NC0024970_Wasteload Allocation_19890711

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING: COVER SHEET
NC0024970
McAlpine Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Meeting Notes
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
July 11, 1989
Thies documeznt is prizited on reline paper - ignore awry
content on the reYerae aide

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary July 11, 1989 Director
Joe C. Stowe, Jr., Director
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department
Administration Division
5100 Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28216
Subject: Model Development for McAlpine Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0024970, Mecklenburg Co.
Dear Mr. Stowe:
I have enclosed a copy of the water quality models used to
develop your wasteload limits per your request to Paul Wilms in
your letter dated June 13. The model used to develop limits for
your oxygen -consuming wastes was not rerun for your recent waste -
load allocation since it is Division procedure to give a facility
existing limits unless instream water quality problems are docu-
mented. Although a considerable number of instream dissolved oxy-
gen (DO) violations have been documented, most have occurred while
the facility was out of compliance with final limits or under an
interim set of limits established by a Special Order by Consent
(SOC). Therefore, existing limits for oxygen -consuming waste
related parameters were assigned for this renewal.
The North Carolina Level B model (description attached) was
used in a modified form to develop your wasteload allocation lim-
its at 40 mgd in 1984. The 1984 model was partially based on a
Level C model developed in 1976 from data collected during earlier
field studies. The file notes from the 1976 model are sketchy,
and staff have been unable to find the original field notes. We
do know that the decay rates developed for the 1976 model were
used in the 1984 model development. Since the rates were cali-
brated, they do not match the default empirically derived rates in
the Level B model description. However, the description of the
model solution equation and the generic definitions of the parame-
ters should help you to review the model input and results.
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) is concerned
that the model applied in 1984 is based upon certain assumptions
which may not accurately predict the impacts of your wastewater.
The CBOD:BOD5 ratio used in the model was 1.5 while recent long
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

term BOD studies indicate that the ratio is approximately 4.2. In
addition, background conditions assumed in the model for Sugar
Creek did not seem to be indicative of existing conditions. NBOD
and CBOD were assumed to be elevated, but dissolved oxygen (DO)
was assumed to be 90% of saturation. In addition, the documented
poor water quality in McAlpine Creek indicates that the existing
limits may not be stringent enough. In light of these facts, DEM
is performing field studies which have started this summer to
obtain information to calibrate a new Level C model. The model
will include the Sugar Creek and Irwin Creek WWTPs as well as the
McAlpine Creek plant.
If the new model indicates that existing limits are not
stringent enough, you will be sent a letter stating that your
limits will be revised if you request an increase in flow or dis-
solved oxygen (DO) standard violations are observed instream. If
the facility remains at 40 mgd and DO violations are not observed,
the existing limits will remain per Divisional procedure.
The spreadsheet model used to calculate your metals limits is
also included. This model is based on a conservation of mass
(i.e. mass balance) approach designed to maintain instream stan-
dards at the downstream mixpoint. The figures for the actual
domestic and industrial loads and the removal efficiencies were
obtained from the pretreatment headworks information which the
City submitted. The background information was obtained from an
ambient station just upstream of the McAlpine Creek WWTP. The
spreadsheet incorporates a mass balance technique to obtain the
allowable effluent concentration. If the predicted effluent con-
centration is within 1/10 of the allowable effluent concentration,
a limit is assigned if a standard exists for the metal.
The remaining issues brought forth in your letter to Mr.
Wilms are currently being reviewed by various DEM personnel.
Since your comments on the draft permit were extensive, they
require the expertise of several individuals to address the issues
adequately. Therefore, it is taking us longer to respond to your
letter than usual. We are making every effort to answer your
questions in a timely manner, and you should receive a response in
the near future.
If you have any questions concerning the modeling analysis,
please contact Trevor Clements or Ruth Clark of my staff at
[phone].
Sincerely,
c>("--z,y
Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
cc: Clements
Central Files

