NC0024333_Wasteload Allocation_19920817

NPDES 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
Report
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
August 17, 1992
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the ire -sr -erne side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Regional Offices
Asheville
704/251-6208
Fayetteville
919/486-1541
Mooresville
704/663-1699
Raleigh
919/571-4700
Washington
919/946-6481
Wilmington
919/395-3900
Winston-Salem
919/896-7007
August 17, 1992
Mr. Jerry E. Cox, City Manager
City of Monroe
P. O. Box 69
Monroe, North Carolina 28111-0069
Dear Mr. Cox:
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Acting Director
SUBJECT: City of Monroe
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Improvements - Phase II
In -Progress Plan Review
Conference
Project No. CS370564-03
This is to advise of the State requirement that final plans,
specifications and supporting design data must be submitted for State
review and approval, before State loan funding can be approved for the
subject project. In accordance with the established schedules, the
complete/final plans and specifications should be submitted by
February 1, 1993 in order to be reviewed and approved in time to meet
the Binding Commitment Date of May 1, 1993. If the Binding
Commitment Date is not met, the Loan funding will be withheld.
A review of the plans, specifications, supporting documents and
checklist (see below) in conference with the City of Monroe's
authorized representative and the Consultant Engineer at the 10% and
50% level of completion is required. The 10% In -Progress Plan review
conference should be held in early October. Therefore, when the
detailed project design with preliminary plans and specifications is
initiated, you or your engineer must advise us of the time and date
chosen in October for the 10% "In -Progress" plan review conference as
soon as possible. The attendance of the City's authorized
representative at the 10% In -Progress conference is required; and the
conference is not to be scheduled until this person can be present.
Attached is the "In -Progress Review Checklist" which includes
review items to be discussed in our 10% and 50% conferences with you
and the consulting engineer. You and your consultant engineer should
review this prior to our conference, so that any questions can be
resolved; or any needed clarification/information can be provided
during this conference.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Emnlnvar

Three (3) sets of the initial plan details and
complete d
basis are to be submitted at the 10% review conference; and forsihn
the review conference, three (3) sets of the plans/specifications final50%
design basis and an up -dated cost estimate are to be presented.
The 10% and 50% In -Progress Reviews of the
required in order to obtain the following: plandocuments are
1. Every effort must be taken to prevent bid overruns, since a
project is not to receive loan funding in excess of that
established on the priority list for the project. It is the
Recipient's sole responsibility to see that the project is
designed in such a manner as to stay within the established
funding limit. If bids exceed the loan amount, the Recipient
must pay the additional amount; or redesign and rebid the
project to get within the funded amount. If a JOC/SOC
schedule is involved and is not extendable, then Recipient
must proceed with award of bid(s) or be subject to the fine
amount stipulated in order; and possible loss of loan funds.
2. A timely submittal of final plans, specifications and
supporting documents which are final and complete in all
respects, including:
a. In complete compliance with Loan conditions, the 201
Facilities Plan, and any contingencies imposed on the
design by the environmental review.
b. Compliance with EPA and State re
gulatory requirements.
3. Clear, precise and complete plan documents for the
Biddability/Constructibility review, for which a review
period or thirty (30) days is required.
4. Prompt resolution of other Agency review comments which could
result in lengthy delays in plan processing and approval.
5. Mutual understanding and effort by all parties to coordinate
and maintain processing of project plan documents to meet
target dates designated for State funding.
If a new or revised NPDES Permit is re
quired for the subject
facilities, it is imperative that you take this action immediately by
making application to Ms. Brenda Smith, Regional Supervisor, Division
of Environmental Management, Mooresville Regional Office. Your
project plans cannot be approved until a Permit has been issued.
Please note that the processing and issuance of a Permit will
normally take six (6) months, but can take as much as nine (9) months.

The Recipient and consultant engineer must adhere to the schedules
for obtaining the NPDES Permit, complying with JOC/SOC and submission
of final plans and specifications in order that all other established
schedules can be met. If the Binding Commitment date is not met, the
Loan funding will be withheld.
If there are any questions concerning this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact Mr. Robert Teulings, the State Project Review
Engineer, at [phone], extension 610.
Sincerely,
Rolev.i
W. S. Hoffman, Supervisor
Construction Grants & Loans Section
Design Management Unit
Attachment
RPT:vk
cc: Hazen & Sawyer
Mooresville Regional Office
Mr. John R. Blowe
Mr. Coy Batten
Mr. Allen Wahab
Mr. Joe Martin
Mr. Tom Fahnestock
Mr. Dale Overcash
Mr. Donald Safrit
Ms. Ruth Swanek
Mr. Robert Teulings
DMU
SRF

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina
James G. Martin, Governor
,William W. Cobey, Jr,, Secretary
Regional Offices
Asheville
704/251-6208
Fayetteville
919/486-1541
Mooresville
704/663-1699
Raleigh
919/571-4700
Washington
919/946-6481
Wilmington
919/395-3900 ,
Winston-Salem
919/896-7007
August 17, 1992
Mr. Jerry E. Cox, City Manager
City of Monroe
P. O. Box 69
Monroe, North Carolina 28111-0069
Dear Mr. Cox:
Resources
27604
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Acting Director
SUBJECT: City of 1'bnroe
Richardson Creek Interceptor
In -Progress Plan Review
Conference
Project No. CS370564-03
This is to advise of the State requirement that final plans,
specifications and supporting design data must be submitted for State
review and approval, before State loan funding can be approved for the
subject project. In accordance with the established schedules, the
complete/final plans and specifications should be submitted by October
31, 1992.
A review of the plans, specifications, supporting documents and
checklist (see below) in conference with the City of Monroe's
authorized representative and the Consultant Engineer at the 10% and
50% level of completion is required. The 10% In -Progress Plan review
conference should be held in early September. Therefore, when the
detailed project design with preliminary plans and specifications is
initiated, you or your engineer must advise us of the time and date
chosen for the 10% "In -Progress" plan review conference as soon as
possible. The attendance of the City's authorized representative at
the 10% In -Progress conference is required; and the conference is not
to be scheduled until this person can be present.
Attached is the "In -Progress Review Checklist" which includes
review items to be discussed in our 10% and 50% conferences with you
and the consulting engineer. You and your consultant engineer should
review this prior to our conference, so that any questions can be
resolved; or any needed clarification/information can be provided
during this conference.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Finial lnnnrtitnity Affirmative Artinn l^imr,lnvc+r

- 2
Three (3) sets of the initial plan details and complete design
basis are to be submitted at the 10% review conference; and for the 50%
review conference, three (3) sets of the plans/specifications, final
design basis and an up -dated cost estimate are to be presented.
The 10% and 50% In -Progress Reviews of the plan documents are
required in order to obtain the following:
1. Every effort must be taken to prevent bid overruns, since a
project is not to receive loan funding in excess of that
established on the priority list for the project. It is the
Recipient's sole responsibility to see that the project is
designed in such a manner as to stay within the established
funding limit. Ifbids exceed the loan amount, the Recipient
must pay the additional amount; or redesign and rebid the
project to get within the funded amount. If a JOC/SOC
schedule is involved and is not extendable, then Recipient
must proceed with award of bid(s) or be subject to the fine
amount stipulated in order; and possible loss of loan funds.
2. A timely submittal of final plans, specifications and
supporting documents which are final and complete in all
respects, including:
a. In complete compliance with Loan conditions, the 201
Facilities Plan, and any contingencies imposed on the
design by the environmental review.
b. Compliance with EPA and State regulatory requirements.
3. Clear, precise and complete plan documents for the
Biddability/Contractibility review, for which a review
period or thirty (30) days is required.
4. Prompt resolution of other Agency review comments which could
result in lengthy delays in plan processing and approval.
5. Mutual understanding and effort by all parties to coordinate
and maintain processing of project plan documents to meet
target dates designated for State funding.

