NC0023884_Meeting Notes_19931220

W
- war
...�Oljq U�;� -' chid I'LCBG�C j LcvlG�r ,,S'OG IL22d�q K.C.✓ ��CCs.Si�_�'
y e a -F crru . a �; n� ast`c� k5 -�z ��a •-
� c%t..t�ejo.•+..�...—�s -� wau.�ou.s.a. �c�oo.�s� •`
--i JAl 1 - 7D CoNSiMvGT '�� C /J� ES
U C. �a J u,.0 3 C�
54,, ,Ju,, o l.,T....c �-i �/►� 4 - rru�. +�i � c y '! �4 oo�o gt'�
I /
�1i �--�-�-- !,✓t�%17' is or-�-cG� O� SC.h�.c�cc� ,,•. �a.�/LS — .5,2�•+r� �/ � ,..�,�4a�,- �••- �JC��S
CI.CGh p•f..� � `t ✓4i n J0. St �1 � ^ , �/•n (([ /Jf/' /101t� ...
�o,► d �as�ed M�IC�H.
Ouse,
C� .. � ��- Gr-�.- aT�.a2 5��5 �'C� �►4�a- i2C� /oe-s.•. �o..,�c�.�s�t' so c.��
o�� Z6'� lie 3ea�a•2 . -. �c�i� .Sc�c.cc..�B�'
_o `c►.4c

S
-a
U
i

Note for Betsy Johnson
From.: Coleen Sullins on Wed, Dec 8, 1993 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: Salisbury WWTP
To: Steve Tedder
Cc: Betsy Johnson; Don Safrit; Kent Wiggins; Ruth Swanek
Per my conversations with everyone about the Salisbury issue I
have been able to obtain the following information:
- the SOC is scheduled to issue at the end of January (it
limits flow to 6.5 MGD)
- the flow was limited in the SOC because any flow above 1.8
resulted in DO's instream at 0 mg/1 (the 6.5 was given because
that is the. flow that they can comply with)
- Kent does not believe that at the end of the SOC they are
going to be able to comply with tox and mercury (my
understanding is that they should have the basins cleaned out
and back in operation by late spring)
- Yadkin outfall is not expected to be completed for another
2-3 years (we still have to resolve the issue of the design of
the outfall, the use of creek water to "maintain pressure in the
discharge line" - Peirson & Whitman). Until we see the design,
the limits can not be resolved.
- Once the plant has completed reconstruction needed and is off
the SOC, their flow at,grants creek bumps back up to 7.5 MGD.
- They were informed that no new sanitary lines would be
allowed, even dry lines - as we lose control of when flow begins
to be sent, during the negotiations on the SOC.
Bottom line sounds like they are in trouble with the flow
regardless of the SOC. If it is going to take them 2-3 years to
get out to the Yadkin and that is only at the 12.5 MGD (7.5 at
Grants and 5 at Town), and they are already close to that flow
on Grants (there is a little more room at the Town facility),
and they still don't have a site for the expanded plant, they
are running out of capacity and the installation of lines could
possibly create some problems in the future when capacity is not
available and the new plant -has not been constructed. If we
give them dry lines (I don't think they will stay dry even if
permitted that way and ensuring compliance with the "dry"
criteria would be a difficult problem), I think that we should
limit the volume that we will allow to be constructed in this
fashion or we may have Salisbury, in the matter of a year or
two, back in the position of violating flow. Once the outfall
is out to the Yadkin, we may be able to allow them to put more
than 1.5 through the Grants Creek facility, if they can remain
in compliance with the permit limits to the Yadkin, so we may be
able to offer some relief, altho not much (they would be taking
from the flow allotment at the Town Creek facility in this
situation).
It is a difficult situation. Please let me know if you would
Page: 1

