NC0004308_REPORT_19880301

MPDES DOCUMENT SCAMMIMO COVER SMEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0004308
ALCOA — Badin Works
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Other (Mixing Zone Study)
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
March 1, 1988
This document is printed on reuse paper -- igrtare avxy
coraterit on tUe reMreree hide

FINA4
.31 +I 8$
WASTELOAD ALLOCATION AND MIXING 4-'-ONE
STUDY
ALCOA Out{aIIS 002 and 000
for
Badin Lake
Yadkin fiver
near
Badin, NC
February 1'388

1
FTN ASSOCIATES LTD
3 Innwood Circle, Ste 220
Little Rock, AR 72211
[phone]
1
1
1
I
I
1

WASTELOAD ALLOCATION AND MIXING ZONE STUDY
c
ALCOA Outfalls 002 and 009
for
Badin Lake /
Yadkin River
near
Badin, NC
Prepared for:
Aluminum Company of America
Badin, NC Works
Submitted to:
North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Prepared by:
FTN Associates, Ltd.
3 Innwood Circle, Suite 220
Little Rock, AR 72211
February 1988

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................------------................1-1
2.0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................2-1
2.1
Summary .............................................................................................................2-1
2.2
Conclusions........................................................................................................2-1
2.2.1 Field Studies..........................................................................................2-1
2.2.2 Modeling Studies...................................................................................2-2
3.0
BACKGROUND........................................................................................................3-1
3.1
Facility Description ................................... ............................. ........................... 3-1
3.1.1 Process Description..............................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Effluent....................................................................................................3-1
3.2
Badin Lake Description....................................................................................3-2
3.3
Water Quality Standards and Designated Beneficial Uses
........................3-2
4.0
FIELD STUDIES.......................................................................................................A-1
4.1
Approach .... .........................................................................................................
4-1
4.2
Methodology.......................................................................................................4-1
4.3
12-13 October 1987 Study................................................................................4-1
4.3.1 Description .................................... ......................................................... 4-1
4.3.2 Results....................................................... .............................................. 4-3
4.4
19-22 October 1987 Dye Study at Outfall 009.............................. ................. 4-8
4.4.1 Description.............................................................................................4-8
4.4.2 Results.....................................................................................................4-8
4.5
22 October 1987 Dye Study at Outfall 002..................................................4-17
4.5.1 Description............................................................... ...4-17
.........................
4.5.2 Results...................................................................................................4-29
4.6
12-22 October 1987 Badin Lake Cove Water Quality
SampleAnalysis...............................................................................................4-29
5.0
MODELING
................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1
Classification of Discharge...............................................................................5-1
5.2
Model Selection.................................................................................................5-1
5.3
Model Formulation...........................................................................................5-3
5.4
Modeling Approach ............. ........................................................................ ..... 5-4
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
5.5 Modeling Results...............................................................................................5-4
5.5.1
Diffusion Model .................................... ................................................
5-4
5.5.2
Pool Fluctuations..................................................................................5-5
5.5.3
Runoff and Direct Precipitation ................................................
......... 5-8
5.5.4
Seiche Motion........................................................................................5-8
5.5.5
Wind -Generated Currents ................................................. ................
5-11
5.6 Mixing
Zone Determination and Effluent Limits,,....................................5-13
5.6.1.
Critical Conditions..............................................................................5-13
5.6.2
Mixing Zone Determination.............................................................5-15
5.6.3
Effluent Limits.....................................................................................5-17
6.0 REFERENCES
...........................................................................................................6-1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E:
11
DYE STUDY METHODOLOGY
TEMPERATURE, pH, AND CONDUCTIVITY PROFILES IN
BADIN LAKE AT STATIONS 1-3, 12-22 OCTOBER 1987
LABORATORY ANALYSIS SHEETS
SOURCE CODE LISTING OF DIFFUSION MODEL DIFFUZ
WIND DATA FOR BADIN, NC
ii

Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.2.
Figure 4.1.
LIST OF FIGURES
Badin Lake location map (from Yadkin Inc.) ........................................ 1-2
Locations of Outfalls 002 and 009 in Badin Lake ................................... 1-3
Locations of water quality sampling stations 1-3 and
Outfalls 002 and 009 in Badin Lake ...............................................
Figure 4.2. Results of analyses of water quality samples taken
on 12 October 1987. All concentrations are in mg/1........................
Figure 4.3.
Photograph of dye exiting Outfall 009 on 12 October 1987
and being transported along shoreline by northerly wind ................
Figure 4.4.
Near -field dye dilution ratios for 12 October 1987 dye study..........
Figure 4.5.
Photograph of return current transporting dye in opposite
direction of wind in Outfall 009 embayment......................................
Figure 4.6.
Photograph of dye exiting Outfall 009 and being transported
by southerly wind after 0.5 hrs of injection .........................................
Figure 4.7.
Photograph of dye exiting Outfall 009 and being transported
4-2
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-9
by southerly wind after 3 hrs of injection ........ .......................................
4-10
Figure 4.8.
Near -field dye dilution ratios and plume extent at
Outfall 009 on 19 October 1987...............................................................4-11
Figure 4.9.
Dye dilution ratios and plume extent at peninsula
immediately north of Outfall 009 on 19 October 1987 ........................4-12
Figure 4.10.
Dilution ratios and plume extent in Outfall 009
embayment on 19 October 1987..............................................................4-13
Figure 4.11.
Dye dilution ratios and plume extent at peninsula
immediately north of Outfall 009 on 19 October 1987 ........................4-14
Figure 4.12.
Dye dilution ratios for dye plume showing approximate
plume limits on 19 October 1987.........................................................4-15
Figure 4.13.
Near -field dye dilution ratios and'plume extent at
Outfall 009 on 19 October 1987...............................................................
4-16
Figure 4. W.
Dye dilution ratios and plume extent on 20 October 1987..................
4-18
Figure 4.15.
Dye dilution ratios on 20 October 1987..................................................4-19
Figure 4.16.
Near -field dye dilution ratios for Outfall 009 4n 20 October 1987....
4-20
Figure 4.17.
Dye dilution ratios and plume extent on 20 October 1.987..................4-21
Figure 4.18.
Dye dilution ratios and plume extent on 20 October 1987..................4-22
iii

ILIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure 4.19. Near -field dye dilution ratios for Outfall 009 on 20 October 1987.... 4-23
Figure 4.20.
Dye dilution ratios found the morning of 21. October 1987................
4-24
Figure 4.21.
Dye dilution ratios found the morning of 21 October 1987................
4-25
Figure 4.22.
Dye dilution ratios found the morning of 21 October 1987................
4-26
Figure 4.23.
Dye dilution ratios found the afternoon of 21 October 1987..............
4-27
Figure 4.24,
Dye dilution ratios found the afternoon of 21 October 1987..............4-28
' Figure 4.25.
Photograph of dye exiting 002 Outfall and being blown
around the cove's southern shoreline on 22 October 1987 .................
4-30
' Figure 4.26.
Photograph of dye exiting Outfall 002 and being blown
around the cove's southern shoreline on 22 October 1987 .................4-31
Figure 4.27.
Near -field dilution ratios at Outfall 002 on 22 October 1987.............4-32
Figure 4.28.
Dilution ratios and plume extent on 22 October 1987.., ......................
4-33
Figure 4.29.
Results of analyses of water quality samples taken on
'
20 October 1987. All concentrations are in mg/1.................................4-35
Figure 4.30.
Results of analyses of water quality samples taken on
'
22 October 1987. All concentrations are in mg/1.................................4-36
Figure 4.31.
Results of analyses of water quality samples taken on
'
22 October 1987. All concentrations are in mg/1.................................4-38
Figure 4.32.
Results of analyses of water quality samples taken on
t
22 October 1987. All concentrations are in mg/1.................................4-39
Figure 5.1,
100, 500, and 1000 ft radii from Outfalls 002 and 009............................
5-2
1
1
1 iv
1

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1.
Concentrations of sulfate found in 002 effluent and
fluoride and cyanide found in 009 effluent ....................................... 4-34
Table 5.1.
Diffusion model predicted times to reach chronic cyanide toxicity
levels (5 ug/1) and corresponding percentages of hydraulic
residence times for four combinations of 009 effluent flow rates
and concentrations at three distances from the outfall..................... 5-6
Table 5.2.
Results of the analysis of pool fluctuations as a source
ofdilution water...................................................................................... 5-7
Table 5.3.
Results of the analysis of runoff and direct precipitation
as a source of dilution water.................................................................. 5-9
Table 5.4.
Results of the analysis of seiche motion as a source
ofdilution water....................................................................................542
Table 5.5.
Results of the analysis of wind -generated currents
as a source of dilution water................................................................ 5-14
v

'
1.0 INTRODUCTION
'
The Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), operates a primary metals
manufacturing plant near Badin, NC (Figure 1.1) which produces aluminum metal
'
from refined bauxite. Concern was raised by the North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development (NCDNR&CD) that high levels
of sulfate in Outfall 002 and cyanide and fluoride in Outfall 009 (Figure 1.2) may be
'
causing problems in the receiving water body, Badin Lake. ALCOA contracted with
FTN Associates, Ltd., of Little Rock, AR to perform a wasteload allocation and
'
mixing zone study at these two NPDES permitted outfalls into Badin Lake following
applicable Sections of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (US EPA)
'
Technical Support Document for Water Quality -Based Toxies Control (US EPA,
1985). The parameters of concern included sulfate at Outfall 002 and fluoride and
'
cyanide at Outfall 009.
The objectives of the study were:
1) Define the outfall(s) and receiving water body characteristics.
'
2) Define the effluent dilution characteristics from a tracer study conducted
under "critical" conditions.
3) Predict effluent behavior under "critical' conditions and define a mixing
zone for each outfall.
The study was divided into two phases: field studies and modeling. Dennis E. Ford,
'
PhD, P.E. and Marc C. Johnson; P.E. provided on -site direction during the 12-13
October and the 19-22 October field studies, respectively. James Malcolm
'
conducted the water quality sampling and performed the fluorometric analyses of
dye samples with assistance from Ricky A. Nusz during both field studies. The data
'
analysis, modeling, and report preparation were done by Marc C. Johnson, P.E.
Dennis E. Ford, PhD, P.E. for Conrad A. Carter,
under the general supervision of
P.E., Environmental Protection Manager, ALCOA. -
1

BLOWING ROGN.
PISGAN
NATIONAL
FOREST r
N IOKORY
:: %L'S 550R0
SOtlYH�Yq pK�
SIAT£Sv7LLE
KAMNAPOLIS
/40wING NOON
'YT. AntZ. N.C.
' ! 1<
Wlk$TON.SALQY
�
VADION
1
M.C. •.
WATICASHItO
S.C.
SAW
•I
r
r
'
ATLANTIC DCEAN
MINYAN BAY
0 5 a -o 30
\\\\ SCALE 01 MILES
fM1
Yq�klN -tea L
:VINS1 Or:.SALE`.+
�3 PoE ..
v�
S.:L ISBURY
/
Ea
521 � •.
• r ....
^ 7r,WN RESEPL r"I,
:Uf:-tr "WN DAAW
Badin
Lake
EAOI�t �•
.GEL7. R,LE
uYi f�nRRiE
' -
NATIONAL
FOREST
Figure 1.1. Badin Lake location map (from Yadkin Inc.).

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
19C?0111'I
a
00,2
ALCOA/ 11
Badin
MA
Badin
Dam
0 1000 2000
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 1.2. Locations of Outfalls 002 and 009 in Badin Lake.
1-3

n
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
2.1 SummaU
A wasteload allocation and mixing zone study was conducted to determine the
effluent dilution characteristics of Outfalls 002 and 009 in Badin Lake and
recommend a mixing zone and discharge limit for each outfall. The study consisted
of both field and modeling studies. The field studies included injecting Rhodamine
WT fluorescent dye into both outfalls on two occasions during October 1987 and
measuring near- and far -field dilution using a Turner Designs fluorometer. Water
quality samples were also collected from the effluent and cove and analyzed for
cyanide, fluoride, and sulfate. The modeling studies included the use of a simple
diffusion model as well as quantification of four transport and mixing mechanisms
(i.e., wind currents, water level fluctuations, rainfall and runoff, seiche motion)
which transport dilution water into the cove and proposed mixing zone.
2.2 Conclusions
2.2.1 Field Studies
The results of the field studies show:
1) "Critical" conditions are periods of no wind or precipitation and no
change in pool level due to reservoir operations.
2) The wind plays a dominant role in the transport and dilution of the
effluent in the cove.
3) Levels of fluoride, sulfate, and cyanide are diluted well below State and
Federal standards throughout the cove(and are not concentrating.) try
Therefore, more dilution water is entering the cove than effluent. u. 5; L.•i- t"" t.
4) A mixing zone of at least 500 ft radially from the 009 Outfall is required.
The size of the mixing zone is determined by the short-circuiting of the avx-.
effluent through the zone because of wind currents, not from critical
conditions. No mixing zone is required for Outfall 002.
2-1

' 2.2.2 Modeling Studies
The results from the modeling studies are:
' 1) The residence time of the cove based on the maximum observed effluent
discharge rate (0.100 mgd) is 221 years compared to less than one year
' for water entering the cove from wind currents. Therefore, there is
significantly more dilution water than effluent water.
/2) The diffusion model showed that the time scale for chronic toxicity. levels
' to be reached were 5.9 and 23 days, respectively, for,locat ions 500 and
1000 ft out from the 009 Outfall. However, the field studies and analysis
' of historical meteorological data demonstrated that the likelihood of the
system behaving in a diffusive manner for such periods is remote.
3) Wind -generated currents transport a significant quantity of dilution
water into the cove. Under the most conservative constraints,
' concentrations were predicted to be reduced 100-fold within even a 500
ft radius of the outfall.
' 4) Using data from wet, dry, and average years, pool fluctuations were
shown to dilute concentrations within 500 and 1000 ft radii of the outfall
an average of at least 10:1 under average effluent discharge conditions.
If the previously permitted average flow rate is used, the dilution rates
drop an order of magnitude in size.
5) Rainfall runoff, direct precipitation onto the cove surface, and seiche
/ motion were shown to provide little dilution water in the cove.
✓6) The recommended mixing zone for Outfall 009 is a distance of 500 ft
radially from the outfall location. Model results show that sufficient
dilution should take place within this area to reduce concentrations of
cyanide and fluoride below Federal and State limits. In addition, the
analyses of water samples collected within this zone showed dilution of
cyanide below detection (0.01 ug/1) and of fluoride to levels equal to
J
those outside the cove. This mixing zone represents less than 2 percent
of the surface area of the cove and therefore, should not impacl aouatic
hgbUat. The size of the mixing zone for 009 was minimized so that it
would not interfere with the adjacent public use.VVI
2-2

' 7) The recommended permit limits are:
Outfall 009
' Cyanide (Free) 2.15 mg/l
Fluoride 774 mg/l
' Outfall 002
Sulfate 250 mg/l
' The cyanide and fluoride limits were set assuming a 430 to 1 dilution in the mixing
' zone.
2-3

' 3.0 BACKGROUND
' 3.1 Facility Description
3.1.1 Process Description
' The Badin, NC works of the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA),
produces aluminum metal from refined bauxite (calcined aluminum) through an
electrolytic process. The alumina is first dissolved in an electrolytic cell (pot) to
' produce a molten bath of cryolite (3NaF-A1F3) to which aluminum fluoride (AIF3)
and fluorspar (CaF2) are added. Aluminum is produced by reduction in the carbon
' pot (the cathode). Four nearby hydropower projects supply part of the required
electrical power for the plant.
' .1.2 Effluent
Of the eight ALCOA permitted outfalls, only two were investigated in this
study. Outfall 002 discharges boiler blowdown and stormwater; Outfall 009
discharges only storm water.
' The draft NPDES permit (NC0004308) levels for Outfalls 002 and 009 are
summarized below:
Outfall 002 Average Maximum
' Settleable Solids 0.1 0.2
Sulfates - 250.0
' Outfall 009
' Settleable Solids 0.1 0.2
Oil and Grease 30.0 60.0
Cyanide - 0.005
' Fluoride - 1.8
' The concentrations for cyanide and fluoride were set at water quality standards
(Section 3.3) and do not allow for any dilution in a mixing zone.
' The outfall of primary interest is No. 009 because sulfate levels in Outfall 002
are below the permitted concentration. During the period from March 1982 to
December 1987, 18 samples were analyzed from the 009 Outfall for fluoride, 20 for
free cyanide and 21 for total cyanide, all at approximately three month intervals.
3-1

