NC0023884_Wasteload Allocation_19940520

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0023884
PERMITTEE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
City of Salisbury
Grants Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity:
7.50 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow):
Industrial (% of Flow):
78 %
22 %
Comments:
Pretreatment info requested. Percent industrial flow is based on
permitted flow and SIU flows reported in application.
RECEIVING STREAM: Grants Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-07-04
Reference USGS Quad: E 17 NW (please attach)
County: Rowan
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 12/31/90 Treatment Plant Class: Class IV
Classification changes within three miles:
none
L�c0.s
Requested by: -eh i"+owc Date: 4/14/93
Prepared by: � Date: 3
11
Reviewed by: i , a.tr Date:
Modeler
Date Rec.
I #
6AJ
rS 9 s
o
2
Drainage Area (mi ) 1--5- 9 Avg. Streamflow (cfs):
7Q10 (cfs) Winter 7Q10 (cfs) //. 5-1 30Q2 (cfs) 167-15-
Toxicity Limits: IWC , % Acut me
Instream Monitoring: K - 1!5.&
P
Parameters l e , 77G,� Co �, �U�r, �YI`/,_�VHi , /Uvk
Upstream Location`,95 r}- &,bore occAal(
Downstream '' Locatioabore S1je.7cP- i✓wrPw,-f4l1
hl—/- 0 dw1e,JA, -., s:/* z mom - of ,.-«. fs ('„eeK.
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
i ✓,
NH3-N (mg/1)
l
D.O. (mom)
.5—
S'
TSS (mg/1)
41)
F. Col. V100 ml)
pH (SU)'-
`I
�-
p�fra�i ems, dad
wcni
R rc a tle
7
Comments: Alelyrrn2 - Cam, Zh , T ,
ur a •n�nfynuna�taceKf D/r�.� -ni
5Z '��<.lc L�c�N; Sr`a�c -a• vtu 14- ✓ rxc��al
be re�caleer. Laa�
wo.
062
kv-

FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Request # 7410
Facility Name:
City of Salisbury WWTP N C DEPT. OF
H&ALTIL
NPDES No.:
NCO023884
RONM N'rI
RESOURGES
Type of Waste:
Domestic/ Industrial
&NATURAL
Facility Status:
Existing
APR 25 jqu
Permit Status:
Renewal
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Grants Creek
C
��t
0
{�ViSIDtI OfEI
E AE6 ONAI
Subbasin:
03-07-04
t140RESVIL
County:
Rowan
Stream Characteristic:
Regional Office:
Mooresvillw
USGS #
Requestor:
Charles Lowe
Date:
Date of Request:
9/28/92
Drainage Area (mi2): 65.8
Topo Quad:
E17NW
Summer 7Q10 (cfs): 5.8
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 12.4
Average Flow (cfs): 79
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%): 67
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, corresponaence wltn region. gra. erc.
There were no observed DO violations instream during the summer of 1992. However, the plant has
acheived better than permitted limits. Instream violations occured in 1991. Facility is working to alleviate
sludge build-up in the plant which has caused mercury violations. Facility failed toxicity tests in Dec 1992.
In a 1989-1990 survey of High Rock lake, Grants Creek was ranked second among tributaries for nutrient
impairment. There is little available dilution (1.5:1) for wastewater. In addition, the creek below the
WWTP is very slow moving so there is ample retention time for algal growth. Algal blooms are frequent
below the WWTP. Upon completion of a nutrient management plan for High Rock Lake, nutrient limits
may be required. Relocation of the discharge to the Yadkin River is recommended in order to allow for
expansion of the WWTP and to provide better assimilation of the wastewater.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments frfrom
Prepared by: -0 -- Dater
tsy Johnson
Reviewed by � ^ , ����
Instream Assessment: �. (�Lt Date: �D
Regional Supervisor:�G- 'D /2 /?IS Date:
Permits & Engineering: Date: 9
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: iY i 1994
- fLo - /. -Z lw�/
Kaio WLA plaj j

r
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Existing Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1)
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
IN (mg/1):
Recommended Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. V100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1)
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
7.5
7.5
15
30
6
12
5
5
30
30
200
200
6-9
6-9
monitor
monitor
monitor
I monitor
monitor
I monitor
Grants Creek
Monthly Average
Rummer Winter
7.5
7.5
15
30
6
12
5
5
30
30
200
200
6-9
6-9
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
A nutrient management plan for High Rock Lake is currently being developed
which may require nutrient controls at this facility.:V- 15 /14(( A T7Prant-not reliCQkd
to `adelnl 4,e. twMex�-/,m,6 cell &- 51ottz-oP fhe-ad. X5
TOXICS/METALS
Type of Toxicity Test: Chronic, quarterly
Existing Limit: 67%
Recommended Limit: 67% (Grants Creek)
Monitoring Schedule: Mar, Jun, Sep, Dec