`like to discuss it or if you would like for me to call
Salisbury. I have not called John Vest yet, as you requested.
I was trying to get as much information together before
proceeding. Kent, Betsy if I messed anything up in this
summary, please advise. Comments? Coleen
From: Steve Tedder on Wed, Dec 8, 1993 10:20 AM
Subject: Salisbury WWTP
To: Coleen Sullins; Dennis Ramsey; Don Safrit
I have reviewed the file for the soc and compliance problems.
Based on this information I would be willing to allow a limited
amount of dry lines to be constructed only with the qualifier
that these cannot be connected until the wwtp is compliant with
limits and that connection cannot occur without written
permission by the Division. This will be a one time situation
for this facility and theyu will need to provide specifics on
each of the lines to be constructed. This should take care of
the meeting scheduled for The 20th of this month/ If you have
comments let me know this week so I can resolve this issue.
Thanks
Page: 2

n i
Note for Betsy Johnson
From: Ruth Swanek on Mon, Dec 6, 1993 7:23 AM
Subject: FW: Salisbury
To Betsy Johnson
FYI on Salisbury.
From: Steve Tedder on Sun, Dec 5, 1993 8:05 AM
'Subject: RE: Salisbury
To: Coleen Sullins; Ruth Swanek
Please call John Vest at 704-638-5204 and tell him this
information. I mentioned the stream to him and he acted like he
knew nothing about it. Also I think they have been collecting
some additional instream DO readings. When we looked at the.
model and the possibility of allowing some additional domestic
flow, we said no. I need to see the information used for that
decision and we need to look at any data collected this year.
Thanks
From:° Coleen Sullins on Fri, Dec 3, 1993 4:01 PM
Subject: RE: Salisbury
To: Steve Tedder
Steve - per our last meeting with them (actually their
consultants, Pierson & Whitman), they were supposed to get back
to us with an improved diffuser design. I have no knowledge
that that has come in. They were proposing some very
inappropriate things, such as running the creek water into the -
discharge line to "maintain a pressurized line" to prevent
settling and odors in the discharge line. The problem here
being that they would totally dry up the creek to be able to
keep the line full. We told them no, needless to say. The
diffuser design will affect the limits for the permit so we are
waiting on them. Coleen
From: Steve Tedder on Fri, Dec 3, 1993 10:14 AM
Subject: Salisbury
To: Coleen Sullins; Dennis Ramsey; Don Safrit; Kent Wiggins
A meeting has been scheduled for DEC 20th at 10:00 here to
discuss their soc and need for flow. The mayor and others will
be attending -as well as 1or2 developers. I need a status report
on the soc , I believe its at notice.
Don----- Whats the status of the draft permit to go to th Yadkin?
Page 1

F� �—
'neeA
CA V+sq—

Note for Betsy Johnson
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ruth Swanek on Mon, Sep 27, 1993 7:24 AM
Subject: FW: SALISBURY SOC
To: Betsy Johnson
FYI
From: Don Safrit on Sun, Sep 26, 1993 9:10 AM
Subject: FW: SALISBURY SOC
To: Coleen Sullins; Ruth Swanek
FYI - See notes below.
Thanks, Don
From: Steve Tedder on Sun, Sep 26, 1993 8:25 AM
Subject: RE: SALISBURY SOC
To: Kent Wiggins
Cc: Don Safrit
Thanks for the update
From: Kent Wiggins on Tue, Sep 21, 1993 10:43 AM
Subject: SALISBURY SOC
To: Dennis Ramsey; Jeff Bouchelle; Steve Tedder
FYI. I SPOKE TO GEORGE HOUSE, ATTNY FOR SALISBURY, ABOUT THEIR
SOC. THEY ARE GETTING A WQ SOC AND NOT A 67B BESAUSE ,THEY
CURRENTLY HAVE NO FLOW REQUESTS AND MODELING HAS PROBLEMS WITH
GIVING THEM ANY FLOW AT THEIR PRESENT LOCATION. GEORGE'S
QUESTION WAS WAS THEIR ANY THING THAT STOPPED THEM FROM
REQUESTING A MINOR MODIFICATION UNDER THE WQ ORDER. I TOLD HIM
THAT HE HAD THE SAME RIGHTS UNDER THE WQ ORDER AS HE HAD UNDER
THE 67B AS FAR AS DATE CHANGES ETC. BUT THERE WOULD BE NO FLOW
ALLOCATION TO REDISTRIBUTE IF NEEDED SINCE WQ ORDERS HAD NO
FLOW. GEORGE SAID THEY HAD NO NEED FOR THE FLOW AT PRESENT BUT
HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT HE WASN'T GIVING UP HIS RIGHTS TO
REQUEST A 67B IN THE FUTURE IF THEY WANTED IT. I TOLD HIM HE
COULD SEND IN $400 AND AN APPLICATION AND MAKE THE REQUEST ANY
TIME HE WANTED TO BUT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE HE WILL RECEIVE ANY
FLOW AND BASED ON THE CURRENT MODELING CONDITIONS IT WOULD BE
DOUBTFUL IF WE COULD GRANT ANY FLOW.
JEFF, PLEASE PUT A COPY OF THIS IN THE SALISBURY FOLDER.
Page: 1
s