1 LA
' e
The average observed fluoride concentration was 24.0 mg/I with a range frojal- .G to
53.8 mg/l. Observed free cyanide concentrations ranged from 0.002 to 2.2 m with
an average of 0.21 mg/l; total cyanide concentrations ranged from 0.014 mg/1 to 2.2
mg/I with an average of 0.53 mg/l. Monthly average flow rates during this period
ranged from 0.035 to 0.100 mgd with an average of 0.0854 mgd. To meet the
existing NPDES limits, a maximum dilution of 440 is required for cyanide (i.e.,
' 2.2/.005) and 30 for fluoride. Therefore, cyanide is the critical constituent.
3.2 Badin Lake Description
' Badin Lake is the third impoundment downstream in a series of four that are
used to produce electricity for the Badin, NC works of ALCOA. The dams and
reservoirs are owned and operated by Yadkin, Inc., a wholly -owned subsidiary of
ALCOA.
' Badin Lake is located on the Yadkin River in Stanly and Montgomery
counties, NC (Figure 1.1). At an elevation of 510.2 ft NGVD (lake full), the lake
' has a surface area of 5355 acres, impounds 128,900 acre-ft of water, and has a
hydraulic residence time of 430 days. At this elevation, the average and maximum
depths are 24.0 and 161 ft, respectively. The impoundment collects an average
' annual runoff of 15.2 in from 4180 mi2 of primarily forested watershed.
' 3.3 Water Quality Standards and Designated Beneficial Uses
The Yadkin River and Badin Lake are designated class "WS-III and B" waters
' by the NCDNR&CD. This classifies the uses as being suitable for primary
recreation and water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes.
' Applicable water quality standards are:
Sulfated: <250 mg/l
' Fluorides2: < 1.8 mg/1
Total Cyanide: <5.0 ug/l chronic exposurel
' <22.0 ug/l acute exposurel
1 (US EPA Quality Criteria for Water 1986)
2 (North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15NCAC2B.0211)
' 3-2

4.0 FIELD STUDIES
4.1 Approach
During 12-13 and 19-22 October 1987, field studies were undertaken to
quantify Outfalls 009 and 002 effluent dilution in the cove. Dilution was to be
quantified in two ways: (1) take water samples at selected points in the cove to
measure the long-term cumulative effects of the discharges of cyanide, fluoride, and
sulfate, and (2) inject a tracer into the effluent over a period long enough to reach
steady state conditions under critical ambient conditions and measure its dilution in
the near- and far -fields.
4.2 Methodology
Three sampling stations were established to collect water quality data (Figure
4.1). Station 1 was located 600 ft from the south end of the cove; Station 2 was at a
point "downstrearri' of both outfalls midway into the cove; Station 3 was located just
outside the cove to provide a base with which to compare against in -cove data. At
each station, depth -integrated and/or surface, mid -depth, and bottom water samples
were collected and analyzed for sulfate, fluoride, and total and free cyanide
concentrations. In addition, temperature, specific conductance, and pH were
measured at 1 m intervals at the three stations.
The tracer chosen was Rhodamine WT, a fluorescent dye developed especially
for water tracing. Dye concentrations were measured with a Turner Designs field
fluorometer calibrated to read directly in concentration units. Details of the meth-
odology used for dye concentration determinations are presented in Appendix A.
t4_3. 12-13 October 1987 Study
43.1 Description
On 12 October, temperature, pH, and specific conductance profiles and
fluorescence and water duality samples were taken at stations 1, 2, and 3 for
background data prior to the dye injection. At 1035 on 13 October injection of the
dye began. The dye was injected in 50 ml "slugs" at 10 minute intervals into the 009
' effluent in a 60 in diameter concrete pipe approximately 300 ft upstream of the
outfall. A slug injection method was used instead of a continuous injection due to
the small volume of dye required to mark the effluent. An estimate of the mixing
4-1

. . . . . . . . . .
Sta. 3
Sta. 2
0 Badin
Dam
Tta
""02 ,
ALCOA//
JF/J/ / Badin
0 1000 2000
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 4.1. Locations of water quality sampling stations 1-3 and
Outfalls 002 and 009 in Badin Lake.
4-2

length showed that the 300 ft distance would allow complete mixing of the dye in the
effluent stream prior to its entry into. the cove.
4.3.2 Results
The concentrations of fluoride, cyanide, and sulfate found at the three
sampling stations are shown in Figure 4.2. At all three sites, cyanide levels were
below detection limits (0.01 ug/1). FIuoride concentrations varied between 0.174
and 0.207 mg/1 with the maximum occurring at Station 1. Sulfate concentrations
varied from 5.36 to 5.68 mg/l. Temperature, specific conductivity, and pH data
collected at the three stations are given in Appendix B.
The tracer study was aborted after three hours of injection time due to strong
winds averaging between 10 and 22 ft/sec' (6.8 to 15 mph) (i.e., due to non -critical
ambient conditions). However, the resulting plume did show the effects of wind
generated currents and the influence of local boundary geometry on movement of
the effluent.
The dye initially failed to become well -mixed in the pipe prior to its entry into
the lake. As a result, the dye injection into the lake initially occurred in slugs and
not as a steady stream. However, once the injection was adjusted to 25 ml every 5
minutes, the plume was continuous.
Figure 4.3 shows the effects of the northerly wind on the dye plume. The dye
' exited the outfall, and traveled south around the periphery of the embayment until it
encountered a return current at the mid -point of the crescent -shaped shoreline of
the embayment.
Figure 4.4 shows the dye dilution ratios found in the near -field and the current
patterns associated with it. The minimum observed dilution ratio in the immediate
vicinity of the outfall is on the order of 100-fold. Figure 4.5 shows the dye moving
away from the shore in a return current in the opposite direction of wind. These
types of circulation patterns arise from uniform winds blowing in the same direction
for sustained periods in symmetrically -shaped basins (Smith 1979).
lv
U-
er
' Wind data used in this report are from ALCOA's recording weather station near
the plant.
4-3

<4a�y/0
1
I
�1
e
� Law
1
O
Sty 3
o �
' Sta 3' (Surface - 0965)\`
soa 5.68
F 0.177
CNlot <0.01
CIN <0.01
free
_ 0
Ste 2 (Surface - 0920)
q
U
Sta.2 so 5.68
0 F 0.174 Badin
CN <0.01 Dam
tot
CHrree <O.01
�}'o
�Q9 i St 1 (Integrated - 0845)
Sta: 1 SO4 5.36
r .= F 0.207
002 CNtot <0.01
A1_COA/f CNfree <0.01
Badin
f
0 1000 2000
SCALE IN FEET
OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS
ALCOA Badin Works
Sample Analysis
12 Oct 1987
Figure 4.2. Results of analyses of water quality samples taken
on 12 October 1987. All concentrations are in mg/1.
4-4

Figure 4.3. Photograph of dye exiting Outfall 009 on 12 October 1987
and being transported along shoreline by northerly wind.
4-5

OL
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION`! RATIOS
ALCOA Badin Works
Outiall # 009
I 12 Oct 1987
1150-1230 tars
} (1.3 - 1.9 hrs into injection)
r# 600
i.: Ia 0 1110
�464
�s • A73
973
j L/123, .2880
' 1260
1 e a 10,300
1640
j�
e er
----'-- Piume limits
0, Current direction
0 so 100
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 4.4. Near -field dye dilution ratios for 12 October 1987 dye study.
4-6

� I
� I
� I
� I
� I
� I
� I
� I
Figure 4.5. Photograph of return current transporting dye in opposite
direction of wind in Outfall 004 embayment.
4-7

u
4.4 19-22 October „1987 Dye Study_ at Outfall 009
4.4A Description
A second study to quantify Outfalls 009 and 002 effluent dilution was
conducted during 19-23 October 1987, the week following the first study. instead of
injecting dye in slugs as was previously done, the dye was diluted 29:1 and gravity
drained from a barrel. The flow rate was controlled by a needle valve at the end of
tygon tubing. The head on the barrel was kept to within 0.5 ft of 69 ft at all times
except at the end of the injection period when the barrel was drained. Details of the
injection methodology used in the study are presented in Appendix A.
44.2 Results
During the first few hours of injection (1030-1230 hrs, 19 October) it became
apparent that wind dominated the dye transport. Figure 4.6 shows the southerly
wind -generated current moving the dye toward the swimming beach north of Outfall
009 after half an hour of injection of dye. This transport occurred even though wind
speeds were less than 2.5 ft/sec. After three hours of injection, the wind became
south -southeasterly and increased to 9.0 ft/sec. At this point, the leading nose of
the plume began traveling toward the middle of the 130 ft long pier near the
swimming beach north of Outfall 009 (Figure 4.7). The plume's serpentine shape
served as a record of the time -history of the wind direction and magnitude.
After seven hours of injection, the area north of the outfall west of a line from
the outfall to a point 100 ft out on the pier was visibly red with dye. Since the
effluent was warmer than the surface temperature of the lake the dye entered as an
overflow. Dye concentrations were less than 5 ug/I at depths below 1.0 meters.
Concentrations were diluted at least ten -fold in the near -field (within a 30 ft radius
of the outfall), 100-fold in the center of the plume at the swimming beach pier, and
nearly 10,000-fold 350 ft further down the axis of the cove (Figures 4.8 through
4.13).
During the night the surface winds were calm. At 0200 hrs on 20 October the
plume appeared to pool in an area from the outfall out to a distinct line parallel to
the shoreline 50 ft out from the outfall. Beyond this line no dye was visible. When
sampling resumed later that morning, evidence that an underflow had occurred was
found; concentrations 300 ft straight out from the outfall were below 1.0 ug/I in the
top 4m of the lake with a maximum of 6.8 ug/1 at the bottom depth of 6m. Also
during the evening, effluent temperature had been observed to drop below the
4-8

1
1
1
1
1
Figure 4.6. Photograph of dye exiting Qutfall 009 and being transported
' by southerly wind after 0.5 hrs of injection.
4-9

Figure 4.7. Photograph of dye exiting 4utfall 009 and being transported
by southerly wind after 3 hrs of injection.
4-10

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1291
• • 23 50 • 154
700
S
0
•13
10
8•
10•
Outfall 009
9•
`
•
75,500
!T
I
4 5 10
SCALE IN FEET
•60 ( •150
26• 1•,
• 603
483
500
1000
26 •//%/ r 27,750
• •
75,500 75,500
i�
6454
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
ALCOA Badin Works
Outfall # 009
19 Oct 1987
1250-1330 hra
(2.3 - 3.0 hra into injection)
Figure 4.8. Near -field dye dilution ratios and plume extent at
Outfall 009 on 19 October 1987.
4-11

.01
IL
N
Pier
L1019 IP19S J "P&I 0,9
,11 • 386 0 287 1
881• 304 �179
• 1290 157 •
228 • • 186 f
• 295 152 132 /
!, 1
•1 - r
1 <
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
Plume limits
ALCOA Badin Works /
� — — — —
1 Owall # 009 /
1
19 Oct 1987 � a so s o0
1345-1415 hrs /
(3.3 - 3.8 hrs into injection) SCA!_E IN FEET
Figure 4.9. Dye dilution ratios and plume extent at peninsula immediately north of Outfall 009 on
19 October 1987.

M
1
I �
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
l ALCOA Badin Works
} Outtall # 009
19 Oct 1987
i 1400-1450 hrs
(3.6 - 4.3 hrs Into injection)
• 1: 11,400 • 152 • 418 �
/
S •4180
386
23 * 61 /
.27,900
tfai{ 009
— ~ -- Plume limits
0 50 100
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 4.10. Dilution ratios and plume extent in Outfall 009
embayment on 19 October 1987.
4-13

M M M M M M M M M
.\X
No
1 OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
ALCOA Badin Works
Outfall # 009
19 Oct 1987
1540-1550 hrs
(5.2 - 5.3 hrs into injection)
4
N
J
t — — — Plume limits
tt
t 0 50 100
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 4.11. Dye dilution ratios and plume extent at peninsula immediately north of Outfa11009 on
19 October 1987.

M
A
NO DYE •
2140/!
4 / /
v 843/
///
Fr
.125,000 / f/
\
sir
• 125,000
• 50,200'
:.
t ./738
to 12,500
Ir • 1190
•1190
Pier I
\
• 5450
?s jflQ
`fl�i� i ?o 041,800
i
O,yt,a►l
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
AIL.COA Badin Works
Outfall # 009
19 Oct 1987
1505-1550 hrs
(4.6 - 5.3 hrs into injection)
— — —Plume limits
0 200 400
SCALE 1N FEET
Figure 4.12. Dye dilution ratios for dye plume showing approximate plume limits on 19 October 1987.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
ALCOA Badin Works
Outtall # 009
19 Oct 1987
1705-1725 hrs
(6-6 - 6.9 hrs into injection)
49
160
Outfall 009 1.0
01.2
31,200 •
0 5 10
SCALE IN FEET
39a 27 a-
10
70
3•
4460*
480
78000
�I
7800
15600 15,6001y
eo 1000",
57 *
78009
Figure 4.13. Near -field dye dilution ratios and plume extent at
Outfall 009 on 19 October 1987.
4-16
20do�l
31,200�

temperature of the lake bottom at Station 1. This temperature (density) difference
between the inflowing effluent and lake may have caused the occurrence of an
underflow, the phenomenon of inflowing water that plunges below the surface of the
lake and travels along the bottom or in a layer matching its density. The pooling
action of the dye observed during the night has been observed at plunge points in
other density currents (Ford and Johnson 1983).
By 0800 hrs on 20 October, however, the dye was observed to curl to the left of
the outfall in a large tongue. Dilution ratios within the tongue were at least 10-fold
(Figures 4.14 through 4.16). From 1015 - 1800 hrs a southerly wind began to blow
peaking at 12 ft/sec at 1400 hrs. This transported the 1 m thick overflow down the
axis of the cove again. Dilution ratios found within this plume are shown in Figures
' 4.17 through 4.19. Near -field dilutions were at least 10-fold within a 40 ft radius of
the outfall. Within 500 and 1200 ft radii of the outfall, dilution ratios in the center
1
1.1
of the plume were 100-fold and 1000-fold, respectively.
Injection of the dye stopped at 1750 hrs on 20 October. The following
morning (21 October) the wind had reversed direction and began to blow from the
northwest. Winds increased in magnitude during the morning to a peak of 13.5
ft/sec at noon and shifted gradually to a north -northwesterly direction. As shown in
Figures 4.20 through 4.22, dye in the cove had been diluted at least 10,000-fold at all
locations with the highest concentration appearing near the surface at the southern-
most point of the cove. By the afternoon white -caps had formed on the lake and dye
was found only in the small embayment near Outfall 009 and the area south of the
embayment in the cove (Figures 4.23 and 4.24). Wave action appeared to have
mixed the dye deeper into the water column, diluting it beyond detection limits of
the fluorometer (0.01 ug/1).
4.522 October 1987 Dye Study at outfall 002
4.5.1 Description
On 22 October 1987, background fluorescence measurements were made
prior to injection of dye into the 002 effluent stream at several transects in the cove
between Outfalls 002 and 009. This was done to determine if any residual dye
remained from the previous injection of dye at Outfall 009. Once this was
accomplished, injection of the dye began.
The dye was introduced into the effluent stream 200 ft from the lake in a 60 in
diameter concrete pipe. The dye was gravity -fed from a barrel with a head of 7.9 ft
4-17

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
OL
4
•y
L
'1
1
i
l
7 :; • 4180
• 660
• 335 9584
179
1:. * 851
i;:;• 1
• •56
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
ALCOA Badin Works
Outfall # 009
20 Oct 1987
0910-1040 hrs
(10.7 - 12.2 hrs into injection)
ier
• 1930
• 3350
/f • 738
tfall 009
f:
;_. 919,300
1'
-- — — — Plume limits
• 251,000
Ira 0 so 100
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 4.14. Dye dilution ratios and plume extent on 20 October 1987.
4-18

r m Ml m m m m m Ml m m m r
Pier
,p00 00 �s`90 0 �',Q0
1,n
.1
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
ALCOA Badin Works
1 _
Outfall # 009
=
20 Oct 1987
1 =
1020-1030 hrs
(23.9 - 24.0 hrs into injection)
a50 100
J
_
SCALE IN FEET
1
Figure 4.15. Dye dilution ratios on 20 October 1987.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
ALCOA Badin Works
Outfall # 009
`�_�r20 Oct 1987
082Q;:0900 hrs
(21.8 - 22.5 hra to injection)
41• •76 •\�
• 64
14•
10
OutfaEl QQ9 i 50
2130 •
N
f 1513 •
0 5 t(
SCALE IN FEET
r-
500
• 58
'let
N
• 2300
• 2300
2054 • 1340 •
• 93
I`
6760 • 8210 +
6390 • 6840 • 7012 •
Figure 4.16. Near -field dye dilution ratios for Outfall 009 on 20 October 1987.
4-20

M M M M M M M M M
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
ALCOA Badin Works
Q�t Outiall # 009
oa 20 Oct 1987
cs 1000-1100 hrs
(23.5 - 24.5 hrs into injection)
\.� I 22,800 • • 41,800
• 6780
�. • 7M
�.� • 5770
..41,800* • • 5280 • 62,700
6600
6270 •
2950 • 5020 •251,000
• 3590
• 502,000
Pier • 3590
•1250
• 8650
• 20,100
! if • 14,800
0p9 i5 46 ,' 1360 , _ - Plume limits
all
0 200 400
4
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 4.17. Dye dilution ratios and plume extent on 20 October 1987.

w M s M M M M M r M M M M M M M r M M
,0
'A
Dvffia11009
NO DYE •
8370-- 1
1790 • 1
/ 1
2510 • ,
2090 • !
1 !
627 • !
502 • /
1
386 • %
i
359 •
f
Pie • 335
r' /
295 • • 335
228 • /
+ 193 /
• 39
• 33
i
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
ALCOA Badin Works
Outiall # 009
20 Oct 1987
1645-1655 hrs
(30.3 - 30.4 hrs into injection)
— — — --- Plume limits
0 200 400 Sod
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 4.18. Dye dilution ratios and plume extent on 20 October 1987.

OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
ALCOA Badin Works
0 utla 11 # - 009
20 Oct 1987
1545-1600 hrs (29.3 29.5 hrs into in ection),
* 156 • 122
--100
*44 058
Pier
IV
•
115 .50 4t
- 8\4*
102
62 0 81 88 @
SO
* 30 0 18) 0122
500
* 1040 * 994
C 465
100
�17.j27
759
107 •
00
15,0000
10 4k'�
Figure 4.19. Near -field dye dilution ratios for Outfall 009 on 20 October 1987.
4-23

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
o ALCOA Badin Works
�o,, outran # 009
•'1a `, I;L� 21 Oct 1987
° 0925-1035 hrs
•
13,900 • (15.6 - 16.8 hrs post -injection)
15,700 • 19,300
•13900
`\ Pier 6600 •
10,5000 35,900
10,5000
5700 •
5980 •
6270 •
7380 +
'C= 8100 +
flUNaiti Q09
1.
5580
8100
° 8100
• 6440
6600
1 . 7840 °
• + �' 1 7170 7 70
1
oull00 5460 0 200 400
+ SCALE IN FEET
1 + 5520
Figure 4.20. Bye dilution ratios found the morning of 21 October 1987.
4-24

M M M r
1-►
,1
1
1
�1
1
N
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
ALCOA Badin Works
Outfail # 009
21 Oct 1987
1015-1020 hrs.
(15.5 hrs post -injection)
Pier
+a00 00 00 00 00
o so too
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 4.21. Dye dilution ratios found the morning of 21 October 1987.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 0
0 1
* 83,700
oumall 00'
e 83,700
* 38,600
* 50,200
* 35,900
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
ALCOA Badin Works
Outfall # 009
21 Oct 1987
1015-1120 hrs
(17.0 - 17.5 hre post -injection)
0 500 1 DOO
SCALE INFEET
Figure 4.22. Dye dilution ratios found the morning of 21 October 1987.
4-26

4011
•
•
•
NO DYE
•
•
251,000
062,700
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
*41,800
ALCOA Badin Works
outiall # 009
21 Oct 1987
823,900
1450-1510 hrs
(21.0 - 21.3 hrs post -injection)
500 1000
SCALE IN FEET
NV W 1 V, I VV
ou"I 002 11,400
Figure4.23. Dye dilution ratios found the afternoon of 21 October 1987.
4-27

Ou
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
ALCOA Badin Works
Outfall # 009
21 Oct 1987
1340-1400 hrs
�. (19.8 - 20.2 hrs post -injection)
Il
. 12,000 •13,600
1 •12,200 • 12,500
l'.
1�
. 12,000 * 12,200
V
• 12,500 . 11,700
12,500 • 15,7Q0
•11,400
1
j^
,r
plot
0 50 100
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 4.24. Dye dilution ratios found the afternoon of 21 October 1987.
4-28

that deviated less than 0.5 ft during the study period. Details of the injection
methodology are detailed in Appendix A. The dye entered the lake at 0850 hrs.
4.5.2 Results
'
At the time the injected started, surface winds were calm and the lake was
covered with a light fog. However, one hour later a northerly wind began producing
white caps on the lake and blowing the dye along the shoreline to the southwest of
'
the outfall in a plume approximately 30 ft wide (Figure 4.25). In one hour the
leading edge of the plume was transported approximately 400 ft around the
'
southern shoreline for an average velocity of 0.11 ft/sec. Dilution ratios within the
plume were only on the order of 10-fold; this can be attributed to the confinement
'
of the plume to shallow water where little dilution could occur. By 1200 hrs the
winds calmed and the dye began spreading toward deeper water (Figure 4.26).
'
Figure 4.27 shows the results of the near -field sampling at the outfall from 1235-
1335 hrs. Figure 4.28 shows that the dilution ratios in the plume ranged between 10-
'
and 100-fold.
4.6 .12-22 October 1987 Badin Lake Cove Water Quality Sample Analysis
'
During the course of the dye studies at Outfails 002 and 009, water samples
were collected at Stations 1, 2, and 3 and at points directly in, and 500 and 1000 ft
'
from each outfall. Since Station 3 is outside the cove it serves as a base with which
to compare in -cove data.
'
The concentrations of sulfate, fluoride, and cyanide found in the effluent
streams (i.e, prior to entering the lake) are given in Table 4.1. The maximum
observed free and total cyanide concentrations in the 009 discharge were both 0.630
mg/I. Fluoride concentrations in the 009 discharge did not exceed 30 mg/l. Sulfate
'
concentrations were less than 35 mg/1 in the discharge from Qutfall 002.
Figure 4.29 levels fluoride, found in depth
shows the of cyanide, and sulfate -
integrated samples collected on 20 October at Stations 1, 2, and 3. Cyanide was
'
found to be less than the detection limit of 0.01 ug/I at all three stations. Levels of
fluoride and sulfate were highest outside the cove at Station 3.
'
On 22 October, grab samples were collected at the surface, mid -depth, and
bottom elevations at stations 1, 2, and 3 (Figure 4.30). Again, cyanide
concentrations were below the detection limit. Fluoride concentrations varied little
between stations with the maximums occurring at mid -depth elevations. Sulfate
4-29

' Fig
ure 4.25. Photograph of dye exiting 002 Outfall and being blown
' around the cove's southern shoreline on 22 October 1987.
' 4-30
1

' ..�� �� �� +���C. '/fir:
�," �' �'

Dock
•
20
•
9
11
13
•
7
•
13
9
•
10
14
• • • •
23,500 23,500 23,500 23,500
• e •
4 15,700 23,500 23,500
•
5880 15,700 15,700
{
34 2140 11,800
12 dD 15,700
O
SO
14 16
ro
8 13 �120
p 5 10
SCALE IN FEET
10 13 10
10 13 9 7
14 21 OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
ALCOA Badin Works
Outiafl # 002
22 Oct 1987
5 1235-1335 hrs
(4.3 - 5.3 hrs into injection)
Figure 4.27. Near -field dilution ratios at Outfall 002 on 22 October 1987.
4-32

rr �r r ■r r ■r r r� �r r ■� r r r r r rr r r
23,500
OBSERVED DYE DILUTION RATIOS
ALCOA Badin Works
Outfall a`# D02
+ 59
22 Oct 1987
1410-1500 hrs
(0.2 - 1.0 hrs, post -injection)
• 10,400
0104
5870
39
lift
5 •1
211 + 5870
0 20 i�
+ NO DYE
010
•2140
142
• 34
+ 3360
910,400
• 52
— — — — Plume lirnils
• 522
~�
+ 47
• 294
_
104
`.`X
ABt •
Derck �9400
32
• + 78
0 50 100
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 4.28. Dilution ratios and plume extent on 22 October 1987.

Table 4.1. Concentrations of sulfate found in 002 effluent and
fluoride and cyanide found in 009 effluent.
AtCOA BADIN WORKS
NPDES DISCHARGES #009 $ #002
ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES
12-22 OCTOBER, 1987 FIELD STUDIES
i=2 OutfaLL Water Quality Samples
SULFATE
FLOW
DATE
TIME
TYPE
(mg/O
(mgd)
10/12/87
0830
Grab
13.6
10/12/87
1630
Grab
14.6
10/13/87
0730
Grab
14.9
-
10/19/87
0925/1525
Composite
33.7
0.100
10/20/87
0928
Grab
22.9
0.067
10/22/87
08205/1420
Composite
3.12
0.067
#009 Outfall Water Quality Samples
TOTAL
FREE
FLORIDE
CYANIDE
CYANIDE
FLOW
DATE
TIME
TYPE
(mg/O
(mg/0
(mg/1)
(mgd)
10/12/87
0825
Grab
28.3
0.704
0.232
0.053
10/12/87
1610
Grab
29.1
0.797
0.195
0.053
10/13/87
0715
Grab
29.2
0.844
0.221
0.053
10/19/87
0820/1710
Composite
26.5
0.620
0.047
10/20/87
0850/1725
Composite
26.7
0.580
0.047
10/20/87
0900/1735
Replicate
27.2
0.630
0.047
10/21/87
0845/1612
Composite
27.9
0.560
0.047
10/22/87
0750/1540
Composite
25.7
0.500
0.047
4-34

1
1
1
1
1
1
l
va"
OSta.3.
so4 9.82
F 0.398 ,
CNtot <0.01
CNtree <0.01
1
q�
c
Sta.2
•
Badin
soq 9.18
Dam
F 0.179
\\o CNtot <0.01
�.� CNfrae < 0.01
k
0 1000 2000
pO9 +
SCALE fN FEET
S°4 9.18
Sta.1
' i F 0.239
002 ! '' CNtot <0.01
OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS
CN
ALCOA� free <0 °1
ALCOA Badin Works
Integrated Samples
' Badin
20 OCt 1987
(1205 - 1300 hrs)
Figure 4.29. Results of analyses of water quality samples taken on
20 October 1987. All concentrations are in mg/l.
4-35

l
4
ve
•:•!r ,.
Sta. 3SO4
0.87 9.50
•'''.i''
O
F
0.169 0.167
CNtor
<001 <0.01
CNfree
<0.01 <0.01
:�r
1
1
�J
Sta.
v
G
so 4 9.19
9.23
11,34 Badlr2
�•�
F 0.165
CN1o1 c 0.61
0.202
<0.01
0.146
<O.01 D a m
L\�y
CHitea•ps
<0.01
<0.01
`SCALE IN FEET
Sita1
SQA 7.59
9.56 9.SEf
�!
j 0 i".'CN
F 0.159
<0.01
0.190 0.164
<0.01 <0.01
UO2 cN1o1 <0.01 <0.01 <a.a1 OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS
! j - treo ALCOA Badin Works
ALCOAi Surface, Mid -Depth, Bottom Samples
' B a d i n 22 Oct 1987
(0930 - 1050 hrs)
Figure 4.30. Results of analyses of water quality samples taken on
22 October 1987. All concentrations are in mg/l.
4-36

' concentrations ranged between 7.59 and 11.3 mg/1 with the maximum occurring at
the bottom of Station 2.
Also on 22 October, depth -integrated samples were collected at points 100
and 500 ft out radially from Outfalls 009 and 002 (Figures 4.31 and 4.32). Cyanide
' was not detectable at any location even though it was detected in the 009 discharge
at 47 ug/l. Fluoride concentrations were found to be less than or equal to
' concentrations observed at Stations 1, 2, and 3 (i.e., 0.172 mg/l). Sulfate
concentrations were also all less than those observed at Stations-1, 2, and 3 (less
than 11 mg/1) with the exception of a sample collected 40 ft to the right and 100 ft
' out from Outfall 009 which had a concentration of 22.6 mg/l.
4-37

1
1
1
F
Ou
1
I
I �
I �
I i
I
1
I .`•..
..
0-3m
so4
8.29
F
0.156
t.....
CN1ot
<0.01
CN
<0.01
free
0 - 2.5
m
I-
so4
7.99
F
0.171
CNtot<0.01
CN
<0-01
free
1
�
tfall 009
0 - 3
m
Soo
22.60
F
0.172
f{ ::
CN
<0.01<0.01
�.:.
CN
free
<0.01
.r
�a
p1er
0-3m
Soo 10.50
F 0.126
CNtot <0.01
CNfree <0.01
0-3m
so 6.55
F 0,153
CNtot <0.01
CN free <0.01
OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS
ALCOA Badin Works
Integrated Samples 0 50 100
22 Oct 1987 SCALE IN FEET
(0950 - 1050 hrs)
Figure 4.31. Results of analyses of water quality samples taken on
22 October 1987..All concentrations are in mg1l.
4-38

a
W
®
0 0-3m
/
0 - 3 m
Soo 9.82
so4 8.39
F 0.165
F 0.156
CNtot <0.01
ai
CNtot <D.01
CNk� <0.01
�I
CNhee <0.01
1
� -
i
OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS
ALCOA Badin Works
lIntegrated
Samples
22 Oct 1987
I
(0910 - 0945 hrs) N
/
0-3m
O utta 11002
504 e.50
B
F 0.158
CNtot <0.01
I
i „
CN�� <DA1
cX
0 100 200
(I
SCALE 1N FEET
A+apt
Dock
Figure 4.32. Results of analyses of water quality samples taken on 22 October 1987.
All concentrations are in mg/l.

