The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0021644_Speculative Limits_19900918NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET NC0021644 La Grange WWTP NPDES Permit: Document Type: Permit Issuance Wasteload Allocation Authorization to Construct (AtC) Permit Modification Complete File - Historical Engineering Alternatives (EAA) Correspondence Instream Assessment (67b) Speculative Limits , ...s..NBIfiiN-�^.'A?^.:.•n'FMK9lf.!'.MPCT.iT""' "'.:.:ns�"' ✓ Environmental Assessment (EA) Document Date: September 18, 1990 This document is printed on reuse paper. - ignore any content on the rezrerse side DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT September 18, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: Rob Brown FROM: THROUGH: Carla Sanderson Trevor Clements �/(E/ Juan C. Mangles SUBJECT: Town of LaGrange WWTP Speculative Limits NPDES Permit NC0021644 Lenoir County The Technical Support Branch received your request dated August 20, 1990 concerning speculative limits for the subject facility. Attached you will find copies of the wasteload forms for the requested flows of 0.60 MGD and 0.75 MGD. Please note that according to our files, the subject facility is currently discharging into an UT to Moseley Creek instead of discharging directly into Moseley Creek as originally permitted. The current location of the discharge is into a 7Q10 = 0 / 30Q2 > 0 flow stream. We refer to this stream as an "intermit- tent stream." The Division is currently exploring the possibility of elimination discharges to "intermittent streams" in the future. Therefore, we have also provided speculative limits for relocation of the discharge to Moseley Creek (i.e. in the immediate vicinity of the facility) for both 0.60 MGD and 0.75 MGD flows. If you have any question concerning this matter, please contact me at ext. 510. Attachments cc: Tim Donnelly WLA Files Central Files Request No.: WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM Facility Name: Town of LaGrange NPDES No.: NC0021644 Type of Waste: Domestic Status: Speculative/ R ev e u.wctl Receiving Stream: UT to Moseley Creek Classification: C - SWP -NSW Subbasin: 030405 County: Lenoir Regional Office: Washington Requestor: Rob Brown Date of Request: 08-20-90 Quad: F27 SE RECOMMENDED Wasteflow (mgd) : BOD5 (mg/1) : NH3N (mg/1) : DO (mg/1): TSS (mg/1) : Fecal coliform (#/100m1): pH (su) : Total Phosphorus (mg/1): TRC (t.g/1) : SUMMER 0.60 5 1 30 200 6-9 2 Upstream (Y/N) : Y Downstream (Y/N): Y .SSG 'F @ ) WASHRECEIV NGTON OFFICE SEP241990 '90 020892875E M. Drainage area: Summer 7Q10: Winter 7Q10: Average flow: 30Q2: EFFLUENT LIMITS WINTER 0.60 10 1.8 6 30 200 6-9 2 MONITORING 0.440 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.08 sq mi cfs cfs cfs cfs 4-, AAA 5 eK,,g,.i . I;w:*T IhfkrieSt t (effect. May 1, 1993) Location: At NCSR 1514 Location: At NCSR 1518 and at NCSR 1327 COMMENTS The following instream parameters should be monitored: temp, DO, cond, pH and fecal coliform. This is a speculative WLA for engineering planning purposes only. Effluent limitations can only be made final upon formal submittal and review of an NPDES permit application. The self - monitoring data indicate that this facility violates the total residual chlorine AL in the stream. Therefore, upon renewal of this permit, the facility will be required to reduce the total residual chlorine of the effluent to an acceptable level of 17 v g/1 by administrative letter. The Washington Regional Office should notify the permittee that DEM may require the elimination on wastewater discharges to intermittent streams in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the permitteee relocates the discharge to Moseley Creek proer, as originally permitted Please see attached modeling results for relocation of the discharge to Moseley Creek. Juan C. Mangles Reviewed by Instream Assessment: Regional Supervisor: Permits & Engineering: aA4,4 RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY: OCT 1990 Date: cf Ilelb Date: Date: Date: '/2/3 (0 (3 WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM Request No.: WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM Facility Name: NPDES No.: Type of Waste: Status: Receiving Stream: Town of LaGrange NC0021644 Domestic Speculative/Expansion UT to Moseley Creek Classification: C - SWP -NSW Subbasin: 030405 County: Lenoir Regional Office: Washington Requestor: Rob Brown Date of Request: 08-20-90 Quad: F27 SE RECOMMENDED Wasteflow (mgd) : BOD5 (mg/1): NH3N (mg/1): DO (mg/1) : TSS (mg/1) : Fecal coliform (#/100m1): pH (su) : Total Phosphorus (mg/1): TRC (ug/1): Upstream (Y/N) : Y Downstream (Y/N) : Y SUMMER 0.75 5 1 6 30 200 6-9 2 17 MONITORING Drainage area: Summer 7Q10: Winter 7Q10: Average flow: 30Q2: EFFLUENT LIMITS WINTER 0.75 10 1.8 6 30 200 6-9 2 17 5664 (,6) WASHINGTONED OFFICE SEP241990 '90 0208928755 0 M 0.440 sq mi 0.00 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.53 cfs 0.08 cfs Location: At NCSR 1514 Location: At NCSR 1518 and NCSR 1327 COMMENTS The following instream parameters should be monitored: temp, DO, cond, pH and fecal coliform. This is a speculative WLA for engineering planning purposes only. Effluent limitations can only be made final upon formal submittal and review of an NPDES permit application. The Washington Regional Office should notify the permittee that DEM may require the elimination on wastewater discharges to intermittent