NC0080071_Fact Sheet_20200709

FACT SHEET FOR EXPEDITED PERMIT RENEWALS
This form must be completed by Permit Writers for all expedited permits which do not require
full Fact Sheets. Expedited permits are generally simple 100% domestics (e.g., schools, mobile
home parks, etc) that can be administratively renewed with minor changes, but can include
facilities with more complex issues (Special Conditions, 303(d) listed water, toxicity testing,
instream monitoring, compliance concerns).
Basic Information for Expedited Permit Renewals
Permit Writer / Date
Brianna Young 7/9/2020
Permit Number
NCO080071
Facility Name / Facility Class
Vanceboro WTP / PCNC
Basin Name / Sub -basin number
Neuse / 03-04-09
Receiving Stream / HUC
UT to Mauls Swam / 030202020502
Stream Classification / Stream Segment
C; Sw, NSW / 27-97-5.7
Does permit need Daily Maximum NH3
limits?
N/A
Does permit need TRC limits/language?
Already resent
Does permit have toxicity testing? IWC (%) if
so
Yes; IWC = 90%
Does permit have Special Conditions?
Yes — compliance schedule added during
renewal
Does permit have instream monitoring?
No
Is the stream impaired on 303 d list)?
No
Any obvious compliance concerns?
Yes — failed toxicity tests
Any permit mods since lastpermit?
None
New expiration date
4/30/2023
Comments on Draft Permit?
Yes See Section 7 below
Section 1. Facility Overview:
The Vanceboro WTP operates an ion exchange WTP designed for a potable flowrate of
0.432 MGD. The facility generates backflow and filter regeneration with a intermittent
discharge. The maximum, monthly average discharge between January 2017 and
December 2019 was 0.016 MGD. Per the Washington Regional Office (via email
2/26/2020), the discharge goes to an effluent channel that consists of a ditch flowing
along railroad tracks, therefore instream sampling would be problematic. WaRO also
stated that the flow volume reported is based on the known, automated periodic backwash
flow amount, hence why the flow volume is the same for each discharge.
Per the previous permit factsheet: Raw well water is aerated and collected in a surge tank
as demand dictates. From the tank, water is then pumped through a dual train pressure
sand filter and water softener. As the treated well water exits the plant chlorine is added
before entering the drinking water distribution system. No other chemicals are added.
Filtered well water is used to intermittently backwash and rinse the sand filters and water
softeners and is discharged to the permitted outfall. A bulk salt solution tank provides the
regeneration salt solution to the softeners. There is one area storm drain connected to the
permitted outfall that collects storm water from the grassy area adjacent to the treatment

building. The operator initiates the backwash and rinse cycles based on treated water
throughput and utilizes the influent flow meter to determine wastewater flows and to
coordinate effluent sampling.
Per Randy Sipe (WaRO, via email 2/26/2020): The reported discharge is the same
because they base it on the known, automated periodic backwash flow amount. The
discharge is to a effluent channel that consists of a ditch that flows along railroad tracks
approx. 600 feet east to Maul Creek so instream sampling would be problematic. We
have no comments on the discharge alternatives analysis.
Per Harry Bailey (permittee representative; via email 3/13/2020), there are no drying
beds as part of this facility, therefore there has been no solids handling historically and
there are none proposed.
Section 2. Compliance History:
• No NOVs or enforcements in the previous 5 years
• Failed 11 of last 12 toxicity tests
A discharge alternatives analysis (DAA) was required in the previous permit renewal.
This analysis was submitted with the permit renewal application. Per the DAA, the
toxicity failures are due to chloride levels associated with regeneration of the softener.
The facility evaluated the alternatives in the DAA and came to the following conclusions
(no present worth cost analysis was completed for the alternatives):
• Connect discharge to a WWTP: Based on discussions with WaRO staff, addition
of the discharge from the WTP to the sanitary sewer system may create issues
with the WWTP effluent. It is therefore not recommended as a viable alternative.
A possible viable option would be the blending of raw water with the WTP
discharge prior to entering the sanitary sewer system. This would reduce the
chloride concentration in the flow along with other contaminants of concern and
not create any issues with regard to permitted capacity at the WWTP.
Conversations with WaRO staff have indicated that this would not be a permitted
alternative.
• Obtain a non -discharge permit: In accordance with the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) Guidance Document provided by NCDEQ, waste streams from
ion exchange treatment units do not have to be evaluated for land application.
Discharge high in salt concentration is typically not suitable for land application,
as excess salts can adversely affect plants via osmotic effect; specific ion toxicity;
and soil particle dispersion, which reduces soil permeability and the water
infiltration rate. The waste brine is not suitable for irrigation or landscape
irrigation. State of North Carolina code 15A NCAC 02U .1101 prohibits
discharge to saltwater wetlands, so this discharge alternative is not available.
Additionally, the quality of the discharge would prohibit the use of the discharge
for non- potable uses. The brine content does not allow the beneficial use of this
waste stream for reuse application. Wastewater reuse is not a feasible alternative
for disposal of this discharge.

• Install wastewater treatment: A candidate treatment technology for removal of
chlorides is reverse osmosis (RO) technology. However, with such a high chloride
content in the feed water, the RO system would need very high pressure and the
percent recovery through the process would be 75% or less. Thus, RO process
would produce a discharge with a concentrate still requiring discharge to a large
water body. There are evaporative type systems that could evaporate the water off
the brine wastewater to produce a solid (salt), but they are energy intensive and
expensive. Thus, the RO treatment and/or brine evaporation option does not solve
the original discharge problem and is not economically feasible.
• Use alternative water treatment source: Due to the CCPCUA Rules, the Craven
County water system has been subject to withdrawal reductions since 2008. The
2018 Local Water Supply Plan indicates that demand as percent of supply is
approximately 60% and will approach 80% between 2040 and 2050. At this time,
it does not appear that this would be viable alternative source. The Division of
Water Resources may not permit new groundwater sources located in deeper
aquifers that are subject to the CCPCUA Rules. Since there are no public water
supply wells located in the deeper aquifers in this area of Craven County, it is not
known what raw water quality may exist or what treatment may be required. This
alternative would require two new groundwater wells being installed along with
the possible construction of a new water treatment plant that would have a
discharge. Due to the amount of required infrastructure, this alternative is not
financially feasible.
• Use alternative treatment method: In effect, this would mean eliminating the
softener (and ion exchange) and using a different technology that does not
produce the brine/salt discharge in the form of RO. However, these technologies
produce a brine/ saline discharge in the form of concentrate stream that must be
disposed of. Thus, use of nanofiltration or RO would need to be combined with a
large water body discharge to be applicable. This alternative does not solve the
original discharge problem and is not economically feasible.
• Discharge to a larger waterbody/perform a dilution model: Due to the salty nature
of the discharges, the best choice for a new discharge location would be to a
tidally influenced area where the salinity of the discharge will not have as great an
impact. A larger water body around the Town of Vanceboro is the Neuse River.
The Neuse River is located south of the Town of Vanceboro. The advantage to a
new discharge into Neuse River segment 27-(96) is that it is classified SC; Sw;
NSW. A discharge to SC waters would change the WET test requirements and
also chloride limits. A discharge force main from the WTP would be
approximately 8 miles. Due to the amount of required infrastructure, this
alternative is not financially feasible.
• Combination of alternatives: Each of the alternatives stated above either do not
solve the original discharge problem and/or are not financially feasible for the
Town of Vanceboro. Therefore, a combination of these alternatives would also
not solve the original discharge problem and/or would not be financially feasible.
The Town indicated they would prefer to work with DWR on a new sampling procedure,
but if that is not possible, then the Town would like to install an approximately 20,000
gallon holding tank with a mixer to properly combine the filter backwash and softener
regeneration prior to discharge.

Section 3. RPA:
The maximum monthly average flow between January 2017 and March 2020 was 0.016
MGD (the same flow volume was reported every month as the permittee bases flow
reporting on the known, automated periodic backwash flow amount). Effluent hardness
sampling was conducted by the permittee from 5/9/2020 through 5/14/2020. Hardness
values were reported as:
• 5/9/20: 238 mg/L
• 5/10/20: 238 mg/L
• 5/12/20: 425 mg/L
• 5/13/20: 408 mg/L
• 5/14/20: 391 mg/L
Per 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (1 1)(c)(i), the maximum hardness concentration that can be
used when determining limits for hardness -dependent metals in class C waters is 400
mg/L.
Chloride — RP; limits with monthly monitoring applied as reasonable potential to
exceed water quality standards
Copper — No RP; monitoring maintained at quarterly as monitoring data indicates
copper has the potential to be discharged
Zinc — No RP; monitoring maintained at quarterly as monitoring data indicates
zinc has the potential to be discharged
Section 4. NCG59 General Permit Eligibility:
• They use IE treatment technology, therefore they are not eligible
• Conclusion: They are not eligible for the NCG59
Section 5. Changes from previous permit to draft:
• Updated eDMR footnote inA(1) and language in A(4)
• Updated outfall map
• Updated Cover Sheet to reflect Parts I, II, III, and IV as boilerplate has 4 sections
• Updated expiration date per basin schedule — permit has been short -cycled due to
this
• Updated language on the Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet
• Added components list on Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet
• Added facility grade and citation in A(1)
• Added parameter codes in A(1)
• Limits added and monitoring increased to monthly for chloride in A(1) per RPA
o Compliance schedule added as A(3)
• Monitoring for iron removed in A(1) as there are no longer water quality
standards

• Added effluent monitoring and associated footnote for total hardness in A(1) as
there are hardness dependent metals
• Updated eDMR, flow, TRC, and tox footnotes in A(1)
• Toxicity language updated in A(2)
• Discharge alternatives analysis was completed so former condition A(3) has been
removed
Section 6. Changes from draft to final:
• eDMR footnote corrected in A(1) to reference correct condition
• TRC footnote updated in A(1) to reference optional monitoring as permittee
stated chlorine is not in the effluent
• Compliance schedule in A(3) has been updated to end when the permit expires
based on WaRO comments
• eDMR condition A(4) updated to current language used
Section 7. Comments received on draft permit:
• Randy Sipe (WaRO, via email 6/2/2020):
o The permit expiration date given on the title page is 4/30/23. Isn't it standard
practice for permits to be valid for 5 years, especially since the total chloride
compliance schedule in Section A. (3) extends out for 5 years.
■ DWR Response: The permit has been shortcyled in order to get it back
on the proper basin permitting schedule. The compliance schedule can be
corrected to expire with the permit in 2023.
o The cover letter and Section A. (1) describe requiring effluent and instream
monitoring for hardness to be used for calculation of permit limits for zinc and
copper; however; the permit does not include any limits for these metals. If
the permit does not have limits for these metals, why should the permittee
have to go through the exercise of the hardness monitoring.
■ DWR Response: As monitoring for hardness dependent metals is in the
permit, and the facility discharges to freshwater, hardness sampling will
need to be conducted in order to determine any future permit limits.
o Footnote I on the effluent monitoring table in Section A.(1) should reference
the electronic reporting requirements in Section A.(4), not A.(3).
■ DWR Response: This error will be corrected in the final permit.
• Harry Bailey (representative for the permittee; via email 6/17/20):
o The first is regarding the Total Residual Chlorine monitoring requirement.
The WTP utilizes raw water to backwash the filters and regenerate the
softeners. There is no chlorine in the effluent. It is my understanding that the
previous Town Clerk spoke to Ron Berry after the last permit was issued and
the sampling for that characteristic was no longer required. Don't think the
permit was revised/modified. Please let me know if there is anything that the
Town can provide to have this requirement removed from the permit.
■ DWR Response: Based on monitoring data provided to the
Division, the Town of Vanceboro has not been monitoring for

Total Residual Chlorine. A review of the Division's database
shows that monitoring is optional. The Total Residual Chlorine
footnote in Section A. (1) will be updated to reflect this optional
monitoring.
o The second is regarding the new Total Chloride monitoring requirement and
the accompanying Schedule of Compliance A. (3). It states that a Corrective
Action Plan is to be submitted within one year summarizing actions or
strategy to achieve compliance. Is there any guidance for what should or must
be included in the Corrective Action Plan? Any examples?
■ DWR Response: There is not specific guidance regarding what is
required of a Corrective Action Plan. Each WTP facility is allowed
to create a CAP that is reflective of the efforts that work best for
their specific facility to address elevated pollutant discharge
concentrations.

NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater
Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by
the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The
US EPA subsequently approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some
exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft permits out to public notice after April 6,
2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW,
µg/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW,
µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form.
Aquatic life standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total
Recoverable Metals due to bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health
standards for all metals). It is still necessary to evaluate total recoverable aquatic
life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC 213.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10
µg/l for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at 1.8 mg/L for
aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise
under 15A NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/1
Cadmium,Acute
WER*{1.136672-[lnhardness](0.041838)] e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER* {1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)] e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium,Chronic
WER* {1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)] e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451 }
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^{0.8190[lnhardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 e^{o.8190[lnhardness]+0.6848}

Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 e^10.9422[ln hardness]-1.7001
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 e^10.8545[ln hardness]-1.7021
Lead, Acute
WER* 11.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)) • e^11.273 [In hardness]-1.4601
Lead, Chronic
WER*11.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)) • e^11.273[In hardness]-4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 • e^10.8460[ln hardness]+2.2551
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 • e^10.8460[ln hardness]+0.05841
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • e^11.72[ln hardness]-6.591
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 e^10.8473[ln hardness]+0.8841
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 e^10.8473[ln hardness]+0.8841
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards.
However, application of the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires
additional consideration in order to establish the numeric standard for each metal of
concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR
122.45(c). The discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total
values for use in the RPA calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values
developed for each metal (more on that below), but it is also possible to consider case -
specific translators developed in accordance with established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WQBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each
metal of concern, based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent
concentrations, based on applicable standards and the critical low -flow values for the
receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or
acute), the discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a
permit limit in most cases. If monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the
pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below detection level), then the Division may
remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit
Writer compiles the following information:

• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q 10 (the spreadsheet
automatically calculates the IQ 10 using the formula IQ 10 = 0.843
(s7Q 10, CfS) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of
concern and for each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine
what effluent and instream (upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test
results for any hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional
data is available for instream hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial
evaluation using a default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)).
Minimum and maximum limits on the hardness value used for water quality
calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal
showing reasonable potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and
requests 5 site -specific effluent and upstream hardness samples over a period of
one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as
follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
_ (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L) x (s7Q 10, cfs *Avg. Upstream
Hardness, mjg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q 10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the IQ 10
flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a
total recoverable metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or
site -specific translators, if any have been developed using federally approved
methodology.

EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the
value for dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal
at in -stream ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear
partition coefficients found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for
Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion
(EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the equation:
Caiss = 1
Ctotal I + { [Kpo] [Ss('+a)] [10-6] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L
used, and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between
dissolved and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each
hardness -dependent metal can also be found in the RPA program under a
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition
coefficient (or site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at
ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist
(ie. silver), the dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by
the EPA conversion factor to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient
conditions. This method presumes that the metal is dissolved to the same extent as
it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more information on
conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total
allowable concentration (permit limits) for each pollutant using the following
equation:
Ca = (s7Q 10 + Qw)(Cwgs) — (s7Q 10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3*
(µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q 10)
s7Q 10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity
and human health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from
noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background
concentrations
Flows other than s7Q 10 may be incorporated as applicable:
IQ 10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity

QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the
consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each
pollutant of concern. Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half
years prior to the date of the permit application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA
spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper concentration of each pollutant.
The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total allowable
concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max
exceeds the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is
considered to show reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and
a permit limit (Total allowable concentration) is included in the permit in
accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support Document for Water Quality -
Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules
in accordance with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James
Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on 40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent
chromium and hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings
measure, total chromium data results may be used as a conservative surrogate in
cases where there are no analytical results based on chromium III or VI. In these
cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for total chromium will be
compared against water quality standards for chromium III and chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the
discharge, are inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -
dependent metals to ensure the accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more
robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this
permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments (Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness
Facility data submitted during
(mg/L)
340 mg/L
renewal
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
Average Upstream Hardness
No facility data provided
(mg/L)
25 mg/L
[Total as, CaCO3 or (Ca+Mg)]
7Q 10 summer (cfs)
0 cfs
No flow data in BIMS
1Q10 (cfs)
0 cfs
No flow data in BIMS
Permittee bases flow reporting
Permitted Flow (MGD)
0.016
on the known, automated
periodic backwash flow amount

368537 Affidavit of Publication
15513156 New Bern Sun Journal
Page 1 of 2 New Bern, NC
Personally appeared before me, a Notary Public of the County of Craven, State of North Carolina, on this the 5th day of June,
2020
L 4YIA
of The Sun Journal, who being duly sworn, states that the advertisement entitled Wastewater Permit NCO080071 Vanceboro
WTP a true copy of which is printed herewith, appeared in The Sun Journal, a newspaper published in the City of New Bern, NC,
County of Craven, State of North Carolina, 1 day a week for _ weeks on the following dates:
June 5, 2020
NORTH CAROLINA
CRAVEN COUNTY
As required by the laws of the State of North Carolina, New Bern Sun Journal meets the requirements of NC statute 1-597 as the
newspaper of record for Craven County.
PUBLIC NOTICE
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION/NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE A NPDES
WASTEWATER PERMIT NCO080071 VANCEBORO WTP
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission proposes to issue a NPDES wastewater discharge permit
to the person(s) listed below. Written comments regarding the proposed permit will be accepted until 30 days after the
publish date of this notice. The Director of the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) may hold a public hearing
should there be a significant degree of public interest. Please mail comments and/or information requests to DWR at
the above address. Interested persons may visit the DWR at 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC to review information
on file. Additional information on NPDES permits and this notice may be found on our website:
http://deq. nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-wastewater/public
-noti
ces,or by calling [phone]. Town of Vanceboro has requested renewal of its NPDES permit NCO080071 for the Va
an unnamed tributary to Mauls Swamp in the Neuse River Basin. This discharge may affect future allocations in this
portion of the Neuse River Basin.
June 5, 2020 (adv)

368537
15513156
Page 2 of 2
Affidavit of Publication
New Bern Sun Journal
New Bern, NC
Subscribed and sworn to this 5th day of June, 2020
1
X`
of ry Public
L
sion �•._F
rpTARY `�'
Otis ••:�pnY �'.�'

Young, Brianna A
From: Harry Bailey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 4:46 PM
To: Young, Brianna A
Subject: [External] Town of Vanceboro (Permit NC0080071)
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Ms. Young,
Hope you are doing well this afternoon. Reviewed the draft permit issued for the Town of
Vanceboro with their staff and we had a couple questions/comments.
The first is regarding the Total Residual Chlorine monitoring requirement. The WTP utilizes
raw water to backwash the filters and regenerate the softeners. There is no chlorine in the
effluent. It is my understanding that the previous Town Clerk spoke to Ron Berry after the
last permit was issued and the sampling for that characteristic was no longer required.
Don't think the permit was revised/modified. Please let me know if there is anything that
the Town can provide to have this requirement removed from the permit.
The second is regarding the new Total Chloride monitoring requirement and the
accompanying Schedule of Compliance A.(3). It states that a Corrective Action Plan is to be
submitted within one year summarizing actions or strategy to achieve compliance. Is there
any guidance for what should or must be included in the Corrective Action Plan? Any
examples?
Thanks for all your help and look forward to your reply.
Have a great evening!
Harry
Potable Water Solutions, LLC
252-945-8948

Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
rREQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Table 1. Project Information
Facility Name
WWTP/WTP Class
NPDES Permit
Outfal I
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
HUC Number
Stream Class
❑ CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
Vanceboro WTP
PCNC
NCO080071
001
0.016
UT to Mauls Swamp
030202020502
C; Sw NSW
❑ Apply WS Hardness WQC
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
CIA (cfs)
1Q10s (cfs)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Effluent Hardness
----
Upstream Hardness
Combined Hardness Chronic
Combined Hardness Acute
333.4 mg/L (Avg)
--------------------
25 mg/L (Avg)
333.4 m /L
333.4 m /L
Data Source(s)
I —I CHECK TO APPLY MODEL
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06E
Par07
Par08
Par09
Par10
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Par23
Par24
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name wos Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
Aquactic Life
C
150
FW
340
ug/L
Arsenic
Human Health Water Supply
C
10
HH/WS
N/A
ug/L
Beryllium
Aquatic Life
NC
6.5
FW
65
ug/L
Cadmium
Aquatic Life
NC
4.1585
FW
30.9235
ug/L
Chlorides
Aquatic Life
NC
230
FW
mg/L.
11, Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Water Supply
NC
1
A
ug/L
Total Phenolic Compounds
Aquatic Life
NC
300
A
ug/L
Chromium III
Aquatic Life
NC
982.4094
FW
7552.3791
ug/L
Chromium VI
Aquatic Life
NC
11
FW
16
pg/L
Chromium, Total
Aquatic Life
NC
N/A
FW
N/A
pg/L
Copper
Aquatic Life
NC
72.0934
FW
120.2343
ug/L
Cyanide
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
22
10
ug/L
Fluoride
Aquatic Life
NC
1,800
FW
ug/L
Lead
Aquatic Life
NC
49.3231
FW
1265.7157
ug/L
Mercury
Aquatic Life
NC
12
FW
0.5
ng/L
Molybdenum
Human Health
NC
2000
HH
ug/L
Nickel
Aquatic Life
NC
333.1810
FW
2999.7629
pg/L
Nickel
Water Supply
NC
25.0000
WS
N/A
pg/L
Selenium
Aquatic Life
NC
5
FW
56
ug/L
Silver
Aquatic Life
NC
0.06
FW
25.5223
ug/L
Zinc
Aquatic Life
NC
1137.9561
FW
1128.7232
ug/L
NCO080071 FW RPA 2020, input
7/9/2020

H1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H2
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Effluent Hardness Values then "COPY" Maximum data Upstream Hardness
.
points = 58
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY'
. Maximum data
points = 58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results I
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
5/9/2020
238
238
Std Dev.
87.1654
1
25 25 Std Dev.
N/A
5/10/2020
238
238
Mean
333.4000
2
Mean
25.0000
5/12/2020
400
400
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
C.V.
0.0000
5/13/2020
400
400
n
5
4
n
1
5/14/2020
391
391
10th Per value
238.00 mg/L
5
10th Per value
25.00
mg/L
Average Value
333.40 mg/L
6
Average Value
25.00
mg/L
Max. Value
400.00 mg/L
7
Max. Value
25.00
mg/L
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
NCO080071 FW RPA 2020, data
-2- 7/9/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par05
Date Data
1 9/15/2015
2 12/8/2015
3 3/3/2016
4 6/9/2016
5 9/20/2016
6 12/13/2016
7 3/14/2017
8 6/13/2017
9 9/19/2017
10 12/12/2017
11 3/13/2018
12 6/8/2018
13 6/14/2018
14 9/25/2018
15 12/11/2018
16 3/19/2019
17 6/18/2019
18 9/17/2019
19 12/10/2019
20 3/17/2020
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Chlorides
BDL=1/2DL
Results
7400
7400
Std Dev.
9590
9590
Mean
25
25
C.V.
6050
6050
n
5650
5650
6500
6500
Mult Factor =
7120
7120
Max. Value
7550
7550
Max. Fred Cw
5850
5850
6200
6200
9100
9100
7
7
8150
8150
5050
5050
5370
5370
6950
6950
5750
5750
3500
3500
6550
6550
7450
7450
Use "PASTE SPECIAL- Pall
Values" then "COPY" .
Maximum data points =
58
5,990.6
0.4119
20
1.3
9590.0 mg/L
11,987.5 mg/L
Date Data
1 9/15/2015
2 12/8/2015 <
3 3/3/2016 <
4 6/14/2016 <
5 9/20/2016 <
6 12/13/2016 <
7 3/14/2017 <
8 6/13/2017 <
9 9/19/2017 <
10 12/12/2017 <
11 3/13/2018 <
12 6/8/2018 <
13 6/14/2018 <
14 9/25/2018
15 12/11/2018 <
16 3/19/2019 <
17 6/18/2019 <
18 9/17/2019 <
19 12/10/2019
20 3/17/2020
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Copper
BDL=1/2DL
Results
13 13
Std Dev.
10 5
Mean
10 5
C.V.
10 5
n
10 5
10 5
Mult Factor =
10 5
Max. Value
10 5
Max. Pred Cw
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
16 16
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
19 19
15 15
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
7.1500
0.6325
20
1.38
19.00 ug/L
26.22 ug/L
-3-
NCO080071 FW RPA 2020, data
7/9/2020

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par21
Use "PASTE SPECIAL
Zinc Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
9/15/2015
<
10
5
Std Dev.
12/8/2015
<
10
5
Mean
3/3/2016
11
11
C.V.
6/14/2016
11
11
n
9/20/2016
<
10
5
12/13/2016
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
3/14/2017
<
10
5
Max. Value
6/13/2017
<
10
5
Max. Fred Cw
9/19/2017
<
10
5
12/12/2017
<
10
5
3/13/2018
<
10
5
6/8/2018
<
10
5
6/14/2018
13
13
9/25/2018
26
26
12/11/2018
32
32
3/19/2019
<
10
5
6/18/2019
24
24
9/17/2019
19
19
12/10/2019
30
30
3/17/2020
36
36
12.8500
0.8405
20
1.51
36.0 ug/L
54.4 ug/L
-4-
NC0080071 FW RPA 2020, data
7/9/2020

Vanceboro WTP - Outfall 001
NCO080071 Freshwater RPA - 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 0.016 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) =
0.0160
WWTP/WTP Class: PCNC
1Q10S (cfs) =
0.00
IWC% @ 1Q10S = 100
7Q10S (cfs) =
0.00
IWC% @ 7Q10S = 100
7Q10W (cfs) =
0.00
IWC% @ 7Q10W = 100
30Q2 (cfs) =
0.00
IWC% @ 30Q2 = 100
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) =
0.00
rW%C @ QA = 100
Receiving Stream: UT to Mauls Swamp HUC 030202020502 Stream Class: C; Sw NSW
COMBINED HARDNESS (mg/L)
Acute = 333.4 mg/L
Chronic = 333.4 mg/L
PARAMETER
NC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE
J
a
D
Applied
Chronic Acute
n # Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
d
StandAcute:
NO WQS
Chlorides
NC
230 FW
mg/L
20 20
11,987.5
Chronic: 230.0
RP shown - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
18 values > Allowable Cw
Acute: 120.23
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw -
Copper
NC
72.0934 FW 120.2343
ug/L
20 4
26.22
monitoring maintained at quarterly
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw -
Chronic: 72.09
No value > Allowable Cw
monitoring maintained at quarterly
Acute: 1,128.7 No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw -
Zinc
NC
1137.9561 FW 1128.7232
ug/L
20 9
54.4
1 monitoring maintained at quarterly
Chronic: 1,138.0 INo RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw -
No value > Allowable Cw monitoring maintained at quarterly
NCO080071 FW RPA 2020, rpa
Page 5 of 50 7/9/2020

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Vanceboro WTP
PermitNo. NCO080071
Prepared By: Brianna Young
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 0.016
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 0
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 0
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
0
s7Q10 (CFS)
0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.016
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.016
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.0248
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.0248
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
100.00
IWC (%)
100.00
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
17
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.0
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
0
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.016
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.0248
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
1.00 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
100.00
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.8
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Town of Plymouth WTP
NC0002313/001 County:
Washington
Region:
WARO
Basin:
ROA09
Mar Jun Sep Dec
Ceri7dPF Begin: 10/1/2007 Chr Monit: 90%
NonComp:
7Q10:
PF: na
IWC:
Freq:
Q
J
F M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
2016 -
- H
-
-
H
-
-
H
-
2017 -
- H
-
-
H
-
-
H
-
2018 -
- H
-
-
H
-
-
H
-
2019 -
- H
-
-
H
-
-
Pass
-
Town of Vanceboro WTP
NCO080071 County:
Craven
Region:
WARO
Basin:
NEU09
Mar Jun Sep
Dec
Ceri7dPF Begin: 3/1/2015
Chr Monit: 90%
NonComp:
7Q10:
PF: 0.016
IWC:
Freq:
Q
J
F M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
2016 -
- Fail
-
-
Fail
-
-
Pass
-
2017 -
- Fail
-
-
Fail
-
-
Fail
-
2018 -
- Fail
-
-
Pass
-
-
Fail
-
2019 -
- Fail
-
-
Fail
-
-
Fail
-
Transmontaigne Charlotte Paw Creek #1
NC0005771/001 County:
Mecklenburg
Region:
MRO
Basin:
CTB34
Fthd24Ac Begin: 9/1/2015
24hr LC50 ac monit a
NonComp:
7Q10: 0.0
PF: VARIE
IWC:
100
Freq:
A
J
F M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
2016 >100
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2017 -
>100 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2019 -
>100 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TransMontaigneTerminaling/Selma
NC0003549/002 County:
Johnston
Region:
RRO
Basin:
NEU02
Fthd24Ac Begin: 6/1/2008
24hr LC50 ac monit a
NonComp:
7Q10: 0.0
PF: VAR
IWC:
100
Freq:
A
J
F M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
2016 -
>100 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2016 -
>100 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2017 -
- -
>100
-
-
-
-
-
-
2017 -
- -
>100
-
-
-
-
-
-
2019 -
- >100
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2019 -
- >100
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transmontaigne-Blanchard Company
NCO021971/009 County:
Mecklenburg
Region:
MRO
Basin:
CTB34
Fthd24PF Begin: 7/1/2015
Ac LC50 Monit: Epis F
NonComp:
7Q10: 0.0
PF: VAR
IWC:
100
Freq:
A
J
F M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
2016 >100
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2017 -
- -
-
-
>100
-
-
-
-
2017 -
- -
-
-
>100
-
-
-
-
2018 -
>100 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2018 -
>100 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2019 -
>100 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2019 -
>100 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SOC JOC:
N
SOC JOC:
N
SOC JOC:
N
SOC JOC:
N
SOC JOC:
N
D
H
H
H
H
D
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
C
C
C
Leeend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimohales oromelas). H=No Flow (facilitv is active). s = Solit test between Certified Labs Page 98 of 109

