The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0024333_Complaint Investigation_19891017NPDES DOCIMENT :SCANNING: COVER :SHEET NPDES Permit: NC0024333 Monroe WWTP Document Type: Permit Issuance Wasteload Allocation Authorization to Construct (AtC) Permit Modification Complete File - Historical Engineering Alternatives (EAA) Correspondence Owner Name Change Complaint Investigation Instream Assessment (67b) Speculative Limits Environmental Assessment (EA) Document Date: October 17, 1989 This document is printed on reuse paper - *Ignore any content on the reYerse'side 0304 MEMO TO: DATE• 1.0/17 SUBJECT: r `5 ` Mr II 6 1/49 � vrd n Cvee/ Keyr.n 5o&CLdt earn%pL4 a. t - 14CordA:ill to 3oe Crh of �-�t 11(074, its ek- rce J GrA55665 mod v h1- eY'' o-t Lb-e _ask 611 AU6-11-k - i?d64,0 arnt-Plo ekto 51-"afr4s ((-e n.. 54 ar qs h.a- d daht 6 r 4- Ilt& 5 Yi ok Cak5 c o� Kill Cairno"pLw pbl/n t-(% /able am+ c-f "mitt o'thary. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Kitrez- an estimated 1000 fish including eels, bass, bream, and catfish as the material traveled towards the Neuse River. This fish kill can be classified as minor. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER QUALITY SECTION POST OFFICE BOX 950 MOORESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28115 REPORT OF: Fish Kill Investigation PLACE VISITED: Richardson Creek DATE: June 1, 1989 ADDRESS: Union County, N. C. . RIVER BASIN: Yadkin BY WHOM: Joe Crab/- TIME SPENT: 4 hours PERSONS CONTACTED: Officer Kenneth Everhart, N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission; Mr. Jim Montgomery, City of Monroe REASON FOR VISIT: Dead Fish in Richardson Creek COPIES TO: Union County Health Department Jim Montgomery, City of Monroe, P.O. Box 69, Monroe, NC 28110 REPORT: On June 1, 1989, this Office received information concerning a fish ir. Richardson Creek at Austin-acIney Ruaci (SE 1630).. Mr . Joe C7:abb responded to investigate the report kill. Arriving at the scene at 1135 hours, the investigator met Wildlife Enforcement Officer Kenneth Everhart. Approximately 20 to 40 dead fish of various size and species were noted at SR 1630. Water Quality parameters were checked with the following results: Dissolved Oxygen (D.0.) - 2.5 ppm, Temperature (T) - 22 c, pH - 6.9 units. The water was very turbid. The investigators traveled approximately 1.8 miles upstream to the next accessible point near the Union County Landfill. This location is approximately 0.5 mile below the confluence of Richardson Creek and Stewarts Creek. Approximately 5 - 10 dead fish were noted. Water Quality parameters at 1215 hours were D.O. - 6.0, T - 22°c, pH - 6.6. The next location sampled at 1235 hours was Richardson Creek at Olive •Branch Road (SR 1006). No dead or distressed fish were notd. The following Water Quality parameters were obtained: D.O. - 5.1, T - 22°c, pH - 6.9. This location is approximately 0.5 mile above the confluence with Stewarts Creek. At 1245 hours Stewarts Creek was sampled at Camden Road (SR 1606), 75 yards below Lake Twitty Dam. Several dead fish were noted at the bridge. The following results were obtained: D.O. - 6.2, T - 27°c, and pH 7.4. The investigations met with Mr. Jim Montgomery, City of Monroe Water Treatment Superintendent. He indicated that the flood gates on the dam were briefly opened for tests on Monday, May 29, 1989. It is believed that accumulated sediment below the dam was flushed downstream during the flow. The water may also have had low D.O. concentration which would have distressed or killed fish downstream. T x On June 8, 1989 field parameters were collected in efforts to determine a definitive cause for the fish kill. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations were noted from Lawyers Road to Lake Lee in Monroe. Excessive to moderate algal growth was observed at five of the seven sampling locations. See the attached results. Based on these findings it is concluded that an "algal bloom" occurred in Richardson Creek. The stressful conditions which exist during an algal bloom and events compounding the problem are believed to have caused the fish kill. Richardson Creek Fish Kill Investigation June 8, 1989 Lawyers Road (SR 1631) Live fish observed 1230 hrs. D.O. 4.8 Temp. 23 Moderate Algae Green & Brown Austin Chaney Road (SR 1630) No fish live or dead observed 1245 hrs. D.O. 3..0 Temp. 23 Water More Clear than last week Moderate Algae Green & Brown Olive Branch Road (SR 1006) No fish live or dead Moderate Algae 1315 hrs. D.O. 1.5 Temp. 23 (snake) Walkup Avenue (SR 115i) 1330 hrs. D.O. 3.5 Temp. 23 Hwy 74 1 live bream 1350 hrs. D.O. 3.8 Temp. 23 Lake Lee No unusual observation 1405 hrs. D.O. 8.8 Temp. 28 Richardson Creek Excessive Algae Below Lake Lee Dam 1410 hrs. D.O. 6.8 Temp. 28 Collected by: Joe Crabb State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Division of Environmental Management 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary August 3, 1989.Director Mr. J. H. Hinkel City Manager City of Monroe P.O. Box 69 Monroe, North Carolina 28110 Subject: Amendment to Draft Permit Metal Limits City of Monroe, Union County NPDES Permit No. NC0024333 Dear Mr. Hinkel, I am writing in response to your letter sent July 5, 1989 concerning your draft NPDES permit limits for cadmium and lead. In your letter you listed the required limitations for potable water supply for these two metals. Potable water supply standards are not always as strict as standards set to protect aquatic life. North Carolina State regulations require that a treatment plant comply with effluent