Existing Limits
Cadmium (ug/1):
Chromium (ug/1):
Copper (ug/1):
Nickel (ug/1):
Lead (ug/1):
Zinc (ug/1):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Aluminum (ug/1):
Fluoride (mg/1):
Mercury (ug/1):
Chlorides (mg/1):
Toluene (ug/1):
TDS (mg/1):
Silver (ug/1):
7.5 mgd
Daily max WO or EL
monitor
75
W
monitor
monitor
37
W
monitor
monitor
monitor
2.7
W
0.018
W
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
Recommended Limits
7.5 mgd
Dailv max WO or EL
Cadmium (ug/1):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Mercury (ug/1):
Chromium (ug/1):
Nickel (ug/1):
Lead (ug/1):
Aluminum (ug/1):
Copper (ug/1):
Zinc (ug/1):
Iron (ug/1):
TDS (mg/1):
Silver (ug/1):
Toxics were reevaluated based on observed DMR data and new EPA methods. Limits are
required for cadmium, cyanide, and mercury based on observed and predicted exceedances
of the water quality allowable levels. Chromium, nickel, lead, and aluminum will -be
monitored through the long-term monitoring plan. The observed and predicted values are
lower than the allowable levels with the exception of aluminum which greatly exceeds the
allowable but which has no state standard. Monthly monitoring is recommended for
copper, zinc, iron, and silver due to high levels observed in the effluent.

,
Limits Changes Due To:
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
New pretreatment information
Failing toxicity test
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Parameter(s) Affected
toxics, new method
_x_ Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the
available load capacity of the immediate receiving water will be consumed.
This may affect future water quality based effluent limitations for additional
dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
X'
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect
future allocations.
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Grants Creek discharge
Upstream Location: 25 feet above the outfall
Downstream Location: 1. above the. Spencer WWTP outfall
2. at the mouth of Grants Creek
Parameters: Temp, DO, Fecal, Cond
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
at downstream site 2: June -Sept. (1/wk), TP, PO4, TKN, NH3-N, NOx
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with
existing treatment facilities? Yes No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:

If no, why not?
Special Instructions or Conditions
:m �5 Cu✓iea��l y toofA�n 00_ a- n�dfn� model of M h f�cxk (cam,, u '� Ct�mjae&)vu
of 4he model a cj acfapbi2 of nine. lnanayzn&� 64QWe,5 A3 p�mrf mmy b�
reo�d IDDinclude- adned 11m,45,
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not
modeled, then old assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits
into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with
attachments.

Facility Name 1aysuz, -e �& Permit # 13 k '`f Pipe # Oct!
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity 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 6 7 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
r r monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
My . J L. Sr-iP, T>Ec . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (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
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
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.
7Q10 _57 Jt' cfs
Permitted Flow 7. S MGD
IWC ; G 7 % %
Basin & Sub -basin 63 - 07- D Y
Receiving Stream G',-an!!Sj
County Flo&w,✓
Recommended by:
Date 4113V
QCL PlF Version 9191