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for: Report Date: 02/20/20 Page: 1 of 1
Permit: nc0080071 MRS Between 12 - 2015 and 2 - 2020 Region: % Violation Category% Program Category:
Facility Name: % Param Name % County: % Subbasin:% Violation Action: %
Major Minor: % L
pr
PERMIT: NCO080071 FACILITY: Town of Vanceboro - Vanceboro WTP COUNTY: Craven REGION: Washington
Limit Violation
MONITORING VIOLATION UNIT OF CALCULATED %
REPORT OUTFALL LOCATION PARAMETER DATE FREQUENCY MEASURE LIMIT VALUE Over VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION ACTION
01 -2019 001
Effluent Solids, Total Suspended -
01/31/19 2 X month
mg/I
30 32
6.7
Monthly Average
No Action, BPJ
Concentration
Exceeded
02 -2019 001
Effluent Solids, Total Suspended -
02/28/19 2 X month
mg/I
30 32.5
8.3
Monthly Average
No Action, BPJ
Concentration
Exceeded
Monitoring Violation
MONITORING
VIOLATION
UNIT OF
CALCULATED
%
REPORT OUTFALL
LOCATION PARAMETER
DATE FREQUENCY
MEASURE
LIMIT VALUE
Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
04 - 2016
001
Effluent
Flow, in conduit or thru
04/02/16
Weekly
mgd
treatment plant
07 - 2017
001
Effluent
Flow, in conduit or thru
07/01/17
Weekly
mgd
treatment plant
03 -2019
001
Effluent
Flow, in conduit or thru
03/02/19
Weekly
mgd
treatment plant
12-2015
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Total-
12/31/15
Semi-annually
mg/I
Concentration
12-2016
001
Effluent
Pass/Fail Static Renewal
12/31/16
Quarterly
pass/fail
7Day Chronic Ceriodaphnia
12-2015
001
Effluent
Phosphorus, Total (as P)-
12/31/15
Semi-annually
mg/I
Concentration
Frequency Violation
No Action, Facility
Reporting Error
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
Frequency Violation
No Action, Facility
Reporting Error
Frequency Violation
No Action, Facility
Reporting Error
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
Frequency Violation
No Action, Facility
Reporting Error

Young, Brianna A
From: Harry Bailey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 7:03 AM
To: Young, Brianna A
Subject: Re: [External] Town of Vanceboro WTP
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Ms. Young,
Thanks for your email and here is the data that you requested:
5/9 - 238 mg/l
5/ 10 - 238 mg/l
5/ 12 - 425 mg/l
5/ 13 - 408 mg/l
5/ 14 - 391 mg/l
I hope you have a great Tuesday!
Harry
Potable Water Solutions, LLC
252-945-8948
On Monday, May 18, 2020, 10:05:29 AM EDT, Young, Brianna A <[e-mail]> wrote:
If you could just provide the dates the samples were taken, as well as confirm the units the data was reported in, that will
be sufficient.
Thank you,
Brianna
Brianna Young
Environmental Specialist II
Compliance and Expedited Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
1

Office: 919-707-3619
Brian na.Young(c�ncdenr.gov
Mailing address:
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
From: Harry Bailey<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 10:02 AM
To: Young, Brianna A <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [External] Town of Vanceboro WTP
CAUTION:
Ms. Young,
Good morning and hope you had a great weekend.
The hardness readings were obtained utilizing a Hach test kit which you stated was acceptable. There are
no lab data sheets. Don't know of any other form of documentation that the Town or I could provide.
Please let me know if there is anything additional that you need to complete your review.
Thanks for all your help and have a great day!
Harry
Potable Water Solutions, LLC
252-945-8948

On Monday, May 18, 2020, 07:49:55 AM EDT, Young, Brianna A <brianna.young(@ncdenr.gov> wrote:
Harry,
Could you please send me the lab data sheets with this information? Or some form of documentation along those lines if
such is available?
Thank you,
Brianna Young
Environmental Specialist II
Compliance and Expedited Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
Office: 919-707-3619
Brian na.Young(Dncdenr.gov
Mailing address:
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
From: Harry Bailey<potablewatersolutions(a�yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 2:03 PM
To: Young, Brianna A <Brianna.Young(@ncdenr.gov>
Subject: [External] Town of Vanceboro WTP

�xternal t GW ink& jX open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspic'
rep
Ms. Young,
Hope you are doing well and are having a great Friday.
It appears that the effluent hardness levels collected from the WTP discharge are as follows: 238, 238, 391, 408
and 425. I would assume that the IOth percentile would be 238 since the two lowest numbers are the same. Let
me know if that is a correct calculation and what will be the proposed copper limits.
Please let me know if you need additional information and I hope you have a great weekend!
Harry
Potable Water Solutions, LLC
252-945-8948

Young, Brianna A
From: Harry Bailey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 10:21 AM
To: Young, Brianna A
Cc: Bullock, Robert
Subject: [External] Town of Vanceboro, Craven County (NC0080071)
CAUTION:I email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
c. ov
Ms. Young,
Haven't spoken to you in some time and I hope you are doing well.
Recently the Town of Vanceboro received a letter dated March 9th concerning their renewal
application. Item # 1 in the letter stated that a solids handling plan is required to be
submitted. There are no drying beds as part of this facility. Therefore there has been no
solids handling historically and there are none proposed. Please let me know how to
address this item stated in your letter so that the permit renewal can proceed.
Thanks for all your help and have a great day!
Harry
Potable Water Solutions, LLC
252-945-8948

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
March 9, 2020
CERTIFIED MAIL 70181830 0001 8037 0403
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mayor Chad Braxton
Town of Vanceboro
PO Box 306
Vanceboro, NC 28586-0306
Subject:
Dear Mayor Braxton:
Request for Additional Information
NPDES Renewal Application
Vanceboro WTP
NPDES permit NCO080071
Craven County
The Division has reviewed your application, received on September 30, 2019, for renewal of
NPDES permit NC0080071. To enable us to complete our review in accordance with N.C.G.S. 143-
215.1 and 15A NCAC 02H .0105, we need additional or revised information regarding your
discharge:
1. Per Section 15 of Short Form C, a solids handling plan is required to be submitted with the
permit renewal application. The plan was not submitted with the renewal application
received on September 30, 2019. In order to proceed with the permit renewal, this plan
must be submitted.
2. On November 30, 2017, discharge monitoring report (DMR) data shows an effluent
discharge of 16 MGD. Please verify this discharge volume, and if not correct, submit an
amended DMR.
3. Please provide five (5) days of Total Hardness (CaCO3 or [Ca + Mg]) data for the water
treatment plant effluent and upstream from Outfall 001 to the unnamed tributary to Mauls
Swamp.
The NC 2007-2014 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Committee (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016 with some exceptions. The NC Division of Water
Resources NPDES Permitting Unit is required to implement the new dissolved metal standards in
all permits public noticed after April 6, 2016.
The new standards for most metals include acute standards. Further, the freshwater standards for
several metals are expressed as the dissolved form of the metals, and seven metals have hardness -
dependent equations. As a result, the NPDES Permitting Unit will need site -specific effluent
D E Qbi�� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
NoHrN r..x:eO�aNn ^
919.707.9000

Mayor Braxton
March 9, 2020
Page 2 of 2
hardness data and instream hardness data, upstream of the discharge, for each facility monitoring
these metals in order to calculate permit limitations. The metal of concern for the Vanceboro WTP
permit is Total Copper.
If no response is received within 60 calendar days [per 15A NCAC 02H .0107(b)], the permit will
be renewed without the benefit of the additional information. Therefore, a default hardness of 25
mg/L (CaCO3 or [Ca + Mg]) will be used to calculate an effluent limit for Total Copper giving a
daily maximum limit of 10.47 µg/L and a monthly maximum limit of 7.88 µg/L.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 919-707-3619 or via email at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
f
Brianna Young
Compliance and Expedited Permitting Unit
cc: NPDES Permit Files
DWR/WaRO/WQROPS

■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
* Print your name and address. on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
® Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
_ or on the front if space permits.
Town of Vanceboro
Attn: Chad Braxton, Mayor
PO Box 306
Vanceboro, NC 28586
A. Signature
X �A
�`6^-
Agent
❑Addressee
B. Received by (Prin Name)
: C. Date of Delivery
3 Do
D. is delivery address. diffemaLfrom item 1? ❑ Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
3. Service Type
❑RegiseredM
III�I��II�IIII�IIIIIIIIII�I�II IIII� IIIIIIIIII
❑Adult Signature-
HTM
❑Registered MaHTM
Ij
❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery
❑ Registered Mail Restricted
9590 9402 3950 8060 7363 53
❑ Certified WHO
❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery
Delivery
❑ Return Receipt for
❑ Collect on Delivery
Merchandise
7 018 1830 0001 8037 0403
AaDelivery.Restricted Delivery El Signature Confirmation*^+
❑ Signature Confirmation
ail Restricted Delivery
Restricted Delivery
(over$500)
_
PS Form 3811, July 2015. PSN 7530-02-000-9053
Domestic Return Receipt
=�s�tal Service TM
.o
CERTIFIED RECEIPT
m
--Domestic Mail Oniy
0
�-
rr1
Certified Mail Fee
C1
$
cO
Extra Services & Fees (check box, add roe as appropriate)
❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $
r-1
p
❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $
Postmark
O
❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $
Here
O
❑ Adult Signature Required $_
❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ _
Q Nostage
co ` Town of Vanceboro
a Attn: Chad Braxton, Mayor
Co a PO Box 306
r_
rti Vanceboro. NC 28SAA
va rurm aauu, Apni'Lutb PSN 753o-0a0o0-g047�for Instructions

OWiuHi�iiiwd�iiixiiim
9590 940= 39=0 8060 7363 53
United States
Postal Seo&e
LLI
°V
O
L11
r`
a
W
First -Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No, G-10
"ende'r: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4® in this box•
U1
0
a
NC DEQ-DWR
Water Quality Permitting Section
C3 Attn: Brianna Young-9th Floor
1617 Mail Service Center
Llj
0 Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
IilJill I 111111111111i11111Ili ItA111111111111111111ifIIII I1fl111
Certified Mail service provides
■ A
the following benefits;
fit
rumpt Ri+is portion or rw Genii,, Mall 6 si,
• A tn quo identifier for yoyu mailp ore.
far an ealow return rlCBlpt, a serail
■ Ei"amr1k vedfkalJ% of dAlyery or attempted
assacknta for assistance, 7ld receive a r[t nficate
return racaiP1 tar rid add iinP7at fm,
delivery.
It A record of delivery
I15P5�•paahnu iced Cedihed Met WOOD l Irds
r>na tho
llncfudfng I* rdrJplont's
sfgnahual tnat is retahted by dw Paafxl Suvitie'
iris a specHfed
folaII asI&Ma,5.
Rrrstricted do llvdry service, whkh pravldns
parlod,
Imponwt Reminder&
delivery to !hc addresseespecftldd byname. tar
to the addnpsyrte'S autfrpdred agent
■ Ynu mxy plurhase Codified fuF3O service myth
F, 1-CIa56 Maif°, riret-Ctgos Package Service°,
I,, -
Priority hr3 'service.
• C011119ed MAP service is 001aysPable for
intemahodal mail-
■ Insurance coverage la netav3llabfe for pumflase
Valli Certified Maif sorvice. Homyer, If, purcryase
Of CerOfierl Mau service duos nil rhangs lire
immanre courage rtutarnogcagy!nClulded with
cart* =1Y Maff item,
■ rw an addittprwl fee, and with 8 pallor
ondorsertle Mt on the magplece, You may request
the fnflowirtg services:
- Return receipt smko. WNI,,h prmidos a record
of delnrery trncfllUing the reedpiom's signal¢rey-
Ynu ran rnquesi a hardcopy rellim rep lot fir an
e!echprrlr. W:5111n. rer a hardcmpy return recmw.
complete PS Form 361 T. tbMesk RsNrrr
R-erAf, attach PS FVM 33I1 to your mailprei;e,
- Adult dgrnhire EaryiCO. which requires"
srgnou io be at feast 21 years et age trot
avaih&r, at retaN
Adrift stgnatura reatdrtad Gaprery>v1cs, which
regions the signec m i>a'd least 2l ye rs of ega
mild PrOvid� delivery to the addrassce spoc!red
by nnme, or to theaddresssa's authorised agent
tndt a4aOble at r WI).
• Te insure that your Cartlfled Bill rdceipt is
accepled as fogal Mop of mEiirng, if stood Nara
LISPS 0051 nark. If you would +Ikea pogalark on
this Certified riall reoofpt, pfe3se present your
Certihad Mail item at a Por, Office` for
mtmarkingif you don't Wend a postmark on this
Cerhfled Wi receipt, dOWrh the Oarcoded bortum
of bli8 tehet, affix it to hta rnailpiefe. apply
WJaf* posing, and deposit the malipieea-
IMPORTAN'p 511ve thfa remlpt for your regards.
P5 Fenn 38Vu. AprP ao 15 {Fr„rrenaa p% rsw-R2-0dD9et:

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Dirwor
Town of Vanceboro
Attn: Chad E. Braxton, Mayor
PO Box 306
Vanceboro, NC 28586-0306
Subject: Permit Renewal
Application No. NCO080071
Vanceboro WTP
Craven County
Dear Applicant:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
September 30, 2019
The Water Quality Permitting Section acknowledges the September 30, 2019 receipt of your permit renewal application
and supporting documentation. Your application will be assigned to a permit writer within the Section's NPDES WW
permitting branch. Per G.S. 15OB-3 your current permit does not expire until permit decision on the application is made.
Continuation of the current permit is contingent on timely and sufficient application for renewal of the current permit. The
permit writer will contact you if additional information is required to complete your permit renewal. Please respond in a
timely manner to requests for additional information necessary to allow a complete review of the application and renewal
of the permit.
Information regarding the status of your renewal application can be found online using the Department of Environmental
Quality's Environmental Application Tracker at:
https://deg.nc.gov/permits-regulations/permit-guidance/environmental-application-tracker
If you have any additional questions about the permit, please contact the primary reviewer of the application using the
links available within the Application Tracker.
Sincerely,
�Z�
Wren The ford
Administrative Assistant
Water Quality Permitting Section
ec: WQPS Laserfiche File w/application
A North Carobna Department of Environmental QuaKty I Divis6an of Water Resouro=_s
4:��Fwqq 1A Washington Regional Qffce 1943 Washington Sgmars Mali I Washington, North cerorina 27839
ytra-Zs'� 252$4S-S481

Mayor Chad Braxton
Town Clerk Beverly Drake ,1
September 26, 2019
NC DEC., Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section-NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1617
Attn: Mr. Wren Thedford
Alderman Stephen Belrose
Alderman Keith Cannon
Alderman Todd McMillen
Alderman Dennis Smith
Alderman Billy Whitford
RECEIVE®
SEP 3 0 7019
NDDEQIDWRINPDES
The Town of Vanceboro is submitting our Permit Application for the Water Treatment Plant,
Permit #NC0080071. The discharge evaluation report will be submitted separately.
If you have any questions please give us a call at 252-244-0919.
Sincerely,
goi (� &*k
Chad E. Braxton
Mayor