limits which will meet N.C. water quality standards under 7Q10 conditions. The standards for class C are based on protecting to the chronic no effect level (NOEL) which are not related to potability. Although your concern with a stricter limit set for your wastewater treatment plant than set for potable water is understood, the comparison of these two limitations in this case is irrelevant. The City of Monroe may formally request to monitor for metals daily. A weekly average limit equivalent to your existing limits for protection to the chronic NOEL would apply for compliance purposes, along with a daily maximum concentra- tion that at a minimum protects to the acute NOEL instream. For the purposes of determining the weekly average, daily values shown to be less than detection will be considered equal to zero. Based upon these criteria, your revised met- als limits would be as follows: Parameter Cadmium (ug/ 1) Lead (ug/1) Weekly Average Daily Maximum 2.0 4.5 25.0 34.0 This method allows more flexibility in evaluating compliance while ensuring pro- tection of the State's water quality standards. If the City chooses this alter- native, the monitoring frequency will remain fixed as daily for the duration of the permit. P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 919-733-7015 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer I hope that this letter adequately addresses your concerns. However, if the above decisions are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of the issued permit. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conform- ing to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer 11666, Raleigh, North Car- olina 27604. Should you decide to switch to daily monitoring with both weekly average and daily maximum effluent limitations, please contact this office within 10 days of receipt of this letter. Unless such a request is made, this decision is final and binding. If you have any further questions or comments regarding this matter please con- tact Mr. Trevor Clements or Mr. Dale Overcash from my staff at (919) 733-5083. cc: Trevor Cleients Dale Overcash Brenda Smith Central Files Sinc,rely, R. Paul Wilms State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Division of Environmental Management 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary July 5, 1989 Director Mr. J. H. Hinkel City Manager City of Monroe P.O. Box 69 Monroe, North Carolina 28110 Subject: Revision of Draft NPDES Permit Limits City of Monroe, Union County NPDES Permit No. NC0024333 Dear Mr. Hinkel, I am writing in response to your letter of May 31, 1989 concern- ing the NPDES Permit limits for the City of Monroe's discharge into Richardson Creek. Technical Support has reviewed the possi- bility of changing your limits for B0D5, NH3N, and D.O. at the existing design flow (7 MGD) and changing the Cyanide limit for all wasteflows considered (7 MGD, 9 MGD, & 11 MGD). I offer the following response to these specific items of concern. A wasteload allocation modeling analysis was performed for the existing wasteflow of 7 MGD applying an increased dissolved oxy- gen (DO) limit of 7 mg/1 to the effluent. The results of this analysis indicate that the receiving stream can assimilate some additional BOD and NH3-N with the increased DO. The revised effluent limits for BOD5, NH3N, and DO are as follows: Summer Winter Wasteflow (MGD) 7 7 BOD5 (mg/1) 10 20 NH3N (mg/1) 3 6 DO (mg/1) 7 7 These limits will apply to the facility for the existing design flow of 7 MGD during the interim period prior to any expansion. Upon expansion of your facility to 9.0 or 11.0 MGD, the limits given in the current draft permit will apply. If the above limits are satisfactory, please provide written notice within ten days so that your permit can be sent to public notice to incorporate these limits. P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 919-733-7015 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer The Cyanide limit of 5 ug/1 was developed to ensure protection of the water quality standard, which is also 5 ug/1. However, given analytical limitations, compliance will be based on showing effluent concentrations are below the detection level. To meet the intent of the monitoring requirements in the draft permit, it is required that the monitoring of a substance include the selec- tion of an approved analytical method that will produce minimum detection and reporting levels that are below the permit dis- charge requirements. If no approved methods are determined capa- ble of achieving minimum detection and reporting levels below permit discharge requirements, then the most sensitive (i.e. method with the lowest possible detection and reporting level) approved method must be used. The Division of Environmental Man- agement Analytical Chemistry Laboratory reports a detection level for Cyanide of <10 ug/1. The laboratory uses two types of meth- ods to detect at this level - 1) EPA Standard Methods, 412 BMD, 16th edition; 2) 1979 Chemical Analysis for Water and Wastewater, p.335.2. Also, 40 CFR, 136.3, Table 1B, lists other EPA approved methods for the detection of Cyanide. Finally, your request to change the effective date of the pro- posed permit to September 1, 1989, will be granted. Please remember to respond within ten days for the newly proposed limits for 7 MGD. If the above limitations and requirements appear unachievable, the City of Monroe should contact the Moor- esville Regional Office (704-663-1699) to pursue interim relief through a Special order by Consent. If you believe the final permit conditions are unacceptable, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of the issued permit. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer 11666, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604. Unless such a request is made, this decision is final and binding. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact Mr. Trevor Clements or Mr. Arthur Mouberry from my staff at (919) 733-5083. cc: Trevor Clements Arthur Mouberry Brenda Smith Central File WLA File R. Paul Wilms POST OFFICE BOX 69 • MONROE, NORTH CAROLINA 28110 • 704-289-8557 July 5, 1989 Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Dirctor Division of Environmental Management Post Office Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611-7687 Re: NPDES #NC0024333 Dear Mr. Wilms: The City of Monroe requests amendments for the following parameters in the above permit: Cadmium Lead Required Requested .002 mgl <.006 mgl .025 mgl <.03 mgl The requested limits are the required limits for potable water supply and we feel neither the City WWTP nor our industrial discharges should be required to treat to any better degree. Thank youfor your consideration of this request in addition to May 31, 1989 request. Sincerely, inkel, Cy Manager JE?/jm cc: thur Mouberry JrAevor Clemments Council Members P. E. Bazemore Judy L. Davis Mayor Lewis R. Fisher Billy Jordan Lynn A. Keziah Phil Hargett I. B. Shive City Manager J. E. Hinkel 64-` MCv z .t ;tee s?a V� . auiz 7vrtccl VA_ ,t1rvk(v - i 6iows V�c� vuiis -Qv' r c� - 6,4 . l t `�' 1s jiscixviy,cii„ CGtrc/0.56- i Cvtc.c wA,icA aiNac% Glass qD. &C, Oco cokd ki L UJ evagi? (Q G ro bier ens& 4p_ ouya-6 K( s poVoC °1 rid) ci p- 0. suJ VVoc ots 0 vtkv )\e (uk ,c dfi ram- y P,e_ t-kvud .002 m5/ j -< as vc9 ./). (rtbe tiAjo hJa of e.-t, /a o c�vLc� Li-kk , LYk cto CA) coo `1-6 C t,cJAp Gc,ci _ _OW c,vAdc.uito-( trui-kc), OIVAVL LIO (303'4.. ?-1 cvtliu ntditz6V-61--)- iVeuJ Gnti- -4)v 'gym W . wa J7 (()15000- /0,1,6, mi-6)/ g nrfe_t go �YY ''itet4v).PL-177/. 87/K.D. _ eiph l 97 i cl,e4-,c,,z cLl :?�ok - (,0c`'6-)4 Weice4 33 . a c, al'Ly,-u u u ci 16 op 0r� Cam_ AC. bt,at.4 aau)t,eG47-6,-y1 Lw-d ciAALoicil u l o mil , l�t,o � � �� S=c�c�CJ +(Axt,La �-� a wU ,) �e".,e,cJ Hie--1., aJ } 9 7 5 cl..AyvykJ-cam wry cJkj t ucc,z'f e woo� Lo)a 0 fra '71-*L'ka aqQA EPA 0(,,24ocx.d -fruz-1/411Lacb awe (LaiLd (4AJ 4O/4)flak CFit ) I B, �. 1 Facility 1litliVA .o--Q &v) f k.6-IJ . .Lu • (2o.p /, vt-rvv e' ChP G(6L'V =j r'-(1 U-1 Wasteflow (MGO) 7 Summer/Winter (circle one) Iv NH3-N (mg/1) Potential effluent limit. combinations: 80D5 NH3-N ; Cnmmentc• " . ~. SUMMER TO GET BOD5 INTERCEPT ' Discharger Receiving Stream MODEL RESULTS o CITY OF MONROE u RICHARDSON CREEK The End D.O. is 6.04 mg/l. The End CBOD is 19.95 mg/l. The End NBOD is 0.04 mg/l. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/l) (mg/1) (mg/1). (mgd) ------ --------- ----~-- Gegment 1 4.86 1.75 2 Reach 1 87.00 0.00 5.00 7.00000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 6 0"00 0"00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 li� ^ SUMMER TO GET NH3-N INTERCEPT Discharger Receiving Stream ---------- MODEL RESULTS : CITY OF MONROE : RICHARDSON CREEK The End D.O. is 6.59 mg/l. The End CBOD is 0.09 mg/l. The End NBOD is 8.68 mg/1. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1.) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) segment 1 4.88 0.90 1 Reach 1 0.00 23.00 5.00 7.00000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 5. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 6 0.00 0"00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 ` Discharger Receiving Stream ---------- MODEL RESULTS : CITY OF MONROE : RICHARDSON CREEK The End D.O. is 6.28 mg/l. The End CBOD is 11.90 mg/l. The End NBOD is 3.42 mg/l. SUMMER LIMITS OF 11 MG/L BOD5 & 2 MG/ NH3N 7 MOD WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/l) Milepoint Reach # (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mgd) Segment 1 4.89 0.85 1 Reach 1 22.00 9.00 5.00 7.00000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA **# Discharger n CITY OF MONROE Receiving Stream a R T CHARDSON CREEK Summer 7010 a 0.43 Design Temperature: 26. SLlbbass i n a 030714 Stream Class: C Winter 7010 n 1. ILENGTHI SLDPEI VELOCITY 1 DEPTHI Kd 1 Kd I Ka I Ka I KN 1 KN I KNR 1 KNR 1 mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft 'design l 120° ldesignl IS20° Idesign1 8200 !design! g20° 1 1 ! I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Segment 1 1 1.151 2.401 0.229 1 1.81 1 0.28 1 0.21 1 2.88 1 2.531 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0,00 Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Segment 1 1 2.40k 2.401 0.215 1 1.88 1 0.28 1 0.21 1 2.64 1 2.321 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 2 k 1 1 1 1 k 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 k 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Segment 1 1 0.151 2.401 0.193 1 2.00 1 0.28 1 0.21 1 2.28 1 2.001 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 3 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 k I 1 1 1 Segment 1 1 1.651 5.001 0.236 1 1.81 1 0.29 1 0.22 1 2.93 1 2.571 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 4 1 1 1 1 k 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I l I 1 ! 