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 18, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Bridgeman
Mooresville Regional Office
FROM: Betsy Johnson
Technical Support Branch
THROUGH: Mike Scoville rDS
Ruth Swanek ;{c
SUBJECT: Instream Assessment for the City of Salisbury - Grants Creek WWTP
NPDES No. NCO023884
Rowan County
SOC Case No. 92-10
The Technical Support Branch (TSB) has completed its review of the revised SOC request for
the City of Salisbury. The City has not been able to comply with the recommended flow limit of
5.0 MGD due to I&I problems. TSB has reviewed the request for limits at 6.1 MGD.
A Level B analysis was performed to assess the impact of the additional flow and relaxed limits.
The modeling indicates that the Grants Creek WWTP discharge causes violations of the DO
standard even with technology based limits. However, Grants Creek below the WWTP is more
a cove of the Yadkin River than a free -flowing stream. Hence, the Level B model is not a great
tool for evaluating assimilative capacity. There is insufficient field data to calibrate a Level C
model. Since, the discharge will be relocated to the Yadkin River within the next couple of
years, no additional efforts should be made to model Grants Creek.
The minimum DO concentrations in Grants Creek below the WWTP during the summer of 1992
were 4-5 mg/1. However, the treatment provided by the Grants Creek WWTP was excellent;
BOD5 averaged around 5 mg/l with NH3-N < 1 mg/l. With higher wasteflows and lesser
treatment, more severe water quality violations are expected.
Currently, the facility is discharging 6.1 MGD with 35 mg/1 BOD5 and 10 mg/l NH3-N.
These limits violate 67(b) criteria using the Level B model. At flows greater than 1.8 MGD, the
minimum DO is predicted to be 0.0 mg/l. The SOC may allow additional flows for I&I only; the
SOC should not allow Salisbury to accept additional waste streams. Instream monitoring should
be required for the duration of the SOC.
cc: Kent Wiggins
Central Files

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 11, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Safri AAAA� I
Wv
FROM: Betsy Johnson-3'�`~�
THROUGH: Mike Scoville Y\DS
Ruth Swanek
S
SUBJECT: Salisbury - Grants Creek WWTP
NPDES No. NC0023884
Rowan County
The Level B model for Grants Creek predicts that the Grants Creek WWTP discharge cause
violations of the DO standard even with technology based limits. Grants Creek below the
WWTP is more a cove of the Yadkin River than a free -flowing stream. Hence, the Level B
model is not a great tool for evaluating assimilative capacity. There is insufficient field data to
calibrate a Level C model. Since, the discharge will be relocated to the Yadkin River within the
next couple of years, no additional efforts should be made to model Grants Creek.
The minimum DO concentrations during the summer of 1992 were 4-5 mg/l. However, the
treatment provided by the Grants Creek WWTP was excellent; BODS averaged around 5 mg/1
with NH3-N < 1 mg/l. With higher wasteflows and lesser treatment, more severe water quality
violations are expected.
Currently, the facility is discharging 6.1 MGD with 35 mg/1 BODS and 10 mg/1 NH3-N.
These limits violate 67(b) criteria using the Level B model. At flows greater than 1.8 MGD, the
minimum DO is predicted to be 0.0 mg/l. The SOC should not allow Salisbury to accept
additional waste streams. Instream monitoring should be required for the duration of the SOC.
Richard Bridgeman (MRO) does not know when the work will be completed.

