NC0020621_CORRESPONDENCE_19920414

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit: NC0020621
Boone WWTP
Document Type: Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Correspondence
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (6713)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date: Aril 14, 1992
Thus documeat is priated oa rcuee paper-ignore aay
coateat oa the reverse Bide

i tw
COUNCIL: Town O/ Boone GREG YOUNG
VELMA C.BURNLEY Town Manager
Mayor �� DAVID PALETTA
SAUL CHASE Town Attorney
JAMES OUGGER
LOUISE MILLER
JAMES SMITH BOONS
BEN SUTTEE North Carolina
April 14, 1992
Ms . Suzanne Keen
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
Division of E:,virca.,.ental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
RE: Proposed Reclassification of the New River and South Fork of
the New Rivers as Outstanding Resource Water
HUA No. BN9113
Dear Ms . Keen:
3
r
Tn response to the public hearing held March 17 , 1992 , on the
above proposed reclassification, the Town of Boone appreciates this i
opportunity to offer the following comments : t
i
The Town of Boone Wastewater Treatment plant has been
discharging into the South Fork of the New River for many years,
and we believe the streams assimilative capacity has negated any 4
detrimental effects as witnessed by the State' s proposed
designation of the downstream waters as ORW. The Town believes it y
has proven that a plant operating at current 30 BOD, 30' Total
Suspended Solid Limits, has not resulted in a degradation of water
quality in the New River. The Town does not see the need for the
stringent modifications which will be applied to our current
wastewater treatment plan operating requirements .
The financial impact of expanding our plant to meet future
hydraulic loading at the 30/30 limits versus new and reduced limits g
Of BOD, ammonia, suspended solids and possibly nutrient removal
will be at least 5 to 6 million dollars . These costs can only be
covered by huge rate increases to the citizens of Boone. It is
unfair for them to bear the heavy financial burden of meeting these
new regulations .
The concept which the State has set forth in its management
Plan ra.isez questions regarding the interpretation of limitations
aPPlied to development activities within one mile and draining to
t`1C ORw. The Town could infer that. the One mile distance is
measurer] from the designated ORW limit_ and does not include all
areas within one mile of tributary streams to the ORW. If our
51 4ft
P.O. DRAWER 192 • BOONE, NORTH CAROLINA 28607 • [phone] i,

i Ms . Suzanne Keen
April 14, 1992
Page Two (2 )
a
interpretation is incorrect its impact on the Town of Boone would
I excessively restrict future development in Boone. We request
clarification on this matter.
The Town is also concerned about limiting or not allowing
'i expanded discharges directly to the segment designated as ORW. In
the State 's narrative, expanded dischargers are defined as those
that increase their current pollutant lCadiiig. 1,ow ever, 1n late_ Z
sections of the discharge restrictions it is indicated that
i expanded NPDES permitted wastewater discharges upstream of the
designated ORW will meet 5 BCD and 2 NH3 limits with 10 or 20 TSS
depending upon trout waters . The Town has applied for a renewal of
our NPDES permit and received speculative limits from the Technical
Services Branch several months ago. These speculative limits do
not, as we understand from Trevor Clements, increase our pollutant
loading but are not as low as 5 and 2 as stated above. We
therefore request clarification on the implementation of the
upstream discharge limits and are concerned at the implication of
these reduced limits on the Town ' s ability to properly plan for and
operate a new or expanded wastewater facility.
• t
The Town also has a concern with regard to discharge 1
restrictions on limitations of flow. While currently not a f
problem, these restrictions could become a limiting factor for
future growth, particularly if subsequent action might further ? ±
reduce flow allocations to the stream segment. We also do not � 4
concur with the arbitrary one half of the normal standard
allocation given to ORW stream segments for chemical or effluent s
toxicity limitations . The Town recognizes the need to preserve
water quality but does not agree that the one-half of standard
limitation factors is substantiated based on the streams L'!
capacities . Finally the discharge restrictions on nutrients, are
broadly addressed and need to be better defined, prior to our j
submission of comments .
s7
3
i
a
52
9

