12.456179 12.469152 • 12.469258 12.428718
Row 4
27.714758 27.104958
25.675898
22.558281
18.988066
15.347742
13.034907
12.239333
11. 704036
25.937344
22.753479
19.038094
15.147802
12.860207
12.363017
12.032400
26.206270
22.955269
19.081419
14.873352
12.618616
12.485451
12.368166
26.483784
35
35
25.074783
21.882418
18.232698
14.732846
12.795136
12.141679
11. 567383
25.325123
22.058460
18.236582
14.499442
12.676007
12.316500
11.924105
25.583221
22.240595
18.225290
14.178759
12.507354
12.494760
12.287472
25.850388
24.465490
21.185841
17.478214
14.189091
12.609135
12.043615
11.416782
24.703140
21.338463
17.430920
13.940042
12.551987
12.264044
11.799034
24.948753
21.496010
17.356812
13.597455
12.461884
12.490616
12.186908
25.203884
.. 24.543358 23.867647 23.166193 22.431919 21.662189
"20.854715 20.008101 19.122799 18.202656 17.257235
16.304722 15.374441 14.506565 13.746448 13.133894
12.692068 12.420987 12.297864 12.284768 12.340321
12.429120 12.525537 12.613151 12.682454 12. 728543
12.749348 12.744451 12.714341 12.659968 12.582477
.ow 5
28.017378 27.400436 26.770990 26.127956 25.470144
24.796261 24.104919 23.389027 22.635933 21.841387
21.001165 20.111368 19 •. 169340-18 .• 175495 17.136564 -
16.070747 15.013928 14.022705 13.166672 12.508362
12.082894 11. 887727 11.882948 12.005528 12.192517
12.396732 12.589223 12.754839 12.887000 12.983887
13.046115 13.075428 13.073996 13.044053 12.987730
Row 6
28.329132 27.705828 27.068972 26.417242 25.749151
25.063011 24.356928 23.626669 22.856438 22.038582
21.166552 20.233156 19. 231188 18.1550q9 17.004648
15.793081 14.560210 13.386147 12.383945 11.656819
11.258204 11.181652 11. 356283 11. 671737 12.030593
12.373697 12.673753 12.921705 13 .117181 13.263385
13.364688 13.425557 13.450126 13.442052 13.404504
Row 7
28.650702 28.021957 27.378735 26.719494 26.042459
25.345568 24.626421 23.882004 23.097342 22.259132
21. 358248 20.383596 19.321999 18.158798 16.880699
15.484816 14.002416 12.542380 11. 305676 10.474813
10.119554 10.236458 10.699954 11. 297634 11. 878871 • 12.382939 12.797315 13 .127252 13.382776 13.574080
13.710157 .13. 798552 13.845478 13.856030 13.834383
Row 8
28.982683 28.349558 27. 701183 27.035833 26.351486
25.645742 24.915747 24.158068 23.362381 22.508371
21.584007 20.574108 19.458696 18.211420 16. 798477
15.181964 13.345349 11. 399107 9.754541 8.790660
8.486303 8.930671 9.907903 10.926396 11. 781389
12.457258 12.982270 13.386392 13.693751 13.922711
14.087150 14.197643 14.262352 14.287659 14.278615
Row 9
29.325569 28.689232 28.037069 27. 367212 26.677441
25.965097 25.226961 24.459087 23.654766 22.791075
21.851112 20.816143 19.659840 18.343813 16.809673
14.964752 12.662970 9.786615 7.263682 6.387323
5.945940 6.973718 9.049697 10.662890 11. 807408
12.637423 13.252533 13.713481 14.058972 14.314898
14.499316 14.625257 14.702395 14.738085 14.738022
Row 10
29. 679726 29.041431 28.386959 27.714344 27.021246
26.304838 25.561668 24.787457 23.976801 23 .110813 • 22.165291 21.119251 19.942152 18.587103 16.976648
14.968248 12.246259 7.762806 1.123887 3.643985
1.369616 3.785039 8.525835 10.697516 12.040446
12.962892 13.628242 14.119447 14.484641 14.754279
14.948838 15. 082723 15.166430 15.207825 15.212939
Row 11 <·
30.045378 29.406441 28.751204 28.077677 27.383478
26.665724 25.920883 25.144567 24.331215 23.469387
22.529625 21.488930 20.315989 18.962290 17.346910
15.320149 12.559457 8.221035 2. 804115 2.743022 • 2.705449 5.281466 9.098700 11.204008 12.536604
13.455822 14.119194 14.608864 14.972907 15.241809
15.436065 15.570082 15.654346 15.696708 15.703182
Row 12
30.422602 29.784348 29.129921 28.457361 27.764330
27.048006 26.304947 25.530884 24. 720448 23.866478
22.943865 21.925140 20.781857 19.471193 17. 925116
16.028820 13.579597 10.239396 5.183056 1.913152
6.251972 8.455109 10.549352 12.142751 13.282330
14.109154 14. 720787 15.178392 15.521214 15.775472
15.959380 16.086025 16.165079 16.203867 16.208050
Row 13
30.811316 30.175056 29.522985 28.853235 28.163597
27.451416 26.713491 25.945896 25.143768 24.300987
