NC0023884_Meeting Notes_19950911

Page 1
Note for Dave Goodrich
iMINII
From: Jim Blose
Date: Mon, Sep 11, 1995 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: Salisbury
To: Dave Goodrich
File(s): PWMEET.DOC
Dave, See enclosure for file memo on the meeting. They have moved the
discharge --hopefully you should be hearing from them on that soon. Cormix results for a
single port indicate poor mixing: 2:1 dilution at 30 meters, 3:1 dilution at 80 meters, 7:1
dilution at 1 mile. Get in touch if you have any questions. Jim
From: Dave Goodrich on Sun, Sep 10, 1995 11:31 AM
Subject: Salisbury
To: Jay Lucas; Jim Blose
Cc: Steve Bevington
Jim -
How did the meeting go? I'd like to get a briefing (in person or by mail -- it doesn't matter)
and would like Jay to be included in this discussion.
Jay -
Please contact Cecil Madden and/or Monica Swihart regarding the specific point of discharge
which has been approved in the EA.
Thanks,
Dave

MEMO
To: WLA file
From: Jim Blose
Re: Salisbury diffuser design, Yadkin River
Date: September 7, 1995
This morning Steve Bevington and I met with Troy Doby and Marshall
Staton of Peirson and Whitman. Last week Troy Doby mentioned in a
telephone conversation that the discharge site had recently been moved.
Today he provided a map (attached) with the new location. It is several
thousand feet downstream of the previously proposed location, but still on
the Grubb Ferry site analyzed in the EA. Mr. Doby also provided a new
schematic of the diffuser design (still 3 lines, each capable of handling 20 mgd,
each with 3 ports).
We indicated that preliminary runs on the old discharge site indicated
that the proposed diffuser design probably provided adequate mixing, but that
additional modeling was required to ascertain whether the design would be
adequate at the new location. If the situation is more lake -like there it could
be a problem.. We noted that the application of CORMIX is site specific and
that cross -sectional data on the new location were needed before final
modeling could take place. They agreed that the data were needed and said
that there were plans to survey it shortly. We discussed the advantages of
measuring the cross-section at a relatively low flow, if possible..
Troy Doby provided some materials, dated Jan. 13, 1995, which he said
had been hand delivered to Betsy Johnson, although they are not in our files.
Most of the materials pertain to the dechlorination basin or other aspects of
plant design, and not to the diffuser. I will check with Jay Lucas to see
whether he has these. Output from a single CORMIX run was included, but it
is of no value (was run at the old site; cross -sectional data is wrong; used 18
ports; used discharge of 3.36 MGD).
We indicated that the final. CORMIX runs should focus on 20 MGD,
since that is the design flow in the permit. Discussion of 60 MGD is
speculative Several deficiencies in the runs they have conducted to date were
noted: 7Q10 conditions were not used for the cross-section; a rectangular
cross-section of equivalent area was not developed. At Troy Doby's request,
we agreed to develop the cross-section(s) to be used in the simulations, once
the field data 'are provided to us.
We indicated that the final design must not interfere with navigation.
They indicated a desire to get all of this resolved as soon as possible.
We responded that it should not take long one the new field data were
received. They asked whether we thought a diffuser was really necessary at
this site. We discussed the results of a CORMIX run using a single pipe which
indicated that mixing would be very poor. We indicated that we were aware
of the economic costs of installing diffusers and that current state policy was

to require them only when environmental improvements could be
documented that justified the expense.
We suggested that they send Dave Goodrich a formal notice that the
discharge location had been changed, including a map. A notice should also
be sent to Monica Swihart so that she could confirm whether the change
necessitated any additional work on the EA. They agreed to send these.

MEMO
To: WLA file
From: Jim Blose
Re: Salisbury diffuser design, Yadkin River
Date: September 7, 1995
This morning Steve Bevington and I met with Troy Doby and Marshall Staton of Peirson and
Whitman. Last week Troy Doby mentioned in a telephone conversation that the discharge site had recently
been moved. Today he provided a map (attached) with the new location. It is several thousand feet
downstream of the previously proposed location, but still on the Grubb Ferry site analyzed in the EA. Mr.
Doby also provided a new schematic of the diffuser design (still 3 lines, each capable of handling 20 mgd,
each with 3 ports).
We indicated that preliminary runs on the old discharge site indicated that the proposed diffuser
design probably provided adequate mixing, but that additional modeling was required to ascertain whether the
design would be adequate at the new location. If the situation is more lake -like there it could be a problem.
We noted that the application of CORMIX is site specific and that cross -sectional data on the new location
were needed before final modeling could take place. They agreed that the data were needed and said that there
were plans to survey it shortly. We discussed the advantages of measuring the cross-section at a relatively
low flow, if possible.
Troy Doby provided some materials, dated Jan. 13, 1995, which he said had been hand delivered to
Betsy Johnson, although they are not ,in our files. Most of the materials pertain to the dechlorination basin
or other aspects of plant design, and not to the diffuser. I will check with Jay Lucas to see whether he has
these. Output from a single CORMIX run was included, but it is of no value (was run at the oldsite;
cross -sectional data is wrong; used 18 ports; used discharge of 3.36 MGD).
We indicated that the final CORMIX runs should focus on 20 MGD, since that is the design flow
in the permit. Discussion of 60 MGD is speculative Several deficiencies in the runs they have conducted
to date were noted: 7Q10 conditions were not used -for the cross-section; a rectangular cross-section of
equivalent area was not developed. At Troy Doby's request, we agreed to develop the cross-section(s) to be
used in the simulations, once the field data are provided to us.
We indicated that the final design must not interfere with navigation.
They indicated a desire to get all of this resolved as soon as possible. We responded that it should
not take long one the new field data were received. They asked whether we thought a diffuser was really
necessary at this site. We discussed the results of a CORMIX run using a single pipe which indicated that
mixing would be very poor. We indicated that we were aware of the economic costs of installing diffusers
and that current state policy was to require them only when environmental improvements could be
documented that justified the expense.
We suggested that they send Dave Goodrich a formal notice that the discharge location had been
changed, including a map. A notice should also be sent to Monica Swihart so that she could confirm
whether the change necessitated any additional work on the EA. They agreed to send these.