streams in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the permittee relocates the discharge to Moseley Creek pro'per, as originally permitted. Please see attached modeling results for relocation of the discharge to Moseley Creek Juan C. Mangles Reviewed by Instream Assessment: Regional Supervisor: Permits & Engineering: O. 11 0,cL )d) 4Ado,42-6ci"J - 72y, RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY: OCT 2 2 1990. Date: g liV4 Date: Date: Date: Olthe WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM Request No.: WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM Facility Name: NPDES No.: Type of Waste: Status: Receiving Stream: Classification: Subbasin: County: Regional Office: Requestor: Date of Request: Quad: F27 SE RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS Wasteflow (mgd) : BOD5 (mg/1) : NH3N (mg/1): DO (mg/1) : TSS (mg/1) : Fecal coliform (#/100m1): pH (su) : Total Phosphorus (mg/1) : Town of LaGrange NC0021644 Domestic Speculative/Renewal/Relocation Moseley Creek C - SWP -NSW 030405 Lenoir Washington Rob Brown 08-20-90 SUMMER 0.60 7 1.17 * 6 30 200 6-9 2 WINTER 0.60 14 2.28 6 30 200 6-9 Wgsy Ngc IV�o '90 0208928750 Q Drainage Summer Winter Average area: 7Q10: 7Q10: flow: 30Q2: 2.370 0.20 0.28 2.90 0.43 �4 �90 sgmi cfs cfs cfs cfs 2 (effect. May 1, 1993) 17 * Facility has the choice of 1) a summer(winter) limit of 1. 2.28) mg/1 or 2) a summer(winter) limit of 2(4) mg/1 & a chronic/ceriod/qrtrly test at 82 % CHOICE: Upstream (Y/N) : Y Downstream (Y/N): Y MONITORING Location: At NCSR 1514 Location: At NCSR 1518 and at NCSR 1327 COMMENTS The following instream parameters should be monitored: temp, DO, cond, pH and fecal coliform. This is a speculative WLA for engineering planning purposes only. Effluent limitations can only be made final upon formal submittal and review of an NPDES permit application. The self - monitoring data indicate that this facility violates the total residual chlorine AL in the stream. Therefore, upon renewal of this permit, the facility will be required to reduce the total residual chlorine of the effluent to an acceptable level of 20u.g/1 by administrative letter. Please note that these are limits which apply to a discharge located @ Moseley Creek. The Washington Regional Office should contact the permitee and determine the NH3-N / whole effluent tox test for this facility Juan C. Mangles Reviewed by Instream Assessment: Regional Supervisor: Permits & Engineering: RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY: OCT 2 2 199[1 Date: Oi(le/4v Date: c)//5/ �l Date: Date: 10/89 Facility Name 6w IA 0 L Permit# IJC--oa 216(1ti CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING REQUIREMENT (QRTRLY) The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity in any two consecutive toxicity tests, using test procedures outlined in: 1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions. The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality is 81 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform quarter1v monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The firs st wi be perform aft r thirty days from issuance of this permit during the months of tiA 1 r s '' �c . Effluent sampling for this testingshall beperformed at the NPDpermitled final effluent discharge below P g g all .treatment processes. All toxicity testing resultsregwred as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Fo ni (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address: Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch North Carolina Division of Environmental. Management P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream. Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above. Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits. NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements. in 7Q10 v • q` cfs Permited Flow U . MGD IWC% 8 2 Basin & Sub -basin n •0 o 5-cit. Receiving S eam v . County eho Date Recommended by: cr **Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at N 2%, 11tm ;Tvh , , See Part , Condition Request No. WAShiNGT.REA y1CY) WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORT Facility Name: Town of LaGrange "aFF10E NPDES No.: NC0021644 SEP241990 Type of Waste: Domestic Status: Speculative/Expansion/Relocation C E M. Receiving Stream: Moseley Creek Classification: C - SWP -NSW '90 0208928750 Subbasin: 030405 Drainage area: 2.370 sq mi County: Lenoir Summer 7Q10: Regional Office: Washington Winter 7Q10: Requestor: Rob Brown Average flow: Date of Request: 08-20-90 30Q2: Quad: F27 SE RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS SUMMER WINTER Wasteflow (mgd) : 0.75 0.75 BOD5 (mg/1) : 7 14 NH3N (mg/1): 1.13 2.18 DO (mg/1) : 6 6 TSS (mg/1) : 30 30 Fecal coliform (#/100m1): 200 200 pH (su) : 6-9 6-9 Total Phosphorus (mg/1) : 2 2 TRC (.Nsg/1) : 20 20 47-- MONITORING Upstream (Y/N): Y Downstream (Y/N): Y z8' 0.20 cfs 0.28 cfs 2.90 cfs 0.43 cfs Location: At NCSR 1514 Location: At NCSR 1518 and NCSR 1327 COMMENTS The following instream parameters should be monitored: temp, DO, cond, pH and fecal coliform. This is a speculative WLA for engineering planning purposes only. Effluent limitations can only be made final upon formal submittal and review of an NPDES permit application. Please note that these are limits which apply to a discharge located @ Moseley Creek. Juan C. Mangles Reviewed by Instream Assessment: Regional Supervisor: Permits & Engineering: RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY: Date: q /t?RQO Date: V/0lj Date: 0-2/9'0 Date: fc/315t, OCT 22 1,990 9-14-90 JCM LaGrange Speculative WLA - A meeting was held on 8-17-90 with representatives of the Town of LaGrange, Construction Grants, and Technical Support (please see attached list of attendees). The purpose of the meeting was to advise the Town of the NPDES permit limitations their NPDES permit would contain upon renewal, and upon expansion. The Town has requested Construction Grants funding for the expansion; therefore, a speculative WLA was prepared as per Construction Grants request. - According to our files, the facility is currently discharging into an UT to Moseley Creek, instead of at the originally permitted site at Moseley Creek. The stream flow statistics have been revised at the discharge point. The current low flow statistics describe the receiving stream as having a zero 7Q10 and a positive (very low) 30Q2 (please refer to attached USGS flow statistics). There- fore, limits of 5(10), 1(1.8) and 6 DO will apply at current and expanded flows. - The self -monitoring data indicate the total residual chlorine violations are expected to occur in the receiving stream. Therefore, this facility will receive a letter concerning TRC level during the permit renewal process. However, a 17 ug/1 TRC limit will be contained in the NPDES permit at expanded flow at current discharge location; a 20 ug/1 TRC limitation will be applied at expanded flows in Moseley Creek (see attached mass balance analyses). - TP limit will be effective May, 1993 as per current procedures at existing flow. TP will be effective immediately when facility is expanded. - The main issue facing this facility is the low flow statistics describing the receiving stream as an "intermittent stream." DEM is currently studying the possibility of eliminating discharges to "intermittent" streams in the near future in a similar fashion as currently done with "zero flow streams." Therefore, I also prepared a model for the relocation of the discharge to Moseley Creek. At existing flows, I developed a model because the previous model developed in 1986 used a lower stream flow (at Moseley Creek). I also modeled the expanded flows. - The analysis indicates limits of BOD5 = 7 mg/1 and NH3-N = 4 mg/1 during the summer at 0.6 MGD. However, the 4 mg/1 limit will violate the NH3-N criteria during the summer flow. Also, a mass balance (attached) indicated that the existing limit of 2 mg/1 will also violate the criteria. Therefore, I used current SOP and treated this particular facility at this flow (0.6 MGD) as an existing facility which existing permitted flow ( 2 mg/1) does not protect the criteria. This resulted in facility having the choice described in the attached notes and approval WLA form at 0.6 MGD discharging in Moseley Creek. - At 0.75 MGD, the analysis indicated that effluent limits of BOD5 = 7 mg/1 and 4 mg/1 NH3-N will protect the instream DO level during the summer. However, the 4 mg/1 limits will violate the NH3-N criteria. Therefore, a more stringent NH3-N limitation is applied as per current SOP (see attached mass balance). - Similarly, the winter model at both flows indicated that the NH3-N criteria will be violated in the stream at the limits suggested by the model. Therefore, more stringent limits were applied (see attached mass balance analyses). La GvatA //7/fo C_ G- L. Ov(944 C,A3t. Coh5k r-3 ,-I", 1..."—ferf'-''—'6'..4-0 Jr 'Tr PE, I., C7 ' L: .07 (--- C s D c-kt —T2_011 2 cAtzeaf 0 CtA4 c ma 2.4 R 1 ;• MODEL RESULTS Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK SUMMER NBOD 0.60 MGD The End D.O. is 5.89 mg/l. The End CBOD is 0.89 mg/l. The End NBOD is 6.02 mg/l. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 4.99 1.25 2 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.60000 0.00000 0.00000 MODEL RESULTS Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK SUMMER CBOD 0.6 MGD The End D.O. is 5.68 mg/l. The End CBOD is 12.23 mg/l. The End NBOD is 0.38 mg/1. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 4.90 1.45 2 Reach 1 39.00 0.00 6.00 0.60000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 FacilitLaYcuAoQWasteflow (�-i6 D y �u,� o . MGD ) 0 B o Summer inter (circle one) 1111111%11111I�e1111�1i111111C11 AN1111111111111111111111111 MINN ^��nir1111141111 imminunmumuniumanommimmil iiii��i � �iii�iiiiiiii ■.■■®.■..■ ■r■■■■■111iil1$PP ■■11■■■■■■■■ ■■■.11_..■.MIN!..i ■.11■■■■■111■■.■■i■■■■■11111■111011 ■ ■■■■■■1■■111■11w■w■■1M1■■■■■■■■INI 1111111111111111111111111111111111•1111M1111111111111011111111 1111111111111111 ■■w■.■■■■■..■■■■■■�■i.�■■� ■.■■.■■■■i■ ■■ff■ iimmu ■.■■■■■ ■■■■--■ _■.■_N.r■■I. ■■■■11111111■■ ■N■■■t■■■■■r MOM ■.■■.■■■111■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■M ■■■��■■�■■■■■111■■■■■■111■.■111■■■ 1111111111111111=111111•1111111111111111111 ■■.w■■r■■■■.■■.■ ■ _. MOM 111■■■■■■■■■:�■C .■.....■■■■..■.■■■■■■ ... - ■■.■1►•F■I■-.-u■■..■.■■..1111. ■■w1■■■► ■■■■■■■■■■■III■ ns.■ ■■■■■■.►a■■■■■■■1.■■■■ ■n■■ ■■■.■■■�■�►�■..■ ■.R■■ M11111111111- ■.■■.■■■■■..►�■■ ■■ ■■■.■ • MINN ■■N■■11111111■.■■\■i■■■■■ ■■■■. ■■■■111111■■■■.■t ■■■■■ ■..■■ 1111111111111111111111111111111111111MINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ■■■n� ■w.■■u.■■ ■■uu■ �.■.w■s■■■w■■■■SI■■.