NC0031828_Wasteload Allocation_19910909

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING COVER :SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0031828
Vanceboro WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation "`;
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
September 9, 1991
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the resrersse side

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION,
l! s.•lo.� 1�arSi s\tol
PERMIT NO.: NC0031828
PERMITTEE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
Town of Vanceboro
Vanceboro Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Modification
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 0.300* MOD
Domestic (% of Flow): 70
Industrial (% of Flow): 30 %
Comments:
Requesting speculative limits for TREBLED capacity and
RELOCATED OUTFALL
* See attached - RESUBMITTAL OF #5989
STREAM INDEX: 27-97
RECEIVING STREAM: Swift Creek
Class: C-Swamp NSW
Sub -Basin: 03-04-09
Reference USGS Quad: F30SW, Vanceboro (please attach)
County: Craven
Regional Office: Washington Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 00/00/00 Treatment Plant Class: II @ 0.1 MGD
Classification changes within three miles:
Becomes SC -Swamp at mouth of Bear Branch, ca. 3 mi.
Requested by: Jule Shanklin
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Revised Date: 8/27/91
Date: Vf 6/CC
Date: 114 ct(
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
S2g
Sl7-1 4t
G2 ? 7
Drainage Area (mil ) a 15 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 70
7Q10 (cfs) 0. 7S Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 0 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters £A L o� �i.a '�%�,� � Te,r, ,, , �.n t (a l (644,01
Upstream Ye.r Location SQ
Downstream }des Location Sec- Co ntnt„-J1
Effluent
Characteristics
O.1.Mb0
j»,„,,,,,,, i,,;"k,„
a./14d-0
sv,,,,,,"_ w, -/cr
BOD5 (mg/1)
l 3.0
) 3. O
,r, d
/0. 0
NH3-N (mg/1)
a. 0
`i . 0
a. d
3. G
D.O. (mg/1)
0
(. 0
(. 0
( 0
TSS (mg/1)
0
20
30
30
F.Col. (/100ml)
a00
a00
3,06
a,O
pH (SU)
1
6-
6- `(
6 - `(
"FP (M?.-/.I) :
/40,,,-1-6.
/L1or; /,
.. °
a�, 0
1 P( -4)
Ao .i^M(
/ 0,,;k
A46, t
kt,,,, - y.
�J /
lh /orir..t, (4,4)''
Mon?-4✓
M04-►-
a 8
a8
/%041✓
/(itbr)Ter
N(O/} ,,(�✓s
/ho�;,�o,
Ai.' �7II -<,
�6-;41,'
o4hr
�
/
1140-/J 2f 14o.)-1-.r
Comments: awNr-.40A" Sc p % �o( /./ of �j . d ow„f. (4 o f a- 1(
a t(. Sr (77)r [�• a n c.m�ce l / r-j I, .SJ "; . Jou i o -F / 9 Y0
0►‘ uS 17.
! / l(s) 3G �C►�1.

1
NPDES WAS 1'h LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0031828
PERM1 IEE NAME: Town of Vanceboro / Vanceboro Wastewater
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Modification
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 0.300* MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 7'QO A
Industrial (% of Flow):
sx,e- Criook'
Comments:
Requesting speculative limits for TREBLED capacity and
RELOCATED OUTFALL
* See attached - RESUBMITTAL OF #5989
STREAM INDEX: 27-97
RECEIVING STREAM: Swift Creek
Class: C-Swamp NSW
Sub -Basin: 03-04-09
Reference USGS Quad: F30SW, Vanceboro
County: Craven
Regional Office: Washington Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 00/00/00 Treatment Plant Class: II @ 0.1 MGD
Classification changes within three miles:
Becomes SC -Swamp at mouth of Bear Branch, ca. 3 mi.
(please attach)
Requested by: Jule Shanklin Date: 5/9/91
Prepared by: Date:
Reviewed by: Date:
Modeler i
Date Rec.
#
3-,C4k
Sii0191
CZ3Z
Drainage rea (mil1 ) 1
7Q10 (cfs)
Avg. Streamflow (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC %
Instream Monitoring:
30Q2 (cfs)
Acute/Chronic
Parameters
Upstream Location
Downstream Location
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
NH 3 -N (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
F. Col. (/100 ml)
pH (SU)
Comments:

MAYOR: JIMMIE L. MORRIS
CLERK: CAROL C. IPOCK
TELEPHONE: [phone]
gorArn Of /ancdo'w
�.C�. Box 306
7/aneEfio'w, Ca'zotina 28586
Mr. Dale Overcash
Permits and Engineering
DEM
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Subject: Town of Vanceboro
Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit Application
Dear Mr. Overcash:
May 6, 1991
3$
P-,( 4-718
ALDERMEN: a
RICHARD BOWERS
SHIRLEY BRYAN
ROY BUCK
DAVID FILLINOAME
A. F. WHITLEY
This letter is to request a revision to the NPDES permit application submitted by the
Town of Vanceboro on September 17, 1990, for the Town's wastewater treatment plant. We
hereby request the monthly average flow limit to be amended to 300,000 gallons per day,
rather than the 200,000 gallons per day as stipulated in the application.
We request that the processing of the Town's application be given your highest priority.
The Town has now been placed under a sewer moratorium and must proceed immediately with
engineering design of an expansion to the wastewater treatment plant. The criteria for the
plant design is dependent upon the permit limits to be issued.
Last year, the Town of Vanceboro contracted with the consulting engineering firm of
Rivers and Associates in Greenville to begin preparation of a Preliminary Engineering Report
for the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant, and a smoke testing program on the
Town's sewage collection system. The Town plans to continue to investigate sources of
infiltration and inflow. However, the current plant records mandate this 300,000 gallon per
day request.
Very truly yours,
• Jim ie L. Morris
Mayor
cc: Randy Gould, Rivers and Associates
Roger Thorpe, DEM, Washington
1N1 a.