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
DISCHARGER
RECEIVING STREAM
701.0
DESIGN TEMPERATURE
CHUD
MCALPINE CREEK
.3 CFS
25 DEGREES C.
SUBBAS1N 030834
STREAM CLASS: C
WINTER 7010 . 2.1 CFS
WAS'(Et• LOW ; 40 MOB
1 LENG T H I SLOPE 1 VELOCITY 'DEPTH 1 K1 I Kri 1 SOD 1 K2 1 Net.F';.
!MILES 1 FT: MI 1 FPS I FT 1 /D Y 1 ;GAY 1 MS M2U 1 /L'AY 1 MG L/t
1
SEGMENT 1 1
REACH 1 1
SEGMENT 1
REACH 2
1
SEGMENT i 1 I
REACH 3 1
SUMMER MODEL
1
3.301
1
4 . 0 0 1 !
1
;.001
4.00!
0 4730
0.400
0.810
1
2.07 ry
1 1
1
ALL RATES ARE AT
:3 L.
1 E
1 0.37 I
1 1
0.01
1
1 0.37
E
0.01
1
0.26 I 0.41
1
25 E`•E(3REE S C
0.0(
1.201 0.0C
1
1 1 1
1 0.01 4.271 0 .0
1 1 1

4* INPUT DATA SUMMARY ***
I FLOW
I CFS 1
SEGMENT 1 REACH 1 I
WASTE
HEADWATERSI
TRIBUTARY I
RUNOFF * I
SEGMENT 1 REACH 2
WASTE
TRIBUTARY
RUNOFF *
SEGMENT 1 REACH % I
WASTE
TRIBUTARY rI
R UN
O 1 F * 1
67 .000
0.3uU n�
0.000 I
0.030 i
CBOD I NDOD I D.U. I
MG/L.. I rlG/L I HG/L I
I 1 I
I 1 1
12.000 I 8.100 I 6.000 I
2.000 I 1.000 I 7.560 I
0.000 I +0.000 I 0.000 I
2.000 I 1.000 I 7.540 I
0.000
0.000
0.030
0.000
68.990
0.030
^,.ti r' r •
00 .:
0.000
24000
0.000
15.000
24000
1 0.000
I 0.000
I 1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
16.230
1.000
RUNOFF FLOW IS IN CFS/MILE
0..000
7.560
.y r
• . + ✓ 0