Ms . Suzanne Keen
April 14, 1992
Page Three ( 3) '
t
1n summation, the Town of Boone believes that we have done a i
good job in protecting the water qualities of our receiving streams
as evidenced by your findings that the South Fork of the New River
and the New River to the Virgin-- a line do indeed qualify as High
Quality and now Outstanding Resource Waters . The Town should not r
be penalized to the cost of millions of dollars when our existing
facilities have enabled these outstanding designations to exist.
Thank you for your consideration of the Town's concerns and we
respectfully request that this letter be part of the official
record on this proposed reclassification.
i
Sincerely,
Velma C. Burnley, Mayor
Town of Boone
/fva y
t
53

STATE OF NORTH .CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
9
.2
A
' d
n
n
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF BOONE FORK IN THE WATAUGA RIVER
BASIN AND PORTIONS OF THE SOUTH FORK NEW AND NEW RIVERS
AND OLD FIELD CREEK IN THE NEW RIVER BASIN
(ALLEGHANY, ASHE AND WATAUGA COUNTIES) ,
.`K
PUBLIC HEARING
MARCH 17, 1992
BOONE, NORTH CARD*XA AA*
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION .
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE HEARING OFFICER
INTRODUCTION
On March 17, 1992 in Boone, North Carolina, a public hearing
was held on proposals to reclassify Boone Fork and portions of
Old Field Creek and the South Fork New and New Rivers . These
proposals were distinct reclassification cases for which one
public hearing was held for purposes of efficiency and cost
effectiveness . Each of the reclassification cases are addressed
individually in this summary. An overview to surface water
quality classifications can be found on pages 10 and 11 of this
report .
BOONE FORK
Summary
In 1989, the Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
received a request from the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
to consider Boone Fork and the upper Watauga River for
designation as Outstanding Resource Waters . DEM surveyed the
water quality of the Watauga River Basin (which includes Boone
Fork) and determined that the entirety of the Watauga River and
Boone Fork (including all of its tributaries) warrant the
assignment of an Excellent water quality rating. Based on these
results and the WRC' s designation of Boone Fork as Native Trout
waters, the Watauga River and Boone Fork were classified as High
Quality Waters effective August 1, 1990 . Subsequent to the
definition of the river basin' s water quality characteristics,
examination of resource values was needed before a determination
on the requested ORW designation could be made. r
Further evaluation of the Watauga River basin indicated that
there are clear resource values associated with Boone Fork . A
large portion of the Boone Fork watershed is contained within the
Julian Price Memorial Park and Blue Ridge Parkway lands . And, as
mentioned above, these waters were designated as Native Trout by
the WRC. (Under the WRC' s most current regulations, most of
Boone Fork is listed as Catch and Release/Artificial Flies Only
Wild Trout Waters . ) The only potential resource that could be
associated with the Watauga River is its recreational value . .
Based on the combined evaluation of water quality and resource
values, Boone Fork and its tributaries were formally proposed for
ORW designation. It was not recommended that the Watauga River
be formally proposed for classification as ORW since its
recreational use was not considered to be of an unusually high
level .
S-1