23.404364 22.422173 21. 330114 20.095787 18.672489
16.992731 14.962662 12.455114 9.240392 7.63?406
9.443354 10.908508 12.213513 13.324145 14.206898
14.890240 15.415442 15.817467 16.122683 16.350521
16.515362 16.628004 16.696688 16. 727798 16.726364
Row 14
31.211292 30.578281 29.930040 29.264849 28.580688
27.875175 27.145473 26.388172 25.599157 24.773422 ., 23.904713 22.969917 21. 943857 20.805752 19.530190
18.089748 16.466410 14.689461 12.987793 12.124296
12.393970 13.085901 13.858352 14.592031 15.229478
15.755888 16.178379 16.510851 16.767384 16.960161
. 17.099180 17.192482 17.246515 17.266470 17.256552
Row 15
31. 622162 30.993567 30.350513 29.691473 29.014675
28.318069 27.59~276 26.855515 26.083565 25.279697
24.439692 23.555941 22.603239 21. 568083 20.441490
19.222033 17.929995 16.638653 15.528199 14.870016
14.756628 15.001719 15.407722 15.857466 16.286942
16.665766 16.983927 17.241776 17.443983 17.596487
17.705153 17.775265 17. 811403 17.817465 17.796734
Row 16
32.043430 31.420303 30.783649 30.132156 29.464342
28.778530 28. 072840 27.345175 26.593241 25.814610
25.006870 24.167971 23.289251 22.353968 21. 363108
20.328148 19.280455 18.285439 17.450478 16.891558
16.649494 16.662088 16.830904 17.074396 17.337772
17.588478 17.809696 17.994450 18.141251 18.251373
18.327293 18.371868 18.387939 18.378143 18.344854
Row 17 • 32.474495 31. 857758 31. 228542 30. 585775 29.928268
29.254742 28.563822 27.854078 27.124107 26. 372660
25.598890 24.802805 23.986006 23.141796 22.267427
21. 378649 20.505280 19.695440 19. 012119 18.512852
18. 219225. 18.106716 18.124985 18.222380 18.357702
18.502312 18.638287 18.755531 18. 849104 18.917204
,,18. 959808 18.977842 18.972666 18.945801 18.898771
Row 18
32.914677 32.305103 31.684183 31.051077 30.404902 • 29.744755 29.069742 28.379055 27. 672068 26.948523
26.208807 25.454403 24.688568 23.917227 23.139601
22.364252 21. 615662 20.927450 20.337858 19.878752
19.562872· 19.379408 19. 301189 19.295977 19.334475
19.393696 19.457312 19.514624 19.559147 19.587307
19.597429 19.589016 19.562273 19.517796 19.456369
Row 19
33.363232 32.761448 32.149490 31. 526749 30.892628
30.246572 29.588125 28.917007 28.233244 27.537344
26.830584 26.115393 25.395901 24.678629 23.973284
23.285740 22.628153 22.023878 21.497158 21.067139
20.741922 20.516394 20.375076 20.297585 20.263468
20.255087 20.258657 20.264177 20.264816 20.256178
20.235613 20.201681 20.153738 20.091661 20.015636
Row 20
33.819386 33.225868 32.623356 32.011459 31.389837
30.758245 30.116600 29.465055 28.804140 28.134922
27.459253 26.780081 26.101847 25.430923 24. 776018
24.148357 23.558390 23.014606 22.532682 22.124859
21. 796581 21. 545330 21. 361872 21. 233019 21.144501
21.083050 21. 037493 20.999063 20.961260 20.919485
20.870621 20.812660 20.744396 20.665174 20. 574722
Row 21 • 34.282341 33.697426 33.104679 32.503899 31.894976
31. 277929 30.652973 30.020607 29.381718 28. 737749
28.090876 27.444254 26.802273 26.170811 25.557390
24.971119 24.422232 23.921009 23. 472521 23.082319
22.754223 22.486982 22.274866 22.109131 21. 979736
21.876764 21. 791344 21. 716072 21.645096 21. 573984
21.499495 21. 419346 21.331982 21. 236395 21.131975
Row 22
34.751312 34.175205 33.59.2384 33.002819 32.406586
31.803923 31.195276 30.581396 29.963417 29.342995
28.722446 28.104921 27.494551 26.896574 26.317356
25.764233 25.245056 24.767462 24.337860 23.960377
23.634197 23.357014 23.125147 22.932665 22. 772406
22.636955 22.519335 22.413424 22.314125 22.217365
22.120001 22.019665 21. 914635 21.803682 21. 685966
Row 23
35.225529 34.658321 34.085457 33.507050 32.923328
32.334698 31. 741783 31.145498 30.547132 29.948437
29.351738 28.760044 28.177128 27.607563 27.056684
26.530380 26.034731 25.575457 25.157230 24.783039
24. 453716 24.167822 23.921814 23. 709770 23.526091
23.365198 23.221621 23.090355 22.967054 22.848087
22.730518 22.612040 22.490873 22.365685 22.235489
.Row 24
35.704254 35.145935 34.582947 34.015514 33.443993
32.868908 32.291008 31. 711309 31.131176 30.552374
