NC0088331_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20060808

ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
FOR NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION
GRANTSBORO, KERSHAW, MILLPOND, AND VANDEMERE
WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
PAMLICO COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. General Information
A. Description of Projects
B. Basic Identification of Projects
IV.
V
Flow Projections
Evaluation of Technologically Feasible Alternatives
Cost Estimates for Disposal Alternative
AA100 8b V
88;3J
�� 310)
�g53 -

ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
FOR NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION
GRANTSBORO, KERSHAW, MILLPOND, AND VANDEMERE
WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
PAMLICO COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Introduction
This engineering alternatives analysis has been prepared to comply with
the North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2) and
associated guidance document for application of a new NPDES permit for
discharge of wastewater into the surface waters of the state. The County
of Pamlico is applying for NPDES permits for disposal of filter backwash
wastewater and softener backwash wastewater from four of their existing
water treatment plants into nearby receiving streams.
General Information
A. Description of Projects
Pamlico County owns the following water treatment plants:
Bayboro Water Treatment Plant (WTP), Grantsboro WTP, Kershaw
WTP, Millpond WTP, and Vandemere WTP. The Bayboro WTP is
currently not in operation. At the Grantsboro, Kershaw, Millpond,
and Vandemere plants, groundwater is filtered and softened,
chlorine and ammonia are added for disinfection, corrosion control
chemicals are added, and finished water flows into the distribution
system. Flow schematics for these four treatment plants are
attached as Figures 1 through 4.
At each plant, wastewater is produced when filters and water
softeners are backwashed. The wastewater from each plant is
currently being discharged into tributaries of the following streams:
Grantsboro WTP — Beard Creek
Kershaw WTP — Tarkiln Creek
Millpond WTP — North Prong of Bay River
Vandemere WTP — Smith Creek
The locations of the water treatment plants and associated
receiving streams are indicated on USGS maps in the attached
Figures No. 5 through 8. Photographs of the outfall locations are
also attached as Figures No. 9 through 12.

z
2
Narne: ARAPAHOE
Date: 9/14/2006
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Figure No. 5 - Map of Grantsboro WTP
o
C5
G6nts Oro
z
I 1 1 6)61 hi-67r
;FF7764
dl�
Jd.dol, W
I I 1 1061
b.�b4
\k I 111 loW J91 kdol- W I I I I I I
Grantsboro WTP Discharge: 35*
05'14.4" N, 76' 50'15"W

Figure No. 6 - Mar) of Kershaw WTP
z
�'. V16Y '♦ �.,_ G ham• �'Y �._• -� A• � �
-tea _ a .. .e _ ♦ - �' ,�.1_ �; a..J_
' •g�tB ChtpQ
I, \
3 Y i
i ~ 4
/ O
Si I_I Dem elSBW o
4�
to
i
'St Stepheiu
'ter:
CS
x
O
/J
tc,� yyqqq,qqp I
O
� V
d
6 8 o
Name: ARAPAHOE Kershaw WTP Discharge: 35' 01' 53.4" N, 76" 46' 10.2" W
Date: 9/14/2006
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet

Figure No. 7 - Map of Millpond WTP
M BM
Z
0
N
al II
O it Irij
i
C00.
0 1
Lan), g •'
Ftl
���11IIp'ond JB ind Tanl� Valve P .
Mill ondDischarge Ditch 1 °
Z
Z
' • •4- • 7 K•' +'Cem
Q,� I' /• o
G 'a ,•I •tv ° "r'• 1}h Meifo
e�• ��_ii.✓ m
o i�py jkg aaiiNN iCp6���. •..I,_ o
'�sr ' III,,'. F^'f .�•/ i •4N�.a�^.� 'INN �.
yam.: I'• ./C � 1M
}k 1. Cem
StoaeWall
Z
S I j South' �, o l
} o
O N
} M
1 ° n>a
W) , o
10° w �(
0
Name: BA1'BORO Millpond JB and Tank Valve: 350 09' 16.2" N, 76° 46' 21.6" W
Date: 9/14/2006 Millpond Discharge Ditch: 359 09 15" N, 760 4T 20.4" W
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet

Figure No. 8 -Map of Vandemere WTP
\ to " ~ •G•.aL � + - C G fow. sa �o°'{r. .
\� ,:-.•..d. .� .•..- .r • \ aid + , %..
_ G \
_ -
O \ •gyp. � �-~ �• - __ _ �. n ® p
•-law
--------------
61.
4
i !Cash bornrl I `-
c am
.9 Wr Berri -re
;� ♦+, -- - .�i / 14 `���= Cedar Pt
Z •�
Y•e `' �� I ,' <. `. ,8t 1 •� • Dishy Z
Point o
o �e•�• ��� ' x • • ' ♦ ' yf" %11Vandemere
o + ato 1 16 RR
ks
Mt Zion Ch
•1 •` �.� ) .l Windmill
PoiOt
.._
h'. Smith Cr
J 'Point
• �. iii bel
`i Bch 'Poorhouse Pt
e _.�0:. >:• • • • °. Neer (C)
w
8 a Bay g
1
Name: VPNDEMERE Vandemere WTP Discharge: 35.11' 19.8" N. 76' 40' 49.2" W
Data: 9/14/2006
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet

V
r
ire
r7-11

P. <R
4t
.i
.......... . . . . . . . . . .
m
1p.
71
ly
lz� 4
it
ischarge Point
NA,
�W,Ub/?40b'

r
Discharge Point
09"
NO
`
2
006

. pY � � :tip • 3 "t w r..
� S, ♦Jl. h',L Y' L �'Cl�,� J
\.� 77b. tiJ L/i V4r
14 �- ff�"
lie 3,

�--,, Before beginning the Engineering Alternatives Analysis for
wastewater disposal at each site, the receiving streams were
evaluated to determine if the proposed discharges would be
allowed. The information gathered in this evaluation is included in
Appendix A below. It was determined that the proposed
wastewater discharges should be allowed.
B. Basic Identification of the Projects
Applicant: Pamlico County
Post Office Box 158
Bayboro, North Carolina 28515
(P) [phone]
(F) [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Contact - Timothy A. Buck, County Manager
Facilities: Grantsboro Water Treatment Plant
Highway 306 South
Grantsboro, North Carolina 28529
[phone]
Contact - Thomas Beasley
Kershaw Water Treatment Plant
41-16 Kershaw Road
Arapahoe, North Carolina 28510
[phone]
Contact - Thomas Beasley
Millpond W ater Treatment Plant
601 N. 3 Street
Bayboro, North Carolina 28515
[phone]
Contact - Thomas Beasley
Vandemere Water Treatment Plant
286 NC 307
Vandemere, North Carolina 28587
[phone]
Contact - Thomas Beasley
EAA prepared by: Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4011 WestChase Boulevard, Suite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
(P) [phone]
(F) [phone]

Contacts - H. Thomas Tant, P.E
Alana Loughlin, P. E.
David Laliberte
III. Flow Proiections
Monthly operating reports for January 2006 through July 2006 were
analyzed for each of the four water treatment plants in order to determine
the expected maximum discharge flow from each plant. The plants
generally do not operate 24 hours per day. Backwash flows on the days
when the plants were operating the longest were therefore extrapolated
for an operating time of 24 hours to estimate the maximum backwash flow
expected from. each facility. The projected maximum daily backwash
flows were calculated as follows:
Grantsboro WTP 100,000 gallons per day
Kershaw WTP 60,000 gallons per day
Millpond WTP 160,000 gallons per day
Vandemere WTP 230,000 gallons per day
These projected maximum daily backwash amounts above represent the
backwash flow that could be discharged to the receiving streams from the
four water treatment facilities at maximum capacity.
IV. Evaluation of Technologically Feasible Alternatives
The feasibility of the following wastewater disposal alternatives has been
investigated as a part of the evaluation: connection to an existing
wastewater treatment plant, land application, wastewater reuse, and
surface water discharge through the NPDES program.
A. Connection to an existing wastewater treatment plant was
investigated as a disposal alternative. The Bay River Metropolitan
Sewer District owns and operates wastewater treatment facilities in
Pamlico County. Hazen and Sawyer contacted Ed Riggs, a Board
member of the Bay River MSD, to determine the feasibility of
discharging the waste from the water treatment plants to the Bay
River system. Mr. Riggs indicated that'the existing wastewater
plants in the area have no excess capacity, so plant expansion
would be required before they could receive flow from the water
plants. Connection to an existing wastewater treatment facility is
therefore considered to be a cost -prohibitive altemative.
B. Land application is not a feasible alternative because of the
concentrated wastestream generated by the water softeners at the