■■■■■ ■...A . ■■■■■■■.mow■■■■■■■. NH3- N (mg/1) Potential effluent limit. combinations: 8ODr �6 Z yo ...3.5— Discharger Receiving Stream MODEL RESULTS : TOWN OF LAGRANGE : MOSELEY CREEK WINTER CBOD 0.6 MGD The End D.O. is 6. The End CBOD is 28. The End NBOD is 0. 40 mg/l. 06 mg/l. 52 mg/1. Segment 1 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 DO Min (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # 5.09 0.30 1 WLA CBOD (mg/1) 89.00 0.00 0.00 WLA NBOD (mg/1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 WLA DO Waste Flow (mg/1) (mgd) 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.60000 0.00000 0.00000 MODEL RESULTS Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK WINTER NBOD 0.60 MGD The End D.O. is 5.92 mg/l. The End CBOD is 1.06 mg/1. The End NBOD is 28.34 mg/l. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 5.06 1.65 2 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 0.00 93.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.60000 0.00000 0.00000 -• • Facility Summer/ inter Wa'stef l ow - (MGD) 0.6 0 circle one) I 111111111111111111111111111111 111111111•11111111111111111N1111111111111h11111111111111111111111 �■��w■��.�■emu NMI 11111•111=111111111111111111111•111111111=11 MUM �■�ii�1111iiiiii111Miii�ii�iiii =M11111111•111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IMRE MINN 011111111.111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111M111111111111111EM 11•111111111111111111111111111111.11111E1111 M1111111111 - 110111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 r1111111111111111112111111 �■�ii�■ii��i�n i�■Mi�iiii ��i��iiio�iiii�ii■wirii to • NH3- N (mg/1) Potential effluent limit. combinations: BOD5 NH3-N 3 0 ID CP) SUMMER 7/4 0.6 MGD MODEL RESULTS Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK The End D.O. is 5.85 mg/1. The End CBOD is 3.94 mg/1. The End NBOD is 4.44 mg/l. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 4.99 1.35 2 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 10.50 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.60000 0.00000 0.00000 *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA *** Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Subbasin : 030405 Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK Stream Class: C-SWP- Summer 7Q10 : 0.2 Winter 7Q10 : 0.28 Design Temperature: 27.0 'LENGTH] SLOPE' VELOCITY 1 DEPTH' Kd 1 Kd I Ka 1 Ka 1 KN 1 1 mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft Idesign l @20;i design l @20' Idesignl I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Segment 1 1 0.331 6.671 0.157 1 0.70 1 0.33 1 0.24 1 2.20 1 1.891 0.51 Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Segment 1 1 1.751 6.671 0.141 1 0.83 1 0.32 1 0.23 1 1.96 1 1.691 0.51 Reach 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 Segment 1 1 1.051 6.671 0.139 1 1.01 0.31 ) 0.22 Reach 3 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 Flow 1 CBOD 1 NBOD 1 D.O. I cfs 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste 1 0.930 1 10.500 1 18.000 1 6.000 Headwaters) 0.200 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.170 Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.170 * Runoff 1 0.210 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.170 Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 Tributary 1 0.100 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.170 * Runoff 1 0.170 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.170 Segment 1 Reach 3 Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 Tributary 1 0.490 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.170 * Runoff 1 0.050 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.170 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile 1.95 1 1.67 10.51 1 SUMMER 7/4 0.6 MGD I Seg # 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Seg # I I Reach # 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Reach # I Seg Mi 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.55 1.65 1.75 1.85 1.95 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 I Seg Mi I D.O. 6.21 6.09 5.98 5.88 5.79 5.70 5.62 5.74 5.58 5.44 5.33 5.24 5.16 5.10 5.06 5.03 5.01 5.00 4.99 5.00 5.01 5.03 5.05 5.08 5.11 5.60 5.62 5.64 5.66 5.68 5.71 5.73 5.76 5.79 5.82 5.85 D.O. I CBOD 9.00 8.87 8.75 8.64 8.52 8.41 8.30 7.81 7.63 7.46 7.29 7.12 6.96 6.81 6.65 6.51 6.37 6.23 6.10 5.97 5.84 5.72 5.60 5.48 5.37 4.57 4.51 4.44 4.37 4.31 4.25 4.18 4.12 4.06 4.00 3.94 I CBOD I NBOD 14.99 14.71 14.44 14.18 13.92 13.67 13.42 12.46 12.04 11.64 11.25 10.87 10.51 10.17 9.84 9.52 9.21 8.91 8.62 8.35 8.08 7.83 7.58 7.34 7.12 5.67 5.53 5.40 5.27 5.14 5.02 4.89 4.78 4.66 4.55 4.44 I NBOD Flow I 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.29 1.31 1.33 1.34 1.36 1.38 1.39 1.41 1.43 1.45 1.46 1.48 1.50 1.51 1.53 1.55 1.56 1.58 2.07 2.08 2.08 2.09 2.09 2.10 2.10 2.11 2.11 2.12 2.12 I Flow I WINTER 14/8 0.60 MGD MODEL RESULTS Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK The End D.O. is 7.33 mg/1. The End CBOD is 7.55 mg/1. The End NBOD is 11.29 mg/1. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 6.52 0.30 1 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 21.