Public Hearing Process/Comments Received
On March 17, 1992 a public hearing was held on the proposed
reclassification of Boone Fork, as well as Old Field Creek, and
the New and lower South Fork New Rivers . In this section, verbal .
and written comments received that addressed the ORW designation
of Boone Fork will be summarized. The hearing was attended by
forty-four individuals. Three of the eleven verbal comments
presented addressed the Boone Fork reclassification case . Two of i
i these expressed support for the proposal . The remaining comment {
was made by an individual who owns land near the mouth of the i
creek. He expressed concerns about the stormwater controls that
i
� would be applied in association with the protective designation.
Three letters that provided written comments on the Boone
Fork reclassification were received. All expressed support for
the proposal .
Recommendation
Based on water quality and resource data, comments received,
and consideration of the relevant issues, the Hearing Officer and
Director recommend the reclassification of Boone Fork from its
source to the Watauga River including all tributaries from
Classes C Tr HQW and C HQW to Classes C Tr ORW and C ORW. This
recommendation, as previously indicated, is based on Excellent
water quality ratings, the location of the stream within the
Julian Price Memorial Park and Blue Ridge Parkway lands, and
designation of these waters as Catch and Release/Artificial Flies `
Only Wild Trout Waters by WRC.
F
The specific recommended amendment to the Schedule of
Classifications for the Watauga River Basin (15A NCAC 2B . 0305)
can be found on page S-13 of this report .
t
? In making these recommendations, the Hearing Officer and
Director have considered the requirements of General Statute
k 143-214 . 1 (d) . In particular, the chemical/physical/biological
properties, character of the watershed and bordering areas,
economic considerations, and .past/present/future uses of the
Boone Fork watershed have been considered. In taking this
4 action, rule 15A NCAC 2B .0305, which references the Schedule of
Classifications for the Watauga River Basin, will show that the
EMC has revised the schedule .
S-2

OLD FIELD CREEK
used
nd Summary
rbal
ion In response to a request to consider the New and South Fork
Y New Rivers (and other miscellaneous streams in the basin) for ORW
designation, DEM undertook a comprehensive water quality
of investigation of the entire New River Basin . The only surveyed
ant tributary in the basin that received an Excellent biological
classification is the lower portion of Old Field Creek and its
iat tributary West Prong Old Field Creek (also known as Call Creek) .
'n. Analysis of possible associated resources revealed that within
Old Field Creek, and its tributary, exists a reproducing
population of brook trout . This trout species, North Carolina' s
r only native salmonid, is becoming more and more rare due to
habitat degradation and competition from other species . The WRC
is currently investing in extensive research to determine whether .
or not there is a genetic strain of brook trout specific to the
Appalachian area. The WRC is also engaged in activities for the
'd, species' protection. A reproducing population (such as that
tnd found in Old Field Creek) is considered to be very valuable .
Based on the identified Excellent water quality and the
existence of a viable, naturally reproducing population of brook
trout, West Prong Old Field Creek and lower Old Field Creek were
formally proposed for ORW designation. Because Old Field Creek
upstream of West Prong Old Field Creek did not receive an
as Excellent water quality rating, it does not qualify for ORW
designation . However, the proposed reclassification included the
application of the management strategy used for freshwater ORWs
to these upstream waters in order to protect the excellent water
quality and outstanding resources downstream.
Public Hearing Process/Comments Received
On March 17, 1992 a public hearing was held on the proposed
reclassification of Old Field Creek, as well as Boone Fork and
the New and lower South Fork New Rivers . In this section, verbal
and written comments received that addressed the ORW designation
of Old Field Creek will be summarized. The hearing was attended
by forty-four individuals . None of the verbal comments presented
addressed the Old Field Creek reclassification case.
Three letters that provided written comments on the Old
Field Creek reclassification were received. All expressed
support for the proposal .
S-3

