NC0020621_SPECULATIVE LIMITS_19941207

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit: NCO020621
Boone WWTP
Document Type: Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date: December 7, 1994
This documeat is priated oa reuse paper-igaore aay
coateat on the reverse side

- State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management A4
r
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ALI IL
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary p E H N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 7, 1994
Mr. Greg Young, Manager
Town of Boone
P.O. Box 192
Boone, N.C. 28607-0192
Subject: Town of Boone Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
NPDES Permit No. NCO020621
Alleghany County
Dear Mr. Young :
Your request for speculative effluent limits for the Town of Boone WWTP at the
expansion flows of 3.2, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 MGD has been completed by the staff of the
Technical Support Branch. Please be advised that the limits given are speculative. In order
to receive final permit limits, a formal application indicating the W WTP design capacity and
a justification for the facility will have to be submitted to the Division's Permits and
Engineering Unit.
The Town of Boone discharges into the South Fork New River which has a stream
classification of C and is located approximately sixty-two (62) miles upstream of the
segment of the New River that has been reclassified as C ORW. Currently, the Division of
Environmental Management has specific management strategies for the New River that
have been approved to protect the exceptional resource waters. This strategy includes
designated limitations for new and expanded dischargers, stormwater controls, 50% total
instream flow, and safety factors for toxic discharges. The specific action recommended
for the South Fork New and New River ORW area per 15A NCAC 2B .0216 (e)(4)(C)
states that "new or expanded NPDES permitted discharges located upstream of the
designated ORW will comply with" limits for oxygen consuming wastes of BOD5=5 mg/1
and NH3-N=2 mg/l. In addition,limits for total suspended solids= 20 mg/1 will be
applied to all non-trout waters. A fecal coliform limit of 200/100m1 will also be given.
Therefore,effluent limitations for tertiary treatment will be applicable to all future
expansions for the Boone facility. _
The Division of Environmental Management(DEM) is now recommending chlorine
limits and dechlorination for all new or expanding dischargers proposing the use of
chlorine for disinfection. An acceptable level of chlorine in your effluent is 28 µg/1 to
ensure protection against acute toxicity. The process of chlorination/dechlorination or an
alternate form of disinfection, such as ultraviolet radiation, should allow the facility to
comply with the total residual chlorine limit.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10%post-consumer paper

Letter to Mr.French
page 2
The instream waste concentration(IWC) for Boone at the expanded wasteflows are:
Wasteflow IWC
3.2 MGD 27%
4.0 MGD 32%
5.0 MGD 37%
6.0 MGD 42%
A chronic toxicity testing requirement with quarterly monitoring will remain a
condition of the NPDES permit. A complete evaluation of limits and monitoring
requirements for metals and other toxicants will have to be addressed at the time of formal
NPDES application. Information concerning these constituents is not readily available but
the Town can assume that effluent limits and/or monitoring for cadmium,chromium,
nickel, lead,cyanide,copper, zinc, mercury and silver may be recommended.
Please be advised that response to this request does not guarantee that the Division
will issue an NPDES permit to discharge treated wastewater into these receiving waters. It
should be noted that new and expanding facilities, involving an expenditure of public funds
or use of public (state) lands,will be required to prepare an environmental assessment(EA)
when wasteflows: 1)'exceed or equal 0.5 MGD or 2)exceed one-third of the 7Q10 flow of
the receiving stream DEM will not accept a permit application for a project requiring an
EA until the document has been approved by the Department of Environment,Health and
Natural Resources and a Finding of No Significant Impact(FONSI) has been sent to the
State Clearinghouse for review and comment.
The EA should contain a clear justification for the proposed facility and an analysis
of potential alternatives which should include a thorough evaluation of non-discharge
alternatives. Nondischarge alternatives, such as spray irrigation, water conservation inflow
and infiltration reduction or connection to a regional treatment and disposal system,are
considered to be environmentally preferable to a surface water discharge. In accordance
with the North Carolina General Statutes, the practicable waste treatment and disposal
alterative with the least adverse impact on the environment is required to be implemented.
If the EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significant adverse affect on the
quality of the environment, an Environmental Impact Statement would be required Monica
Swihart of the Water Quality Planning Branch can provide further information regarding
the requirements of the N.C. Environmental Policy Act.
As you may be aware, a basinwide water quality management initiative is being
implemented by DEM. Our schedule for implementation in the New River Basin is set for
1995. The plan will attempt to address all sources of point and nonpoint pollutants where
deemed necessary to protect of restore water quality standards. In addressing interaction of
sources,wasteload allocations may be affected. Those facilities that have already
committed to high levels of treatment technology are least likely to be affected