5.0 MODELING
' 5.1 classification of Discharge
ALCOA's Outfall 009 is located at a point approximately 5000 ft into the 7100
' ft length of the cove (Figure 4.1). The cove represents approximately 8% of the
entire reservoir surface area and 20% of the reservoir volume.
The effluent flows in a 60 inch diameter pipe with an outfall invert elevation
'
of approximately 507.1 ft NGVD, 3.1 ft below lake full elevation. The pipe
discharges into a small embayment normal to a 60 ft straight section in the
otherwise crescent -shaped embayment. The effluent enters the reservoir with little
momentum since entrance velocities are small. The lake currents near the outfall
'
are dependent on meteorological and operational conditions but are usually less
than 0.1 ft/sec. Effluent temperatures vary diurnally such that the effluent plume
can be classified both buoyant and negatively buoyant within a 24 hr time frame.
1
The discharge from the 009 Outfall ranged from 0.035 to 0.100 mgd and
averages 0.0854 mgd for the observation period January 1983 to August 1987
'
compared to the former NPDES permitted average of 0.500 mgd. These rates can
be used to estimate residence times for the cove and mixing zones at radii of 500
and 1000 ft (Figure 5.1), respectively:
Residence Timel�arsL__
Outfall 009 Flow Rate 1000 ft 500 ft
_mgd) Cove Radius Radius
'
'0A350 (min observed) 633 21 3.1
0.0854 (avg. observed) 259 8.6 1.3
0.1000 (max. observed) 221 7.4 1.080
'
0.5000 (avg. former permitted) 44 1.5 0.22
1 5.2 model Selection
As was noted in Section 5.1, the effluent inflow into the reservoir is neither a
' momentum or buoyancy dominated phenomenon; rather, it spreads by diffusion
with transport by currents induced by wind, temperature differences, and pool
' fluctuations. The "worst case" scenario (maximum concentrations) would be
produced by diffusion of the effluent without any sources of added dilution water.
With a diffusion model, the long-term discharge effects are determined without
introducing any initial dilution by entrainment of ambient water as would occur with
5-1

1
Sta. 2
000
�°.....
499
,TOO
0 500 1000
j Sta. 1
:. SCALE IN FEET
.I.. ~jD
0,Mall 002
Figure 5.1. 100, 500, and 1000 ft radii from Outfalls 002 and 009.
5-2

a plume or jet model. In order to be conservative (i.e., to bias toward the worst case
scenario), a simple diffusion model was chosen.
5.3 M d 1 Formulation
To model the diffusion of effluent from the 4utfall 009, the in-house FTN
model DIFFUZ was used. DIFFUZ is based on a solution of the diffusion
equation.
a C = D 32C + a 2C + a 2C
a t a x2 a y2 a z2
where
x, y, and z = Cartesian coordinates
t = time
C = concentration
D = the diffusion rate coefficient
A solution of the diffusion equation that accounts for a steady input of mass over
time is given by Fischer et al. (1979) as:
t
C = f M(T) (4 ,r AD(t-T)-1/2 exp(-x2/(4D(t-T))dT
-00
where
t = observation time
T = mass input time
M(T) = source strength at time T (mass/time)
x = observation radial distance from source (length)
A = Y-Z planar area (length2)
D = diffusion rate (length2/time)
C = concentration at a distance x from the source (mass/length3)
S-3

If the concentration is initially zero everywhere and the source strength is held
constant at t = 0 and x = 0, the equation can be expressed in finite difference form
as:
t
C(x,t) = M(4-,AD)-1/2 1: {(t - T)-1 /2 exp (-x2/(4D(t-T)) 0 T}
T=0
Since this equation is for an unbounded source, the method of superposition
was used to account for the lake shoreline. The method of superposition allows any
number of individual solutions to be superposed to yield a solution only if the
equation and boundary conditions are linear. With a boundary at the source
location, this amounts to simply doubling the concentrations.
5.4 Modelin Approach
A listing of the BASIC version of DIFFUZ is given in Appendix D. The
program was structured to calculate concentrations over time at given locations.
The time step was held constant at 1. hr for all simulations. The diffusion rate (100
cm2/sec) was obtained from Bowie et al. (1985) and Boyce (1974) and is the order
of magnitude of eddy diffusitivities found in smaller impoundments (i.e., for the
cove).
5.5 Modelinv Results
5.5.1 Diffusion Model
Four combinations of effluent flow rates and cyanide concentrations were
modeled:
1) Previously permitted flow and period maximum observed concentration
(0.500 mgd and 2.20 mg/1)
2) Previously permitted flow and period average observed concentration
(0.500 mgd and 0.530 mg/1).
3) Period maximum observed flow and concentration (0.100 mgd and 2.20
mg/I).
4) Period average flow and concentration (0.085 mgd and 0.530 mg/1)
5-4

1
The times required to reach chronic toxicity levels (5 ug/1) for each scenario at
three distances from the source are given in Table 5.1. In addition, the percentages
of the hydraulic residence time (Section 5.1) the predicted time represents is given.
These results are based only on diffusion of the effluent and do not include
any other mechanisms for diluting the concentrations. However, the field studies
demonstrated the impact of wind -generated currents in moving and diluting the dye.
It should, therefore, be important to consider the wind and other mechanisms for
transporting and diluting the effluent.
Unfortunately, the few two- and three-dimensional hydrodynamic transport
models that are capable of simulating these mechanisms on effluent dilution are
expensive and difficult to apply. However, simplified models can be exployed to
examine some of these mechanisms. The mechanisms which have the potential to
move dilution water into the cove include:
- pool fluctuations
- local runoff and direct precipitation onto the lake surface
- wind generated seiche motion
- wind generated currents
In the following sections the results of the application of simplified models for
each of these mechanisms is examined.
5_5.2 Pool Fluctuations
As the pool level in the reservoir fluctuates with changes in storage due to
releases or hydropower generation, a flux of water occurs across a vertical plane at
the entrance of the cove. To quantify the amount of dilution water that is moved in
and out of the cove, operation records for Badin Dam were examined during a wet,
dry, and average month in a wet, dry, and average year, respectively. The monthly
average cumulative pool elevation increases were then multiplied by the surface
areas of the cove and within 500 and 1000 ft radii of Outfall 009 (Figure 5.1) to
obtain the monthly volume transported into the respective areas. This computation
was also done using the maximum and minimum changes in elevation for each
month. These values were then divided by the previously permitted and period
average flow rates for Outfall 009. The results of this analysis (Table 5.2) show that
dilution of the order of 10 or less could be expected within the 500 and 1000 ft radii
of the 009 Outfall and on the order of 103 within the entire cove.
5-5

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 5.1. Diffusion model predicted times to reach chronic cyanide toxicity levels
(5 ug/1) and corresponding percentages of hydraulic residence times for
four combinations of 009 effluent flow rates and concentrations at three
distances from the outfall.
Time to Chronic Toxicity (days) and Corres-
ponding Percentage of Hydraulic Residence
Flow Rate Concentration Time (in parentheses) at Specified Distance
(mad) (mg f i) 100 ft 500 ft 1000 ft
0.5001
2.202
0.3 (16.7%)
5.9 (7.5%)
23.2 (4.3%)
0.5001
0.533
0.3 (16.7%)
7.0 (8.9%)
27.8 (5.2%)
0.1002
2.202
0.3 (3.3%)
7.2 (1.8%)
28.5 (1.1%)
0.0853
0.533
0.3 (3.3%)
7.1 (1.5%)
27.8 (0.9%)
1 Previously permitted average daily flow rate.
2 Maximum for period of record.
3 Average for period of record.
5-6

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 5.2. Results of the analysis of pool fluctuations as a source
of dilution water.
DILUTION DUE TO POOL FLUCTUATIONS
ALCOA BADIN WORKS:
1979,1982,1986
BADIN COVE
ENTIRE
ALCOA BADIN
COVE
-- ....
OUTFALL
#009 EFFLUENT
DILUTION
RATIOS .......
DAILY
AVERAGE VOLUME
AVERAGE
DAILY ALLOWABLE
1983-1987
AVERAGE
CHANGES
FOR MONTH
(dsf)
FLOW
(0.5000
mgd)
FLOW
(0.0854 mgd)
RAINFALL
CONDITIONS
MAX.
MIN.
AVG.
MAX_
MIN.
AVG.
MAX.
MIN. AVG.
DRY (JUL 1986)
257
9.0
88
332
.....
12
.....-
114
......
1945
68 666
AVG (MAR 1982)
144
9.0
62
186
12
80
1090
68 469
WET (FES 1979)
541
52
138
699
67
178
4094
394 1044
1000 FT RADIUS FROM OUTFALL
1000 FT RADIUS FROM OUTFALL
DAILY
AVERAGE
VOLUME
CHANGES
FOR MONTH (dsf)
RAINFALL
CONDITIONS
MAX.
MIN.
AVG.
DRY (JUL 1986)
20
0.7
6.9
AVG (MAR 1982)
11
0.7
4.9
WET (FEB 1979)
43
4.1
11
-------
OUTFALL #009
EFFLUENT
DILUTION
RATIOS -------
AVERAGE
DAILY ALLOWABLE
1983.1987
AVERAGE
FLOW
(0.5000 mgd)
FLOW
(0.0854 mgd)
MAX.
MIN. AVG.
MAX.
MIN.
AVG.
26
0.92
9.0
153
5.4
53
15
0.92
6.3
86
5.4
37
55
5.3
14
323
31
82
500 FT RADIUS FROM OUTFALL
500 FT RADIUS FROM OUTFALL
DAILY AVERAGE VOLUME
CHANGES FOR MONTH (dsf)
RAINFALL
CONDITIONS MAX. MIN. AVG.
DRY (JUL 1986) 4.5 0.16 1.5
AVG (MAR 1982) 2.5 0.16 1.1
WET (FEB 1979) 9.4 0.90 2.4
OUTFALL #009
EFFLUENT
DILUTION
RATIOS -------
AVERAGE
DAILY ALLOWABLE
1983-1987
AVERAGE
FLOW
(0.5000 mgd)
FLOW
(0.0854 mgd)
MAX.
MIN.
AVG.
MAX-
MIN.
AVG.
5.8
0.20
2.0
34
1.2
12
3.2
0.20
1.4
19
1.2
8.1
12.1
1.2
3.1
71
6.8
18
5-7

5.5.3 Runoff and Direct Precipitation
Runoff from surrounding areas and direct precipitation onto the surface of the
' lake are other sources of dilution water. Period of record monthly average rainfall
data were obtained from both the ALCOA recording gages (1982-1987) and the
' National Weather Service gage at Charlotte (1957-1986). The ALCOA values were
consistently almost twice the Charlotte values. A land -use area -weighted runoff
'
coefficient was calculated to be 0.58 for the cove and its surrounding watershed,
For dilution 500 ft
calculating the within and 1000 radii of the 009 Outfall, only
direct precipitation onto the lake's surface was considered.
'
The volume of water from rainfall runoff and direct precipitation is small
compared to the effluent volumes produced in the same period. Table 5.3 shows
'
that only a 10-fold dilution can be expected if the rainfall falling on the entire cove
and its watershed are considered and that concentrations could, at best, be halved if
'
the direct precipitation on the areas within the 500 and 1000 ft radii are considered.
'
5.5.4 Seiche Motion
When lake, is
a steady mixed blows across a water moved to the windward side
of the lake causing the surface of the reservoir to be tilted. In a large body of water
'
the volume of water the wind moves in this manner can be significant.
To analyze the potential impact of wind on the reservoir, an analysis of period
wind data was performed. The magnitude and frequency of occurrence of winds
within 200 increments were determined on a monthly basis for the period of record
'
(1983-1987). These data are listed and plotted in Appendix E.
To be conservative, only winds within the 0-400 and 180-2200 intervals were
'
considered (i.e., no components of other wind angles were included).
To calculate the differential elevation caused by wind setup the formulation of
Ford and Johnson (1986) was used:
H = F x T/(pwgD)
where: H = setup height
'
F = fetch (effective wind length scale)
T = shear stress = pa (0.0005 W2.5)
'
Pw = density of water
pa = density of air
'
5-8

Table 5.3. Results of the analysis of runoff and direct precipitation
as a source of dilution water.
AVERAGE MONTHLY RUNOFF DILUTION
ALCOA BAD1N WORKS, 1957-1986
COVE WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
LAND AREA RUNOFF
USE (acres) COEF
forest 463 0.20
industry 82 0.90
water 352 1.00
..........................
total 897
wtd coef - 0.58
ENTIRE
COVE RUNOFF
1957.1986
CHARLOTTE
PPTN
1982.1987 BADIN
PPTN
PPTN
RUNOFF
VOLUME
PPTN
RUNOFF
VOLUME
MONTH
(in)
(in)
(ac-ft)
(in)
(in)
(ac-ft)
JAN
3.80
2.20
164.2
6.50
3.76
280.8
FEB
3.81
2.20
164.6
8.87
5.13
3B3.2
MAR
4.83
2.79
208.7
8.12
4.69
350.8
APR
3.27
1.89
141.3
4.48
2.59
193.5
MAY
3.64
2.10
157.2
5.72
3.31
247.1
JUN
3.57
2.06
154.2
6.90
3.99
298.1
JUL
3.92
2.27
169.3
7.22
4.17
311.9
AUG
3.75
2.17
162.0
6.55
3.79
293.0
SEP
3.59
2.07
155.1
4.08
2.36
176.3
OCT
2.72
1.57
117.5
5.21
3.01
225.1
NOV
2.86
1.65
123.6
6.65
3.84
287.3
DEC
3.40
1.96
146.9
6.94
4.01
299.8
AVG.
3.60
2.08
155.4
6.44
3-72
278.1
AVG. PERIOD PPTN WITH AVG. DAILY ALLOWABLE 009 FLOW RATE
5-9
DUTFALL #009 EFFLUENT
FLOW
DILUTION
RATIOS
RATE
1957-
1982-
(mgd)
1986
1987
0.0808
22
38
0.1052
17
40
0.0930
24
41
0.0836
18
25
0.0556
31
48
0.0760
22
43
0.0708
26
48
0.0784
22
39
0.0975
17
20
0.0810
16
30
0.0848
16
37
0.0902
18
36
0.0854
20
35
0.5000
3.4
6.0

Table 5.3. Continued.
AVERAGE MONTHLY RUNOFF DILUTION
ALCOA BADIN WORKS, 1957-1986
AREA IN 500 FT RADIUS FROM OUTFALL= 7.6 acres
AREA IN 1000 FT RADIUS FROM OUTFALL= 34 acres
DIRECT
PRECIPITATION ON
500 & 1000 FT
MIXING
ZONES
1957-1986
CHARLOTTE PPTN
1982-1987
BADIN
PPTN
PPTN
500 FT
1000 FT
PPTN 500
FT
1000 FT
MONTH
(in) VOL
(af)
VOL (af)
(in) VOL
(af) VOL (af)
JAN
3.80
2.41
6.82
6.50
4.12
11.66
FEB
3.81
2.41
6.84
8.87
5.62
15.92
MAR
4.83
3.06
8.67
8.12
5.14
14.57
APR
3.27
2.07
5.87
4.48
2.84
8.04
MAY
3.64
2.31
6.53
5.72
3.62
10.26
JUN
3.57
2.26
6.41
6.90
4.37
12.38
JUL
3.92
2.48
7.03
7.22
4.57
12.96
AUG
3.75
2.38
6.73
6.55
4.15
11.75
SEP
3.59
2.27
6.44
4.08
2.58
7.32
OCT
2.72
1.72
4.88
5.21
3.30
9.35
NOV
2.86
1.81
5.13
6.65
4.21
11.93
DEC
3.40
2.15
6.10
6.94
4.40
12.45
AVG.
3.60
2.3
6.5
6.44
4.1
11.6
AVG. PERIOD PPTN WITH AVG. DAILY ALLOWABLE 009 FLOW RATE
5-10
........
OUTFALL #009 EFFLUENT
•.......
FLOW
DILUTION
RATIOS
RATE
500 FT
RADIUS
1000 FT
RADIUS
(mgd)
157-86
182-87
157-86
182-87
0.0808
0.32
0.55
0.92
1.6
0.1052
0.25
0.58
0.71
1.6
0.0930
0.36
0.60
1.01
1.7
0.0836
0.27
0.37
0.76
1.0
0.0556
0.45
0.71
1.28
2.0
0.0760
0.32
0.62
0.92
1.8
0.0708
0.38
0.70
1.08
2.0
0.0784
0.33
0.57
0.93
1.6
0.0975
0.25
0.29
0.72
0.8
0.0810
0.23
0.44
0.65
1.3
0.0848
0.23
0.54
0.66
1.5
0.0902
0.26
0.53
0.73
1.5
0.0854
0.29
0.52
0.82
1.5
0.5000
0.05
0.09
0.14
0.25

W = wind speed
g = gravitational acceleration
' D = average depth of the waterbody
The volume of water affected in the cove can be approximated by calculating the
volume of a prism with dimensions equal to the estimated cove width, known length,
and calculated height of setup.
The results of this analysis are presented in Table 5.4. Average monthly
effective wind velocities were calculated for the direction interval of the lake axis
and used in the computation of setup heights. Dilution ratios were then computed
by dividing the volume of the setup prism by monthly average, period average, and
' previously permitted 009 flow rates. The resulting small dilution ratios indicate that
wind setup volumes are insignificant in diluting the effluent.
5.5.5 Wind -Generated Currents
To determine the influence of wind -generated currents in transporting water
' across the vertical planes at the entrance to the cove and at the 500 and 100 ft radii
from the 009 OutfalI, a model was constructed that considered only the effect of
' wind in the 0-400 and 180-2200 direction intervals (i.e. to be conservative in
estimating its impact).
' Haines and Bryson (1961) conducted field measurements that showed that
surface currents are related to wind speed by the relationship
Us = 0.0691W0.44 (for W < 13 ft/sec)
where Us is the surface velocity.
Smith (1979) has shown that the current decreases exponentially with depth
' according to the relationship
1 UZ = Us # e-kz
' where UZ = velocity at depth z
z = observation depth
' k=4.605/D*
' 5-11

