NC0034711_Wasteload Allocation_19940308

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0034711
Cedar Park Estates WWTP
Document ape:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload
Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits
Complete File - Historical
Instream Assessment (67B)
Environmental
Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
March 8, 1994
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reYerse side

100% DOMESTIC FACILITIES - REC'D 1/94
RENEWING WITHOUT MODIFICATION
BY MODELER
Permit N Facility
Stream
FINAL LIST
Sub -basin County
Request
Region W,A? MOD ENG Comments
MMV
03/08/94
74756 GREATER BADIN WWTP
34711 CEDAR PARK ESTATES MHP
45471 BARIUM SPRINGS HOME FOR CHILD
77861 D.W. NELSON & ASSOCIATES
25259 CWS/LAMPLIGHTER VILLAGE EAST
35033 CWS/CABARRUS WOODS SUBDIVISION
47091 SILVER MAPLES MOBILE ESTATES
51632 CWS - HUNTWICK WWTP
56201 COUNTRYSIDE MHP
64751 RIVER HILLS ESTATES
LITTLE MOUNTAIN CREEK
REEDY CREEK
DUCK CREEK
WEATHERS CREEK
UT MCKEE CREEK
UT REEDY CREEK
ROCKY RIVER
FUDA CREEK
UT CARAWAY CREEK
ROCKY RIVER
KEYS TO COMMENTS:
Oa. No policy given. Alternatives analysis should be required.
Ob. Facility must meet 5 & 1 (by date given in parenthesis).
0c. Alternatives analysis requested.
Od. Alternatives analysis submitted.
0e. Facility will connect to POTW.
1. Phased permit.
2. Documented instream water quality problems.
3. Facility is requesting modification.
4. WLA should be done per basinwide permitting schedule.
030708
030711
030706
030706
030711
030711
030711
030711
030709
030711
STANLY
CABARRUS
IREDELL
IREDELL
MECKLENBURG
CABARRUS
CABARRUS
CABARRUS
RANDOLPH
CABARRUS
MRO
MRO
MRO
MRO
MRO
MRO
MRO
MRO
WSRO
MRO
MMV JL
MMV MW
MMV MW Alt Anal not received
X MMV SR WLA needed - Not built
MMV SW Oa
X MMV SW No ATC
MMV SW Add fecal = 200 and cl = 28 ug/I, connection clause needed
MMN SW
MMV SW 0a, alt anal needed by 3/94
MMV SW
NOTE: IF X' UNDER "Request WLA7' COLUMN,
THE ENGINEER SHOULD REQUEST A WASTELOAD ALLOCATION.
ALSO, FOR A 'Oa' COMMENT, GIVE CURRENT 7.ERO-FLOW POLICY.
FOR A'0b' COMMENT, GIVE 5 & 1 LIMITS BY DATE IN PARENTHESIS.

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0034711
PERMITTEE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
Mr. C. M. Brown
Ceder Park Estates
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 0.03 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
mobile home park
RECEIVING STREAM: Reedy Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-07-11
Reference USGS Quad: F16SE
County: Cabarrus
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
(please attach)
Previous Exp. Date: 6/30/92 Treatment Plant Class: class I
Classification changes within three miles:
No change within three miles
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Randy Keple Date: 1/13/92
Date: 79 7-
Date:
60Du,s l o°l .) l5 . . (qw)
Modeler
Date Rec. #
SAy✓
bi /9-yz6693
Drainage Area (mil ) 30.3 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 3(c,
7Q10 (cfs) l . Winter 7Q10 (cfs) z .-7 30Q2 (cfs) 3. g
Toxicity Limits: IWC — % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters D. 0. ,
Y
Upstream
Downstream .1
f -1-AI- Co �T . i v Am R- , Co N1![GT I v tT y
Location AT i A9r Ico' (if srrr.E,q-M
Location AT 5(L I1310 �owNSTp�f4ru
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
30
3p
NH -N (mg/1)
3
14.4
z3.c.,
D.O. (mg/1)
—
�.
TSS (mg/1)
30
30
F. Col. (/100 ml)
Zoo
Zoo
pH (SU)
(,- 1
(a - 9
PLOTTED
Comments:
9

91-F— 0.05 /kl...
Coo3
E7,s
/
6usimeco M* P
iAgtof
o.o3M4D
50/30
i;-1=14,47254
WLfI 1%Ol: 51121-NooD /Vi1 P co, PLci ED
/rJ-rtric7rad wry 6 /'(' pm_K, CcL�;a
..el1o( c& OrJ 74/5.
L[1111(75. ; 130.1)c = 3o/3o
Z/cf
603
54. IA)
/4ccoft17EJ h,ic oN11:4-
2tt LAPcj
BF CIVEN
cu(2UAvr L1M/Ts
�r?t &Er N c
No 7/JSTee,A/Z
/1,10N 170 v ( D.
i41; -N rRtcv��R% I/1 C9 Jn) fi'=3 N rf/ree2/Cr70/\1 rel. 8uRL /001 M/P .
C6PAR- P/( Wr(C Po/Jr—Tog UP c —Deo 51-R6y4-At.
C/?way Coog-D(IUA j o a1( re{ (rLv-1001)
1pJ 1741.5 Furui:.), /1 AJ1f02. Pt/ .J(TH ( 'i /.RL`W�LL k..

