NC0086291_Discharge Evaluation Report_20230322

DISCHARGE EVALUATION REPORT
BEAVER HILL WTP
NPDES PERMIT NO. NCO086291
TOWN OF EDENTON
NORTH CAROLINA
FEBRUARY 2018
Lli
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
U—r:sFNC F-0115
T. WC 24 78 - FU

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE.................................................................................................3
1.1 BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................3
1.2 PURPOSE............................................................................................................................4
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................5
2.1 SOURCE WELLS AND WTP.................................................................................................5
2.1.1 CATION EXCHANGE SOFTENER WITH BYPASS..........................................................1
O
2.1.2 DISCHARGE OF REGENERATION WASTE WATER EFFLUENT TO FILBERT CREEK .........11
2.2 DISCHARGE WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS................................................................12
2.3 PROPOSED FUTURE WTP CHANGES AND POTENTIAL EFFECT ON WTP DISCHARGES .......12
2.4 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT....................................................................................................14
3.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION..............................................................................................15
3.1 CONNECT DISCHARGE TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP) .........................15
3.2 OBTAIN A NON -DISCHARGE PERMIT................................................................................16
3.3 INSTALL WASTEWATER TREATMENT...............................................................................16
3.4 USE ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE................................................................................17
3.4.1 CHOWAN COUNTY SUPPLY...................................................................................17
3.4.2 PERQUIMANS COUNTY SUPPLY.................................................................................17
3.5 ALTERNATIVE WATER TREATMENT METHOD..................................................................18
3.6 DISCHARGE TO LARGER WATER BODY............................................................................19
3.6.1 DISCHARGE TO CHOWAN RIVER...............................................................................25
3.6.2 DISCHARGE TO PEMBROKE CREEK...........................................................................25
3.6.3 DISCHARGE TO EDENTON BAY.................................................................................26
3.6.4 DISCHARGE TO ALBEMARLE SOUND NEAR THE NORTHEASTERN REGIONAL AIRPORT
NEAREDENTON)....................................................................................................................26
3.7 COMBINATION OF ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................26
3.7.1 CONSOLIDATE EXISTING WTPS INTO ONE RO WTP WITH RO CONCENTRATE
DISCHARGE TO LARGER WATER BODY...................................................................................27
3.8 DISCHARGE VARIANCE....................................................................................................30
4.0 ALTERNATIVES PRESENT WORTH COSTS.............................................................................32
4.1 ALTERNATIVES PRESENT WORTH....................................................................................32
5.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE...................................................................................................34
5.1 ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION.....................................................................................34
5.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE.........................................................................................................36
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation WT
February 2018 1 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

