NC0026646_Instream Assessment_19880823

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNIN` COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0026646
Pilot Mountain WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Instream Assessment (67b) 1
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
August 23, 1988
This document printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the rexerse side

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND
CCMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Winston-Salem Regional Office
August 23, 1-88
(q$s
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ruth Clark
THROUGH: M. Steve Mauney
FROM: Jerry Whittum 4,3
SUBJECT: Town of Pilot Mountain Self Monitoring Data
NPDES No. NC0026646
Surry County
As of May 1988 the permittee has designated a different
individual as Operator in Responsible Charge of the
facility. Following the change the May and June
self -monitoring reports seem to present a realistic
correlation between the temperature and dissolved oxygen
values. We will periodically review future reports as
seasonal temperature changes occur, and will follow-up as
needed.
cc:
Randy Dodd
Trevor Clements
Steve Tedder
Steve Reid
Central Files
WSRO

u
0
1%, ^
L_ _J CONSULTANTS
~���~~�INC OR PO RATED
August 2,1988
Mr. Dennis Ramsey
Water Qua]ity Section
Division, Environmental Managem�nt.
P. O. 8ox 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Dear Mr. Ramsey:
'
T|�is is to confirm the ioformu(/''// we discussed today
regarding the abilitto water treatment
facility for Federa] Naj> Cor|/', /'/1ot Mountain, N.C., to
meet the effluent requirements .'+ set forLh by your
department. The following limits will be mct by the
new facility, which wil] not, operated as designed,
and are as fo]]ows:
PARAMETER LIMIT
Arsenic 15 micrograms/liter
Beryllium ogran/s/liLcr
Cadmium 2 micrograms/liter
Total Chrome 50 micrograms/liter
Cobalt 1 milligrams/liter
�/� Copper' 15 milligrams/liter
Cyanide 5 micrograms/liter
Fluoride 1.8 milligrams/liter
Tron 1 mil1igram/liter
Lead 25 micrograms/litpr
Mercury 0.2 micrograms/litnr
Njckel 50 micrograms/liter
}ver 10 micrograms/liter
Zinc 50 micrograms/liter
With respect to tho parameters above, the water quality
can be expectod to be s'�perior to that of domestic waste
water , eo�d non -toxic. �ssticides are not addressed in
the waste water treatment faci]�ty as designed as they
are nd will, not be |/resent within the physical
confines of the producti on facility, and ure not/wi1 l /.ot
be a possibil ity waste water stream`
Very truly yo.trs,
Y UTANTS, INC.
President
V
'
/
�
f�,
.12� //
pzz.Box27917 ° Indianapolis, Indiana 46e27 ° phone317'71EIs-11SB4
Lou/Svmo.mY 502-5B9'1geB ° Nashvmo.Tm 615-254­8900 9 South Bend, /m2xo-e32'x1o8

.-
�
"
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 27, 1988
TO: Steve Mauney
�r
THROUGH: Randy Dodd
Trevor Cleme�pt Steve Tedder
Tedderk^�`4
SUBJECT: Town of Pilot Mountain Self Monitoring Data
NPDES No. NC0026646
Burry County
Attached please find a copy of the temperature and dissolved
oxygen self -monitoring data for the Town of Pilot Mountain WWTP.
Note that the dissolved oxygen values are relatively constant
although there is a wide range in temperature. Please review the
methods the facility uses to collect the data and make any recom-
mendations to the town as to how it may improve its measurements.
cc: Steve Reid
Central Files

I ♦ Co V zLiW-/u
-466trrf R 1c77L111)041-ai, L lc,Y.ui P
/1eaMerk) X .
(,ia*ec n. - .5 m; aizat d scha e.
ux�b-v 300 P . begat) disc%4de.
__ Inv Do i em i0
5f 38 fu I 52 (min. 3.5) 2'I.1 0,
qIW 11,5 6,1 , q. 7 C.E,C,
3iS S.0 0, Z. J7, 2 Le .0
2N? 7.O (s.O 15.0 6.1.e
i/W .50 fii.3 10.3 Lsi.�
121 7 Ifi,6,Le �.5 (s.5
1 � � O. � � {�t � (� (Ur.R �'QAc{c rl 5
l Of 55! ) la •' ti .0
101i3-7 140 IS. 3 22. z (ft.4
e1IS? 20.0 5,'J1 (rn,n. 2.o) 27.5 41.I
81E7 . 23.3 (N,4 3 -7 b2, f
71%-7 2 2_ ki 5, (min ct &-1, 3") )�. 1 b. z
1 ? 7 20, 3 1.0.2. (min or L.5) 29. (9.4
51r ? 17. 62.5 (min cr'4, 5) 2366.0
hl fri ►I. Le 5, le (min or '4.5) Ids, 0 7,8
31S7 1. 0 q 0 )5. c? . (t
21S7 . /D- 0 `7. 3 135 3. i
111 c),I -7,3 40 .S
1 z 6(4 7,7 1.4.0 10.0 4,
iiiv4 ii.3 '?, 9 17.0 g,1
roISCP 14. 9 4: 2. 2 I.2 6. 3
9lsce Iq, 9 7. 5 .27, Le �,3 (m, n or 3, 8)
81 i9 -7,3 5,6 Cm 0( 59)
7f as 21 '2-2 3 I is, 7
51F4 PL/ -z 9 25 6 3

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 27, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: Larry Coble -
THROUGH: Trevor Clemerts
Steve Tedder
FROM: Ruth Clark 9C
SUBJECT: Instream Assessment for the Town of Pilot Mountain
NPDES No. NC0026666
Surry County
Summary
The Town of Pilot Mountain has requested a JOC to increase
the flow at its facility by 0.030 MGD to a total of. 0.7474 MGD.
The request is to allow wastewater from Federal Nail Industrial
Site which is approximately 2/3 industrial and 1/3 domestic.
Pilot Mountain has been out of compliance with its copper, zinc,
temperature, and toxicity limits. Previous SOCs have been issued
due to noncompliance with BOD, TSS, copper, zinc,_ and temperature.
The incremental flow allowT under previous Orders was 0.075 MGD.
The additional process wastewater is expected to have a sig-
nificant toxic impact. Wastewater from Federal Nail contains
toxics already identified as probable causes of Pilot Mountain's
existing toxicity problem. Instream monitoring data have already
demonstrated standard violations, and additional loading will only
worsen this problem. Biological surveys performed by DEM support
this hypothesis. Headworks analysis information was obtained from
Pretreatment and used to determine which metals may require limits
or monitoring. The results of mass balance equations indicated
that cadmium, nickel, lead, and cyanide should be limited in the
permit. It is recommended that these metals, along with copper
and zinc be monitored during the JOC period.
A Level-B analysis was completed to determine the effects of
the increased flow on instream dissolved oxygen levels since the
proposed JOC limits are secondary and do not recognize the final
NH,-N limit of 14 mg/l. The analysis indicated that the facility
could increase its flow up to design capacity without violating
EMC dissolved oxygen criteria. The additional flow requested
would probably have a minimal impact on the temperature differen-
tial between upstream and downstream sites, and thus this impact
was not specifically addressed in the analysis.