1 I 1 1 1 1 Segment 1 1 0.401 5.001 0.231 1 1.84 1 0.29 1 0.22 1 2.84 1 2.491 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 5 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 Segment 1 1 0.601 16.701 0.325 1 1.55 1 0.35 1 0.27 1 4.36 1 3.831 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 6 1 1 1 1 k 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I k 1 l 1 k k 1 Segment 1 k 0.901 7.701 0.253 1 1.75 1 0.30 1 0.23 1 3.19 1 2.801 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Flow l C:I»{OD l I\IBOD 1 D. O. I 1 cfs 1 mg/1 ! mg/1 1 mg/1 I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste 1 10.850 1 22.000 1 9.000 1 , . 000 Headwaters! 0.430 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 4.900 Tributary 1 0.000 ! 2.000 1 1.000 7.300 Runoff 1 0.010 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 y00 1 0.000 000 Tributary I 0.090 1 2. 000 1 1 .000 1 7.300 * Runoff 1 0.010 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 3 Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 Tributary 1 0.210 k 2.000 1 1 0.000 1 0.000 14000 1 7„300 Segment 1 Reach 4 Waste I t)n00) I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 Tributary I 0„000 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff i 0.020 I 2e000 I 1.000 I 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 5 Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 0 I 7.300 * Runoff I 0.020 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 Segment 1 Reach u Waste I L)n0C0 I 0.000 I L).00c) I 0.000 Tributary I 0.000 I P.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff I 0.020 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 7 Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff I 0.020 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mi ie ^ SUMMER LIMITS OF 11 M8/L BOD5 & 2 MG/ NH8N 7 MGD | Geg # I Reach # | Seg Mi | D.O. | CBOD | NBOD | Flow 1 ` 1 1 0.00 5.00 21.24 8.70 11.28 1 1 0.05 4.98 21.16 8.64 11.28 1 1 0.10 4.97 21.08 8.58 11.28 1 1 0.15 4.96 21.00 8.53 11.28 1 1 0.20 4.95 20.92 8.48 11.28 1 1 0.25 4.94 20.84 8.42 11.28 1 1 0.30 4.93 20.76 8.37 11"28 1 1 0.35 4.92 20"68 8.31 11.28 1 1 0.40 4.91 20.61 8.26 11"28 1 1 0.45 4.91 20.53 8.21 11.28 1 1 0.50 4.90 20.45 8.16 11.29 1 1 0.55 4.90 20.37 8.10 11.29 1 1 0.60 4.89 20.30 8.05 11.29 1 1 0.65 4.89 20.22 8.00 11.29 1 1 0.70 4.89 20.14 7.95 11.29 1 1 0.75 4.89 20.07 7.90 11.29 1 1 0.80 4.89 19.99 7.85 11.29 1 1 0.85 4.89 19.92 7"80 11.29 1 1 0.90 4.89 19.84 7.75 11.29 1 1 0.95 4.89 19.77 7"70 11.29 1 1 1.00 4"89 19.69 7.65 11.29 1 1 1.05 4.89 19.62 7.60 11.29 1 1 1.10 4.89 19.54 7.55 11.29 1 1 1.15 4.90 19.47 7.51 11.29 1 2 1.15 4.92 19.33 7.45 11.38 1 2 1.35 4.89 19.03 7.25 11.88 1 2 1.55 4.89 18.72 7.06 11.39 l 2 1.75 4.89 18.43 6.87 11.39 1 2 1.95 4.90 18.13 6.69 11.39 1 2 2.15 4.92 17.85 6.51 11.39 1 2 2.35 4.94 17.56 6.33 11.89 1 2 2.55 4.97 17.28 6.16 11.40 1 2 2.75 5.00 17.01 6.00 11.40 1 2 2.95 5"04 16.74 5.83 11.40 1 2 8.15 5.08 16.47 5.68 11.40 1 2 3.35 5.12 16.21 5.52 11"40 1 2 3.55 5.17 15.95 5.38 11.41 1 3 8.55 5.20 15.70 5.80 11.62 1 3 3.58 5.20 15.66 5.27 11.62 1 8 8.61 5.20 15.62 5.25 11.62 1 3 3.64 5.20 15.58 5.23 11.62 1 3 3.67 5.20 15.54 5.20 11.62 1 3 3.70 5.20 15.49 5.18 11.62 1 A. 8.70 5.20 15"49 5.18 11.62 1 4 3.85 5.26 15.32 5.08 11.62 1 4 4.00 5.32 15.14 4.99 11.62 1 4 4.15 5.37 14.97 4.90 11.63 1 4 4.80 5.42 14.80 4.81 11.63 1 4 4.45 5.47 14"63 4.72 11.63 1 4 4.60 5"52 14.47 4.63 11.64 1 4 4.75 5.57 14.30 4.54 11"64 1 4 4.90 5.61 14.14 4.46 11.64 1 4 5.05 5.65 18.98 4.88 11.65 , 1 4 5.20 5.70 13.82 4.30 11.65 1 4 5.35 5.73 13.66 4.22 11.65 1 5 5.35 5.73 13.66 4.22 11.65 1 5 5.39 5.74 13.62 4.20 11.65 1 5 5.43 5.75 18.58 4.17 11.65 1 5 5.47 5.76 13.53 4.15 11.65 .. .. . .� .^ ,= ^ � �^"^ "^'' ^"^-' �^^~ 1 5 5.55 5.78 13.45 4.11 11.66 5 5.59 5.79 13.41 4.09 11.66 ^- 1 5 5.63 5.79 13.37 4.07 11.66 1 5 5.67 5.80 13.32 4.05 11.66 1 5 5.71 5.81 13.28 4.03 11.66 1 5 5.75 5.82 13.24 4.01 11.66 1 6 5.75 5.82 13.24 4.01 11.66 1 6 5.81 5.86 13.19 3.99 11.66 1 6 5.87 5.89 13.14 3.96 11.66 1 6 5.98 5"93 13.08 3"94 11.66 1 6 5.99 5.96 13.03 3.92 11.66 1 6 6.05 6.00 12.98 3.90 11.67 1 6 6.11 6.03 12"93 3.88 11.67 1 6 6.17 6.06 12.87 3.86 11.67 1 6 6.23 6.09 12.82 3.84 11.67 1 6 6.29 6.11 12.77 8.82 11.67 1 6 6.35 6.14 12.72 3.79 11.67 1 7 6.35 6.14 12.72 3.79 11.67 1 7 6.44 6.15 12.63 3.76 11.67 1 7 6.53 6.17 12.55 3.72 11.68 1 7 6.62 6.18 12.47 3.68 11.68 1 7 6.71 6.20 12.88 3.64 11.68 1 7 6.80 6.21 12.80 3.60 11.68 1 7 6"89 6.28 12.22 8.56 11.68 1 7 6.98 6.24 12.14 3.53 11"68 1 7 7.07 6.25 12.06 3.49 11.69 1 7 7.16 6.27 11.98 3.45 11.69 1 7 7.25 6,28 11.90 3.42 11.69 } Seg # | Reach # | Seg Mi | D.O. | CBOD } NBOD | Flow } 4 g Facility dl/ Wasteflow (MGD) Summer/Winter (circle one) L 16 1S- 0'25 NH3—N (mg/1) Potential effluent limit. combinations: BOD5 NH3.N -ri - Jci Comments:_ Discharger Receiving Stream MODEL. RESULTS : CITY OF MONROE : RICHARD8ON CREEK SUMMER MODEL RUN TO PROTECT 3 MG/L DO INSTREAM (NH3N INTERCEPT) The End D.O. is 5.55 mg/l. The End CBOD is 0.09 mg/l. The End NBOD is 14.69 mg/l. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mgd) Segment 1 3.10 2.15 2 Reach 1 0.00 39.00 5.00 7.00000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0"00000 Reach 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Discharger Receiving Stream MODEL RESULTS - CITY OF MONROE R I CHARDSON CREEK The End D.O. is 4.e4 m g / L The End CDOD is 25.85 mg/1. The End NBOD is 3.42 mg/la SUMMER I'1ODEL RUN TO PROTECT 3 MG/L DO INSTREAM (NH3N POINT) WLA WLA WLA DO Min CLOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Mi.lepr_=i.nt Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 3.04 2.55 2 Reach 1 46.00 9.00 5.00 7.00000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 3 0„00 0„00 0,00 0„E10000 Reach 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 7 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,0004:0 ~ Discharger Receiving Stream ---- MODEL RESULTS o CITY OF MONROE o RICHARDGON CREEK The End D.O. is 5.08 mg/l. The End CBOD is 18.34 mg/l. The End NBOD is 6.80 mg/l. SUMMER MODEL RUN TO PROTECT 3 MG/L LIMIT8 = 17 & 4 WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/l) Milepoint Reach # (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mgd) Segment 1 3.03 2.85 2 Reach 1 34.00 18.00 5.00 7.00000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 5 0.00 0.00 0.A0 0.00000 Reach 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA *** Discharger N CITY OF MONROE Receiving Stream R I CHARDSON CREEK Summer 7010 N 0.43 Design Temperature: 26. Sl..tl.:Jbats3.rFi « _Lt. 14 Stream Class: C Winter J6110 N 1. 'LENGTH! SLOPEI VELOCITY 1 DEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I KN 1 KNR I KNR ! mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft ldesign' 20° (design' 620° Idesign' 620° (design! @20° Segment 1 1 1.151 2.401 0.229 f 1.81 1 0.28 1 0.21 12.88 1 2.531 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 1 Segment 1 1 2.401 2.401 0.215 1 1.88 1 0.28 ! 0.21 1 2.64 f 2.321 0.48 ! 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 2 Segment 1 1 0.151 2.401 0.193 1 2.00 1 0.28 1 0.21 1 2.28 1 2.001 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 3 1 1 [ I 1 I I I I 1 1 I Segment 1 I 1.651 5.001 0.236 1 1.81 1 0.29 1 0.22 1 2.93 1 2.571 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 4 1 1 I I I I ! I 1 I l I Segment 1 1 0.401 5.001 0.231 1 1.84 1 0.29 f 0.22 1 2.84 l 2.491 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 5 Segment 1 1 0.601 16.701 0.325 1 1.55 3 0.35 10.27 [ 4.36 1 3.831 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach b l I I f I l [ I I 1 I I Segment 1 I 0.901 7.701 0.253 1 1.75 1 0.30 1 0.23 1 3.19 1 2.801 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 7 1 1 I I 1 1 f 1 f 1 I I I Flow 1 CBOD 1 NEOD 1 D.O. 1 1 cfs 1 rng/1 1 mg/I 1 mg:I 1 Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste I 10.850 1 34.000 I 18.000 1 5.000 1 lea dwaters 1 0.430 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 4.900 Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300 * Runoff 1 0.010 $ 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste 1 0. 000 I 0. 000 1 0. 000 1 0.000 Tributary I 0. 090 1 2. 000 1 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff lire•f'f 1 0.010 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 3 Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 Tributary 1 0.210 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300 •3• Runoff I 0 .020 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 4 Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 Tributary 1 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff I 0.020 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 5 Waste I 0..000 I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 0 Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff 1 0.020 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 6 Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 Tributary I 0a000 l 2.000 I 1.000 I 7n3c:0 * Runoff I 0.020 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 7 Waste I iygi>oo I 0.000 I 0„000 I 0.000 Tributary I 0a000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff I 0.020 I 2.000 y 1 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile SUMMER MODEL RUN TO PROTECT 3 MG/L LIMIT8 = 17 & 4 | Geg # | Reach # I Sea Mi I D.O. i CBOD | NBOD | Flow | 1 1 0.00 5.00 82.78 17.35 11.28 1 1 0"05 4.89 32.66 17.24 11"28 1 1 0.10 4.78 32.53 17.13 11.28 1 1 0.15 4.68 82.41 17.02 11.28 1 1 0.20 4.59 32.29 16.91 11.28 1 1 0.25 4.50 82.17 16.81 11.28 1 1 0.30 4.41 32.05 16.70 11.28 1 1 0.35 4.33 31.92 16.59 11.28 1 1 0.40 4.25 31.80 16.49 11.28 1 1 0.45 4.18 81.68 16.38 11.28 1 1 0.50 4.11 31.56 16.28 11.29 1 1 0.55 4.04 31.45 16.17 11.29 1 1 0.60 3.98 31.38 16.07 11.29 1 1 0.65 3.92 31.21 15.97 11.29 1 1 0.70 3.87 31.09 15.87 11.29 1 1 0.75 3.82 80.97 15"76 11.29 1 1 0.80 3.77 30.86 15.66 11.29 1 1 0.85 3.72 80.74 15.56 11.29 1 1 0.90 8.68 80.62 15.47 11.29 1 1 0.95 3.64 80.51 15.37 11.29 1 1 1.00 3.60 30.89 15.27 11.29 1 1 1.05 3.56 30.28 15.17 11.29 1 1 1.10 3.53 30.16 15.07 11.29 1 1 1.15 8.50 80.05 14.98 11.29 1 2 1.15 3.53 29.83 14.87 11.38 1 2 1.35 3.36 29.86 14.47 11.38 1 2 1.55 8.24 28.89 14.08 11.39 1 2 1.75 3.15 28.43 13.70 11.39 1 2 1.95 3.09 27.98 13.33 11.39 1 2 2.15 3.05 27.53 12.97 11.39 1 2 2.35 3.08 27.10 12.63 11.39 1 2 2.55 3.08 26.67 12.29 11.40 1 2 2.75 3.05 26.24 11.96 11.40 1 2 2.95 3.08 25.83 11.63 11.40 1 2 3.15 3.11 25.42 11.32 11.40 1 2 8.35 3.16 25.01 11.02 11.40 1 2 3.55 3.21 24.62 10.72 11.41 1 3 3.55 3.29 24.21 10.55 11.62 1 3 3.58 3.28 24.14 10.50 11.62 1 3 8.61 3.28 24.08 10.45 11.62 1 3 3.64 3.27 24.01 10.40 11.62 1 3 3.67 3.27 23.95 10.35 11.62 1 3 3.70 3.26 23.89 10.31 11.62 1 4 3.70 3.26 23.89 10.81 11.62 1 4 8.85 3.35 23.61 10.12 11.62 1 4 4.00 3.44 23.84 9.93 11.62 1 4 4.15 3.53 23.08 9.75 11.63 1 A. 4.80 3.61 22.82 9.56 11.63 1 4 4.45 3.69 22.56 9.39 11.63 1 4 4.60 3.76 22.80 9.21 11.64 1 4 4.75 3.84 22.04 9.04 11.64 1 4 4.90 3.91 21.79 8.88 11.64 1 4 5.05 8.98 21.54 8.71 11.65 1 4 5.20 4.04 21.80 8.55 11.65 1 4 5.35 4.11 21.06 8.39 11.65 1 5 5.35 4.11 21.06 8.39 11.65 1 5 5.39 4.12 20.99 8.35 11.65 1 5 5.48 4.14 20.98 8.31 11.65 1 5 5.47 4.15 20.86 8.26 11.65 1 5 5.51 4.16 20"80 8.