INDEX OF FIGTIRFIS
FIGURE 2.1 BEAVER HILL WTP DISCHARGE POINT.......................................................................... %
FIGURE 2.2 WTP PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS...................................................................................8
FIGURE2.3 BEAVER HILL WTP........................................................................................................9
FIGURE 3.1 EXISTING BEAVER HILL WTP AND POTENTIAL PUMP STATION LOCATION .................21
FIGURE 3.2 EXISTING FREEMASON WTP AND POTENTIAL PUMP STATION LOCATION....................22
FIGURE 3.3 PROPOSED ROUTES FOR BEAVER HILL AND FREEMASON WTP DISCHARGE MAINS,
CHOWAN AND PEMBROKE LOCATIONS............................................................................................23
FIGURE 3.4 PROPOSED ROUTES FOR BEAVER HILL AND FREEMASON WTP DISCHARGE MAINS,
EDENTON BAY AND ALBEMARLE SOUND.......................................................................................24
FIGURE 3.5 ALTERNATIVE 2 CONSOLIDATE WTPS, RO TREATMENT, RO CONCENTRATE TO LARGE
WATERBODY.................................................................................................................................29
INDEX OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1 SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR CURRENT WATER PRODUCTIONS.........................................5
TABLE 2.2 PROCESS UNIT CAPACITY TABLE..................................................................................10
TABLE 3.1 WATER BODY INFORMATION........................................................................................25
TABLE 4.1 DISCHARGE TO LARGER WATER BODY COST COMPARISON..........................................32
TABLE 5.1 PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE...............................................................................36
INDEX OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A NPDES PERMIT INFORMATION
APPENDIX B WELL INFORMATION FOR BEAVER HILL WTP
APPENDIX C BEAVER HILL DISCHARGE DATA
APPENDIX D PUROLITE REPORT
APPENDIX E REGULATORY AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
APPENDIX F RO INFORMATION
APPENDIX G ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX H CORRESPONDENCE (WTP UPGRADE
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation Y
February 2018 2 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Freemason Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is one of two WTPs operated by the Town of Edenton to
produce potable water for Town customers. The WTP treats groundwater from two wells (Beaver Hill and
Boswell Street Wells) and pumps the finished water into the Town distribution system. The treatment
process includes using a pressure type water softener for removal of hardness cations (calcium and
magnesium) from the groundwater. The softener also incidentally removes a portion of the iron in the
groundwater.
As part of the softening process, the softening units undergo a salt (brine) regeneration cycle to remove
hardness cations and to restore the softener resin for removing hardness in the raw water. The
regeneration cycle is typically required every 300,000 to 350,000 gallons of water treated (every day or
day and a half on average). The wastewater generated by softener regeneration (brine and rinse water) is
discharged to an unnamed tributary "Filbert Creek" to Edenton Bay, under NPDES permit NC0007552.
As a result of failed Whole Effluent Toxicity tests, the Town is required by Part A. (4) of the NPDES to
perform a Discharge Alternatives Evaluation to explore alternative discharge strategies for the Freemason
WTP. 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".
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 3 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of the evaluation is to determine whether there are any economical and technologically
feasible alternatives available to the Town to address aquatic toxicity present in the water treatment plant
effluent. Based upon the evaluation, and if economically and technically feasible, a preferred alternative
is to be identified and an implementation schedule and project timeline to be provided. This study report
presents the evaluation of the seven items identified in Section 1.1 and provides a preferred alternative.
The determination of the economic feasibility of the preferred alternative is beyond the scope of this
study.
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation VI
February 2018 4 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 SOURCE WELLS AND WTP
Edenton has two water treatment plants; the Freemason and Beaver Hill Water Treatment Plants (WTP).
The Freemason WTP was designed to receive and treat groundwater pumped from the Freemason and
Virginia Road wells. The Beaver Hill WTP was designed to receive and treat groundwater pumped from
the Beaver Hill and Boswell Street wells. Figure 2.1 shows the location of the wells and WTPs for the
Town of Edenton and the NPDES discharge locations for each WTP. This study focusses on the
Freemason WTP, and specifically the brine discharges from this WTP. However, information on the
Beaver Hill WTP is also included in some of the discussion in this report as one alternative evaluated is
consolidation the discharge lines from two WTPs for an alternate discharge location and consolidation of
the WTPs themselves into one WTP with one discharge. Information on the wells supplying the
Freemason WTP is included in Appendix B for reference. Table 2.1 provides data on summary data on
water production at both WTPs. The Freemason Well is rarely used due to the higher brine content.
TABLE 2.1 SUMMARV
STATISTICS FOR CURRENT WAJ'ER PRODUCTIONS'
TOWN OF EDEN'FON
Freemason WTP Beaver Hill WTP
Well #1
Well #2
Total
Well 43
Well #4
Total
Virginia
Beaver
Boswell
Rd.
Freemason
WTP
Hill
Str.
WTP
Current Average Daily
Pumped (gpd)
305,992
4,633
310,625
111,094
117,976
229,070
Percent of Flow (per WTP)
98%
2%
100%
48%
52%
100%
Percent of Avg Daily Use
(ADD)
61%
1%
62%
18%
20%
38%
Chloride (mg/L)
95
233
160
172
Total Dissolved Residue
(mg/L)
674
978
795
845
Iron (mg/L)
0.085
1.7
1.2
0.3
Sodium (m L)
154
253
1
1 189
253
The average daily demand (ADD) for the Town as a whole currently varies from 0.33 million gallons per
day (MGD) to 0.53 MGD (Preliminary Engineering Report for Water System Improvements, Sept 2015,
The Wooten Company). The current maximum daily demands (MDDs) range from 0.64 to 1.19 MGD.
The average MDD/ADD ratio is 1.9.
Town of Edenton IN Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 5 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

