HomeMy WebLinkAboutNC0025691_Instream Assessment_19880907NPDC:i DOCYNCMI' SCANNINL COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0025691
Littleton WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
September 7, 1988
Tlzis document is printed on reuse paper - ignore nay
content on the reverse side
Ift
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
September 7, 1988
005c*
TO: Bill Kreutzberger
FROM: Carla Sanderson
(G
THROUGH: David Vogt
Trevor Clements
Steve Tedder 0. d 1,5
SUBJECT: Instream Assessment for the Town of Littleton WWTP
NPDES No. NCO025691
Halifax County
JOC Case No. 88-09
Summary
An in -stream assessment for the Town of Littleton has been
completed by Technical Support. The Raleigh Regional Office is
requesting a JOC since the plant cannot meet their limits for
BOD5, NH3N and TSS. DEM's compliance monitoring data show Lit-
tleton to be periodically in violation with their BOD5 limit (up
to 50 mg/l for one monthly average), almost continuously in
violation with their TSS limit (up to 56.6 mg/l for one monthly
average), and one violation with their ammonia limit (6.45 mg/1
for one summer month). Although the Region is not requesting
additional flow under this JOC, they are asking for an evaluation
of the JOC limits with the maximum allowable flow that will not
violate 67(b) criteria. Using the maximum allowable flow (design
capacity of. 0.28 MGD), a Level-B analysis indicates that the
recommended changes in effluent limits will not have a signifi-
cant impact on dissolved oxygen levels in Butterwood Creek.
Analysis & Discussion
The Town of Littleton WWTP discharges into Butterwood Creek,
a class "C" Creek in the Tar River Basin. The Butterwood Creek
Watershed drains approximately 10.4 square miles and at the Lit-
tleton discharge the drainage area is estimated to be 1.29 square
miles. Actual flow data (collected on May 19, 1986 at several
sites on Butterwood Creek) were compared to the USGS estimates at
the discharge location. Using the actual data, the 7Q10 flow
estimate for the JOC is significantly different than the USGS
estimate. The actual 7Q10 flow estimate is 0.05 cfs, as opposed
to the USGS 7Q10 estimate of 0.2 cfs (average flow is unchanged
from the USGS estimate of 1.2 cfs).
A Level-B model was run with the Raleigh Regional Office's
suggested limits of 45 mg/l BOD5 and 6 mg/1 D.O. for both the
previous year's monthly average wasteflow (0.1605 MGD) and the
design flow (0.28 MGD) (see Table 1). An ammonia limit was added
to accommodate the ammonia evident in the monitoring data (the
summertime high of 7.0 mg/1 NH3-N was used). The BOD5 and NH3N
parameters were entered into the model as CBOD and NBOD using
multipliers of 1.5 for BOD5 and 4.5 for NH3-N. Consequently, the
waste inputs for the model were 67.5 mg/1 CBOD and 31.5 mg/1
NBOD.
The EMC criteria for granting a JOC states that with any
increase in wasteflow, the D.O. minimum shall not decrease by
more than 0.5 mg/1 and/or the distance the D.O. sags below 5.0
mg/1 will not increase by more than 0.5 mile. In this analysis,
the maximum allowable flow (design flow = 0.28 MGD) .is not pre-
dicted to result in violations of 67(b) criteria.
CC: Chuck Wakild
Kent Wiggins
Steve Reid
WLA File
Central Files
Table 1. Instream Assessment Summary for the Town of Littleton
Wasteflow Assumptions
Design Capacity 0.28 MGD
Monthly Average Flow 0.1605 MGD
(7/87-6/87)
Model Input Summary
Headwater Conditions:
7Q1O
0.05
of s
Qavg
1.20
cfs
Design Temperature
26
°C
CBOD
2
mg/l
NBOD
1
mg/1
DO
7.3
mg/1
Wastewater Inputs:
Flow see above
CBOD 67.5 mg/1
NBOD 31.5 rag / 1
DO 6.0 mg/l
Model Output Sim mar
DO min.
(mg/1)
Monthly Average Flow 3.83
(7/87-6/88)
Design Flow 4.00
<5.0 mg/l
(mi)
1.. 2
1.4
q
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
August 24, 1988
w-
M E M O R A D U M
TO Steve Tedder B'
Assistant Chief
Technical Services Branch
FROM Bill Kreutzberger
Water Quality Supervisor
Raleigh Regional Office
SUBJECT Instream Request
Consent Judgement (JOC # 88-09) �\
Town of Littleton WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCOO�i" 41
Halifax County
The subject wastewater treatment plant was issued a
Judicial Consent Judgment on June 16, 1988. it is not
expected that the Town will request additional flow.