1
1
F
Table 5.4. Results of the analysis of seiche motion as a source
of dilution water.
AVERAGE MONTHY SEICHE DILUTION
ALCOA BAD1N WORKS 1983.1987
Maximum surface setup by wind (ft) = H = F x Ts / ( pw x g x D)
Area of Setup wedge (ft**2) = AA = .5 x (.5 x F) x H
Area of wedge in cove = A = AA • (.5*H*(F-L)"2/(L/2))
Volume of setup wedge in cove (ft**3) = A x B
L = Length of cove
B = Average cove width
F = fetch (effective wind length scale)
pw = Density of water
D = Average cove depth
g = Acceleration of gravity
Ts = pa x Cd x W**2
pa = Density of air
Cd = Drag coefficient
W = Average wind velocity
MONTH
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
MONTH
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TRANSPORT IN
----------------------------
0-20 (deg)
% TIME
# 08S. VEL (fps)
---------------------------
8.48
300
6.40
7.07
237
6.36
7.20
253
7.02
8.55
302
6.92
12-71
549
7.02
11.42
380
7.02
9.28
319
6.49
7.02
253
5.12
5.78
247
6.10
5.54
204
6.43
5.71
204
6.85
10.01
322
6.89
TRANSPORT OUT
200.220 (deg)
% TIME
# 085. VEL (fps)
14.79
523
9.77
16.57
555
8.00
11-93
419
9.41
9.57
338
8-27
7.48
323
8.72
6.64
221
6.53
5.24
180
6.49
7.21
260
6-10
10.89
465
7.31
10.98
404
8.30
13.83
494
8.33
12.90
415
8.63
L = 7100 ft
B = 2000 ft
F = 25000 ft
pw = 62.4 lb/ft**3
0 = 33 ft
g = 32.2 ft/sec**2
Pa = 0.0735 lb/ft**3
Cd = 0.0005 x W**O.05
W = ft/sec
TRANSPORT
IN
20.40 (deg)
% TIME
# OBS. VEL
(fps)
7.80
276
6.20
8.21
275
6.89
6.29
221
7.12
9.23
326
7.94
15.92
688
6.56
14.00
466
5.97
16.32
561
5.64
13.18
475
4.10
7.28
311
4.89
7.80
287
5.18
7.08
253
5.84
13.52
435
6.76
TRANSPORT OUT
----------------------------
180.200 (deg)
% TIME
# OBS. VEL (fps)
16.48
583
5.58
12.33
413
6.46
11.27
396
7.22
6.37
225
6.46
6.73
291
6.03
5.68
189
4.82
5.21
179
4.76
6.35
229
3.90
7.45
318
5.02
7.96
293
5.21
9,46
338
5.94
11.40
367
6.00
OUTFALL 4009 EFFLUENT
TOTAL TRANSPORT
TOT VOL TRANSPORTED
FLOW
DILUTION
IN
& OUT
BY WIND SETUP
RATE
RATIO
AVG VEL
SUM %
(ac•ft)
mgd
ratio
7.13
47.55
0.5399
0.0808
0.073
7.10
44.18
0.5343
0.1052
0.055
7.88
36.69
0.6921
0.0930
0.081
7.50
33.72
0.6116
0.0836
0,079
6.99
42.84
0.5136
0.0556
0.100
6.21
37.74
0.3826
0.0760
0.055
5.86
36.05
0.3299
0.0708
0.051
4.70
33,76
0.1906
0.0784
0.026
5.98
31.40
0.3481
0.0975
0.039
6.46
32.28
0.4222
0.0810
0.057
6.98
36.08
0.5119
0.0848
0.966
7.11
47.83
0.5360
0.0902
0.065
AVG. 6.66 36.34 0.4549 0.0854 0.058
AVG. PERIOD WIND VELOCITY AND AVG. DAILY ALLOWABLE 009 FLOW RATE 0.5000 0.010
5-12

D*
7r T
Us PwEu sin (LAT)%/-2—
Eu = angular velocity of the Earth
LAT = latitude of water body
Substituting for Us yields a function of windspeed and depth only:
Uz = 0.0691 W0.44 * exp(-105 *z* W-2.06)
If the current velocity is calculated for several incremental depths and
integrated, the total transport per time can be calculated. If the frequency of
occurrence of the wind in the specified direction interval is multiplied by the time
period in question, the total volume of water that is transported can be calculated.
Table 5.5 shows the results of these computations. The monthly average wind
velocity and frequency of occurrence in the direction of the lake axis are the same as
' those used in the seiche computations (Section 5.5.4). Mean velocities are first
computed for ten 0.10 ft layers and summed to obtain an integrated velocity; the
' integrated velocity is then multiplied by the mean vertical cross -sectional area to
yield the total volume transported per time. Dilution ratios are calculated using
' observed mean monthly 009 effluent flow rates and the calculated transport volumes
which range from greater than 103 in the entire cove, between 860 and 3600 within a
1000 ft radius of the Outfall, and between 430 and 1800 within the 500 ft radius.
The average values for all months exceeded 103 for the 1000 ft radius and the entire
cove; the average dilution for the 500 ft radius was 960. If the previously permitted
' average flow rate is used with the average of the monthly volumes, the dilution
ratios drop to 160, 330, and 650 for the 500 and 1000 ft radius zones and the entire
' cove, respectively.
5.6 Mixing Zone Determination and Effluent Limits
5, .1 Critical Conditions
' Effluent limits are usually developed to meet water quality standards in the
receiving water body under critical conditions characterized by limited dilution

1
1
Table S.S. Results of the analysis of wind -generated currents
as a source of dilution water.
AVERAGE WIND -INDUCED CURRENT DILUTION
ALCOA BADIN WORKS 1983-1987
EFFECTIVE WIND ANGLES = 0.40, 180-220 degrees
AVERAGE WIDTH ENTIRE COVE= 2000 ft
------ WIND
------
................
...........•----
DEPTH
INTERVAL (ft)
------------------------------.
AVERAGE
FREQ OF
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
VELOCITY
OCCUR
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
MONTH
(fps)
M
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
------------------------------
---
LAYER VELOCITY (fps) -----------------•--------•---
JAN
7.13
47.55
0.150
0.125
0.104
0.086
0.D72
0.060
0.050
0.041
0.034
0.029
FEB
7.10
44.18
0.149
0.124
0.103
0.086
0.071
0.059
0.049
0.041
0.034
0.028
MAR
7.88
36.69
0.159
0.137
0.118
0.102
0.067
0.075
0.065
0.056
0.048
0.041
APR
7.50
33-72
0.154
0.131
0.111
0.094
0.080
0.068
0-057
0.048
0.041
0.035
MAY
6.99
42.84
0.148
O.IZ2
0.101
0.083
0.069
0.057
0.047
0.039
0.032
0.026
JUN
6.21
37.74
0.137
0.107
0.084
0.066
0.051
0.040
0.032
0.025
0.019
0.015
JUL
5.86
36.05
0.131
0.100
0.076
0.057
0.044
0.033
0.025
0.019
0.015
0.011
AUG
4.70
33.76
0-110
0.071
0.046
0.030
0-019
0.013
0.008
0.005
0.003
0.002
SEP
5-98
31.40
0.133
0.102
0.078
0.060
0.046
0.036
0.027
0.021
0.016
0.012
OCT
6.46
32.28
0.140
0.112
0.089
0.071
0.057
0.046
0.036
0.029
0.023
0.019
NOV
6.98
36.08
0.148
0.122
0.101
0.083
0.069
0.057
0.047
0.039
0.032
0.026
DEC
7.11
47.83
0.149
0.124
0.103
0.086
0.071
0.059
0.049
0.041
0.034
0.028
AVG.
6.66
38.34
0.143
0.116
0.094
0.076
0.061
0.050
0.040
0.033
0.026
0.021
INTEGRATED
TRANSPORTED VOLUMES
VELOCITY
ENTIRE
1000 FT
500 FT
0-1 ft
COVE
RADIUS
RADIUS
MONTH
(fps)
(ac-ft)
(ac-ft)
(ac-ft)
JAN
0.750
4.2E+04
2.1E+04
1.1E+04
FEB
0.744
3.9E+04
2.0E+04
9.8E+03
MAR
0.889
3.9E+04
1.9E+04
9.7E+03
APR
0.819
3.3E+04
1.6E+04
8.2E+03
MAY
0.723
3.7E+04
1.8E+04
9.2E+03
JUN
0.576
2.6E+04
1.3E+04
6-5E+03
JUL
0.510
2.2E+04
1.1E+04
5-5E+03
AUG
0.309
1.2E+04
6.2E+03
3.1E+03
SEP
0.533
2.0E+04
1.0E+04
5.0E+03
OCT
0.623
2.4E+04
1.2E+04
6.0E+03
NOV
0.722
3.1E+04
1.5E+04
7.7E+03
DEC
0.746
4.2E+04
2.1E+04
1.1E+04
AVG. 0.661 3.0E+04 1.5E+04 7.5E+03
AVG. PERIOD WIND VELOCITY AND AVG. DAILY ALLOWABLE 009 FLOW RATE
---- OUTFALL #009 EFFLUENT
FLOW ---• DILUTION RATIOS ----
RATE ENTIRE 1000 FT 500 fT
(mgd) COVE RADIUS RADIUS
0.0808 5.7E+03 2.9E+03 1.4E+03
0.1052 4.0E+03 2.0E+03 1.0E+03
0.0930 4.5E+03 2.3E+03 1.1E+03
0.0836 4.3E+03 2.1E+03 1.1E+03
0.0556 7.2E+03 3.6E+03 1.8E+03
0.0760 3.7E+03 1.8E+03 9.2E+02
0.0708 3.4E+03 1.7E+03 8.4E+02
0.0784 1.7E+03 8.6E+02 4.3E+02
0.0975 2.2E+03 1.1E+03 5.5E+02
0.0810 3.2E+03 1.6E+03 8.0E+02
0.0848 4.0E+03 2.0E+03 9.9E+02
0.0902 5.1E+03 2.6E+03 1.3E+03
0.0854 3.8E+03 1.9E+03 9.6E+02
0.5000 6.5E+02 3.3E+02 1.6E+02
5-14

1
water and mixing. I£ the receiving waterbody is a river, these conditions are usually
considered to be the 7Q10 low flow for conventional parameters (i.e., BOD and
DO) and the toxicologically based design flow for toxics (i.e., 105 for acute toxicity
and 7Q5 for chronic toxicity in unstressed systems (EPA 1985). For lakes, however,
there is no defined "low" flow condition and conditions of zero ambient velocity are
usually assumed unless a persistent current can be documented (EPA 1985). EPA
(1985) also recommends that all four aeons be az nal ed to -I terrain
in tl ii t
l�
ses
critical periods of the year for mixing. For these reasons, critical conditions in Badin
Lake were defined as periods of no ambient flow (i.e., no wind, precipitation,
changes in pool level, etc.). These conditions were modeled by a simple diffusion
model. Monthly conditions were evaluated to insure the critical season was
considered.
5A2_ Mixing Zone Determination
According to North Carolina Water Quality Standards (15NCAC
2B.0202(14)), a mixing zone is defined as: "a region of the receiving water in the
vicinity of a discharge within which dispersion and dilution of constituents in the
discharge occurs (i.e., where adequate mixing of the discharge and receiving water
takes place), and within which water quality standards shall not apply, except that
such zones shall be subject to conditions established in accordance with 15 NCAC
2B.0204(b)."
In addition, 15 NCAC 2B.0204(b) states: "a mixing zone may be established in
the area of a discharge in order to provide reasonable opportunity for the mixture of
the wastewater with the receiving waters. The limits of such mixing zones will be
defined by the diversion on a case -by -case basis after consideration of the
magnitude and character of the water discharge and the size and character of the
receiving waters. Such zones shall not:
1) prevent free passage of fish around or cause fish mortality within the
mixing zone,
2) result in offensive conditions,
3) produce undesirable aquatic life or result in a dominance of nuisance
species outside of the assigned mixing zone.
4) endanger the public health or welfare."�l�
5-15

In general, this definition and these requirements are consistent with EPA
guidelines for mixing zones found in EPA (1983) and EPA (1985). The mixing zone
for Qutfall 009 was designed to satisfy these requirements by minimizing its size and
thereby its impact on aquatic biota. No mixing zone is required for Outfall 002
because water quality standards are met within the pipe.
Cyanide, (not fluoride) was used to size the mixing zone because it was
identified as the critical constituent in Section 3.1. Based on the diffusion modeling
results (Section 5.5.1) and the dye study results (Section 4.0), a mixing zone of a 500
ft radius is recommended for 4utfall 009 (Figure 5.1). This is the smallest area that
will insure cyanide concentrations are less than chronic levels (5 ug/1) at its
boundary under discharge conditions of 0.5 mgd (previously permitted flow) and 2.2
mg/l (maximum observed concentration). The diffusion model results indicated it
would take 5.9 days to reach a chronic level (5 ug/1) at the 500 ft mixing zone
assuming a discharge rate of 0.5 mgd and of 2.2 mg/1 and 7.2 days at a discharge
rate of 0.1 mgd (maximum observed) and concentration of 2.2 mg/l. According to
EPA (1985), the duration for chronic exposure is four days. Since the time required
to reach chronic levels at the proposed mixing zone is greater than four days,
chronic levels are not predicted to be exceeded. In addition, analysis of the
frequency of calm weather for the period of record (Table 5.6) indicated that the
probability of having four days of calm weather is small. The calms listed in Table
5.6 are for all calms within a month, not consecutive periods, In other words, there
are a total of 4.5 days of calm weather distributed throughout the month of January,
not 4.5 continuous days of calm weather. The probability of having 4.5 days of calm
weather is also small.
It is important to note that the mixing zone was also sized to consider short-
circuiting of the effluent plume through the zone. Because the short-circuiting
would be the norm, constituent concentrations within the mixing zone will be
variable and most of the mixing zone, at any given time, will have concentrations
less than chronic levels.
The proposed mixing zone has a surface are of 7.6 ac which represents
approximately 1.7 percent of the cove surface area and 0.14 percent of the total lake
surface area. Approximately 855 ft of shoreline or 3.4 percent of the cove shoreline
will be included in the zone. The proposed mixing zone is therefore small compared
to the cove and very small compared to Badin Lake. It should therefore have
5-16

' minimal, if any, impact on aquatic biota. It will also not interfere with fish passage.
The better aquatic habitat is located in other undeveloped parts of the cove.
' The size of the mixing zone was also limited so as not to interfere with the
adjacent public use area. According to EPA (1986), the human health criteria for
cyanide is 200 ug/l. Historical data from Outfall 009 indicated this criteria is
exceeded only 15 percent of the time. The critical conditions diffusion modeling
and the dye study indicate these concentration would be limited to a small area
' around the outfall and therefore no human health problems are anticipated.
Historically, there have been no human health -related problems with the outfall.
According to EPA (1985), to prevent lethal conditions in the mincing zone,
acute toxicity concentrations must be met within a distance of 50 ft from the outfall
' (i.e., 10 percent of the distance from the outfall structure to the edge of the mixing
zone. The near field measurements from the dye studies indicated a 100 fold
' dilution (i.e., required to meet acute levels (22 ug/1) assuming a maximum observed
input of 2,200 ug/1) is achieved within a 50,ft radius.z6ne under both calm and
windy (i.e., short-circuiting) conditions. No problems with acute toxicity are
therefore expected.
For the above reasons, the proposed 500 ft mixing zone meets all of the States
and EPA requirements for mixing zones.
' 5.6.3 Effluent Limits
In Section 5.5, the mixing effects from five mechanisms (i.e., diffusion, pool
fluctuations, runoff and precipitation, seiche motion, and wind -generated currents)
were individually quantified on a monthly basis. Since these processes are
' independent and were developed as independent processes on a monthly basis, they
need to be summed to determine the available dilution. The dilution ratios for the
proposed 500 ft mixing zone are:
Dilution Mechanism Minimum Average Maximum
' Pool fluctuations 1.2 8.1 7.1
Direct precipitation . 0.29 0.52 0.71
' Seiche (wind setup) 0.03 0.06 0.10
Wind -generated currents 430 _960 1800
Total 431.52 968.68 1871.81
5-17