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
Mail the complete application to:
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
NPDES Permit Number INCO080071
If you are completing this form in computer use the TAB key or the up - down arrows to move from one
field to the next. To check the, boxes, click your mouse on top of the box. Otherwise, please print or type.
1. Contact Information:
Owner Name
Facility Name
Mailing Address
City
State / Zip Code
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail Address
The Honorable Chad E. Braxton, Mayor
Town of Vanceboro
P.O. Box 306
Vanceboro
North Carolina 28586
[phone]
[phone]
2. Location of facility producing discharge:
Check here if same as above ❑
Street Address or State Road
City
State / Zip Code
County
l
923 Farm Life Avenue
Vanceboro
North Carolina 28586
Craven
3. Operator Information:
Name of the firm, consultant or other entity that operates the facility. (Note that this is not referring to the
Operator in Responsible Charge or ORQ
Name Vernon M. Edwards,, Public Works Director
Mailing Address P.O. Box 306
City Vanceboro
State / Zip Code 28586
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
4. Ownership Status:
Federal ❑ State ❑ Private ❑ Public X
Page 1 of 4 Version 5/2012

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
5. Type of treatment plant:
❑ Conventional (Includes coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation, usually followed by
filtration and disinfection)
X Ion Exchange (Sodium Cycle Cationic ion exchange)
❑ Green Sand Filter (No sodium recharge)
❑ Membrane Technology (RO, nanofiltration)
Check here if the treatment process also uses a water softener X
6. Description of source water(s) (i.e. groundwater, surface water)
Two groundwater well sources.
7. Describe the treatment process(es) for the raw water:
Aeration, Filtration, Softening, and then gas chlorination.
8. Describe the wastewater and the treatment process(es) for wastewater generated by the
facility:
Wastewater generated by the water treatment plant comes from backwashing of the filter
and the regeneration cycle of the ion exchange softener.
9. Number of separate discharge points: 1
Outfall Identification number(s) 001
10. Frequency of discharge: Continuous ❑ Intermittent X
If intermittent:
Days per week discharge occurs: 2-3 Duration: 88 minutes
11; Plant design potable flowrate 0.432 MGD
Backwash or reject flow 0.016 MGD
12. Name of receiving stream(s) (Provide a map showing the exact location of each outfall, including
latitude and longitude):
Unnamed tributary to Mauls Swamp.
13. Please list all water treatment additives, including cleaning chemicals or disinfection
treatments, that have the potential to be discharged.
Page 2 of 4 1 Version 5/2012

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION_- SHORT FORM C - ,WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
Alum / aluminum sulfate Yes No X
Iron sulfate / ferrous sulfate Yes No X
Fluoride Yes No X
Ammonia nitrogen / Chloramines Yes No X
Zinc -orthophosphate or sweetwater CP1236 Yes No X
List any other additives below:
Gas chlorination utilized for disinfection.
14. Is this facility located on Indian country? (check one)
Yes ❑ No X
15. Additional Information:
➢ Provide a schematic of flow through the facility, include flow volumes at all points in
the water treatment process. The plan should show the point[s] of addition for
chemicals and all discharges routed to an outfall [including stormwater].
➢ Solids Handling Plan
16. NEW Applicants
Information needed in addition to items 1-15:
➢ New applicants are highly encouraged to contact a permit coordinator with the
NCDENR Customer Service Center.
Was the Customer Service Center contacted? ❑ Yes ❑ No
➢ Analyses of source water collected
➢ Engineering Alternative Analysis
➢ Discharges from Ion Exchange and Reverse Osmosis plants shall be evaluated using a
water quality model.
17. Applicant Certification
I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in the application and that to the
best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate.
The Honorable Chad E. Braxton Mayor
oignature of Appucant Lace
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6 (b)(2) provides that Any person who knowingly makes any false statement representation, or certification in any application,
record, report, plan, or other document files or required to be maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that
Article, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any recording or monitoring device or method required to be operated or maintained under Article 21 or
regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that Article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $25,000, or by
Page 3 of 4 1Version 5/2012

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both (18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides a punishment by a fine of not more than $25,000 or imprisonment not more than 5
years, or both, for a similar offense.)
Page 4 of 4 Version 5/2012

1
VanceboraVJTP
• A. • ` Discharge r i
/� (SM "it),� w •, � 'l_ Ci NC0080071 `'=• � ���' F,_ ��
• —(j{`_�__ +� b r ` "44
�'� _ 1'f � ((•'��,�y,t(`��.f Y,7 �- r ���--• •. . �� �_ -R . ' rf' ( �-{_r�, � GiS.f' "�•^ \� ,i'.`"f � ft'�) � � t
>�
} i � a`' �Ji'�� 1 s � �.fr� .-�E'�-' ^�^�' •�� � t: ••~ -� ' �--�='� � J j �"" i -�'�'' P
r..
_,�' Us 17
��ti �; may'/} " B
!.4z, i � ti- ��� � ` •r /�
rn
lwzs i
'" r-'-~ -� ` a_.•q-_ _ .. 1 ��� l '��,,- `.per: �'+� �--. � ti�
NO jif
SCALE: 1 in-240008
USGS Quad: F30S W Vancebbro NC
Outfall Facili
•� tom.F
- _ sae,&
Y HK '
r� '�y - 7r
h` ` "3i.r.�Ts kP7 I
Latitude: 35° 18' 13.b" N 35° 18' 15.1" N
,fs
-:u� 1i%y. y,FQ�,,T£z•,-g
Longitude: 77° 8' 51.1" W 770 8' S0.3" W
Stream Class: C, Sw, NSW
North
Facility Location
Subbasin: 03-04-09 HUC: 03020202
Vanceboro WTP NC0080071
Receiving Stream: UT to Mauls Swamp
I Craven County

GAS CHLORINATION
WELL #1 \
AERATOR ►FILTER 10 ION EXCHANGE SOFTENER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Well #2/
10,880 GALLONS 5,400 GALLONS 0.016 MGD
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO MAULS SWAMP
OUTFALL 001
Town of Vanceboro WTP Discharge
NC0080071

Potable Water Solutions
ti
Wren Thedford
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section — NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
RE: Town of Vanceboro, Craven County
Permit NCOO8O071
September 30, 2019
Dear Ms. Thedford,
RECEIVED
OCT 0 2 2019
NCDEUDWRINPDES
Please see attached Discharge Alternatives Evaluation for the Town of Vanceboro, located in Craven
County. The renewal application form for this permit was previously submitted under separate cover.
Please contact myself or Mr. Vernon Edwards with the Town of Vanceboro if you have any questions
concerning this renewal request or if additional information is required.
Harry Bailey
1402 Harrington Street
Washington, NC 27889
252.945.8948
[e-mail]

DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Va nceboro WTP
N PDES PERMIT NCO080071
TOWN OF VANCEBORO
NORTH CAROLINA
SEPTEMBER 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.2 PURPOSE
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 SOURCE WELLS AND WTP RECEIVED
2.2 DISCHARGE WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
2.3 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT OCT 02 2019
3.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION NCDEQIDWRINPDES
3.1 CONNECT DISCHARGE TO A WWTP
3.2 OBTAIN A NON -DISCHARGE PERMIT
3.3 INSTALL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
3.4 USE ALTERNATIVE WATER TREATMENT SOURCE
3.5 USE ALTERNATIVE WATER TREATMENT METHOD
3.6 DISCHARGE TO A LARGER WATERBODY/PERFORM A DILUTION MODEL
3.7 COMBINATION OF ALTERNATIVES
3.8 DISCHARGE VARIANCE
4.0 ALTERNATIVES PRESENT WORTH COSTS
5.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
5.1 ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION
5.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE

INDEX OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2.1
FIGURE 2.2
INDEX OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1
NPDES LOCATION MAP
TREATMENT & DISCHARGE SCHEMATIC
RECEIVED
OCT 6 2 7019
EXISTING WELL DATA
NppEQjpWRINPDES
INDEX OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
NPDES PERMIT INFORMATION
APEPNDIX B
TOWN OF VANCEBORO 2018 LOCAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN
APPENDIX C
MAULS SWAMP STREAM CLASSIFICATION
APPENDIX D
CRAVEN COUNTY 2018 LOCAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN
APPENDIX E
CCPCUA DATA FOR CRAVEN COUNTY
APPENDIX F
NEUSE RIVER STREAM CLASSIFICATION
APPENDIX G
ROUTE FOR ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE

1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Vanceboro Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is operated by the Town of Vanceboro to
provide potable water for Town customers. The WTP treats groundwater from two
wells screened in the Castle Hayne aquifer and pumps the finished water into the Town
distribution system. The current treatment techniques consist of aeration, filtration,
softening, and disinfection.
As part of the filtration and softening process, the filter vessels must undergo a
backwash process and the softening vessels must undergo a regeneration cycle. The
filtration backwash process only utilizes raw water. The softener regeneration cycle also
utilizes raw water and a salt (brine) is injected during a small portion of the cycle to
restore the softener resin.
The wastewater generated by the filtration backwash and softener regeneration is
discharged to an unnamed tributary to Mauls Swamp in the Neuse River Basin, under
NPDES Permit NC0080071. Due to failed Whole Effluent Toxicity tests (WET), the Town
is required by Part A. (3) of the permit to submit a Discharge Alternatives Evaluation
with the next permit renewal application.
Appendix A contains a copy of the existing discharge permit and the fact sheet for the
permit. According to permit requirements, the following options must be evaluated:
1. Connect Discharge to a Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
2. Obtain a Non -discharge Permit
3. Install Wastewater Treatment
4. Use Alternative Water Treatment Source
5. Use Alternative Water Treatment Method
6. Discharge to a Large Waterbody/Perform a Dilution Model
7. Combination of Alternatives
This evaluation is to include a present worth cost analysis for all technically feasible
options in accordance with Division of Water Resources guideline "Engineering
Alternatives Analysis Guidance Document".

1.2 PURPOSE
This evaluation is being requested to determine whether there are any economical and
technologically feasible alternatives available to the Town to address aquatic toxicity in
the plant effluent. Based upon the evaluation, please identify viable alternatives and
present an implementation schedule and project timeline for the preferred alternative.
The Town shall submit the Discharge Alternatives Evaluation to the Division along with
the submission of their next permit renewal application (due 6 months prior to permit
expiration).
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Town of Vanceboro WTP was designed to receive and treat groundwater pumped from two
wells (Well #1 and Well #2). The location of the wells, the WTP, and the NPDES discharge
location are shown in Figure 2.1. Information of the two wells supplying the WTP is shown in
Table 2.1.
Table 2.1
Vanceboro WTP
Well #1 Well #2
Chloride (mg/1) 7 mg/I (9/11/18) 7 mg/I (9/11/18)
Current Average Daily Pumped 0.094 MGD 0.094 MGD
The average daily demand for the Town varies from 0.176 MGD to 0.218 MGD. This
information obtained from monthly operational reports and the 2018 Local Water Supply Plans
submitted to NC DEQ Water Supply Section. Appendix B contains a copy of the 2018 Local
Water Supply Plan for the Town of Vanceboro.
The current treatment train for the Town of Vanceboro WTP is shown in Figure 2.2. The existing
treatment techniques utilized at the WTP are as follows (raw to finished):
• Aerator
• Raw Water Reservoir
• High Service Pumps
• Filtration
• Cation Exchange Softener
• Chlorine Gas addition
• Discharge of Filter Backwash and Softener Regeneration water to Mauls Swamp

There are two existing filter vessels and two existing softeners at the WTP. The filter backwash
and softener regeneration cycles occur for every 300,000 gallons of water treated. The cleaning
of the filter starts with a filter backwash with a flow rate of 560 gpm for approximately 18
minutes. It is then followed by a filter rinse with a flow rate of 160 gpm for approximately 5
minutes. The regeneration cycle of the softener includes a 10-minute ion exchange backwash
with a flow rate of approximately 170 gpm, a 25-minute brine injection with a flow rate of 10
gpm, and a 30-minute ion exchange rinse with a flow rate of approximately 115 gpm. Raw
water is used for the filter backwash and softener regeneration cycle. The volume generated
during the filter backwash and regeneration cycle are reported on discharge monitoring reports
as estimated values because the cleaning processes are completed manually.
2.1 SOURCE WELLS AND WTP
DISCHARGE OF REGENERATION WASTE WATER EFFLUENT TO MAULS
SWAMP
As stated earlier, water generated during the filter backwash and regeneration cycles is
currently discharged to Mauls Swamp in accordance with the NPDES permit issued. The
discharge location is show in Figure 2.1. Based on discussions with the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and USGS, Mauls Swamp has no stream
gauging station. According to NC DEQ, Mauls Swamp has a Class C freshwater
classification. Appendix C contains a copy of page 24 of the Neuse River Basin hydro
order that documents this classification. Thus, the existing permit does not allow any
dilution factor for toxicity testing on the effluent at present.
2.2 DISCHARGE WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
The discharge from the filter backwash and softening regeneration process produces a
wastewater that is discharged to Mauls Swamp. Data from permit Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMR) from January 2017 to April 2017 were reviewed for flowrate and water
quality parameters to determine the character of the discharges. It is important to note
that discharge samples are representative samples and thus reflect the filter backwash
and regeneration cycle. The routine compliance sampling data indicates that the
discharge has TDS, chlorides and conductivity values characteristic of a strong brine.
In June 2012, representatives of NC DEQ Washington Regional Office met with the Town
to review the WET testing procedures. It was determined that the current procedure for
collection of samples were not adequately representing the filter backwash and
softener regeneration cycle. A new sampling procedure was created and provided to
the Town. Once the plan was implemented, the WET sample tests have since been
failures.

As part of the Evaluation project, the plan given to the Town was reviewed and
determined to be flow volume skewed with regard to the softener regeneration brine
cycle. A new plan was developed to address the flow volume discrepancies in the
current plan. This updated plan was reviewed by the WaRO staff before
implementation. The WET tests after implementation were determined to be failures.
Since the WET tests results did not improve, the updated procedures were reviewed and
sampling of the regeneration cycle was completed. The sampling determined that the
chloride levels associated with the brine cycle injection was detected at the beginning of
the rinse cycle and not during the brine cycle. This is due to the low flow volume
associated with the brine injection and increased flow rate during the rinse cycle.
The sampling was revised to address this new information and data. The plan appears
to better address the chloride levels based on when they appear during the softener
regeneration cycle. To date however, the Town has not received approval from the
WaRO staff for implementation.
Based upon existing data from the DMRs, the following data represents current
discharges from the WTP:
Filter Backwash and Regeneration Volume/Cycle 16,280 gpd
Total Chlorides —5,000 mg/L
Total Dissolved Solids
Salinity
Conductivity
2.3 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
—20-30 mg/L
—7 ppt
—5,000-13,000 umhos/cm
Toxicity testing is currently conducted on a composite sample of filter backwash and
softener regeneration discharge water. Due to the rating of Mauls Swamp as a zero -
flow stream, 90% effluent strength is used in the toxicity testing procedure. Toxicity
tests are conducted using Ceriodaphinia dubia (water fleas). The Town has had failures
since the representative sampling plan was modified by the WaRO staff. In general,
failure of the test occurs due to the chloride levels associated with the regeneration of
the softener.