�--�, water treatment plants. The Guidance Document for preparation of
Engineering Alternatives Analyses indicates that wastestreams
from ion exchange systems are not amenable to land application
because of these concentrated wastestreams and therefore do not
need to be evaluated for land application.
C. Similarly, wastewater reuse is also not a feasible alternative
because of the concentrated wastestream.
D. Surface water discharge through the NPDES program appears to
be the most feasible and cost effective alternative for disposing of
the wastewater generated by these water treatment plants. The
wastewater flow will continue to be discharged to the listed
receiving streams or their tributaries. However, the backwash
wastewater will be dechlorinated before disposal.
V. Cost Estimates for Disposal Alternative
At each of the four water treatment facilities, the wastewater will continue
to be disposed of through surface water discharge; however, the
backwash wastewater will be dechlorinated before disposal. At each site
a chemical feed facility and a dechlorination and flow measurement
structure will be provided.
The chemical feed facility will include two sulfur dioxide cylinders provided
on a scale; a vacuum regulator check unit, a sulfur dioxide flowmeter and
a feed valve for feed of the gaseous sulfur dioxide; and an ejector, to mix
the gaseous sulfur dioxide with water to produce sulfur dioxide solution.
Sulfur dioxide feed rate will be controlled based on backwash wastewater
flow. The storage and feed equipment will be enclosed in a fiberglass .
shelter, and a freeze -resistant emergency shower/eyewash station will be
provided adjacent to the shelter. The sulfur dioxide solution will be mixed
with the wastewater flow at the new dechlorination structure.
A dechlorination and flow measurement structure will be provided for the
wastewater discharge line at each plant. The wastewater flow will be
routed through the dechlorination structure, which will include a diffuser, to
distribute the sulfur dioxide solution into the wastewater; a v-notch weir, to
measure the wastewater flow; and a flow meter.
The estimated construction cost for the dechlorination systems is
$120,000 per water treatment plant. This cost includes equipment, labor,
installation, and design costs.

APPENDIX A
EVALUATION TO DETERMINE IF
PROPOSED DISCHARGES WILL BE ALLOWED
The receiving streams for wastewater from the four water treatment plants were
evaluated to determine if the proposed discharges will be allowed. The potential
existing water quality restrictions evaluated are as follows:
A. Zero Flow Stream Restrictions
Hazen and Sawyer sent maps of the possible receiving streams to the
U.S. Geological Survey in order to determine streamflow in the proposed
discharge locations. J. Curtis Weaver, P.E. of USGS North Carolina
Water Science Center reported that discharge records were very limited
for the possible receiving streams. In addition, USGS does not provide
low -flow characteristics for streams that are affected by tidal influences,
and several of the streams in question are influenced by tides.
Specific information on the streams was provided as follows:
For the Grantsboro WTP, Beard Creek has a very small drainage area,
and the 7Q10 discharge is estimated to be zero flow.
For the Kershaw WTP, Tarkiln Creek appears to be influenced by tidal
effects, so no information is available.
For the Millpond WTP, the Millpond drainage ditch into the North Prong of
the Bay River appears to be influenced by tidal effects, so no information
is available.
For the Vandemere WTP, Smith Creek has a small drainage area at
points close to the water plant, and the 7Q10 discharge is estimated to be
zero flow. If the discharge point were to be located further downstream in
these streams, tidal influences would be present, so no information is
available.
Although flow is low in several of these streams and others are affected by
tidal influences so flow information is not available, the zero flow stream
restrictions apply to oxygen -consuming waste. The filter backwash and
softener backwash flows from the water treatment plants will not be
oxygen -consuming waste.