' In this table, minimum represents minimum observed for all months for the period
of record, average represents annual average for the period of record, and
' maximum represents the average maximum monthly for the period of record.
For purposes of determining effluent limits, a minimum dilution of 430 was
' used. This dilution is conservative for the following reasons:
a) Minimum conditions were used for all mixing mechanisms in conjunction
with the previously permitted maximum allowable daily average flow (0.5
' mgd). Since the maximum observed flow is 0.1 mgd this represents a
safety factor of 5.
' b) Only winds from a small window (80 degrees) were used. These account
for only 38 percent of the total wind rose. Mixing and dilution will occur
whenever the wind blows and therefore will be significantly greater than
indicated.
' c) Mixing from runoff and direct precipitation considered only direct
precipitation, no runoff
' Assuming a dilution of 430 and using the chronic toxicity levels of 5 ug/l (cyanide)
and 1.8 mg/l (fluoride), the recommended discharge limits for cyanide and fluoride
' are 2.15 mg/1 and 774 mg/l, respectively. In comparison with historical monitoring
data, this proposed cyanide limit was exceeded once. Since this exceedence
occurred in 1982 and all observations since then have been less than 2.15 mg/I, no
problems are anticipated in meeting the proposed limits for cyanide and fluoride.
1
5-18

6.0 REFERENCES
Bowie, G. L., et al. 1985. Rates, constants, and kinetics formulations in surface
water quality modeling (Second edition). EPA/600/3-85/040, Environmental
Research Laboratory. Athens, GA.
Boyce, F. M. 1974. Some aspects of Great Lakes physics of importance to
biological and chemical processes. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada. 31(5).
Fischer, H. B., J. E. List, R. C. Y. Koh, J. Imberger, and N. H. Brooks. 1979.
Mixing in inland and coastal waters. Academic Press. New York, NY.
Ford, D. E., and L. S. Johnson. 1986. An assessment of reservoir mixing processes.
Technical Report E-86-7. USAE Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Ford, D. E., and M. C. Johnson. 1983. An investigation of reservoir density currents
and inflow processes. Technical Report E-83-7. USAE Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Haines, D. A., and R. A. Bryson. 1961. An empirical study of wind factor in Lake
Mondata. Limnol.Oceanogr. 6:356-364.
Smith, I. R. 1979. Hydraulic conditions in isothermal lakes. Freshwater biology.
9:119-145.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water 1986.
EPA/400/5-86-001. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Technical Support Document for
Water Quality -based Toxics Control. Office of Water Enforcement and Permits,
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Water Quality Standards
Handbook. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
6-1

APPENDIX A: DYE STUDY METHODOLOGY

1 APPENDIX A
DYE STUDY METHODOLOGY
1
A.1 Dye Concentration Determinations
' Dye concentrations were determined using a Turner Design Model 10-005 Field
Filter Fluorometer. The fluorometer was equipped with a clear quartz lamp, 5-46
' excitation filter, 3-66 and 4-97 emission filters, and a #16 reference filter, the
manufacturer -recommended combination for Rhodamine WT detection. The
fluorometer was warmed up for a minimum of 30 minutes before calibration to allow all
optical components to reach equilibrium temperature.
The fluorometer was "blanked" using distilled water so that total fluorescence was
measured (i.e., background plus that due to Rhodamine WT). Background
fluorescence was measured at several locations daily to quantify spatial variations.
The fluorometer was calibrated each time it was turned on using a standard
solution of 90 ppb which had been allowed to equilibrate to the temperature in the top
3 ft of the water column. Since the cove was nearly isothermal this meant that no
'
temperature corrections to fluorescence readings were necessary. Warm outfall
samples were allowed to cool to the cove temperatures prior to analysis. The
'
calibration was checked prior to turning the fluorometer off each day to ensure no drift
had occurred. None was found during this study.
'
The fluorescence -concentration rating curve (Figure A.1) indicated a linear
relationship between minimum detection (0.01 ppb) and 200 ppb. Above 200 ppb,
concentrations were determined by diluting the sample until it fell below the 200 ppb
range and multiplying the concentration by the dilution. factor. The rating curve was
'
not used above 200 ppb because concentrations exceeded the maximum on the curve
and severe quenching caused concentrations above 2000 ppb to read in the 300-1000
ppb range.
To dye, known diluted dye full-
test the effect of the effluent on the values of and
strength effluent were combined to produce a mixture of 68 ppb. The concentration
'
was checked over a four -day period and found not to change.
' A,2 Dye injection Methodology
A.2.1 009 Dye Infection
' Rhodamine WT fluorescent dye was injected from 1030 hours on 19 October to
1750 hrs on 20 October into the 009 effluent 400 ft upstream from its outfall into the
A-1

� m m m
a
N
700
600
S00
a
Q
cc 400
w
rc
E 300
O
O
200
100
0
0
... .......: .E
:
���
Calibration Cfor--
Curve
e
�:
A!_COA
Kadin
8 Oct 87
.rI:
-
—
-
..........
if
--
-
--
-
- -
1.
..........:.
L__L_._
E
-
-_i
� ce.
_.-.......-....
z _.......
...
-
.._.....
.#._
-i--» - -- -
-- --�•�
-----
T.
•.._...__._..
-
g
r.......
-
- -
-
-
- -
...
W-1-1
_.a�
-
---
-
-
- -
-
H
-
r s—
- ems:
•�µ
--.1..._
....�:::
:I -
-•-•i'--- '--
-
---
--
- -
ii »
-=
L
:
-
ac
-
- -
w�
---..�----__._�'"'--------=��.�
...: _
..ems:=-
.-
•`: �-..... -- i.:
_
--
_-_
-- -
-
- - -
-
-
--
ter----�-
aig
- -E:_ :€:�=:i::::€::___:�i
=:ice
i -
-- -
-':r-�
�:.
`ii:
,,::
-- ��ii•: y"�-_•-r.-_::_ �_
::�:'�
- -
-- _�:- a:_-='�-i
-
-:«-�,.
.r.-:��-
-
— _
:-ice
— -_
— -
--
- '��--...
..ate_
�i-E�c.
-
_
-- :c-•---�� �-
�_.�:::1...,..._.-.-� E_=-�•z
-- —
a`
r:i-_.::....__ - _ - -
�
::i:
i
100 200 300 400
500 600 700 800
Standard Concentration (ppb)
Figure A.1. Calibration Curve,
900 1000 1100 1200

cove. This distance allowed the dye and effluent to mix completely and reduce density
difference prior to entry into the reservoir. The dye was diluted 29:1 with lake water
prior to injection to further reduce density affects and to allow greater control of the
delivery rate. Flow rates were controlled by maintaining a near -constant head (6.9 +
0.5 ft) on the injection apparatus, a 30 gal plastic trash can which drained into tygon
tubing controlled by a small needle valve.
A total of 255.21 (67.5 gal) of the diluted dye were delivered over 30.8 hrs for an
average delivery rate of 2.3 ml/sec (2.19 gal/hr). Flow rates were checked at least once
per hour from 0700 to 2200 hrs daily and at 0200, 0300, and 0600 during the morning of
20 October.
At the 0200 hr check on 20 October the flow rate was found to have dropped to
0.93 ml/sec; however, a check of the volume of mixture remaining in the injection
vessel showed that approximately 301 (8.0 gal) had been delivered in the 4 hr period
since the previous rate check, or was only off the target volume by 7.61 (2.0 gal).
Consequently, the impact of the valve blockage (found to be caused by a small piece of
grass) was minimal.
A.2..2 002 Dye Injection
Rhodamine WT dye was injected from 0820 to 1400 hrs on October 22 into the
002 effluent 400 ft upstream from its outfall into the reservoir. This distance afforded
complete mixing of the dye prior to its entry into the lake. The dye was diluted 29:1
with tap water to further reduce density effects, to allow greater control of the delivery
rate, and to eliminate the chance of any foreign material blocking the needle valve
opening (as it had during the 009 injection). The tap water had been allowed to sit in
an open container for two hours prior to dilution to eliminate any dye -destroying
chlorine residual.
Flow rates were controlled by maintaining a near -constant head (7.9 ± 0.5 ft) on
the same injection apparatus used in the 009 injection. A total of 64.01 (16.9 gal) of the
dilution mixture were delivered over 5.6 hours for an average delivery rate of 3.2 ml/sec
(2.98 gal/hr). Flow rates were checked at least twice per hour during the entire period.
No significant variations were found. However, the dye did not appear at the outfall
until 0850, thirty minutes after the start of injection. This indicates that a reservoir of
some sort (possibly caused by an adverse slope in part of the pipe) exists. As a result,
dye was last visible in the pipe 50 minutes after injection ceased.
A-3

' APPENDIX B: TEMPERATURE, pH, AND CONDUCTIVITY PROFILES IN
BADIN LAKE AT STATIONS 1-3,12-22 OCTOBER 1987
11
11

1
BAOIN LAKE
WATER
QUALITY PROFILES
12 OCT 1987
STATION 3
STATION 2
'
TIME = 1030
TIME
= 0920
Depth Temp Cond
----------------------------------------....
pH
Depth
................
Temp
Cond
pH
(m) (deg.C) (imhos)
----------------
(m)
1
-------------------------•--
(deg. C)
(umhos)
0
20.8 82
73
0
20.8
82
7.4
'
1
20.8 82
.
1
20.8
82
2
20.8 82
7.3
2
20.6
83
7.4
3
20.8 82
-
3
20.6
85
4
20.8 82
7.2
4
20.5
85
7.4
' 5
20.8 83
5
20.4
82
-
6
20.2 83
7.3
6
20.8
85
7.3
7
20.0 83
-
7
20.8
85
8
19.9 85
7.3
8
20.5
85
7.3
9
20.0 85
9
20.6
85
-
'
10
19.1 85
7.3
10
20.4
87
7.3
11
19.0 87
11
20.5
87
12
18.8 87
12
20.2
87
13
18.0 87
13
20.0
88
' 14
17.3 90
-
14
19.2
88
-
15
7.3
15
19.4
7.1
20
19.9
7.3
30
14.7
6.9
STATION 1
TIME = 0820
Depth
Temp
Cond
----------•--
pH
(m)
(deg. C)
(tmhos)
0
20.9
79
7.7
1
20.9
82
-
2
20.9
82
7.6
3
20.9
82
-
4
21.0
82
7.5
5
20.7
82
6
20.6
7.4
7
20.4

BADIN LAKE
WATER QUALITY PROFILES
13 OCT 1987
STATION 3
TIME = 0810
Depth
Temp
Cond
............
pH
(m)
(deg. C)
.........
(umhos)
0
20.1
82
7.4
1
20.1
2
20.1
82
7.4
3
20.1
-
-
4
20.0
82
5
19.9
6
19.6
84
7
19.4
8
19.6
86
7.3
9
19.3
10
19.3
87
-
11
19.2
- '
12
19.2
88
13
19.1
88
14
19.1
-
-
15
116
7.3
20
18.5
118
7.3
25
18.2
128
7.2
30
13.8
110
6.9
STATION 2
TIME = 0840
Depth
Temp
Cond
----------------
pH
(m)
(deg. C)
(wohos)
0
20.0
81
7.5
1
20.1
2
20.1
81
7.5
3
20.1
4
20.0
82
5
20.0
-
6
19.8
82
7
19.5
8
19.4
83
7.5
9
19.2
10
19.1
85
11
18.5
-
12
18.0
86
13
17.0
14
79
7.5
STATION 1
TIME = 0900
Depth
Temp
Cond
--•-----------
pH
(m)
(deg. C)
(umhos)
0
19.2
79
7.7
1
19.2
79
2
19.1
80
7.6
3
19.1
-
4
18.9
81
7.7
5
18.9
-
-
6
18.3
81
7.7
7
18.1
-

BADIN LAKE
WATER QUALITY PROFILES
19 OCT 1987
STATION 3
TIME = 1240
Depth
Temp
Cond
pH
(m)
(deg. C)
(umhos)
0
19.9
81
7.3
1
19.8
81
2
3
19.2
80
4
-
80
5
19.0
82
7.5
6
7
19.0
82
8
9
10
19.0
85
14
19.0
85
15
-
78
7.3
20
18.2
71
7.2
25
18.6
77
7.2
29
15.4
60
6.7
33
15.8
68
7.0
STATION 2
TIME = 1145
Depth
...............................................
Temp
Cond
pH
(m)
(deg. C)
(umhos)
0
19.6
80
7.7
1
19.4
80
2
19-2
80
3
19.2
80
4
19.2
81
-
5
19.2
82
7.6
6
19.2
82
7
8
19.0
83
9
19.2
80
7.5
10
11
12
19.0
86
13
14
18.9 83
15
16
-
-
-
17
19.0
75
7.4
STATION 1
TIME = 1040
Depth
Temp
Cond
.--------
pH
(m)
(deg. C)
(umhos)
0
19.8
80
7.6
1
19.6
80
-
2
19.5
80
7.6
3
19.2
81
4
19.2
80
5
19.1
82
7.5

BADIN LAKE
WATER DUALITY PROFILES
20 OCT 1987
STATION 3
TIME = 1235
Depth
Temp
Cord
pH
(m)
(deg. C)
(umhos)
.
0
19.0
80
7.5
1
19.0
80
2
19.0
82
3
19.0
82
4
19.0
82
5
19.0
80
7.4
6
19.0
80
7
19.1
84
8
19.2
82
9
19.3
85
.
10
19.3
85
7.4
15
19.5
7.4
20
19.6
7.3
25
18.5
7.1
30
15.0
7.0
35
13.5
7.0
STATION 1
TIME = 1300
Depth
Temp
Cond
pH
(m)
(deg. C)
(umhos)
0
18.5
80
7.4
1
19.0
80
2
19.0
80
3
19.0
80
-
4
19.1
81
7.7
5
19.0
82
-
6
19.2
83
7
19.3
83
8
19.3
85
7.8

BADIN LAKE
WATER QUALITY PROFILES
21 OCT 1987
STATION 3
TIME = 1420
Depth
Temp
Cored
----------------
pH
(m)
(deg. C)
(umhos)
0
19.4
80
1
19.4
80
2
19.1
80
3
19.1
80
4
19.0
80
5
19.0
80
6
19.0
81
7
19.0
82
8
19.0
85
9
19.0
85
10
19.0
85
11
19.0
87
12
19.0
87
13
18.9
87
14
18.9
87
15
19.3
7.2
20
18.7
7.1
38
13.8
7.0
STATION 2
TIME = 1110
Depth
Temp
Cond
...............
pH
(m)
(deg. C)
(umhos)
0
19.5
80
7.5
1
19.5
80
-
2
19.4
80
3
19.4
81
4
19.4
81
5
19.4
82
6
19.4
82
7
19.4
83
-
8
19.4
83
7-3
9
19.5
83
10.
19.4
84
11
19.4
86
12
19.4
86
13
19.4
86
14
19.4
87
15
16
7.3
STATION 1
TIME = 1330
Depth
Temp
Cond
----------
pH
(m)
(deg. C)
(umhos)
0
19.0
79
7.2
1
19.0
80
-
2
19.0
81
-
3
19.0
82
7.2
4
18.9
82
5
18.8
82
6
18.9
82
7.2

BADIN LAKE
WATER QUALITY PROFILES
22 OCT 1987
STATION 3
TIME = 1040
Depth
Temp
Cond pH
(m)
(deg. C)
(umhos)
0
17.8
81
1
18.0
81
2
18.0
81 -
3
18.1
81
4
18.2
82
5
18.5
82
6
18.6
82
7
18.6
83
8
18.5
84
9
18.7
85
10
18.4
86
11
18.5
87
12
18.5
87
13
18.5
88
14
18.7
88
STATION 2
TIME = 1010
Depth
Temp
Cond
pH
(m)
(deg. C)
(tmhos)
0
17.6
80
7.6
1
18.0
80
-
2
18.0
81
3
18.1
81
4
18.2
82
5
18.2
82
6
18.3
83
7
18.4
83
8
18.4
84
9
18.3
84
10
18.2
B6
7.4
11
18.3
85
-
12
18.4
66
13
18.4
88
14
18.3
88
20
17.4
7.2
STATION 1
TIME = 1055
Depth
Temp
Cond pH
..............
(m)
(deg. C)
(umhos)
0
17.0
80
1
17.4
81
2
17.6
81
3
17.8
81
4
17.9
81
5
17.9
81