Page 1
Note for Ruth Swanek
From: Ruth Swanek
Date.: Thu, Jun 10, 1993 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: Salisbury SOC
To: Don Safrit
Betsy has looked at any existing data. I will have her update you. However, I think that the
big thing is that the LB model does not predict very well in Grants Creek.
From: Don Safrit on Thu, Jun 10, 1993 8:43 AM
Subject: RE: Salisbury SOC
To: Ruth Swanek
Cc: Coleen Sullins
Ruth,
Sounds reasonable to me. Out of curiosity, what are the ambient DO levels? Are there any
data points below 3 ppm? Near 0? If the info is not readily available, don't spend more than
30 minutes researching.
Thanks, Don
From: Ruth Swanek on Thu, Jun 10, 1993 8:36 AM
Subject: Salisbury SOC
To: Don Safrit
Cc: Coleen Sullins
Betsy performed an'SOC for the City of Salisbury in January in which she recommended that
no additional flow be allowed since predicted DO was 0 mg/1 instream at the proposed interim
limits. However, we approved the interim limits since the SOC was requested due to
noncompliance with Hg limit. This noncompliance was due to the build up of sludge in the
aeration basins. The SOC period was only to be 4-8 months, and we recommended that
work begin ASAP in order to take advantage of cooler temperatures and higher flows.
The City has taken the aeration basins off line, and effluent BOD, TSS, and NH3 have
increased significantly. However, due to heavy rains this winter, the City is not complying
with its SOC flow limit. We have been asked by MRO to determine what BOD, NH3 limits
would be needed for a flow of 6.1 MGD. I am fairly sure that the facility will not be able to
meet the limits that the model will show are needed to comply with 67(b) criteria.
2H.1206(d)(1)(E) states that no additional wasteflow will be allowed if measured or
predicted DO is below 3 mg/l. I read this as not including flow from VI. Therefore, I would
like to tell Betsy to work with the region to determine what limits the facility will be able to
meet during the SOC period and work those into. the SOC along with the requested flow of
6.1 MGD (and state that the City cannot tie on any additional domestic or industrial waste - in
other words, ditch the modeling). She should also find out how long the facility expects the
aeration basins to be off line.
Let me know if you agree with this approach.
r
J

i
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 8, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Ruth Swanek (i
FROM: D. Rex Gleason
PREPARED BY: Richard Bridgeman �Y_6
SUBJECT: Request for In -stream Assessment (REVISION)
Additional Flow Under SOC
City of Salisbury - Grant Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO023884
Rowan County
On May 3, 1993 a final SOC draft document was submitted to
the City of Salisbury for review. The review led to a May 28,
1993 meeting between the writer and City representatives, during
which the City made several requests relative to document
modifications.
Your Instream Assessment Report dated January 26, 1993
recommended that no additional flow be allowed with the proposed
interim limits (45.0 mg/1 BOD5, 45.0 mg/l TSS, and no NH3 limit).
Therefore, an interim Flow limit of 5.0 MGD was included in the
draft SOC submitted to the City.
Because of the unusually heavy recent rains and the
resultant inflow and infiltration of storm water into the
sewerage collection system, from December, 1992 through April,
1993 (latest available data) the Grant Creek facility had monthly
average effluent flows in excess of 5.0 MGD.
The City now requests additional flow up to a monthly
average total of 6.1 MGD. This Office requests that your unit
determine what BOD5. TSS, and NH3 interim monthly average limits
may be included in the SOC at an interim Flow limit of 6.1 MGD.