B. Receivina Stream Classification Restrictions
H&S determined the receiving stream classification for each of the
proposed discharge locations from DWQ's website. The streams are
classified as follows:
Grantsboro WTP Beard Creek — SC, SW, NSW
Kershaw WTP Tarkiln Creek — SC, NSW
Millpond WTP North Prong of Bay River — SC, SW, NSW
Vandemere WTP Smith Creek — SC, SW, HQW, NSW
The receiving stream classifications are defined as follows (from the DWQ
website):
Class SC - All tidal salt waters protected for secondary recreation such as
fishing, boating and other activities involving minimal skin contact; aquatic
life propagation and survival; and wildlife.
High Quality Waters (HQW) - Supplemental classification intended to
protect waters with quality higher than state water quality standards.
Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) - Supplemental classification intended
for waters needing additional nutrient management due to their being
subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. In
general, management strategies for point and nonpoint source pollution
control require control of nutrients (nitrogen and/or phosphorus usually)
such that excessive growths of vegetation are reduced or prevented and
there is no increase in nutrients over target levels. Management strategies
are site -specific.
Swamp Waters (SW) - Supplemental classification intended to recognize
those waters that generally have naturally occurring very low velocities,
low pH and low dissolved oxygen. No specific restrictions on development
are involved.
H&S reviewed wastewater discharge restrictions for the stream
classifications listed above (listed in NC Administrative Code 15A NCAC
213.0200) to determine if the discharge of filter backwash wastewater and
water softener backwash wastewater into the receiving streams could
cause water quality problems. Pamlico County sampled the wastewater
from each plant and the water in the receiving streams on July 24, 2006.
The following effluent characteristics were tested for each sample: total
suspended solids, chlorides, settleable solids, turbidity, iron, sodium,
magnesium, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus. The results of these
analyses are attached in Appendix B. In addition, flow information for

. each plant, including gallons produced and gallons used for backwash, is
also attached in Appendix B.
Additional sampling was conducted on September 5, 2006, and analysis
results will be forwarded to DWQ as soon as they are available.
All of the proposed receiving streams are Class SC waters. For Class SC
waters, salinity and turbidity are the water quality parameters that could be
affected by the discharge from the water treatment plants. Based on the
sample set collected in July 2006, both chloride and turbidity levels in the
wastewater from each plant are equal to or below the levels in the
receiving streams. Also, turbidity is well below the limit of 25 NTU.
Likewise, all of the proposed receiving streams are Nutrient Sensitive
Waters. For three of the four treatment plants, total nitrogen levels in the
wastewater were below the levels in the receiving streams in the sample
collected in July. For the Grantsboro plant, however, total nitrogen was
slightly higher (2.22 mg/1) than in the receiving stream (1.98 mg/1).
Only one of the receiving streams, Smith Creek, is classified as a High
Quality Water. The parameters that could be affected by the discharge
from the water treatment plants are total suspended solids, emergency
requirements, volume, nutrients, and toxic substances. Based on the
sample set collected in July, total suspended solids levels in the
wastewater are either equal to or below the levels in the receiving
streams, and all levels are well below the limit of 20 mg/l. All facilities are
provided with back-up power, so emergency requirements should not be
an issue. Volume, however, could be an issue as the 7Q10 discharge for
Smith Creek is estimated to be zero flow. Nutrients are not an issue as
the total nitrogen and total phosphorus levels in the wastewater were
equal to or below the levels in the receiving stream. And as for toxicity,
chlorides in the wastewater were well below the levels in the receiving
stream; also, the wastewater will be dechlorinated, so chlorine toxicity
should not be an issue.
C. Basinwide Water Qualitv Plans/Impaired Waters and TMDLs
H&S reviewed basinwide water quality plans available on the DWQ
website to determine if any of the possible receiving streams have NPDES
permitting strategies and/or impending TMDLs that limit wastewater
discharges. One of the possible receiving streams, Bay River, is listed as
impaired for shellfish harvesting because bacteria levels. The discharge
from the water treatment plants should have no impact on bacteria levels
in the receiving streams.

,•,, D. Presence of Endangered Species
H&S contacted the NC Natural Heritage Program to determine if
endangered species are present in the proposed discharge streams.
Sarah McRae of NC Natural Heritage reported that there are no records of
rare species for the Kershaw, Millpond, and Vandemere Water Treatment
Plants. The Grantsboro WTP has two rare plants nearby; however Misty
Franklin with NC Natural Heritage reported that that these plants would be
affected only if new pipelines or sewer easements were routed through
pine savannas or pocosins, the habitat of the endangered plants.
Hazen and Sawyer has determined that the proposed discharges meet the
"allowable discharge" criteria for new NPDES discharges.

CLARIFICATION OF ANALYSIS REPORT FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTS, INC.
DATED AUGUST 8, 2006
In the analytical data collected on July 24, 2006 and shown on the following
page, for each water treatment plant, the first column represents the flow
discharged from the water treatment plant, and the second column represents
water in the receiving stream immediately downstream of the discharge point.
For example, for the Kershaw Plant, the first column with the heading #13772
provides data from the backwash water, and the second column with the heading
#13773 provides data from the receiving stream.