IISCHARGER : C':-iu1:'
RECEIVING STREAM : MCALPINE CREEK
WASTEFLOW : 40
1 SEG NO 1 REACH 1 SEG MI 1 DO 1 CB0LI 1 NE:GI' 1 FLOW 1
! 1 1 1. 1 0.001 6,011 11 . 95 1 8.071 62.301
1 1 1 1. 1 0,101 6.001 11.921 8.041 62.301
1 1 1 1 1 0.201 5.991 11.901 8.021 62,311
I 1 1 1 i 0.301 5.991 11.871 7.991 62.311
1 1 1 1 • J 0,50t
0,401 5,981 11.841 7.971 62,311
1 J. 1 1 1 V♦ J •:/ 1' . f 7 1 11.821 7.941 62.321
1 1 1 1 1 0,601 5,971 11.791 7.921 62,321
I 1 1 1 1 0.701 5.96-1 11 #.%6 1 7,891 62.321
1 1 1 1 1 0,801 5.951 11.741 7.671 62.321
1 1 1 1 i 0.901 5,951 1 1. 71 1 7.841 62.331
1 1 f . 1 0,901 5.951 11.711 7.841 62,331
I 1 1 2 1 1.001 5.901 11.661 7.801 62.331
`'} 7.751
i l' J _x i
i J. 1 .:. 1 1.101 5.861 11.621 , . , _I 1 I , i. , .r v l
1 1 1 . 1 1.201 5.821 1 1 , 5l 1 7. 7 1 1 62.341
i I f+i 1 5.7R1 1 -• I 7.671 :; "I : t
1 J. 1 2 1 1. 1 J. . 5 i. 1 L.. + t.. 4 1
i 1 1 1.40I 5.731 1.114P1 7.621 62.341
I 1 I 2i 1,501 5.701 11 .43 1 7,581 62.341
• i1{ C' 1. t} 1 _ . t. j :'
:_ 1 ♦ 6 0 1 5. 6 L. 1♦ _: 1 7.546 i. . 3 5
i 1 1 • 1 {1, r`01 5,621 11.341 .CI01 6i?.351
1 I. 1 . 1 1 -J :? I5.581 11,291 1. 't'f 1 V #♦ 1} 1
! 1 1 2 1♦:'j''i 5.551 11.241 7.411 62.361
1 1 r;_S ,00I 5.511 11,201 7.371
.3'I 62.361 !
1 1 1 2,101 5.481 1.1 J.C. 1 1 _: I_;'6
1 7 2.201
r' 1 C• �{ 1'1 ] i i S �'i ! •�� ( A2.371
i J 1 ;.. l 2. 0 1 5. 4, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : .. . 1
I '1 J. 1 ... • 2.301 5,421 114061 7,251 62.371
1 1 1 .} 2.4015.391 ;'' : , , { :X '7 I
J. 1 1 ..:.0 1 4i. ► 1
I 1 I .} ' 2.501 5.361 10.971 7.16 i•i+_{: 1
7,.601 5.331
1 1 1 2.701 5.311 10.88! 7.081 6i+ {_1
1 1. 1 7 1 2.801 5. a:+R 1 10.641 7.041 A2,381
1 1 • 1 ; r . `�r 0 I 5.251 10.801 7.001 A2.391
(. 1 3,001 5 , 2 .. 1 10. f�5 ! 6.961 is h. 39
1 1 1 .-) w i C.. r r �: _ _ ' , .7' {.}
;_ 7.1r!1 J,211 1��.I.11 :;.9 1 .3/ 1
1. 1 2 1 3.• 201 5.18I 10,661 6.891 62.40I
1 1 1 :_' 1 .' ! . 1. : 1 10.621 6.851 62.401
1 1 ? ,...).401 5.14i 1 :: ,5E: 1 1 ! it • '{; t� 1
1 1 1 1 3,501 54121 1•r} C:;1 7��I r, .4..I
J. ... 1 u , . i . ♦ 1 .:. . '.4 v .
1 1 1 ... 1 • ,• 601 .,+ IJ i i. 0: 4,1, _:: 7 31 6 2 +': .1. 1
1 1 r} -I :;; 1 .08 1 1'_' 4`: 1 �. ...- 1 62 4 4 I 1
1 1 1 2 = .6 0 1 5►061 1 •411 6.661 62.11
1 J1 ,'.'2 1 ._ .901 5,04i
, '4 1 I _ , 3_I 6.621 v i . :ii pi
1 1 1 4,001 5,031 j 0 • _ _ 1 • i..` = i _ • 1
.1. 1 1
1 1 1 :' i 4, 101 5 .01 1 1`- .281 .:.541 62.
1 i 1 -r 4 :.: fir.• I c:' i f 1 110.241 : S t _ A2,131
.1. .t 'Y . 5+ ! 1 u. •...1 1 1
1 1
1 •_z 4, 2 0 ! 1 1 . 4! �i .1 131,421
�, .i •' ': r 1 1 , ,•=r 1 1
1 .1 1 .' 4'i : 1 6,351 1.f ... f I 1 1 y 1 1 i31,421
_ 3 ,1 " j^, i 6.361 !! i } c i''. 1131.431
J. 1 I Y. 5 •: ! 1 2. ... 1 1 1. 5 v !
1 1 _, 1 4.601 6.361 12.641 1 1• 4 ! 131.431
1 1 1 4,70! 6, _71 12.611 11.431 131.431
I J. 1 ,.r 1 4.801 6.371 12.591 11.401 131.431
i 1 1
3 4.901 6.381 12.561 11.361 131 ♦ 44 1
1 1 1 3 ! ,5..1.001 6.381 12.531 11.331 131.441

C.1CAC.4E►3W
1 5. 20 1 6.391 12 . 48 1 11.251 131.451
1 5.301 6.401 12.461 11 .221 131.45F
1 5.401 '6.401 12..431 11.181 131.451
1 5.50 1 . 6.411 12.411 11 . 151 131.461
1 5.601 6.411 12.381 11.111 131.461
1 5.701 6.421 12.361 11.081 131.461-

DRAFT
DESKTOP MODELING PROCEDURE (LEVEL B)
FOR DETERMINING NPDES PERMIT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
ON OXYGEN CONSUMING WASTE
NC Dept. of Natural Resources & Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
September, 1987