Ms. Ruth Swanek
Page Two
June 8, 1993
As you will note on the attached MP screen, although the 12-month
average flow has changed little since our first instream
assessment request dated December 15, 1992, effluent BOD5, TSS,
and NH3 concentrations have increased significantly. The change
in effluent characteristics is the result of the Grant Creek
facility presently operating as a trickling filter treatment
system, the aeration basin having been removed from service in
October, 1992.
Please advise if addition input is required.
Attachment
RMB

S.a;.. b `n - G ras.,�e LJ WW
g�clsrrNc- C.e MC[S
r'ou 7 s MG D - yawoG -C&-d 76
ICAu "s mil+ COns/C"GFrN`- - �`iQ.�. C" 2e�4�iL'en� �jaytns�
Aw ,a- . 31f .3 Gv 4 S
pto w �; . r /vM 6-F5 _ z�cd 6 33 -�
1,10 /r
-Dv nll

6 /` j 7.3
lj►�,- = a ,�.� (k x �• s `�o �;� — `f- —all
00 = G
G .l �A(rD
`36D, 3S� - " I
`�
Ni43
n,,,,'��--- �,-3t"�.�..d-
tv ('43-tom 3 -,
$OD5'
-Z-Z L\ -
9 mR�-),)
-� 1 o/ S/G
3 Do =
x �. r
IS
�1�3-N

$b
NH3
0
9
BOD
22
0
INSTREAM DO = 3 MG/L
25-- lO f S
20
15 I
I
10 '
I
5
■�
0
0 2 N4 6 8 10
NH3
0
4
BOD
10
0
INSTREAM DO = 5 MG/L
10
9
8
7 �
6--
5--
4--
3--
2 I
1 �
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
W IY -
Page 1