TOWN OF VANCEBORO
At the regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen of the Town of Vanceboro held at the
Town Hall at 8:00 PM on Monday, May 6, 1991, the following resolution was made,
seconded and adopted:
Whereas the Town of Vanceboro finds it necessary to proceed with financing to secure
funding for the required repairs and upgrade for the wastewater treatment plant located on
Main Street. Duly adopted by the Board of Aldermen of the Town of Vanceboro, NC, the day
and year first above written. The Board of Aldermen recognizes that one person would best
represent the Board and act on its behalf, and hereby appoints the Mayor of the Town of
Vancebor&as its duly authorized agent.
(SEAL)
(Cii/41-1 d • 4C)--L_AL
Town Clerk

A
/I\
Since1918
RIVERS AND ASSOCIATES, I N C.
ENGINEERS/PLANNERS/SURVEYORS
GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 27835
September 17, 1990
N.C.D.E.M.
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Attention: Mr. Jule Shanklin
Re: NPDES Permit Application
Town of Vanceboro
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
Rivers File 90088
Gentlemen:
Oa
t.
1/(c1);:t.e+
get -pi)
Ski) 1 )990
•
Confirming our recent telephone conversation, the Town of
Vanceboro is planning to expand their Wastewater Treatment Plant.
A map showing the locations of the existing and proposed plant
and discharge points is enclosed.
The Town is planning this expansion because the plant has
been out of compliance with respect to flow for the last year or
so. Recent water conservation measures implemented by a local
industry has demonstrated short term benefits and the plant has
been in compliance as of late. However, the Town desires to
ensure long term compliance, and thus is planning the plant
expansion.
The existing wastewater treatment plant is a single train,
oxidation ditch with tertiary filters. It now appears that a
duplication of the existing plant, i.e., adding a second train,
will be the recommended expansion alternative. This will be
finalized in the upcoming weeks. Also the present plant
discharge is into the Mauls Swamp. The DEM regional office has
indicated that any plant expansion would have to be discharged
into the Swift Creek. The existing and proposed discharge points
are shown on the enclosed map.
We trust this satisfies your needs for processing the Town
of Vanceboro's NPDES permit application. Please advise if you
have any questions or need additional information.
RGG:seb
Enc.
Very truly yours,
as
and G. Gould, P.E.
Associate
CC: Jimmie L. Morris, Mayor, Town of Vanceboro
Roger Thorpe, DEM, Washington, NC
107 EAST SECOND STREET
ar,•F-ice ..-.+.....7T'+'-"...�...
• POST OFFICE BOX 929 • TELEPHONE [phone]

it Janes ::Cem •
Vanceb(
IBM 7.31
RIVERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEERS PLANNERS- SURVEYORS
107 E. SECOND ST.. P. O. BOX 929 7204 FALLS OF REUSE RD.
GREENVILLE, N.C. 27935 RALEIGH, N. C. 27609
PHONE [phone] _ ►14011E 1919)6463347
TOWN OF VANCEBORO
Proposed Sewer System Extension
9.5 r
IT DATE: SEPT. /4, /990 - SCALE:
17'30'
'ti7
PROPOS
TREAT
Sir
D . 1`
l .11
� s e Map: U.S. G S. Quad Map
"Vanoeboro" Quad

FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
Request # 6232
Facility Name: Town of Vanceboro WWTP
NPDES No.: NC0031828
Type of Waste: 70% Domestic, 30% Industrial. LID
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Modification r`
Receiving Stream: Swift Creek
Stream Classification: C-Swamp-NSW
Subbasin: 03-04-09
County: Craven Stream Characteristic: f.
Regional Office: Washington USGS # 02.0920.3300
Requestor: Jule Shanklin Date: a
Date of Request: 5/9/91 Drainage Area: 245 sq. mi.
Topo Quad: F30SW Summer 7Q10: 0.75 cfs
Winter 7Q10: 5.0 cfs
Average Flow: 270 cfs
30Q2:
Wasteload Allocation Summary
Swift Creek has swamp -like characteristics at low flow conditions. Ambient data show that during low
flow conditions Swift creek has natural DO levels well below the 5.0 mg/1 standard. In accordance with
EPA guidelines, the wasteload has been allocated so that DO concentrations do not drop more than 10%
below ambient conditions.
This is a resubmittal of request #5989, now for 0.3 MGD instead of 0.2 MGD.
At 5 mg/1 BODS and 2 mg/1 NI-13-N, the facility is not predicted to damage water quality in Swift Creek
and loading of oxygen consuming waste is equivalent to that under the existing permit.
rft
The facility will have to meet a TP limit of 2 mg/1 in accordance with the Neuse Basinwide Management Plan.
Because of significant flow from an industrial source, Vanceboro will be required to develop a
pretreatment program. The pretreatment language is currently being finalized by the Pretreatment Unit.
Monitoring for Nitrite and Nitrate is recommended due to these chemicals' presence in the industrial
process.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by: -��% �`'` Date:.8/a 2t1
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment: .,, , . .1. Date:
Regional Supervisor: ►. �. s�� Date: 7/340(
Permits & Engineering: I =/ r JoRA) ' Date:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: S EP 2 6 12 1

-2-
Existing Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BODS (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Chlorine (ug/1):
Recommended Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Chlorine (ug/1):
Nitrite
Nitrate
Limits Changes Due To:
Instream Data
Ammonia Toxicity
Chlorine
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
HQW
New 7Q10 flow data
Special Modeling Studies
New facility information
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
0.1 0.1
13.0 13.0
6.0
30.0 30.0
1000 1000
6-9 6-9
Monitor Monitor
Monitor Monitor
Monitor Monitor
A
Monthly Avera
Summer ter
0.1 1.1
13.0 13.0
4.0
6.0
30.0 30.0
200 200
6-9 6-9 / (
a. o Rob
Edo)
Daily Maximum
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Co.rt�l
CR
B
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
0.3 0.3
5.0 ---11 0
2.0 3.6
30.0
200
6-9
2.0
M
30.0
200
6-9
2.0
nitor
Qe
onitor
Monitor
Parameter(s) Affected
x Summer NH3 at 0.1 MGD
x TP at 0.3 MGD
x Nitrate, Nitrite
Other: (explanation of any modifications to past modeling analysis
including new flows, rates, field data, interacting discharges, etc.)
(See page 3 for Miscellaneous and special conditions if apply)
is now
C. -1
• cn. �....544
Aih),
-)®s1
Z
,41
goy
Corr ec+: Ul1 p i
wad y 'CLiVily
/heck j a. 0
Se) C
((J\4.,/I ceA4�u.','
*welt : 0 „^
�aul� 04
�t� r�

-3
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Miscellaneous information pertinent to the renewal or new permit for this
discharge. Include relationship to the Basinwide management plan.
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS:
Upstream: Y Location: SR 1440
Downstream: Y Location: 2 mi. downstream, access from unnamed road 1.5 mi.
south of SR1440 on US 17.
Parameters: DO, Temp, Fecal Coliform, Conductivity.
Special Instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR CONDITIONS
WASTELOAD SENT TO EPA?(Major) _N_ (Y or N)
(if yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or
if not modeled, then old assumptions that were made, and description
of how fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? No (yes or no) If yes, explain attachments.