Letter to Mr. French
page 3
We hope this information provides some assistance in your planning endeavors.
As previously mentioned,final NPDES effluent limitations will be determined after a
formal permit application has been submitted to the Division. If there are any additional
questions concerning this matter,please feel free to contact Ruth Swanek or Jackie Nowell
of my staff at [phone].
cerely,
nald L. Sa 4for
Assistant ChiJcSport
Water Quality Section
DLS/JMN
cc: Steve Mauney
Bobby Blowe
Dennis Burton, Hobbs, Upchurch, & Associates, P.A.
Central Files
W1:A File

Page 1
Note for Don Safrit
From: Ruth Swanek
Date: Tue, Dec 6, 1994 2:20 PM
Subject: FW: BOONE
To: Don Safrit; Jackie Nowell
Cc: Carla Sanderson
Jackie has not found anything other than 5/2 in the files. (See her note below). In addition,
she found the EA for Boone which lists the limits as 5/2. The guy that prepared the EA told
Jackie that he based limits on a conversation with Suzanne. Do you want us to change the
date on the letter and process with 5/2 or proceed in some other manner?
From: Jackie Nowell on Tue, Dec 6, 1994 2:15 PM
Subject: BOONE
To: Ruth Swanek
Susan came up yesterday and brought me a copy of the proceedings from the New River
reclassification hearings. Based on my review, there is nothing in there where DEM gave the
Town of Boone an exemption to the recommended strategy for new and expanding
dischargers to the New River.
There is a letter of comments from the mayor of Boone expressing their concerns about the
more stringent limits that may hinder Boone's growth and expansion. It was mentioned in
her letter that spec limits had been received from Tech Services Branch (1991 letter) that
didn't increase their loading but were not as strict as the 5 & 2 limits mentioned in the
proceedings. Suzannne Keene responded to her, in essence, that the more stringent limits
would apply to Boone if they were to expand their discharge such that the permitted pollutant
loading increased.
Where should I go from here? If Don and Tedder still feel there is some document from the
Division other than the 1991 letter, I'm don't know where it can be found. I have copies of
all letters and proceedings if you would like to review them.
The

WS REGIONRL OFFICE Fax:[phone] Dec 2 '94 15:01 P.02iO3
- REC N 't
N.C. De #t
State of North Carolina Rtglatlal 04idd
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Sheet • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Jamcs C. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
_ William W. Cobey,Jr., Secretary Director
April 27, 1992
The Honorable Velma C . Burnley, Mayor
Town of Boone
P .O. Box 192
Boone, NC 28607
SUBJECT! Proposed Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) Designation
of the New and lower South Fork New Rivers
Dear Mayor Burnley:
The Division of Environmental Management: (DEM) has received
your letter dated April 14, 1992 offering comments on the
proposed reclassification of the,.New and lower South Fork New
Rivers . These comments will be included in the Report of
Proceedings which will be presented to the members of the
Environmental Management Commission prior to their consideration
of this proposed reclassification. In the remainder of this
letter, I will address the subjects on which you requested
clarification.
Let me begin by describing the only part of the management
strategy being proposed in association with the subject
reclassification that could potentially affect the Town of Boone .
There are two sets of restrictions proposed for treated
wastewater discharges . These are ; 11 discharge restrictions
associated with the Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) segment
itself; and 2) those associated with all waters upstream of the
ORW segment . It is the latter set of restrictions that has
potential implications for the Town of Boone .
If the Town of Boone were to expand its current wastewater
discharge facility such that its permitted pollutant loading
increased, (or if the Town were to locate a new wastewater
REGIONAL OF!=
:1�htmlle 1'aaymcvillr M'.XC4,lle R.ileigh Wa9hingtun Wllmmks'� Winuon-Salem
704251.6308 919P186 Ii41 TW663-169) 919/571-1700 919/9466481 919139.1-39ou 919/390007
Pollution Prevention Pays
RU Box 99535, Wlel,;h, Nnnh C;arulina 77n(&0535 Teleplx)ne 919-733 7015
A,,N,.l U;pn„nn. 4fcraurtc+nWn Srety er