In October, 1987, Pilot Mountain requested a modification to
their. SOC (Case No. EMC WQ 86-19 Ad). They wanted to delete
75,000 GPD of domestic wastewater and add 30,000 GPD of industrial
flow from 'Quality Mills, a cloth printing facility. Technical
Support recommended that this flow be denied on the basis of the
p1ant's toxicity. However, the request was granted by letter. in
April, 1988, and the plant was allowed to add on 60,000 GPD from
Quality Mills. This action conflicts with. EMC policy (see
attached).
The industries discharging to the Pilot Mountain facility are
out of compliance with their pretreatment limits. This noncom-
pliance is probably responsible for most of the toxicity problems
at the WWTP. Technical Support recommends that no industrial
waste be allowed until these industries come to compliance and/or
Pilot Mountain passes its toxicity test requirement. If the flow
increase is granted, the JOC should include a statement allowing
for flow moratorium if existing toxicity problems are not
addressed through a toxicity reduction. (TRE) plan.
Analysis and Discussion
The Town of Pilot Mountain discharges to Heatherly Creek, a
class C stream in the Yadkin River Basin. At the outfall, the
receiving stream drains an area of 1.22 square miles and is char-
acterized by an average flow of 1.45 cfs and a 7Q10 of 0.15 cfs.
A Level B analysis was performed to examine the impact of the
cumulative SOC flow increase. The model was run at 0.6424 MGD
(pre-SOC average), 0.7474 MGD (post-JOC flow) and 1.5 MGD (design
flow) . Each of the runs were at limits of 30 mg/1 BODS , 20 mg/1
NH3--N, and 5 mg/1 DO. Since no NH3-N limit was recommended,
secondary limits were assumed for the parameter for modeling pur-
poses. Examination of the compliance data indicated that the
facility should be able to meet that limit as the highest monthly
value for ammonia in the effluent was 10.11 mg/1. Other model
inputs were obtained from an analysis performed for .the June, 1987
SOC addendum. The model runs indicated that flow can be increased
up to design flow without violating the instream DO standard. In.
each run, the DO sagged at the outfall. The model inputs and
results are summarized in Table 1.
Headworks analysis information was obtained from Pretreatment
and used to determine which metals may require limits or monitor-
ing. The results of the mass balance equations were as follows:

Metal
Predicted
Eff. Conc.
(rng/1)
Cadmium (S)'
Chromium (S)
Copper (AL)
Nickel (S)
Lead (S)
Zinc (AL)
Cyanide (S)
Silver (AL)
Standard
0.0005
0.0050
0.0254
0.0229
0.0094
0.0376
0.0059
0.0004
AL:
Allowable
Eff. Conc.
(mg/1)
0.0021
0.0524
> 0.0157
> 0.0532
0.0263
> 0.0525
0.0053
0.0106
Action Level
it is division procedure to limit any metal whose predicted
effluent concentration is within 1/10 of the allowable effluent
concentration if a standard exists and to monitor the metal if
there is an action level. The ">" symbol indicates which values
meet this criterion. The predicted cyanide and copper values were
greater than the allowable effluent concentration. We recommend
that the final permit be changed to limit cadmium, nickel, lead,
and cyanide at the allowable effluent concentration. Monitoring
for copper and zinc should be included in the JOC.
The facility has been exhibiting toxicity since 1986. A
pass -fail Ceriodaphnia chronic test performed by DEM in February,
1986 resulted in a failure. The Division has also performed sev-
eral. 48 hour static Daphnia tests with the following results:
Date
12/ 19/ 84
03/20/85
02/19/86
05/01/86
01/07/87
in addition, the Division performed
test in January, 1987. The results
LC50
None
None
None
48
iI
an intensive on -site toxicity
were as follows:
Test
48 hr Ceriodaphnia static
96 hr Fathead Minnow Flowthrough
7 day Chronic Ceriodaphnia
Result
LC50=9.3
LC50=None
LC50--14 . 6 , ChV=3.2
Chemical analyses performed during this intensive survey indicated
that copper and zinc action levels were exceeded downstream of the
discharge, and the nickel standard was violated below the facil-
ity.
The self -monitoring data submitted by Pilot Mountain also
indicate toxicity. The following summarizes acute tests at a
chronic value greater than 94% performed by the facility:

Date LC50
08/86 None
09/86 P35.
10/86 30,100
11/86 P35
12/86 93,P40
01/87 63.5
The facility began performing chronic toxicity tests in 1987
at a chronic value of 94. Each test reported was a failure.
Date Result
04/87 Fail
06/87 Bad Test
07/87 Not Reported
09/87 Fail
10/87 Fail
12/87 Fail
03/88 Fail
Data collected in January, 1987 by the Biological Monitoring
Group also indicate that toxicity is a problem at the WWTP. 47
benthic macroinvertebrate taxa were collected above the discharge
with 14 of them belonging to intolerant groups which resulted in a
water quality rating of Fair. 100 meters below the discharge, 14
species were collected with only two belonging to the intolerant
groups. Only one specimen of each of these intolerant groups was
collected. This resulted in a Poor water quality rating. A third
station located 1 mile below the facility received a Poor water
quality rating. 32 total species were collected with only two
intolerant taxa collected. Again, only 1 specimen of each of the
intolerant taxa was found. Since Heatherly Creek showed a reduced
community one mile below the discharge, samples were collected on
Tom's Creek above and below its confluence with Heatherly Creek.
The upstream station on Tom's Creek received a Good water quality
rating since 27 intolerant taxa and a total of 56 species were
collected. The downstream station received a Fair water quality
rating. There were 51 total species collected. However, only 16
belonged to intolerant taxa indicating that the Pilot Mountain
facility is causing toxicity problems in Tom's Creek. The toxic-
ity may have been partially due to the temperature differential
caused by the effluent since this difference is at a maximum in
.January. In addition, chlorine was measured. at 0.34 mg/1, well
above the proposed no effect level of 17 ug/1, at the first down-
stream station. The effluent was also found to be toxic prior to
chlorination. These three factors (pre -chlorination toxicity,
high :instream chlorine concentrations, and the temperature differ-
ential) probably all contribute to the instream toxicity.
The Town Manager of Pilot Mountain stated that a study indi-
cates that Federal Nail can meet proposed pretreatment limits
which are similar to the EPA default values for domestic waste.
However, the cadmium limit exceeds the EPA default value by
approximately a factor of three, and the proposed pretreatment
nickel limit is roughly twice the default. EMC policy states that