WLA Notes
SRB
8/27/91
Town of Vanceboro WWTP
NC0031828
- Vanceboro has applied for a modification of their permit to increase flow from 0.1 MGD to 0.3 MGD
and to move the discharge from a zero flow stream 0.1 miles downstream to Swift Creek. Over the past
18 months, the facility has been out of compliance for flow but has been in compliance for all other
parameters. An SOC is currently being developed to provide limits for a flow of 0.2 MGD (See instream
assessment August 12, 1991).
- This WLA is a resubmittal of request #5989, which was for the same discharge location but at 0.2
MGD. The first WLA was completed January 17,1991. For background information on Swift Creek and
the Town of Vanceboro WWTP, refer to the old WLA notes.
- The same level-b model used to determine limits SOC at 0.2 MGD was used for 0.3 MGD. At 5 mg/1
BOD5 and 2 mg/1 NH3-N, the facility is not predicted to damage water quality in Swift Creek and
loading of oxygen consuming waste is equivalent that under the existing permit. However, due to
uncertainty resulting from application of the level-b to swamp -like conditions, confidence in this model is
not as high as in more typical stream models. Instream monitoring will be continued to document any
possible instream DO problems.
- Limits for continued operation at 0.1 MGD are recommended to have a summer NH3 limit of 2.0 to
prevent ammonia toxicity in Swift Creek. This limit has already been suggested in the SOC and the
facility should have no trouble meeting this limit. The region has already instructed the facility to plan
on removing the 0.1 MGD discharge on the zero flow stream (Mauls), according to Roger Thorpe of the
Washington Regional Office.
- The modified facility will have to meet a TP limit of 2 mg/1 in accordance with the Neuse Basinwide
Management Plan.
- Because of the Town's one industrial source, EPICOR, a pretreatment program must be developed by
Vanceboro. Development of the pretreatment program is currently being planned.
- Study of the one industrial source indicates that monitoring for Nitrate and Nitrite is warranted.

Vahcc. bbre W w7P
NGDO 3 /b'a
Oa.O1a0.atoo
0,4 - aa4/ 6.A: aso
7Q(or 0•75
761low 107
.oa, 09a0.3300
Df= ahiS cam: da
7 l vl : 0. 75
7Q!ow= S 0
L L m-. y.v
(Nar•flow
GBoo
A/13 £)
Do
Z.1" off
7QIof,
4►ow.
QA
slob. fen
plo0l rug I4f
by DLO ,Q l os
0.3
X H. f
(. 0
t # Oga0.7a6 °
7k)°r' c
741ow` G
f7
np.= 2-q7 &./ a 7k
7 Q ► 05 73-
7Qrow - S3-

SUMMER
EXISTING FLOW AND LIMITS
(13.0 BOD5 AND 4.0 NH8-11,0
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : TOWN OF VANCEBORO/ VANCEBORO WWTP
Receiving Stream : SWIFT CREEK
The End D.O. is '5.49 mg/l.
The End CBO0 is 1.36 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 0.26 mg/l.
Segment 1
Reach 1
Press any
D01Min
�
(mg /l) Milepoint Reach #
4"19 3.50
'
key to.continue.
�
1
WLA WLA WLA
CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/l) (mg/l) <mg/l) (mgd)
26.00 18.00 6.00 0.10000

SUMMER
MODIFIED FLOW AND LIMITS
(5.0 BOD5 AND 2.0 NH3-N)
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : TOWN OF VANCEBORO/ VANCEBORO WWTP
Receiving Stream : SWIFT CREEK
The End D.O. is 5.67 mg/1.
The End CBOD is 1.14 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 0.27 mg/l.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/l) Milepoint Reach # (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mgd)
Segment 1 4"34 3.00 1
Reach 1 10.00 9.00 6.00 0.30000
Press any key to continue.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
August 12, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roger Thorpe
THROUGH: 50ki Scoville M 5
Trevor Clement 2�
FROM: Stephen Bevington j g
SUBJECT: Instream Assessment for the Town of Vanceboro
NPDES Permit No. NC0031828
Craven County
Summary and Recommendation
Technical Support has completed an instream assessment for the Town of Vanceboro. The Town
has requested an SOC because its facility is out of compliance for wasteflow. The Town would
like to add 0.03 MGD of wastewater to the existing permitted flow of 0.1 MGD. The existing
limits for oxygen consuming waste are 13 mg/1 BOD5 and 4 mg/1 NH3N. A Level-b analysis
was performed to assess the impact of a 0.2 MGD flow from the Town's WWTP. The modeling
analysis predicted that doubling the flow to 0.2 MGD will not result in any significant
degradation of water quality if BODS and NH3N limits are reduced to 10.0 and 2.0 mg/1
respectively. Compliance data indicate that the facility should be able to meet these limits under
the SOC.
Technical support recommends that the SOC contain limits of 0.2 MGD wasteflow, 10.0 mg/1
BOD5, and 2.0 mg/1 NH3N in addition to all other existing limits. These limits will protect
water quality until wasteflow and treatment issues can be addressed.
Background Information
The Town of Vanceboro discharges to Mauls Swamp, a zero flow, class C-SWP-NSW stream in
the Neuse River Basin. The discharge to Mauls Swamp is within 0.1 miles of the confluence
with Swift Creek, Class C-SWP-NSW. Swift Creek has a drainage area of 245 square miles, a
summer 7Q10 of 0.75 cfs, and a winter 7Q10 of 4.47 cfs. Swift Creek is a swamp and has
natural DO levels that fall below 5.0 mg/1 during the summer.
Vanceboro has applied for a permit modification to increase flow from 0.1 to 0.3 MGD and to
relocate its discharge to Swift Creek. Preliminary modeling indicates that limits of 5 mg/1 BODS
and 2 mg/1 NH3N would be appropriate for the proposed discharge.