- J -
If there are any questions concerning this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact Mr. Robert Teulings, the State Project Review
Engineer, at [phone], extension 610.
Sincerely,
/ /,,; f s
r W. S. Hoffman, Supervisor
Construction Grants & Loans Section
Design Management Unit
Attachment
RPT:vk
cc: McKim & Creed - Wilmington
Mooresville Regional Office
Mr. John R. Blowe
Mr. Coy Batten
Mr. Allen Wahab
Mr. Joe Martin
Mr. Torn Fahnestock
Mr. Dale Overcash
Mr. Donald Safrit
Ms. Ruth Swanek
Mr. Robert Teulings
EMU
SRF

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, MANAGEMENT
March 16, 1992
Memorandum
To: Don Safrit
From: Carla Sanderson
Through: Ruth Swanek 1.
Subject: City of Monroe WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0024333
Union County
Request for weekly averages for metals and cyanide
I am responding to the letter sent February 6, 1992, from Kim Hinson (supervisor
for the City of Monroe's WWTP) requesting a change in limits for cadmium, chro-
mium, lead, nickel, and cyanide. The request for weekly limits instead of daily
maximums will be granted. The current permitted daily maximum limits will now
be the weekly average and therefore the limits will be as follows:
Weekly Average Daily Maximum
Cadmium (ug/1) 2 5
Chromium (ug/l) 50 200
Lead (ug/l) 25 34
Nickel (ug/1) 88 352
Cyanide (ug/1) 5 20
These recommendations are based on the Instream Assessment Unit's Standard Oper-
ating Procedures. If you have any questions concerning the above, please let me
know (ext. 506) .
cc: Randy Kepler
Central Files

CITY OF MONROE
P.O BOX 69 • MONROE. NORTH CAROLINA 28111-0069
FAX [phone]
Febuary 6s' 1992
Donald Safrit
N.C. Dept. of EHNR
DEM
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Mr. Safrit:
j
tog
FEB 17 1(2C.2
This letter is written in reference to the City of Monroe's Wastewater Discharge
Permit #NC0024333. Our current permit was signed by you and issued to the City
on November 30, 1989. One of the effluent parameters is Nickel, with a discharge
limitation of 50 ug/1. Since the stream standard for Nickel has been raised to
88 ug/l, I would like to get our current permit revised to include this and thus
set our discharge limit at 88 ug/1 as opposed to 50 ug/1 for Nickel as it currently
states.
Also, based on a letter sent to our City Manager dated 8-3-89 and signed by R. Paul
Wilms, it was made clear that we could have our metals and cyanide effluent limitations
changed from daily maximums to weekly averages. In this case the weekly average would
become what the daily maximum is now and a higher daily maximum would be assigned.
The parameters effected by this change include Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Nickel and
Cyanide. For the purpose of determining the weekly average, daily values shown
to be less than detection will be considered to be equal to zero.
Please respond and advise me of the following:
1. What needs to be done to raise our effluent limitation for Nickel from 50 ug/1
to 88 ug/1.
2. What needs to be done to change the limitations for Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, / P_
Nickel and Cyanide from daily maximums to weekly averages. C60,-('
DN-
3. What would the daily maximum for the parameters mentioned above change to if
we went to a weekly average.
Sincerely,
A 14;.,
Kim A. Hinson
Supervisor, WWTP

1 v Cbvteam i Kr_,6 i V
ter Kyk l uec . Ai i + sow,(
Om 65 = g S uuc, ( cg.2.c,,v�4- `'A6 e o vi-2
4
-Rom dcu. II a� 0\044 vticiAs amfokr.
Ws? P.Lu Q.U,-QhG GXe�
Co�c� m u vv, a. g ug�
�I/L�DVu t u a 03 / t
71
(),
Cltui. E
s_Iy.yytptp.s/ K.
u8A /FA/
-ur8,l
AKA 10 ci vt d eb G c w� -I-
w cua

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 11, 1991
Memo r4ndum
To: Alan Clark
From: Carla Sanderson
Through: Ruth SwanekVZCS`/
Trevor Clementsl
Subject: City of Monroe WWTP
201 Facilities Plan
NPDES Permit No. NC0024333
Union County
I have reviewed the 201 Facilities Plan Amendment (September, 1991) for the City
of Monroe and did not observe any inconsistencies with Technical Support's pre-
vious recommendations. Although, I wouldto comment on future requirements that
will be imposed on the City at the permit renewal in 1994.
The limit for Fecal Coliform will be 200/100 ml at the next permit renewal.
In addition, a chlorine standard may be developed by permit renewal time and
implemented in all permits that use chlorine for disinfection. Therefore, the
City may want to consider an alternative form of disinfection with the plans for
renovations of the facility.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
October 31, 1991
Mr. P. Wilson Crook
Director of Utilities
City of Monroe
P.O. Box 69
Monroe, N.C. 28111-0069
Subject: Town of Monroe WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0024333
Union County
Dear Mr. Crook,
Your letter dated September 24, 1991 to Mr. Rex Gleason was directed to my
office for comment. The request for information regarding the calculations
and/or explanation for the limits imposed on the Town of Monroe's NPDES Permit
are as follows:
The Town of Monroe discharges to Richardson Creektiat a point where the estimated
7Q10 flow is 0.43 cfs. In March, 1989, a wasteload allocation was requested for
renewal of the 7.0 MGD wasteflow and modification for expansion to 9.0 MGD and
11.0 MGD wasteflows. These wasteflows correspond to instream waste concentra-
tions of 96%, 97%, and 98%.
As part of the evaluation for renewal of the permit, recorded instream data were
checked for violations. Data collected above and below the discharge outfall
showed levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) below the stream standard of 5 mg/1.
Since the instream DO values were recorded below the standard, a request was
made of the Biological Assessment Group to visit the site. On March 13, 1989
the Group took samples from Richardson Creek above and below the treatment plant
outfall. Evidence of high organic loading to the stream was apparent at the
downstream site due to the dominance of certain macroinvertebrates.
Due to the evident wastewater dominance in Richardson Creek, low dissolved oxy-
gen levels instream, and results from the Biological Assessment Group, the Tech-
nical Support Branch assigned limits for tertiary levels of treatment for all
conventional parameters. The water quality standards were assigned as limits
for all metals due to the lack of dilution during low flow conditions.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal O000rtunity Affirmative Action Emnlover

When the permit was issued in 1989, the limits listed below were given for each
of the wasteflows: 7.0 MGD, 9.0 MGD, and 11.0 MGD.
Summer Winter Daily Max (Sum & Win)
BOD5 (mg/1) 5 10
NH3N (mg/1) 2 4
DO (mg/1) 6 6
TSS (mg/1) 30 30
Fec. Col.(/100m1) 1000 1000
pH (SU) 6-9 6-9
cadmium (ug/1)
chromium (ug/1)
nickel (ug/1)
lead (ug/1)
cyanide (ug/1)
effluent monitoring for copper, zinc, and MBAS
2.0
50.0
50.0
25.0
5.0
Toxicity testing : Chronic/Ceriodaphnia/Quarterly @ 96% (7 MGD)
Chronic/Ceriodaphnia/Quarterly @ 97% (9 MGD)
Chronic/Ceriodaphnia/Quarterly @ 98% (11 MGD)
The above limits are subject to modification at the next permit renewal due to
changes in the water quality standards and state regulations.
Please contact me at [phone] if yod have any further questions concerning
this matter.
Sincerely,
Carla Sanderson
Water Quality Modeler
cc: Mike Parker - MRO
Central Files

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary October 15, 1991 Director
Honorable Lynn A. Keziah, Mayor
City of Monroe
P. O. Box 69
Monroe, North Carolina 28111-0069
SUBJECT: City of Monroe
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
In -Progress Plan Review Conference
Project No. CS370564-02
Dear Mayor Keziah:
This is to advise of the State requirement that final plans, specifi-
cations and supporting design data must be submitted for State review and
approval, before State loan funding can be approved for the subject
project. In accordance with the established schedules, the complete/final
plans and specifications should be submitted by March, 1992 in order to be
reviewed and approved in time to meet the Binding Commitment Date of July,
1992. If the Binding Commitment Date is not met, the Loan funding will be
withheld.
A review of the plans, specifications, supporting documents and
checklist (see below) in conference with the City' s authorized
representative and the Consultant Engineer at the 10% and 50% level of
completion is required. The 10% In -Progress Plan review conference should
be held in November. Therefore, when the detailed project design with
preliminary plans and specifications is initiated, you or your engineer must
advise us of the time and date chosen in November for the 10%
"In -Progress" plan review conference as soon as possible. The attendance of
the City's authorized representative at the 10% In -Progress conference is
required; and the conference is not to be scheduled until this person can be
present.
Attached is the "In -Progress Review Checklist" which includes review
items to be discussed in our 10% and 50% conferences with you and the
consulting engineer. You and your consultant engineer should review this
prior to our conference, so that any questions can be resolved; or any
needed clarification/information can be provided during this conference.
Polludon Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