Oxygen Consuming Waste
I. WATER QUAI,I:TI'Y CRITERIA
The North Carolina Administrative Code (Section 15 NCAC 2B
.0211) requires that a minimum concentration of dissolved oxygen
(I)0) be maintained in freshwater systems dependent on stream clas-
sification. For designated "trout" waters, DO concentrations
shall not fall below 6.0 mg/I. For non -trout waters, D0 concen-
trations shall not fall below a daily average of 5.0 mg/1 nor a
minimum instantaneous value of 4.0 mg/1. Exceptions are made for
designated "swamp" waters, which may have lower values if they are
caused by natural conditions. -
Per 15 NCAC 2B .0206, the governing flow criterion for water
quality standards, including dissolved oxygen, generally shall be
the minimum average flow for a period of seven consecutive days
that has an average recurrence of once in ten years (i.e. 7Q10).
However, in cases where the stream flow is regulated, the governing
flow for all standards shall be the instantaneous minimum flow, or
if deemed appropriate by the Environmental Management Commission,
an alternative flow. Alternative governing flow strategies are
subject to review on a case -by -case basis.
JI. MODEL DESCRIPTION
A modified version of the Streeter - Phelps coupled BOD/DO
equation is used to simulate impacts to dissolved oxygen from oxy-
gen consuming waste. This model assumes that the receiving waters
can be represented by:
a) a one-dimensional system,
b) steady-state conditions, and
c) advective transport only.
Waste inputs are separated into nitrogenous (NBOD) and carbonaceous
(CBOD) components. The integrated form of the equation is:
-k„x/u K,-k,,x/u -k„x/u k,1 -k,x/u -k„x/u
D = D, e + ( k„-k(e - e ) CBOD + k-k„ (e - e ) NBOD1
Where:
D = DO deficit at milepoint x (mg/1)
D_ initial DO deficit (mg/1)
x = distance (mi)
u = velocity (mi/day)
k„ = reaeration rate (/day)
k, = CBOD decay rate (/day)
k,, - N13OD decay rate (day)
CBOI) - initial CBOD concentration (mg/1)
NBOI) -- iniLial NBOD concentration (mg/1)

III. MODEL (LEVEL B) INPUT
In the absence of actual stream data for model calibration,
a Level 13 (desktop) modeling analysis can be performed. Level 13
modeling incorporates the use of empirical model input equations
and DEM procedures to establish model input parameter values.
These empirical equations and procedures are summarized below by
type of input.
a) Model Hydratlics
Model hydraulic considerations include streamfloow, runoff,
stream velocity, channel width and depth, and stream bed gradient
(i.e. slope). Streamflow-and runoff, although not directly dis-
played in the model equation affect instream concentrations of DO,
CBOD, and NBOD.
streamflow -- for free -flowing streams, streamflow estimates
(both upstream and tributary) for average flow, summer (Apr - Oct)
7Q10, winter (Nov - Mar) 7Q10, and 30Q2 conditions are obtained
from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Regulated streams are
handled on a case -by -case basis.
runoff -- incremental flow is incorporated through calcu-
lation of runoff rates. The difference between upstream and
downstream flows, after subtracting out the flow contributed from
point sources and tributaries, can be divided by the distance
between the two points to arrive at appropriate runoff rates.
Runoff should be calculated for average flow, summer 7Q10, and
winter 7Q10 conditions.
stream velocity (U) -- in the absence of instream time -of -
travel data, the empirical regression equation developed by DEM
can be used to predict stream velocity. The equation is based on
a cross-section of data from 125 time -of -travel studies performed
on North Carolina streams, such that:
U = 0.124 Qact°-75 slope°29
Qact".3s
Where: Qact = 7Q10 + wasteflow (cfs)
Qavg = average stream flow (cfs)
slope = stream bed gradient (fpm)
U = stream velocity (fps)
channel width (W) and depth (H) -- the Level B model assumes
that stream channel width (W) = 15 * depth. Depth (H) is calcu-
lated in the model using this assumption along with the relation-
ship between flow (Q) and instantaneous velocity (V):