Recommendation
Based on water quality and resource data, comments received, i
and consideration of the relevant issues, the Hearing Officer and t
Director recommend the reclassification of Old Field Creek from S
the confluence of West Prong Old Field Creek to the South Fork f
New River and West Prong Old Field Creek from its source to Old C
Field Creek from Class WS-IV Tr to Class WS-IV Tr ORW. This p
recommendation, as previously indicated, is based on Excellent
water quality ratings and a viable, naturally reproducing t
' population of brook trout . In addition, it is recommended that ;
the management strategy associated with freshwater ORWs be
applied to Old Field Creek from its source to West Prong Old
Field Creek in order to protect downstream water quality and
resources . 1
The specific recommended amendment to the Schedule of
Classifications for the New River Basin (15A NCAC 2B . 0307)
begins on page 5-14 of this report . The listing for Old Field
Creek is on page 5-17 .
In making these recommendations, the Hearing Officer and
Director have considered the requirements of General Statute
143-214 . 1 (d) . In particular, the chemical/physical/biological
properties, character of the watershed and bordering areas,
economic considerations, and past/present/future uses of the Old
Field Creek watershed have been considered. In taking this
action, rule 15A NCAC 2B . 0307, which references the Schedule of
Classifications for the New River Basin, will show that the EMC
has revised the schedule.
SOUTH FORK NEW AND NEW RIVERS
Summary
In 1989, the National Committee for the New River nominated
the entire South Fork New and New River for ORW designation.
Subsequent to this nomination and the receipt of other ORW
requests for some tributaries of the North Fork New River, DEM
began a water quality survey of the entire New River Basin.
Early results indicated that the entire New River in North
Carolina and the South Fork New River from Elk Creek to the New
River warranted the assignment of an Excellent water quality
rating. These waters were therefore classified as HQW effective
August 1, 1990 . However, further examination of water quality
and resource characteristics was necessary prior to making a
determination on the ORW request .
The New and the lower South Fork New Rivers are
S-4

red characterized by a variety of water-based resources . These
and include smallmouth bass and rock bass fisheries, recreation in
)m the form of canoeing and swimming, being a part of the New River
State Park, and being designated as a Natural and Scenic River
d from Dog Creek downstream to the Virginia state line by the North
Carolina General Assembly in 1976 . . Based on the documented
Excellent water quality and the existence of these resources, the
South Fork New River from Dog Creek to the New River and all of
the New River in North Carolina (from the confluence of the North
and South Fork New Rivers to the Virginia state line) , was
formally proposed for ORW designation. This portion of the river
that received an -Excellent water quality rating was chosen for
proposal as ORW since clearly identifiable resources (Natural and
Scenic designation and association with the New River State Park)
are concentrated from Dog Creek downstream.
t
Having the downstream portion of a relatively large
watershed qualify for the supplemental ORW classification
presented a unique situation for water quality management . Prior
to this case, the ORW classification was applied to whole
watersheds or headwater areas that qualified for the
classification. ORW protection was applied throughout the basin;
to all of the waters and to all of the lands draining to those
waters . The lower South Fork New clearly qualifies for ORW
classification but the headwater areas are impacted by point and
nonpoint sources of pollution to the extent that an Excellent
water quality rating was not 4chieved. Therefore, a unique ,
management strategy for point source discharges, to be applied to
lupstream i tmitationsass using, was developed
a framework. The strategy Hdeveloped rand proposed
as part of this reclassification is detailed on
within the Public Information Package pages 13-15
or this
In addition, instead of applying the stormwaterfcontrolspro forosal .
freshwater ORWs to the entire river basin as has been done
previously, it was proposed that these controls be applied within
one mile and draining to the designated ORW. This essentially
maintains the controls currently in effect because of the
existing HQW classification.
Public Hearing Process/Comments Received
On March 17, 1992 a public hearing was held on the proposed {tk �
reclassification of the lower South Fork New and New Rivers, k {
well as Old Field Creek and Boone Fork . as
In this section, verbal
and written comments received that addressed the ORW designation
of the lower South Fork New and New Rivers will be summarized.
The hearing was attended by forty-four individuals . The majority +
of the verbal comments received addressed the South Fork New and f
New Rivers reclassification, at least in part . {
The nine verbal comments that were received on this proposed
reclassification can be easily split into two groups : those
S-5