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED WL n FOR cp L T !c�PTJRY ' c
GRANT CREEK WWTP
The staff of this Office has had an opportunity to review
the attached WLA Approval For d the following owi g comments are
_ a_ a:h__. ..__ r _m an•_. __ n� _
offered.
Substantial documentation exists regarding the level of Wn
found in both High Rock rake and its tributaries. As stated in
the management recommendations for High pock Lake, impairment is
consistent throughout the lake with violation of turbidity,
chlorophyll -a and a documented proliferation of algae blooms.
Additional nutrient loading from point Sources is expected, to
only exacerbate the blooms:. This reservoir, being the -first on
the Yadkin chain, also acts as a settling basin for the nutrient
rich -sediments that are deposited from upstream nonpoint sources;
a trend likely to continue unless Strict best management %
practices are implemented, according to the management -l.an'for ,(,-
High Rock, all new or expanding dischargers ,as roe I as =11 S
existing major dischargers? should be required to construr't
state-of-the-art nutrient removal technology to mPet limits of bc- J
0.5 mg! l TP and 4 mg; l TN. / T
Rased on the above information, not requiring Salisbury to
install nutrient removal_ technology would appear to be t=k __ a
significant step backward In the protection of WQ within this
reservoir. Having known for some time that nutrient removal is a
major issue for point source dischargers in this basin, City
officials are expecting nutrient limits to be placed in the
Permit upon renewal. These limits will allow the City to gather
support for passage of bonds needed to fund the construction of a
new state-of-the-art TX?WTP complete with nutrient remn-1,7al
technology. The rity's two existing TA?WTPs are antiquated and will
require a significant expenditure to upgrade to meet current
standards, not to mention future constraints that may be imposed.
Therefore failure to incorporate nutrient limits into the Permit
during this ,renewal period allows little i nre_nti ve for Sal i sburlr
to pursue the abandonment of the existing facilities bse _ a
L1,: .1L eP.t
to the constriction of a new WWTP o,r7 upgrading the existing
Wu?TPs, an option ,tie feel cure they do not want to consider For
these reasons., we cannot concur with the WLA as submitted

Note for Betsy Johnson
From: Ruth Swanek on Wed, May 18, 1994 4:19 PM
Subject: Salisbury
To: Dave Goodrich
Cc: Betsy Johnson; Coleen Sullins; Don Safrit
I talked to MIke Parker today. He really wants nutrient limits
in Salisbury's permit. He indicated that Town wants them to
help them get bond money. He is going to call town and tell
them limits will not be included and to send a letter requesting
them if they really want them.
He said that if limits are not included in permit, he would like
to see a special cover letter written to facility to send out
with permit. The letter should state that DEM is currently
performing nutrient study on High Rock Lake, and that
preliminary findings indicate that it is likely that Salisbury
will receive nutrient limits and that there is a good.
possibility that they will be state of the art. He also wants
to let them know what type of time frame they will have to come
into compliance with limits once strategy established (i.e. he
stated 2 years from date strategy adopted; for NSW we have done
5 for many waterbodies). We should probably fax him a copy of
the letter we will send out.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any help
from our end. Thanks.
Page: 1