meet '!�
.mot- c.�,s -tom- �.a.n4 (L;;Zis c.,..IJ Coe eeau:c4:d
peribvk. 62.(2e 444te 4.2 'toi4).t vvie -6(a-÷ 40-ita-(*
a. cou.m.,-(_‘,64, LAA (
0 ID S z coal 1..=- IsJd.9w:.�
g(NA(
Analysis and Discussion
Because of Maul Swamp's zero flow and proximity to Swift Creek, the system was modeled with
the discharge directly to Swift Creek. Since the DO sag falls well downstream of the confluence
and the IWC in Swift Creek is high (41%) , protecting water quality in Swift Creek should also
protect the short section of Mauls Swamp, at least to the level it receives under the existing
limits. Winter modeling was not necessary because of the relatively large winter 7Q10, which is
6 times greater that the summer 7Q10.
Models were run for three cases: 1) Existing flow and BOD limits, 2) SOC flow and existing
BOD limits, and 3) SOC flow and new BOD limits. Model results indicate that at the SOC
flow, B OD limits need to be lowered to prevent significant degradation of water quality in Swift
Creek (See Table 1). Limits of 10 mg/1 BOD5 and 2 mg/1 NH3N will allow the facility to
discharge 0.2 MGD without significantly reducing DO levels in Swift Creek.
cc: Kent Wiggins
Central Files
ILAteA:LAAA,. LIAZA(V4u1 tOZ 41;.tr imui3
2

Table 1. Instream Assessment Model Input Summary for the Town of Vanceboro
Pre-SOC Design Capacity
Post-SOC Flow
Headwater Conditions:
7Q10 (cfs)
Qavg (cfs)
Design Temperature (Degrees C)
CBOD (mg/1)
NBOD (mg/1)
DO (mg/1)
Wastewater Inputs:
Flows
Pre-SOC (MGD)
Post-SOC (MGD)
CBOD (1.5 * 13 mg/1 BODS)
NBOD (4.5 * 4.0 mg/1 NH3N)
DO (mom)
Model 1:
Pre-Soc Limits
Waste Flow: 0.1
BODS: 13.0
NH3N 4.0
DO 6.0
DO minimum: 4.50
End CBOD: 1.11
End NBOD 0.26
Wasteflow Assumptions
0.1 MGD
0.2 MGD
Model Input Summary
Summer Winter
0.75 4.47
250
28
2.0
1.0
7.05
0.1
0.2
19.5
18.0
6.0
Model Results
Model 2:
SOC flow. exis
Waste Flow:
BODS:
NH3N
DO
DO minimum:
End CBOD:
End NBOD
ting BOD Limits
0.21
13.0
4.0
6.0
3.05 (-32%)*
1.59 (+43%)
0.40 (+54%)
* Percent change from Pre-SOC model results.
Model 3:
SOC flow. new BOD Limits
Waste Flow:
BOD5:
NH3N
DO
DO minimum:
End CBOD:
End NBOD
0.2
10.0
2.0
6.0
4.46 (-1%)*
1.30 (+17%)
0.22 (-15%)
3

Discharger
Receiving Stream
SUMMER
PRE-SOC LIMITS
- MODEL RESULTS ----------
: TOWN OF VANCEBORO/ VANCEBORO WWTP
: SWIFT CREEK
T�-ie End D.O. is 5.74 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 1.11 mg/l.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(m /l) Milepo1nt Reach # (trig /l) 01)g/l) Ong /l) (mgd)
--~--- --------- -------
S�gnment 1 4"50 3.00 1
Reach 1 19.50 18.00 6.00 0.10000

Discharger
Receiving Gtream
SUMMER
PRE-GOC LIMITS
FLOW AT 0.2 MGD
�---- MODEL RESULTS --
: TOWN OF VANCEBORO/ VANCEBORO WWTP
o SWIFT CREEK
The End D.O. is 4.79 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 1.59 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 0.40 mg/l.
—~--------------------------------~--
Gegment 1
Reach 1
DO Min
(m /l}
g
3.05
Milepoint Reach #
3.50 1
WLA WLA WLA
CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
<mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mgd>
19.50 18.00 6.00 0.20000

^ SUMMER
~ NEW LIMITS
, FLOW AT 0.2 MGD
, MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : TOWN OF VANCEBORO/ VANCEBORO WWTP
Receiving Stream : SWIFT CREEK
The End D.O. is 5.67 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 1.30 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 0.22 mg/l.
WLA WLA WLA
DO�Min CLOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mq/l) Milepoint Reach # (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mgd)
Gc.)gment 1 4.46 3.00 1
Reach 1 15.00 9.00 6.00 0.20000