2
Three (3) sets of the initial plan details and complete design basis
are to be submitted at the 10% review conference; and for the 50% review
conference, three (3) sets of the plans/specifications, final design basis
and an up -dated cost estimate are to be presented.
The 10% and 50% In -Progress Reviews of the plan documents are required
in order to obtain the following:
1. Every effort must be taken to prevent bid overruns, since a
project is not to receive loan funding in excess of that
established on the priority list for the project. It is the
Recipient's sole responsibility to see that the project is
designed in such a manner as to stay within the established
funding limit. If bids exceed the loan amount, the Recipient must
pay the additional amount; or redesign and rebid the project to
get within the funded amount. If a JOC/SOC schedule is
involved and is not extendable, then Recipient must proceed with
award of bid(s) or be subject to the fine amount stipulated in
order; and possible loss of loan funds.
2. A timely submittal of final plans, specifications and supporting
documents which are final and complete in all respects, including:
a. In complete compliance with Loan conditions, the 201
Facilities Plan, and any contingencies imposed on the design
by the environmental review.
b. Compliance with EPA and State regulatory requirements.
3. Clear, precise and complete plan documents for the Biddability/Con-
structibility review, for which a review period or thirty (30)
days is required.
4. Prompt resolution of other Agency review comments which could
result in lengthy delays in plan processing and approval.
5. Mutual understanding and effort by all parties to coordinate and
maintain processing of project plan documents to meet target dates
designated for State funding.
If a new or revised NPDES Permit is required for the subject facili-
ties, it is imperative that you take this action immediately by making
application to Ms. Brenda Smith, Regional Supervisor, Division of
Environmental Management, Mooresville Regional Office. Your project plans
cannot be approved until a Permit has been issued. Please note that the
processing and issuance of a Permit will normally take six (6) months, but
can take as much as nine (9) months.

The Recipient and consultant engineer must adhere to the schedules for
obtaining the NPDES Permit, complying with JOC/SOC and submission of final
plans and specifications in order that all other established schedules can
be met. If the Binding Commitment date is not rnet, the Loan funding will
be withheld.
If there are any questions concerning this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact Mr. Robert Teulings, the State Project Review Engineer,
at [phone], extension 610.
Sincerely,
/ec t, 4,17;
W. S. Hoffman, Supervisor
Construction Grants & Loans Section
Design Management Unit
Attachment
RP`1':vk_
cc: Hazen & Sawyer
Mooresville Regional Office
Mr. John R. Blowe
Mr. Coy Batten
Mr. Allen Wahab
Mr. Joe Martin
Mr. Tom Fahnestock
Mr. Dale Overcash
Mr. Donald Safrit
Ms. Ruth Swanek
Mr. Robert Teulings
cu
SRF

SrATEa�u
1
11
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Mooresville Regional Office
OCT 0 8 1991
r:-urf BRANCH
James G/Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
L
Albert F. Hilton, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 7, 1991
P. Wilson Crook
Director of Utilities
City of Monroe
Post Office Box 69
Monroe, North Carolina 28111-0069
Subject: Wasteload Allocation
City of Monroe
NPDES Permit No.0024333
Union County
Dear Mr. Crook:
This Office is in receipt of your letter dated September 24,
1991 concerning a request for information regarding the
calculations and/or documentation that was used to establish the
effluent limitations assigned to the subject facility.
Please note that the development of these limitations
originated from within the Division's Technical Support Group in
our Raleigh Office. Therefore, we are forwarding a copy of your
letter to Technical Support for their review and response.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact Mr. Trevor Clements, Supervisor, Technical Support at (919)
733-5083 or Mr. Michael L. Parker in the Mooresville Office.
MLP
Sincerely,
1 D. Rex Gleason, P.E.
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Trevor Clements
919 North Main Street, Mooresville, N.C. 28115 • Telephone [phone] • FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

September 24, 1991
D. Rex Gleason
Division of Environmental Management
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
Dear Mr. Gleason:
W10,%40//e/ae
driteiKaolep.0
POST OFFICE BOX 69 • MONROE, NORTH CAROLINA 28111-0069
704-289-8557 • FAX [phone]
IN. C. LLEPT. Cr NATURAL
fill .+.rS AtiI)
0 1991
t JOIEs 1EE RECI2PIALMAPIAGMEHT
OFFICE
The intent of this letter is to request any calculations and/or documention
that led to the effluent discharge limitations being set in our current
NPDES permit No. NC0024333 for the City of Monroe wastewater treatment plant.
I understand that limitations are derived and set forth to protect the water
quality and thus support wildlife in our receiving stream under low flow
(i.e. 7Q10) conditions but I do not understand how the final effluent discharge
concentration is derived. I assume through downstream assimilations taking
into effect the discharge flow of the POTW and the flow of the receiving
stream upstream of the POTW that effluent limitations can be assessed. I
have a copy of the NPDES waste load allocation for our treatment plant dated
April 7, 1989 which sets forth our current discharge limitations but again
no mathematical calculations or explinations are offered for final discharge
determination. I would like to see an explination and/or the calculations
that were used to derive our current NPDES effluent limitations. I anxiously
await your response.
Sincerely,
P. Wilson Crook
Director of Utilities
Council Members
P. E. Bazemore Judy L. Davis
Mayor Lewis R. Fisher Billy Jordan City Manager
Lynn A. Keziah Phil Hargett I. B. Shive Jerry E. Cox

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary April 17, 1991 Director
Mr. Johnni Ho
Delta Engineering
6701 Carmel Road - Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28226
Dear Mr. Ho:
RE E1VE
APR 1 9 199i
LC;it'3ICAL SUPPORT BRANCH
This letter is in followup to our phone conversation
regarding the City of Monroe's plans to enlarge their wastewater
treatment plant capacity from 7.0 to 9.0 million gallons per day.
As discussed, an environmental assessment (EA) will need to be
prepared for this project. An EA is required because the size of
the expansion exceeds the Department's minimum criteria threshold
of 0.5 mgd. An EA is automatically required for publically
funded projects that exceed the minimum criteria threshold (see
page 7 of Attachment I, Section .0604 (3) (a)) .
In this regard, it should also be noted that DEM had
previously discussed this matter with the City last fall when the
City had requested permission to replace a series of four failing
pump stations and connecting force mains. At that time, DEM
informed the City that an EA would be required for a) the plant
expansion, b) a proposed major sewer system extension (into a
previously unserved basin) and c) the work associated with the
pump station replacements and related wastewater system
improvements and extensions.
Enclosed is information that you should find of use in
preparing the EA. Attachments I and II contain formal rules that
outline the purpose, general content and review procedures for
EAs and environmental impacts statements (EISs). Attachment III
provides more specific guidance on the form and content of an EA.
An Agency Contacts List indicates which agencies you should
contact as part of the EA preparation. A copy of an approved
wastewater treatment plant EA is also included. Finally, it is
recommended that you contact Mr. Trevor Clements in order to
obtain draft or speculative waste limits and disinfection
requirements for the proposed facility.
Polludon Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Mr. Johnni Ho
April 17, 1991
Page 2
The EA for the plant expansion and wastewater system
improvements/expansions will need to be prepared, reviewed and
circulated through the State Clearinghouse prior to DEM's
processing of permits for these actions. The minimum review
period for a straight -forward EA is roughly three and one-half
months. Review time can generally be kept to a minimum by
coordinating with review agencies during EA development and
providing answers to their concerns in the document submitted to
us for review.
If you have any questions as you proceed through preparation
of the EA, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
ffc_
Alan R. Clark
Environmental Review Coordinator
Ho.Ltr
Enclosures
cc: Trevor Clements
Dale Overcash
Carolyn McCaskill