04/06/93 ver 3.1
Facility:
NPDES Permit No.:
Status (E, P, or M) :
Permitted Flow:
Actual Average Flow:
Subbasin:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
7Q10:
IWC:
Stn'd / Bkg
Pollutant AL Cone.
(ug/1) (ug/1)
--------- -- -------- -------
Cadmium S
Chromium S
Copper AL
Nickel S
Lead S
Zinc AL
Cyanide S
Mercury S
Silver AL
Selenium S
Arsenic S
Phenols S
NH3-N C
T.R.Chlor.AL
Pollutant
Cadmium S
Chromium S
Copper AL
Nickel S
Lead S
Zinc AL
Cyanide S
Mercury S
Silver AL
Selenium S
Arsenic S
Phenols S
NH3-N C
T.R.Chlor.AL
2.0
50.0
7.0
88.0
25.0
50.0
5.0
0.012
0.06
5.00
50.00
NA
17.0
T 0 X I C S R E V I E W
Salisbury WWTP
NCOW12k79' 3 `{
E
7.5 mgd
5.0 mgd
'0 0704
rG..n 1"S CitP.k
doer I--------- PRETREATMENT DATA -------------- I ---- EFLLUENT DATA---- 1
C I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI I
5.8 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + I FREQUENCY I
66.71 % I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronicl
1 Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total I Eflluent Criteria I
I Eff. Load Load Load Load Load I Cone. Violationsl
% (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) I (ug/1) (#vio/#sam)l
92%
76%
66%
32%
81%
1 62%
I 59%
1 86%
1 94 %
0%
40%
0%
0%
0%
I
I
I
0.0
0.3
1.1
0.1
0.3
3.2
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.5
----------- ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D
Effluent Effluent
Cone. using
Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL
Load Criteria Influent
(#/d) (ug/1) (ugh)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
PRDCT'D
Effluent
using
PERMIT
Influent
(ug/1)
1.82
2.998
0.061
0.538
15.21
74.946
2.339
4.788
1.50
10.492
10.968
14.522
9.45
131.905
7.344
15.580
9.60
37.473
3.428
7.728
9.60
74.946
35.119
48.879
0.89
7.495
3.346
7.349
0.01
0.018
0.035
0.000
0.07
0.090
0.416
0.302
0.36
7.495
0.000
0.000
6.08
74.946
1.467
0.000
0.000
12.846
18.454
0.000
25.482
--------
0.03
---------
0.3
-------- I
0.281 1
--------
124.0
---------
I
I
0.41
0.5
0.833 I
11.3
I 1
1.35
0.6
1.782 i
24.0
I N
0.45
0.9
0.956 I
13.0
1 P
0.75
1.4
1.697 I
6.6
I U
3.86
2.1
5.367 1
80.0
1 T
0.34
0.4
0.748 1
10.0
I
0.01
I
16.5
I S
0.29
0.0
0.210 1
11.0
I E
I
I C
0.10
I
I T
0.54
0.3
0.770 I
I
i
I o
I
I
I N
I
PRDCT'D
I
I
--------- MONITOR/LIMIT
---------
I
I
1--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S-- I
Instream
I Recomm'd
I
Cone.
Based on
Based on
Based on
I FREQUENCY
INSTREAM I
using
ACTUAL
PERMITTED
OBSERVED
I Eff. Mon.
Monitor.
OBSERVED
Influent
Influent
Effluent
I based on
Recomm'd ?
(ug/1)
Loading
Loading
Data
I OBSERVED
(YES/NO) I
--------
82.73
--------
Monitor
--------
Limit
---------I
Limit
---------
1 NCAC
-------- I
YES I A
7.54
Monitor
Monitor
Limit
I NCAC
NO 1 N
16.01
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
I Weekly
YES I A
8.67
Monitor
Limit
Monitor
I NCAC
NO I L
4.40
Monitor
Limit
Limit
1 NCAC
NO I Y
53.37
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
1 Monthly
YES I S
6.67
Limit
Limit
Limit
1 NCAC
YES I I
11.01
Limit
Limit
I NCAC
YES I S
7.34
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
I Weekly
YES i
0.00
I
I R
0.00
Monitor
I
I E
0.00
Limit
Limit
1
1 S
0.00
I
I U
0.00
1
i L
I
I T
I
I
I S
I

03 -o?-ac/
FolEwa/ Per pasi, �, u 1. / ,i�SjTn� 4-7 Soc-
rrcR s Rare S ^s can 1A- eo, ,&zr� z.;14(
�1'n 97 cdw7oli`aKG� - CL�l an .� �`k� t e)o cYai'.n. !� �/Ga�kk•-, - �,,��cN�1`
";e- Abe,- i h �CCSSin rj Cc UO
Sp.
u
ID
�S.g
Dec 9 Z
/- K/577Vv G
4-/," 1 7-5
law
7. 5-
%. S'
i3�5-
/ S
315
NK3 -.✓
(o
/ a
IDD
ASS
3b
30
!z- �fr
aC9b
e� 0 c7
/�1
7'r x 4e-574-

— ;7_
7, S �� G✓Gu�� - 7 8 % �c�tesfi c
CBo>
al) l4aAIA-T in
na, /4-7
/1/i�/3 `:,K . � o� �//Z �a ree! o n o [c� ��f �•
7"' X %uSt�i .i� no rt¢t.� Ct v►t tTx cC` li vic ��re vNeH .
t+'� � S /�(-% � �e PP P�b�`s j%�e c, �i -►�. � �s /S3 0 �3 olds
'�``� �� 5 � o u � �ec2� re Y�.•�-a.7 l,'�-�- �3 S to l�v!>s..
r -Al
r
/yle44a.l
c X,u= ks-�- 6 7 % - ocecs,-., , a "6le--3

kf Sy�it/6 LiA l T
Al
All
Nl
&
37
-2-n
/V?
C
m
k)
• 01?
po
m
Q�vn,P,s
FL
3-
%'�
(7�&x • S%re�*-)
3
7�
3%
oIB
Y5j,.
Tit/-(S
,gym-„-4