3.o ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
3.1 Connect discharge to a WWTP: Determine whether the wastewater can be
discharged to a wastewater treatment plant. Approval or disapproval from the plant
operator should be acquired.
This alternative would eliminate the surface water discharge by connection to a
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). If a discharge line to the sanitary sewer system
were constructed, this line would accept the discharge effluent flows from both the
filter backwash and the softener regeneration. The Town of Vanceboro owns and
operates a Wastewater Treatment Plant WWTP under Permit Number NC0031828. The
WWTP has a permitted capacity of 0.30 MGD and discharges into Swift Creek.
Based on discussions with WaRO staff, addition of the discharge from the WTP to the
sanitary sewer system may create issues with the WWTP effluent. It is therefore not
recommended as a viable alternative.
A possible viable option would be the blending of raw water with the WTP discharge
prior to entering the sanitary sewer system. This would reduce the chloride
concentration in the flow along with other contaminants of concern and not create any
issues with regard to permitted capacity at the WWTP. Conversations with WaRO staff
have indicated that this would not be a permitted alternative.
3.2 Obtain a Non -discharge permit: Eliminate the surface water discharge by
obtaining a non -discharge permit for spray irrigation, infiltration, or subsurface disposal
(on -site drain field, infiltration gallery, injection wells).
This option eliminates the surface water discharge by obtaining a non -discharge permit
for spray irrigation, infiltration, or subsurface disposal. In accordance with the
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) Guidance Document provided by NCDEQ, waste
streams from ion exchange treatment units do not have to be evaluated for land
application. Discharge high in salt concentration is typically not suitable for land
application, as excess salts can adversely affect plants via osmotic effect; specific ion
toxicity; and soil particle dispersion, which reduces soil permeability and the water
infiltration rate. Chloride levels above 350 mg/I and conductivity levels above 3,000
umhos/cm are considered severe potential irrigation problems for land application.

Wastewater reuse disposal alternatives include agricultural and landscape irrigation,
industrial activities, groundwater recharge, non -potable urban uses (i.e.: toilet flushing,
construction water). As explained previously, the waste brine is not suitable for
irrigation or landscape irrigation. State of North Carolina code 15A NCAC 02U.1101
prohibits discharge to saltwater wetlands, so this discharge alternative is not available.
Additionally, the quality of the discharge would prohibit the use of the discharge for
non -potable uses. The brine content does not allow the beneficial use of this waste
stream for reuse application. Wastewater reuse is not a feasible alternative for disposal
of this discharge.
3.3 Install wastewater treatment: Install improved wastewater treatment to enable
the facility effluent to consistently pass the WET test. If this is not technically feasible or
cost prohibitive, please explain and provide estimated costs.
This alternative requires installation of a wastewater treatment method to enable the
facility effluent to consistently pass the WET test. A candidate treatment technology for
removal of chlorides is reverse osmosis (RO) technology. However, with such a high
chloride content in the feed water, the RO system would need very high pressure and
the percent recovery through the process would be 75% or less. Thus, RO process
would produce a discharge with a concentrate still requiring discharge to a large water
body. There are evaporative type systems that could evaporate the water off the brine
wastewater to produce a solid (salt), but they are energy intensive and expensive. Thus,
the RO treatment and/or brine evaporation option does not solve the original discharge
problem and is not economically feasible.
3.4 Use Alternative Water Treatment Source: Obtain drinking water from another
source (nearest County, City, or Town or other wells) so the discharge or toxicity
problem is eliminated.
This alternative explores the possibility of obtaining drinking water from another source
(nearest County, City, or Town or other wells) so the discharge or toxicity problem is
eliminated. Based upon the 2018 Local Water Supply Plan, the Town of Vanceboro
average daily use ranged from 0.176 to 0.218 MGD and had a maximum day use of
0.3830 MGD (September 2018). The 2018 Local Water Supply Plan also estimated the
Town will have a 2060 average daily demand (ADD) of 0.2537 million gallons per day
(MGD). Appendix D contains a copy of the Craven County water system Local Water
Supply Plan for 2018.
The Town of Vanceboro currently has an emergency interconnection with the Craven
County water system (NC0425055). Craven County is located within the Central Coastal

Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) and the Craven County water system is a registered
permit holder (CU3108). Appendix E contains a copy of the CCPCUA Permit Data for
Craven County. Due to the CCPCUA Rules, the Craven County water system has been
subject to withdrawal reductions since 2008. The 2018 Local Water Supply Plan
indicates that demand as percent of supply is approximately 60% and will approach 80%
between 2040 and 2050. At this time, it does not appear that this would be viable
alternative source.
The Town of Vanceboro utilizes groundwater sources that are in the Castle Hayne
aquifer and are currently not subject to withdrawal reductions based on the Central
Coastal Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) Rules. The Division of Water Resources may not
permit new groundwater sources located in deeper aquifers that are subject to the
CCPCUA Rules. Since there are no public water supply wells located in the deeper
aquifers in this area of Craven County, it is not known what raw water quality may exist
or what treatment may be required. This alternative would require two new
groundwater wells being installed along with the possible construction of a new water
treatment plant that would have a discharge. Due to the amount of required
infrastructure, this alternative is not financially feasible.
3.5 Use Alternative Water Treatment Method: Install alternative and/or innovative
water treatment methods or operational improvements that do not produce toxic
wastewaters. For example, install a recycle iron/manganese filtration system with no
discharge or combine discharge with WWTP or cooling water effluents.
This category includes evaluating alternative and/or innovative water treatment
methods or operational improvements that do not produce toxic wastewaters. In
effect, this would mean eliminating the softener (and ion exchange) and using a
different technology that does not produce the brine/salt discharge in the form of
reverse osmosis (RO). However, these technologies produce a brine/saline discharge in
the form of concentrate stream that must be disposed of. Thus, use of nanofiltration or
RO would need to be combined with a large water body discharge to be applicable. This
alternative does not solve the original discharge problem and is not economically
feasible.
3.6 Discharge to a Larger waterbody/Perform a dilution model: Relocate the
facility's discharge to a larger receiving waterbody to eliminate or reduce toxic impacts
to the receiving waterbody given the increased dilution. If applicable, perform a dilution
model to receive allowance for steam dilution in WET test.

In this alternative, the WTP's discharge line would be lengthened and rerouted to a
larger receiving waterbody to eliminate or reduce toxic impacts to the receiving
waterbody given the increased dilution. For any receiving body, a dilution mixing model
effort would be needed to receive allowance for dilution in WET test. A wastewater
pump station would be installed at the WTP and the pump station would discharge via a
discharge line leading to a single diffuser outlet.
The backwash and regeneration cycle volume are produced in approximately 88
minutes. The highest discharge rate during the filter backwash and softener
regeneration cycle is 560 gpm. This occurs during the initial segment of the filter
backwash.
Due to the salty nature of the discharges, the best choice for a new discharge location
would be to a tidally influenced area where the salinity of the discharge will not have as
great an impact. A larger water body around the Town of Vanceboro is the Neuse River.
The Neuse River is located south of the Town of Vanceboro. The advantage to a new
discharge into Neuse River segment 27-(96) is that it is classified SC; Sw; NSW.
Appendix F contains a copy of page 23 of the Neuse River Basin hydro order that
documents this classification. A discharge to SC waters would change the WET test
requirements and also chloride limits. A discharge force main from the WTP would be
approximately 8 miles along Mill Avenue to Hwy 17 Business and then Streets Ferry
Road to NC Hwy 55. Appendix G contains a map showing the route required. Due to
the amount of required infrastructure, this alternative is not financially feasible.
3.7 Combination of Alternatives: Employ any combination of the alternatives listed
above that would result in eliminating or decreasing toxicity until a more feasible
solution becomes available.
Each Of the alternatives stated above either do not solve the original discharge problem
and/or are not financially feasible for the Town of Vanceboro. Therefore, a combination
of these alternatives would also not solve the original discharge problem and/or would
not be financially feasible.
3.8 Discharge Variance
The Town of Vanceboro may apply to the Environmental Management Commission
(EMC) for a variance to the NPDES permit discharge requirements under State Statute
143-215.3 (e). This statute reads as follows:

"Variances. — Any person subject to the provisions of G.S. 143-215.1 or 143-214.1, 143-
215, or 143-215.107. The Commission may grant such variance, for fixed or indefinite
periods after public hearing on due notice, or where it is found that circumstances so
require, for a period not to exceed 90 days without prior hearing and notice. Prior to
granting a variance here under, the Commission shall find that: (1) The discharge of
waste or the emission of air contaminants occurring or proposed to occur do not
endanger human health or safety; and (2) Compliance with the rules, standards, or
limitations from which variance is sought cannot be achieved by application of best
available technology found to be economically reasonable at the time of application for
such variances, and would produce hardship without equal or greater benefits to the
public, provided that such variances shall be consistent with the provision of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act as amended or the Clean air Act as amended; and provided
further, that any person who would otherwise be entitled to a variance or modification
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended or the Clean Air Act as
amended shall also be entitled to the same variance from or modification in rules,
standards, or limitations established pursuant to G>S> 143-214.1, 143-215, and 143-
215.107, respectively."
If NPDES variances were to be granted for the WTPs by the DWR, the variance must be applied
for, re-evaluated by DWR, and granted every five years for each NPDES permit renewal. It is
not clear at this point what cost would be incurred for the variance requests for the WTP in the
future as the requirements are determined on a case by case basis.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES PRESENT WORTH COSTS
A present worth costs analysis was not completed because the alternatives would either not
solve the original discharge problem and/or would not be financially feasible for the Town of
Vanceboro.
5.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
This study has been conducted to meet NPDES permit requirements to assess methods for
treatment/discharge of wastewater from the WTP to avoid the toxicity impact on Mauls
Swamp. The feasibility of alternative methods was presented in Section 3. The cost of the
alternatives is significant and most do not solve the original discharge problem.
The Town would prefer to work with NC DEQ Water Resources staff on an updated sampling
plan that would assist in securing pass results for the WET tests. This is an alternative that

would not add a financial burden to the Town and should meet the goal of regulatory
compliance.
If this plan of action does not meet the goal of compliance, the next preferred method would
be the installation of a holding tank. The tank would have a volume of approximately 20,000
gallons with a mixer to properly combine the filter backwash and softener regeneration prior to
discharge. Based on calculations of the chloride loading during the brine cycle compared to the
total discharge volume, WET testing conducted using Ceriodaphinia dubia (water fleas) should
provide a pass for chronic test results.
5.1 ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION
It is important to note that the preferred alternative is not part of the seven (7) alternative
choices that are listed on page 5 of 7 of the permit. The recommended implementation steps
are as follows:
1. Contact NC DEQ Water Resources staff in the Washington Regional Office for a
meeting to discuss the representative sampling plan for collection of WET samples
from the WTP discharge.
2. Based on the results of the meeting(s), an updated sampling plan may be created for
approval of use by the Town of Vanceboro.
3. Conduct WET sampling based on the updated representative sampling plan to
determine compliance.
4. If compliance is achieved, no further actions must be taken.
5. If compliance is not achieved, or an updated representative sampling plan cannot be
secured, then a meeting with the WaRO staff will be scheduled to discuss the
possibility of utilizing a holding tank. After determining what would be required by
the State for implementation (i.e. permitting, compliance monitoring, etc.), the
Town of Vanceboro would have to review and discuss the financial viability of this
alternative.
5.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE
The project schedule for implementation steps 1 & 2 are dependent on the availability of the
NC DEQ WaRO staff, Town of Vanceboro staff, and consultant. If steps 1 & 2 can be
implemented, scheduling of step 3 is strictly based on the WET test compliance monitoring
schedule.

Figure 2.1
NPDES LOCATION MAP

USGS Quad: F30SW Vancebbro, NC
Outfall Facili
_Latitude: 35° 18' 13.6" N 350 18' 15.1" N
ngitude: 77° 8' 51.1" W 770 8' 50.3" W
Stream Class: C, Sw, NSW
Subbasin:03-04-09 HUC:03020202
}ar
Facility Location
North
Vanceboro WTP NC0080071
iving Stream: UT to Mauls Swam
Craven Co

Figure 2.2
TREATMENT & DISCHARGE SCHEMATIC

WELL #1
\ AERATOR FILTER
Well #2
10,880 GALLONS
GAS CHLORINATION
ION EXCHANGE SOFTENER
5,400 GALLONS
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
0.016 MGD
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO MAULS SWAMP
OUTFALL 001
Town of Vanceboro WTP Discharge
N C0080071

Appendix A
NPDES PERMIT INFORMATION

FIFWA
���
NCDEENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
RECEIVE004110 1MR/DM
February 5, 2015
E. Renee Ipok FEB 19 2015
Town of Vanceboro
P. O. Box 306 water QualityRegio"
Vanceboro, NC 28586 w Regl openitlMe
Subject: Issuance ofNPDES Permit
Permit NCO080071
Vanceboro WTP
Craven County
Class I
Dear Ms. Ipok :
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject
permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to
the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as
subsequently amended).
Summary of Changes in Final Permit from Existing Permit
1) Removed monthly average flow limit. Weekly monitoring to continue. Applied the 2009 Water
Treatment Plant Strategy which removes the flow limit. [See A.(1.)] .
2) Reduced monitoring for total chloride, total copper, total iron, and total zinc to quarterly to
coincide with chronic toxicity sampling. Edited chronic toxicity footnote. As action level
toxicity parameters of concern, these ,parameters are to be evaluated in conjunction with the
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) test. Note, this permit may be reopened and limits added for
these parameters if WET tests continue to demonstrate aquatic toxicity. [See A.(l.)]
3) Reduced monitoring for total manganese to quarterly to coincide with chronic toxicity
sampling. Edited chronic toxicity footnote. As a toxicity parameter of concern, monitoring'in
conjunction with the quarterly toxicity test was implemented. [See A.(1.)]
4) Reduced monitoring for Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) to semi-annual.
Removed reporting of Total Kfeldahl Nitrogen (continue to measure to determine TN),
Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen (continue to measure to determine. TN), and Total Nitrogen Load
Removed Calculation of Total Nitrogen Loads special condition. Removed Total Monthly Flow
footnote. The 2012 Neuse River Basin Strategy reduced nutrient requirements from monthly to
semi-annual monitoring and reporting for TN and TP. [See A.(L)]
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] Pax: 9IM7-6494
Internet www.nodenr.gov
An Equal OpportunityWffirmative Action Employer

E. Rene Ipok
February 5, 2015
Page 3 of 3
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Ron Berry at telephone
number [phone] or at email [e-mail].
Sincerely,
P2�
vZimme
-ctiyg Director, Division of Water Resources
Attachments
Cc: Washington Regional Office/Water Quality Programs
WSS/Aquatic Toxicology Branch/Susan Meadows (email)
Central Fires
NPDES Fite
k.