•• •
NI Coo 7 ti 6,673
°Arc (5:xi:Es
03d71(
"c(f
I t
1. 21 *-1641
2-
PY
PI stWilakaz5
QFPL.cEFF,
060-1+
C(0,-03 4 0.03)1. 551 cThr 6* e).E2-7:Acjilrizaulj-D
QtX-F (eFrs 4- Qu, 4g3ki
Irx
03- f O. 03) • 1. 55' ".
CTOf 14: 4_ -a/i = 7, 2-1 Y
.1- To Ah/3_-/k) 6ttOvarti31-6 For,- VACit "Dt5CILIVI-LE-12-; 5,44 *AM-Y
(414. 'Vt. (cift,vrieg--)
FO (A) INTea- fid3 C7f19.4 2.1)
FAC/ (TY CflocCe- /367wEeN *3. 41 ni rr e) _ropcfry 7E.SVAL4_ nr 2 . S

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:
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Cedar Park Estates
NC0034711
Domestic - 100%
Existing
Renewal
Reedy Creek
C
030711
Cabarrus F�}
MRO
R. Kepler
1/13/92
F16SE
Request # 93
s. c6D OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND
OOMMUNI EV DEVELOPM N*
MAR 1 1 1992
IIYISICN OF EkVIRONMESTAI INANASEMr
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
0212431950
1986
30.3
1.6
2.7
36.0
3.8
2.8
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
This facility is directly downstream from Burlwood MHP (WLA completed 6/91). Ammonia
interaction was taken into account between these two dischargers. Instream monitoring is
recommended due to problems on Reedy Creek.
Cedar Park is meeting current limits. NH3-N values are elevated.
Basin management plan should take problem areas into account in the future. Due to current
regulations and policy, the existing limits will be renewed. The facility should have choice
between ammonia li t and whole effluent toxicity limit. GYO
rOttlf
5hour rn-1-a f -i/a cUf sct- t /-�"�ul�
�c� i *Ufr � y C2oEiCjl i . , Y
dE bid
r�5� �te�'� i lc�� 11 aiod
Special Schedule Requi`fements and additional comments from ewers:
W
77
Recommended by:XiA444.._.
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Date:
02/9-
Regional Supervisor: IY2 Date: 3/a./17a--
Permits & Engineering: . -ww� Date: 51/3/ /
(200,14-„Iantattivig- Date:
S/U2ArL6 infh4
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: MAR 3 1 1992
4.14/gz_ A.N. (Af-o) skin 40 LIB rJy�-N ttAttr.

2
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Existing Liinits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):30 30
Fecal Col. 1100 ml): 1000 1000
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/l):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Recommended Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1); 30 30
Fecal Col. 100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/l):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
Toxici testin : ** Chronic QtrlyP/F at 2.8%
Toxicity g
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
0.03 0.03
30 30
NOTE: Cep
quarterly to
**
Monthly Average
Summer Winter WQ or EL
0.03 0.03
30 30 WQ
14.4 23.6 WQ (AT)
or Park should have choice between ammonia limit of 14.4/23.6 (sum/win) or chronic
'city testing at 2.8%. Region should inform Tech Support of facilities choice.
Limits Changes Due To: Parameter(s) Affected
New regulations/standards/procedures Fecal coli, NH3-N/tox
X Parimeter(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 1in4tations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
OR
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

3
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: at least 100 ft upstream
Downstream Location: will not require
Parameters: DO, Fecal coliform, temperature, conductivity
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the faciity de m strated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes ti/ No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Wo
"phasingbe d a in"of the new limits appropriate? Yes No V
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
XrAe e_ fatc-47,-).7r,ie iriej5 44eicA C10,4 rISA4r4Cier%
n-LaN n:T or � » c b 1.r1 c ,i c1e, j r� -��'+� t��r1 E*'�.s mod. re,
rnan: #e ion S,a.•��d sae. ac c o S o.
If no, why not?
Me -Cac.i i-14 e ca S; rrwe
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
assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? N (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.