131:2682 FEDERAL REGULATI
(403.11(b) introductory text amended by
53 FR 40610, October 17, 1988]
(1) Issue a public notice of request
for approval of the Submission;
(i) This public notice shall be circu-
lated in a manner designed to inform
interested and potentially interested
persons of the Submission. Procedures
for the circulation of public notice
shall include:
(A) Mailing notices of the request
for approval of the Submission to des-
ignated 208 planning agencies, Federal
and State fish, shellfish, and wildlife
resource agencies; and to any other
person or group who has requested in-
dividual notice, including those on ap-
propriate mailing lists; and
(B) Publication of a notice of request
for approval of the Submission in the
largest daily newspaper within the
jurisdiction(s) served by the POTW.
(ii) The public notice shall provide a
period of not less than 30 days follow-
ing the date of the public notice
during which time interested persons
may submit their written views on the
Submission.
(iii) All written comments submitted
during the 30 day comment period
shall be retained by the Approval Au-
thority and considered in the decision
on whether or not to approve the Sub-
mission. The period for comment may
be extended at the discretion of the
Approval Authority; and
(2) Provide an opportunity for the
applicant. any affected State. any in-
terested State or Federal agency,
person or group of persons to request
a public hearing with respect to the
Submission.
(i) This request for public hearing
shall be filed within the 30 day (or ex-
tended) comment period described in
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section and
shall indicate the interest of the
person filing such request and the rea-
sons why a hearing is warranted.
(ii) The Approval Authority shall
hold a hearing if the POTW so re-
quests. In addition, a hearing will be
held if there is a significant public in-
terest in issues relating to whether or
not the Submission should be ap-
proved. Instances of doubt should be
resolved in favor of holding the hear-
ing.
(iii) Public notice of a hearing to
consider a Submission and sufficient
to inform interested parties of the
nature of the hearing and the right to
participate shall be published in the
same newspaper as the notice of the
original request for approval of the
Submission under paragraph
(b)(1)(i)(B) of this section. In addition.
notice of the hearing shall be sent to
those persons requesting individual
notice.
(c) Approval authority decision. At
the end of the 30 day (or extended)
comment period and within the 90 day
(or extended) period provided for in
paragraph (a) of this section, the Ap-
proval Authority shall approve or
deny the Submission based upon the
evaluation in paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion and taking into consideration
comments submitted during the com-
ment period and the record of the
public hearing, if held. Where the Ap-
proval Authority makes a determina-
tion to deny the request, the Approval
Authority shall so notify the POTW
and each person who has requested in-
dividual notice. This notification shall
include suggested modifications and
the Approval Authority may allow the
requestor additional time to bring the
Submission into compliance with ap-
plicable requirements.
(d) EPA objection to Director's deci-
sion. No POTW pretreatment program
or authorization to grant removal al-
lowances shall be approved by the Di-
rector if following the 30 day (or ex-
tended) evaluation period provided for
in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section
and any hearing held pursuant to
paragraph (b)(2) of this section the
Regional Administrator sets forth in
writing objections to the approval of
such Submission and the reasons for
such objections. A copy of the Region-
al Administrator' objections shall be
provided to the pplicant, and each
person who has r quested individual
notice. The Regional Administrator
shall provide an opportunity for writ-
ten comments and may convene a
public hearing on his or her objec-
tions. Unless retracted, the Regional
Administrator's objections shall con-
stitute a final ruling to deny approval
of a POTW pretreatment program or
authorization to grant removal allow-
ances 90 days after the date the objec-
tions are issued.
(e) Notice of decision. The Approval
Authority shall notify those persons
who submitted comments and partici-
pated in the public hearing, if held, of
the approval or disapproval of the
Submission. In addition, the Approval
Authority shall cause to be published
a notice of approval or disapproval in
the same newspapers as the original
notice of request for approval of the
Submission was published. The Ap-
proval Authority shall identify in any
notice of POTW Pretreatment Pro-
gram approval any authorization to
modify categorical Pretreatment
Standards which the POTW may
make, in accordance with § 403.7. for
removal of pollutants subject to Pre-
treatment Standards.
(f) Public access to submission. The
Approval Authority shall ensure that
the Submission and any comments
upon such Submission are available to
the public for inspection and cooving.
§ 403.12 Reporting requirements for
POTW's and industrial users.
(a) Definition. The term "Control
Authority" as it is used in this section
refers to: (1) The POTW if the
POTW's Submission for its pretreat-
ment program (§ 403.3(t)(1)) has been
approved in accordance with the re-
quirements of § 403.11; or (2) the Ap-
proval Authority if the Submission
has not been approved.
(b) Reporting requirements for in-
dustrial users upon effective date of
categorical pretreatment standard —
baseline report Within 180 days after
the effective date of a categorical Pre-
treatment Standard. or 180 days after
the final administrative decision made
upon a category determination sub-
mission under § 403.6(a)(4). whichever
is later, existing Industrial Users sub-
ject to such categorical Pretreatment
Standards and currently discharging
to or scheduled to discharge to a
POTW shall be required to submit to
the Control Authority a report which
contains the information listed in
paragraphs (b)(1)-(7) of this section.
Where reports containing this infor-
mation already have been submitted
to the Director or Regional Adminis-
trator in .compliance with the .require-
ment of 40 CFR 128.140(b) (1977), the
Industrial User will not be required to
submit this information again. At least
90 days prior to commencementof dis-
charge, New Sources, and sources that
become Industrial Users subsequent to
the promulgation of an applicable cat-
egorical Standard, shall be required to
submit to the Control Authority a
report which contains the information
listed in paragraphs (b)(1)-(5) of this
section. New sources shall also be re-
quired to include in this report infor-
mation on the method of pretreat-
ment the source intends to use to meet
[Sec. 403.12(b)]
Environment Reporter 154