E
irochem
ANALYTICAL 8 CONSULTING
Customer:
Environmental Chemists, Inc.
6602 Windmill Way • Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] (Lab) • [phone] (Fax)
710 Bows town Road • Manteo, NC 27954
[phone]
CHEMISTS WDENR: DN`Q CERMICATE #94. DLS CERTIFICATE #37729
FAMLICO COUNTY WATER
PO Box 158
Bayboro NC- 28513 -
Attm; Tom Beasley
REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Date Sampled: 07J24/06
Sampled By: Tom B. / Charles H.
EFFLUENT: Filter Plant Effluent
Date of Report: August 8, 2006
Fam. hase.Urder. #:.- . . .
Report Number: 6-5777
Report To: Tom Beasley
Project:
Kershaw
Grantsboro Vandemere
bIil
and
DRe
Parameter
#13772
#13773
#13774
913775
#13776
#13777
#13778
#13779
Aoalyud
Total Suspended
1
< 1
1
1
i
1
1
8
08/01/06
Solids, TSS mg/L
chlor'oes'
48.6
48.6
12.7
243
21.2
337
37.7
6365
08/01/06 1
Cl- mg/L
Settleable Solids,
< 0.1 *
< 0.1 *
< 0.1 *
< 0.1 *
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
* 07/25/06 I
SS mUL
07/26/06 '
Turbidity, NFU
0A
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.4
3.2
07/26/06
Iron, Fe mg/L
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.399
0.379
< 0.005
< 0.005
08/01/06
Sodium, No mg/L
48.1
53.0
91.6
167
62.2
63.9
47.5
2130
07/27/06 '
Magnesium,
0.015
0.015
': "
yx_?
?;`.'
08/OI/06
At mgti
t
.Cry.
, :y. ..
TotalNtrogen,
2.39
2.56
2.22
1.98
1.01
1.02
1.33
5.38
08/07/06 ;
as N mg/L
Total Phosphorus,
< 0.02
< 0.02
< 0.02
< 0.02
< 0.02
< 0.02
< 0.02
< 0.02
07/27/06
as P mg/L
Date /Time
07-24
07-24
07-24
07-24
07-24
07-24
7-74
olopm
07 Z4
Sampled
10:30am
30:30�
8:20am
8:25am
11:20am
i1:20am
1
12:lopm
"
Comments:��r,
Reviewed
CciLe�

ENVIRONMENTAL U&MISTS, INC
Sample Collection and Chain of Custody
Ei•(\A
6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
- S" ?- -.- --�-
Sam le '.t' e: 1= lnfluen `L = Effluea W = ellST -=dream
SO =Soil
SL=
SaudLye
Other•
Sample Identification
Q m
z
Collection
p
C o
c
10
= a
oG.
o It
o
PRESERVATION
ANALYSIS REQUESTED
o
o
u
o
z
C
o
'DATE
TIME
TEMP
Effluent;
3
2 OHO
=�
E
C
P
TSS, Chloride, SS,
Turbidity
G
G
Chlorine:
lv l�
X
Iron, Sodium /n5
G
G
C
P
X
Total N, P
G
G
Vstm:
NC
at
x
TSS, Chloride, SS,
Turbidity
�
G
CI or e:
X
Iron, Sodium j /Y)nL
G
G
C
P
R
Total N, P
G
G
Downstream
13�-
10�3U
at
TSS, Chloride, SS,
Turbidi
G
G
Chlorine:
A
C
X
Iron, Sodium .Ny
G
C
P
X
Total N, P
G
G
C
P
G
G
Transfer
Relinquished By:
Date/Time
Received By:
Date/Time
A &6 NAD Di**
7 -,9 5~ D�
2.
Temperature when Received: 3 Accepted: Rejected: Resample Reques ed:
Delivered By: Received By: Date: �, zr Time: y
Comments:

ENVIRONMENTAL % ,AEMISTS, INC
Sample Collection and Cham* of Custody
: {0M
1
6602.Windmill Way '
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
o: io - S 4 4-4-
Sam to .f e: 1= influent
K = Eftluen =WellSTam. SO =SoiL
SL--
Slud
a Other:
Sample Identification
ca Cd
.� Z
Collection
a
m
�
•o
V
�,
•e v
V V
�,
PRESERVATION
ANALYSIS REQUESTED
s
p
6
K
_
O
O
w
DATE
TIME
TEMP
Effluent:
13 —7
�� z
E
C
P
x
TSS, Chloride, SS,
Turbidx
G
G
Chlorine:
X
Iron, Sodium
G
G
C
P
x
Total N, P
G
G
Upstream:
p
�0/
st
X
TSS, Chloride, SS,
Turbidity
G
G
Chlorine:
C
P
x
Iron, Sodium
G
G
C'
p
X
Total N, P
G
G
Downstream
l3
z�
y.S
St
X
TSS, Chloride, SS,
Turbidity
G
G
Chlorine:
N h
C
P
Iron, Sodium
G
G
X
Total N, P
G
G
C
P
G
G
Transfer
Relinquished By:
Date/Time
Received By:
Date/Time
1.
..yq eL6s 14}ik7.D1:sotq
2.
Temperature when Received: Accepted: V Rejected: ResamEple RequIM7
Delivered By: Received By: Date: ITime:
),f ft2
Comments:

E R NMENTAL .�
�— Nil � EMISTS, INC�C 6602 Windmill fey
- Wilmington, NC 28405
........____--� Sample Collection and Chain of Custody Phone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
Client: Pamlico County Water tt: Tom .Beasley EMAIL: ECHEMW aol.com
Collected By: 6iq 8 • " tl• Filter Plant Effluent: Vgn0hMyj&ZP Re ort No:
Sam le e: I = Influent E = Mimi W =Well. ST stream SO =Sol
L= Slud
a OMS :
Sample Identification
n
z
Collection
a
r o
itoo a
A..-,
�
PRESERZVATION
ANALYSIS REQUESTED
o
r-
a
DATE
TIME
TEMP
Effluent:
1
� o�
. ZD
'
E
G
G
X
TSS Chloride SS,
Turbidity
Chlorine:
N
C
P
x
Iron Sodium
G
G
C
P
x
Total N, P
G
G
Upstream:
N
st
P
x
TSS, Chloride, SS,
Turbidity
G
G
Chlorine:
C_
P
x
Iron, Sodium
G
G
C
P
X
_
Total N, P
G
G
Downstream
�3
7 2 ��
1: ZOn,�
st
C
P
X
TSS, Chloride, SS,
Tnrbidi
G
G
Chlorine:
C
P
x
Iron, Sodium
G
G
'
C
P
X
Total N, P
G
G
C
P
G
G
Transfer Relinquished By: DateMme Received By: Date/Time
Z.
Temperature when Received: 3dG Accepted: V Rejected: Resample Reques d:
Delivered By: Received By: Date: Time:
Comments:

i
ENVIRONMENTAL % ,IIEMISTS, INC
Sample Collection and Chain of Custody
6602 Windmcll. Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
,: ECHEMWQaol.com
►mot
Sam le e: I = Infl
nt E=Eftivent, Wz!!WelL S =S
cam. S =
5
— Saud
a Other:
Sample Identification
e m
Collection
a
a
aso
o
a
V
o a
V "
,
PRESERVATION
ANALYSIS REQUh.STED
Z
Z
,,
c;
!A:IM
p
w
p
x
a�
a
DATE
TIME
TEMP
Effluent:j3�-7
7-zy-oG
/Z;io ,n
E
C
P
X
TSS, Chloride, SS,
Turbidity
G
G
Chlorine:
/"q
X
Iron, Sodium
G
G
c
P
x
Total N, P
G
G
Upstream:
s#
c
P
X
TSS, Chloride, SS,
Turbidity
-
G
G
Chlorine:
NIA
X
Iron, Sodium
G
G
C
P
X
Total N, P
G
G
Downstream
�3
r
! !
st
X
TSS, Chloride, SS,
Turbi
G
G
Chlorine:A
C
P
X
Iron, Sodium
G
G
X
Total N, P
G
G
C
P
G
G
Transfer
Relinquisbed By:
Date/Time
Received By:
Date/Time
O.HARI-66
':3 fiq—
2.
Temperature when Received: XC Accepted: Rej e
? Delivered By: Received By:
Comments:
Resample Requested:
Date: Time: F�

BACKWASH FLOWS FOR 4 OF 5 WTP'S (2005 Results)
Kershaw WTP
Grantsboro WTP
Millpond WTP
Vandemere WTP
1.622 MG -.056 MG
N/A
2.566 MG -.083 MG
.514 MG -.017 MG
1.358 MG -.049 MG
N/A
1.942 MG -.069 MG
.369 MG -.013 MG
1.637 MG -.053 MG
N/A
2.182 MG -.070 MG
.571 MG -.018 MG
1.995 MG - .067 MG
N/A
2.323 MG - .077 MG
(15%)
.629 MG - .021 MG
1.475 MG - .048 MG
N/A
2.320 MG -.075 MG (15%)
.621 MG - .020 MG
1.253 MG - .042 MG
(10%)
N/A
2.293 MG -.076 MG
.639 MG -.021 MG
1.480 MG - .047 MG
(11%)
N/A
2.763 MG - .089 MG
(16%)
1.423 MG - .046 MG
(34%)
1.142 MG - .037 MG
(11%)
.499 MG -.026 MG (14%)
3.244 MG -.105 MG (23%)
.611 MG -.020 MG (15%)
1.049 MG -.035 MG (11%)
.543 MG - .024 MG
2.153 MG -.072 MG
.766 MG -.026 MG
.953 MG - .031 MG
.848 MG -.027 MG
2.079 MG -.067 MG
.781 MG -.025 MG (16%)
.959 MG -.032 MG
.679 MG -.023 MG (16%)
2.137 MG -.071 MG
.942 MG - .031 MG
1.044 MG - .034 MG
.674 MG -.022 MG
2.317 MG -.076 MG (18%)
.902 MG - .030 MG
*'Fable shows monthly total flows and monthly avg.
Data was taken from Report of Operations, the first figure in each column represents the
total gallons used for the entire month and the second figure is the average gallons of
BW used for the month. (Finished chlorinated water is used for all BW)
* The % numbers represent the ratio of BW water compared to the total produced per
plant per month.

RAW WA
i BEN AND SAMER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
-
7nnfi4R9R C•nFA H-\'illi56\FlRIIRFC\'4,nii4—n7 riWn Rv pRFAhI Wr Inct Cnvnrt Rv nRF AnI INf,
AERATOR AND STEEL
TANK WETWELL
FILTERS SOFTENERS
SOFTENER BYPASS
► - AMMONIA
_ = ' —CORROSION CONTROL CHEMICALS
TO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
�_ = 0.86 MGD
(DESIGN CAPACITY)
v BACKWASH WASTEWATER I
FILTER
PUMPS BACKWASH WATER
0,100 MGD
BACKWASH WASTEWATER
0ADO MGD
FIGURE 1
NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION
PAMLICO COUNTY, NC
GRANTSBORO WTP
FLOW SCHEMATIC

RAW WATER WELLS
f ZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
7nnFnR7R Q• nF{A H \ in'SSa\Flnl IRFC\ "ill3ria-
dwn RvnRFAn11NC Intl Cnvnrl Rv nRFAnIINr
AERATOR AND STEEL
TANK WETWELL
SOFTENERS
SOFTENER BYPASS
PAMLICO COUNTY, NC
KERSHAW WTP
FLOW SCHEMATIC

FIGURE 3
AERATOR AND STEEL
TANK WETWELL
RAW WATER WELLS
I BEN AND SAWYER
I Environmental Engineers & Scientists
I
FILTER
PUMPS
FILTERS
BACKWASH WASTE
BACKWASH WASTEWATER
0.160 MGD
SOFTENERS
SOFTENER BYPASS
CHLORINE
AMMONIA
CORROSION CONTROL CHEMICALS
f 1 r TO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
^ 0.86 MGD
(DESIGN CAPACITY)
NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION
PAMLICO COUNTY, NC
MILLPOND WTP
FLOW SCHEMATIC
?nnFnR7R A-nRA W.Njn'i54\FI(:I IRFC\'%mr,4—n4 rlwn Rw nRFAnI INf. 1ntl c;—ri Rv nRFAnI IN(;

FIGURE 4
AERATOR AND STEEL
TANK WETWELL
RAW WATER WELLS
FLOW
FILTERS SOFTENERS
SOFTENER BYPASS
I CONTROL CHEMICALS
TO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
0.86 MGD
(DESIGN CAPACITY)
NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION
PAMLICO COUNTY, NC
BEN AND SANNER VAIN DEM ERE WTP
Environmental Engineers & Scientists FLOW SCHEMATIC
9nnsnsgR Q•nF;A H• \ ini5d\FInI IRFC\iniSA—hS rtwn Rv DRFMING Inc! 1;—A Rv hRFAnt INr