NC0024228_Speculative Limits_20091110

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING COVER SNEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0024228
High Point Westside WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
November 10, 2009
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the rezrerse side

147A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
November 10, 2009
Mr. W. Chris Thompson, P.E.
Director of Public Services
City of High Point
P.O. Box 230
211 South Hamilton Street
High Point, North Carolina 27261
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits
High Point-Westside WWTP
Permit No. NC0024228
Davidson County
Dear Mr. Thompson:
In a letter dated September 2, 2009, the City of High Point requested speculative limits to increase its
current permitted flow at its Westside WWTP from 6.2 MGD to 10 MGD. In conjunction with the proposed
plant upgrade/expansion, the City is also proposing a stream restoration project to ultimately improve
instream dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. The City contracted with consultants to perform extensive stream
sampling and water quality modeling, in order to predict the water quality impacts in Rich Fork Creek
following the proposed plant expansion combined with proposed stream restoration activities. While the
model does predict an improvement in downstream dissolved oxygen following the proposed activities, there
is recognized uncertainty in the model, particularly with regard to predictions based on stream restoration
benefits. In light of this uncertainty, this response for speculative limits is presented as a phased approach.
Speculative limits are provided for an initial 2 MGD expansion to 8.2 MGD, with the understanding that
proposed stream restoration activities would be implemented and the model predictions verified during this
initial phase. If stream improvements in DO fall short of model projections, the City should consider the
addition of dissolved oxygen augmentation to the effluent as an alternative strategy. Speculative limits are
also presented for the proposed final expansion to 10 MGD, which would only be allowed to proceed pending
positive instream improvements.
Receiving Stream. Rich Fork Creek has a stream classification of C. Waters with this classification have a
best usage for aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. Rich Fork Creek is currently listed as an impaired waterbody on the North
Carolina 303(d) Impaired Streams List. Past water quality parameters of concern have included dissolved
oxygen and fecal coliform, and the stream will be listed as impaired for biological integrity in the final 2008
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterauality.orq •
North Carolina
Naturally

• •
303d list. Rich Fork Creek ultimately drains into High Rock Lake, which is listed on the 303(d). list as
impaired for chlorophyll -a and turbidity.
Speculative Limits. The speculative limits were developed based on Division staff recommendation and
consideration of the development of the High Rock Lake total maximum daily load (TMDL). Based on
available information, speculative effluent limits for the expanded discharges of 8.2 and 10 MGD to Rich
• Fork Creek are presented in Tables 1 and 2. A complete evaluation of these limits and monitoring
requirements for metals and other toxicants will be addressed upon receipt of a formal NPDES permit
application.
BOD/NH3 Limits. Given the low instream dissolved oxygen levels reported in Rich Fork Creek, these
speculative limits are based on freezing current permitted BOD ultimate loading (i.e., facility will not be
allowed to discharge oxygen -consuming waste above what is currently permitted). The resultant limits at
expanded flows are considered technologically -feasible.
Nutrient Limits. A TMDL to address nutrient loading to High Rock Lake is projected to be completed in
September 2010. In this interim period prior to TMDL finalization, these speculative nutrient limits are based
on EPA guidance for impaired waters: 1) for total phosphorus (TP) which has mass limits in the current
permit, freeze the current permitted TP mass load at expanded flows; and 2) for total nitrogen (TN) which has
no limits in the current permit, freeze the actual TN mass load based on the historical loading from January
2007 through August 2009. The final TMDL results will ultimately override these speculative limits, and may
result in more stringent nutrient requirements.
TABLE 1. Speculative Limits for High Point Westside WWTP, Expanded flow of 8.2 MGD
Effluent Characteristic
Effluent Limitations
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Daily Maximum
Flow
8.2 MGD
BOD5
4.9 mg/L
7.4 mg/L
NH3 as N
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen (minimum)
7.0 mg/L
.TSS
30 mg/L .
45 mg/L
TRC
17 ug/ 1
Fecal coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Total Phosphorus
13,341 lbs/year (annual load)
Total Nitrogen
159,870 lbs/year (annual load)
Chronic Toxicity Pass/Fail
(Quarterly test)
90%
Note: At 8.2 MGD, nutrient load limits are equal to TP = 0.53 mg/1, and TN = 6.4 mg/1.