favoring the reclassification and those from residents of
Alleghany County expressing concern about the. stormwater controls
associated with the ORW classification . A number of individuals
in Alleghany County were concerned about the implications of the
ORW designation of the New River. Consequently, DEM staff made a
special presentation about the proposed reclassification (prior
to the hearing date) to the Alleghany County Commissioners at one
of their regular meetings . This meeting was also attended by
interested citizens . The part of the proposal in which the
audience was most interested related to the stormwater controls.
These controls have been in place since mid-1990 as a result of
HQW designation . The ORW proposal did not recommend a change to
the stormwater controls currently in place.
Two petitions and forty letters were received during the 30-
day public comment period following the public hearing. The
overwhelming majority of these comments (thirty-five) expressed
support for the proposed reclassification and the management
strategy associated with it . .All comments received are included
in this report beginning on page 48 .
Some of the written statements received presented particular
concerns about the unique management strategy proposed in
association with this reclassification . In the following section
staff provide responses to these concerns .
Comment: There is no need for stricter discharge requirements in
upstream waters . Enforcement of standards currently in
effect is sufficient to protect downstream water
quality.
Response: Controlling direct wastewater discharges to surface
waters is one of DEM' s primary methods of water quality
management . Under the management strateg
y gy proposed for
New and South Fork New River reclassification, new and
expanded wastewater discharges upstream of the waters
classified ORW would be required to meet stringent
effluent limitations (see the following section
entitled ' Implications of the Recommended
Reclassifications' for details) . In the headwaters of
the South Fork New River drainage area there are
numerous permitted wastewater discharges whose effluent
contributions are affecting water quality in this
basin . Currently, recovery in downstream waters is .
sufficient for the attainment of an Excellent water
quality rating. However, allowing the addition of new
discharges and allowing existing discharges to increase,
their contributions will likely add stress to the
system and may impact water quality in the immediate-i
receiving waters and downstream. Requiring such
additional contributors to provide "cleaner" effluent
will limit additional water quality impacts without
S-6

:rols precluding discharges to surface waters as a method of
ials waste disposal and without significantly affecting
the de a growth in the area .
or Comment: The additional requirements for new and expanded
one wastewater discharges upstream of the designated ORW
will significantly increase the cost of treatment .
Ls This is an unfair burden for local communities in
)f upstream areas .
to Response: Meeting more stringent effluent limitations can
increase costs associated with wastewater treatment .
30- These additional costs are necessary to provide higher
quality effluent . Who bears the burden of these costs
9 depends upon whose waste the facility treats . If it is
an industrial wastewater facility, the company is
,d responsible . In the case of regional municipal
facilities, the local citizens whose domestic waste is
transported to the facility may ultimately bear the
ar costs .
on In accordance with federal and state law, protecting
existing uses and the water quality to maintain such
uses is a primary requirement of the federal and state
in antidegradation policy (15A NCAC 2B. 0201) . Degradation
in of water quality below that necessary to maintain
existing and anticipated uses shall not be allowed. In
order to achieve this goal, sources of pollution may be
required to provide additional treatment to protect
downstream water quality and designated uses .
y Comment: The provision requiring that no more than 50%
r wastewater be present in the ORW segment will limit
growth in upstream communities .
Response: Currently the total volume of wastewater in the South
Fork New River at Dog Creek (the upstream boundary for
the proposed ORW segment) is 6 . 4% . This indicates that
much growth in upstream communities is possible before
the 50% cap is reached. A staff assessment of
cumulative instream waste concentration in the New
River basin is included in this report on page 165 .
Comment: The standards for chronic toxicity and specific
chemical parameters to be applied at the ORW segment
are arbitrary.
Response: These provisions (applying standards for chronic
toxicity and specific chemicals at the ORW segment)
were developed as a safety factor to insure the -
protection of the ORW waters . They are based on the
consensus best professional judgement of staff of the
S-7