APPENDIX C: LABORATORY ANALYSIS SHEETS

,. oc T 3 o i937
................
' SAMPLES 6 COLIEGTION DATE 10-13-87
1. #1 4. #4
2. #2 5. #5
3. #3 6. #6
October 27, 1987
James Malcolm
FTN Associates, LTD
3 lnnwood Circle, Suite 220
Little flock, AR 72211
S tore t
Number
PARAMETERS
Results in MG/L unless
otherwise noted
1
2
3
4
5
6
00720
Cyanide, Total
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.704
0.797
C anide Amenable to
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.232
0.195
Chlorination
00951
Fluoride, Total
0,207
0.174
0.177
28.3
00945
Sulfate
5.36
5.68
5.68
13.6
*Std. Meth. 16th ed.
412E (1983)
f
Storet
Number
METALS
Results in uG/L-�"
I
'SOURCE TESTING / AMBiENT AIR / WATER / WASTEWATER / HAZARDOUS WASTES
1700 UNIVERSITY COMME RCIAL PLACE i CHARLOTTE. N. C. 28213 / PHONE 704 t 597-B454

inn n
env1ponmen� �� �93
Gal o��
heshing 100.
3 COLIECTION DATE 10-13-87
1. #7
2. n8
3. #9
October 27, 1987
James Malcolm
FTN Associates, LTD
3 Innwood Circle, Suite 220
Little Rock, AR 72211
,Storet
.Number
PARAMETERS
Results in MG/L unless
otherwise noted
MENNEN
a
Cyanide, Total
Cyanide, Amenable to #
Chloriiiation
Std. Meth. 16th ed.
Storet
'Number
METALS
Results In AiG/L
SOURCE TESTING
/ AMBIENT
AIR
/ WATER / WASTEWATER
/ HAZARDOUS WASTES
'
1700 UNIVERSITY
COMMERCIAL
?LACE
/ CHARLOTTE, N. C. 28213
/ PHONE 704 / 597.8454

enviponmenhol - _ November 4, 1987
heshinu MO. L ` 5 James Malcolm
FTN Associates, LTD.
SAMPLES 6 ODLLECrI4N DATE rec'd�10-21 $�""'�" 3 lnnwood Circle
' Suite 220
1. FTN 1 4. FTN 4 Little Rack, AR 7221
2. FTN 2 5. FTN 5
' 3. F`TN 3 6. FTN 6
1
Storet
Number
PARAMETERS
Results in MG/L unless
otherwise noted
1
2
3
4
5
6
00720
Cyanide, Total.
0.62
0.58
0.63
<0.01
Cyanide, Amenable to chlorination
00951
Fluoride Total
T26.5
26.7
27.2
0.239
00945
Sulfate
33.7
22.9
9.18W
az Std. Meth. 16th ed.
—__
Bad or-w-qses—sEe
m
dated
412F ( 1985) -
(o Jan
88 -Prom
Jim Malcolm.
_
i
1
' Store t METALS
Number Results in AiGIL r
1
SOURCE TESTING / AMBIENT AIR / WATER / WASTEWATER / HAZAROOUS WASTES
1700 UNIVERSITY COMMERCIAL PLACE / CHARLOTTE, N. C. 28213 / PHONE 704 / 597.8454

environmenhol
DOOR iflo. .
' SA PIES 3 COLLECTION DATE reed 10-21-87
I. FTN 7
2. FTN 8
3. FTN 9
November 4, 1987
James Malcolm
FTN Associates, LTD.
3 Znnwood Circle
Suite 220
Little Rock, AR 7221
S tore t
Number
PARAMETERS
Results in MG/L unless
otherwise noted
1
2
3
00720
Cyanide, Total
<0.01
<0.01
0.56
Cyanide, Amenable to Chlorination*
00951
Fluoride, Total
0.179
0.398
27.9
00945
Sulfate
9.18
9.82
o -
Bad an
f9ses -
see me
_
---
do -fed la
Jan 1986
from
_
*Std. Meth. 16th ed.
Jrm NAalwirn.
9toret
Number
METALS
Results in /uG/L
, _�
'` -`� c�
' . _.. L
�� ��• -
1
-
' SOURCE TESTING / AMBIENT AIR / WATER / WASTEWATER J HAZARDOUS WASTES
1700 UNIVERSITY COMMERCIAL PLACE J CHARLOTTE. N. C. 28213 / PHONE 704 / 597.8454

twater resources consultants
tASSOCIATES LTD. 3 INNWOOD CIRCLE • SUITE 220 + LITTLE ROCK, AR 72211 • PHONE [phone]
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
' SUBJECT: ALCOA Badin, NC Analysis of Samples FTN 1-9 delivered
21 October 1987 to Environmental Testing Inc.
' DATE: 6 January 1988
BY: James T. Malcolm
.34
' Personnel from ALCOA and I suspected that the Free Cyanide
analyses (amenable to chlorination) on samples delivered to
' Environmental Testing Inc. on 21 October 1987 were done
improperly since in every sample (FTN 1--9) the Free Cyanide
' concentration equalled the Total Cyanide concentration.
I contacted Mr. Jim McCormick, Director, Environmental
Testing Inc. who checked the methodology used on the samples in
tquestion. He stated that the Free Cyanide aliquots from these
samples were inadvertently not chlorinated. This essentially
' resulted in replicate analyses for Total Cyanide, not in analyses
for Free Cyanide.
' I will draw a line through the Free Cyanide values for
samples FTN 1-9 delivered on 21 October 1987 on their reporting
' sheets and reference this memo. Copies of the reporting sheets
and this memo should be included in the report.
1
L
1

PE (E) nilEm;�)
K, ORVIPOHMORD81 I'lov -
DOOR iflo_
' SAMPLES 6 OO LIEMON DATE rec'd 10-23-87
1. 20 4. 23
2. 21 5. 24
■ 3. 22 6. 25
November 6, 1987
James Malcolm
FTN Associates
3 lnnwood Circle
Suite 220
Little Rocks, AR 72211
Storet
Number
PARAMETERS
Results in MG/L unless
otherwise noted
1
2
3
4
5
6
00720
Cyanide, Total
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Cyanide, Amenable to Chlorination*
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
00951
Fluoride, Total
0.202
0,190
0.167
0.169
0.165
0.164
00945
Sulfate
8.23
8.56
9.50
8.87
9.19
9.50
*Std Method 16th ed
Method No. 412F (1985)
. _.
._........
Storet
Number
METALS
Results -in xG/L
I
TESTING / AMBIENT
AIR /
WATER / WASTEWATER
/ HAZARDOUS WASTES
■SOURCE
1700 UNIVERSITY COMMERCIAL
PLACE /
CHARLOTTE, N. C, 2821 3
/ PHONE 704 / 597-8454

onviponmenhol
heshiflu iflo.
ISAMPIES 6 00ILiECPION DATE rec' d 10-23-87
1. 9101 4. 30
2. 9500 5. 31
3. 9501 6. 9900
November 6, 1987
James Malcolm
FTN Associates
3 Innwood Circle
Suite 220
Little Rock, AR 72211
Storet
Number
PARAMETERS
Results in MG/L unless
otherwise noted
1
2
3
4
5
6
00720
Cyanide, Total
<0.01
<0.01
<0,01
0.50
<0.01
Cyanide, Amenable to Chlorination
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.50
<0.01
00951
Fluoride, Total
0.172
0.156
0.153
25.7
0.126
00945
Sulfate
22.6
8.29
8.55
3.12
170 5
*Std . Method 16th ed
Method No. 412F (1985)
.}
J
_.IjlE
I
Storet
Number
METALS,,
Results in AuG/L
f�\
`�. _
-a�Q.
I
SOURCE TESTING / AMBIENT AIR / WATER / WASTEWATER / HAZARDOUS WASTES
1700 UNIVERSITY COMMERCIAL PLACE / CHARLOTTE, N. C. 28213 / PHONE 704 / 597-8454

' w
,p BOVIPORM00081
heshinqInc.
SA,MPIES 6 OO LIE CTION DATE rec'd 10-23-87
1. 27 4. 2500
2. 28 5. 2501
3. 2100 6. 9100
November 6, 1987
,lames Malcolm
FTN Associates
3 Innwood Circle
Suite 220
Little Rock, AR 72211
Storet
Number
PARAMETERS
Results in MG/L unless
otherwise noted
1
2
3
4
5
6
00720
Cyanide, Total
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Cyanide, Amenable to Chlorination
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.0
00951
Fluoride, Total
0.146
0.154
0.158
0.1 5
0.
0.
00945
Sulfate
11.3
7.59
9.50
9.82
8.39
7.99
Std. Method 16th ed.
Method No. 412r 1985
Storet
Number
METALS
Results in �uG/L
,
1
'SOURCE TESTING / AMBIENT AIR / WATER / WASTEWATER / HAZARDOUS WASTES
1700 UNIVERSITY COMMERCIAL PLACE / CHARLOTTE:, N. C_ 28213 / PHONE 704 / 597.8454

1
1 APPENDIX D: SOURCE CODE LISTING OF DIFFUSION MODEL DIFFUZ

10 ' ALCOA BADIN,NC #009 OUTFALL DIFFUSION MODEL
20 ' M.C. JOHNSON, FTN ASSOCIATES
3D ' LITTLE ROCK, AR 501-225-7779
40 '
50 COLOR 14,1,1:CLS
60 INPUT "WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CALL YOUR OUTPUT FILET",F1S
70 OPEN F1f FOR OUTPUT AS #1
80 '
90 NDAYS=36500E 'NUMBER OF DAYS IN SIMULATION
100 ALPHA=1801 'SUPERPOSITION ANGLE, DEGREES (SEE NOTE IN PRINT SUBROUTINE)
110 DTAU=1 'TIME STEP, HRS
120 OBSINT=1 'PRINT OUTPUT EVERY OBSINT HRS
130 D=.0175 'DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT, FT^2/S ( = 100 CM"2/SEC )
140 M=491 'SOLUTE MASS RATE, HG/S (.5 MGD a 2.200 MG/L CASE 93)
150 '
160 PI=3.14159
170 CONST = M/(4*PI*D)^.5
180 TEND=NDAYS*24
190 '
200 PRINT II1, "DISTANCE,FT TIME,HRS CONC, UG/L (PPB)"
210 PRINT "DISTANCE,FT TIME,HRS CONC, UG/L (PPB)"
220 '
230 IF X=500 THEN X=1000 ELSE If X=100 THEN X=500 ELSE X=100
240 '
250 AVGAREA=1220:IF X=500 THEN AVGAREA=10524 ELSE IF X=1000 THEN AVGAREA=360151
260 '
270 SUMTERM=O
280 '
290 FOR 1=1 TO INT(TEND/OBSINT)
300 FOR TTERM= (1+OBSINT*(I-1)) TO (OBSINT*I) STEP DTAU
310 TTERMSECS=TTERM*3600 ' CONVERT TIME TERMS TO SECONDS
320 DTAUSECS=DTAU*3600 ' CONVERT DELTA TAU TO SECONDS
330 SUMTERM=SUMTERM+TTERMSECS^•.5*EXP(•(X^2/(4*0*TTERMSECS)))*DTAUSECS
340 NEXT TTERM
350 GOSUB 410
360 NEXT 1
370 '
380 IF X=1000 GOTO 400 ELSE GOTO 230
390 '
400 CLOSE:END
410 '

400 CLOSE:END
410 '
' 2000 ...................... PRINTOUT SUBROUTINE
2010 '
2020 ' CONCENTRATIONS AT THIS POINT ARE FOR UNBOUNDED DIFFUSION IN MG/L
' 2030 '
2040 C=SUMTERM*CONST/(AVGAREA^.5)/28.3 128.3 L / FT"3
2050 IF C*1000*360/ALPHA < 22 THEN RETURN
2060 '
1 2070 ' CONVERT MG/L TO UG/L BY MULTIPLYING BY 1000
Z080 '
2090 ' ACCOUNT FOR BOUNDARY AT SOURCE LOCATION BY MULTIPLYING BY 360/ALPHA
' 2100 ' WHERE ALPHA IS THE ANGLE DEFINING THE UNBOUNDED AREA'S SLICE OF PIE
2110 ' FOR AN UNBOUNDED SOURCE (RADIALLY DISPERSING IN ALL DIRECTIONS),
2120 ' ALPHA=360 DEGREES; FOR AN OCEAN BEACH DISCHARGE, ALPHA= 180.
' 2130 ' (SUPERPOSITION ALLOWED SINCE EQUATION & BOUNDARY ARE LINEAR)
2140 '
2150 PRINT USING "######.##";X,TTERM,C*1000•360/ALPHA
2160 PRINT #1, USING "######.##";X,TTERM,C*1000*360/ALPHA
2170 '
2180 IF C*100D*360/ALPHA >= 22 GOTO 380 'FRESHWATER ACUTE TOX. FOR CN = 22 UG/L
2190 '
t2200 RETURN
1
1

APPENDIX E: WIND DATA FOR BADIN, NC

n
pAq
BADIN AMBIENT MET DATA — RESULTANT WIND ROSE
3
1.7
7
N
E
EAST --->
JANUARY (1983 — 1987)
AVERAGE WIND SPEED = 2.18 m/s
HOURS OF CALM WINDS (< lm/s) = 914

n
1.1
BADIN AMBIENT MET DATA - RESULTANT WIND ROSE_'
1
i
2.4
EAST --->
FEBRUARY (1983 - 1987)
AVERAGE WIND SPEED = 2.29 m/s
HOURS OF CALM WINDS (< lm/s) = 696

1
BADIN AMBIENT MET DATA -- RESULTANT WIND ROSE
3
2.2
0
EAST --->
MARCH h 983 — 1987)
AVERAGE WIND SPEED = 2.57 m/s
HOURS OF CALM WINDS (< lm/s) = 574

I
BADIN AMBIENT MET DATA - RESULTANT WIND ROSE
nA
Q
0
z
A
K
2.5
EAST --->
APRIL (1983 - 1987)
AVERAGE WIND SPEED = 2.30 m/s
HOURS OF CALM WINDS (< lm/s) = 789

1
C)
0
z
BADIN AMBIENT MET DATA _. RESULTANT WIND ROStE
Pa
e-•t 1.8
n
EAST ----->
MAY (1982 -- 1987)
AVERAGE WIND SPEED = 2.07 m/s
HOURS OF CALM WINDS (< ?m/s) = 827

' BADIN AMBIENT MET DATA -- RESULTANT WIND ROSE
n
I
I
2.0 1.0
EAST --- >
JUNE (1982 — 1985, 1987)
AVERAGE WIND SPEED = 1.92 m/s
HOURS OF CALM WINDS (< 1m/s) = 585

C)
0
z
BADIN AMBIENT MET DATA — RESULTANT WIND ROSE
K
1.5
0
EAST --- >
JULY (1982 — 1985, 1987)
AVERAGE WIND SPEED = 1.74 m/s
HOURS OF CALM WINDS (< 1m/s) = 976

1
rn
H
z
0
BADIN AMBIENT MET DATA - RESULTANT WIND ROSE
K
1.9 1.2
4
EAST --->
AUGUST (1982 -- 1985, 1987)
AVERAGE WIND SPEED = 1.52 m/s
HOURS OF CALM WINDS (< 1m/s) = 1444

BADIN AMBIENT MET DATA — RESULTANT WIND ROSE
z
2.0 2.2
EAST-->
SEPTEMBER (1982 — 1987)
AVERAGE WIND SPEED = 1.87 m/s
HOURS OF CALM WINDS (< 1m/s) = 1367

Cc
0
z
BADIN AMBIENT MET DATA - RESULTANT WIND RiOSt
3
2.5
EAST --->
OCTOBER (1982 _ 1986)
AVERAGE WIND SPEED T 2.02 m/s
HOURS OF CALM WINDS (< lm/s) W 1023

1 0
a
z
DADIN AMBIENT MET DATA -- ;ESULTANT WIND ROSE_
.7
I
c
i
w
EAST --->
NOVEMBER (1982 - 1986)
AVERAGE WIND SPEED = 2.01 m/s
HOURS OF CALM WINDS (< 1m/s) = 1035

n
BADIN AMBIENT MET DATA - RESULTANT WIND RCSE
1
2.6 1.8
EAST ----->
DECEMBER (1962 -- 1986)
AVERAGE WIND SPEED = 2.10 m/s
HOURS OF CALM WINDS (< 1m/s) = 838