�� zz.6;3 � j^, 5 5"55 4.1B 20.73 8.18 11.66 . l 5 5"59 4.19 20.67 8.14 11.66 ~ 1 5 5.63 4.21 20.60 8.10 11.66 1 5 5.67 4.22 20.54 8.06 11.66 1 5 5.71 4.23 20.47 8.01 11.66 1 5 5.75 4"25 20.41 7.97 11.66 1 6 5.75 4.25 20.41 7.97 11.66 1 6 5.81 4.31 20.38 7.93 11.66 1 6 5.87 4.38 20.25 7.89 11.66 1 6 5.93 4.44 20.16 7.84 11.66 1 6 5.99 4.49 20.08 7.80 11.66 1 6 6.05 4.55 20.00 7.76 11.67 1 6 6.11 4.60 19.92 7.72 11.67 1 6 6.17 4.65 19.84 7.68 11.67 1 6 6.23 4.70 19.76 7.63 11.67 1 6 6.29 4"75 19.68 7.59 11.67 1 6 6.85 4.80 19.60 7.55 11.67 1 7 6"35 4.80 19.60 7.55 11"67 1 7 6.44 4.82 19.47 7.47 11.67 1 7 6.58 4.85 19.34 7"39 11.68 1 7' 6.62 4.87 19.21 7"32 11.68 1 7 6"71 4.89 19.09 7.24 11.68 1 7 6.80 4.92 18.96 7.17 11.68 1 7 6"89 4.94 18.88 7,09 11.68 1 7 6.98 4.96 18.71 7.02 11.68 1 7 7.07 4.99 18.58 6.94 11.69 1 7 7.16 5.01 18.46 6.87 11.69 1 7 7.25 5.08 18.34 6.80 11.69 | Seg # | Reach # I Seg Mi | D.O. | CBOD | NBOD | Flow > ' Discharger Receiving Stream ---------- MODEL RESULTS : CITY OF MONROE : RICHARDSON CREEK The End D.O. is 4.74 mg/l. The End CBOD is 20.23 mg/l. The End NBOD is 8.00 mg/l. SUMMER MODEL RUN TO PROTECT 3 MG/L LIMITS = 17 & 4 AT 9MGD WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mgd) Segment 1 /' 3 13 2.75 2 Reach 1 - ---� ~ 34.00 18.00 5.00 9.00000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 � Discharger Receiving Stream ---- MODEL RESULTS o CITY OF MONROE n RICHARD8ON CREEK The End D.O. is 7.84 mg/l. The End CBOD is 0.77 mg/l. The End NBOD is 0.23 mg/l. SUMMER MODEL WITHOUT WASTE ALSO USING 4"9 MG/L BK8R DO, NEW TGIVOGLO DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/l) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mgd) Segment 1 4.90 0.00 1 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5 Reach 6 Reach 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 0.00 0"00 0.00 0.00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 s. . MODEL SUMMARY DATA *** Discharger p CITY OF MONROE Receiving Stream R I CHARDSON CREEK Summer 7° 10 n 0.43 Design Temperature: 26. Subbas in 030714 Stream Class: C Winter 7C110 a 1. ILEN6THI SLOPE! VELOCITY ! DEPTH! Kd I Kd 1 Ka 1 Ka 1 KN 1 KN 1 KNR 1 KNR ! mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft Idesignl 20° !design' 320° 'design) 820° Idesign1 c120° 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 ! 1 1 I Segment 1 1 1.151 2.401 0.100 1 0.54 1 0.29 1 0.22 1 0.49 1 0.431 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 10.00 Reach 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 Segment 1 1 2.401 2.401 0.100 1 0.60 1 0.29 1 0.22 1 0.49 1 0.431 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Segment 1 1 0.151 2.401 0.100 1 0.72 1 0.28 1 0.21 1 0.49 1 0.431 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l Segment 1 1 1.651 5.001 0.100 1 0.72 1 0.29 1 0.22 1 1.03 1 0.901 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 l Reach 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Segment 1 1 0.401 5.001 0.100 1 0.73 1 0.29 1 0.22 1 1.03 1 0.901 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 5 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I Segment 1 1 0.601 16.701 0.100 1 0.74 1 0.32 1 0.24 1 3.43 1 3.011 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 6 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Segment 1 1 0.901 7.701 0.100 1 0.74 1 0.30 1 0.23 1 1.58 1 1.391 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 7 l 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Flow 1 CBOD l NBOD l D.O. I 1 cfs 1 mg/ 1 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 Headwaters! 0.430 1 2.000 i 1.000 1 4.900 Tributary I 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 0 1 7.300 * Runoff I 0.010 1 2.000 1 1 .000 1 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 ! 0.000 1 0.000 Tributary I 0.090 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300 * Runoff I 0.010 1 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.q00 Segment 1 Reach 3 Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 Tributary I 0.210 1 2. 000 I 1.000 1 7.300 I LI T f LF 1 1 1 AsaMMV Segment 1 Reach 4 Waste I 0.000 I 0,0>00 I 0a000 I 0a000 Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff I 0.020 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 5 Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 Tributary I 0.000 I P.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff I 0.020 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 6 Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff I 0.020 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 7 Waste I 0.000 I 0 000 I 0.000 I 0„000 Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff I 0.020 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mi 1e s, . .r SUMMER MODEL WITHOUT WASTE ALSO USING 4.9 MG/L BKGR DO, NEW TS I VOGLO I Sr• g# I Reach # I Seth M i. I D. O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow I 1. 1 0.00 7.30 2.00 1.00 0.43 1 1 0.05 7.28 1.98 0.99 0.43 1 1 0.10 7.26 1.97 0.97 0.43 1 1 0.15 7.24 1.95 0.96 0.43 1 1 0.20 7.23 1.93 0.94 0.43 1 1 0.25 7.21 1.91 0.93 0.4.3 1 1 0.30 7187. 19 1.90 0.92 0.43 1 1 0.35it 1.88 0.90 0.43 1 1 0.40 7.16 1.86 0.89 0.43 1 1 0.45 7.15 :1.85 0.88 0.43 1 1 0.50 7.12 7. 13 1.83 'y0.87 0.43 1 1 0.55 / a 1 2 1.92 0.85 0.44 1 1 0.60 7.11 1.80 0.84 0.44 1 1 0.65 7.09 1.79 0.83 0.44 1 1 0.70 7.08 1.77 0.82 0.4.4 1 1 0.75 7.07 1.75 0.81 0.44 1 1 0.80 7.06 1.74 0.79 0.44 1 1 0.85 7.05 1.72 0.78 0.44 1 1 0.90 7.04 1.71 0.77 0.44 1 1 0.95 7.03 1 1 ..8 �70 0.76 0.44 1 1 1.00 7.02 0.75 0.44 1 1 1.05 7.01 1.67 0.74 0.44 1 1 1.10 7.00 1.65 0.73 0.44 1 1 1.15 6.99 1.64 0.777 ii7J 2 0.44 1 2 1.35 7.01 1.64 0.' 2 0.53 1 2 1.55 6.98 1.59 0.68 ��3.54{. 1 1. 