Permit NCO080071
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE.
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
Town of Vanceboro
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Vanceboro WTP
923 Farm Life Avenue northeast of Vanceboro
Craven County
to receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary to Mauls Swamp in the Neuse River Basin in
accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I,
H, and III hereof '
The permit shall become effective .................................. March 1, 2015.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on February 29, 2020.
Signed this day ...................... February 5, 2015.
Iry y Zimmerm
Ling Director, Division of Water Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page I of 7

Permit NCO080071
Part I
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
[15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
a. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, -'the
Permittee is authorized to discharge backwash/rinse wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges
shall be limited and monitored 1 by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
,
Monthly
Aver ' e
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type `
Sample
Location
Flow, MOD
Weekly
Estimated
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
pH
Not les than 6.0 S.U. nor
eater than 9.0 S.U.
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine
17 µg/L
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Salinity, ppt
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity, µmhos/cm
Monthly
. Grab
Effluent
Total Dissolved "Solids, mg/L
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Ammonia as Nitrogen, mg/L
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Turbidity, NTU
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chloride, m
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, µg/L4
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron, mg/L 4
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese, m
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, µg/0
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity 4 .
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen, mg/L
Monitor & Report
Semi-annual
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus, mg/L
Monitor & Report
Semi-annual
Grab
Effluent
Footnotes:
l . No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit; begin submitting discharge monitoring
reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special Condition A.(4.).
2. Flow is estimated based on influent meter flow rates and duration of discharges events that occur
daily. Records shall be maintained and available for inspection indicating the flow rates and duration
of daily events used to calculate the reported flow.
3. Limit and monitor only if the facility adds chlorine or a chlorine derivative to water that is eventually
discharged. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 µg/L to be
compliant with the permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values
reported by a North Carolina laboratory (including field certified), even if these values fall below 50
µg/L
4. Chronic toxicity (Ceriodaphnia dubia) @ 90% conducted in March, June, September, and December.
Sampling for total chloride, total copper, total iron, total manganese, and total zinc shall be conducted
in conjunction with toxicity testing. See Special Condition A. (2.).
5. For a given wastewater sample, TN = TKN + (NOZ-N + NO3-N), where TN is Total Nitrogen, (NO2-
N +NO3-N) is Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen, and TKN is Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen.
b. All samples collected shall be from a representative discharge event.
c. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 3 of 7

Permit NCO080071
A. (3) DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
[G.S. 143-215.3(a)(2)]
The Permittee shall assess potential. alternatives to eliminate Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) test
failures. This evaluation shall assess the feasibility of all the following alternatives:
1. Connect discharge to a WWTP: Determine whether the wastewater can be discharged to a
wastewater treatment plant. Approval or disapproval from the plant operator
should be acquired.
2. Obtain a Noe -discharge permit: Eliminate the surface water discharge by obtaining a non -
discharge permit for spray irrigation, infiltration, or subsurface disposal (on -site
drainfield, infiltration gallery, injection wells).
3. Install Wastewater Treatment: Install improved wastewater treatment to enable the facility
effluent to consistently pass the WET test. If this is not technically feasible or
cost prohibitive, please explain and provide estimated costs.
4. Use Alternative Water Treatment Source: Obtain drinking water from another source (nearest
County, City, or Town or other wells) so the discharge or toxicity problem is
eliminated.
5. Use Alternative Water Treatment Method: Install alternative and/or innovative water treatment
methods or operational improvements that do not produce toxic wastewaters.
"= For example, install a recycle iron/manganese filtration system with no
discharge or combine discharge with WWTP or cooling water effluents.
6. Discharge to a Larger waterbody/Perform a dilution model: Relocate the facility's discharge to
a larger receiving waterbody to eliminate or reduce toxic impacts to the
receiving waterbody given the increased dilution. If applicable, perform a
dilution model to receive allowance for stream dilution in WET test.
7. Combination of Alternatives: Employ any combination of the alternatives listed above that would
result in eliminating or decreasing toxicity until a more feasible solution
becomes available.
The evaluation shall include a present value of costs analysis for all technologically feasible options as
outlined in the Division's "Engineering Alternatives Analysis Guidance Document." This Document can
be found at: http://portal.nedeur.org/web/wq/swp/Ps/npdes/pennits.
This evaluation is being requested to determine whether there are any economical and technologically
feasible alternatives available to the Permittee to address aquatic toxicity in the plant effluent. Based
upon the evaluation, please identify viable alternatives and present an implementation schedule and
project timeline for the preferred alternative. The Permittee shall submit the Discharge Alternatives
Evaluation to the Division along with the submission of their next permit renewal application (due 6
months prior to permit expiration on March 1, 2015) to:
NC DENR / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting
NPDES, Wastewater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Page 5 of 7

Permit NCO080071
(Continued A. (4) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS)
http://portal.nedenr.org/web/wq/admin/bog/ipu/edmr
Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is due on the last day of the month following
the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last day of the month following the
commencement of discharge.
2. Signatory Reaui cements [Supplements Section B. (11.) (b) and supersedes Section B. (11.) (d)]
All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person described in Part II,
Section B. (I1.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that person as described in Part II,
Section B. (I l.)(b). A person, and not a position, must be delegated signatory authority for eDMR
reporting purposes.
For eDMR submissions, the person signing and submitting the DMR must obtain an eDMR user
account and login credentials to access the eDMR system. For more information on North
Carolina's eDMR system, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please visit
the following web page:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/admin/bog/ipu/edmr
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system shall make
the following certification [40 CFR 122.221. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION
WILL BE ACCEPTED:
V certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information,
the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I
am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility offines and imprisonment for knowing violations. "
3. Records Retention [Supplements Section D. (6.)]
The permittee shall retain records of all Discharge Monitoring Reports, including eDMR
submissions. These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years from the
date of the report. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40 CFR
122.41].
Page 7 of 7

1
saela>no d `ti
1 �
4
IW
lop
�'^�'� !-r....•...,.:..._... �.''.�, �`�' _.. Vanceboro WTP <. � _. .......�.
•�' '� '• is / `� <.. : " rc' �-
Gr
f
Discharge !
� l�;ia«rawell;, • 1_ (i • NCO080071
l YM
})k 1. .r•„ , �t •. f � j ... ••j
a. JjF jY
Wf � ± = r'w,.., � i � . � j _ J � \. 1 �•, j f�
• t 7 i �y�' f % ' (%` -` , `: 1 US 17� ti4++AAF'^"' 11 .� ` ♦ • 4� .) 1
�.—"'`ice t �F :ar •�. .4 'F .ze:. �'" .._a- m —1}i e?'{.+` -y f •+�,~^%T• • 1
tk
C:
� �._. �, lam' � . �`� ~'`-•r�---'''� ,%
S ALE: 1 in = 24000 ft
USGS Quad: F30SW Vanceboro, NC-
Outfall Facili
T atitude: 35 18 13.6 N 35 18 15.1 N
tude: 77' 8' 51.1" W 770 8' 50.3" W ngl
Stream Class: C North
Sw NSW Facility Location
Subbasin: 03-04-09 HUC: 03020202 Vanceboro WTP NC0080071
Receiving Stream: UT to Mauls Swamp Craven County

Appendix B
TOWN OF VANCEBORO 2018 LOCAL
WATER SUPPLY PLAN

Vanceboro
2018 v
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) provides the data contained within this Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) as a courtesy and service to our customers.
DWR staff does not field verify data. Neither DWR, nor any other party involved in the preparation of this LWSP attests that the data is completely free of errors
and omissions. Furthermore, data users are cautioned that LWSPs labeled PROVISIONAL have yet to be reviewed by DWR staff. Subsequent review may result
in significant revision. Questions regarding the accuracy or limitations of usage of this data should be directed to the water system and/or DWR.
1. System Information
Contact Information
Water System Name:
Vanceboro
PWSID:
04-25-020 Complete
Mailing Address:
PO Box 306
Ownership:
Municipality
Vanceboro, NC 28586
Contact Person:
Beverly W. Drake
Title:
Town Clerk
Phone:
252-244-0919
Cell/Mobile:
--
Secondary Contact:
Mike Hill
Phone:
919-812-6088
Mailing Address:
100 Stroud Ave.
Cell/Mobile:
—
Pink Hill, NC 28572
Distribution System
Line Type Size Range (Inches) Estimated % of lines
Asbestos Cement 8 5.00 %
Polyvinyl Chloride 2-6 95.00 %
What are the estimated total miles of distribution system lines? 16 Miles
How many feet of distribution lines were replaced during 2018? 0 Feet
How many feet of new water mains were added during 2018? 0 Feet
How many meters were replaced in 20187 8
How old are the oldest meters in this system? 50 Year(s)
How many meters for outdoor water use, such as irrigation, are not billed for sewer services? 0
What is this system's finished water storage capacity? 0.5500 Million Gallons
Has water pressure been inadequate in any part of the system since last update? Line breaks that were repaired quickly should not be included. No
Programs
Does this system have a program to work or flush hydrants? Yes, As Needed
Does this system have a valve exercise program? No
Does this system have a cross -connection program? No
Does this system have a program to replace meters? Yes
Does this system have a plumbing retrofit program? No
Does this system have an active water conservation public education program? Yes
Does this system have a leak detection program? Yes
As employees ride through out town they are looking leaks.
Water Conservation
What type of rate structure is used? Increasing Block
How much reclaimed water does this system use? 0.0000 MGD For how many connections? 0
Does this system have an interconnection with another system capable of providing water in an emergency? Yes
2. Water Use Information
Service Area
Sub-Basin(s) % of Service Population County(s) % of Service Population
Neuse River (10-1) 100 % Craven 100 %
What was the year-round population served in 2018? 1,864
Has this system acquired another system since last report? No

Water Use by Type
Type of Use Metered
Metered
Non -Metered
Non -Metered
Connections
Average Use (MGD)
Connections
Estimated Use
(MGD)
Residential 428
0.0670
0
0.0000
Commercial 41
0.0080
0
0.0000
Industrial 1
0.0020
0
0.0000
Institutional 20
0.0710
0
0.0000
How much water was used for system processes (backwash, line cleaning, flushing, etc.)?
0.0150 MGD
Water Sales
Average
Days Contract
Required to
Pipe Size(s)
Use
Purchaser PWSID Daily Sold
Used
comply with water
(Inches)
Type
(MGD)
MGD Expiration
Recurring use restrictions?
Craven County 04-25-055 0.0000
0
Yes
Emergency
3. Water Supply Sources
Monthly Withdrawals & Purchases
Average Daily Max Day
Average Daily
Max Day Average Daily
Max Day
Use (MGD) Use (MGD)
Use (MGD)
Use (MGD)
Use (MGD)
Use (MGD)
Jan 0.2180 0.3150
May 0.1870
0.3420 Sep
0.1950
0.3830
Feb 0.1820 0.2840
Jun 0.1810
0.2950 Oct
0.1870
0.3050
Mar 0.1790 0.2720
Jul 0.1900
0.2870 Nov
0.1900
0.2810
Apr 0.1820 0.2700
Aug 0.1760
0.2750 Dec
0.1780
0.2920
The meters at the wells had not be calibrated in
20 years. This could be the the 11.000
gpd they is being used for backwash.
The system is using raw water to
backwash.The ORC is going to have the well meters calibrated
vanceboro's 2018 Monthly Withdrawals & Purchases
� 1
■ Avg Daily
> . Max Day
A
v
a
c
A
t7
c
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Ground Water Sources
Average Daily Withdrawal (MGD)
12-Hour Supply
Name or Number
Max Day Withdrawal (MGD)
(MGD)
CILIA Reduction Year Offline
Use Type
MGD Days Used
1 0.0940 363
0.268
0.2160
CUAO
Regular
2 0.0940 364
0.249
0.2160
CUAO
Regular
Ground Water Sources (continued)
Name or Number Well Depth (Feet) Casing Depth
Screen Depth (Feet)Well
Diameter (Inches)
Pump Intake Depth (Feet)
Metered?
(Feet)
Top Bottom
1 165 160
128 160
8
105
Yes
2 165 160
128 160
8
106
Yes
Are ground water levels monitored? Yes, Monthly
Does this system have a wellhead protection program? Yes
Water Purchases From Other Systems

Average Days Contract Required to pipe Size(s)
Seller PWSID Daily Purchased comply with water
(MGD) Used MGD Expiration Recurring use restrictions? (Inches)
Craven County 04-25-055 0.0000 0 Yes No 8
Water Treatment Plants
Plant Name Permitted
Capacity Is Raw Water Metered? Is Finished Water Ouput Metered?
(MGDVanceboro Water Plant 0.4320 Yes Yes
Did average daily water production exceed 80% of approved plant capacity for five consecutive days during 2018? No
If yes, was any water conservation implemented? No
Did average daily water production exceed 90% of approved plant capacity for five consecutive days during 20189 No
If yes, was any water conservation implemented? No
Are peak day demands expected to exceed the water treatment plant capacity in the next 10 years? No
4. Wastewater Information
Monthly Discharges
Use
Type
Emergency
Source
Groundwater Castle Haynes
Average Daily
Average Daily
Average Daily
Discharge (MGD)
Discharge (MGD)
Discharge (MGD)
Jan
0.2190
May
0.2030
Sep
0.2070
Feb
0.2630
Jun
0.1950
Oct
0.1680
Mar
0.2530
Jul
0.1630
Nov
0.2160
Apr
0.2370
Aug
0.2370
Dec
0.2380
Vanceboro's 2018 Monthly Discharges
O 1
T ■ Avg Daily
A
O
c
0
A
1.7
C
0 0
i Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
How many sewer connections does this system have? 481
How many water service connections with septic systems does this system have? 2
Are there plans to build or expand wastewater treatment facilities in the next 10 years? No
Wastewater Permits
Average Annual
Permit Number Permitted Capacity Design Capacity Daily Discharge Maximum Day Discharge Receiving Stream Receiving Basin
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
NCO031828 0.3000 0.3000 0.2170 Swift Creek Neuse River (10-1)
NCO080071 0.0000 0.0000 0.0110 Maul Swamp Neuse River (10-1)
Total discharge from both plants 0.228 MGD. Maul Swamp is the discharge from water plant the 2 wells pump to one water plant.
5. Planning
Projections
2018 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Year -Round Population 1,864 1,875 1,914 1,949 2,017 2,111
Seasonal Population 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 0.0670 0.0680 0.0700 0.0730 0.0763 0.0801

Commercial
0.0080
0.0071
0.0079
0.0086
0.0095
0.0105
Industrial
0.0020
0.0021
0.0024
0.0027
0.0030
0.0033
Institutional
0.0710
0.0724
0.0797
0.0876
0.0964
0.1060
System Process
0.0150
0.0170
0.0180
0.0190
0.0200
0.0210
Unaccounted-for
0.0242
0.0247
0.0264
0.0283
0.0305
0.0328
The meters at the wells had not be calibrated in 20 years. This could be the the 11,000 gpd they is being used for backwash. The system is using raw water to
backwash.The ORC is going to have the well meters calibrated
Demand v/s Percent of Supply
2018 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Surface Water Supply 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Ground Water Supply 0.4320 0.4320 0.4320 0.4320 0.4320 0.4320
Purchases 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Future Supplies 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total Available Supply (MGD) 0.4320 0.4320 0.4320 0.4320 0.4320 0.4320
Service Area Demand 0.1872 0.1913 0.2044 0.2192 0.2357 0.2537
Sales 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Future Sales 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total Demand (MGD) 0.1872 0.1913 0.2044 0.2192 0.2357 0.2537
Demand as Percent of Supply 43% 44 % 47 % 51 % 55% 59%
JpGraph Error: 25121
QEmpty input data array specified for plot. Must have at
' least one data point.
The purpose of the above chart is to show a general indication of how the long-term per capita water demand changes over time. The per capita water demand may
actually be different than indicated due to seasonal populations and the accuracy of data submitted. Water systems that have calculated long-term per capita water
demand based on a methodology that produces different results may submit their information in the notes field.
Your long-term water demand is 36 gallons per capita per day. What demand management practices do you plan to implement to reduce the per capita water demand
(i.e. conduct regular water audits, implement a plumbing retrofit program, employ practices such as rainwater harvesting or reclaimed water)? If these practices are
covered elsewhere in your plan, indicate where the practices are discussed here.
Are there other demand management practices you will implement to reduce your future supply needs?
What supplies other than the ones listed in future supplies are being considered to meet your future supply needs?
How does the water system intend to implement the demand management and supply planning components above?
Additional Information
Has this system participated in regional water supply or water use planning? Yes, CCPCUA
What major water supply reports or studies were used for planning? CCPCUA
Please describe any other needs or issues regarding your water supply sources, any water system deficiencies or needed improvements (storage, treatment, etc.) or your
ability to meet present and future water needs Include both quantity and quality considerations, as well as financial. technical, managerial, permitting, and compliance
issues: Radio read meters.
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) provides the data contained within this Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) as a courtesy and service to our customers.
DWR staff does not field verify data. Neither DWR, nor any other party involved in the preparation of this LWSP attests that the data is completely free of errors
and omissions. Furthermore. data users are cautioned that LWSPs labeled PROVISIONAL have yet to be reviewed by DWR staff. Subsequent review may result
in significant revision. Questions regarding the accuracy or limitations of usage of this data should be directed to the water system and/or DWR.