29.977150 29.408298 28.849197 28.303795 27. 776531
.. 27. 272154 26.795414 26.350662 25.941387 25.569790
'"25. 236492 24.940456 24.679150 24.448881 24.245243
24.063536 23.898987 23.746807 23.603271 23.465202
23.329941 23.195309 23.059559 22.921326 22.779551
.ow 25
36.186790 35.637268 35.083981 34. 527245 33.967506
33.405384 32.841694 32. 277515 31. 714222 31.153534
30.597572 30.048885 29.510454 28.985666 28.478218
27.991945 27.530603 27.097553 26.695446 26.325941
_25. 989510 __ 25.685387 25.411671 25.165550 24.9A359.4
24.742067 24.557199 24.385397 24.223391 24.068304
23.917578 23.768671 23.619852 23.469774 23.317360
Row 26
36. 672489 36.131603 35. 587772 35.041378 34.492943
33.943130 33. 392811 32.843063 32.295246 31. 750994
31.212273 30.681377 30.160921 29.653797 29.163082
28.691906 28.243256 27.819765 27.423485 27.055691
26.716745 26.406071 26.122217 25.863003 25. 625729
25.407398 25.204924 25.015289 24.835686 24.663576
24.496740 24.333281 24.171608 24.010416 23.848305
Row· 27
37.160755 36.628284 36.093605 35.557156 35.019489
34.481312 33.943497 33.407120 32.873478 32.344105
31.820803 31. 305616 30.800829 30.308908 29.832426
29.373943 28.935865 28.520283 28.128807 27.762428
27.421434 27.105383 26.813143 26.543003 26.292816
26.060158 25.842480 25. 637257 25.442070 25.254702
25.073156 24.895695 24.720821 24.547279 24.374027
.ow 28
37.651047 37.126728 36.600864 36.073914 35.546463
35.019226 34.493069 33.969032 33.448345 32.932430
32.422916 31. 921625 31.430538 30.951767 30.487465
30.039745 29.610563 29.201595 28.814123 28.448931
28.106247 27. 785725 27.486477 27.207136 26.945978
26.701025 26.470169 26.251276 26.042278 25.841232
25.646362 25.456081 25.269005 25.083937 24.899868
Row 29
I
38.142868 37.6~6415 37.108994 36.591087 36.073284
35.556301 35.040981 34.528313 34. 01945"1 33.515701
33.018528 32.529545 32.050480 31.583136 31.129326
30.690802 30.269169 29.865788 29.481686 29.117496
28.773401 28.449127 28.143961 27.856810 27.586264
27.330702 27.088367 26.857458 26.636196 26.422886
26.215948 26.013950 25.815615 25.619822 25.425604
Row 30
38.635784 38.126884 37.617523 37.108189 36.599472
36.092075 35.586803 35.084595 34.586517 34.093765
33.607651 33.129601 32.661121 32.203754 31. 759033
31. 328424 30.913250 30.514627 30.133392 29. 770058 • 29.424772 29.097317 28. 787113 28.493273 28.214642
27.949875 27.697502 27.455992 27.223818 26.999496
26.781631 26.568930 26.360224 26 .1544 72 25.950760
Row 31
~39.129402 38. 627731 38.126038 37.624809 37.124634
36.626175 36.130211 35. 637615' 35 .149372 34.666569
34.190384 33.722073 33.262943 32.814323 32.377525
31. 953768 31. 544163 31.149626 30.770849 30.408249
30.061951 29. 731773 29.417248 29.117641 28.832003
28.559206 28.298014 28.047123 27.805216 27.570997 • 27.343229 27.120754 26.902504 26.687521 26.474941
Row 32
39.623379 39.128609 38.634190 38.140614 37.648438
37.158310 36.670956 36.187191 35.707924 -35.234131
34.766872 34.307251 33.856415 33.415508 32.985645
32.567860 32.163086 31. 772085 31.395430 31.033466
30.686296 30.353775 30.035513 29.730904 29.439154
29.159317 28.890347 28.631128 28.380518 28.137388
27.900639 27.669235 27.442207 27.218670 26.997824
Row 33
40.117420 39.629215 39.141685 38.655312 38.170628
37.688248 37.208858 36.733212 36.262135 35.796516
35.337299 34.885464 34.442005 34.007919 33.584160
33.171612 32.771053 32.383129 32.008320 31. 646910
31.298988 30.964432 30.642920 30.333942 30.036835
29.750797 29.474939 29.208298 28.949888 28.698719
28.453815 28.214251 27.979149 27.747696 27.519150
Row 34
40.611256 40.129288 39.648277 39.168671 38.690998
38.215828 37.743801 37.275616 36.812023 36.353828
35.901871 35.457024 35.020153 34.592129 34.173767
33.765827 33.368969 32.983742 32.610546 32.249626 • 31.901049 31.564716 31. 240356 30.927546 30.625717
30.334192 30 .052208 . 29.778936 29.513517 29.255079
29.002762 28.755733 28.513203 28.274422 28.038710
Row 35
41.104664 40.628616 40.153751 39.680511 39.209385
38.740917 38.275700 37.814377 37.357628 36. 906189.