April 15, 1994
►JI 8 6 ►I�� P�
TO: . Monica Swihart
FROM: Betsy Johnson
THROUGH: Steve Bevington
Ruth Swanek
SUBJECT: Salisbury Environmental Assessment
The report discusses Grants Creek and Yadkin River but makes little reference to'Town Creek.
The relocation is to eventually remove a discharge from Town Creek also. Discussion of current
water quality in Town Creek and removal of the discharge should be included.
As ususual for an environmental assessment for a discharge system this document has only one
page about water quality impacts. There is a great deal of historical water quality information
available on High Rock Lake. In addition, there is a recent High Rock Lake water quality report
by Environmental Sciences. Data on Grants Creek and Town Creek are covered as well as the
lake data. There is also quite a bit of self -monitoring data on Grants and Town Creek which
should be summarized.
The no -action alternative should inlcude a discussion of the age of the existing plants and be
more specific about the existing compliance problems and parameters which may not be treated
properly in the future, i.e., BOD, NH3, nutrients, DO...
There should be amore complete discussion of the new wastewater treatment plant. What type
of plant is it? What kind of removal efficiencies will it have?
Though the new plant has not received permit limits yet, there should be a discussion of
speculative limits. DEM provided a letter with speculative limits in February 1993. Speculative
limits were provided for BOD5, NH3, and DO. Dechlorination or alternate disinfection will be
required. Nutrient removal is recommended due to eutrophication in High Rock Lake.
Chemical specific limits will be based on Salisbury's pretreatment program and final diffuser
design. Modeling and design for the diffuser are currently in progress.
There should be a short discussion of mitigation of acute impacts by discharging through a
diffuser which will increase near field mixing. In addition, the facility will be required to
conduct quarterly toxicity testing. This will likely be a chronic test at a percentage based on
near field dilution.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at Ext. 508.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Steven J. Levitas, Deputy Secretary
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0535
FAX:[phone]
FAX TO: I A i Vr FaIFAX NUMBER: ► 4VO 1
FROM: -f5i Sc-Dk-.sue
PHONE: [phone]
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: v
� �i/01�0 Z 'of
a's �� �� y
A41Ivy
l y .
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
City of Salisbury WWTP
NCO023884
Domestic/ Industrial
Existing
Renewal
Grants Creek
C
03-07-04
Rowan
Mooresville
Charles Lowe
9/28/92
E17NW
Wasteload Allocation Summary
Request # 7410
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2): 65.8
Summer 7Q10 (cfs): 5.8
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 12.4
Average Flow (cfs): 79
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%): 67
(approach taken. correspondence with region. EPA. etc.)
There were no observed DO violations instream during the summer of 1992. However, the plant has
acheived better than permitted limits. Instream violations occured in 1991. Facility is working to alleviate
sludge build-up in the plant which has caused mercury violations. Facility failed toxicity tests in Dec 1992.
In a 1989-1990 survey of High Rock lake, Grants Creek was ranked second among tributaries for nutrient
impairment. There is little available dilution (1.5:1) for wastewater. In addition, the creek below the
WWTP is very slow moving so there is ample retention time for algal growth.
`tie VUf - n UPsv. aV% p� 0. ri���p�n�' vtncw�a�w--'�' �r�— 4-.�✓
I(�c� L-., Fes- Gw�--+.5 C^_'L' .-- VjW ­%( r -jai r c s -(.. �4„ro � r►�(N� �i� S
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by: (�r ' ` `� Date: g `�
Betsy J o nson
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:
Date:
Date:
Date:

CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
7.5
7.5
15
30
6
12
5
5
30
30
200
200
6-9
6-9
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
Grants Creek
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
0®
11
11
Yadkin River
-All
Yadkin River
u
)ACOUHP. Theu
our . A nutrient management plan for High Rock Lake is
currently being developed—►jk i't L. ��I r� ��r;er►� ca,�k„o (� a� �—
Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit:
Recommended Limit:
TOXICS/METALS
Chronic, quarterly
67%
67% (Grants Creek)

Monitoring Schedule: Mar, Jun, Sep, Dec
Existing Limits
7.5 mgd
Dailv max WO or EL
Cadmium (ug/1):
Chromium (ug/1):
Copper (ug/1):
Nickel (ug/1):
Lead (ug/1):
Zinc (ug/1):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Aluminum (ug/1):
Fluoride (mg/1):
Mercury(ug/1):
Chlorides (mg/1):
Toluene (ug/1):
TDS (mg/1):
Silver (ug/1):
monitor
75
W
monitor
monitor
37
W
monitor
monitor
monitor
23
W
0.01.8
W
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
Recommended Limits
7.5 mgd
Cadmium (ug/1):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Mercury (ug/1):
Chromium (ug/1):
Nickel (ug/1):
Lead (ug/1):
Aluminum (ug/1):
Copper (ug/1):
Zinc (ug/1):
Iron (ug/1):
TDS (mg/1):
Silver (ug/1):
Dailv max WO or EL
3 1 W
7.5 W
0.018 W
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
Toxics were reevaluated based on observed DMR data and new EPA methods. Limits are
required for cadmium, cyanide, and mercury based on observed and predicted exceedances
of the water quality allowable levels. Chromium, nickel, lead, and aluminum will be
monitored through the long-term monitoring plan. The observed and,predicted values are
lower than the allowable levels with the exception of aluminum which greatly exceeds the
allowable but which has no state standard. Monthly monitoring is recommended for
copper, zinc, iron, and silver due to high levels observed in the effluent.

Limits Changes Due To:
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
New pretreatment information
Failing toxicity test
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Parameter(s) Affected
toxics, new method
_x_ Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the
available load capacity of the immediate receiving water will be consumed.
This may affect future water quality based effluent limitations for additional
dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect
future allocations.'
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Grants Creek discharge
Upstream Location: 25 feet above the outfall
Downstream Location: 1. above the Spencer W ;TP outfall
2. at the mouth of Grants Creek
Parameters: Temp, DO, Fecal, Cond
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
at downstream site 2: June -Sept. (1/wk), TP, PO4, TKN, NH3-N, NOx
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
. Ad�uacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with
existing treatment facilities? Yes. No
If no, which parameters cannot. be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes . No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:

J
If no, why not?
IMMI-IMOMMMO MOM 1
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not
modeled, then old assumptions that were made, and description df how it fits
into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with
attachments.