However, it is my understanding that an instream assessment
will still be required. Attached is the request form for
the instream assessment. Please provide me with the maximum
flow above which significant impacts are expected to occur
under the JOC effluent limitations.
If any additional information is needed for your
review, please advise.
Request Form for In -stream Assessment for JOC
Name of Faciltiy: Town of LittletonSubbasin: 03:03:04
County: Halifax Design F1ow:0.280 mgd (existing)
Receiving Stream: Butterwood Creek
Backaround Data
A. Why is JOC needed? The Town of Littleton is curren
operating an antiquated wastewater treatment facili
which cannot meet the permit limitations for BOD
NH -N and S. The are constructinga new was ew
tr atment facility consisting of an oxidation ditch
clarifier. disinfection. and sludge handling facili
B. History of SOC requests: none
1. Monthly Average waste flow prior to any SOC?
Period: 8601 - 8606 Avg: 0.2056 mgd
Period: 8607 - 8706 Avg. 0.1886 mgd
Period: 8707 - 8806 Avg: 0.1605 mgd
2. Previously approved SOC's: none
Date: flow: mgd
Date: flow: mgd
Total of previously
approved SOC flow: 0 mgd
3. Flows lost from plant -flow: 0 mgd
(facilities off line)
^ Current JOC request flow: mqd
/� laaa ucau iauyuua.o al.c c.lyc.�cu.
p° Total Plant flow post-SOC
00) ( sum of original flow and
i� O 2Ss SOC minus losses) flow: 0.1605 mgd
- 2 -
6. Is this an accurate flow balance for plant?
Why or why not? No. The plant experiences
months of hiah flow durina wet periods du
C. A copy of the data is attached for your review
(January 1986 through June 1988).
CURRENT SOC REQUEST:
A. Request is for domestic or industrial waste? If it is a
combination, please specify percentages.
Domestic gpd 100 %
Industrial gpd %
B. What type of industry? Please attach any pertinent data.
n/a
C. The region proposes the following JOC limits:
JOC has been issued.
BOD5
NH3
DO
TSS
Fecal Coliform
pH
other parameters
D. What is the basis for these limits?
can
SUMMER
TOTAL PLANT FLOW POST-JOC
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger
:
TOWN OF LITTLETON-JOC
Receiving Stream
:
BUTTERWOOD CREEK
_------------
---------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 7.20
mg/l.
�
The End CBOD
is 4.29
mg/l.
The End NBOD
is 0.86
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint Reach #
.... .... .... ------ _______
(mg/l)
____
(mg/l)
____
(mg/1)
__
(mgd)
-----------
Segment 1
3.83
0.60 1
Reach 1
67.50
31.50
6.00
0.16050
Reach 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0000O
SUMMER
TOTAL PLANT FLOW POST-JOC
Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CPOD I
NPOD I
Flaw I
1
1
0.00
6.22
56.54
26.40
0.30r
1
1
0.20
4.A5
51.17
23.06
0.32
1
1
0.40
3.97
46.49
20.23
0.34
1
1
0.60
3.83
42.40
17.81
0.36
1
1
0.80
4.02
38.79
15.73
0.38
1
1
1.00
4.30
35.58
13.94
0.40
1
1
1.20
4.60
32.73
12.38
0.42
1
1
1.40
4.89
30.18
11.03
0.44
1
1
1.60
5.16
27.09
9.85
0.46
i
1
1.90
5.41
