NC0026271_Regional Office Historical File Pre 2018 (28)

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0026271
PERMITTEE NAME: Town of Taylorsville
FACILITY NAME: _Taylorsville WWTP
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor -4
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 0.43 MGD X. C. DEPT. OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %O POAMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Industrial (% of Flow): FEB 1992
Comments:
DIVISION 6F ENUI:InFAMITAL NK's'MILUT
90ORWi IiE P.E6IXIM OFFICE
RECEIVING STREAM: Lower Little River
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-08-32
Reference USGS Quad: D14NW (please attach)
County. Alexander
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 11/30/91 Treatment Plant Class: class II
Classification changes within three miles:
No change within three miles.
Requested by: Randy Kepler
Prepared by:
'Reviewed
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
iZ 9l
4G4
Drainage Area (miz) 73.3 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): XAJ
7Q10 (cfs) /4.1 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 25: 3 30Q2 (cfs) 35: 2-
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Date: 12/11/91
Date: 9z Comments: -
Date: ,9_0
/ ?-: pZ�-
Parameters
Upstream Location
Downstream Location
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
go
30
NH3-N (mg/1)
17
`tto�rt�vr
D.O..(mg/1)
!1i
n ✓
TSS (mg/1)
30
30
F. Col. (/100 ml)
Zd 0
20a
PH (SU)
6-7
(— 9
5J �011►�.,y k�D.r• 6
1,1

PFT
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Request # 6645
Facility Name:
Taylorsville WWTP
14. C. DEPT. OF NATURAL
NPDES No.:
NCO026271
RESOURCES AND
Type of Waste:
Domestic -100%
OOMMUNITT DEVEt.OP;TENT
Facility Status:
Existing
JAN 2 9 1992
Permit Status:
Renewal
Receiving Stream:
Lower Little River
Stream Classification:
C
$MSION OF ENVIROP f"
Subbasin:
030832
MOORESVILLE REIZIM OFFICE
County:
Alexander
94C
Stream Characteristic:
Regional Office:
Mooresville
USGS #
Requestor:
Kepler
Date:
Date of Request:
12/13/91
Drainage Area (mi2): 73.3
Topo Quad:
D14NW
Summer 7Q10 (cfs): 14.4
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 25.3.
Average Flow (cfs): 84.3
30Q2 (cfs): 35.2
IWC (%): 4.4
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Facility requesting renewal of existing NPDES permit. Technical Support recommends that facility
be given the NH3 choice option of existing limits w/ toxicity test, or summer /wintetNH3 limits.
FQ,ee.It w,*1I �uuW leyer eof&rMiy Ch/or;w * ;it
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by: Date:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment: ��ftJ�-�.� , Date:a�-
Regional Supervisor: 7 C '012 --7Date:
r-
Permits & Engineering: Date: %
. RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:

2
CONVENTIONAL. PARAMETERS
Existing Limits:
Monthly Average
comer in er
Wasteflow (MGD):
0.43
BOD5 (mg/1):
30
NH3N (mg/1):
nr
DO (mg/1):
nr
TSS (mg/l):
30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
1000
pH (SU):
6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mom).
TN (mg/1):
/tiN� /ice �G`iosfiJ 6�,/�'s�•/lf-/°`'�
Recommended Limits:
,
Monthly Average with
Monthly Average with
Toxicity Test
Ammonia Limit
ummer Winter
Summer Winter
W r EL
Wasteflow (MGD):
0.43
0.43 0.43
BOD5 (mg/l):
30
30 30
WQ
N113N (mg/l):
nr
17.8 monitor
WQ
DO (mg/l):
nr
nr nr
TSS (mg/1):
30
30 30
WQ
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
200
200 200
WQ
pH (SU):
6-9
6-9 6-9
WQ
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/l):
TP (mgft
TN (mgft
Toxicity test (P/F):
Chronic @ 4.4%
Limits Changes Due To: Parameter(s) Affected
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Instream data
New regulations/standards/procedures
New facility information
I / l
X_ Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For a load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. I ality based
A `effluent limitations for additional dischargers withi
- OR
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

3
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location:
Downstream Location:
Parameters:
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility de onstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes V 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
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) N_ (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
g , assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
At
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.