NC0039187_Wasteload Allocation_19921029

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NCO039187
PERMITTEE NAME: Lone Star Equities
FACILITY NAME: Valley View Shopping Center
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor �1
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 0.010 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
4
refer: Basinwide / Streamline 'WLA file
at front of subbasin
STREAM INDEX: 6-76 a tgy
RECEIVING STREAMCreek -A
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 04-03-02
Reference USGS Quad: E8SW, Enka (please attach)
County: Buncombe
Regional Office: Asheville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 10/31/92 Treatment Plant Class: I
Classification changes within three miles:
ca. 30 - 40 mi.
Requested
Prepared f
Reviewed
-Aot>w —_
Date: 9/1/92
Date: /a z7 j L.
Date:
Modeler
I Date Rec.
I #
I F15-1qAT7oa
3
Drainage Area (mi` ) 0. S Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 6,5
7Q10 (cfs) 0. /.2 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 0. / C 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters
Upstream Location
Downstream Location
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
30
36
NH3-N (mg/1)
7 (4T
/$ 6�7_
D.O. (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
30
30
F. Col. (/100 ml)
z00
zao
PH (SU)
N lid
Comments:

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
Valley View Shopping Center
NC0039187
Domestic - 100%
Existing
Renewal
Hominy Creek
C
040302
Buncombe
Asheville
Shanklin
9/2/92
EBSW
Request # 7093
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
0.5
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
0.12
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0.16
Average Flow (cfs):
0.5
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
11
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Facility requesting renewal of existing NPDES permit. Technical Support recommends that facility
be given NH3 Choice Option of summer/winter NH3 limits or toxicity testing requirement.
Facility will be sent chlorine letter regarding chlorine toxicity.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
i
Recommended by:/ Date:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Su s r:
Permits & En erin
Kim
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:
10/7/92
1 1992
Y
►. a• �,t,.,� �t�u�t�
. at .
p�Z �� REco

2
CONVENTION
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):
TN (mg/1):
Recommended 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):
TN (mg/1):
Toxicity test (P/F):
0.010
301
m
30
10
0.010
nr
30
Limits Changes Due To:
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
Other (onsite toxicity study, in1
Instream data
New regulations/standards/pro
New facility information
Winter
PARAMETERS
gg with Monthly Average
with
Ammonia Limit
Winter Summer
inter
0.010
0.010
30
30
7
18
30
30
200
200
6-9
6-9
monitor
monitor
P/F @ 11 %
etc.)
Parameter(s) Affected
or EL
WQ
WQ,AT
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.
•0
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location:
Downstream Location:
Parameters:
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
AAd cluacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility de onstrated the abilityJ� meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes T No C
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?
RrM�FRVN• • • . •
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 de cription of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? 0 (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

valley view shopping center
AMMONIA ANALYSIS
7Q10: 0.1200 cfs
NH3 Effl. Conc: 6.9000 mg/1
AL (1/1.8 mg/1): 1000.00 ug/1
Upstream NH3 Conc.: 220.0000 ug/1
Design Flow: .0.0100 MGD
Predicted NH3 Downstream: 984.13 ug/l
0.984132 mg/1
NH3 Limit: 7038.709 ug/1
7.038709 mg/1
AMMONIA ANALYSIS (WINTER)
7Q10: 0.1600 cfs
NH3 Effl. Conc: 6.9000 mg/1
AL (1/1. 8 mg/1) : 1800.00 ug/1
Upstream NH3 Conc.: 220.0000 ug/1
Design Flow: 0.0100 MGD
Predicted NH3 Downstream: 809.97 ug/l
0.809971 mg/1
NH3 Limit: 18109.67 ug/1
18.10967 mg/1

valley view shopping center
CHLORINE
7Q10: 0.1200
CL2 Effl. Conc: 1.5000
AL (17/19 ug/1) : 17.0000
Upstream CL2 Conc.: 0.0000
Design Flow: 0.0100
Predicted CL2 Downstream: 171.59
0.171586
CL2 Limit: 148.6129
0.148612
ANALYSIS
cfs
mg/l
ug/l
ug/l
MGD
ug/l
mg/1
ug/l
mg/l