TABLE 2, Speculative Limits for High Point Westside WWTP,.Expanded flow of 10.0 MGD
Effluent Characteristic
Effluent Limitations -
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Daily Maximum
Flow
10.0 MGD
BOD5
4 mg/ L
6.0 mg/L
NH3 as N
0.8 mg/ L
2.4 mg/ L
Dissolved Oxygen (minimum)
7.0 mg/L
TSS
30 mg/ L
45 mg/ L
TRC
17 ug/1
Fecal coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Total Phosphorus
13,341 lbs/year (annual load)
Total Nitrogen
159,870 lbs/year (annual load)
Chronic Toxicity Pass/Fail
(Quarterly test)
90%
Note: At 10.0 MGD, nutrient load limits are equal to TP = 0.44 mg/1 and TN = 5.25 mg/1.
Monitoring in Rich Fork Creek will also be required to ensure that the water quality model predictions
were accurate, and to ensure the discharge does not create more adverse conditions in the future. High
Point will be required to monitor upstream and downstream of the outfall.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA). Please note that the Division cannot guarantee that an NPDES
permit for discharge of expansion up to 8.2 MGD and 10.0 MGD will be issued with these speculative
limits. Final decisions can only be made after the Division receives and evaluates a formal permit
application for the expanded discharge. In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the
practicable wastewater treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the
environment is required to be implemented. Therefore, as a component of all NPDES permit applications
for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering alternatives analysis (EAA) must be prepared. The EAA
must justify requested flows, and provide an analysis of potential wastewater treatment alternatives. The
City of High Point has already submitted an EAA (dated April 2009) for this proposed expansion to 10
MGD, and DWQ has concurred with the EAA conclusions. Results of this EAA will need to be presented
in the SEPA EA (see below).
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) EA/EIS Requirements. A SEPA EA/EIS document must be
prepared for all projects that: 1) need a permit; 2) use public money or affect public lands; and 3) might
have a potential to significantly impact the environment. For existing discharges, significant impact is
defined as an expansion of > 500,000 gpd additional flow. Since High Point's facility is proposing a
discharge of >500,000 gpd flow, the High Point facility must prepare a SEPA document that evaluates the
potential for impacting the quality of the environment. The NPDES Unit will not accept an NPDES permit
application for the expanded discharge until the Division has approved the SEPA document and sent a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment. A SEPA
Environmental Assessment (EA) should contain a clear justification for the proposed project. If the SEPA
EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significant adverse effect on the quality of the
environment, you must then prepare a SEPA EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). Since your expanded
discharge is subject to SEPA, the EAA requirements discussed above will need to be folded into the SEPA
document. The SEPA process will be delayed if all EAA requirements are not adequately addressed. If
you have any questions regarding SEPA EA/EIS requirements, please contact Hannah Stallings with the
DWQ Planning Branch at [phone].

Should you have any questions about these speculative limits or NPDES permitting requirements, please
feel free to contact Jackie Nowell at [phone] or Tom Belnick at [phone].
Respectfully,
om Belnick
Supervisor, Western NPDES Program
cc: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, PO Box 33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Attn: Sara Myers
NC WRC, Inland Fisheries, 1721 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1721 Attn: Fred Harris
Winston-Salem Regional Office/Surface Water Protection
Pam Behm/Modeling TMDL Unit
Kathy Stecker/Modeling TMDL Unit
Hannah Stallings/Planning Section
Central Files
NPDES Permit File/NC0024228

o .57 �cs 1:- z , Z ,she
Ifsaw mow.
-9_lNlosIQ
irnta it,vrwkd ?
0760700D F.:
tx
/6,A) .041 y,
bar = 2..$�h
_7 e.•14 K4q
3, 040°
4,57-7
d to `�- �.