V = Q/A
where: A = cross -sectional channel area (ft')
therefore: V - Q
W * H
- Q
(15 H) * 1
or H = (Q/15V)°•s
slope -- stream bed gradients are calculated frbm land
elevation data contained on USGS topographical maps. Maps dis-
played on a 7A min. (1:24000) scale are preferred when available.
Distances along the streambed between contours are measured and
the net elevation changes are divided by the distance to obtain
the slopes. Large differences in streambed slope should be
delineated by individual model reaches.
b) Model Reaction Rates
. Model reaction rates include CBOD decay (k,i), NBOD decay
(k„), and reaeration (k„).
CBOD decay rate, (20°C, (20°C, base e) -- where field data are
not available for model calibration, DEM employs a modified ver-
sion of the Bosko (1966) equation. The method retains the format
of the Bosko equation, but alters the CBOD bottle decay rate (k,)
as a function of instream CBOD concentration. The final equation
is:
k,[ = k, + n (V/H)
where: n = coefficient of bed activity
=- exp (-2.8105 + 0.598 In (slope))
k, = CBOD bottle decay rate
= 0.2/day for instream CBOD < 50 mg/1
0.4/day for instream CBOD > 50 mg/1
NBOD decay rate, k„ (20°C, base e) -- in the absence of
field -calibrated rates, DEM uses the EPA default values for ky,:
kT, 0.3/day for streams with slope S 20 fpm
0.5/day for streams with slope > 20 fpm
reaeration rate, k„ (20°C, base e) -- reaeration is deter-
mined using the empirical relationships developed by Tsivoglou
(1976):

Qact _< 10 cfs,
10 cfs < Qact < 25 cfs,
Qact > 25 cfs,
k„ 1.8 ` slope. V
k„ - 1 . 3 z: slope * V
K„ 0.88 * slope ;, V
Note: the following equations arc used by DEM to adjust the re-
action rates to reflect the model design temperature
kd (T) = k,, (20°C) * 1.047
i
k, (T) = k„ (20°C) * 1.080
k„ (T) - k„ (20°C) * 1.022
c) Model Design Temperature
Model design temperature (T) is based upon the season and
physical Location of the stream within the State. Applicable
inputs are summarized below:
Summer Winter
Hydro -Environmental Area T (°C) T (°C)
Mountains 23 12
Upper Piedmont 25 14
Middle Piedmont 26 14
Lower Piedmont 26 13
Eastern Piedmont 26 14
Sandhills 27 16
Inner Coastal Plain 27 16
Outer Coastal Plain 28 16
d) Background and Boundary Conditions
Headwaters -- headwater or boundary conditions are needed for
CBOD, NBOD, and DO concentrations. Where instream data are not
available, the following default values are assumed:
CBOD = 2 mg/1
NBOD = 1 mg/1
DO = 90% saturation at T
Note: DO saturation values are obtained from the APHA Standard
Methods manual (1986) -- See Appendix A.
Runoff, Tributaries -- background conditions for runoff and
tributary flow are also needed for CBOD, NBOD, and DO. Where
instream data are not available, the same default values applied
to the headwaters are used.

I V . MOI)EI, OUTPUT
Waste.load allocations derived from the model are output in
terms of CBOD and NBOI). For NPDES permit limitations, these
components must be transformed into corresponding values of BOD5
and NH:„-N. The NH_,-N limit is determined simply by dividing the
allowable NBOD by 4.5 (approximate stochiometrical ratio). BOD5,
on the other hand, must be calculated using a CBOD/BOD5 ratio that
varies according to type of waste. In the absence of waste -
specific CBOD/BOD5 data, the following assumptions can be used:
Waste type CBOD/BOD5 ratio
pure domestic
> .10Z industrial
pure industrial
1.5
2.0
3.0
DO can be added to the effluent as a trade-off for either NBOD or
CBOD as long as the instream DO standard is maintained.
V. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
For proposed discharges of oxygen -consuming wastewater to
streams with a 7Q10 of 0.0 cfs, the following Division procedures
apply:
a) If the 7Q10 = o cfs and the 30Q2 > 0 cfs, as
verified by the USGS, the applicant will receive
the following effluent limitations:
Summer Winter
BOD5 (mg/1) 5 10
NH3-N (mg/1) 2 .4
DO (mg/1) 6 6
TSS (mg/1) 30 30
However, it there are multiple discharges to the stream
and the model predicts that the above limits will not
protect the DO standard instream, then a discharge will
be prohibited.
b) If the 7Q10 = 0 cfs and the 30Q2 = 0 cfs, as
verified by the USGS, a proposed discharge will
be denied.
Discharges to lakes and estuaries will be handled on a case -
by -case basis. In most situations, the procedures described above
will not apply.