flow requests should not be granted if toxic pollutants are added
in quantities not associated with domestic waste. In addition,
the chemical analyses performed in January, 1987 indicated that
the nickel standard was violated downstream of the facility. The
effluent from Federal Nail would compound the problem. Pilot
Mountain's industrial components are out of compliance with their
pretreatment levels. In addition, there is no guarantee that Fed-
eral Nail would meet the limits in its permit. No additional
industrial flow should be allowed at the facility until Pilot
Mountain addresses its toxicity problems and maintains compliance
with final permit requirements for toxics and whole effluent tox-
icity.
CC:
Ken Eagleson
Chuck Wakild
Kent Wiggins
Steve Reid

Table e 1: PO Analysis Summary for the Town of Pilot Mountain
Wasteflow Assumptions
Design Capacity
Pare--SOC
Current SOC Request
Maximum Allowable SOC Flow
Model Input Summary
Headwater Conditions
1.5000 MGD
0.6424 MGD
0.0300 MGD
1.5000 MGD
7Q10 0.15 cfs
Qavg 1.45 cfs
Design Temperature 2 5 ° C
CBOD 2 mg/1
NBOD 1 mg/1
DO 5 mg/3
Wastewater Inputs
Flow
CBOD (2 -recommended BOD,)
NBOD (4.5*secondary NH3-N)
DO
Pre--SOC
SOC Flow
Design
See Above
60 mg/i.
90 mg/1
5 mg / :i.
Model Output Summary
DO min Net Change
(nig/1) (mg/1)
5.32 --
5.28 0.04
5.15 0.17

II REGULATION
Statute
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.67. Acceptance of Wastes
to Disposal Systems and Air Cleaning Devices (Appendix 1) is
divided into two subsections, 67(a) and 67(b). 67(a) states in
part that no person subject to G.S. 143-215.1 (Control of Water
Pollution, Permits Required) shall willfully cause or allow the
discharge of any wastes to a waste disposal system in excess of
the capacity of the disposal system or which the disposal system
cannot adequately treat. This, in effect, means that any
discharger which is in noncompliance with effluent limitations
cannot accept additional wastewater into its treatment system.
However, 67(b) goes on to give the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) the authority to allow a unit of government
subject to the provison of 67(a) to accept additional wastes
provided that:
1. The unit of government has secured a grant or other
financing for a new or improved waste disposal system
which will adequately treat the existing and additional
wastes.
2. The additional waste will not result in any
significant degradation of the receiving stream.
67(b) goes on to give the EMC the authority to impose conditions
on permits as necessary to implement the provisions of the
subsection. In order to implement these provisions the EMC has
developed a 67(b) policy.
Policy
The EMC's 67(b) policy has four major points.
1. The unit of government must provide assurance that a
new or improved wastewater treatment works which will
adequately treat the existing and additional wastes will
be constructed in the near future. Requests for 67(b)
orders will not be approved unless an acceptable time
schedule is provided which sets forth specific dates for
the design, construction and operation of the new or
improved wastewater treatment works, or the
implementation of alternatives approved by the EMC.
2. Any approvals of requests for 67(b) orders will be
granted only in the amount necessary for the POTW to
provide service to identified new sources or their
equivalent substitutions approved by the Director.
2

3. The EMC will grant 67(b) requests only when the
requesting unit of government has demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the EMC that it is operating its
existing plant in such a way as to attain the degree of
treatment determined by the Director to be achieveable
under the existing conditions and that it has
implemented a program acceptable to the Commission for
controlling the discharge of wastes into its system.
4. The EMC..will not grant 67(b) requests when the
cumulative impact of wastes allowed under all 67(b)
orders will result in any significant degradation in the
quality of the waters or which will add toxic pollutants
in quantities not generally associated with domestic
waste.
The criteria against which the above policy items are judged is
covered in the water quality procedures section.
3

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Winston-Salem Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Trevor Clements
Technical Support Unit
THROUGH: M. Steve Mauney -
Water Quality Supervi or
FROM: David Russell
Environmental Specialist
SUBJECT: In Stream Assessment Request For The Pilot
Mountain WWTP - Surry County
Find attached the subject assessment request. The town
is requesting an additional flow of 30,000 gpd from the
Federal Nail Industrial Site. The flow will be 2/3
industrial and 1/3 domestic. The town received approval for
60,000 gpd April 22, 1988 of additional flow from Quality
Mills. An instream assessment for that flow was performed
and it was recommended that the additional flow not be
approved. Effluent toxicity and non-compliance with final
limits for metals and temperature are current problems at
the WWTP.
DR:al
If there are any questions contact our office.
hi�„yip"
JUL : t i
8025 North Point Boulevard, Suite 100, Winston-Salem, N.C. 27106-3295 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

�eIes
Request Form for In -stream Assessment for 678
NAME OF FACILITYPA: _ 014044 1,1) 1)14) /p SUBBASIN AD 03
COUNTY 5G, REGION J,,StDN S1g4m DESIGN FLOW /.sjj ___
RECEIVING STRE 4,/eL
BACKGROUND DATA :
A. Why is SOC needed? (Facility is out of compliance with which
effluent limits?)-7 SOC. Wa.0. taL
1:144 fr-ff
leZez $oD, rss, f.,Q Purdk_
• V e, A4 . (so ` I 6 r3O - 1l O
B.
History of SOC requests:
Time period averaged
1. Monthly Average waste flow
prior to any SOC , 0.65121e
Aueittle- Plow Ne ri -Wl Y6 wA s O. St 31
3 s/(o thru 2/Y7
mgd
2. Previously approved SOC's:
Date: 3//3/e7 flow: a 050 mgd
Date: %/i/J7 % flow: —�
mgd
By le1feg. y--.z.-8$ -Pow : 0.)(QO r,5cf -- QA111 )11*
total of previously approved SOC flow: piSo mgd r
3. Flows lost from plant flow: 0.075 mgd
(facilities h t have go e
off line) 7)QIe4o 0.01S i �`o2
4. Current SOC request flow: 0.034) mgd
5. Total plant flow post-SOC
(sum of original flow and SOC flow minus losses) flow: // cOS mgd
6. Is this an accurate flow balance for plant? Why/why not?
ri,„,„„„es /61.,p h,
4-At-