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.60000 0.00000 0.00000 *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA *** Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Subbasin : 030405 Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK Stream Class: C-SWP- Summer 7Q10 : 0.2 Winter 7Q10 : 0.28 Design Temperature: 16.0 !LENGTH! SLOPE' VELOCITY I DEPTH' Kd 1 Kd 1 Ka 1 Ka 1 KN 1 I mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft Idesign l @204 Idesign l @201/2 IdesignI 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I Segment 1 1 0.331 6.671 0.167 1 0.71 10.20 1 0.24 1 1.84 1 2.011 0.22 Reach 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I Segment 1 1 1.751 6.671 0.156 1 0.84 1 0.19 10.23 1 1.72 1 1.881 0.22 Reach 2 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I Segment 1 I 1.051 6.671 0.153 11.02 10.19 10.23 11.68 I 1.841 0.22 Reach 3 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I Flow I CBOD 1 NBOD 1 D.O. I I cfs 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 I mg/1 1 Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste I 0.930 121.000 1 36.000 1 6.000 Headwaters) 0.280 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 8.880 Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 8.880 * Runoff 1 0.330 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 8.880 Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 Tributary 1 0.150 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 8.880 * Runoff 1 0.230 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 8.880 Segment 1 Reach 3 Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 Tributary 1 0.490 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 8.880 * Runoff 1 0.060 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 8.880 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile WINTER 14/8 0.60 MGD I Seg # I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Seg #I Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Reach # I Seg Mi 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.55 1.65 1.75 1.85 1.95 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 # I Seg Mi I D.O. 6.67 6.63 6.60 6.58 6.55 6.53 ,6.52 6.76 6.71 6.67 6.63 6.61 6.59 6.58 6.57 6.57 6.57 6.58 6.60 6.61 6.63 6.65 6.67 6.70 6.73 7.18 7.19 7.20 7.22 7.23 7.25 7.26 7.28 7.30 7.31 7.33 I D.O. I CBOD 16.60 16.35 16.10 15.85 15.62 15.39 15.16 13.81 13.52 13.24 12.98 12.72 12.47 12.22 11.99 11.76 11.53 11.32 11.11 10.90 10.71 10.51 10.33 10.14 9.97 8.30 8.22 8.14 8.07 7.99 7.92 7.84 7.77 7.69 7.62 7.55 I CBOD I I NBOD 27.90 27.43 26.97 26.52 26.09 25.66 25.25 22.76 22.23 21.71 21.22 20.74 20.27 19.83 19.39 18.97 18.56 18.16 17.78 17.41 17.04 16.69 16.35 16.02 15.70 12.62 12.48 12.34 12.20 12.07 11.94 11.80 11.67 11.54 11.42 11.29 NBOD I I Flow I 1.21 1.23 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.29 1.31 1.46 1.48 1.50 1.53 1.55 1.57 1.60 1.62 1.64 1.67 1.69 1.71 1.73 1.76 1.78 1.80 1.83 1.85 2.34 2.35 2.35 2.36 2.36 2.37 2.38 2.38 2.39 2.39 2.40 Flow I CHLORINE ANALYSIS 7Q10: 0.2000 cfs summer/0.6 MGD CL2 Effl. Conc: 1.2000 mg/1 dmr's AL (17/19 ug/1): 17.0000 ug/1 Upstream CL2 Conc.: 0.0000 ug/1 Design Flow: 0.6000 MGD Predicted CL2 Downstream: 987.6106 ug/1 0.987610 mg/1 CL2 Limit: 20.65591 ug/1 S 1 0.020655 mg/1 AMMONIA 7Q10: 0.2000 NH3-N Effl. Conc: 4.0000 NH3-N STDRD (S=1000;W=1800) : Upstream NH3-N Conc.: Design Flow: Predicted NH3-N Downstream: NH3-N Allowable: ANALYSIS cfs mg/1 ug/1 ug/1 MGD ug/1 mg/1 ug/1 LIMIT 1.167741 mg/1 A 4 mg/1 NH4-N will violate the criteria during the summer 1000 220.0000 0.6000 3331 3.330973 1167.741 summer / 0.6 MGD limit based on model S= 1.0 mg/1; W= 1.8 mg/1 t AMMONIA ANALYSIS 7Q10: 0.2000 cfs summer / 0.6 MGD NH3-N Effl. Conc: 2.0000 mg/1 existing limit 1000 ug/1 S= 1.0 mg/1; W= 1.8 mg/1 220.0000 ug/1 0.6000 MGD 1685 ug/1 1.684955 mg/1 1167.741 ug/1 LIMIT 1.167741 mg/1 The existing limit will violate the criteria during the summer NH3-N STDRD (S=1000;W=1800) : Upstream NH3-N Conc.: Design Flow: Predicted NH3-N Downstream: NH3-N Allowable: 3 AMMONIA 7Q10: 0.2000 NH3-N Effl. Conc: 0.0400 NH3-N STDRD (S=1000;W=1800) : 1000 Upstream NH3-N Conc.: 220.0000 Design Flow: 0.6000 Predicted NH3-N Downstream: 72 NH3-N Allowable: S ANALYSIS cfs mg/1 ug/1 ug/1 MGD ug/1 0.071858 mg/1 1167.741 ug/1 LIMIT 1.167741 mg/1 summer / 0.6 MGD dmr' s S= 1.0 mg/1; W= 1.8 mg/1 1 AMMONIA ANALYSIS 7Q10: 0.2800 cfs winter / 0.6 MGD NH3-N Effl. Conc: 4.0000 mg/1 existing limit NH3-N STDRD (S=1000;W=1800): 1800 ug/1 S= 1.0 mg/1; W= 1.8 mg/1 Upstream NH3-N Conc.: 220.0000 ug/1 Design Flow: 0.6000 MGD Predicted NH3-N Downstream: 3125 ug/1 3.125289 mg/1 NH3-N Allowable: 2275.698 ug/1 LIMIT 2.275698 mg/1 existing winter limit violates criteria during the winter dmr's indicate protection during the winter therefore, facility has choice of 1) a summer (winter) limit of 1.17 (2.28) mg/1 ; tNH3-Nj or 2) a summer (winter) limit of 2 (4) mg/1 (NH3-N)and a whole effluent tox test MODEL RESULTS Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK SUMMER CBOD 0.75 MGD The End D.O. is 5.59 mg/1. The End CBOD is 14.06 mg/1. The End NBOD is 0.36 mg/1. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 4.94 1.55 2 Reach 1 39.00 0.00 6.00 0.75000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 MODEL RESULTS Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK SUMMER NBOD 0.75 MGD The End D.O. is 5.80 mg/l. The End CBOD is 0.81 mg/l. The End NBOD is 7.13 mg/l. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 5.04 1.35 2 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.75000 0.00000 0.00000 0 l0 Facility (:0- (-)YlahV, Waste _ D) filoi�r�� (MGD p , ? S s. umme r Winter (circle one) 1.