25.82
8.81
0.48
1
1
2.00
5.64
23.96
7.90
0.50
1
1
2.20
5.84
22.26
7.10
0.52
1
1
2.40
6.02
20.72
6.39
0.54
1
1
2.60
6.19
19.31
5.76
0.56
1
1
2.90
6.34
18.03
5.20
0.58
1
1
3.00
6.47
16.85
4.71
0.6:>
1
1
3.20
6.59
15.77
4.26
0.62
1
1
3.40
6.70
14.78
3.97
0.64
1
1
3.60
6.80
13.06
3.52
0.66
1
1
3.80
6.90
13.01
3.20
0.68
1
2
3.80
6.90
13.01
3.20
0.68
1
2
4.00
6.67
12.30
2.99
0.70
1
2
4.20
6.53
11.64
2.79
0.72
1
2
4.40
6.44
11.02
2.61
0.74
1
2
4.60
6.40
10.44
2.45
0.76
1
2
4.80
6.39
9.90
2.30
0.78
1
2
5.00
6.40
9.40
2.16
0.80
1
2
5.20
6.43
8.93
2.03
0.82
1
2
5.40
6.47
8.49
1.91
0.84
1
2
5.60
6.52
8.08
1.80
0.86
1
2
5.80
6.57
7.69
1.70
0.88
1
2
6.00
6.62
7.33
1.60
0.90
1
2
6.20
6.69
6.98
1.51
0.92
1
2
6.40
6.73
6.66
1.43
0.94
1
2
6.60
6.79
6.36
1.35
0.96
1
2
6.80
6.94
6.07
1.28
0.98
1
2
7.00
6.89
5.80
1.22
1.00
1
2
7.20
6.94
5.55
1.15
1.02
1
2
7.40
6.99
5.31
1.10
1.04
1
2
7.60
7.04
5.08
1.04
1.06
1
2
7.BO
7.08
4.87
0.99
1.08
1
2
6.00
7.13
4.66
0.95
1.10
1
2
8.20
7.17
4.47
0.90
1.12
1
2
8.40
7.20
4.29
0.86
1.14
Seg 0
1 Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CROD I
NPOD I
Flow I
SUMMER
-
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
' Discharger : TOWN OF LITTLETON-JOC
Receiving Stream : BUTTERWOOD CREEK
______________________________________________________________________
The End D.O. is 6.78 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 7.07 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.60 mg/l.
______________________________________________________________________
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/l) Milepoint Reach # (mg/l) (mg/1) (mg/l) (mgd)
______ _______ ____ ____ __ __________
Segment 1 4.00 0.60 1
Reach 1 67.50 31.50 6.00 0.28000
Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
.*.; .):_ 110DEL S 1.►t'!MAF- Y .t }i:.:)-r'Pi ii-
E) i. ssr �. r ctc-_5i- a-('Li;►l ! (ll� 1_ I..r"1"1_.E:Ti �l _;J'(3t' ' �:,�zl !,) �. )') f3 y3i_)r..1.
Rr"-•''c ivirice Siir'c_aul . I~+Ll"FEi W 01) f.IRED::: class'. (:
S t-wi rn t .• Y l Q J. 0 }; 0. 05 ink i ri z_ e i- 7 (..1 :I. r) . (.) ,. I
I LENGTH 1
SLDPE I
VELOCITY
I DEPTH I lid I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I KH I
L:H
1 KKR I
l;HR !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I
ft,'mil
fps
I ft Idesign!
3201
Idesign!
3201 idesign!
@201
Idesign!
@201 1
! I
!
I I I
! I
I I
I !
!
Segment 1
1 3.801
26.001
0.169
1 0.52 1 0.44 1
0.33
1 9.03 1
7.921 0.79 1
0.50
1 0.79 1
0.00 1
Reach 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I
I
! I I
I I
I !
! I
!
I !
I
1 ! I
I I
I 1
1 I
I
Segment 1
1 4.601
9.40i
0.138
1 0.73 1 0.32 1
0.24
1 2.65 1
2.331 0.48 1
0.30
1 0.48 1
0.00 1
Reach 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1
1
! 1 1
1 1
1 I
1 1
1
! f'1.ovj
I i3OOD 1
Nl3i::lD I
T.).(::1. I
! C: -f' w 1
ri g
!rig / 1. !
rrig
iSegrneitt :1.
iiceacI'1 1.
ir;(a s -t e
1 0 434 1
67. fit;; 0 1
3:1.. 50C) 1
6, 00 0
1^I c. a i:i lea c . t. e r"
W I 0 050,
I c._ :, 000 1
1 .