other parameters_P0
D. What is the
fr‘
C. Please attach DMR summary for past year for all permitted parame-
ters. If possible, include reports from previous years if
facility has heen under SOC for more than
CURRENT SOC RE2UEST :
a year.
A. Request is for domestic or industrial waste? If it
ation, please specify percentages.
3
B. What type of industry? Please attach
/04:41
w ate.
C. Th regionvproposes the following
BOD5
30
is a combin-
y pertinent data.
evz-
SOC limits:
NH3_NO I� J
mg/1
-mg/1
DO =J Y i h%_mg/1
TSS
fecal coliform
30 +_mg/1
/O U 0 #/100m1
pH SU
it n.
(,2#„.z/„Aro4-410
-01)7.
basis for these limits?-to...LiAli ittair
30 "30
srt.,2? IS r7 /j'l /s m .
az.*

&i)
;ss
A11/3
C.6(
6A-
Cr;4
fihr40--
A);
0.49,41
G(441
(41
Z
et4,ttAtiz-J-024 _HA-4,61A VIA)
0 • u zY� wi S
as //s)s241
.7,5 /45/ Sy
frytj/R
0.02- 1110
o. oS .nf/aQ
D.oi Mf/�
v. 06 ite
p. ovSAtfg-
p.o6 .nfg
0.01.5-.)1(
vi Pi.j/e
Iht7/t
IDO /kit
.vs#1f1e
5. / 0 SG(

1v� f7oourtari't 00ii - 50c
1bctherlc, Cry
030703
'7610 0,15 CA
Eec Veto O- ki24m6D , (NO cP�
PIiu- `77 /YIGD- L15S s
Dn ) - !15 mvD = 2.325 CP3
V
. 99C
ace-150C �. C = ,9get<<5 100 _ • F-7%
1.158
i c - 1,«fit,/ (fOO) Z9%
i
2`325 a�
05 )(/00)

I - jc
Hecdherly Creed
CO0703
...f iueof Br"o 0 i ort-117/ dumnn _
-2/1062 ( - Raz- 17T I.
11,25)0 l ._tqo
ra lS
}. 14.0 ChV 3.2.
Loxici•fli-
iirnit- (3 1
r
P35.
LO,- 100
P35
ind t-e51-
1 of
214
izltgl8�1 moo= alone ___ kt8 hr, _aphoia pulley
3I.ZOI.L5O 250-_NOne
211g18tP ct5o_=None
iI(c6(4 k.cco = /4S.
• h Ise
I 122,isi7 CG5O = 9. 3
it
pAG
-70/Fs
?IF chvork.
Ibk1 N'1 LC50 None
112q15-) Lc5o /q.
'1 hr, Ceviccia.phrlic hti
1arvcd P/oU v,

Plot 66nfacr)
H64-he►rk Cveek.
1 030703
r
_ FCead l' _ 1nolc.
4val Ach)co 'Removal
(kg1
r. :
Cd
Cr /6-2
Cr)0,0q
4.1. o-%
0..54
t.Z
r
•
Pb
o. 04 9z
0,13_
ac13
0.
0.01 0,30
0.0
O. 04
a oz f. Oct
Fed, -- Nail _ Pthr t-mad- �,� m� fi� -
L.•(0z•o2yz_rr6D)(43..34) =-..00,4..Qbld
Cr _ r101_,
Cu __ (.05. )( ,OZN-2_Fnw)N.34.) ` _ a0IC7._ .Qdci_
Cn .. _m50.(,024z rnbp)C8,)-_�.00z .QOId_
(fib Noy.
N;GOO- "�.¢)(,o2/-rzrn6>)M 012.)b1�
Act f (.aS_ "5l.e)(,ozqz ►76D)(g.34) =, 003__ b!d
zr) oz4,2_ irr)D }CS'..3/4 z ozo .deb)ci
az.
netz u(Idch; -riGa. ( _load
.0L3
4ts

Pollutant
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Mercury
Gilver
^-'�Cadm1um
(e")
Chromium (z,)
Copper ,«c
-�'l-ead
Zinc
-`Cvanide
"
�
,
_
S1lver
PRETREATMENT HEADWORKS REVIEW
Discharger:
Rece1ving stream:
Stream Class:
L�K3S Zone:
7Q10:
Design flow:
Actual flow:
Percent industrial:
%WC:
Standard/AL
(mg/1)
---~~-------
0.002
0.05
0.015
0.05
0.025
0.05
0.005
0.0002
0.01
Total
Influent
Load
(lbs/day)
0.04
0.13
0.88
0.21
0.31
1.02
0.09
--�-------''----0.00-'------0.01
0.04 1.13
S
S
AL
S
8
AL
S
AL
Pilot Mountain
Heatherly Creek
C
J.
0.150
1.500
0.7474
90.0
93.9
Removal
Eff.
cfs
mgd
mgo
%
%
92%
78%
82%
32%
81%
77%
59%
86%
94%
Actual
Allowable Domestic
Load ( a ) Load
(lbs/day) (lbs/day)
--------- --------~-
0.18 0.000
1.47,�- 0.000
0.590.030
0.52� 0.010
0.93+ 0.010
1.53- 0.020
0.09 0.000
0.01 0.000
1.17e- 0.000
USGS Predicted
Background Effluent
Reserve Conc Conc (b)
(lbs/day) (mg/1) (mg/l)
--------- -----~--- ~-------
0.14
1.34
-0.29
0.31
0.62
0.51
-0.00
0.013
0.004
0.005
0.012
`
0.0005 >
07/19/88
Actual
Industrial
Load
(lbs/day)
0.04O
0.130
0.850
0.200
0.800
1.000
0.090
0.000
0.040
Allowable
Effluent
Conc <c)
----~----
0.0021
.(�l50___
/0.0254 > 0.0157 '
0.0094 >
0.0376 >
0��059
0.0000
0.0004
�
0.0263
0�)525
0.0053
0"0002'
0.0106