IN � it 6.. 14. de.,71-
#11P/4.44.1 )44 l4C44tolf Ot105 /;947;/41.
Cotht .1/0.%)
11,4sh,3 etch:41 err:
AWC 9 ig
147 /L
W42
/,€ "4�a�
%O. 79 /4/:j
lfdv
3c�.7 3.3y; I Z /400 = ;z7oti-/_
vcr,g�

pos-
Gr �z
Cfai) 3,0 A 4,
`I'4„4,4
1-A/ i4;Ac 10rt-3
iti4m/ �F% � ��yn�Q, „y3H60
3)((';(1
e°d't t
L
X
te)
-20
orpod
41u

Nowell, Jackie
From: Behm, Pamela
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:18 AM
To: Belnick, Tom
Cc: Stecker, Kathy; Nowell, Jackie
Subject: RE: Modeling Files for Rich Fork Creek
Tom, the concentrations used in the model are in Table 1 of the pdf that Trevor sent with the model files. See below.
They used the same concentration for current conditions and for the expansion discharge into a restored creek. The
point here is that if we are looking at load, the concentrations below are too high because they do not hold the line. I
would calculate the load at current conditions (not at current permitted flow, but current flow) and then adjust the
concentration so that the load does not increase with increased flow. Until they show us a restored creek that can
handle more load, I don't see how we can give them current condition concentrations.
QUAL2E Modeling for Rich Fork Creek: Input Files
October 19, 2009
Table 1. Water Quality Inputs for the Headwaters, Tributaries, and Effluent
Parameter
Headwater and Tributary Inputs
Westside Effluent
Temperature (F)
69.1
77.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
3.20
7.00
BOD-ult (mglL)
0.75
14.00
Organic Nitrogen (mg -NIL)
0.33
1.79
Ammonia (mg -NIL)
0.10
0.57
Nitrite (mg -NIL)
0.01
0.02
Nitrate (mg-N/L)
0.13
12.89
From: Belnick, Tom
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 6:02 PM
To: Behm, Pamela; Stecker, Kathy
Cc: Nowell, Jackie
Subject: RE: Modeling Files for Rich Fork Creek
Pam- I might not know what I'm asking! We will need to provide a spec for 2 flows (8.2 MGD and 10 MGD). Jackie and I
are dealing ok with the High Rock Lake/nutrient issue (freeze permitted TP/freeze actual TN), but not totally sure on the
BOD/NH3 side. I've attached 2 tetra tech model figures- their Phase I Qual2E Model to Ball Road Figure (wasn't present
at that meeting, but looks like model did not go all the way to _mouth, DO was still decreasing, so DWQ said EXTEND
MODEL, though the model did look at expanded flows and various BOD/NH3 combinations)and also tetra tech QUAL2E
1

Model to Mouth (presented at 7/7/09 meeting, looks like one scenario has restored channel with expanded flows, and
instream DO's above 5 mg/I, but not sure what BOD/NH3 combo was used.)
So I'm not sure what BOD/NH3 to plug in for expanded flows at 8.2 MGD and 10 MGD. If we simply freeze current
permitted uBOD load (6.2 MGD, BOD= 5 mg/I, NH3= 2 mg/I, uBOD= 982 lb/d), then it looks like some potential BOD/NH3
combos would be BOD=5,NH3=1 (at 8 MGD) and BOD=4.5,NH3=0.5 (at 10 MGD). Jackie- please verify these numbers
from the NPDES file sheets that we discussed, and we would need to develop values for 8.2 MGD as opposed to 8 MGD.
Back to Pam- does the tetra tech model provide, at 10 MGD, any other BOD/NH3 values that we can consider for the
spec, aside from freezing load (e.g., with trees removed and potholes filled, does the model predict other BOD/NH3
combos that would also be protective of 5 mg/I instream DO)?
If this makes no sense, I'm out Friday, but back Monday to discuss further.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES West Program
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]; fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Behm, Pamela
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:55 PM
To: Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy
Cc: Nowell, Jackie
Subject: RE: Modeling Files for Rich Fork Creek
Tom,
I'm sorry, but I remain confused about what you are looking for from the model. The model was run for the expansion
based on restored stream characteristics at a different flow rate (10 MGD) than we are currently considering. The model
predicts that under current conditions (3MGD flow, no expansion), DO goes below 5 mg/L for most of the modeled
stream length. In other words, this spec limit that is being prepared seems based on the outcome of negotiation rather
than on the model predictions. There is no model scenario looking at impact of expansion at the flows we are currently
looking at for spec limits to the non -restored stream. Unless there is no increase in load, I imagine we are going to see
DO drop even lower.
See Table 1 of the report Tetra Tech included with the model files. It lists the concentrations used in the model for the
discharge. They used the same concentrations for both scenarios. I'm not sure I agree with using these same
concentrations if we are moving forward with spec limits for an expansion to a non -restored stream.
After today, I am going to be out of the office until Tuesday, but we probably need to have a quick discussion about this.
Thanks,
Pam
From: Belnick, Tom [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:20 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Nowell, Jackie
Subject: RE: Modeling Files for Rich Fork Creek
2