�� Lam .
fh ��s,•� s��•.ey
45� , �� �
w� � s .-�
<l s7-
„►� X
7p 7 N
�l.oc�c.�
2 E�
r n1P�4trs
C ,/:, e ed 1e4dc a , +r

N n 64t5
14 S fre w1
( I a ? Z '0
Na -01> p o b (i'm s fir-- / 9 9 Z
grants.sys
�
MONTH$
TP
TN
`^�'� o�4e��' az /o%��g
CASE
CASE
1
2
june
0.310
0.580
3.200
1.100
CASE
3
0.430
1.400
CASE
4
0.240
0.820
CASE
5
july
0.450
1.000
CASE
6
0.530
0.500
CASE
7
0.410
0.500
CASE
8
0.760
2.300
CASE
9
aug
1.070
1.400
,
CASE
10
0.930
2.600
CASE
11
0.220
1.900
CASE
12
0.470
1.500
CASE
13
sep
0.940
2.800
CASE
14
0.640
0.100
CASE
15
0.680
3.560
CASE
16
Oct
0.670
2.700
THU 4/15/93 11:46:32 AM C:\SYSTATW5\GRANTS.SYS
TOTAL OBSERVATIONS: 16
TP TN
N OF CASES 16 16
MINIMUM 0.220 0.100
MAXIMUM 1.070 3.560
RANGE 0.850 3.460
MEAN 0.583 1.711
STANDARD DEV 0.251 1.046
> ea "Ido9 Y utulc s .

SUMMER
EXISTING LIMITS
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : TOWN OF SALISBURY
Receiving Stream : GRANTS CREEK
______________________________________________________________________
The End D.O. is 7.32 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 2.49 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.29 mg/l.
______________________________________________________________________
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/l) Milepoint Reach # (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mgd)
_________ _______ ____ ____ __ -----------
Segment 1 1.50 1.40 2
Reach 1 .00 27.00 5.00 7.50000
Reach 2 25.50 31.50 6.00 0.75000
Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000

3k•* * MODEL Jt..il°'il"IAF'Y DATA
*•t#••n:
Dii c1-1a gei- : 'T'CSl.;SN t..1t•= aF=r1._.:tSBlfRY
Receiving Stream w 't:3i='tc-+NTS r::i=EEI•*`
Summer 701?-4 .. 5..7
S1.1bbauiii a 030704
Stream Class: C
Winter 7010 u 12.2
!LENGTH! SLOPE! VELOCITY 1 DEPTH! Kd 1 Kd 1 Ka 1 Ka 1 KN 1 KH 1 KNR 1 KNR 1 SOD 1 SOD 1
1 mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft ldesignl '201 ldesignl @201 ldesignl 3201 ldesignl K00 ldesignl @201 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 1 1 i , r 1 1 i i 11 i 1 1 •
I i f 1 i i 1 1 1 i i 1 . i f
Segment 1 1 0.581 1.251 0.244 1 2.18 1 8.27 1 &1 1 OA4 1 E 4C OA4 1 OAO 1 3.44 1 0.88 1 O JO 1 010 1
Reach 1 i 1 1 : i : 3 i i f 1 i i ii i i- 3 i r
i i i
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i
i i i i 1 i 1 n 1 1 3 '1 1 1 n f i i
S. t 1 (,(p i 1 V 1 75 1 7 1 1 1 O 47 i G21 1 ` i 4 1 1 Cl 1 OJO 1 8.89 1
eg�en 1 1 'J.TF.'�i 1.251 .2-7 1 2.L3 : g.t_7 1 �.2 1 .,. ; �i. 1 �.44 : R.3- i 8.4 i �..tv i 1
Reach 2 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Segment 1 1 8.501 1.251 1.217 1 118 1 017 1 8.22 1 1.49 1 1.341 8.44 1 OAO 1 8.44 1 010 1 8.p8 1 030 1
Reach 3 1 i i 1 1 1 { i 1 i i 1 1 / 1i i 1
1 i 7 i 7 i
1
i'' 1.c.,w
1 t.,[:OD i
P'•IBt:D 1
D . 0.. 1
i
c f 5
i mg l 1. i
mg/.I. 1
mg/.1 i
Segment I Reach
1.
Waste i
11.625
1 45.000 1
27.000 i
5.000
Headwaters!
5.700
1 2.000 1
1�000 1
7.440
.f1-ibt_ttar;•,' 1
Tributary
0.000
i 0.000 1
0.000 1
7.440,
Seca mryn t- 1 Reach 2