1 Yevrov)
-T1� lou�t� Yew &) U vw-S
1 .Q iC\, 4 I M (5-b.
A 150 ► ows- 4o &-1v m 4 an c)5 -� v
nn.L4c S.
Fud Iwo
Ye WAY wJ ,Li 11/-t.1-
°� 1013 '1 (6) ao%/gLW)#'
q. 5Ia tics) iDIU/&rw)
it 51a1L(3) 1011416 (to)
CcOnAiu
5b
Getde
C.:ri 1 - Yv-}i

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
January 10, 1991
Mr. Ralph Troutman
Black and Veatch Engineers
5540 Centerview Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
Dear Mr. Troutman:
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
v..!
1 1 1991
This letter is in followup to our phone conversation
regarding the Town of Monroe's plans to enlarge it's wastewater
treatment plant and wastewater collection system. As a first
step, it is my understanding that Black and Veatch has been
requested by the Town to prepare an environmental assessment (EA)
for these proposed activities.
Enclosed is information that you should find of use in
preparing the EA. Attachments I and II contain formal rules that
outline the purpose, general content and review procedures for
EAs and environmental impacts statements (EISs). Attachment III
provides more specific guidance on the form and content of an EA.
The agency contacts list indicates which agencies you should
contact as part of the EA preparation. It is also recommended
that you contact Mr. Trevor Clements in order to obtain draft or
speculative waste limits and disinfection requirements for the
proposed plant expansion.
If you have any questions as you proceed through preparation
of the EA, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
16,
Alan R. Clark
Environmental Review Coordinator
Troutman.Ltr
Enclosures
cc: Trevor Clements
Dale Overcash
Carolyn McCaskill
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

P r; « a,..9 S`1'^
c# ,it'\A(..e_ t.,..€ ci„e_ cs.A.a..iti,
pre_sx a v Gont &A , CCui )
a6N/1- 4 . S ....il ( cps
a. vvt n i vwv,.h p? 2.• o u.,g/c o
rka ^^j 4-- 10,7 4.•,h
,rtn� 4,0,.,t..._.L . NO.tivi

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
April 17, 1990
Memorandum
To: Rex Gleason
From: Carla Sanderson lJ
Through: Trevor Clement j
Subject: Instream Assessment for the Town of Monroe
NPDES Permit No. NC0024333
Union County
SOC Case No. 90-08
Summary and Recommendations
Technical Support has completed an in -stream assessment for the Town of Monroe.
The Town has requested an SOC because their facility is of out of compliance
with BOD5, NH3N, cadmium, nickel, lead, cyanide, chromium, and chronic toxicity.
In addition to relaxing limitations for these parameters, the Town would like to
add up to 2.0 MGD of domestic flow to the already existing wasteflow of 7.0 MGD.
A Level-B analysis was performed to assess the impact of the additional flow.
The modeling analyses for this assessment (pre-SOC flow and limits and post SOC
flow and limits) predicted dissolved oxygen (DO) levels to drop well below 3
mg/1 downstream of the discharge. Technical Support would like to further clar-
ify this condition. The EPA Criteria Document for Dissolved Oxygen indicates
that the threshold for the protection of fish survival is approximately 3.0 mg/1
DO. In the case of Monroe, increased amounts of wasteflow are expected to drive
the stream to more frequent violations of the dissolved oxygen threshold for
which aquatic life experience mortality.
No additional wasteflow can be added under the interim limitations originally
proposed for inclusion with the SOC without violating EMC 67(b) criteria.
Results of the Level B modeling analysis indicate that, if the Town wishes to be
allowed to increase to 9.0 MGD, the maximum interim allowable concentrations for
GODS are 21 mg/1 in the summer and 22 mg/1 in the winter, and 6 mg/1 for NH3N
year round. The summer limits are constrained by the allowable net increase in
the zone of stream predicted to be less than the water quality standard (i.e.
0.5 miles), whereas the winter limits are constrained by the allowable net
decrease in the predicted DO minimum (i.e. 0.5 mg/1).
EMC criteria state that no industrial sources should be added under an Order.
In recent past, DEM has interpreted this as "no toxics in toxic amounts".
Therefore, it is recommended that this SOC be limited to domestic type waste
additions only, and milestones be incorporated in the schedule for the facility
to ensure compliance with the final limits for cadmium, nickel, lead, cyanide,
and chromium upon expiration of the Order.

Background Information
The Town of Monroe WWTP discharges into Richardson Creek, a class "C" stream in
the Yadkin River Basin. Richardson Creek drains approximately 233 square miles
and at the Monroe discharge location the drainage area is 71.7 square miles.
The USGS estimates the following flows at the discharge site: summer 7Q10 =
0.43 cfs, winter 7Q10 = 1.0 cfs, and average flow = 64 cfs, however flows are
regulated by an upstream impoundment and the instream flow during the low flow
period is usually made up of leakage from the dam. The segment of the creek
where the Monroe WWTP discharges is slow moving with a stream bed gradient of
2.4 feet per mile.
The Town of Monroe applied for an expansion of their WWTP in January, 1989.
The existing design flow is 7.0 MGD and the requested expansion flows are for
9.0 MGD and 11.0 MGD. The analysis and evaluation of instream data produced
summer (winter) limitations of 5(10) mg/1 BOD5, 2(4) mg/1 NH3N, and 6 mg/1 DO.
Instream data collected from DEM's data monitoring files indicated that Richard-
son Creek had been experiencing dissolved oxygen levels below the water quality
standard of 5 mg/1 both above and below the WWTP discharge location. Three
years of summer temperature and DO data were used to estimate the average
upstredm dissolved oxygen percent saturation (60%). Using the temperature value
of 26 degrees Celsius (expected for this hydro -environmental area) and the cor-
responding 100% saturation DO value (8.11 mg/1), the upstream DO concentration
used for the modeling analysis was 4.9 mg/1.
Analysis and Discussion
The Level-B model was run with the limitations that the Monroe facility is
currently achieving (i.e. 7 mgd, 20 mg/1 BOD5, 6 mg/1 NH3N and 6 mg/1 DO) as a
baseline condition. The BOD5 and NH3N parameters were input to the model as
CBOD and NBOD using multipliers of 2.0 for BOD5 and 4.5 for NH3N (see Table 1.).
When these effluent characteristics were input to the model, the predicted DO
sag was 1.66 mg/1 at milepoint 2.75 (see Table 2). The model prediction is a
close simulation of actual conditions in the stream. Instream data indicate
DO levels below the discharge last summer as low as 2.2 mg/1 at approximately
3 miles. During the months of June '89 through September '89 the facility
was operating at a lower wasteflow (average = 6.79 mgd) and effluent limits
(averages were BOD5 = 14.2 mg/1, NH3N = 1.93 mg/1, and DO = 6.9). It is very
possible that during the SOC summer periods, if the wasteflow is meeting a
monthly average of 7.0 MGD and limitations of 20 mg/1 BOD5 and 6 mg/1 NH3N,
the DO may drop as low or lower than 1.66 mg/l.
Technical Support used the baseline condition model run for comparing the
increased flow of 9.0 MGD and possible increased limits to meet the 67(b)
criteria. The Level-B modeling analysis predicted that the requested flows and
limits (7.0 MGD - pre-SOC flow and 9.0 MGD - SOC flow with corresponding limits
of 30 mg/1 BOD5, 20 mg/1 NH3N and 6 mg/1 DO) would exceed the maximum allowable
degradation to the stream under the EMC 67(b) criteria. During this analysis,
when the increased waste concentrations were input to the model, the DO did not
recover to background concentrations at the end of the previous modeled segment

for the wasteload allocation. Therefore, the segment was extended to approxi-
mately 20 miles. The slope on Richardson Creek fluctuates up and down during
the length of this segment. This condition brought about a second sag point for
further comparison against the 67(b) criteria (see Table 2.).
The proposed limit for nickel will exceed the State chronic criteria of 88 ug/1
and the proposed limits for cadmium, lead, and cyanide will exceed State chronic
criteria of 2 ug/1, 25 ug/l, and 5 ug/1 respectively, and also exceed the fed-
eral acute criteria of 1.8 ug/l, 33.8 ug/l, and 22 ug/1, respectively (note:
federal chronic criteria for cadmium is 0.66 ug/1). Since the instream waste
concentration is near 100%, any exceedances of the above criteria will promote
toxic effects to the stream. In addition, the Town of Monroe has had non-
compliant toxicity testing reports since September, 1989. They did not report
toxicity in September, failed in December, and failed in February, 1990. In
light of the above, the Town should not be allowed any additional sources of
industrial types of wateflow during this Order.
cc:
t
Kent Wiggins
Rex Gleason
WLA File'
Central File