. L.i _
-Fr. 5. bI.I'1.z:ti-.'l
1 i•.) . 000 1
P . i_)i_)i-} 1
1 . l,)i")t_) 1
7 . 3C)0
1 0. 10 }
1 2. i )i„)i)
1 :1.. ()(*'10 1
`:� . ;ii;)i )
Waste I i>.(--)C)()
000
2. (}0 (_) 1 1 . (")(--) (:) 1 `. . 3 (--)(,)
•Y'• R t-t r i ri f ~r 'f' 1 o vi is. i i i
• r
SUMMER
Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flaw I
1
1
0.00
6.13
60.73
28.35
0.48
1
1
0.20
4.66
56.59
25.75
0.50
1
1
0.40
4.10
52.80
23.42
0.52
1
1
0.60
4.00
49.34
21.34
0.54
1
1
0.90
4.10
46.17
19.47
0.56
1
1
1.00
4.28
43.27
17.79
0.59
1
1
1.20
4.51
40.59
16.27
0.60
1
1
1.40
4.73
38.13
14.90
0.62
1
1
1.60
4.96
35.85
13.67
0.64
1
1
1.80
5.16
33.75
12.54
0.66
1
1
2.00
5.36
31.79
11.53
0.68
1
1
2.20
5.54
29.98
10.60
0.70
1
1
2.40
5.71
28.30
9.76
0.72
1
1
2.60
5.86
26.73
9.00
0.74
1
1
2.80
6.00
25.27
8.30
0.76
1
1
3.00
6.13
23.90
7.66
0.78
1
1
3.20
6.25
22.63
7.08
0.80
1
1
3.40
6.37
21.44
6.54
0.92
1
1
3.60
6.47
20.32
6.06
O. B4
1
1
3.90
6.57
19.29
5.61
0.96
1
2
3.80
6.57
19.28
5.61
0.86
1
2
4.00
6.23
18.36
5.28
0.B8
1
2
4.20
6.01
17.50
4.97
0.90
1
2
4.40
5.B6
16.68
4.68
0.92
1
2
4.60
5.78
15.92
4.41
0.94
1
2
4.80
5.75
15.19
4.16
0.96
1
2
5.00
5.75
14.51
3.93
o.98
1
2
5.20
5.77
13„86
3.71
1.00
1
2
5.40
5.81
13.25
3.50
1.02
1
2
5.60
5.97
12.67
3.31
1.04
1
2
5.80
5.93
12.12
3.13
1.06
1
2
6.00
6.00
11.60
2.97
1.08
1
2
6.20
6.07
11.11
2.81
1.10
1
2
6.40
6.14
10.64
2.66
1.12
1
2
6.60
6.21
10.20
2.52
1.14
1
2
6.80
6.28
9.77
2.39
1.16
1
2
7.00
6.35
9.37
2.27
1.18
1
2
7.20
6.42
8.99
2.16
1.20
1
2
7.40
6.49
8.63
2.05
1.22
1
2
7.60
6.55
8.29
1.95
1.&A
1
2
7.80
6.61
7.96
1.85
1.26
1
2
8.00
6.67
7.65
1.76
1.28
1
2
8.20
6.73
7.35
1.68
1.30
1
2
8.40
6.78
7.07
1.60
1.32
Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I
cm15
g10?ql88
o3030¢
town off' L,•Vo j*pL - JOc
pry ,Toc
?a5� J6c C
OA= (•aynk/ 2
=1.;zc�A
�ow=0.3C%3
'ne c cJ fLOAvrj Z o w-va U'ad �m ep/1606
WLA 0,,4-1 aqkvA'2
�ow=o• I C-�s
,_ (• a cis
�= 3 Aou
NPof� =31.s'
pa_
FO,106 = d • I
�bs = (� .
i?o &0
FOM = 61 S5 6
7K044 6,15"
Slop= c2b�prw
51j&- .q�rr-
vps4,uavyt-
!�a-t.� l�rnp
%ri
,J"6-tij i4Yt.. / CI66L
p U (1aw) `ltc. Co 1.
3 (�3) 3%'700,660
75 1 q, Sm, coo
/t(Cobo.� 91
�vun�too�w
%4AIP (J. U.
1 q ro
Is 1?. 216
SUMMER
FINDING ALLOWABLE
FLOW - THE
'
WLA GETS BETTER
WITH
MORE FLOW
---------- MODEL RESULTS
-------------
Discharger
:
TOWN OF LITTLETON-JOC
Receiving Stream :
______________________________________________________________________
'
BUTTERWOOD CREEK
The End
D.O.
is 6.33
mg/l.
The End
CBOD
is 10.73
mg/l.
The End
______________________________________________________________________
NBOD
is 2.85
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/l)
Milepoint Reach #
______ _______
(mg/l)
____
(mg/l)
____
(mg/l)
__
(mgd)
-----------
Segment
1
4.37
0.60 1
Reach
1
67.50
31.50
6.00
0.45000
Reach
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Littleton A.T. Justification
The Town of Littleton discharges to Butterwood Creek in the Tar
River Basin. The proposed design flow for the facility is 0.28 mgd.
No other dischargers interact along the section of Butterwood Creek
impacted by Littleton.