References
Bosko, K. 1966. Advances in Water Pollution Research.
International Association on Water Pollution Research.
Munich.
Tsivoglou, E.C. and L.A. Neal. 1976. Tracer measurement of
reaeration: predicting the reaeration capacity of inland
streams. Journal WPCF, Vol. 48, No. 12.
•
Other Useful References
USEPA. 1985:Rates, Constants, and Kinetics: Formulations in
Surface Water Quality Modeling (2nd edition) .
EPA/600/3-85/040.
USEPA. 1983. Technical Guidance for Performing Waste Load
Allocations, Book II Streams and River, Chpt. 1 BOD and DO.
EPA-440/4-84-020.
USEPA. 1980. Simplified Analytical Method for Determining NPDES
Effluent Limitations for POTWs Discharging into Low Flow
Streams. Monitoring and Data Support Division (WH-553).

APPENDIX A.
TAMLE 421:1. SOLUMILITY OF OXYGEN IN WATER EXPOSED TO WATER -SATURATED AIR AT
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE (101.3) KPA'
Oxygen Solubility
nrj/L
Temperature
'C Chlorinity: 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
0.0 14.621
1.0 14.216
2.0 13.829
3.0 13.460
4.0 13.107
5.0 12.770
6.0 12.447
7.0 12.139
8.0 11.843
9.0 11.559
10.0 11.288
11.0 11.027
.12.0 10.777
13.0 10.537
14.0 10.306
15.0 10.084
16.0 9.870
17.0 9.665
18.0 9.467
19.0 9.276
20.0 9.092
21.0 8.915
22.0 8.743
23.0 8.578
24.0 8.418
25.0 8.263
26.0 8.113
27.0 7.968
28.0 7.827
29.0 7.691
30.0 7.559
31.0 7.430
32.0 7.305
33.0 7.183
34.0 7.065
35.0 6.950
36.0 6.837
37.0 6.727
38.0 6.620
39.0 6.515
40.0 6.412
41.0 6.312
42.0 6.213
43.0 6.116
44.0 6.021
45.0 5.927
46.0 5.835
47.0 5.744
48.0 5.654
49.0 5.565
50.0 5.477
13.728
13.356
13.000
12.660
12.335
12.024
11.727
_ 11.442
11.169
10.907
10.656
10.415
10.183
9.%1
9.747
9.541
9.344
9.153
8.%9
8.792
8.621
8.456
8.297
8.143
7.994
7.850
7.711
7.575
7.444
7.317
7.194
7.073
6.957
6.843
6.732
6.624
6.519
6.416
6.316
6.217
6.121
6.026
5.934
5.843
5.753
5.665
5.578
5.493
5.408
5.324
5.242
12.888
12.545
12.218
11.906
11.607
11.320
11.046
10.783
10.531
) 0.290
10.058
9.835
9.621
9.416
9.218
9.027
8.844
8.667
8.497
8.333
8.174
8.021
7.873
7.730
7.591
7.457
7.327
7.201
7.079
6.961
6.845
6.733
6.624
6.518
6.415
6.314
6.215
6.119
6.025
5.932
5.842
5.753
5.667
5.511
, 5.497
5.414
5.333
5.252
5.172
5.094
5.016
12.097 11.355 10.657
11.783 11.066 . 10.392
11.483 10.790 10.139
11.195 10.526 9.897
10.920 10.273 9.664
10.656 10.031 9.441
10.404 9.799 9.22d
10.162 9.576 9.023
9.930 9.362 8.826
9.707 9.156 8.636
9.493 8.959 8.454
9.287 8.769 8.279
9.089 8.586 8.111
8.899 8.411 7.949
8.716 8.242 7.792
8.540 8.079 7.642
8.370 7.922 7.496
8.207 7.770 7.356
8.049 7.624 7.221
7.896 7.483 7.090
7.749 7.346 6.964
7.607 7.214 6.842
7.470 7.087 6.723
7.337 6.%3 6.609
7.208 6.844 6.498
7.083 6.728 6.390
6.962 6.615 6.285
6.845 6.506 6.184
6.731 6.400 6.085
6.621 6.297 5.990
6.513 6.197 5.896
6.409 6.100 5.806
6.307 6.005 5.717
6.208 5.912 5.631
6.111 5.822 5.546
6.017 5.734 5.464
5.925 5.648 5.384
5.835 5.564 5.305
5.747 5.481 5.228
5.660 5.400 5.152
5.576 5.321 5.078
5.493 5.243 5.005
5.411 5.167 4.933
5.331 5.091 4.862
5.252 5.017 4.793
5.174 4.944 4.72.4
5.097 4.872 4.656
5.021 4.801 4.589
4.947 4.730 4.523
4.872 4.660 4.457
4.799 4.591 4.392
From: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
wastewater. Sixteenth Edition. American Public Health
Association. 1985.