TABLE 1. INSTREAM ASSESSMENT MODEL INPUT SUMMARY FOR THE TOWN OF MONROE
Wasteflow Assumptions
Design Capacity 9.0 MGD (expansion)
Pre-SOC 7.0 MGD
Additional SOC Flow Requested +2.0 MGD
Maximum Allowable SOC Flow +2.0 MGD
Model Input Summary
Headwater Conditions:
Summer Winter
7Q10 (cfs) 0.43 1.0
Qavg (cfs) 64.00 64.00
Design Temperature 26 14
(degrees Celsius)
CBOD (mg/1) 2.0 2.0•
NBOD (mg/1) 1.0 1.0
DO (mg/1) 4.9 9.28
Special Assumptions:
Upstream D.O. value at 60% saturation
Wastewater Inputs:
Flows
Pre-SOC Flow 7.0 MGD
(facility is currently meeting)
Post-SOC Flow 9.0 MGD
(pre-SOC flow + total
combined SOC addition)
Maximum allowable flow 9.0 MGD
CBOD (2.0 * 21 mg/1 BOD5) 42.0 mg/1 (summer)
(2.0 * 22 mg/1 SODS) 44.0 mg/1 (winter)
NBOD (4.5 * 6 mg/1 NH3N) 27.0 mg/1
DO 6.0 mg/1

TABLE 2. INSTREAM ASSESSMENT MODEL OUTPUT SUMMARY FOR THE TOWN OF MONROE
Summer Model Results
Limits:
Pre-SOC SOC
Wasteflow = 7.0 MGD Wasteflow = 9.0 MGD
BOD5 = 20 mg/1 BOD5 = 21 mg/1
NH3N = 6 mg/1 NH3N = 6 mg/1
DO = 6 mg/1 DO = 6 mg/1
First DO Net Second DO Net Distance Net
Min. Change Min. Change <5 mg/1 DO Change
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mi) (mi)
Pre-SOC 1.66 NA 2.79 NA 12.58 NA
SOC
1.45 0.21
2.53 0.26
Winter Model Results
Limits:
Pre-SOC SOC
Same as above Wasteflow = 9.0 MGD
BOD5 = 22 mg/1
NH3N = 6 mg/1
DO = 6 mg/1
13.04 0.46
First DO Net Second DO Net Distance Net
Min. Change Min. Change <5 mg/l DO Change
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mi) (mi)
Pre-SOC 5.84 NA 5.45 NA 0.0 NA
SOC 5.53 0.31 4.99 0.46 0.1 0.1

/0�`i
(-0-6(1-41 JA41-e44-01-Lei AC,2-0-41tdilo -4-1N/ 1/46.0 C.. lue,o,a-U4
-PA= 13"5►a
Czs# a2 1054. ta355' 8to d A1 d`f.35cis
oA=5.a5 nci" WOL=o.8,(c
L)s&5#a.i3.5y,&joa189
DA= 34E.4 Ylk a
641- GCS
yDS- o.a►C,s
your �o.48c-CS
rf `1
L��e Twr
US0-50.l5.4(9o0' 8�1
PA=t6br&i.a
IA v3.ocs
Vf05- - oqi C,-C
ouy= 0. a 1 GA
5tewafM
een
U5664*.2 ia53.1 0101cl
DA = Sct. a ywza
YIDS^ D.G4c-1s .:
7 o1,0=!.2C'CS
osO6*.,I I a54. G4 z `8`t
DA='7.33 YVCA.a
17(bs'
ro
P
US(r5* 0. ►a 53.05a3 'gc
PA= W-.l nti
Cam= 13.0
7(ow =o .cx)
�---- N�f .6 Rrf. touITQ

BOA= 5,,
j%' U.V4 c-(s
1 r "0' C�/d �/�— �ZJ Y U` I -CUV vO [�
1.6
tr
5\ nA
4=__•�a wu
7tp 0 =0
pct
/105=0.gr1c-Cs
I,Q4c-s
15 3.03 vw�
04: IJ°7.3
Taky------2 r
dos=,i3
tJ '
.
L6,g,-) 46. 4 ? = , d a
94to c4 - (I.qb+o)
64-{ 13r7, 3- (f0
2rt,6 ( 0)

c.�321,164M
w; los d ev c VQa -die-
A=`1.33A is
c A= 1ao
r- (),toc
04=4.06 c
-0 onto\ i (�
�ck�=,Ot3U .
sue.
j f?7 6,75-
QA-�d
DA-7- , u -fS
Sung Ohl KO-
1. -VrKa5 Leo O'\A
J. -Ry,_, G
o,--")

-oLVzi `CiC/S Ci i-[—
�S+ DA
dos= f ot9 c.cs

lei s5rn
A:(e0-13 c40,65O fck
dos= (0.54-,05-•Li_3 .55-= .0icw<.�
(,4 08,0' -(6 .(o f Lis- t /r/ . 7:4.5
yap Ebbs -c - J &8
2 yrs, c16.` 6 v vw✓ 1' $ 6 `12 8) / k9 J o Cro °70
.P-(.5(/L 7 Q41(i3 _ ,;)6 � laic70 rJO. S • ii(0, 60,d �(,kir.{ e 6-) 4. 9
4.9 va c i ,2o , (.uc).1 u5Pd cis bac ttaiout€ 'OA tWel
6.0_± 4-ko c,2 .e , (4'646_4
j.i(A•k-
1.15i
aJ
u
500 22
DO
u}(b5 0=,or
'kJ/OW-B O
G1�43O ,S
d l off, -a,LI
aL li-41 cuut / Co 7 oL 0
4
Ps5
Li .5
5
b
.oa
•05
t-fS
5
45

HOC
modal �aMA 4PM,Lei alloa) \-e-cotA0A`-(-0 ffma��
(o
Yi°
a+ � P.v-J 0-F'41,0 vncriel
Se9tunet.
auk. 8 Flo c,, 9
0, g L 6.05 Me-
-FOZ6o.:
iyu 0
c7.84/
03
,07
1, I
7ri.
/s'b
AA- = 5,33
51,61<j. .25-- 6 L.-7-6,,a 5-
- -11
ck_c_k- 6 Re. Cc__C,(/‘, (j r �C CtLk
O . q Z= 0. (i) I-7 0,3 I.: 3 L17 L- 04s
,U3
,70,0 0 rl
� = G
7rou)---
K0.7 (,, as
7foj- RP efs
'710,0z-
c.-k
6,26- 7 Co
l,Pr9 � $, (6,

o Cempana �C i� �°4v1Acuwti c/ktf) (4xa1/t.eaw�
� _.� �oK � G/89 -�i4s
(iMtt L7Ld 6L-»^' daa v. o. tu,tt,(o rµluu deu9-34, fd
a.a 405,0- 4‘A d�
fh)e evuacxpow = 6. '79 rn$
so Pc 14. /3164