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
S-866
131:2683
applicable pretreatment standards.
New Sources shall give estimates of
the information requested in para-
graphs (b) (4) and (5) of this section:
[403.12(b) introductory text amendcd by
53 FR 40610. Octobcr 17, 1988]
(1) Identifying information. The
User shall submit the name and ad-
dress of the facility including the
name of the operator and owners;
(2) Permits. The User shall submit a
list of any environmental control per-
mits held by or for the facility;
(3) Description of operations. The
User shall submit a brief description
of the nature, average rate of produc-
tion, and Standard Industrial Classifi-
cation of the operation(s) carried out
by such Industrial User. This descrip-
tion should include a schematic. proc-
ess diagram which indicates points of
Discharge to the POTW from the reg-
ulated processes.
(4) Flow measurement. The User
shall submit information showing the
measured average daily and maximum
daily flow, in gallons per day, to the
POTW from each of the following:
(i) Regulated process streams; and
(ii) Other streams as necessary to
allow use of the combined wastes-
tream formula of § 403.6(e). (See para-
graph (b)(5)(v) of this section.)
The Control Authority may allow for
verifiable estimates of these flows
where justified by cost or feasibility
considerations.
(5) Measurement of pollutants. (i)
The user shall identify the Pretreat-
ment Standards applicable to each
regulated process;
(ii) In addition, the User shall
submit the results of sampling and
analysis identifying the nature and
concentration (or mass, where re-
quired by the Standard or Control Au-
thority) of regulated pollutants in the
Discharge from each regulated proc-
ess. Both daily maximum and average
concentration (or mass, where re-
quired) shall be reported. The sample
shall be representative of daily oper-
ations;
[403.12(b)(5)(iii) and (iv) amended by 53
FR 40610. October 17, 1988]
(iii) A minimum of four (4) grab
samples must be used for pH, cyanide,
total phenols, oil and grease, sulfide,
and volatile organics. For all other pol-
lutants, 24-hour composite samples
must be obtained through flow -pro-
portional composite sampling tech-
niques where feasible. The Control
Authority may waive flow -proportion-
al composite sampling for any Indus-
trial User that demonstrates that flow -
proportional sampling is infeasible. In
such cases, samples may be obtained
through time -proportional composite
sampling techniques or through a min-
imum of four (4) grab samples where
the User demonstrates that this will
provide a representative sample of the
effluent being discharged.
(iv) The User shall take a minimum
of one representative sample to com-
pile that data necessary to comply
with the requirements of this para-
graph.
(v) Samples should be taken immedi-
ately downstream from pretreatment
facilities if such exist or immediately
downstream from the regulated proc-
ess if no pretreatment, exists_ If other.
wastewaters are mixed with the regu-
lated wastewater prior to pretreat-
ment the User should measure the
flows and concentrations necessary to
allow use of the combined wastes-
tream formula of § 403.6(e) in order to
evaluate compliance with the Pre-
treatment Standards. Where an alter-
nate concentration or mass limit has
been calculated in accordance with
§ 403.6(e) this adjusted limit along
with supporting data shall be submit-
ted to the Control Authority;
(vi) Sampling and analysis shall be
performed in accordance with the
techniques prescribed in 40 CFR. Part
136 and amendments thereto. Where
40 CFR Part 136 does not contain sam-
pling or analytical techniques for the
pollutant in question, or where the
Administrator determines that the
Part 136 sampling and analytical tech-
niques are inappropriate for the pol-
lutant in question, sampling and anal-
ysis shall be performed by using vali-
dated analytical methods or any other
applicable sampling and analytical
procedures, including procedures sug=
gested by the POTW or other parties,
approved by the Administrator;
(vii) The Control Authority may
allow the submission of a baseline
report which utilizes only historical
data so long as the data provides infor-
mation sufficient to determine the
need for industrial pretreatment meas-
ures;
(viii) The baseline report shall indi-
cate the time, date and place, of sam-
pling, and methods of analysis, and
shall certify that such sampling and
analysis is representative of normal
work cycles and expected pollutant
Discharges to the POTW;
(6) Certification A statement, re-
viewed by an authorized representa-
tive of the Industrial User (as defined
in paragraph (k) of this section) and
certified to by a qualified professional,
indicating whether Pretreatment
Standards are being met on a consist-
ent basis, and, if not, whether addi-
tional operation and maintenance (0
and M) and/or additional pretreat-
ment is required for the Industrial
User to meet the Pretreatment Stand-
ards and Requirements; and
(7) Compliance schedule. If addition-
al pretreatment and/or 0 and M will
be required to meet the Pretreatment
Standards; the shortest schedule by
which the Industrial User will provide
such additional pretreatment and/or
O and M. The completion date in this
schedule shall not be later than the
compliance date established for the
applicable Pretreatment Standard.
(1) Where the Industrial User's cate-
gorical Pretreatment Standard has
been modified by a removal allowance
(§ 403.7), the combined wastestream
formula (§ 403.6(e)), and/or a Funda-
mentally Different Factors variance
(§ 403.13) at the time the User submits
the report required by paragraph (b)
of this section, the information re-
quired by paragraphs (b)(6) and (7) of
this section shall pertain to the modi-
fied limits.
(ii) If the categorical Pretreatment
Standard is modified by a removal al-
lowance (§ 403.7), the combined was-
testream formula (§ 403.6(e)). and/or a
Fundamentally Different Factors vari-
ance (§ 403.13) after the User submits
the report required by paragraph (b)
of this section, any necessary amend-
ments to the information requested by
paragraphs (b)(6) and (7) of this sec-
tion shall be submitted by the User to
the Control Authority within 60 days
after the modified limit is approved.
(c) Compliance schedule for meeting
categorical Pretreatment Standards.
The following conditions shall apply
to the schedule required by paragraph
(b)(7) of this section:
(1) The schedule shall contain incre-
ments of progress in the form of dates
for the commencement and comple-
tion of major events leading to the
construction and operation of addi-
tional pretreatment required for the
Industrial User to meet the applicable
categorical Pretreatment Standards
(e.g., hiring an engineer, completing
preliminary plans, completing final
plans, executing contract for major
[Sec. 403.12(c)(1)J
8-31-90 Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., Washington, D C 20037 155

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0031828
PERMITTEE NAME: Town of Vanceboro / Vanceboro Wastewater T.'
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Modification
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 0.200 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow):
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
Requesting speculative limits for doubled capacity and RELOCATED
OUTFALL
STREAM INDEX: 27-97
RECEIVING STREAM: Swift Creek
Class: C-Swamp NSW
Sub -Basin: 03-04-09
Reference USGS Quad: F30SW, Vanceboro (please attach)
County: Craven
Regional Office: Washington Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 00/00/00 Treatment Plant Class: II @ 0.1 MGD
Classification changes within three miles:
Becomes SC -Swamp at mouth of Bear Branch, ca. 3 mi.
Requested by: Jule Shanklin Date: 1/7/91
Prepared by: Date:
Reviewed by: Date:
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
, -
►(v\c-.k
5ciE 5
Drainage a (mi ) Avg. Streamflow (cfs):
7Q10 (cfs) Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC %
Instream Monitoring:
30Q2 (cfs)
Acute/Chronic
Parameters
Upstream Location
Downstream Location
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
NH -N (mg/1)
X(---
c
I Q \.
D.O. (m
V '
,� pr-
TSS (m
..2prk�
�a.
C
F. Col. (/10
1�
d-s
\_
•
t
St),
Comments: J LZC_ ���

MEMO
TO:
DATE
SUBJECT:
cyptZ A d
-? .o-'C ow e D ► cis
treioG t uvN 4 0J
2
n.kAP Cam`
ulAc<4 ;-AA
40 cn c�.i(4t.0w,A 2 CQ use S 1, -`'
ceLQ C.-G
6LAA. ( ue`i-u del 6 8%`-t5Lt p 3azers,111,
GimC Ste` -71A<<' cc.),/
welt
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources

Facility Name
NPDES No.
Type of Waste
Facility Status
Permit Status
Receiving Stream
Stream Classification:
Subbasin
County
Regional Office
2
Requestor
Date of Request
Topo Quad
-1-
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
Vanceboro WWTP
NC0031828
68% Domestic,
Existing
Modification
Swift Creek
C-Swamp NSW
03-04-09
Craven
: Washington
Jule Shankin
1/8/91
F30SW
Wasteload Allocation Summary
32% Industr.ial.AV wr;j_
20 1991
P�=Rfm F rnff;tt<<FRlNC.
Stream Characteristics:
USGS #02.0920.3300 Date 11/8
Drainage Area: 245
Summer 7Q10: 0.75
Winter 7Q10: 4.47
Average Flow: 250
30Q2: 10.0
sq.mi.
cfs
cfs
cfs
cfs
Swift Creek has swamp -like characteristics at low flow conditions;
slow stream velocity and low DO. Ambient data shows that during low flow,
Swift Creek has natural DO levels well below the 6.0 mg/1 standard.
In accordance with EPA guidelines, wasteload has been allocated so that DO
concentration does not drop more than 10% below ambient conditions.
WASTELOAD SENT TO EPA? (Major) _N_ (Y or N)
(if yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or
if not modeled, then old assumptions that were made, and description
of how fits into basinwide plan)
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:
Date: f//a9
Date: 1 (.
Date: //'"Wf,/
Date: //l i/gr
FEB 16 '1991

Existing Limits
Wasteflow (MGD) :
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1) :
TSS (mg/1) :
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml) :
pH (SU) :
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1) :
Recommended Limits
Wasteflow (MGD) :
BOD5 (mg/1) :
NH3N (mg/1) :
DO (mg/1) :
TSS (mg/1) :
Fecal Coliform (/100
pH (SU) :
Oil & Grease (mg/1) :
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Chlorine (ug/1) :
ml):
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer/Winter
0.1
13.0
4.0
6.0
30.0
1000.0
6-9
Present Capacity
at Existing Location
(offey43 earl fir Rao RAN
ummer%Winter
0.1
5.0 / 10.0
1.0 / 1.8 (AT.)
6.0 / 6.0
30.0 / 30.0
200.0 / 200.0
6-9 / 6-9
* Phosphorous Limit compliance date: May 1, 1993.
Daily Maximum
Proposed Capacity
and Relocation
Summer/Winter
0.2
5.0 / 10.0
2.0 / 4.0 (D• o-)
6.0 / 6.0
30.0 / 30.0
200.0 / 200.0
6-9 / 6-9
2.0 / 2.0 *
28 / 28
(DCLWACIAelten
Limits Changes Due To: Parameter(s) Affected
Instream Data
Ammonia Toxicity x
Chlorine Standards x
Nutrient Sensitive Waters x
HOW
New 7Q10 flow data
Special Modeling Studies
New facility information x
New Standards x
NH3N at Existing
Chlorine
TP
BOD5, NH3N
Fec. col.
Modifications to past modeling analysis:
Hydraulic parameters are identical to past models. The model has been
updated to reflect the removal of an upstream interacting discharge and the
relocation of Vanceboro's discharge to Swift Creek.

-3-
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
- Vanceboro is currently discharging in a zero flow stream (Maul's Run).
Any expansion must include relocation of the outfall to Swift Creek, as
specified in the permit application.
- Vanceboro WWPT must meet the Neuse River Basinwide Management Plan
limits of 5 mg/1 BOD5 and 2 mg/1 NH3N.
- Before a permit can be issued, Vanceboro must determine whether a
Pretreatment PY`Qr^n necessary. Vanceboro must complete an Industrial
Waste Survey for EPICOR, the major industrial flow source. Vanceboro must
then consult with the Regional Office and Pretreatment to determine if a
Pretreatment .l-a-ri is required.
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS:
Upstream: Location: Swift Creek at SR 1440.
Donwstream: Location: 2 mi downstream of discharge, access from
unnamed road 1.5 south of SR 1440 on US 17.
Instream Monitoring: DO, Temp., F. col., Conductivity.
Special Instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR CONDITIONS
SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS:
(for P&E or region to recommend time frame for implementing new limits)
ADDITIONAL "REVIEWER" COMMENTS: (�
Ccormvu- t �` II r,(,�n/ *.a�CM `SSlte� }v lAlRG oi( �•/o� LD JctS,n r{fM �1�Aj
St,Lk. ,\A\L f�q�n►..c �'hiat MO tail ttcm:4 ,
Additional Information attached? No.

ww-FP
#frc 60 31n2
SR Hilo
#oci .0110.Mo
1.5* 61hz cz7.0
2Q loj
Q low
Ti
;I
if
Ii
• 75
: 0
VaK ezi W1-R9
Ma-0
gun
OL °Vt.°. 3206
DA= /1,0 dAtd1.4
? :: O. o
2o0., 6.
E,L.
dAz .'16 614 7 1
7Q101 2.5-
761ok, z S":

Q,r,4 iclvw
/UgoD V. o ,v cl. .
7Q1of Q. o
*
�d1�w D.(
6114 G. S
. I, 0
Nv4e-/1606( - ✓i ' crncA4Wel
�,- go 7 Q 'Of or e. (.
SIete aJ run or(' Ch4e,cc74r c.( otrc {ro
r .&A?L4 mUciG1i