1.75 6.96 1.53 t } .65 {»� i, Lail 1 2 1.95 6.94 1.48 0.61 0.54 1 2 2.15 6.93 1.43 0.58 0.54 1 2 2.35 6.92 1.39 0.55 0.54 r 1 n5 �a 1. 1 .34 »�.�.1 0.55 1 2 2.75 6.91 1.30 0.4.9 0.55 1 2.95 6.91. 1.26 0.46 0.55 1 2 3.15 6.91 1.22 0.44 0.55 1. 2 3.3,E 6.92 1.1e 0.42 0.55 1 2 3.55 6.93 1.14 0.40 0.56 1 3 3.55 7.03 1.38 0.56 0.77 1 3 3.58 7.03 1.37 0.56 0.77 1 3 3.61 7.03 1.36 0.55 0.77 1 3 3.64 7.03 1.36 0.55 0.77 1 3 3.67 7.02 1.35 0.54 0.77 1 3 3.70 7.02 1.34 0.54 0.77 1 4 3.70 7.02 1 .34 0.54 0.77 1 4 3.85 7.06 1.31 0.52 0.77 1 4 4.00 7.11 1.28 0.50 0.77 1 4 4.15 7.14 1.25 0.48 0.78 1 4 4.30 7.18 1.22 0.46 0.78 1 4 4.45 7.21 1.19 0.44 0.78 1. 4 4.60 7.25 1.16 0.42 0.79 1 4 4.75 7.28 1.13 0.41 0.79 1 4 4.90 7.31 1.11 0.39 0.79 1 4 5.05 7.34 1.08 0.38 0.80 1 4 5.20 7.36 1.05 0.36 0.80 80 1 4 5.35 7.39 1.03 0.35 0.80 1 5 5.35 7.39 1.03 0.35 0.80 1 5 5.39 7.39 1.02 0.35 0.80 1 5 5.43 7.40 1.02 0.34 o . 8{:} 1 5 5.47 7.41 1.01 0.34 0.90 �r j^�^ �^"� ""T 5.55 7.42 1.00 0"83 0.81 ^ 5 5.59 7.43 0.99 0.38 0.81 1 5 5.63 7.48 0.99 0.33 0.81 1 5 5.67 7.44 0"98 0.33 0.81 1 5 5.71 7.44 0.98 0.32 0.81 1 5 5.75 7.45 0.97 0.32 0.81 1 6 5.75 7.45 0.97 0.82 0.81 1 6 5.81 7.51 0.96 0.31 0.81 1 6 5.87 7.57 0.95 0.31 0.81 1 6 5.93 7.61 0.94 0.31 0.81 1 6 5.99 7.66 0.93 0.30 0.81 1 6 6.05 7"70 0.92 0.80 0.82 1 6 6.11 7.73 0.91 0.29 0.82 1 6 6.17 7.76 0.90 0.29 0.B2 1 6 6.23 7"78 0.89 0.29 0.82 1 6 6.29 7.81 0.89 0.28 0.82 1 6 6.85 7.83 0.88 0.28 0.82 1 7 6.35 7.83 0.88 0.28 0.82 1 7 6.44 7.83 0.87 0.27 0.82 1 7 6.53 7.88 0.85 0.27 0.83 1 7 6.62 7.83 0.84 0.26 0.83 1 7 6.71 7.84 0.88 0"26 0.83 1 7 6.80 7.84 0.82 0.25 0.83 1 7 6.89 7.84 0.81 0.25 0.83 1 7 6.98 7.84 0.80 0.24 0.83 1 7 7.07 7"85 0.79 0.24 0.84 1 7 7"16 7.85 0.78 0.23 0.84 1 7 7.25 7"85 0.77 0.28 0.84 | Seg # | Reach # | 8eg Mi | D.O. | CBOD / NBOD | Flow | ~ v Discharger Receiving Stream SUMMER MODEL WITH EX19TING LIMITS /\ / �°��l4 (l* \ [~�`' MODEL RESULTS ---------- : CITY OF MONROE : RICHARDSON CREEK The End D.O. is 4.74 mg/l. The End CBOD is 18.34 mg/l. The End NBOD is 8.49 mg/l. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mgd) _________ Gegment 1 2.51 2.55 2 Reach 1 34.00 22.50 5.00 7.00000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA *** Discharger n CITY OF MONROE. Receiving Stream : RICHARD SON CREEK Summer 7010 . 0.43 Dimesig.n Temperature: 26. SLibtoaisain u 030714 Stream Class„ C Winter 7010 . 1. !LENGTH' SLOPE' V'ELOCITY 1 DEPTH! Kd l Kd 1 Ka 1 Ka 1 KN 1 KN 1 KNR 1 KNR mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft !design) 320° Idesignl 320° !design) 320° (design' 320° i I 1 I I i 1 ► 1 I I I Segment 1 1 1.151 2.401 0.229 1 1.81 0.28 1 0.21 2.88 1 2.531 0.48 ► 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 f Segment 1 1 2.401 2.401 0.215 1 1.88 1 0.28 1 0.21 1 2.64 1 2.321 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 2 I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 l I 1 1 1 I { I I 1 1 I Segment 1 I 0.151 2.401 0.193 i 2.00 10.28 10.21 1 2.28 I 2.001 0.48 10.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 3 I 1 I 1 I ► 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Segment 1 1 1.651 5.001 0.236 1 1.81 1 0.29 1 0.22 1 2.93 1 2.571 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 4 I 1 I l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 { 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 Segment 1 1 0.401 5.001 0.231 1 1.84 1 0.29 1 0.22 1 2.84 1 2.491 0.48 10.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 { 1 1 1 ► 1 1 Segment 1 1 0.601 16.701 0.325 1 1.55 { 0.35 1 0.27 1 4.36 1 3.831 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 6 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I Segment 1 1 0.901 7.701 0.253 1 1.75 1 0.30 1 0.23 ► 3.19 1 2.801 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 Reach 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 Flow 1 CBOD 1 NEOD 1 D.C. 1 c f s 1 mg/1 1 mg / 1 1 rno,' 1. I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste I 1 0 ..950 1 34.000 1 2.2 . c00 Headwaters 1 0.4:30 I 2.000 1 1.000 0 Tributary 1 0.000 1 2. t;00 1 1.000 * Runoff 1 0.010 1 P.000 I 1.000 7.30 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste I 0.0i t_; I 0.000 I 0.0u0 I f)„t_)C)Ci Tributary 1 0.090 I 2.000 I 1.. 00i-; I 7.300 Runoff 1 0.010 :. 1 P. 0t'; ; 1 1.000 I 7. -.7i0 i Segment 1 Reach 3 Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 Tributary I 0.210 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff 1 o . 0H0 1 2.000 I 1.000 i 7.j00 Segment 1 Reach 4 Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 Ti- i b u t ar y I 0.000 I 2.000I 1.000 I '7.300 * Runoff I 0.020 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 5 Waste I 0.0()() I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 Tributary l 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff I 0.020 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 6 Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff I 0.020 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300 Segment 1 Reach 7 Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300 * Runoff 1 0.020 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile . '. SUMMER ' MODEL WITH EXISTING LI1`11IT8 | 8eg It | Reach # | 8eg Mi I D.O. | CBOD I NBOD | Flow | , 1 1 0.00 5.00 32.78 21.68 11.28 1 1 0"05 4.86 32.66 21.54 11.28 1 1 0.10 4.78 32.53 21.40 11.28 1 1 0.15 4.60 82.41 21.27 11.28 1 1 0.20 4.49 32.29 21.13 11.28 1 1 0.25 4.87 32.17 21.00 11.28 1 1 0.30 4.27 32.05 20.86 11.2B 1 1 0.35 4"16 31.92 20.73 11.28 1 1 0.40 4.07 31.80 20.60 11.28 1 1 0"45 3.98 31.68 