Kathy/Pam- NPDES will probably have questions on the BOD/NH3 side of this- as far as what numbers to plug into the
spec. Our first cut might be to just look at freezing BODu at the expanded flows, but I'd like to go over the model Figures
with you folks once again. Did Tetra Tech send everything you need to confirm model results?
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES West Program
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]; fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Clements, Trevor [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:20 AM
To: [e-mail]; Belnick, Tom; [e-mail]
Cc: Matos, Alix; Stone, Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modeling Files for Rich Fork Creek
Tom and Kathy,
Per your request, we are providing two sets of QUAL2E input files for the Rich Fork Creek model application. One file
(exist.inp) represents the model input for the baseline conditions (existing channel conditions with existing effluent flow).
The second file (resto.inp) represents the channel in its expected restored condition (strategic tree fall removal and
restoration of stream channel in three mined areas) with expanded flow with existing effluent characteristics. A transmittal
memo is also provided that includes supplemental information to aid in your understanding of the model setup for the two
model input files provided.
Please feel free to call us if you have questions regarding this information or if you need additional assistance with the
model application.
Regards,
Trevor Clements
Trevor Clements Director, Watershed Management Services
Direct: 919.485.8278 x100 I Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Tetra Tech I Complex World, Clear Solutions
P.O. Box 14409 13200 Hwy 54, Suite 105 I Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 I www.ttwater.com
PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this
communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
3