Final effluent limits f8r Littleton:
Qw
BOD5
NH3
DO
TSS
Fecal Coliform
pH -
Schematic:
Littleton
I( /--,
Summer
0.28
-mgd
17
mg/l
10
mg/1
6
mg/1
30
mg/l
1000/100
ml
6-9
SU
Winter
0.28
mgd
30
mg/1
4
mg/l
30
mg/l
1000/100
ml
6 - 9
SU
7-Day 10-year flow : Butterwood Creek:
The U.S.G.S. estimates flow at the outfall to be
Station #
Drainage Area
Average Streamf low
7Q10
Winter 7Q10
02.0829.3648
1.29 mi2
1.2 cfs
0.2 cfs
0.3 cfs
No gages are maintained on Butterwood Creek. The estimate is based on
data on Little Fishing Creek (DA = 177 mi2).
At downstream sites, flow is estimated as
Station # :
02.0829.3075
02.0829.300
Location :
2.4 miles below discharge
At mouth, 8.5 miles
at SR 1304
below outfall
Drainage Area :
3.16 mi2
10.40 mi2- —
Average Flow :
3.00 cfs
9.0 cfs
7Q10 :
0.6 cfs
2.0 cfs
W7Q10 -
1.2 cfs
4.0 cfs
On May 19, 1986, flows were measured at several sites on Butterwood
Creek (memo in Appendix A).
Natural Flow
Location Flow (cfs) (cfs)
SR - 1001 0
Above WWTP 0.015 0.015
WWTP 0.45 - 0.54
SR - 1304 0.90 0.36 - 0.45
SR - 1310 1.78 1.24 - 1.33
Natural 7Q10 flow estimates and observed natural flows are compared
below:
Observed (5/19/86) Estimated
oP 7-r
Based on this data, the following flow estimates were used for
the allocation :
DA
= 1.29
QAVG
= 1.2
. / 7Q10
= ;0.05
!� W7Q 10
0.1
WWTP
\\Z
Runoff
Runoff was calculated as follows:
DA = 3.16
QA = 3.0
7Q10 = 0.3
7Q10 : 0.3 - 0.05 / 2.4 = 0.1 cfs m-1
Average flow : 3.0 - 1.8 / 2.4 = 0.75 cfsm-1
Slope
Stream Slope was estimated as follows:
a.
206
i-10
Stye a, m
�ainS'ttr+� ✓ B�a�c.�
SIoPe Calcu �ation S
►2� 1 c d o �'� 3, z G.
Ra l-
�uM
eI v
disc
sic
0
�
3 6
a s3
3 0 0
0,
L�tO
19
(70
Z 3 �-( s -7
aistaAcc.
Design Temperature
.1. Empirical Formula
T = 25.848 - 0.001088 * Elev. + 0.001232 * DA * 5.1969 * 7Q10 Yield
= 25.848 - 0.001088 * 318 + 0.001232 * 1.29 * 5.1969 * 0.1
= 250C
No stream monitoring temperature data are available.
Velocity
Reach 1
Velocity = V = (0.124 * Average Actual flow 0'75 * Slope 0-29)/Average flow 0.35
= (0.124 * 0.665 0.75 * 26.6 0.29)/2.62 0.35
= 0.166 fps
Reach 2
V = (0.124 * 1.1 0.75 * 9.4 0.29)/5.89 0.35
= 0.137 fps
Reach 1
K = 0.35 + Velocity n
1 Depth
0.35 + 0.166 * 0.41
0.51
= 0.48
= 0.61 @ 250C
n = e (-2.85 + 0.598 . In (slope)
Reach 2
Similarly
K1 = 0.49 @ 250C
Tsivoglou's equation was used
,TM
K2 = 1.8 * Slope * Velocity (Q < 10 cfs)
K2
= 8.74
@
250C
Reach 1
K2
= 2.58
@
250C
Reach 2
Allocation
An ultimate BOD allocation of 70 mg/l was obtained, given these
inputs. (Note that all standard Level B assumptions were used. For
inputs not discussed in depth, See Appendix B). The ultimate BOD was
broken down according to the equation:
BOD ult = 1.5 • BOD5 + 4.5 • NH3-N
Therefore, an allocation of 17 mg/l BOD5 and 10 mg/1 NH3-N was derived.
Final effluent limits :
Winter
Qw
= .280
mgd
BOD5
= 17
mg/l
30
mg/l
NH3N
= 10
mg/1
--
D.O.