WS REGIONAL OFFICE Fax:[phone] Dec 2 '94 15:01 P.03iO3
Page Two
April 27, 1992
discharge in the headwaters of the South Fork New River
watershed) , then the discharge restrictions described in the
Public Information Package under subsections l and_2_ (these
sections provide a description of restrictions which would be
placed on new or expanded discharges upstream of the ORW segment)
on pages 5 and 6 would be applied during the permitting process .,
Expansions of wasteflow that do not cause an increase in the
current permitted pollutant loading would not be required to
comply with the more restrictive effluent limitations .
Your interpretation of the application of stormwater
controls appears to be accurate. The existing stormwater
controls applied to a portion of the South Fork New River in
association with its classification as High Quality Waters (HQW)
only extend from the Virginia state line upstream to Elk Creek.
The stormwater management strategy associated with the proposed
ORW reclassification would not change this existing protection.
Therefore, since the Town of Boone is upstream of the existing
HQw and proposed ORW waters, the Town will not be affected by the
stormwater controls .
The Division of Environmental Management and the
Environmental Management Commission appreciate your comments
regarding the proposed reclassification of the New and lower
South Fork New Rivers . If you have any further questions
regarding the proposal, please feel free to contact me at (919)
733-5083 .
Sincerely,
Suzanne H. Keen
Classifications and Standards
cc: Steve .Mauney
M2 :burnley.ltr

Page 1
Note for Jackie Nowell
From: Jackie Nowell
Date: Tue, Nov 29, 1994 2:28 PM
Subject: Boone spec letter, ORW area
To: Don Safrit
Cc: Carla Sanderson; Ruth Swanek
1
I had talked with Suzanne Keene in Planning about the management strategy for the South
Fork New River and whether this would apply to Boone since it was so far upstream of the
designated ORW segment. She responded that the limits apply to the entire catchment located
upstream of the ORW segment and would include Boone's discharge. There is no mileage
buffer, she also indicated that there may be some problems in the New River Basin and if the
ORW area is to be protected then these limits (5&2) need to be applied.

TOWN OF BOONE JMN
SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
050701 11/10/94
The facility is requesting speculative limits for expansion flows of 3.2, 4, 5 and 6 MGD.
Boone's outfall is located in the South Fork New River and is about 62 miles upstream of
the New River ORW designation.
There is a management strategy for the South Fork New and New River ORW areas and is
listed in the 15A NCAC 2B.0216 (e)(4). The strategy states that 1) stormwater controls
will apply within one mile and draining to ORW area. 2) total volume of wasteflow for
upstream discharges will not exceed 50% of the total instream flow in the ORW segment
under 7Q10 conditions 3) safety factors will be applied to any chemical allocations and
discharges of complex wastewater.
Also states that any new or expanded discharges located upstream of the designated ORW
will have to meet limits of 5&2,TSS=20 mg/l, (10 mg/l if trout waters). If nutrient
overenrichment is a problem, TP and TN limits may be assigned.
Because of Boone's distance upstream of the ORW segment, checked with Planning about
whether this strategy ( 5&2) would apply to their discharge. Suzanne Keene returned call
with response that the limits apply to the entire catchment located upstream of ORW
segment and would include Boone's discharge. There is no mileage buffer, she also said
that there were some problems in the New Basin and if the ORW area is to be protected
these limits must be applied.
RECOMMENDATION: Apply Specific Actions for South Fork New and
New River ORW Area per 2B.0216(e)(4).