Appendix C
MAULS SWAMP STREAM CLASSIFICATION

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER RESOURCES 2B .0300
.0315 NEUSE RIVER BASIN
Name of Stream Description Class Class Date Index No.
rham Swamp
From source to Creeping Swamp
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-5-3-0.5
Pollard Swamp
From source to Creeping Swamp
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-5-3-1
Palmetto Swamp
From source to Swift Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-5.3
Fork Swamp
From source to Palmetto Swamp
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-5.3-1
Mauls Swamp
From source to Swift Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-5.7
Swift Creek
From mouth of Bear Branch to Neuse
SC;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-(6)
River
Bear Branch
From source to Swift Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-7
Little Swift Creek
From source to Swift Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-8
Bushy Fork
From source to Little Swift Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-8-1
Pine Tree Swamp
From source to Little Swift Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-8-2
Kit Swamp
From source to Little Swift Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-8-2.5
Fisher Swamp
From source to Little Swift Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-8-3
Beaverdam Swamp
From source to Fisher Swamp
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-8-3-1
Bachelor Creek
From source to mouth in Neuse River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-98
located 3.2 miles more or less
downstream from The Gut
Hollis Branch
From source to Bachelor
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-98-1
(Batchelder) Creek
"-llover Creek
From source to Bachelor
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-98-2
(Batchelder) Creek
ueep Branch
From source to Bachelor
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-98-2.1
(Batchelder) Creek
Beaverdam Branch
From source to Bachelor
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-98-2.2
(Batchelder) Creek
Jumping Run
From source to Bachelor
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-98-2.3
(Batchelder) Creek
Beech Tree Branch
From source to Bachelor
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-98-2.4
(Batchelder) Creek
Round Tree Branch
From source to Bachelor
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-98-2.5
(Batchelder) Creek
Caswell Branch
From source to Bachelor
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-98-2.6
(Batchelder) Creek
The Gut
From source to Bachelor
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-98-3
(Batchelder) Creek
Renny Creek
From source to Neuse River
SC;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-99
Mills Branch
From source to Neuse River
SC;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-99.5
Jack Smith Creek
From source to Neuse River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-100
Trent River
From source to mouth of Deep Gully
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-101-(1)
Running Branch
From source to Trent River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-101-1.5
Horse Branch
From source to Trent River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-101-2
Beaverdam Swamp
From source to Trent River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-101-3
;hua Creek
From source to Trent River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-101-4
_ ,kyard Branch
From source to Joshua Creek
C,Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-101-4-1
Bearwell Branch
From source to Joshua Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-101-4-2
24

Appendix D
CRAVEN COUNTY 2018 LOCAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN

Craven County
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) provides the data contained within this Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) as a courtesy and service to our customers.
DWR staff does not field verify data. Neither DWR, nor any other party involved in the preparation of this LWSP attests that the data is completely free of errors
and omissions. Furthermore, data users are cautioned that LWSPs labeled PROVISIONAL have yet to be reviewed by DWR staff. Subsequent review may result
in significant revision. Questions regarding the accuracy or limitations of usage of this data should be directed to the water system and/or DWR.
1. System Information
Contact Information
Water System Name. Craven County
Mailing Address: 406 Craven Street
New Bern. NC 28560
Contact Person:
Phone:
Secondary Contact:
Mailing Address:
Distribution System
Elliot Thomas
252-636-6181
Nadyne Bentley
2830 Neuse Blvd
New Bern. NC 28562
Line Type
Ductile Iron
Other
Polyvinyl Chloride
PWSID. 04-25-055
Ownership. County
Title: Water Treatment Plant Supervisor
Cell/Mobile [phone]
Phone: [phone]
C ell/Mobile: [phone]
Size Range (Inches)
4-16
6-14
2-18
Complete
Estimated % of lines
1.00 %
1.00 %
98.00 %
What are the estimated total miles of distribution system lines? 650 Miles
How many feet of distribution lines were replaced during 2018? 0 Feet
How many feet of new water mains were added during 2018? 0 Feet
How many meters were replaced in 2018? 170
How old are the oldest meters in this system? 35 Year(s)
How many meters for outdoor water use, such as irrigation, are not billed for sewer services? 43
What is this system's finished water storage capacity? 3,4000 Million Gallons
Has water pressure been inadequate in any part of the system since last update? Line breaks that were repaired quickly should not be included. No
Programs
Does this system have a program to work or flush hydrants? Yes, Annually
Does this system have a valve exercise program? Yes, As Needed
Does this system have a cross -connection program? Yes
Does this system have a program to replace meters? Yes
Does this system have a plumbing retrofit program? No
Does this system have an active water conservation public education program? Yes
Does this system have a leak detection program? No
Water Conservation
What type of rate structure is used? Increasing Block
How much reclaimed water does this system use? 0.0000 MGD For how many connections? 0
Does this system have an interconnection with another system capable of providing water in an emergency? Yes
2. Water Use Information
Service Area
Sub-Basin(s)
Neuse River(10-1)
of Service Population County(s) % of Service Population
100 % Craven 100 %
What was the year-round population served in 2018? 36,250
Has this system acquired another system since last report? No

Water Use by Type
Type of Use
Metered
Metered
Non -Metered
Non -Metered
Connections
Average Use (MGD)
Connections
Estimated Use
(MGD)
Residential
14,470
1.9832
0
0.0000
Commercial
1,073
0.2031
0
0.0000
Industrial
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
Institutional
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
How much water was used for system
processes (backwash, line cleaning, Flushing, etc.)?
0.6592 MGD
Water Sales
Average
Days
Contract
Required to
Pipe Size(s)
Use
Purchaser PWSID
Daily Sold
Used
comply with water
(Inches)
Type
(MGD)
MGD Expiration
Recurring
use restrictions?
Cove City 04-25-045
0.0310
365
0.2500 2025
Yes
Yes
6
Regular
First Craven SD 04-25-040
0.0000
0
0.0000 2050
No
No
6
Emergency
Havelock 04-25-015
0.4500
14
0.0000 2050
Yes
Yes
8
Emergency
Jones County 04-52-020
0.5000
5
No
8
Emergency
New Bern 04-25-010
0.0000
0
0.0000 2050
Yes
No
12
Emergency
North River 04-16-197
0.1600
63
0.0000 2050
Yes
Yes
6
Emergency
Town of Dover 04-25-025
0.0000
0
0.2500 2050
Yes
Yes
6
Emergency
Vanceboro 04-25-020
0.0000
0
0.0000 2050
Yes
No
6
Emergency
3. Water Supply Sources
Monthly Withdrawals & Purchases
Average Daily
Max Day
Average Daily
Max Day
Average Daily
Max Day
Use (MGD)
Use (MGD)
Use (MGD)
Use (MGD)
Use (MGD)
Use (MGD)
Jan 3.6020
5.6040
May
3.0200
5.5430
Sep
3.5760
6.2490
Feb 2.7160
3.8730
Jun
2.9030
4.0430
Oct
3.2080
4.8700
Mar 2.9240
3.9080
Jul
3.0520
4.3650
Nov
2.6720
3.5890
Apr 2.9710
5.3470
Aug
2.9640
4.5550
Dec
2.6380
5.0300
Craven County's 2018 Monthly Withdrawals & Purchases
0 8
f
a
6
Q.
4
♦
0 4
c
0 2
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
■ Avg Daily
Max Day
Ground Water Sources
Average Daily Withdrawal
12-Hour
Name or Number
(MGD)
Max Day Withdrawal
Supply
CUA
Year Use
(MGD)
(MGD)
Reduction
Offline Type
MGD
Days Used
Bryan
0.3270
212
1.004
0.7200
CUA25
Regular
Bryan PD
0.0690
210
0.175
0.1120
CUAO
Regular
Davis
0.2840
82
1.273
0.5760
CUA25
Regular
Davis PD
0.0660
41
0.237
0.1150
CUAO
Regular
Flanners Beach #2 -
0.2550
342
0.805
0.5760
CUAO
Regular
W13
Flanners Beach #3 -
0.3470
332
0.849
0.5760
CUAO
Regular
W08

Flanners Beach #4 -
0.3450
333
0.774
0.5760
CUAO
Regular
W06
Flanners Beach #5 -
0.2380
68
0.659
0.5760
CUAO
Regular
W09
Ft Barnwell
0.3110
250
1.281
0.5400
CUA25
Regular
Ft Barnwell PD
0.0560
64
0.176
0.0860
CUAO
Regular
Lewis Farm Rd #1 - W11
0.3340
340
0.762
0.5760
CUAO
Regular
Stately Pines #2 - W12
0.2640
339
0.736
0.5760
CUAO
Regular
Stately Pines #3 - W10
0.3000
341
0.881
0.5760
CUAO
Regular
Water Plant Well - W07
0.3380
338
0.818
0.5760
CUAO
Regular
Well
0.3640
244
1.513
0.5400
CUA25
Regular
Well 5 PD
0.0590
237
0.230
0.0940
CUAO
Regular
Wintergreen
0.3270
272
1.272
0.5760
CUA25
Regular
Wintergreen PD
0.0690
45
0.169
0.1800
CUAO
Regular
Ground Water Sources (continued)
Casing Depth
Screen Depth (Feet)Well
Name or Number
Well Depth (Feet)
Diameter (Inches)
Pump Intake
Depth (Feet)
Metered?
(Feet)
Top
Bottom
Bryan
804
535
535
788
10
320
Yes
Bryan PD
312
262
262
302
10
252
Yes
Davis
828
714
714
818
10
240
Yes
Davis PD
338
303
303
338
10
296
Yes
Planners Beach #2 - W13
250
250
205
245
12
100
Yes
Flanners Beach #3 - W08
247
247
202
242
12
100
Yes
Planners Beach #4 - W06
250
250
205
245
12
115
Yes
Flanners Beach #5 - W09
255
255
210
250
12
100
Yes
Ft Barnwell
800
495
495
698
10
270
Yes
Ft Barnwell PD
242
197
197
237
10
191
Yes
Lewis Farm Rd #1 - W11
280
280
235
275
12
115
Yes
Stately Pines #2 - W12
271
271
226
266
12
110
Yes
Stately Pines #3 - W10
261
261
216
256
12
100
Yes
Water Plant Well - W07
280
280
235
275
12
115
Yes
Wells
708
606
606
698
10
287
Yes
Well 5 PD
283
253
253
273
10
242
Yes
Wintergreen
800
535
535
780
10
270
Yes
Wintergreen PD
330
280
280
320
10
276
Yes
Are ground water levels monitored? Yes, Monthly
Does this system have a wellhead protection program?
No
The Division of Water Resources
Local Water Supply Plan database does not currently
accurately track allowable
groundwater withdrawals regulated by
Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Permits These allowable withdrawals
are regulated by
that Permit rather
than the design capacity of the system's
wells. Therefore, the allowable withdrawal from the system's wells in 2018
was only 6.2283 MGD rather than the 12-hr
well capacity of 8.1470 MGD. This
reduction effectively increases the Demand as Percent of Supply
shown
in Section 5 of the Plan
from 38% to 50%,
Water Purchases From Other Systems
Required to
Average
Contract
comply with
Pipe
Seller
PWSID
Daily
Days
water
Size(s)
Use
Purchased
Used
MGD
Expiration
Recurring
use
(Inches)
Type
(MGD)
restrictions?
First Craven
0 -2
0.0000
0
0.0000
2050
No
No
6
Emergency
40
Havelock
00
0.0000
0
0.0000
2050
Yes
Yes
8
Emergency
55
Jones County Regional Water
04-52-
0.0000
0
0.0000
2050
Yes
Yes
8
Emergency
System
020
New Bern
00
0.0000
0
0.0000
2050
Yes
Yes
8
Emergency
05_
North River
0197
0.0000
0
0.0000
2050
No
Yes
3
Emergency
Vanceboro
04-25-
0.0000
0
0.0000
2050
Yes
Yes
8
Emergency
020

Water Treatment Plants
Plant Name Permi (MGD) ed panty Is Raw Water Metered? Is Finished Water Ouput Metered?
Bryan/PeeDee Well 0.8320 Yes Yes
Craven County Water Treatment 3.0000 Yes Yes
Davis/PeeDee Well 0.6910 Yes Yes
Dover/ Pee Dee Well 0.6260 Yes Yes
Well# 5/ PeeDee 0.6340 Yes Yes
Wintergreen/PeeDee Well 0.7560 Yes Yes
Did average daily water production exceed 80% of approved plant capacity for rive consecutive days during 2018? No
If yes, was any water conservation implemented? No
Did average daily water production exceed 90% of approved plant capacity for five consecutive days during 2018? No
If yes, was any water conservation implemented? No
Are peak day demands expected to exceed the water treatment plant capacity in the next 10 years? No
4. Wastewater Information
Monthly Discharges
Source
Black Creek/PeeDee
Castle Hayne Aquifer
BlackCreek/PeeDee
Black Creek/ PeeDee
Black Creek/PeeDee
BlackCreek/PeeDee
Average Daily
Average Daily
Average Daily
Discharge (MGD)
Discharge (MGD)
Discharge (MGD)
Jan
0.7106
May
0.6451
Sep
0.7814
Feb
0.5732
Jun
0,6308
Oct
0.6593
Mar
0.6347
Jul
0.6587
Nov
0.5818
Apr
0.6455
Aug
0.6038
Dec
0.5646
E Jan
Craven County's 2018 Monthly Discharges
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
■ Avg Daily
How many sewer connections does this system have? 0
How many water service connections with septic systems does this system have? 9,910
Are there plans to build or expand wastewater treatment facilities in the next 10 years? No
Wastewater Permits
Permit Number Permitted Capacity Design Capacity Average Annual Daily Discharge Maximum Day Discharge Receiving Stream Receiving Basin
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
NCO089460 1.2000 1.2000 0.6396 1.1920 Neuse River Neuse River (10-1)
Although we state that we have a 1.2 MGD flow limit we do not actually have a maximum flow limit. At our current production of 3 MGD, 1.2 MGD would be the
most we could discharge.
5. Planning
Projections
2018 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Year -Round Population 36,250 35,564 41,593 48,645 56,892 62,500
Seasonal Population 0 0 0 0 0 0