Water Quality Section . In addition, this management
strategy is based on an approved, workable strategy t'.
which has already been implemented for numerous S
waterbodies which have been classified as HQW. In t
their application, it is likely that most limitations
for chronic toxicity and specific chemicals will be
assigned based on the characteristics of the point of
discharge. However, if the potential for the effluent
to impact the designated ORW is greater (either because 7
of the facility' s proximity to the ORW segment or its I
size) , more restrictive limits may be applied. This
type of protection strategy for discharges of complex
wastewater is logical and practicable .
i
Recommendation
Based on water quality and resource data, comments received,
and consideration of the relevant issues, the Hearing Officer and
Director recommend the reclassification of the South Fork New
River from Dog Creek to the New River from Class B HQW to Class B
ORW, and the entirety of the New River in North Carolina from
Class C HQW to Class C ORW. In addition, it is recommended that
the management strategy detailed in the following section be
adopted in association with this reclassification in order to
protect downstream resources and water quality. This
recommendation, as previously indicated, is based on Excellent
water quality ratings and the many water-based resources . These
water-based resources include recreation in the form of canoeing
and swimming, being part of the New River State Park, and being
designated as a Natural and Scenic River by the North Carolina
General Assembly in 1976 .
The specific recommended amendment to the Schedule of
Classifications for the New River Basin (15A NCAC 2B . 0307) can ;
be found on page 5-14 of this report . This listing indicates
specifically which waters in the basin are recommended for
designation as ORW and which are recommended to be subject to the
additional management strategy . Streams currently designated as
HQW are not recommended to be subject to the additional
management strategy since they are protected by the requirements
associated with HQW. Waters that enter the New River in Virginia
are also not recommended to be affected by additional management
because technically they would not be upstream of a designated
ORW.
In making these recommendations, the Hearing Officer and
Director have considered the requirements of General Statute
143-214 . 1 (d) . In particular, the chemical/physical/biological '
properties, character of the watershed and bordering areas,
economic considerations, and past/present/future. uses of the
South Fork New and New Rivers have been considered. In taking
S-8
.I

nt
y this action, rule 15A NCAC 2B . 0307, which references the
Schedule of Classifications for the New River Basin; . will show
that the EMC has revised the schedule .
ins
of Implications of the Recommended Reclassifications
lent
:ause This section describes the implications of the recommended
is reclassifications on stormwater controls and wastewater discharge
s restrictions . Each reclassification case is discussed
ex individually.
1. Boone Fork and Old Field Creek: The following is a
description of the management strategy applied to freshwater
ORWs . Based on the recommendations made in this report, this
management strategy would be applied to the Boone Fork and Old
red, Field Creek watersheds .
and
A. Stormwater Controls :
s B
New developments that are located within the watershed
at and that require a Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Plan from the Division of Land Resources must comply
with one of the options described below. Projects
which disturb one acre or more of land are required to
obtain Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plans .
ie Projects which are not required to obtain a
Ig Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan, such as single
family owners building a single family dwelling on
their own lot, are not required to comply with this
stormwater control strategy. For those projects which
must comply, there are two options available as
follows :
1) Low Density Option: developments that limit single
family developments to one acre lots and other type
ie developments to 12% built-upon area and are located at
least 30 feet from surface waters;
2) High Density Option: developments of higher density
a than those described for the Low Density Option are
allowed with the utilization of wet detention ponds
designed to control the runoff from all built-upon
areas generated from one inch of rainfall .
B. Wastewater Discharge Restrictions :
In waters classified as ORW no new or expanded _
discharges are allowed.
S-9

I
II . New River Basin: The following is a description of the
management strategy' recommended for the New River Basin in
association with the ORW designation of the New River and the
lower South Fork New River. One portion of the strategy
described below differs from the strategy proposed at public
hearing. At the public hearing, an expanded discharge was
defined as a facility that increases its permitted pollutant
loading. Since the proposal was made last March, new regulations
associated with NPDES discharges that define expanded discharges
have become effective (15A NCAC 2H . 0103) . Under these new
rules, an expansion is considered an increase in hydraulic
capacity. In order to be consistent with these new rules the
management strategy for this reclassification has been revised to
, define an expansion as an increase in hydraulic capacity.
Currently, the only discharger in the basin planning an expansion
is the Town of Boone . Regional staff have indicated that they
would be considered an expansion under either definition.
A. Stormwater Controls :
It is proposed that the stormwater controls I described
below be applied within one mile and draining to the
designated waters . This is different from the standard
freshwater ORW management strategy in which these
controls are applied to the entire watershed. Since
the areas proposed for ORW are currently classified as
HQW, they already have stormwater control requirements .
It is felt that these current requirements are
sufficient to also protect the ORW classification with
respect to new development activities . The
requirements are specified below.
For the South Fork New and New Rivers, it is
recommended that the following stormwater controls be
applied to new development activities that require a
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan from the
Division of Land Resources and that are within one mile
and draining to the designated ORW. Projects which
disturb an acre or more of land are required to obtain
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plans . Projects
which are not required to obtain a Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Plan, such as single family owners
building a single family dwelling on their own lot, are
not required to comply with this stormwater control
strategy. For those projects which must comply, there
are two options available as follow:
1) Low Density Option: developments that limit single
family developments to one acre lots and other type
developments to 12% built-upon area and are located at
} least 30 feet from surface waters;
s ,
r:
S-10