Tributyry
1 0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000
1
7.440
* Runoff
.300 |
2.000
<
1.000
|
7.440
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
| 0.000
0.000
i
0.000
|
0.000
Tributary
1921.000 <
2.000
1
1.000
<
7.440
* Runoff
| 0.300 1
2.000
1
1.000
1
7.440
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile
SUMMER
EXISTING LIMITS
1 Seg # 1
Reach # 1
Seg Mi 1
D.O.
1 CBOD |
NBOD 1
FloW �
1
1
0.00
5.80
30.85
18.45
17.32
1
1
0.05
5.61
30.73
18.33
17.34
1
1
0.10
5.43
30.62
18.22
17.35
1
1
0.15
5.24
30.50
18.11
17.36
1
1
0.20
5.06
30.38
18.00
17.37
1
1
0.25
4.88
30.26
17.90
17.38
1
1
0.30
4.70
30.15
17.79
17.39
1
1
0.35
4.53
30.03
17.68
17.40
1
1
0.40
4.35
29.91
17.57
17.41
1
1
0.45
4.18
29.80
17.47
17.42
1
1
0.50
4.01
29.68
17.36
17.43
1
2
0.50
4.14
29.42
18.25
18.59
1
2
0.59
3.85
29.22
18.05
18.61
1
2
0.68
3.56
29.01
17.86
18.64
1
2
0.77
3.28
28.81
17.66
18.67
1
2
0.86
3.01
28.60
17.47
18.70
1
2
0.95
2.74
28.40
17.29
18.72
1
2
1.04
2.48
28.20
17.10
18.75
1
2
1.13
2.23
28.01
16.92
18.78
1
2
1.22
1.98
27.81
16.74
18.80
1
2
1.31
1.74
27.62
16.56
18.83
1
2
1.40
1.50
27.42
16.38
18.86
1
3
1.40
7.32
2.51
1.31
939.86
1
3
1.45
7.32
2.51
1.31
939.87
1
3
1.50
7.32
2.51
1.31
939.09
1
3
1.55
7.32
2.50
1.30
939.90
1
3
1.60
7.32
2.50
1.30
939.92
1
3
1.65
7.32
2.50
1.30
939.93
1
3
1.70
7.32
2.50
1.30
939.95
1
3
1.75
7.32
2.50
1.30
939.96

,
SUMMER
OPERATING AT 10/1/8
SOD/NH3/DO
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : TOWN OF SPENCER SOC
Receiving Stream : GRANTS CREEK
______________________________________________________________________
The End D.O. is 7.41 mg/l. '
The End CBOD is 2.32 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.05 mg/l.
______________________________________________________________________
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/l) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1)
_______ ____
(mg/l)
____
(mg/l)
__
(mgd)
------------
segment 1
______ _________
5.64 1.40 2
Reach 1
30.00
4.00
8.00
7.50000
Reach 2
25.50
31.50
6.00
0.75000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000