Av&oo 4L3. 3
)j t r vt weGueup mime poi ew g too&
pare
I
po trl 80P (rn69‘ Fe.dncL
NH5JI
IPVHp
00(min
,FODtm)
((me)
NA N
Ao
13.7
e (8.11) 3.7 (57) aql (395)
o.51.1:
/3. a
g'. a (7.2)
5 (67.8)
41 C610
o.1011.6
) o
11. 8
io a( g.9) 51 (l alp) 117 IW0)
.I S(.1)
II. B
61.1 (7.5)
6.1 (is.q)
166c ab)
G4L (GG)
6.0 0
,53 010
1./g9
10.7
A�
ji.� (q1.8)
1P.5 (4.0
71y (1355)
.35i6
'7.7
ID.lo (g)
7-1 (4
11 (-19c6
9icj
15.
Co. i5 (4-5)
4:1 4.0) bolo 000)
:4 C
1 y
4.3 (47)
43 (.3.0)
liaa (10)
1 orgy
1 q
G. 6\1(6)4
43 (D (lib)
f g. 7
6.7 (4.60)
41 a (qq)
4i
(Q
41.0 (02.9)
39q (1500)
x.q.
3. `1(a.0
31 014
Oci
02.5
3. 7 (.q)
_ qa (, )
(26
35 (.3)
3') (q5)
iAol
96-a
5.6 (a.q)
3n 630)
a5.
4.t(a.(0)
3V(165)
- 0
4.5 (3.2)
331 41b15)
.4.4-
3.9 (a.))
371,63- )
9cj
Nig
- a
(.p. 1 (b.$)
tpb
ao. CD
(0.5 ( c)
4 ( Ice)
LYS1
161
%5.(0)
4iti 075)
I $.`1
1.3(4)
(,8a (8a5)
Nc,
13- S
'i-iN
who tins)
13;
8.5(6.7)
p9 c575)
iainevnbute @ 5 l (.036
Kea Yes tp 00 cvx vw) 1360 (:b4O) Fe_ lrnoA juIlViCkx.ax)
30 13.1 g. UP 3. (v (5.1) .316 C 476) 6,4 (o.P)
)/qo Q 9.3 (8.0) 5.7 644) 0113 (3gi5) 0.1/45Za C 1. 5)
1 .5 /1. a (I b) 5.60 44 4-9 Leo()) 6. (6. 7)
l5 7a (5.$) 5,l (G) Glob) 0,3g .5 .)

Discharger
Receiving Stream
MODEL RESULTS
: CITY OF MONROE
: RICHARDSON CREEK
LIMITS GIVEN TO FACILITY FOR
ALL FLOWS 7,9, & 11
504.1) illU1' --
The End D.O. is
The End CBOD is
The End NBOD is
6.95 mg/l.
5.46 mg/1.
3.42 mg/l.
Segment 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
DO Min
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach #
5.90 0.70
1
WLA WLA
CBOD NBOD
(mg/1) (mg/1)
10.00 9.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
WLA
DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) (mgd)
6.00 7.00000
0.00 0.00000
0.00 0.00000
0.00 0.00000
0.00 0.00000
0.00 0.00000
0.00 0.00000

Discharger
Receiving Stream
The End D.O. is
The End CBOD is
The End NBOD is
MODEL RESULTS
: CITY OF MONROE
: RICHARDSON CREEK
7.65 mg/l.
2.15 mg/l.
0.76 mg/1.
SUMMER
LIMITS GIVEN TO FACILITY FOR
7 MGD, 9 MGD, & 11 MGD
.5c d Gto tnern5oc,
nt t�3 FtJ V �vr PeYv'"
Segment 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Reach 8
Reach 9
Segment 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Reach 8
Reach 9
Segment 3
Reach 1
DO Min
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach #
5.90 0.70
6.58 4.30
1
4
7.56 0.00 1
WLA WLA
CBOD NBOD
(mg/1) (mg/1)
WLA
DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) (mgd)
10.00 9.00 6.00 7.00000
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
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
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

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA
4
**
Discharger : CITY OF MONROE
Receiving Stream : RICHARDSON CREEK
Summer 7Q10 : 0.43
Design Temperature: 26.
Subbasin : 030714
Stream Class: C
Winter 7Q10 : 1.
ILENGTHI SLOPE' VELOCITY 1 DEPTH' Kd 1 Kd 1 Ka 1 Ka 1 KN 1
I mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft Idesign l @204 Idesign l @204 Idesign!
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 1.151 2.401 0.229 11.81 1 0.28 1 0.21 1 2.88 1 2.531 0.48
Reach 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I
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
Reach 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
Segment 1 1 0.151 2.401 0.193 1 2.00 1 0.28 1 0.21 1 2.28 I 2.001 0.48
Reach 3 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I
Segment 1
Reach 4
1 1 1 1 1 I I I
1.651 5.001 0.236 11.81 1 0.29 10.22 1 2.93 1 2.571 0.48
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I
Segment 1 1 0.401 5.001 0.231 11.84 10.29 1 0.22 1 2.84 1 2.491 0.48
Reach 5 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I
I 1 I 1 I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0.601 16.701 0.325 1 1.55 10.35 1 0.27 1 4.36 1 3.831 0.48
Reach 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I
Segment 1 1 0.901 7.701 0.253 1 1.75 1 0.30 1 0.23 13.19 I 2.801 0.48
Reach 7 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I
1 I I
Segment 1 1 0.401 7.701 0.250 1.76 0.30 0.23 2.85 2.51 0.48
Reach 8 I I I
1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I
Segment 1 I 0.851 11.801 0.283 1 1.66 1 0.32 1 0.24 1 4.95 1 4.341 0.48
Reach 9 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I
1 I I I I 1 I 1 I
Segment 2 1 0.651 6.251 0.235 1 1.82 10.29 1 0.22 12.18 1 1.911 0.48
Reach 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I
I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I
Segment 2 1 0.951 6.251 0.232 1 1.84 1 0.29 10.22 1 2.15 I 1.881 0.48
Reach 2 I 1 1 I 1 I I I I
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I
Segment 2 1 2.301 3.701 0.199 1 1.99 1 0.28 10.21 1 1.09 I 0.961 0.48
Reach 3 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I

1 1 I
Segment 2 1 0.401 3.701 0.196 2.00 0.28 0.21 1.08 0.94 0.48
Reach 4 1 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 2 1 0.601 16.701 0.304 1 1.61 1 0.34 1 0.26 1 7.51 1 6.591 0.48
Reach 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 2 1 0.301 6.251 0.228 1 1.86 1 0.29 1 0.22 1 2.11 1 1.851 0.48
Reach 6
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 2 1 1.301 6.251 0.219 1 1.91 1 0.29 1 0.22 1 2.03 1 1.781 0.48
Reach 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 2 1 1.701 7.601 0.232 1 1.87 1 0.30 1 0.22 1 2.61 1 2.291 0.48
Reach 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
4-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 2 1 0.451 7.601 0.229 1 1.89 10.29 1 0.22 1 2.57 1 2.261 0.48
Reach 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 3 1 1.701 7.601 0.228 1 1.89 1 0.29 1 0.22 1 2.56 I 2.251 0.48
Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
I Flow 1 CBOD 1 NBOD I D.O. I
I cfs 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1 10.850 1 10.000 1 9.000 I 6.000
Headwaters) 0.430 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 4.900
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.010 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.090 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.010 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary 1 0.210 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.020 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.020 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 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 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 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 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 8
Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 1 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 9
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 2 Reach 1
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Headwaters) 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff I 0.020 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 2 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff I 0.030 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 2 Reach 3
Waste 1 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 0.030 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 2 Reach 4
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff I 0.030 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 2 Reach 5
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff I 0.030 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300