Boone WWTP
Residual Chlorine Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7010(CFS) 13.1 7010 (CFS) 13.1
DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 3.2 DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 3.2
DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 4.96 DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 4.96
STREAM STD(UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD(MG/L) 1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(UG/L) 0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(MG/L) 0.22
IWC (%) 27.46 IWC(%) 27.46
Allowable Concentration(ug/I) 61.90 Allowable Concentration(mg/1) 3.06
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7010(CFS) 18.6
Fecal Limit 2001100ml DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 3.2
Ratio of 2.6:1 DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 4.96
STREAM STD(MG/L) 1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(MG/L) 0.22
IWC (%) 21.05
Allowable Concentration (mg/1) 7.73
NC0020621 11/9/94

Boone WWTP
Residual Chlorine Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10(CFS) 13.1 7010 (CFS) 13.1
DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 4 DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 4
DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 6.2 DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 6.2
STREAM STD(UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD(MG/L) 1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(UG/L) 0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(MG/L) 0.22
IWC (%) 32.12 IWC(%) 32.12
Allowable Concentration (ug/I) 52-92 Allowable Concentration(mg/1) 2.65
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10(CFS) 18.6
Fecal Limit 200/1100ml DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 4
Rego of 2.1 :1 DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 6.2
STREAM STD(MG/L) 1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(MG/L) 0.22
IWC (%) 25.00
Allowable Concentration (mg/1) 6.54
NCO020621 11/9/94

Boone WWTP
Residual Chlorine Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7010(CFS) 13.1 7Q10(CFS) 13.1
DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 5 DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 5
DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 7.75 DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 7.75
STREAM STD(UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD(MG/L) 1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(UG/L) 0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(MG/L) 0.22
IWC(%) 37.17 IWC (%) 37.17
Allowable Concentration(ug/1) 45.74 Allowable Concentration (mg/1) 2.32
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7010(CFS) 18.6
Fecal Limit 200/100ml DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 5
RaW of 1.7:1 DESIGN FLOW(CFS). 7.75
STREAM STD(MG/L) 1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(MG/L) 0.22
IWC(%) 29.41
Allowable Concentration(mg/1) 5.59
NC0020621 11/9/94

Boone WWTP
O
Residual Chlorine Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10(CFS) 13.1 7Q10 (CFS) 13.1
DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 6 DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 6
DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 9.3 DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 9.3
STREAM STD(UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD(MG/L) 1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(UG/L) 0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(MG/L) 0.22
IWC(°/u) 41.52 IWC(%) 41.52
Allowable Concentration (ug/1) 40.95 Allowable Concentration(mg/1) 2.10
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10(CFS) 18.6
Fecal Limit 200/100ml DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 6
Ratio or 1.4:1 DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 9.3
STREAM STD(MG/L) 1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(MG/L) 0.22
IWC (%) 33.33
Allowable Concentration (mg/1) 4.96
NC0020621 11/9/94

Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A. GL4po
Consulting Engineers
O J
7990 North Point Boulevard, Suite 202-50 • Winston-Salem, NC 27106
October 12, 1994
Ms. Ruth Clark Swanek X
In-Stream Assessment Unit
(�+"•s�;i=t ter;' ,.
Department of Environmental Management - Water Quality Section
P O Box 29535 { ;i
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 '!
Re: Speculative Limits
Town of Boone 201 Facilities Plan Update
HUA No. BN9404
Dear Ms. Swanek:
In accordance with my telephone conversation with Jason Doll, we are requesting
speculative limits at the existing discharge point for the Town of Boone Wastewater
Treatment Plant for the following flow conditions:
• 3.2 MGD
• 4.0 MGD
• 5.0 MGD
• 6.0 MGD
We are currently preparing a 20.1 Facilities Plan Update for the Town of Boone in
order to secure funding for upgrades. The completion of the plan is needed to meet
loan imposed deadlines. Your assistance in providing the information stated above to
meet these deadlines is needed and appreciated.
If additional information or clarification is needed, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH &jA�S�SOOCIATES, P.A.
Dennis H. Burton, P.E.
Project Manager
DHB/bpr
cc: Mr. Steve Cavanaugh, Jr., P.E., Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Mrs. Rosemary Button, Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
0
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]