36.460804 36.022243 35.591278 35.168655 34.755093
34.351231 33.957642 33.574791 33.203014 32.842518
32.493370 32.155476 31. 828613 31.512419 31. 206409
30.910009 30.622559 30.343340 30.071604 29.806583
29.547516 29.293655 29.044283 28. 798723 28.556341
================================================================================
Streamlines
Number of Streamlines = O
================================================================================
• Particle Traces
Number of Particle-traces = 18
,, t
Particle-trace #1
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
start x: 1729.918945 y: 226.694000
·• End x: 2051.556641 y: 360.923309
. article-trace #2
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
Start x: 1704.874023 y: 270.073212
End x: 1945.483643 y: 598.279419
Particle-trace #3
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
Start x: 1654.784058 y: 270.073212
End x: 1814.611206 y: 701.094360
Particle-trace #4
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
time: 0.000000
time: 13131.781250
time: 0.000000
time: 13901.365234
time: 0.000000
time: 14511.649414
Start x: 1629.739014 y: 226.694000 time: 0.000000
End x: 1454.597778 y: -128.654541 time: 14005.729492
Particle-trace #5
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
start x: 1654.784058 y: 183.314896 time: 0.000000
End x: 1653.147583 y: -154.789810 time: 14132.642578
Particle-trace #6
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
Start x: 1704.874023 y: 183.314896 time: 0.000000
End x: 1956.304932 y: 15.400249 time: 14045.536133
~article-trace #7
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
Start x: 1482.786011 y: 228.822098 time: 0.000000
End x: 1357.051514 y: -120.394287 time: 13779.066406
Particle-trace #8
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
Start x: 1457.876953 y: 271.965698
End ~: 1052.218506 y: 559.823120
Particle-trace #9
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
time: 0.000000
time: 14476.859375
Start x: 1408.058960 y: 271.965698 time: 0.000000
End x: 994.610352 y: 474.996277 time: 13119.546875
Particle-trace #10
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
Start x: 1383.150024 y: 228.822098 time: 0.000000
End x: 958.184021 y: 302.867035 time: 14392.322266
Particle-trace #11
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
Start x: 1408.058960 y: 185.678497
End x: 1009.865906 y: 95.039215
~article-trace #12
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
Start x: 1457.876953 y: 185.678497
End x: 1165.347656 y: -68.061508
time: 0.000000
time: 13475.763672
time: 0.000000
time: 13839.976562
Particle-trace #13
~
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
Start x: 1564.999023 y: 384.174591
End x: 1631.217163 y: 819.111877
Particle-trace #14 ~ Coordinates of Particle-trace:
Start x: 1539.417969 y: 428.483398
End x: 1472.019043 y: 857.795837
Particle-trace #15
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
Start x: 1488.254028 y: 428.483398
End x: 1282.825195 y: 819.185242
Particle-trace #16
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
Start x: 1462.672974 y: 384.174591
End x: 1139.578491 y: 711.901184
Particle-trace #17
Coordinates of Particle-trace:
. Start x: 1488.254028 y: 339 .. 865814
End x: 1083.481567 y: 615.962646
Particle-trace #18
•
•
coordinates of Particle-trace:
Start x: 1539.417969 y: 339.865814
End x: 1716.207642 y: 745.026794
time: 0.000000
time: 13551.348633
time: 0.000000
time: 14192.563477
time: 0.000000
time: 14028.492188
time: 0.000000
time: 13081.458984
time: 0.000000
time: 13236.669922
time: 0.000000
time: 14136.030273