= 6
mg/l
4
mg/1
Fecal Coliform
= 1000/100
ml
1000/100
ml
pH
= 6 - 9
SU
6 - 9
SU
TSS
= 30
mg/1
30
mg/l
. '
MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : LITTL'TON Subbasin : 030304
Receiving Stream : BUTTERWOOD CREEK Stream Class: C
Summer 7Q10 : 0.05 ' Winter 7Q10 : 0.1
Design Temperature: 25.
|i[NGTH| SLOPE! VELOCITY | DE9TH| Kl | KI | K2 | K2 | KN | KN | KNR | KNR |
| mile | ft/mi| fps | ft :design: @20v |design| 32O^ !design! Z201 |desigM 3201 |
| < | | | | < | | | | | |
Segment 1� | 3.801 26.00| 0,168 | 0.51 | 0.61 | Oi*48 | 8.74 < 7.E4| 0.00 ( 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 (
Reach 1 | ( | | | | | | ( | i | |
Segment 1 | 4,70| 9.40| V.137 | O.0.49 | 0.39 | 2.58 | 2.31| 0.00 i 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Reach 2 1 | | | | | | | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Flow | CBOD |
( cfs | mg/l |
Segment J. Reach 1
Waste | 0.425
----- Headwa-t;-ers| 0.050
Tributary | 0.000 ( 0.0O0 |
* Runoff < 0.100 | 2.000 �
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste
Tributary
* Runoff ( 0.100 | 2.000 |
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile
NBOD |
D.O. i
mg/l |
mg/l |
0.000 |
6.000
0.000 |
7.000
0.000 |
0.000
0.000 |
7560
0.000 ( 0.000
0.000 | 0.00O
0.000 | 7.560
---------- MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : LITTLETON
Receiving Stream : HUTTERWOOD CREEK
-----------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 7.41 mg/1.
The End CBOD is 4.15 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 0.00 mg/l.
DO Min
(mg/1) Milepaint Reach #P
Segment 1 4.99 0.50 1
Reach 1 °
Reach 2
WLA
CDOD
(mg/1)
70
0
If
WL.A
WL-A
NBOD
DO
Waste Flo
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
imgd)
O. O((
6. 00
0. 2744 0
0.00
0.00
0.00000
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION / TECHNICAL SERVICES BRANCH
INTENSIVE SURVEY UNIT
MAY 3091986
MEMORANDUM
TO: RANDY DODD �)
THRU: JAY SAUBER J.}��'�' l_
FROM: VINCE SCHNEIDER �'QS
SUBJECT: LITTLETON WWTP
On May 19, 1986, Technical Services staff (Vince Schneider and Jim
Fisher) visited the Littleton WWTP as per your request to collect BOD=5 and
flow data on the treatment plant and Butterwood Creek. A slight flow was
observed in Butterwood Creek above SR-1001, however there was no observable
flow -at SR-1001. Flows -were estimated on Butterwood Creek just below the
Robert West dairy farm and at the wastewater treatment plant using the bucket
method. Discharge measurements were taken at SR-1304 and SR-1310.
Location Flow
Butterwood Creek Just below 0.015 cfs
West Dairy Farm
Littleton WWTP 0.45-0.54 cfs
Butterwood Cr at SR-1304 0.903 cfs
Butterwood Cr at SR-1310 1.783 cfs
* estimated
Upstream of the Littleton WWTP is a large dairy farm owned by a Mr.
Robert West. Butterwood Creek below the dairy farm contained floating manure
and straw, and was highly odoriferous. Where Butterwood Creek passes through
the dairy farm property, a drainage ditch was observed, with flow, coming down
from the dairy barn. It was stated by Mike Aycock, Littleton WWTP operator,
that the upstream waste was from Mr West washing out his dairy barns.
BOD-5 samples, along with DO, temperature and conductivity measurements were
collected at four stations; 200 feet upstream of the Littleton WWTP discharge
point, Littleton WWTP prior to chlorination, SR-1304, and SR-1310.
Station
BOD-5
DO
Temp
Conductivity
mg/1
mg/1
°C
umhos/cm
IN
200ft upstream
225
0.3
22.0
550
Littleton WWTP
50
5.3
22.5
430
SR-1304
2.1
7.2
19.0
90
SR-1310 *
1.1
8.0
20.0
70
* algae, probably podostimum,
was observed at
this site
to be quite thick
particularly around the
bridge area.
The Raleigh Regional
Office has
been made aware of this
problem and is in
the process of planning
a followup investigation.
cc: Steve Tedder
Meg Kerr
Dave Adkins
Jim Pounds
•
;•
� -- is ..�.�_,�..•
I v
........
�
i
I•
UPSTREAM SR-1001
'
S R-10 01
171 37
h
R BERT WEST;1`4
DAIRY FARM
+UPSTREAM
SAMPLE POINT
l
LIT TLET
y f' �N W;�ewage
Disposal
^{
•
_
.1 \ X
.JJ1
31
305x.
v, 193 I
1 ;
,,N
Sri 7
. �
is .•.�i^1�.' _' _> �olo.