Notes on the Yadkin/Pee Dee River Basin Association (YPDRBA)
Meeting held on October 9, 2009
High Rock Lake TMDL Status Update
Ron Hargrove, City of Winston-Salem, gave an update on the TMDL from the September TAC meeting. Mr.
Hargrove informed the Association of the following:
• TetraTech is beginning to input data into the watershed model;
• Chlorophyll a exceedances were located mostly in the middle and upper arms of the lake, with the
exception of the Second Creek arm, which is a very populated area; and
• The model that TetraTech is preparing is projected to be finished in September 2010.
Mr. Hargrove then talked to members about a 3`i party peer review of the model by LimnoTech. Mr. Hargrove
stated that YPDRBA TAC members thought it was in the best interest of the Association to do several peer
reviews during the model development, as opposed to waiting until the model is finished, but that their reviews
could not interfere with the DWQ schedule. LimnoTech presented Mr. Hargrove with a proposal to review the
draft model calibration report(s) prepared by TetraTech. Mr. Hargrove distributed the proposal so that
members could vote on its acceptance.
Mr. Hargrove then introduced Andy McDaniel with the NCDOT NPDES Storm Water Program. Mr.
McDaniel gave a short talk and on his experience with Jordan Lake and Falls Lake TMDLs, and announced
that DOT would like to partner with the YPDRBA for the 3`d party review. DOT is willing to contribute
approximately 25% of the cost ($20,000) in hopes that sound science will lead to restoration at the lowest cost
for all parties.
The YPDRBA voted to accept LimnoTech's proposal and DOT's partnership.
Coalition Monitoring
Carrie Ruhlman, coalition coordinator, discussed the following station issues:
• Q5970000 (Abbots Ck @ NC 47 near Cotton Grove, dns of Lexington Regional WWTP) — The
following comment was recorded at this station on 12/9/08, 6/23/09 and 7/28/09: Conductivity
readings would not settle, meter operation confirmed with standards, no value recorded.
Gisele Comer, City of Lexington, stated that she has been by the site many times and had recently collected
field parameter readings there. Ms. Corner noted that the site is swamp -like, has very low flow, has a metal
pipe running under the water near the bridge and is typically covered with vegetation. She said that problems
with DO and conductivity measurements are normal at this site and have been for many years. Ms. Comer has
attempted sampling on the downstream side of the bridge and was able to obtain more consistent readings for
DO and conductivity. She recommended that the lab try sampling on the downstream side, citing that the pipe
and/or the vegetative cover as the potential cause of the unstable conductivity. Ms. Ruhlman agreed that this
would be a first step in trying to consistently collect data from this station, and instructed Mark Olivera,
Environment 1 Laboratory, to have his monitors begin sampling on the downstream side effective
immediately.
• Q5750000 (Rich Fork Ck @ SR 1755, ups of High Point Westside WWTP) — This station has been
dry six times in the past two years.
Ms. Ruhlman visited the site the week of October 5th. She explained to the members that the site had very low
flow, very sandy/silty substrate and would be difficult to grab a sample from without disturbing the bottom.
Ms. Ruhlman then described an alternative access point (Chestnut Street bridge) to the creek further upstream
that may be a better sampling location. The Chestnut Street bridge access to Rich Fork Creek, approximately 2
miles upstream of Station Q5750000, has a wider channel, rocky substrate, good flow on both the upstream
and downstream sides of the bridge and is about 6-8 inches deep. However, Ms. Ruhlman noted a manhole on
the left of the stream on the upstream side and a corrugated metal pipe sticking out of the stream bank. She
suggested that the Association contact High Point Westside and see if they are aware of these structures and
feel comfortable sampling at this site instead of the current one. Ms. Carol Bell, City of High Point, will -
contact Tim Fitzgerald to ask him about the site and get back to Ms. Ruhlman. All members present agreed to
move the station to the best location pending High Point's consent.
Prepared by Carrie Ruhlman, DWQ/ESS 10/15/2009

\ /
He Wei1- .�1•c /. . t a >l � 3CCc,C�1 � 9 0/
Belnick, Tom
SPEC -1/D9
From: Belnick, Tom
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 11:11 AM
To: Nowell, Jackie
Cc: Poupart, Jeff
Subject: FW: Westside Plant Speculative Limits
Attachments: 2009-09-02 WWWTP speculative limits.pdf
Jackie- just an fyi...this eq highiA sett uebe coming your way soon, once we receive mailed hardcopy. Please
set up a meeting with me after you review it. We'II need to sit down to determine appropriate spec limits. The model
by Tetra Tech used various BOD/NH3 values, so we have some leeway to pick. Not sure about nutrient situation. We'll
probably want to create phased effluent sheets, 8 MGD, 10 MGD, to evaluate success of stream restoration project
before they receive full expansion request.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES West Program
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]; fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: CHRIS THOMPSON[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 5:08 PM
To: Belnick, Tom
Cc: Tedder, Steve
Subject: Westside Plant Speculative Limits
Mr. Belnick,
Attached is a letter requesting speculative limits for the Westside WWTP in High Point. A hard copy will
follow. Thanks for your time and attention in this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions.
W. Chris Thompson, P.E.
Director of Public Services
City of High Point
Office: 336-883-3215
Fax: [phone]
1

Public Services Department
W. Chris Thompson, P.E.
DIRECTOR
September 2, 2009
Mr. Tom Belnick
Supervisor
NPDES West Program
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
rs
NORTH CAROI.INA'S INTERNATIONAL CITY'
Re: Speculative Limits
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of high Point, North Carolina
NPDES Permit No. NC0024228
Dear Mr. Belnick:
The City of High Point is planning for the expansion of the Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant from its
current permitted capacity of 6.2 MGD to a capacity of 10 MGD, In July of 2004, the City requested
speculative NPDES limits for this increased capacity, however due to impairment of the receiving stream
(Rich Fork Creek), speculative limits were not issued.
The City has contracted with outside consultants to perform extensive stream sampling and modeling to
make recommendations for stream restoration and predict the impact of the expanded flow taking into
account the improved effluent water quality achieved by an upgraded facility. The outcome of this
modeling demonstrated improved water quality in Rich Fork Creek with the plant expansion and
proposed stream restoration. With the modeling efforts complete, we are hereby requesting speculative
NPDES limits for an expanded capacity of 10 MGD monthly average flow.
If you should have any questions please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
C�I.to-
W. Chris Thompson, P.E.
Director of Public Services
City of High Point, P.O. 230, 211 South Hamilton Street, High Point, NC 27261 USA
Phone [phone] Fax: [phone] TDD 336.883.8517