Segment 2 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 0.030 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 2 Reach 7
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.160 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff I 0.030 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 2 Reach 8
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 0.03Q I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 2 Reach 9
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.060 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff I 0.030 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 3 Reach 1
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Headwaters) 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff I 0.0310 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
LIMITS GIVEN TO FACILITY FOR
7 MGD, 9 MGD, & 11 MGD
Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow I
1 1 0.00 5.96 9.70 8.70 11.28
1 1 0.05 5.95 9.66 8.64 11.28
1 1 0.10 5.94 9.62 8.58 11.28
1 1 0.15 5.94 9.59 8.53 11.28
1 1 0.20 5.93 9.55 8.48 11.28
1 1 0.25 5.92 9.51 8.42 11.28
1 1 0.30 5.92 9.48 8.37 11.28
1 1 0.35 5.92 9.44 8.31 11.28
1 1 0.40 5.91 9.41 8.26 11.28
1 1 0.45 5.91 9.37 8.21 11.28
1 1 0.50 5.91 9.34 8.16 11.29
1 1 0.55 5.91 9.30 8.10 11.29
1 1 0.60 5.90 9.27 8.05 11.29
1 1 0.65 5.90 9.23 8.00 11.29
1 1 0.70 5.90 9.20 7.95 11.29
1 1 0.75 5.90 9.16 7.90 11.29
1 1 0.80 5.90 9.13 7.85 11.29
1 1 0.85 5.91 9.09 7.80 11.29
1 1 0.90 5.91 9.06 7.75 11.29
1 1 0.95 5.91 9.02 7.70 11.29
1 1 1.00 5.91 8.99 7.65 11.29
1 1 1.05 5.91 8.96 7.60 11.29
1 1 1.10 5.92 8.92 7.55 11.29 •
1 1 1.15 5.92 8.89 7.51 11.29
1 2 1.15 5.93 8.83 7.45 11.38
1 2 1.35 5.92 8.69 7.25 11.38
1 2 1.55 5.92 8.56 7.06 11.39
1 2 1.75 5.93 8.42 6.87 11.39
1 2 1.95 5.94 8.29 6.69 11.39
1 2 2.15 5.95 8.16 6.51 11.39
1 2 2.35 5.98 8.03 6.33 11.39
1 2 2.55 6.00 7.90 6.16 11.40
1 2 2.75 6.03 7.77 6.00 11.40
1 2 2.95 6.05 7.65 5.83 11.40
1 2 3.15 6.09 7.53 5.68 11.40
1 2 3.35 6.12 7.41 5.52 11.40
1 2 3.55 6.15 7.29 5.38 11.41
1 3 3.55 6.17 7.20 5.30 11.62
1 3 3.58 6.17 7.18 5.27 11.62
1 3 3.61 6.17 7.16 5.25 11.62
1 3 3.64 6.17 7.14 5.23 11.62
1 3 3.67 6.17 7.12 5.20 11.62
1 3 3.70 6.17 7.10 5.18 11.62
1 4 3.70 6.17 7.10 5.18 11.62
1 4 3.85 6.21 7.02 5.08 11.62
1 4 4.00 6.26 6.94 4.99 11.62
1 4 4.15 6.30 6.86 4.90 11.63
1 4 4.30 6.33 6.79 4.81 11.63
1 4 4.45 6.37 6.71 4.72 11.63
1 4 4.60 6.41 6.63 4.63 11.64
1 4 4.75 6.44 6.56 4.54 11.64
1 4 4.90 6.47 6.48 4.46 11.64
1 4 5.05 6.50 6.41 4.38 11.65
1 4 5.20 6.53 6.34 4.30 11.65
1 4 5.35 6.56 6.27 4.22 11.65
1 5 5.35 6.56 6.27 4.22 11.65

-'1 5 5.39 6.57 6.25 4.20 11.65
1 5 5.43 6.57 6.23 4.17 11.65
1 5 5.47 6.58 6.21 4.15 11.65
1 5 5.51 6.58 6.19 4.13 11.65
1 5 5.55 6.59 6.17 4.11 11.66
1 5 5.59 6.60 6.15 4.09 11.66
1 5 5.63 6.60 6.13 4.07 11.66
1 5 5.67 6.61 6.11 4.05 11.66
1 5 5.71 6.62 6.09 4.03 11.66
1 5 5.75 6.62 6.07 4.01 11.66
1 6 5.75 6.62 6.07 4.01 11.66
1 6 5.81 6.65 6.05 3.99 11.66
1 6 5.87 6.67 6.02 3.96 11.66
1 6 5.93 6.70 6.00 3.94 11.66
1 6 5.99 6.72 5.98 3.92 11.66
1 6 6.05 6.75 5.95 3.90 11.67
1 6 6.11 6.77 5.93 3.88 11.67
1 6 6.17 6.79 5.91 3.86 11.67
1 6 6.23 6.81 5.88 3.84 11.67
1 6 6.29 6.83 5.86 3.82 11.67
1 6 6.35 6.85 5.83 3.79 11.67
1 7 6.35 6.85 5.83 3.79 11.67
1 7 6.44 6.86 5.80 3.76 11.67
1 7 6.53 6.87 5.76 3.72 11.68
1 7 6.62 6.88 5.72 3.68 11.68
1 7 6.71 6.89 5.68 3.64 11.68
1 7 6.80 6.90 5.64 3.60 11.68
1 7 6.89 6.91 5.61 3.56 11.68
1 7 6.98 6.92 5.57 3.53 11.68
1 7 7.07 6.93 5.53 3.49 11.69
1 7 7.16 6.94 5.50 3.45 11.69
1 7 7.25 6.95 5.46 3.42 11.69
1 8 7.25 6.95 5.46 3.42 11.69
1 8 7.29 6.95 5.44 3.40 11.69
1 8 7.33 6.95 5.43 3.39 11.69
1 8 7.37 6.95 5.41 3.37 11.69
1 8 7.41 6.95 5.40 3.35 11.69
1 8 7.45 6.95 5.38 3.34 11.69
1 8 7.49 6.95 5.36 3.32 11.69
1 8 7.53 6.95 5.35 3.31 11.70
1 8 7.57 6.95 5.33 3.29 11.70
1 8 7.61 6.96 5.32 3.28 11.70
1 8 7.65 6.96 5.30 3.26 11.70
1 9 7.65 6.96 5.30 3.26 11.70
1 9 7.70 6.98 5.28 3.24 11.70
1 9 7.75 7.01 5.26 3.23 11.70
1 9 7.80 7.03 5.24 3.21 11.70
1 9 7.85 7.05 5.23 3.19 11.70
1 9 7.90 7.08 5.21 3.18 11.70
1 9 7.95 7.10 5.19 3.16 11.70
1 9 8.00 7.12 5.17 3.14 11.70
1 9 8.05 7.13 5.15 3.13 11.71
1 9 8.10 7.15 5.14 3.11 11.71
1 9 8.15 7.17 5.12 3.10 11.71
1 9 8.20 7.19 5.10 3.08 11.71
1 9 8.25 7.20 5.08 3.06 11.71
1 9 8.30 7.22 5.06 3.05 11.71
1 9 8.35 7.23 5.05 3.03 11.71
1 9 8.40 7.24 5.03 3.02 11.71
1 9 8.45 7.26 5.01 3.00 11.71

'�1 9 8.50 7.27 4.99 2.99 11.71
2 1 0.00 7.27 4.99 2.99 11.71
2 1 0.05 7.26 4.97 2.97 11.72
2 1 0.10 7.24 4.95 2.95 11.72
2 1 0.15 7.23 4.94 2.93 11.72
2 1 0.20 7.22 4.92 2.91 11.72
2 1 0.25 7.21 4.90 2.89 11.72
2 1 0.30 7.20 4.88 2.88 11.72
2 1 0.35 7.19 4.86 2.86 11.72
2 1 0.40 7.18 4.84 2.84 11.72
2 1 0.45 7.17 4.82 2.82 11.72
2 1 0.50 7.16 4.80 2.81 11.72
2 1 0.55 7.15 4.79 2.79 11.73
2 1 0.60 7.14 4.77 2.77 11.73
2 1 0.65 7.13 4.75 2.75 11.73
2 2 0.65 7.13 4.75 2.75 11.73
2 2 0.70 7.13 4.73 2.74 11.73
2 2 0.75 7.12 4.71 2.72 11.73
2 2 0.80 7.11 4.69 2.70 11.73
2 2 0.85 7.11 4.68 2.68 11.73
2 2 0.90 7.10 4.66 2.67 11.74
2 2 0.95 7.09 4.64 2.65 11.74
2 2 1.00 7.09 4.62 2.63 11.74
2 2 1.05 7.08 4.60 2.62 11.74
2 2 1.10 7.08 4.58 2.60 11.74
2 2 1.15 7.07 4.57 2.58 11.74
2 2 1.20 7.07 4.55 2.57 11.74
2 2 1.25 7.07 4.53 2.55 11.75
2 2 1.30 7.06 4.51 2.53 11.75
2 2 1.35 7.06 4.50 2.52 11.75
2 2 1.40 7.05 4.48 2.50 11.75
2 2 1.45 7.05 4.46 2.49 11.75
2 2 1.50 7.05 4.44 2.47 11.75
2 2 1.55 7.05 4.43 2.46 11.75
2 2 1.60 7.04 4.41 2.44 11.76
2 3 1.60 7.04 4.41 2.44 11.76
2 3 1.70 7.01 4.37 2.40 11.76
2 3 1.80 6.97 4.33 2.37 11.76
2 3 1.90 6.94 4.29 2.33 11.77
2 3 2.00 6.91 4.26 2.30 11.77
2 3 2.10 6.88 4.22 2.27 11.77
2 3 2.20 6.85 4.18 2.23 11.77
2 3 2.30 6.83 4.15 2.20 11.78
2 3 2.40 6.80 4.11 2.17 11.78
2 3 2.50 6.78 4.07 2.14 11.78
2 3 2.60 6.76 4.04 2.10 11.79
2 3 2,70 6.74 4.00 2.07 11.79
2 3 2.80 6.72 3.97 2.04 11.79
2 3 2.90 6.70 3.93 2.01 11.80
2 3 3.00 6.69 3.90 1.98 11.80
2 3 3.10 6.67 3.87 1.95 11.80
2 3 3.20 6.66 3.83 1.93 11.80
2 3 3.30 6.65 3.80 1.90 11.81
2 3 3.40 6.64 3.77 1.87 11.81
2 3 3.50 6.63 3.73 1.84 11.81
2 3 3.60 6.62 3.70 1.82 11.82
2 3 3.70 6.61 3.67 1.79 11.82
2 3 3.80 6.60 3.64 1.76 11.82
2 3 3.90 6.60 3.60 1.74 11.83
2 4 3.90 6.60 3.60 1.74 11.83