Pollutant
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nic1<a1.
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Mercury
Silver
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Mercury
Silver
PRETREATMENT HEADWORKS REVIEW
Discharger
Receiving stream:
Stream Class:
LJSi3S Zone:
70.10:
Design flow:
Actual flow
Percent industrial
1:WC:
Standard/AL
(mg/1)
c).002
0.05
0.015
0.05
0.025
r
0„05
0.005
0.00C)2
0.01
Total
Influent
Load
(lha/day)
0.;.)4
0.13
0.89
0.22
0.31
1.04
0.09
0.00
0.04
8
S
AL
0
S
AL
S
9
AL
Pilot Mountain
Heatherly Creek
C
1
0.150
0..:150 cfs
1.500 mqd
0.7474 mg d
90.0 7+
93.9
Removal
Ef. f .
9 S %
7 6
82%
327+.
81;<
77%%
86%
94%.
Allowable
Load (a)
ibs/day )
0.18
1.47
0.59
sy..
i-). w.J - ` f
0.93
1.53
0.09
0.01
1.17
LJ,.r .:iS
Background
Reserve Cc nc:
(ibs/day) (mg/1)
c).13
1..34
-0.30
0.30
0.6P
0.49
-0.01
0.01
1.13
0.013
0.004
0.005
0.012
0.0003
Actual
Domestic
Load
(l bs/day )
0.000
0.0i„){)
0.030
0.010
0.010
0.020
0.000
0.000
c).00()
Predicted
Effluent
Cc+nc (b)
(rng/1 )
0.000h
0.0050
0.0257
0.024P
0.0094
0.0384
0.0060
0.0000
0.0004
07/19/83
Actual
Industrial.
Load
(lbs/day)
0.044
0.130
0.860
ti).2:I.2
0.300
1.020
0.092
0.000
0.04'3
Allowable
Effluent
Cc+nc: (c)
(mg/1)
. 0.0021
0.058.4
• 0.0157
> 0.0532
> 0.0263
> 0.0525
0.0002
0.0106

mounfcil `+Y: P (5 )
NeaTev CK.
.02,0-703
O/4 : Atc,5
510,0- 5 S3
ioloi v I0,8')
V
02. I,3q, 2L S's ($o)
"DAI:,.0 OA=14
/ slot° = 0.2 1.4”oi0:0.5
vNe +hev 19
451,RI 1,5 mi
isL . DA : 4.11
OAS 2SI
Stows 0,3
w1t)to . o.7}1
PAC
'7119199
2 ion mLn , wci7P
+DA 622.
QA !NI
7O10T. 0,15
"WAD a U,3�

s •
Ff ea. -they Ic ` CK .
030-703
'PAC
Irg188
'R1
i.e (5 1,5
S(ope' 53.3
Tri
S10ta
La) (0
Wt0
AID ,2'4
�fCS�e.
CeoD 1.t0
iNtboD
1z
2,
I0
5.1c3
2.32
o.3‘-i
.{.02
Ail caictc.(ahon:, 3une. Iq$7

c.ic_vo.T 1 on
Strect.oi : i-tecx-tf C k.
C11
H1/42)1 C
(3 CanCli
•••
Slope Calculations
ci€0_ q
'Rec s 3.3
Pec,,L,v) 2
CIC\) (0 tf (Mc
— —
•
•
111 1 11111111111111111
1 11111 1
e tv
I C'
IL
0
Cunl
dist
0
1 , S
dist
.Slop*.
c
, 0
NMI

^^ '
SUMMER SOC QW=.6424
CB0D=60 NBO1)=90 DO=5
| Seo # Reach # | Seg Mi D.O. CBOD NBOD | Flow |
1 1 0.00 5.32 52.41 78.35 1.15
1 1 0.10 5.49 51.25 76.69 1.16
1 1 0.20 5.60 50.12 75.07 1.17
1 1 0.30 5.68 49.02 73.49 1.18
1 1 0.40 5.75 47.95 71.95 1.19
1 1 0.50 5.81 46.91 70.45 1.20
1 I. 0.60 5.87 45.89 68.98 1.21
1 1 0.70 5.92 44.90 67.55 1.22
1 1 0.80 5.97 43.93 66.15 1.23
1 1 0.90 6.02 42.99 64.79 1.24
1 1 1.00 6.06 42.07 63.46 1.25
1 1 1.10 6.11 41.17 62.16 1.26
1 1 1.20 6.16 40.29 60.89 1.27
1 1 1.30 6.20 39.44 59.65 1"28
1 1 1.40 6.24 38.61 58.44 1.29
1 1 1.50 6.28 37.79 57.26 1.30
1 2 1.50 7.22 8.7O 11.52 6.93
1 2 1.60 7.19 8.61 11.37 6.96
1 2 1.70 7.16 8.52 11.21 6.99
1 2 1.80 7.14 8.43 11.06 7.03
1 2 1.90 7.12 8.34 10.91 7.06
1 2 2.00 7.11 8.26 10.76 7.10
1 2 2.10 7.10 8.17 10.61 7.13
1 2 2.20 7.09 8.09 10.47 7.16
1 2 2.30 7.08 8.01 10.33 7.20
1 2 2.40 7.08 7.93 10.19 7.23
1 2 2.50 7.08 7.84 10.05 7.27
1 2 2.60 7.08 7.77 9.92 7.30
1 2 2.70 7.09 7.69 9.78 7.33
1 2 2.80 7.09 7.61 9.65 7.37
1 2 2.90 7.09 7.53 9.52 7.40
1 2 8.00 7.10 7.46 9.40 7.44
1 2 3.10 7.11 7.38 9.27 7.47
8.20 7.12 7.31 9.15 7.50
1 2
1 2 3.30 7.12 7.24 9.03 7.54
1 2 3.40 7.13 7.17 8.91 7.57
1 2 3.50 7.14 7.10 8.79 7.61
1 2 3.60 7.15 7.03 8.68 7.64
1 2 8.70 7.16 6.96 8.56 7.67
1 2 3.80 7.17 6.89 8.45 7.71
1 2 8.90 7.18 6.82 8.34 7.74
1 2 4.00 7.19 6.76 8.23 7.78
1 2 4.10 7.20 6.69 8.12 7.81
1 2 4.20 7.21 6.63 8.02 7.84
1 2 4.30 7.22 6.56 7.91 7.88
| Seg # Reach # | Seg Mi D.O. CBOD NBOD Flow |