Facility Name Salisbury - Grants
NPDES # 23884
Qw (MGD) 7.5
7010s (cfs) 5.8
IWC (%) 66.71
Recwing Stream Grants Creek
Stream Class C
-7.
Ace�� -
- S%
I / 3Z
Tn 4,
INf',� e_
v, 3
TI, i7,
P�
Cr
YvtU�`Jey�
Ole4
Toxics Spreadsheet
pb
cu
zn
al
cr
ni
hg
fe
ag
CN
cd
1
10
32
360
2.8
16
0.1
640
2.5
5
0.2
1
3.44
0.1
780
1
2.7
1
530
1
3.35
0.1
810
2.76
9
38
320
2.34
16
0.1
790
2.1
5
0.13
1
0.1
730
1
0.1
780
1
0.1
810
0.1
1
19
1
594
6.45
6
0.1
860
3
80
0.05
1
10.35
0.1
840
1
8.29
0.1
990
1
5.35
0.1
1030
1
4.81
0,1
72
1
34
39
480
4.9
5
0.1
420
2
40
381
1
6.4
0.1
440
1
8.8
0.1
1000
1
6.2
0.1
1000
0.1
1
16
28
340
3.2
3
0.1
525
5
5
0.1
5
0.1
350
3.5
0.1
409
1
0.1
380
0.1
0.5
20
33.4
432
3.5
5.1
0.1
480
4.2
5
0.2
0.5
0.1
390
2.6
0.1
450
0.5
0.1
420
0.5
450
1
22
44
500
11
6.1
0.39
1060
1.5
5
0.2
2.5
4.3
0.1
950
2.9
5
0.1
1040
0.5
4.7
0.1
1030
0.5
14
44
154
2.28
4
0.1
719
3.9
5
0.4
I
DMR data only

Toxics Spreadsheet
0.5
18
32
284
2.92
5
0.1
834
0.3
0.5
18
32
214
2.76
5
0.1
761
0.3
2.38
3.88
0.1
873
0.5
3.76
0.61
830
0.5
5.16
2.5
10
24.8
368
5
4
0.1
638
4
5 0.3
2.5
5
0.36
643
2.5
5
0.3
653
2.5
5
0.55
738
0.5
12
24
370
2.6
2
0.1
494
1.5
5 0.2
0.5
2.98
0.23
433
1.5
0.5
2.94
0.1
513
1.5
1.99
3.22
0.2
668
1.5
0.5
12
25
316
1.14
3
0.1
640
10
5 0.1
0.5
1.28
0.1
590
10
0.5
0.5
0.1
380
10
0.5
6.32
1.23
530
10
n 5
2.42
0.4
350
10
number samples
49
13
P4q4
13
39
13
50
48
18
11
13
max
5
34594
11
16
1.23
1060
10
80
381
standard
25
7
1 50
1 147
50
88
0.012
1
0.06
5
2
nh cu zn al cr ni ha fe as CN Cd
std dev
0.98
6.49
10.70
113.46
2.29
4.35
0.22
231.34
3.46
22.86
101.47
mean
1.26
16.46
30.55
364.00
4.41
6.17
0.19
661.31
4.68
15.00
29.50
cv
0.78
0.39
0.35
0.31
0.52
0.70
1.20
0.35
0.74
1.52
3.44
mult. fact.
2
2
1.9
1 1.7
1.7
3.1
2.5
1 1.4
2.8
8
15
I `• Wi 4a . q 4 / . 1 S'
Max. Pred.
1 10
1 68
1 83.6 1
1010
1 18.7
1 49.6
13,075
1 1484
1 28
1 640
1 5715
Allowable
37.5
10.5
74.9
220.3
74.9
131.9
0.0
1.5
0.1
7.5
3.0
C�
LT -
LIT pl"AV P lAAJ
ekn 1
DMR data only