--t! h t 1 ,01 •l 1 z 3 NH3—N (mg/ 1) Potential effluent limit. combinations: BOD5 J lb NH3-N Emb t w ► A 10 1 4 1_ MODEL RESULTS Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK WINTER NBOD 0.75 MGD The End D.O. is 5.71 mg/1. The End CBOD is 0.98 mg/1. The End NBOD is 32.91 mg/1. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 5.00 1.75 2 Reach 1 0.00 93.00 6.00 0.75000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 MODEL RESULTS Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK WINTER CBOD 0.75 MGD The End D.O. is 6.27 mg/l. The End CBOD is 31.65 mg/1. The End NBOD is 0.48 mg/1. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 .5.16 0.30 1 Reach 1 87.00 0.00 6.00 0.75000 Reach 2 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 \o - Facility (-a Gvia.ty Wasfi Summer/Winter (circle one) i 11 Y • i 4 •-♦ I 1 ►1 to r-s- NH3-N (mg/1) Potential effluent limit combinations: 80D5 NH3.NN -- 30 to CO) 1`k 16(g) 1 SUMMER 7/4 0.75 MGD MODEL RESULTS Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK The End D.O. is 5.76 mg/l. The End CBOD is 4.38 mg/l. The End NBOD is 5.23 mg/l. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 5.04 1.35 2 Reach 1 10.50 18.00 6.00 0.75000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA *** Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK Summer 7Q10 : 0.2 Design Temperature: 27.0 Subbasin : 030405 Stream Class: C-SWP- Winter 7Q10 : 0.28 ILENGTHI SLOPE' VELOCITY 1 DEPTHI Kd 1 Kd 1 Ka 1 Ka I KN I 1 mile I ft/mil fps 1 ft Idesign l @204 Idesign l @204 Idesignl I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I Segment 1 1 0.331 6.671 0.180 1 0.72 1 0.34 1 0.25 1 2.52 1 2.161 0.51 Reach 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Segment 1 1 1.751 6.671 0.157 1 0.84 1 0.32 1 0.23 1 2.20 1 1.891 0.51 Reach 2 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I Segment 1 I 1.051 6.671 0.151 1 1.02 10.31 1 0.23 1 2.11 1 1.811 0.51 Reach 3 I I I I Flow 1 CBOD 1 NBOD I D.O. I I cfs 1 mg/1 I mg/1 I mg/1 I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste 1 1.163 110.500 118.000 I 6.000 Headwaters) 0.200 1 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.170 Tributary I 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.170 * Runoff I 0.210 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.170 Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste 1 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 Tributary I 0.100 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.170 * Runoff 1 0.170 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.170 Segment 1 Reach 3 Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 Tributary I 0.490 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.170 * Runoff I 0.050 I 2.000 1 1,.000 I 7.170 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile SUMMER 7/4 0.75 MGD I Seg 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Seg # I Reach # I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 # I Reach # I Seg Mi I 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.55 1.65 1.75 1.85 1.95 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 Seg Mi I D.O. I 6.17 6.07 5.98 5.89 5.82 5.74 5.68 5.77 5.62 5.49 5.39 5.30 5.22 5.17 5.12 5.09 5.06 5.05 5.04 5.04 5.05 5.07 5.08 5.11 5.13 5.56 5.57 5.59 5.60 5.62 5.64 5.66 5.69 5.71 5.74 5.76 D.O. I CBOD I 9.25 9.14 9.04 8.93 8.83 8.73 8.63 8.20 8.03 7.86 7.70 7.55 7.39 7.25 7.10 6.96 6.83 6.69 6.56 6.44 6.32 6.20 6.08 5.97 5.85 5.04 4.97 4.90 4.83 4.76 4.70 4.63 4.57 4.50 4.44 4.38 CBOD I NBOD I Flow I 15.50 1.36 15.26 1.37 15.02 1.38 14.78 1.39 14.55 1.40 14.33 1.41 14.11 1.43 13.25 1.53 12.85 1.54 12.47 1.56 12.10 1.58 11.75 1.59 11.40 1.61 11.07 1.63 10.75 1.64 10.44 1.66 10.14 1.68 9.85 1.70 9.57 1.71 9.30 1.73 9.03 1.75 8.78 1.76 8.53 1.78 8.29 1.80 8.06 1.81 6.56 2.30 6.41 2.31 6.27 2.31 6.13 2.32 5.99 2.32 5.86 2.33 5.73 2.33 5.60 2.34 5.47 2.34 5.35 2.35 5.23 2.35 NBOD I Flow I WINTER 14/8 0.75 MGD MODEL RESULTS Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK The End D.O. is 7.21 mg/1. The End CBOD is 8.50 mg/l. The End NBOD is 13.03 mg/l. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 6.47 0.30 1 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 21.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.75000 0.00000 0.00000 *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA *** Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK Summer 7Q10 : 0.2 Design Temperature: 16.0 Subbasin : 030405 Stream Class: C-SWP- Winter 7Q10 : 0.28 !LENGTH' SLOPE! VELOCITY 1 DEPTH' Kd 1 Kd 1 Ka I Ka 1 KN 1 I mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft Idesign l @204 Idesign l @204 'design! 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I Segment 1 1 0.331 6.671 0.190 10.73 1 0.21 10.25 12.09 1 2.281 0.22 Reach 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I Segment 1 1 1.751 6.671 0.172 10.86 10.20 1 0.24 11.90 1 2.071 0.22 Reach 2 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Segment 1 1 1.051 6.671 0.164 11.03 1 0.19 1 0.23 1 1.80 1 1.971 0.22 Reach 3 I 1 1 I I I I I I I Flow 1 CBOD 1 NBOD I D.O. 1 I cfs 1 mg/1 I mg/1 1 mg/1 I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste 1 1.163 121.000 1 36.000 I 6.000 Headwaters) 0.280 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 8.880 Tributary 1 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 8.880 * Runoff 1 0.330 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 8.880 Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 Tributary 1 0.150 