SUMMER
SUMMER 8OC QW=.6424
CBOD=60 NBOD=90 DO=5
-----~---- MODE- RESULTS ----------
Discharger : PILOT MOUNTAIN WWTP
Receiving Stream : HEATHERLY CREEK
The End D.O. is 7.22 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 6.56 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 7.91 mg/l.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/l) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/l) (mg /l) (mgd)
Segment 1 5.32 0"00 1
Reach 1 60.00 90.00 5.00 0.64240
Reach 2 0.00 0"00 0.00 0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger „ PILOT MOUNTAIN WWTP
Receiving Stream HEATHERLY CREEK
Summer Q :1 O : 0.15
Design Temperature: 25..
SuIDb1 s i. n n 030703
Stream Class: C
Winter /Q1.O : 0.38
:LENGTH! SLOPE! VELOCITY 1 DEPTH! Kd 1 Kd 1 Ka 1 Ida 1 KN I KN I KNR I KNR 1
1 mile ; ft/mil fps 1 ft :design! a20° !design: 8204 :deign: 820° :design: }20°
Segment 1 1 1.50 53.301 0.350 1 0.48 1 0.80 1 0.64 137.43 1 33.581 0.73 1 0.50 1 0.73 1 0.00 1
Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Segment 1 1 2.80 10.001 0.289 1 1.31 1 0.32 1 0.25 1 5.80 1 5.201 0.44 1 0.30 1 0.44 1 0.00 1
Reach 2 1 f 1 1 1
I Flow I CBOD 1 NBOD 1 D.O.
I cfs 1 mg/1 I mg/1 I mg/ 1
Segment :1 Reach 1
Waste , 0.996 I 60.000 I
Headwaters 1 0.150 I 2„000 I
Tributary 1 0.000 I 2.000 I
.W Runoff f 1 0.100 1 2.000 1
90.000 1 5.000
:. 0rr00 1 7.440
r1.
.S. .. i?'+.�Sal 1 7.440
1.000 1 7.440
Segment 1 Reach, 2
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000
Tr i bu/t^t r y 1 5.630 I 2.000P ,. }00 I '1+ 00/0 1 '7 440
* Runcl 7 f 1 0.340 1 1 .J. . 000 1 7.440
* Runoff f flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
SUMMER SOC QW=.7474
CBOD=60 1,JBOD=90 D0=5
| Seg # Reach It Seg Mi D.O. CBOD NBOD 1 Flow 1
1 1 0.00 5.28 58.35 79.80 1.81
1 1 0.10 5.53 52.26 78.28 1.32
1 1 0.20 5.68 51.19 76.80 1.83
1 1 0.80 5.78 50.14 75.84 1.34
1 1 0.40 5.85 49.12 78.92 1.85
1 1 0.50 5.91 48.12 72.54 1.36
1 1 0.60 5.96 47.15 71.18 1.37
1 1 0.70 6.01 46.20 69.85 1.38
1 1 0.80 6.06 45.27 68.55 1.39
1 1 0.90 6.10 44.36 67.27 1.40
1 1 1.00 6.14 43.47 66.08 1.41
1 1 1.10 6.18 42.60 64.81 1.42
1 1 1.20 6.22 41.76 63.61 1.43
1 1 1.80 6.26 40.93 62.44 1.44
1 1 1.40 6.30 40.12 61.30 1.45
1 1 1.50 6.34 39.32 60.18 1.46
1 2 1.50 7.21 9.68 13.18 7.09
1 2 1.60 7.16 9.58 13.00 7.12
1 2 1.70 7.12 9.48 12.82 7.16
1 2 1.80 7.09 9.38 12.65 7.19
1 2 1.90 7.06 9.29 12.48 7.22
1 2 2.00 7.03 9.19 12.31 7.26
1 2 2.10 7.01 9.10 12.15 7.29
1 2 2.20 7.00 9.01 11.99 7.33
1 2 2.30 6.99 8.92 11.83 7.36
1 2 2.40 6.98 8.88 11.67 7.89
1 2 2.50 6.98 8.74 11.52 7.43
1 2 2.60 6.98 8.65 11.36 7.46
1 2 2.70 6.97 8.56 11.21 7.50
1 2 2.80 6.98 8.48 11.06 7.53
1 2 2.90 6.98 8.39 10.92 7.56
1 2 3.00 6.98 8.31 10.78 7.60
1 2 3.10 6.99 8.23 1().63 7.68
1 2 3.20 7.00 8.14 10.49 7.67
1 2 3.30 7.O0 8.06 10.36 7.70
1 2 8.40 7.01 7.99 10.22 7.73
1 2 3.50 7.02 7.91 10.09 7.77
1 2 3.60 7.03 7.83 9.96 7.80
1 2 3.70 7.04 7.75 9.83 7.84
1 2 3.80 7.05 7.68 9.70 7.87
1 2 3.90 7.06 7.60 9.57 7.90
l 2 4.00 7.07 7.53 9.45 7.94
1 2 4.10 7.08 7.46 9.33 7.97
1 2 4.20 7.10 7.38 9.21 8.01
1 2 4.30 7.11 7.31 9.09 8.04
Seg # Reach # 1 Seg Mi 1 D.O. CBOD NBOD | Flow |

Discharger
Receiving Stream
SUMMER
SUMMER GOC QW=.7474
CBOD=60 NBOD=90 DO=5
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
: PILOT MOUNTAIN WWTP
: HEATHERLY CREEK
The End D.O. is 7.11 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 7.81 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 9.09 mg/l.
DO Min
(mg/l> Milepoint Reach It
Seoment 1 5.28 0.00 1
Reach 1 60.00 90.00
Reach 2 0.00 0.00
WLA WLA WLA
CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/l) (mg/1) (mg/l) <mgd)
5.00
0.00
0.74740
0.00000

*** MODEL -SUMMARY DATA *-
Discharger „ PILOT MOUNTAIN (4WTP SLtbb as:i n ' 030703
Receiving Stream : HEATHERL_`; CREEK Stream Class: C
Summer 7 10 n 0.15 Winter '7Q 1. 0 a 0.38
Desidn "Temperature: 25„
ILEN6TH1 SLOPE VELOCITY 1 DEPTN1 Kd I Kd : Ka 1 Ka 1 KN s KN KNR 1 KNR 1
1 mile 1 ftlii: fps { ft :design: 220' (design: 320° ldesign1 3806 ;design; a8o
Segment 1 : 1.501 53.301 0.384 1 0.49 1 0.84 1 0.67 141.12 1 36.881 0.73 1 0.50 : 0.73 1 0.00 s
Reach 1 I
Segment 1 ; 2.801 10.001 0.294 1 1.31 1 0.32 1 0.25 1 5.90 1 5.291 0.44 1 0.30 1 0.44E 0.00 1
Reach E: 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1
Flow F (:EcoD 1 NI3C)D F D.O.
cfs 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 11 mq/1
Segment 1. Reach 1.
Waste y 1.158 1 60.000 I 90.000 1 5.000
Headwaters: 0.150 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 '7.440
Tributary
r]- s �_}.. ��t)�} 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.440
.. Runoff 0.100 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7n440
Segmentt1 Reach 2 t t r t
Waste
�tre 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0 n 000 1 0.000
• lyr.1.butai y I 5.630 I 2e.000 i 1.000 j 7.440
* Runoff 0.340 i 2.000 i 1.000 1 7.440
* Runoff flow is in i c: f s/ m i 3. e