• 2 4 3.94 6.60 3.59 1.73 11.83
2 4 3.98 6.59 3.58 1.72 11.83
2 4 4.02 6.59 3.57 1.71 11.83
2 4 4.06 6.59 3.55 1.70 11.83
2 4 4.10 6.59 3.54 1.69 11.83
2 4 4.14 6.59 3.53 1.68 11.83
2 4 4.18 6.58 3.52 1.67 11.83
2 4 4.22 6.58 3.50 1.66 11.83
2 4 4.26 6.58 3.49 1.65 11.84
2 4 4,30 6.58 3.48 1.64 11.84
2 5 4.30 6.58 3.48 1.64 11.84
2 5 4.36 6.69 3.47 1.63 11.84
2 5 4.42 6.79 3.45 1.62 11.84
2 5 4.48 6.88 3.44 1.61 11.84
2 5 4.54 6.97 3.42 1.60 11.84
2 5 4.60 7.04 3.41 1.59 11.85
2 5 4.66 7.11 3.39 1.58 11.85
2 5 4.72 7.18 3.38 1.57 11.85
2 5 4.78 7.24 3.37 1.56 11.85
2 5 4.84 7.29 3.35 1.55 11.85
2 5 4.90 7.34 3.34 1.54 11.86
2 6 4.90 7.34 3.34 1.54 11.86
2 6 4.93 7.34 3.33 1.54 11.86
2 6 4.96 7.34 3.32 1.53 11.86
2 6 4.99 7.34 3.31 1.53 11.86
2 6 5.02 7.34 3.31 1.52 11.86
2 6 5.05 7.34 3.30 1.51 11.86
2 6 5.08 7.34 3.29 1.51 11.86
2 6 5.11 7.34 3.28 1.50 11.86
2 6 5.14 7.34 3.27 1.50 11.86
2 6 5.17 7.34 3.27 1.49 11.86
2 6 5.20 7.34 3.26 1.49 11.86
2 7 5.20 7.34 3.24 1.48 12.02
2 7 5.30 7.33 3.22 1.46 12.03
2 7 5.40 7.33 3.19 1.44 12.03
2 7 5.50 7.33 3.16 1.42 12.03
2 7 5.60 7.33 3.14 1.40 12.04
2 7 5.70 7.33 3.11 1.38 12.04
2 7 5.80 7.33 3.09 1.37 12.04
2 7 5.90 7.33 3.06 1.35 12.05
2 7 6.00 7.34 3.04 1.33 12.05
2 7 6.10 7.34 3.01 1.31 12.05
2 7 6.20 7.34 2.99 1.29 12.05
2 7 6.30 7.34 2.96 1.28 12.06
2 7 6.40 7.34 2.94 1.26 12.06
2 7 6.50 7.35 2.92 1.24 12.06
2 8 6.50 7.35 2.92 1.24 12.06
2 8 6.60 7.36 2.89 1.23 12.07
2 8 6.70 7.37 2.87 1.21 12.07
2 8 6.80 7.39 2.85 1.20 12.07
2 8 6.90 7.40 2.83 1.18 12.08
2 8 7.00 7.41 2.80 1.17 12.08
2 8 7.10 7.42 2.78 1.15 12.08
2 8 7.20 7.43 2.76 1.14 12.08
2 8 7.30 7.44 2.74 1.12 12.09
2 8 7.40 7.45 2.72 1.11 12.09
2 8 7.50 7.46 2.70 1.10 12.09
2 8 7.60 7.47 2.67 1.08 12.10
2 8 7.70 7.48 2.65 1.07 12.10
2 8 7.80 7.49 2.63 1.06 12.10

-2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
I Seg #
8 7.90 7.50 2.61
8 8.00 7.51 2.59
8 8.10 7.52 2.57
8 8.20 7.52 2.55
9 8.20 7.52 2.55
9 8.25 7.53 2.54
9 8.30 7.53 2.53
9 8.35 7.53 2.52
9 8.40 7.54 2.51
9 8.45 7.54 2.50
9 8.50 7.54 2.49
9 8.55 7.55 2.48
9 8.60 7.55 2.47
9 8.65 7.56 2.46
1 0.00 7.56 2.46
1 0.10 7.56 2.44
1 0.20 7.57 2.42
1 0.30 7.57 2.40
1 0.40 7.58 2.38
1 0.50 7.59 2.36
1 0.60 7.59 2.35
1 0.70 7.60 2.33
1 0.80 7.60 2.31
1 0.90 7.61 2.29
1 1.00 7.61 2.27
1 1.10 7.62 2.25
1 1.20 7.63 2.24
1 1.30 7.63 2.22
1 1.40 7.64 2.20
1 1.50 7.64 2.18
1 1.60 7.65 2.17
1 1.70 7.65 2.15
Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD
1.04
1.03
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.94
0.92
0.91
0.90
0.89
0.88
0.87
0.86
0.85
0.83
0.82
0.81
0.80
0.79
0.78
0.77
0.76
I NBOD
12.11
12.11
12.11
12.11
12.17
12.18
12.18
12.18
12.18
12.18
12.18
12.18
12.19
12.19
12.19
12.19
12.19
12.20
12.20
12.20
12.21
12.21
12.21
12.21
12.22
12.22
12.22
12.23
12.23
12.23
12.24
12.24
I Flow

SUMMER
LIMITS GIVEN TO FACILITY FOR
7 MGD, 9 MGD, & 11-1MGD
MODEL RESULTS ,,l}-e-V 'ot
Discharger : CITY OF MONROE ineryLSCL
Receiving Stream : RICHARDSON CREEK
The End D.O. is 7.57 mg/1.
The End CBOD is 3.17 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.49 mg/l.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 5.96 0.50 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Reach 8
Reach 9
Segment 2 6.56 4.30 4
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Reach 8
Reach 9
Segment 3 7.48 0.00 1
Reach 1
10.00 9.00 6.00 11.00000
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
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
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

MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : CITY OF MONROE
Receiving Stream : RICHARDSON CREEK
SUMMER
LIMITS GIVEN TO FACILITY FOR
7 MGD, 9 MGD, & 11 MGD
The End D.O. is 7.60 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 2.70 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.13 mg/1.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoirit Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 5.94 0.60 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Reach 8
Reach 9
Segment 2 6.55 4.30 4
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Reach 8
Reach 9
Segment 3 7.51 0.00 1
Reach 1
10.00 9.00 6.00 9.00000
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
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
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