Residential
1.9832
1.9560
2.2876
2.6755
3.1291
3.4375
Commercial
0.2031
0.2800
0.3300
0.3900
0.4500
0.5000
Industrial
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Institutional
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
System Process
0.6592
0.6600
0.6700
0.6800
0.6900
0.7000
Unaccounted-for
0.1925
0.3210
0.3210
0.3210
0.3210
0.3210
Future Water Sales
Contract
Purchaser PWSID Pipe Size(s)(Inches) Use Type
MGD Year Begin Year End
CCPCUA 00-00-000 0.0800 2019 2061 Regular
The sale identified as to the CCPCUA is not actually a sale but a reduction in the available supply due to the conditions of the CCPCUA Permit issued to the
County.
7 Demand v/s Percent of Supply
2018 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Surface Water Supply 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Ground Water Supply 8.1470 5.9330 5.9330 5.9330 5.9330 5.9330
Purchases 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Future Supplies 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total Available Supply (MGD) 8.1470 5.9330 5.9330 5.9330 5.9330 5.9330
Service Area Demand 3.0380 3.2170 3.6086 4.0665 4.5901 4.9585
Sales 0.0827 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500
Future Sales 0.0800 0.0800 0.0800 0.0800 0.0800
Total Demand (MGD) 3.1207 3.5470 3.9386 4.3965 4.9201 5.2885
Demand as Percent of Supply 38% 60 % 66 % 74% 83 % 89%
JpGraph Error: 25121
/� Empty input data array specified for plot. Must have at
A/1\ least one data point.
The purpose of the above chart is to show a general indication of how the long-term per capita water demand changes over time. The per capita water demand may
actually be different than indicated due to seasonal populations and the accuracy of data submitted. Water systems that have calculated long-term per capita water
demand based on a methodology that produces different results may submit their information in the notes field.
Your long-term water demand is 55 gallons per capita per day. What demand management practices do you plan to implement to reduce the per capita water demand
(i.e. conduct regular water audits, implement a plumbing retrofit program, employ practices such as rainwater harvesting or reclaimed water)? If these practices are
covered elsewhere in your plan, indicate where the practices are discussed here.
Are there other demand management practices you will implement to reduce your future supply needs? Continue to promote Water Conservation Education.
What supplies other than the ones listed in future supplies are being considered to meet your future supply needs? Our Water Treatment Plant is easily expandable by
an additional 2MGD for a total supply of 7.933MGD
How does the water system intend to implement the demand management and supply planning components above? Continue to promote Water Conservation by the
customer. Carefully monitor the growth of our customer base and plan according to large growth suddenly.
Additional Information
Has this system participated in regional water supply or water use planning? No
What major water supply reports or studies were used for planning?
Please describe any other needs or issues regarding your water supply sources, any water system deficiencies or needed improvements (storage, treatment, etc.) or your
ability to meet present and future water needs Include both quantity and quality considerations, as well as financial, technical managerial, permitting, and compliance
issues:
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) provides the data contained within this Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) as a courtesy and service to our customers.
DWR staff does not field verify data. Neither DWR, nor any other party involved in the preparation of this LWSP attests that the data is completely free of errors

and omissions. Furthermore, data users are cautioned that LWSPs labeled PROVISIONAL have yet to be reviewed by DWR staff. Subsequent review may result
in significant revision. Questions regarding the accuracy or limitations of usage of this data should be directed to the water system and/or DWR.

Appendix E
CCPCUA DATA FOR CRAVEN COUNTY

Division of Water Resources
Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Permit Data for Craven County Water
Permit holder Craven County Water Application Received 06/11/2019
Permit number CU3108
Application Complete 06/10/2019
Permit status Active
Application Public Notice 06/19/2019
County Craven
Draft Permit Public Notice 07109/2019
Type of Use Public Supply
Issue Date 08/02/2019
Cretaceous Water Bank Yes
Expiration Date 07/31/2024
Bank Start Date 08/01/2007
Date First Issued 11/08/2004
Withdrawals Not Subiect to .0503 Reductions
5,767,200 Aquifer: Tch, No. of 14
Permitted Maximum Daily Ground Water
Kpd Wells:
Withdrawal (in GPD):
Withdrawals Subied to .0503 Reductions
952,790,700 Aquifer. Kbc, No. of 5
Approved Base Rate (in GPY):
Kud Wells:
Future Permitted Annual Withdrawal Rates (in
GPY) Temporary Permit Withdrawal Rate (in
GPY)
August 1, 2008 through July 31, 2013
714,593,025 Beginning on 2019-08-02 476,395,350
August 1, 2013 through July 31, 2018
476,395,350
August 1, 2018
238,197,675
About DM • Contact Us • Jobs • News • Calendar • Staff
Google Search
Abbreviation
Aquifer
S
urfiofal
u
pperTertiary
y
orktown
ch
astle Ha ne
Th
Beaufort
K d
Peedee
Kbc
Black Creek
Kud
Upper Cape Fea
Kld
Lower Ca a Fea
Br
Basement Rock
rvorvr i drul— -- .s.ier uuonnauun
Ground Water Management Branch web site
This pennittee has filed a Local Water Supply Plan. Click to review their plan. Access this permit holders withdrawal data formatted for Local Water Supply Planning
for all wells and individual wells.
Access any Local Water Supply Plan
Water Withdrawal Statistics for Craven County Water (CU3108)
wou. Nnf Cuhi—f to n5n4 Rodueti—
Calendar Yea Type
Year Total allonsjAverage
Da (gallons/day)Maximum
Day allons/day
of Days
jog lWell 11
140,518,20
443,26911
846,90
317
2010 Well
146,611,30
431,210
811,70
340
2011 Well
161,448,
445,991
927,70
362
2012 Well
150,922,50
412,357
868,20
366
2013 Well
142,838,50
391,338
998,50
365
2014 Well
147,345,60
403,687
812,5F
365
2015 Well
129,595,20
372,400
775175701348
Well
125,772,40
345,52
582,00
364
2017 Well
256,876,54
703,771
2,830,
365
2018 Well
795,045,00
2,178,205
3,671,2
365
2019 Well
534,495720
2,199,56911
4,049,2
243
wens supiect to .uou3 Reductions
A—...# 1 ♦h--h rury 41 V—
Year
Year Total gallons
Average Day (gallonsida
Maximum Da (allons/day
of Days
8-1-1996thru 7-31-16
345,922,55
2,203,328
8,511,10
157
1-1997thru 731-1E
292.234.5
2,301,05
9,178,30
127
8-1-1999thru 731-21
742,550,7
2,911,964
12,416,40
255
1-2001 thru 7-31-2C
450,194,2
2,981,419
11,970,90
151
1-2002 thru 731-2C
578,502,2
3,060,858
10,807,20
189
1-2003 thru 731-20t: 1
780,371,6
2,645,327
11,584,70
295
8-1-2004 thru 7-31-200
834,865,5
2,293,587
4,105,60
364
8-1-2005thru 731-2
846,481,5
2,331,905
7,761,40
363
8-1-2006thru 731-200
880,057,6
2,411,117
4,171,60
365
1-2007thru 731-
898,660,E
2,455,357
4,109,
366
8-1-2008thru 731-200
785,592,70
2,152,309
3,998,80
365
8-1-2009thru 731-201
729,695,0
1,999,164
4,011,7
365
8-1-2010 thru 731-2011
679,178,4
1,860,763
3,549.10
365
1-2011 thru 731-2012
733,212,20
2,014,31
5,298,00
364
1-2012thru 7-31-201
627,253,5
1,718,503
3,343,10
365
8-1-2013thru 731-201
t383,546,60
1,872,730
3,273,20
365
B-1-2014 thru 731-201
692,014,1
1,895,92
3,449,90
365
B-1-2015thru 731-201
684,839,80
1,871,147
3,455,00
366
8-1-2016thru731-201
717,277,70ql
1,969,1441
3,303.40
365
8-1-2017thru 731-20t
391,475,3
1,072,5351
3,158,10
365
8-1-2018thru7-31-2^'
352,930,10
966,932
2,631,90
365
1-2019 thru 7-31-2024F2
7—,-55 1 , OMI
888,742
1,856004
31
ABR Calculation
Year Rule .0503 lYear Total allons vera a Da allons/da Maximum Da allons/da of Days
1-19Wthru 7-31-20 es 742,550,7 2,911,9641F 255
1997 es 638,157,05 2,247,0321 9,178,301F284

Craven Countv Water [CU31081 Well Information
Pump
Production
Land
Surface
Diameter
Capacity
Pump
Intake
Top
Green
Bottom
Screen
Well
quife
Top
.0503
or
Pmp(gallons
DepthDepth
Depth
epth
(feet)
Depth
quifer(s
Type
Reduction
WeII?
StatusMonitoring(inches)
JI..e
WelMPor
HMD.aug
ram
mnute(feet)(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
t Barnwer
49 00
20
800
300
495
696
800
364
Kbc, Kuct
Well
es
Existin
25
P
es
w-1
es
ryan
40.00
20
1,000
3001
5351
7881
798
424
bc, Kucf
Fe-1111
yes
I Existin
25
P
no
w-1
es
3
ntergree .
45.00
19
800
300
5351
7801
800
430
bc, Kucf
Fweii]l
yes
I Existin
25
P
no
w-1
es
4
aws
41.00
20
790
2401
7141
8181
828]F
464
bc, Kucf
Well
es
I Existin
25
P
no
w-1
no
40.00
19
75
2871
6061
6981
708
420
Kbc, Kucf
Fw-1-1
yes
I Existing
25
P
es
w-1
es
D tergreer
44.00
10
250
E
280
320
330
E274
pd
Well
no
Existing
0
P
?
sketch
no
"'rarely
ines 2
30.00
12
80
226
266
271
61
ch
Well
no
I Existing
0
P
no
gw-1
yes
ewis Fanr
26.00
12
8000
235
275
280
67
ch
Well
I no
Existing
0
P
no
gw-1
yes
Hardison
0
28.00
24
66
2Z^,.
234
274
300
60
ch
Well
no
Proposed
0
P
t Bamwen
D
49.00
10
12
191
197
237
242
172
Kpd
Well
no
Existing
0
P
?
sketch
no
tatel
ines
ines 3
30,00
12
80
107
216
256
261
57
ch
Well
no
Existing
0
P
no
gw-1
yes
ch 5lanners
28.00
12
80
107
210
250
256
55
ch
Well
no
Existing
0
P
no
gw-1
yes
lanne�>
Bch 4
28.00
12
80
122
205
245
249
52
ch
Well
no
Existing
0
P
no
gw-1
yes
,a ners
26.00
12
80EA
202
242
247
47
ch
Well
no
Existing
0
P
no
gw-1
yes
1
I Zers
26.00
12
80
E
205
245
250
51
ch
Well
no
Existing
0
P
no
gw-1
yes
16
avis PD
43.00
10
200
2961
3031
338
348
30
Well
no I
Existing
0
©sketch
no
17
ryan PD
40 00
10
250
2 5 2]1
2621
3021
312
25
d©
Well
no I
Existing
0
©sketch
no
13
P Sde
22.00
12
8001
2351
275
280
©0
w—e—i 111
no I
Existing
0
P
no
gw-1
yes
19
PD
41.00
10
130
—24-211
2531
2731
2831F
246jFp—d----jFWel1jj
no I
Existing 1
0 11
P
I ? Isketch
no
pump intake below top of screen; pump intake below top of screen and top of € itake below top of aquifer
Return to the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Web Page
NC Division of Water Resources, DEQ - 1611 Mail Service Center- Raleigh, NC 27699-1611 Last Modified: 04.15.2019
Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
Comments, questions, or problems? Please contact the DWR Webmaster.

Appendix F
NEUSE RIVER STREAM CLASSIFICATION

NC DENR - DI VISON OF WATER RESOURCES 213.0300
.0315 NEUSE RIVER BASIN
Name of Stream Description Class Class Date Index No.
ack Swamp
From source to Little Contentnea
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-86-26-2
Creek
Langs Mill Run
From source to Black Swamp
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-86-26-2-1
Jacob Branch
From source to Black Swamp
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-86-26-2-2
Oldwoman Branch
From source to Little Contentnea
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-86-26-3
Creek
Pinelog Branch
From source to Little Contentnea
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-86-26-4
Creek
Middle Swamp
From source to Little Contentnea
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-86-26-5
Creek
Sandy Run
From source to Middle Swamp
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-86-26-5-1
Eagle Swamp
From source to Contentnea Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-86-27
Alum Springs Branch
From source to Neuse River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-86.5
Grinnel Slough
From soruce to Neuse River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-87
Grinnel Creek
From source to Neuse River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-87.5
Halfmoon Creek
From source to Neuse River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-88
Village Creek
From source to Neuse River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-89
Core Creek
From source to Neuse River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-90
Grape Creek
From source to Core Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-90-1
Mill Branch
From source to Core Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-90-2
at Swamp
From source to Core Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-90-3
Turkey Quarter Creek
From source to Neuse River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-91
Mill Run
From source to Turkey Quarter Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-91-1
McCoy Branch
From source to Mill Run
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-91-1-1
Taylor Creek
From source to Neuse River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-92
Greens Thoroughfare
From source to Neuse River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-93
Stony Branch
From source to Neuse River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-94
Pinetree Creek
From source to Neuse River
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-95
NEUSE RIVER
From Streets Ferry to a line across
SC;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-(96)
Neuse River from Johnson Point to
McCotter Point
Swift Creek
From source to mouth of Bear
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-(0.5)
Branch
Gum Swamp
From source to Swift Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-1
Nobel Canal
From source to Swift Creek
C;NSW
05/01/88
27-97-2
Horsepen Swamp
From source to Swift Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-3
Simmon Branch
From source to Swift Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-3.5
Fork Swamp
From source to Swift Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-4
Clayroot Swamp
From source to Swift Creek
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-5
iorofare Swamp
From souce to Clayroot Swamp
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-5-1
Indian Well Swamp
From source to Clayroot Swamp
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-5-2
Creeping Swamp
From source to Clayroot Swamp
C;Sw,NSW
05/01/88
27-97-5-3
23

Appendix G
ROUTE FOR ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE

Craven
County
GIS
Vanceboro WTP
'
r� �
1 inch = 5000 feet
Craven County does NOT warrant
the information shown on this
map and should be
used ONLY for tax assessment purposes. Printed on September 9. 2019 at 5. 1929 PM

Ampwil Po
40 C.A"%9
�rr0 Rd
eboro
\GS
�1 U
tag'
NC Surface Water Clas....'ication
A
k
En�ul