'
`
SUMMER
SUMMER SOC QW=1.5
CBOD=60 NBOD=90 DO=5
| Seg it Reach # | Seg Mi D.O. CBOD NBOD Flow (
1 1 0.00 5.15 56.48 84.61 2.48
1 J. 0.10 5.53 55.64 88.65 2.48
1 1 0.20 5.76 54.80 B2.71 2.49
1 1 0.30 5.91 53.98 81.77 2.50
1 1 0.40 6.00 58.17 80.85 2.51
1 1 0.50 6.07 52.38 79.94 2.52
1 1 0.60 6.11 51.59 79.05 2.58
1 1 0.70 6.15 50.82 78.16 2.54
1 1 0.80 6.19 50.06 77.29 2.55
1 1 0.90 6.22 49.32 76.42 2.56
1 1 1.00 6.25 48.59 75.57 2.57
1 1 1.10 6.28 47.86 74.73 2.58
1 1 1.20 6.30 47.15 73.90 2.59
1 1 1.30 6.33 46.45 78.07 2.60
1 1 1.40 6.35 45.77 72.26 2.61
1 1 1.50 6.38 45.09 71.46 2.62
1 1 0.00 5.15 56.48 84.61 2.48
1 1 0.10 5.47 55.56 83.65 2.48
1 1 0.20 5.67 54.65 82.71 2.49
1 1 0.30 5.80 53.75 81.77 2.50
1 1 0.40 5.b8 52.88 80.85 2.51
1 1 0.50 5.95 52.01 79.94 2.52
1 1 0.60 6.00 51.16 79.05 2.53
1 1 0"70 6.04 50.38 78.16 2.54
1 1 0.80 6.07 49.51 77.29 2.55
1 1 0.90 6.11 48.71 76.42 2.56
1 1 1.00 6.14 47.92 75.57 2.57
1 1 1.10 6.17 47.14 74.73 2.58
1 1 1.20 6.20 46.37 73.90 2.59
1 1 1.30 6.23 45.62 73.07 2.60
1 1 1.40 6.25 44.89 72.26 2.61
1 1 1.50 6.28 44.16 71.46 2.62
1 2 1.50 7.07 15.41 23.41 8.25
1 2 1.60 6.94 15.26 23.1.2 8.29
1 2 1.70 6.83 15.11 22.84 8.32
1 2 1.80 6.74 14.97 22.57 8.36
1 2 1.90 6.66 14.88 22.80 8.39
1 2 2.00 6.59 14.69 22.03 8.43
1 2 2.10 6.54 14.55 21.76 8.46
1 2 2.20 6.49 14.41 21.50 8.49
1 2 2.80 6.45 14.28 21.25 8.53
1 2 2.40 6.42 14.14 20.99 8.56
1 2 2.50 6.39 14.01 20.74 8.60
1 2 2.60 6.38 13.88 20.49 8.63
1 2 2.70 6.36 13.75 20.25 8.66
1 2 2.80 6.35 13.62 20.01 8.70
1 2 2.90 6.84 13.49 19.77 8.78
1 2 3.00 6.34 13.37 19.54 8.77
1 2 3.10 6.34 13.24 19.31 8.80
1 2 3.20 6.34 13.12 19.08 8.83
1 2 3.30 6.35 13.00 18.85 8.87
1 2 3.40 6.35 12.88 18.63 8.90
1 2 8.50 6.36 12.76 18.41 0.94
1 2 3.60 6.37 12.65 18.20 8.97
1 2 3.70 6.38 12.53 17.98 9.00
1 2 3.80 6.39 12.41 17.77 9.04
1 2 3.90 6.41 12.30 17.56 9.07
1 2 4.00 6.42 12.19 17.36 9.11
1 2 4.10 6.43 12.08 17.16 9.14

1
�2, 4 80 6 /� ^�"ro �.z/ �-----
� # | , . ^ ^�c` 11.86 16`.76 9 21
8eo
° Reach # i Seg Mi / D.O. | CBOD � N�O� ( Flo^ �

SUMMER
SUMMER SOC QW=1^5
CBOD=60 NBOD=90 DO=5
--~~------ MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : PILOT MOUNTAIN WWTP
Receiving Stream : HEATHERLY CREEK
The End D.O. is 6.46 mg/1.
The End CBOD is 11.86 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 16.76 mg/l.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste F1ow
(mg/l) Milepoint Reach # \mg/l} (mg/l> (mg/I (mgd)
------ --------- ~------
Segment 1 5.15 0.00 1
Reach 1 60.00 90.00 5.00 1.50000
Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger PILOT MOUNTAIN WWTP
Receiving cei .ping Stream a HEATHERLY CREEK;
Summer 7010 0 ..1 `i
Design Temperature: 25.
Eiubbas i.'i r 030703
Stream Class: C
Winter '7Q10 R 0.38
LENGTH SLOPE 1 VELOCITY 1 DEPTH 1 Kd Kd 1 Ka 1 Ka 1 KN 1 KN 1 KNR KNR
1 mile 1 ft/mil fps ft :design! 020° !design: H20° Idesigrri 020° :designI 820° 1
,v
Segment 1 1 1.501 53.301 0.608 1 0.53 1 1.26 1 1.00 155.75 1 50.00 0.73 1 0.50 1 0.73 1 0.00 1
Reach 1 1 1_
Segment 1 , 2.801 10.00, 0.327 1 1.33 , 0.32 1 0.26 16.57 1 5.89 0.44 , €0.30 1 0.44 : 0.00 1
Reach 2 1 1 i i
1 Flow
1 cfs
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1 2.38.325
Headw iters 1 0.. 150
Tributary 1 0..000
* Runoff 1 0.100
CF.OD
mg/1
60.000
2..000
2n0€.)0
P.000
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 0.0 0 r»} 1 i_} 1.000
Tributary 1 5.. 63w� 1 2..000 1
* Runoffs}..34) i 2..000
* Runoff flow is in cf s/mi is
1`•iBf3D
mg/1
D . O n 1
mg/1
90.000 1 5..000
1.000 1 7.440
1.000 1 7.440
1
.000 1 7.440
0.000 1 0.000
1.000 1 7.440
1.000 1 7.440