PRETREATMENT HEADWORKS REVIEW v2.0 (1/9/89)
Discharger:
Receiving stream:
Stream Class:
7Q10:
Design flow:
Actual flow:
Percent industrial:
IWC:
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
MCALPINE CREEK
C
0.300 cfs
40.000 mgd
27.3 mgd
9.00%%
99.5 %
Pollutant Standard/AL Removal
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Mercury
Silver
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Mercury
Silver
(mg/1). Eff.
0.002
0.05
0.015
0.05
0.025
0.05
0.005
0.0002
0.01
Total
Influent
Load
(lbs/day)
2.29
21.86
32.48
6.93
18.50
50.25
4.20
0.00
1.33
S
S
AL
S
S
AL
S
S
AL
Actual
Allowable Domestic
Load Load
(lbs/day) (lbs/day)
92% 5.74 1.990
76% 47.80 1.990
82% 19.12 5.780
32% 16.87 5.980
81% 30.19 9.760
77% 49.88 29.890
59% 2.80 3.990
86% 0.33 0.000
94% 38.24 1.000
Background
Reserve Conc
(lbs/day) (mg/1)
3.45
25.94
-13.36
9.94
11.69
-0.37
-1.40
0.33
36.91
0
0.0045
0.0084
0
0
0.0088
0
0
0
Predicted
Effluent
Conc
(mg/1)
0.0008 L
0.0230 L
0.0257 M
0.0207 L
0.0154 L
0.0507 M
0.0076 L
0.0000
0.0004 M
07/03/89
Actual
Industrial
Load
(lbs/day)
0.300
19.870
26.700
0.950
8.740
20.360
0.210
0.000
0.330
Allowable
Effluent
Conc
(mg/1)
0.0020
0.0502
0.0150
O .0502
O .0251
O .0502
O .0050
O .0002
0.0100

'e -WO - PcAlprut_. CC li &7P
ao3I
u mectb ci2fa 9i'n Qirti )1._ etattcr) . _ C�,I'4ze75v 1 .get.. u earn
lot p►'2. ecd7nef eathh& 7L1 Ju''_ above- &iorP)
euecc. ���l���Jc below rl�f��hc,,r� L be.... 0
Chmrn1 uo - one vakuil of 50 . ✓al .c;, ,2loco. delechor) (,4:d ze�'L�..
Cbcd ua1 Lco yr )1c • 60Jw .. de/echo/2 /ev. e / Choyyd i 25.
�D
Avg. - �1 = 'A 5
COppM - (2.7zf t,acceo ct.;lw-et_ dJechv/1 &-f fv /0 `77,10'o& edekcbc;
co , OK'd te• zekP
z91, 3305-03y
A vz - l l �, h(, u
. /U C % j -. all Cabe _ .beja,0 ad..ecbcfi - .c aZd zero
- CO. Xlc, .. 1c o
tkui - -d LS i 11 Le _ _ GHQ./.e6:40/ r_ /C) (: l teCo(t) / Ct:::a
r . _ Col f- 3 Zfi ? r 22?/i 1
= 0
C9oncfe - .PC. dola
..gerauti - e (l... LtI &L a/aco ...defechw. - a. Sven '. r�
M,Ye: All CCM Cc 0.C.akz.fr2i WC.
a/ilea/70/7 . Cia,,717
,h,i61(1