JANUARY - 1983 thru 1987
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
0
AND
20 =
300
8.48% AVG WS =
1.95
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
20
AND
40 =
276
7.80% AVG WS =
1.89
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
40
AND
60 =
202
5.71% AVG WS =
2.22
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
60
AND
80 =
167
4.72% AVG WS =
1.75
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
80
AND
100 =
142
4.01% AVG WS -
1.87
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
100
AND
120 =
170
4.81% AVG WS =
1.68
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
120
AND
140 =
212
5.99% AVG WS =
2.25
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
140
AND
160 =
252
7.12% AVG WS =
2.04
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
160
AND
180 =
275
7.77% AVG WS =
1.82
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
180
AND
200 =
583
16.48% AVG WS =
1.70
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
200
AND
220 =
523
14.79% AVG WS =
2.98
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
220
AND
240 =
202
5.71% AVG WS -
3.98
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
240
AND
260 =
46
1.30% AVG WS =
2.81
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
260
AND
280 =
15
0.42% AVG WS =
1.70
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
280
AND
300 =
15
0.42% AVG WS =
1.67
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
300
AND
320 =
34
0.96% AVG WS =
2.16
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
320
AND
340 =
52
1.47% AVG WS =
2.03
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
340
AND
360 =
71
2.01% AVG WS =
1.80
1
1
1
1

F'EBRUARY - 1983 fhru 1987
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
0
AND
20 =
237
7.07%
AVG
WS
-
1.94
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
20
AND
40 =
275
8.21%
AVG
WS
=
2.10
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
40
AND
60 =
160
4.78%
AVG
WS
=
2.82
WD, OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
60
AND
80 =
144
4.30%
AVG
WS
=
2.21
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
80
AND
100 -
146
4.36%
AVG
WS
-
1.82
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
100
AND
120 =
146
4.36%
AVG
WS
-
1.95
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
120-AND
140 =
189
5.64%
AVG
WS
=
2.13
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
140
AND
160 =
156
4.66%
AVG
WS
=
1.94
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
160
AND
180 -
220
6.57%
AVG
WS
=
1.87
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
180
AND
200 =
413
12.33%
AVG
WS
=
1.97
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
200
AND
220 =
555
16.57%
AVG
WS
-
2.44
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
220
AND
240 =
249
7.43%
AVG
WS
-
3.41
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
240
AND
260 =
60
1.79%
AVG
WS
-
3.33
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
260
AND
280 =
43
1.28%
AVG
WS
=
2.38
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
280
AND
300 =
38
1.13%
AVG
WS
=
2.17
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
300
AND
320 =
112
3.34%
AVG
WS
=
2.46
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
320
AND
340 =
129
3.85%
AVG
WS
=
2.79
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
340
AND
360 =
76
2.33%
AVG
WS
=
2.05
1

IMARCH T 1983Wthru 1987
'
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
0 AND
20 =
253
7.20%
AVG WS =
2.14
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
20 AND
40 =
221
6.29%
AVG
WS =
2.17
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
40 AND
60 =
173
4.92%
AVG
WS =
2.72
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
60 AND
80 =
190
5.41%
AVG
WS =
2.53
'
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
80 AND
100 =
210
5.98%
AVG
WS =
2.78
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
100 AND
120 =
142
4.04%
AVG
WS =
2.48
'
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
120 AND
140 =
156
4.44%
AVG
WS =
1.9B
'
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
140 AND
160 =
176
5.01%
AVG
WS =
2.28
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
160 AND
180 =
218
6.21%
AVG
WS =
2.07
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
180 AND
200 =
396
11.27%
AVG
WS =
2.20
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
200 AND
220 =
419
11.93%
AVG
WS =
2.87
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
220 AND
240 =
272
7.74%
AVG
WS =
3.07
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
240 AND
260 =
134
3.81%
AVG
WS =
3.52
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
260 AND
280 =
106
3.02%
AVG
WS =
2.68
'
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
280 AND
300 =
103
2.93%
AVG
WS =
3.17
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
300 AND
320 =
81
2.31%
AVG
WS =
2.79
'
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
320 AND
340 =
155
4.41%
AVG
WS =
2.90
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
340 AND
360 =
108
3.07%
AVG
WS =
2.73
.
L

AFL - 1983 thru 1987
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
0
AND
20 =
302
8.55%
AVG WS -
2.11
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
20
AND
40 =
326
9.23%
AVG WS =
2.42
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
40
AND
60 =
186
5.27%
AVG WS =
2.65
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
60
AND
80 =
249
7.05%
AVG WS -
2.10
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
80
AND
100 =
282
7.98%
AVG WS =
2.46
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
100
AND
120 =
293
8.30%
AVG WS =
2.26
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
120
AND
140 =
225
6.37%
AVG WS =
1.92
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
140
AND
160 =
202
5.72%
AVG WS =
1.78
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
160
AND
180 =
176
4.98%
AVG WS =
1.77
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
180
AND
200 =
225
6.37%
AVG WS =
1.97
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
200
AND
220 =
338
9.57%
AVG WS =
2.52
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
220
AND
240 =
164
4.64%
AVG WS -
2.66
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
240
AND
260 =
145
4.11%
AVG WS =
2.88
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
260
AND
280 =
107
3.03%
AVG WS =
2.44
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
280
AND
300 =
66
1.87%
AVG WS =
2.64
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
300
AND
320 =
66
1.87%
AVG WS =
2.42
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
320
AND
340 =
83
2.35%
AVG WS =
3.07
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
340
AND
360 =
97
2.75%
AVG WS =
2.58

MAY - 1982 thru 1987
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
0 AND
20 =
549
12.71%
AVG
WS =
2.14
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
20
AND
40 =
688
15.92%
AVG
WS =
2.00'
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
40
AND
60 =
409
9.47%
AVG
WS =
2.36
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
60
AND
80 =
294
6.80%
AVG
WS =
2.02
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
80
AND
100 =
230
5.32%
AVG
WS =
1.80
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
100
AND
120 =
191
4.42%
AVG
WS =
1.58
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
120
AND
140 =
138
3.19%
AVG
WS =
1.11
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
140
AND
160 =
129
2.99%
AVG
WS =
1.22
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
160
AND
180 =
198
4.58%
AVG
WS =
1.54
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
180
AND
200 =
291
6.73%
AVG
WS =
1.84
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
200
AND
220 =
323
7.48%
AVG
WS =
2.66
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
220
AND
240 =
248
5.74%
AVG
WS =
2.74
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
240
AND
260 =
119
2.75%
AVG
WS =
2.25
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
260
AND
280 =
101
2.34%
AVG
WS =
2.49
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
280
AND
300 =
103
2.38%
AVG
WS =
2.59
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
300
AND
320 =
72
1.67%
AVG
WS =
2.02
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
320
AND
340 =
88
2.04%
AVG
WS =
2.02
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
340
AND
360 =
150
3.47%
AVG
WS =
2.15

JUNE - 1982 thru 1985, 1987
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
0
AND
20 =
380
11.42% AVG WS =
2.14
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
20
AND
40 =
466
14.00%
AVG WS =
1.82
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
40
AND
60 =
342
10.28%
AVG WS =
2.00
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
60
AND
80 =
239
7.18%
AVG WS-
1.75
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
80
AND
100 =
205
6.16%
AVG WS =
1.56
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
100
AND
120 =
181
5.44%
AVG WS =
1.78
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
120
AND
140 =
130
3.91%
AVG WS =
1.19
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
140
AND
160 =
111
3.34%
AVG WS =
1.25
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
160
AND
180 =
130
3.91%
AVG WS -
1.22
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
180
AND
200 =
189
5.68%
AVG WS =
1.47
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
200
AND
220 =
221
6.64%
AVG WS =
1.99
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
220
AND
240 =
224
6.73%
AVG WS =
2.66
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
240
AND
260 =
129
3.88%
AVG WS =
3.05
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
260
AND
280 =
80
2.40%
AVG WS =
2.20
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
280
AND
300 =
72
2.16%
AVG WS =
2.51
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
300
AND
320 =
53
1.59%
AVG WS =
2.06
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
320
AND
340 =
71
2.13%
AVG WS =
2.17
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
340
AND
360 =
105
3.16%
AVG WS =
2.15
I

1 juLx - 1982 thru 1985, 1987
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
0 AND
20 =
319
9.28% AVG WS =
1.98
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
20 AND
40 =
561
16.32% AVG WS =
1.72
'
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
40 AND
60 =
331
9.63% AVG WS =
1.63
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
60 AND
80 =
305
8.87% AVG WS =
1.56
rWD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
80 AND
100 =
297
8.64% AVG WS =
1.57
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
100 AND
120 =
192
5.59% AVG WS
1.21
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
120 AND
140 =
166
4.83% AVG WS
1.19
'
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
140 AND
160 =
145
4.22% AVG WS =
1.24
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
160 AND
180 =
114
3.32% AVG WS =
1.22
'
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
180 AND
200 =
179
5.21% AVG WS =
1.45
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
201 AND
220 =
180
5.24% AVG WS =
1.98
'
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
220 AND
240 =
208
6.05% AVG WS =
2.40
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
240 AND
260 =
127
3.70% AVG WS =
1.90
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
260 AND
280 =
69
2.01% AVG WS =
2.75
'
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
280 AND
300 =
78
2.27% AVG WS =
3.34
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
300 AND
320 =
49
1.43% AVG WS =
2.31
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
320 AND
340 =
51
1.48% AVG WS =
2.14
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
340 AND
360 =
66
1.92% AVG WS =
2.10

AUGUST - 1982 thLu 1985, 1987
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
0
AND
20 =
253
7.02% AVG WS =
1.56
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
20
AND
40 =
475
13.18% AVG WS =
1.25
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
40
AND
60 =
345
9.57% AVG WS =
1.52
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
60
AND
80 =
327
9.07% AVG WS =
1.37
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
80
AND
100 =
232
6.44% AVG WS =
1.23
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
100
AND
120 =
221
6.13% AVG WS =
0.91
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
120
AND
140 =
172
4.77% AVG WS -
0.76
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
140
AND
160 =
128
3.55% AVG WS =
0.83
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
160
AND
180 =
136
3.77% AVG WS =
0.85
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
180
AND
200 =
229
6.35% AVG WS =
1.19
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
200
AND
220 =
260
7.21% AVG WS -
1.86
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
220
AND
240 =
301
8.35% AVG WS =
2.41
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
240
AND
260 =
168
4.66% AVG WS =
2.28
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
260
AND
280 =
99
2.75% AVG WS =
2.53
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
280
AND
300 =
84
2.33% AVG WS =
2.70
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
300
AND
320 =
32
0.89% AVG WS =
1.83
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
320
AND
340 =
65
1.80% AVG WS =
2.18
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
340
AND
360 =
78
2.16% AVG WS =
1.85

SEP`i'EMBER - 1982 thru 1987
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
0
AND
20 =
247
5.78%
AVG WS =
1.86
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
20
AND
40 =
311
7.28%
AVG WS =
1.49
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
40
AND
60 =
264
6.18%
AVG WS =
1.45
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
60
AND
80 =
198
4.64%
AVG WS -
1.29
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
80
AND
100 =
223
5.22%
AVG WS ©
0.99
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
100
AND
120 =
207
4.85%
AVG WS =
0.91
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
120
AND
140 =
199
4.66%
AVG WS =
0.91
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
140
AND
160 =
176
4.12%
AVG WS =
1.04
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
160
AND
180 =
202
4.73%
AVG WS =
1.15
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
180
AND
200 =
318
7.45%
AVG WS =
1.53
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
200
AND
220 =
465
10.89%
AVG WS =
2.23
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
220
AND
240 =
608
14.24%
AVG WS =
2.89
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
240
AND
260 =
326
7.63%
AVG WS -
2.47
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
260
AND
280 =
178
4.17%
AVG WS =
2.99
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
280
AND
300 =
130
3.04%
AVG WS =
2.96
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
300
AND
320 =
49
1.15%
AVG WS =
1.68
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
320
AND
340 =
74
1.73%
AVG WS =
1.96
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
340
AND
360 =
95
2.22%
AVG WS =
1.94
1
1

OCrOBER - 1982 thru 1986
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
0
AND
20 =
204
5.54% AVG WS =
1.96
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
20
AND
40 =
287
7.80% AVG WS =
1.58
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
40
AND
60 =
199
5.41% AVG WS =
1.86
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
60
AND
80 =
142
3.86% AVG WS =
1.72
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
80
AND
100 =
124
3.37% AVG WS -
1.18
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
100
AND
120 =
153
4.16% AVG WS =
0.88
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
120
AND
140 =
160
4.35% AVG WS =
0.70
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
140
AND
160 =
212
5.76% AVG WS =
1.03
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
160
AND
180 =
246
6.68% AVG WS =
1.26
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
180
AND
200 =
293
7.96% AVG WS =
1.59
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
200
AND
220 =
404
10.98% AVG WS =
2.53
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
220
AND
240 =
461
12.53% AVG WS =
3.02
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
240
AND
260 =
293
7.96% AVG WS -
2.45
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
260
AND
280 =
202
5.49% AVG WS -
2.87
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
280
AND
300 =
156
4.24% AVG WS =
3.88
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
300
AND
320 =
29
0.79% AVG WS -
1.77
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
320
AND
340 =
48
1.30% AVG WS =
1.93
WD
OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
340
AND
360 =
67
1.82% AVG WS =
1.97
1
1

NOvEmBER - 1962 thru 1986
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
0 AND
20 =
204
5.71%
AVG WS =
2.09
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
20
AND
40 =
253
7.08%
AVG WS =
1.78
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
40
AND
60 =
165
4.62%
AVG WS =
1.45
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
60
AND
80 =
171
4.79%
AVG WS =
1.66
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
80
AND
100 =
251
7.03%
AVG WS =
1.69
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
100
AND
120 =
196
5.49%
AVG WS =
1.59
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
120
AND
140 =
146
4.09%
AVG WS =
1.20
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
140
AND
160 =
164
4.59%
AVG WS =
1.43
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
160
AND
180 =
219
6.13%
AVG WS =
1.59
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
180
AND
200 =
338
9.46%
AVG WS =
1.81
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
200
AND
220 =
494
13.83%
AVG W5 =
2.54
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
220
AND
240 =
304
8.51%
AVG WS =
2.65
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
240
AND
260 =
252
7.05%
AVG WS =
2.48
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
260
AND
280 =
166
4.65%
AVG WS =
2.58
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
280
AND
300 =
91
2.55%
AVG WS =
3.18
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
300
AND
320 =
61
1.71%
AVG WS =
1.83
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
320
AND
340 =
37
1.04%
AVG WS =
1.89
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
340
AND
360 :
60
1.68%
AVG Ws =
2.00

DECEMBER - 1982 thru 1986
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
0 AND
20 =
322
10.01%
AVG WS =
2.10
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
20
AND
40 =
435
13.52%
AVG WS =
2.06
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
40
AND
60 =
261
8.11%
AVG WS =
2.29
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
60
AND
80 =
145
4.51%
AVG WS =
1.61
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
80
AND
100 =
184
5.72%
AVG WS =
1.43
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
100
AND
120 =
156
4.85%
AVG WS =
1.46
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
120
AND
140 =
165
5.13%
AVG WS =
1.57
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
140
AND
160 =
148
4.60%
AVG WS =
1.76
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
160
AND
180 =
200
6.22%
AVG WS =
1.59
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
180
AND
200 =
367
11.40%
AVG WS =
1.82
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
200
AND
220 =
415
12.90%
AVG WS =
2.63
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
220
AND
240 =
221
6.87%
AVG WS =
3.53
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
240
AND
260 =
72
2.24%
AVG WS =
2.97
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
260
AND
280 =
33
1.03%
AVG WS =
2.31
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
280
AND
300 =
16
0.50%
AVG WS =
2.24
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
300
AND
320 =
9
0.28%
AVG WS =
2.28
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
320
AND
340 =
31
0.96%
AVG WS =
2.05
WD OBSERVATIONS
BETWEEN
340
AND
360 =
38
1.18%
AVG WS =
2.09