Cid
Cr
C EA
Ph
Z.n
Cyv
7e1971i f
App cf)ettyprI
,Of
<,o
E
y - -
I
, co 3
,OU
. DU
I
0 okii
, 0003
, 0 (5
ice, went
rmdsi yual
3-biubYd Oafed .
oF 9 5014
* erouLre .4003-

8eg # | Reach # | S e g Mi
1 1 0.00
1 1 0.10
1 1 0.20
1 1 0.30
1 1 0.40
1 1 0.50
1 1 0.60
1 1 0.70
1 1 0.80
1 1 0.90
1 1 1.00
1 1 1.10
1 1 1.20
1 1 1.80
1 1 1.40
1 1 1.50
1 1 0.00
1 1 0.10
1 1 0.20
1 1 0.30
1 1 0.40
1 1 0.5O
1 1 0.60
1 1 0.70
1 1 0.8O
1 1 0.90
1 1 1.00
1 1 1.10
1 1 1.20
1 1 1"30
1 1 1.40
1 1 1.50
1 2 1.50
1 2 1.60
1 2 1.70
1 2 1.80
1 2 1.90
1 2 2.00
1 2 2.10
1 2 2.20
1 2 2.30
1 2 2.40
1 2 2.50
1 2 2.60
1 2 2.70
1 2 2.80
1 2 2.90
1 2 3.00
1 2 3.10
1 2 3.20
1 2 3.30
1 2 3.40
1 2 3.50
1 2 3.60
1 2 8.70
1 2 3.80
1 2 3.90
1 2 4.00
1 2 4.10
SUMMER
BOD5=509 NH8=149 DO=5, QW=1.5
D.O. CBOD NBOD Flow |
5.15 94.06 59.24 2.48
5.35 92.64 58.57 2.48
5.49 91.25 57.91 2.49
5.58 89.87 57.26 2.50
5.64 88.52 56.62 2.51
5.70 87.19 55.98 2.52
5.74 85.88 55.86 2.53
5.78 84.60 54.74 2.54
5.82 83.33 54.13 2.55
5.86 82.08 53.52 2.56
5.89 80.86 52.93 2.57
5.92 79.65 52.34 2.58
5.96 78046 51.76 2.59
5.99 77.30 51.18 2.60
6.02 76.15 50.62 2.61
6.05 75.01 50.06 2.62
5.15 94.06 59.24 2.48
5.26 92.51 58.57 2.48
5.38 90.99 57.91 2.49
5.40 89.50 57.26 2.50
5.45 88.03 56.62 2.51
5.50 86.59 55.98 2.52
5.55 85.17 55.36 2.58
5.59 83.78 54.74 2.54
5.63 82.41 54.13 2.55
5.67 81.06 53.52 2.56
5.71 79.74 52.93 2.57
5.75 78.44 52.34 2.58
5.78 77.17 51.76 2.59
5.82 75.91 51.18 2.60
5.86 74.68 50.62 2.61
5.89 73.47 50.06 2.62
6.95 24.73 16.60 8.25
6.83 24.48 16.40 8.29
6.74 24.25 16.20 8.32
6.65 24.01 16.01 8.36
6.58 23.78 15.82 8.39
6.53 23.55 15.63 8.43
6.48 23.32 15.44 8.46
6.44 28.10 15.26 8.49
6.40 22.87 15.08 8.58
6.38 22.65 14.90 8.56
6.36 22.44 14.72 8.60
6.34 22.22 14.55 8.63
6.33 22.01 14.37 8.66
6.82 21.80 14.20 8.70
6.32 21.59 14.04 8.73
6.32 21.39 13.87 8.77
6.32 21.18 13.71 8.80
6.32 20.98 13.55 8.83
6.33 20.79 13.39 8.87
6.83 20.59 13.23 8.90
6.34 20.40 13.08 8.94
6.85 20.20 12.92 8.97
6.36 20.01 12.77 9.0D
6.37 19.83 12.63 9.04
6.89 19.64 12.48 9.07
6.40 19.46 12.33 9.11
6.41 19.28 12.19 9.14

1 2 4.20
4.80
6"43
6.44
D"O. |
19"10 12"05 9.17
18"92 11.91 9.21

`
~
Discharger
Receiving Stream
SUMMER
BOD5=50, 1',IH3=144 DO=5, QW=l.5
- -- MODEL RESULTS ----------
o PILOT MOUNTAIN WWTP
HEATHERL.Y CREEK
The End D.O. is 8.44 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 18.92 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 11.91 mg/l.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD^ DO Waste Flow
(mg/l) Milepo1nt Reach # (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mgd)
---- - ---~ ----
Segment 1 5.15 0.00 1
Reach 1 100.00 68.00 5.00 1.50000

i &
*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger „ PILOT t'IC)LJNTA:I:N WWTP
Receiving Stream a HEs TI-HERLY CREEK
Summer 7 Q 10 : 0.15
Design Temperature:
St.ib#:sa s i. r•f 030'/03
Stream Class: : C
Winter Q 1 0 a 0.38
:LENGTH: SLOPE! VELOCITY I DEPTH: Kd 1 Kd I Ka 1 Ka I KN I KN I KNR 1 KNR
I mile I ft/mil fps 1 ft Idesignl 320* !design! 320* !design: 320* !design: 320*
1
Segment 1 1 1.501 53.30 0.608 10.53 1.26 1 1.00 155.75 150.00 0.73 10.50 1 0.73 10.00
Reacts 1 1 : I I I
Segment 1 1 2.801 10.00 0.327 11.33 0.32 10.26 16.57 1 5.89 0.44 10.30 1 0.44 10.00
Reach 2 1 : ! 1 1 I I
1 Flow 1 CBOD 1 I`.IE(QD 1 D.O. 1
I c-f"s I mg/1 1 mg/1 I mg/1 1
Segment I Reach I
Waste I 2.325 1100.000 I 63.000 I 5.000
Headwaters; 0.150 1 P.000 : 1.000 „ 440
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.440
Runoff f I 0.100 1 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.440
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary 1 5„630 : 2.000
* Runoff f 1 0.340 1 2.000
* Runoff flow is in cfa/mile
0.000 1 C) . 000
1.000 1 '7 „440
1.000 1 7.440