1 � , 1 • j�
/t 'J/7
�-•` J -, -
/
`
44
_.. J :' —
- / •
ice.
, ��~ .
,
%
1
Hm
•Vi',-' III
_ .__.: _:�-_— _
J<^S_.._.._
S R-1304 << i
�_;
�.
I\ 1 -�P•� �r'.r• `il. _ � y�� i •1 {.X21L{��;+?
4028 I �:r ..Y ,,tf' �t -v+•• �� t'`� •11 siv ,✓'/� { ! :`.:r v
Cerra / ,: il' N_; •* �, i1 11 '11 z' �` J -t,
7.
27.1
4027
r. Y,
W:
o'er...
SR-1310 .: - -
•�
03
lk
iQ
.:
"1123
i ♦:c-. - _ ._f .5 Fes; .,+,
1 it `'���.�. - �f.::t 1 l•J%' 1+.k•; �"A}'+`.1^•_
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
TECHNICAL SERVICES BRANCH
TECHNICAL SUPPORT UNIT
DESKTOP MODELING PROCEDURE (LEVEL B) FOR
EFFLUENT LIMIT DETERMINATIONS
FREE FLOWING STREAM
OXYGEN CONSUMING WASTE
Tn+--,4..n+i —
A desktop modeling procedure is used by DEM to determine effluent
limitations for dischargers of oxygen consuming waste into free flowing
streams when no field data is available. The model is used to calculate
limits for BODS, NH3 and DO. Input parameters are:
1. Stream Slope - calculated from a USGS 7'/z min. topo quad sheet.
2. 7 day 10 year low.flow (7Q10) - data available from the US
Geological Survey. Low flow statistics are published in
"Water Supply Characteristics of North Carolina Streams",
USGS water supply paper 1761, US Printing Office, Washington
1963. A printout of 7Q10 statistics can also be obtained
from DEM's Information Services Branch for $20-30.
3. Average flow and runoff characteristics - Available from
same sources as 7Q10.
4. Drainage area - Drainage areas can be calculated from USGS
~ topo quad sheets.
Total suspended solids (TSS) limits are required for all domestic
dischargers (30 mg/1). Coliform limits and pH limits are required when
insufficient dilution is available. They reflect the standards for the
receiving stream.
Dischargers to estuaries and lakes are evaluated 'on a case -by -case
basis.
LEVEL B WASTELOAD MODELING- DOMESTIC WASTEWATER
I. Criteria
The discharge of oxygen consuming waste must protect the dissolved
oxygen standard in the receiving water under 7 day 10 year low flow
conditions (7Q10).
The dissolved oxygen criteria is 5.0 mg/1 for all classified waters
except trout waters which Sust be maintained at 6.0 mg/l.
II. Design Temperature for Model
Summer T (°C) = 25.848 - (0.001088'* A) + (0.001232 * B)
- (5.1969 * C)
Winter T (°C) = 15.805 - (0.00084 * A) + (0.00036 * B)
- (1.043 * C)
where A = elevation at start of model (ft)
B = drainage area above discharge (sq. miles)
C = 7Q10 yield for __drainage above discharge
(cfs / sq. mi )
Summer is defined as April 1 - October 31
Winter is November 1 - March 31
III. The Model
The classical Streeter- Phelps DO equation is used to simulate
BOD decay in -stream. This model assumes:
a) one-dimensional system
b) steady-state conditions
c) advective transport only
d) CBOD and NBOD lumped into ultimate BOD
The integrated form of the equation is:
-K2x/u K1 -K1x/u -K2x/u
Lo
K2 - K
where: D = DO deficit at milepoint x (mg/1)
Do = initial DO deficit (mg/1)
K2 = reaeration rate (per day)
U = velocity (ft/sec) ,
X = distance
K1 = BOD decay rate (per day)
Lo = initial BOD concentration (mg/1)
The model simulates ultimate BOD which is then converted to BOD
S
and NH3 using the equation:
BQOu = 1.5 BOD5 + 4.5 NH3
A table of typical Boo / NH3 combinations is attached. However,
any combination of 8005 and NH3 that satisfies the criteria above is
suitable. Long term BOD data can be used to refine this breakdown when
it is available.