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 8.880, * Runoff 1 0.230 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 8.880 Segment 1 Reach 3 Waste 1 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 Tributary 1 0.490 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 8.880 * Runoff 1 0.060 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 8.880 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile WINTER 14/8 0.75 MGD I Seg # I Reach # 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 I Seg # I Reach # Seg Mi I 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.55 1.65 1.75 1.85 1.95 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I 6.56 17.31 6.54 17.08 6.52 16.86 6.50 16.64 6.49 16.42 6.48 16.21 6.47 16.01 6.68 14.77 6.64 14.49 6.60 14.23 6.57 13.97 6.55 13.72 6.53 13.48 6.52 13.24 6.52 13.01 6.52 12.79 6.52 12.57 6.53 12.35 6.54 12.15 6.56 11.95 6.58 11.75 6.60 11.56 6.62 11.37 6.64 11.19 6.67 11.01 7.09 9.29 7.09 9.21 7.10 9.13 7.11 9.05 7.12 8.97 7.14 8.89 7.15 8.81 7.16 8.73 7.18 8.65 7.19 8.58 7.21 8.50 D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow I 29.21 1.44 28.78 1.46 28.37 1.48 27.97 1.49 27.58 1.51 27.19 1.52 26.82 1.54 24.53 1.69 24.02 1.71 23.53 1.74 23.06 1.76 22.60 1.78 22.15 1.81 21.71 1.83 21.29 1.85 20.88 1.88 20.47 1.90 20.08 1.92 19.70 1.94 19.33 1.97 18.97 1.99 18.62 2.01 18.28 2.04 17.95 2.06 17.62 2.08 14.45 2.57 14.30 2.58 14.16 2.58 14.01 2.59 13.87 2.60 13.72 2.60 13.58 2.61 13.44 2.61 13.30 2.62 13.17 2.63 13.03 2.63 NBOD I Flow I CHLORINE 7Q10: CL2 Effl. Conc: AL (17/19 ug/1) : Upstream CL2 Conc.: Design Flow: Predicted CL2 Downstream: CL2 Limit: Apply a 20 ug/1 limit 0.2000 1.2000 17.0000 0.0000 0.7500 1024 1.023853 19.92473 0.019924 ANALYSIS cfs mg/1 ug/1 ug/1 MGD ug/1 mg/1 ug/1 mg/1 summer/0.6 MGD dmr' s AMMONIA ANALYSIS 7Q10: 0.2000 cfs summer / 0.75 mgd NH3-N Effl. Conc: 4.0000 mg/1 limit based on model NH3-N STDRD (S=1000;W=1800): 1000 ug/1 S= 1.0 mg/1; W= 1.8 mg/1 Upstream NH3-N Conc.: 220.0000 ug/1 Design Flow: 0.7500 MGD Predicted NH3-N Downstream: 3445.ug/1 3.445137 mg/1 NH3-N Allowable: 1134.193 ug/1 LIMIT 1.134193 mg/1 model limit will violate criteria, apply a 1.13 mg/1 limit AMMONIA ANALYSIS 7Q10: NH3-N Effl. Conc: NH3-N STDRD (S=1000;W=1800) : Upstream NH3-N Conc.: Design Flow: Predicted NH3-N Downstream: NH3-N Allowable: 0.2800 cfs winter / 0.75 mgd 8.0000 mg/1 limit based on model 1800 ug/1 S= 1.0 mg/1; W= 1.8 mg/1 220.0000 ug/1 0.7500 MGD 6490 ug/1 6.489844 mg/1 2180.559 ug/1 LIMIT 2.180559 mg/1 model limit will violate criteria; therefore, apply a 2.18 mg/1 limit in the winter SUMMER 7/1.17 / 0.60 MGD MODEL RESULTS Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK The End D.O. is 6.72 mg/l. The End CBOD is 3.94 mg/l. The End NBOD is 1.57 mg/1. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 6.13 0.30 1 Reach 1 10.50 5.26 6.00 0.60000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 WINTER 14/2.28 / 0.6 MGD MODEL RESULTS Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK The End D.O. is 8.28 mg/1. The End CBOD is 7.55 mg/l. The End NBOD is 3.59 mg/l. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 6.67 0.00 1 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 21.00 10.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.60000 0.00000 0.00000 SUMMER 7/1.13 / 0.75 MGD Discharger Receiving Stream : MODEL RESULTS TOWN OF LAGRANGE MOSELEY CREEK The End D.O. is The End CBOD is The End NBOD is 6.70 4.38 1.73 mg/1. mg/l. mg/l. Segment 1 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 DO Min (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # 6.15 0.30 1 WLA CBOD (mg/1) 10.50 0.00 0.00 WLA NBOD (mg/1) 5.08 0.00 0.00 WLA DO Waste Flow (mg/1) (mgd) 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.75000 0.00000 0.00000 WINTER 14/2.18 / 0.75 MGD MODEL RESULTS Discharger : TOWN OF LAGRANGE Receiving Stream : MOSELEY CREEK The End D.O. is 8.23 mg/1. The End CBOD is 8.50 mg/l. The End NBOD is 3.90 mg/1. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 6.56 0.00 1 Reach 1 21.00 9.81 6.00 0.75000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 doAA 01 q((( (qo c�a G�.Te 3o40< 10 ?208cc30g3s w-Gl\O= 0.\S 3oa2: 0,2t- o10$g3tiot2 w'1 f \o = 0 •1 0 / CIA l 3o4Z: t.o v i s 4o oIo643oq ko w-1 tQ \o 0,1c1 as : 1,A 3og2, o, s? G L 620-voT oZo•SQ?1S9� ?Q s7Sz1O ° 0,G6 w�a\o =_o,A4 30 . �`� 67/7)...t r q.0 iqD o io8QL$5;G9 ') 0 \'o = 3. 6 52A; 3? i` ii V\ 0 - 33 _ 3.-03- c_Fs I+. .... (0.1.71hU.�o' (.0.3R . � s� 0. G6 0.11 0,'01/1.1s. o, 0, qy - s `. � o'', yi (-'15--.0' 5,9 .• 1. vs-' = 0 40.5 . 1(05; 0<< 0 5 •C0,A . 0'4 /1,„0 s, (Z t i� cup �Q (VA) 0.3 3 3/(D AD--$'''" 03/40) O. 2 A- 6.33 3.63 s 6 61 '0 Stream : 'ncl 1'tQinStcrn praet. Ch Slope Catcu ktion s t18='-1a.68 t� - \a . 