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Jimmy L. Morris
Town of Vanceboro / Vanceboro WWTP
P.O. Box 306
Vanceboro, NC 28586
January 31, 1991 Director
Subject: NPDES Permit Modification and Pretreatment of Industrial Waste.
NDPES Permit No. NC0031828
Craven County
Dear Mr. Morris:
The Division of Environmental Management has received, and is processing, the Town of
Vanceboro's application for the modification of NPDES permit No. NC0031828. However, before
a modified permit can be issued, it must be determined whether a Pretreatment Program is necessary.
Information by the Washington Regional Office indicates that EPICOR Industries may be a
significant industrial user as defined by 15A NCAC 2H .0903(b)(9) and 40 CFR 403.3(t), as it has a
flow exceeding 25,000 gpd and contributes more than 5% of Vanceboro's flow. Regulation 15A
NCAC 2H .0900 indicates all POTWs must develop a Pretreatment Program to provide local
regulation of significant industrial users. Objectives of the pretreatment regulations are "... :(a) to
prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs which will interfere with its use or disposal of
municipal sludge; (b) to prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs which will pass through
the treatment works or otherwise be incompatible...".
An Industrial Waste Survey must be completed for EPICOR Industries and any other
appropriate non-residential users to determine whether a Pretreatment Program is necessary. A form
for this survey along with the relevant section of guidance material has been included for your use.
This survey must be completed and returned to the Division of Environmental Management before
consideration of the permit modification can proceed.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Please feel free to call Dana Folley of the Division's Pretreatment Unit at [phone] or
Kevin Miller of our Washington Regional Office at [phone], if you have any questions or
comments regarding this issue.
George T. Eve
GTE/srb
encl.
cc: Kevin Miller WARO w/encl.
Dana Folley
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 14, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
THROUGH:
FROM: Steve B e iington
UB JE CT: Varnceboro 14WTF T'.JLA, # T C0031828, Craven County.
Vanceboro has prrcposed expanding fcrrm 0.1 to 0.2 M GD . The prraposed
discharge stream. 1. Swift Creek. is classified as a swamp and its hydraulics differ greatly
from those of most streams We model.:; r %7ift Creek has for ti� summer L) 0, ( 3.5), and
very slow velocity. I have attfei i ipteii to model this system I m two different ways:
1) A model using headwater conditions of low D 0 (3.5 imgii) and a reduced
CB 0 Li decay rate to er prevent background levels of B 0 Li from dropping D0 belowa1 ambient it conditions. Thismodel is i Ioi i-equaliibial, but 1) 0 and B OD values remain
essentiall') constant though the stud' range (without the discharge).
This model predicts that neither the existing nnor expanded facility would protect
water quality *limits of 5 mg1'1 B U Li 5 and `mg.1 NH -N.
2) A model using headwater conditions allow U 0 and the U' Conner-D obbins
i'eaer ation rate. indicated in the a 0 P as appropriate fcvr slow moving waters. The
resulting reaeration coefficient is higher than in the other model.
This model predicts that both de i' wi capacities would prc'tect water quality at
limits of5and 2.
Without a direct study of S rf ?ift Creek, it is difficult to estimate stream velocity and
the re aeration rate at low flow c:, nditiori s. B oth models are sei,siti+,{e to these
parameters and so it is difficult to have confidence in either model.
In a stream share 1)0 is naturally below standard. the EPA'_ criteria far fish
survival states that wasteioads should be allocated so that L) U cancentrationido not drop
more than - fs• below background and -never drop below 3.0 t f 1gf1. After working with
both at the models and a carmnmg their sensitivity. it is my best judgment that the
expanded facility w+ai11 protect the above standard at limits of 5 and 2.
\7anceboro is presently at limits of 13 and 4 and must consider a pretreatment
plan. I istream data does not indicate any obvious problem and. except for flow. the plant
has been in compliance. The discharrge is m the Neuse River Basin and so should meet
the bash w ide goals of 5 rngll B U l) 5 and 2 fang.1 NH3-N. V ancebrrro W W TF will have to
move to more advanced treatment in any case since the ammonia to dcity limit is below
the current NH 3-N limit.: Since both the existing Ig ai Id prL'Uposed facility will have to meet
met
new limits, it is recommended that one set of limits, at 5 and 2. be gi..'en to the entire 0.2
design u.'auity.

T•.TLJ, Notes
R. R
N C003182E
7/`jl
�U r cl t d 1 it d c•(f.is 1/-c/
Town of Vancebaro
This is a T:•TLA far a per! nit modification, double capacity and relocate outtall. The town
TT ___ _b _. _ T W TP h•�_• been in I i :� iil i plia c:e f! +r all water quality I I Iea s1L e except
i t 4 •]I : r �� �r� l v�r � �
t1oc:.,. After consultation with the region they have proposed doubling capacity r:aith a
parallel plant and moving the Iji_•r::harlae from .y zero o flow ti eat i I Maul's Run) directly to
wiit Creel.
The region has recommended that a prretcredll ► Ient program be required far this P O WT.
i_ij1€p1aili'_.fliilf:li;iJ�L'elItlyr}�.�:red_ 0.0 i�'r l'r1 Gr1 ant.may bea Categorical Indu 1Ty.
Vancebcro r1•:i11 have to decide bor. ntwii1 handle this industrial flow before a permit can
be issued.
N1.5W. The stream 1`•TI the ITeii_.eRiverBagr►and a aNSW a-ny exparrsionirtthis
facility would have to meet 2 mgli phosphorous.Neuse B asinwide Management Plan: 5
arid 2. classified ] L T�
J Yrft C?€ ek.1 cl•]as a swamp. I I��. 111e level B model lodel Q be used and adapted to best
simulate sr.:'amp conditions. Natural conditions often -fa -Ito Ec.ceeded Water quality
stand with Ia 0 as low a:: 2.1 TI I the _ u I it I ler. The E PA'_•'reaulaticii s used to prri Itr_.i_i
•.'•ater quality to within 10% of natural conditions.
Ambient Station: S c:qrit Creek at S R 1478. Ua`JZUUU_ This -station is located less than
0.2 miles up tiearil of the .1i=•charge. Low D 0 has been -recorded each summer fcrc the
past five years, see attached figure. One discharge, First Colony Farms Is Inc, is located
-rrracethan miles upstream. 0.6 MGt . 100 .Industrial Lime Mine.
S Creek: char es to S C S r 1•T S W appc' ix, iti'r 1111e_`• di'wr,st earl I.
Initee:a I data:
Instream data taken in Maui's Run sho'.\'s no obvious rrroblein. U ownstrean ;un rrner
rQ'_dI117crtto 4rr71►and rarely 3 mg but only J:t?e:ilcfe=.arY very y=weltAmbient data from just upstream in S rthtt Creek indicate:, that this is not unnatural.
Information from old models:
Hydraulic data essentially sentially the same.

J .. •iFT.D0
12 -
10
D0 ri Q11 E --
4
L
G •• - 7 i,.iI1 l- '_ re' k AL1ier If &ior I at •Y •fir is eb1 IrI ,
# oao' a000
0 0
0
u
I
4
1
1
0
0
A
n 4
t,•i ntli
0lig '86 11;r7 a
I I I
l id 12
tiD
Facie 1