IV. Reaction Rates ----
A. BOO decay rate, K1 (20°C, base e)
K1 is calculated using a corrected bottle rate (Bosko, K.,
Discussion, Advances in Water Pollution Research, WPCF, Washington
DC 1967 from Eckenfelder, W., Water Quality Engineering for
Practicing Engineers, Barnes Noble, Inc. @ 1970)
K1 =k1 +V N
where k1 = Bottle rate (0.35 day -1)
V = Mean stream velocity (fps)
H = Stream depth (ft)
N = Coefficient of bed activity
N can be determined from the following equation:
N = e (-2.8501 + 0.5980 * In (slope))
N varies 'from 0.1 for stagnant or deep waters to 0.6 or higher for
rapidly flowing streams.
B. Reaeration rate, K2 (20°C, base e)
Reaeration is determined with Or. E.C. Tsivoglou's empirical
relationship:
for Q < 10 cfs, K2 = 1.8 (slope) (velocity)
for 10 < Q < 25, K2 = 1.3 (slope). (velocity)
for Q > 25, K2 = 0.88 (slope) (velocity)
where Q = stream flow at 7Q10 (cfs)
a,
C. Temperature corrections for rate coefficients
K1 (T) = K1 (20°C) * 1.047 T-20
K2-(T) = K2 (20°C) * 1.022 T-20
V. Velocity
An empirical velocity equation was developed from a cross -sectional
data set of 125 stream observations of time of travel in North Carolina.
0.124 Q actual 0.75 slope 0.29
V =
Q average 0.35
where Q actual = 7Q10.+ wasteflow (cfs)
Q average = average stream flow (cfs)
slope = stream bed gradient (fpm)
V = velocity
VI. Stream depth
The Level B model assumes that width = 15 * depth
Therefore, since V = Q (cfs)
ft
Q
V w.idtn x deptF
depth = (Q/15v)��Z
VII. Background water quality
For Level B analyses when no data are available, background water
is assumed to be good. Dissolved oxygen is set at 90% saturation at
the design temperature, BOD ultimate is set at 2 mg/l.
Tributary flow, unimpacted by waste discharges,is assumed to have
the same characteristics.
When backgound DO and BOD data are available, representative values
can be used in the model.,, _
VIII. Additional considerations
A. Interacting Dischargers
Multiple dischargers must be considered in an analysis if
their wastes interact in -stream. Interacting dischargers will be
assigned the same effluent limitations unless one facility clearly
dominates the system. All facilities are modeled at their design
waste flows and at 7Q10 low flows.
B. Small lakes and ponds
The Level B stream model is used to simulate small run -of -
the -river ponds and lakes. Time -of -travel estimates are reduced
to reflect waste trapping in the pond.
11
A
A..
ael migim-
13535
30
134
29
20
133
29
20
132
28
20
131
27
20
130
27
20
129
26
20
128
25
20
127
25
20
126
24
20
125
23
20
124
23
20
123
22
20
122
24
19
121
24
19
120
23
19
119
22
19
118
22
19
117
21
19
116
23
18
115
23
18
114
22
18
113
21
18
112
21
18
111
20
18
110
22
17
109
22
17
108
21
17
107
20
17
106
20
17
105
19
17
104
21
16
103
21
16
102
20
16
101
19
16
100
19
16
99
18
16
98
20
15
97
20
15
96
19
15
LEVEL B ANALYSIS BODu DISAGGREGATION
BODu = 1.5 BODS + 4.5 NE13—N
95
18
15
55
13
8
94
18
15
54
12
8
93
17
15
53
11
8
92
19
14
52
11
8
91
19
14
51
10
8
90
18
14
50
12
7
89
17
14
49
12
7
88
17
14
48
11
7
87
16
14
47
10
7
86
17
13
46
10
7
85
17
13
45
9
7
84
16
13
44
11
6
83
15
13
43
11
6
82
15
13
42
10
6
81
14
13
41
9
6
80
16
12
40
9
6
79
16
12
30
8
6
78
15
12
38
10
5
77
14
12
37
10
5
76
14
12
36
9
5
75
13
12
35
8
5
74
16
11
34
8
5
73
16
11
33
7
5
72
15
11
32
9
4
71
14
11
31
8
4
70
14
11
30
8
4
69
13
11
29
7
4
68
15
10
28
6
4
67
15
10
27
6
4
66
14
10
26
6
3
65
13
10
25
8
3
64
13
10
24
7
3
63
12
10
23
6
3
62
14
9
22
6
3
61
14
9
21
5
3
60
13
9
20
7
2
59
12
9
19
7
2
58
12
9
18
6
2
57
11
9
17
5
2
56
13
8
16
5
2