20.47 11.28 1 1 0.50 3.89 31.56 20.34 11.29 1 1 0.55 3.81 31.45 20.21 11.29 1 1 0.60 3.73 31.33 20.08 11.29 1 1 0.65 3.65 31.21 19.95 11.29 1 1 0.70 3.58 31.09 19.82 11.29 1 1 0.75 3.52 30.97 19.70 11.29 1 1 0.80 3.46 80.86 19.57 11.29 1 1 0.85 3.40 30.74 19.45 11.29 1 1 0.90 3.34 80.62 19.32 11.29 1 1 0.95 3.29 80.51 19.20 11.29 1 1 1.00 3.24 30.39 19.08 11.29 1 1 1.05 3.20 30.28 18.96 11.29 1 1 1.10 8.15 30.16 18.83 11.29 1 1 1.15 3.11 30"05 18.71 11.29 1 2 1.15 8.15 29.83 18.57 11.38 1 2 1.85 2.94 29"36 18.08 11.38 1 2 1"55 2.79 28.89 17.59 11.89 1 2 1.75 2.67 28.48 17"12 11.39 1 2 1.95 2.59 27.98 16.66 11.39 1 2 2.15 2.54 27.53 16.21 11.89 1 2 2.35 2"52 27.10 15.77 11.39 1 2 2.55 2.51 26.67 15.85 11.40 1 2 2.75 2.52 26.24 14.94 11.40 1 2 2.95 2.55 25.88 14.53 11.40 1 2 3.15 2.59 25.42 14.14 11.40 1 2 8.35 2.64 25.01 13.76 111140 1 2 3.55 2.70 24.62 18.39 11.41 1 3 8.55 2.78 24.21 13.17 11.62 1 3 3.58 2.77 24.14 13.11 11.62 1 3 3.61 2.77 24.08 18.05 11.62 1 3 3.64 2"76 24.01 12.99 11.62 1 3 3.67 2.76 23.95 12.93 11.62 1 3 3.70 2.75 23.89 12.87 11.62 1 4 3.70 2.75 23.89 12.87 11.62 1 4 3.85 2.85 23.61 12.68 11.62 1 4 4"00 2.95 23.34 12.40 11.62 1 4 4.15 3.05 23.08 12.17 11.63 1 4 4.30 3.14 22.82 11.94 11.63 1 4 4.45 8.23 22.56 11.72 11.63 1 4 4.60 3.31 22.30 11.51 11.64 1 4 4.75 3.39 22.04 11.29 11.64 1 4 4.90 3.47 21.79 11.08 11.64 1 4 5.05 3.55 21.54 10.88 11.65 1 4 5.20 3.63 21.80 10.68 11.65 1 4 5.35 8.70 21.06 10.48 11.65 1 5 5.35 3"70 21.06 10.48 11.65 1 5 5.89 8.72 20.99 10.43 11.65 1 5 5.48 3.73 20.98 10.37 11.65 1 5 5.47 3.75 20.86 10.32 11.65 1 5 5,51 8.76` 2A.80 l0.�7 zz.�� ' ~ ^ ' 5 5 55 3 78 20 73 10 11 66 22 * �* � " . . . . w 1 5 5.59 8"79 20.67 10.16 11.66 1 5 5.63 3.81 20.60 10.11 11.66 v 1 5 5"67 3"82 20.54 10.06 11.66 1 5 5"71 3.84 20.47 10.01 11.66 1 5 5.75 3.86 20.41 9.96 11.66 ~ 1 6 5"75 3.86 20.41 9.96 11.66 1 6 5.81 8.93 20.83 9.90 11.66 1 6 5.87 4.00 20.25 9.85 11.66 1 6 5.93 4.07 20.16 9.80 11.66 1 6 5.99 4.13 20.08 9.74 11.66 1 6 6.05 4.20 20.00 9.69 11.67 1 6 6.11 4.26 19.92 9.64 11.67 1 6 6.17 4.32 19.84 9.58 11.67 1 6 6.23 4.37 19.76 9.53 11.67 1 6 6.29 4.43 19.68 9.48 11.67 1 6 6.85 4.48 19.60 9.48 11.67 1 7 6.85 4.48 19.60 9.43 11.67 1 7 6.44 4.50 19.47 9.33 11.67 1 7 6"53 4.53 19.34 9.28 11.68 1 7 6.62 4.56 19.21 9.14 11.68 1 7 6.71 4.58 19.09 9.04 11.68 1 7 6.80 4.61 18.96 8.95 11.68 1 7 6.89 4.64 18.83 8.85 11.68 1 7 6.98 4.66 18.71 8.76 11.68 1 7 7.07 4.69 18.58 8.67 11.69 1 7 7.16 4.71 18.46 8.58 11.69 1 17 7"25 4.74 18.34 8.49 11.69 } Se # > Reach # | Seg Mi } D.O. | CBOD | NBOD | Flow | KWO/47/440efi&421 dratdi�Zro/~ May 31, 1989 Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Director NC Dept of Natural Resources PERMITS & ENGINEER; and Community Development P 0 Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611-7687 POST OFFICE BOX 69 • MONROE, NORTH CAROLINA 28110 • 704-289-8557 Re: Proposed NPDES Permit #NC0024333 Dear Mr. Wilms: RECEIVED JUN 1. 3 1989 "JJUN 5 DIV. OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Raleigh, NC The City of Monroe requests review of the proposed limits in our new NPDES permit #NC0024333. We request an increase in DO limit's from 6 to 7, and increases in NH3 to 3 and BOD5 to 13. We believe the increase in DO will protect the stream quality in order to receive the increase in NH3 and BOD . We also request a Cyanide limit of <.05. This request is made becaus no evaluations of Cyanide below .05 have been made and these new requirements will require time to investigate and gain industrial compliance. We further request revision of the effective date of the proposed permit to be September 1, 1989, which is the expiration date of our current permit. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Hinkel Cy Manager cc: Trevor Clemments Arthur Mouberry Mayor Lynn A. Keziah Council Members P. E. Bazemore Lewis R. Fisher Phil Hargett Judy L. Davis Billy Jordan I. B. Shive City Manager J. E. Hinkel lre DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT April 4, 1989 To: From: Carla Sanders Through: David Vog Trevor Cleffe Dale Overcash Subject: City of Monroe WWTP NPDES Permit No. NC0024333 Union County A wasteload allocation (WLA) for the City of Monroe was recently completed in March, 1989, for the permit renewal of the existing design flow of 7 MGD and for expansions of 9 MGD and 11 MGD. The recommended limits for all three wasteflows were 5 mg/1 BOD5, 2 mg/1 NH3N, and 6 mg/1 D.O. This proposed a revision in limits for the existing wasteflow from 17 mg/1 BOD5, 5 mg/1 NH3N, and 5 mg/1 D.O. The comments on the WLA approval form stated that "for the existing permitted wasteflow of 7.0 MGD, these lim- its are preliminary, pending samples to be taken from Richardson Creek by our Biological Group". On March 13, 1989, the Biological Group took samples from Richardson Creek above and below the Monroe WWTP discharge and assigned both locations a fair bioclassification. Evidence of high organic loading to the stream was apparent at the downstream site due to the dominance of certain macroinvertebrates. There- fore, the limits recommended for the existing 7 MGD wasteflow are appropriate on the basis that tertiary treatment will reduce organic loading and improve dissolved oxygen levels in the stream. If the Town of Monroe cannot comply with this change in effluent limitations upon permit issuance, then the Region needs to take steps to initiate an SOC corresponding with the renewal of the permit. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this matter. CC: WLA File Central Files Mooresville Regional Office