6$ _ 6.61 • • elev y '2.2 rLo C. U rYi dist disc sta. \.to 6.O_ (ti- 0 d.rn- \, S • • 4. • 0 rl streo,m : 1't a; tc m Bea AC.1-1 Slope Cklcu Ltion S city d i st o 6 dist d, tS�AnCG :ova C ✓ LA„,S12a- State of North Carolina vartment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D. William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director August 20, 1990 MEMORANDUM T0: Trevor Clements, Chief Technical Support Branch ATTN: Juan Mangles FROM: Rob Brown, Project Engineer Facilities Evaluation Unit SUBJECT: Speculative Wasteload Allocation Limits Town of LaGrange AUC 2 11990 Please provide us with speculative wasteload allocation limits for the Town of LaGrange at its existing discharge point. We will need limits for a flow of 0.6 mgd and a flow of 0.75 mgd. LaGrange is scheduled for a federal loan in 1991, so we would appreciate receipt of this data in two (2) weeks. If you have any questions, you may contact me at (919) 733-6900, ext. 623. Thank you. RB:mm PoUutlon Prevention Pays P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 919-733-7015 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer RATIONALE FOR BASIN MANAGEMENT OF OXYGEN -CONSUMING WASTEWATER DISCHARGES IN THE NEUSE RIVER BASIN Technical Support Branch - July 1990 Backctround Public concern regarding eutrophication and low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the lower Neuse River basin resulted in the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) taking a comprehensive, basinwide approach to these issues. In January, 1988, the EMC formally classified the lower Neuse River as NSW and implemented a basinwide nutrient control strategy. Furthermore, ambient DO concentrations collected by DEM (Fig. 1) during summer months between 1983-1987 demonstrated a strong downward sloping gradient with standards' violations frequently occurring in the lower portion of the river. Therefore, DEM has embarked upon a basinwide modeling effort to establish an appropriate wasteload allocation strategy. Model Development Phase 1: Falls Dam to Smithfield In 1987, a QUAL2E model of the Neuse from Falls Dam to Smithfield was developed. Field data indicated DO sags above Milburnie Dam and below Raleigh not captured in ambient monitoring. Model predictions (Fig. 2) match observed concentrations at low flow. The model results were used to develop equitable wasteload allocations for the major dischargers in this segment of the river. Phase 2: Streets Ferry to New Bern An estuary model was developed in 1988 focusing on Weyerhauser's New Bern Mill discharge. The model predicts DO sags in the estuary which match observed levels. Weyerhauser's self -monitoring data indicate that more than 50 percent of the DO concentrations observed during the summer months between 1982 and 1987 violated the state standard at three sampling locations: at the confluence of Swift Creek, at the Narrows, and near the Wildlife Landing (Fig 3). As a result of the modeling, Weyerhauser's wasteload allocation was substantially reduced. Phase 3: Quaker Neck Lake Dam to Streets Ferry A preliminary QUAL2E model was developed in early 1988 for the lower Neuse from Quaker Neck Lake Dam to Streets Ferry using available data. The model compared actual and permitted loads (Fig. 4). The curve representing the prediction for current actual loads (Fig. 4) closely approximates the ambient data shown in Figure 1, although the model slightly overpredicts DO in the lower section of the river. More importantly, the model predicts DO standard violations at permitted wasteloads indicating that a reduction from current permitted levels is necessary. Figure 4 also demonstrates that reducing permitted loads to reflect effluent concentrations of 5 mg/1 BOD5 and 2 mg/1 NH3-N should protect the DO standard. DEM is currently performing intensive surveys in this segment of the river to validate or modify model assumptions to fine tune model calibration. Phase 4: Smithfield to Goldsboro Field data being collected this summer will be used to extend the QUAL2E model for the Neuse River to include the segment between Smithfield and Goldsboro. A complete model of the Neuse River will then be avai101e for basin planning. Summary and Recommendations Assimilative capacity in the Neuse River is limited. Ambient data, intensive survey data, and modeling predictions indicate dissolved oxygen standards are occasionally violated throughout the basin, particularly in the estuarine portion. Although few DO violations have been observed in the upper Neuse watershed, loading in the upper Neuse affects water quality in the lower river and estuary. Intensive survey data and modeling predictions demonstrate that refractory BOD loads are transported downstream and contribute to DO problems in the lower portion of the basin. Modeling indicates that existing permitted loads exceed those needed to protect the DO standard in several locations throughout the Neuse basin. In light of the above, all new and expanding dischargers affecting the Neuse River mainstem water quality, should meet advanced treatment requirements including limits of 5 mg/1 BOD5, 2 mg/1 NH3-N, and 6 mg/1 DO. FIGURE 1 . Neuse River Summer D.O. Box Plots (1983-1987) 10 9.5. 8.5- 7.5. rn E 6.5 S" • 5.5. 4.5 4- 3.5 3 1 t r FALLS CLAYTON SMITHFIELD GOLDSBORO KINSTON FT BARNWE... ST FERRY BL SWIFT CK NARROWS NEW BERN Ambient Stations FIGURE 2. Predicted DO Cont. in Neuse River Milburnie Dom Included 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.2 0 20 Raiash Distance in miles 1 30 1 1 1 40 50 9- 7_ 6_ 5- DO 4- ., (mg/I) 2 FIGURE-3'. NEUSE RIVER TArnblent Depth Averaged Dissolved Oxygen Data •Jiify7*- Seiiiiiiriber,l'982 • •••MIIP 1•MM.• • . • • SEIM 0111110 StOdirctr 12E-igend: ___Max P51X,‹ `Media-6- .a Min Streets •.Swift Narrows Wildlife New Ferry Creek Landing Bern • 10 FIGURE 4. Neuse River Dissolved Oxygen Prediction Goldsboro and Kinston-Northsidc WLAs • • • 4 Ill iilllri ,,IISt111' , 103 98 93 88 83 'c jlnrlmi�:nlnnl� �Ii111/.1inlrnryp. 58 53 48 43 38 Rivermiles • Z ti 11111111111W I1i11 i11111111,1 i 33 28 23 18 13