Public Services Department
W. Chris Thompson, P.E.
DIRECTOR
NORTH CAROLINA'S INTERNATIONAL CITYTh`
September 2, 2009
Mr. Tom Belnick
Supervisor
NPDES West Program
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Speculative Limits
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of high Point, North Carolina
NPDES Permit No. NC0024228
Dear Mr. Belnick:
The City of High Point is planning for the expansion of the Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant from its
current permitted capacity of 6.2 MGD to a capacity of 10 MGD. In July of 2004, the City requested
speculative NPDES limits for this increased capacity, however due to impairment of the receiving stream
(Rich Fork Creek), speculative limits were not issued.
The City has contracted with outside consultants to perform extensive stream sampling and modeling to
make recommendations for stream restoration and predict the impact of the expanded flow taking into
account the improved effluent water quality achieved by an upgraded facility. The outcome of this
modeling demonstrated improved water quality in Rich Fork Creek with the plant expansion and
proposed stream restoration. With the modeling efforts complete, we are hereby requesting speculative
NPDES limits for an expanded capacity of 10 MGD monthly average flow.
if you should have any questions please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
W. Chris Thompson, P.E.
Director of Public Services
RECEIVED
SEP - 3 2009
DENR WATER OUALC1Y
ppQ� i SOURCE BRANCH
City of High Point, P.O. 230, 211 South Hamiltdn ig Point, NC 27261 USA
Phone [phone] Fax: [phone] TDD 336.883.8517

•
HP 14ahirte J-fiet, 10 Stlet telleell C/3//C),
Belnick, Tom
From: Belnick, Tom
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 11:45 AM
To: Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff; Tedder, Steve
Cc: Nowell, Jackie
Subject: High Point Westside
I just talked with Chris Thompson, High Point Public Works Director, and they will send in spec limits request for High
Point Westside this week.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES West Program
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]; fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
1

Belnick, Tom
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Matthews, Matt
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:41 PM
Belnick, Tom
RE: High Point Westside Request
Matt Matthews
NC DENR/Division of Water Qua I i ty
Surface Water Protection Section
161.7 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
v-[phone]
f-[phone]
[e-mail]
htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/swps/
Please note that my email address has changed.
E-mail correspondence to cruel, from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties.
From: Belnick, Tom
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:19 AM
To: Matthews, Matt
Cc: Poupart, Jeff
Subject: FW: High Point Westside Request
Matt- I can call them if you want, but just let me know that Chuck has concurred with proceeding forward.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES West Program
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]; fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Tedder, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:18 AM
To: Belnick, Tom
Subject: RE: High Point Westside Request
We'll check out the channel to make sure it only flows in relation to SW. The rest of the criteria will be met. I'm sure
this one will also but we will do a field check so the file will be complete.
Matt have his discussions with Chuck on HP expansion?? Someone going to tell them to proceed to send in request for
Spec limits?
Tedder
E-mail correspondence to and from this address
may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records
Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
i

Steve Tedder
[e-mail]
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
(336)-771-4950
Fax [phone]
From: Belnick, Tom
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 4:39 PM
To: Tedder, Steve
Subject: High Point Westside Request
Hey Steve- looks like you were copied on the letter request dated August 19 from High Point Westside for 1) outfall
relocation, and 2) effluent channel designation. I don't see any problem with the minimal outfall relocation to
accommodate the current upgrades. I can also designate the proposed channel as an effluent channel, but would like
confirmation from WSRO that the effluent channel criteria should be met based on their proposal. Thanks.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES West Program
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]; fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
2