2) High Density Option : developments of higher density
than those described for the Low Density Option are
allowed if stormwater control systems which are wet
detention ponds designed to control the runoff from all
built-upon areas generated from one inch of rainfall
are properly installed, operated and maintained.
ions
'ges E. Discharge Restrictions:
It is proposed that no new or expanded NPDES permitted
d to discharges be allowed directly to the segment to be
designated as ORW. This is consistent with the
lion standard freshwater ORW management strategy which
r prohibits new or expanded discharges . However, for
this particular reclassification, it is also proposed
that specific requirements designed to maintain water
quality conditions within the ORW segment be applied to
all new or expanded wastewater discharges in upstream
d areas . (Expanded discharges are considered those that
increase their hydraulic capacity. ) The proposed
and requirements which would be applied to all new or
expanded discharges in the New River Basin upstream of ,,
the designated ORW segment are as follows :
as 1) All discharges upstream of the designated ORW will be
-S. permitted such that the following conditions are maintained
:h in the ORW segment :
(a) the total volume of treated wastewater for all
upstream discharges combined will not exceed 50 percent
of the total flow in the designated ORW segment under
low flow (7Q10) conditions;
(b) a safety factor will be applied to any chemical
Le allocation such that the effluent limitation for a
specific chemical constituent will be the more
stringent of either the limitation that would normally
1 be applied at the point of discharge, or the limitation
that would be given to the discharger if it had to meet
one-half of the normal standard at the upstream border
of the ORW segment (see Figure 1 . on page 18 for an
e example) ;
(c) a safety factor will be applied to any discharge of
complex wastewater (those containing or potentially
containing toxicants, such as process industrial
wastewater or wastewater from plants receiving process
wastewater from an industry) to protect for chronic
toxicity in the ORW segment . This safety factor will
be determined by setting the whole effluent toxicity
limitation at the higher (more stringent) percentage
S-11
-ir :": A} Fa,r nlllc 919946 A61 >o,r•.`•_.'
7(W663-1693 919,E LJ7�xl

i
effluent determined by comparing the percentage
effluent at the point of discharge and twice the
percentage effluent if the discharge were at the
upstream border of the ORW segment (see Figure 1 . on
page 18 for an example) ;
2) New or expanded NPDES permitted wastewater discharges
located upstream of the designated ORW will be required to
meet the following permit limitations and conditions :
(a) Oxygen Consuming Wastes: Effluent limitations will
be as follows : biochemical oxygen demand = 5 mg/l, and
ammonia = 2 mg/l;
(b) Total Suspended Solids: Discharges of total
suspended solids (TSS) will be limited to effluent
concentrations of 10 mg/l for trout waters and to 20
mg/l for all other waters;
(c) Emergency Requirements: Failsafe treatment designs
will be employed, including stand-by power capability
for entire treatment works, dual train design for all
treatment components, or equivalent failsafe treatment
designs;
(d) Nutrients: Where nutrient overenrichment is
projected to be a concern, appropriate effluent
limitations will be set for phosphorus or nitrogen, or
both.
f,
D.
i
r
6
i
5-12
{