The current treatment trains for Freemason and Beaver Hill WTPs are very similar and are shown in
Figure 2.2. The existing process units at each WTP are follows (upstream to downstream):
• Aerator
• Raw water reservoir
• High service pumps
• Cation exchange softener with bypass
• Chemical addition for corrosion control
• Chlorine gas addition
• Discharge of softener regeneration water to Filbert Creek
Figure 2.3 is an aerial view of the WTP identifying main components. A summary of the treatment unit
capacities for the Freemason WTP is provided in Table 2.2. Based on the limiting unit process
capacities, the WTP capacity at the Beaver Hill WTP is 0.5 MGD (limited by high service pump
capacity). This evaluation focuses on the brine discharges from the softening system and thus the cation
exchange softener information.
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018
6
rr
THE WOOTEN COMPANY

32
US Hwy 17
If
•Cem
1 t'
�c,
c.
— ;�. . s,o• Beaap l till ,e.?; �`.'"-
Approximate !} T, -
Facility Boundary
.I:rid1 7 rl —k �.ty _ -
,j..
,r�,i. .. �� .I �' t ■
11
Bus US Hwy 17 y `. `_ a"-:,�., °�• „�
(W Queen St Exd) fa'
Z
Boundary Between
Pembroke Creek &
= Edenton Bay - -
Edenton Bay *L
— r_ ^• ,��" - .y,. ter. � } �. ' - . .. fry �_
_- 4
NC Hwy 32
f � ,
Outfall 001
(flows south)
St b
q%.
vi 'c.
r• el
�•-
!Hn
f HISh •�� I
y � {
iri(eFN,+,U9rya� '1 - • ,.: �' t
... ��.
...: _ -.
UT "Filbert Creek" to
Edenton Bay [flows south]
r J a
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Ave
(W. Albemarle St)
� if
OR.TH
Figure 2.1. Existing Discharge Location The Woolen Company makes cuery short
Town of Edenton NP®ES Permit NC00086291 -.a' a and anbpal' ra' mope een"
the mast current xntl accurate mlormalion
pes'ib!e, ho\ s- the maps ers strictly
Beaver Hill Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Chowan County eahplan^i["°a rpcorded de The maps are
I l.piled ["our recorded deeds, plats and
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, Edenton 27932UsC'pub1cand,reheiprivate `°`^rdea^ddala.
Gaersol lhemaps erahelebynoli9ed lhatllle
June 2017 V090 11'Dwy, itXM1Vlnmmmna
n.haokl bA AN.WW "ha ialiA
State Grid/USGS Quad: C32SE/Edenton, NC Stream Segment: 26-1 °fT "eo'"°'"'"'"°°"'"'P'"'"°"°"
TH�WOOTENGOMPAIJY co,npany aaanmea No respanab,Aw for
Drainage Basin: Chowan River Basin Sub -Basin: 03-01-04 the mlorma ion contained on Inn map'
unless the map is signed and 'Wed by s
Latitude: 36' 03' 59" Longitude: 76' 36' 52" �een'no
te'sicnal Land Someyon Please
contact the GIS Group at19191828-057I of
Stream Class: C;NSW HUC: 03010205 1" ira
oa"'info"napon
Receiving Stream: UT "Filbert Creek" to Edenton Bay

Freemason Well Freemason WTP - Process Flow Diagram
(not used)
Brine Tank
Raw Water Line
Virginia Well
AerationCID
a
3
x � Retention Basin To
f' Ion Exchange Distribution
Softener System
High Service
Pumps
Discharge
Beaverhill Well Beaver Hill WTP - Process Flow Diagram
Brine Tank
Boswell Wellt)J x
Aeration o
3
�C To
Retention Basin P Ion Exchange Distribution
Softener System
nx
High Service
Pumps
Discharge
Figure 2.2 - Process Flow Diagrams N
Town of Edenton THE WOOTEN COMPANY
Preliminary Engineering Report ENGINEERING I PLANNING I ARGHITECTUnE
Water Treatment System Improvements 20 North Boylan Avenue Raleigh NC 27693-1423
Y p 919.82R0531 fax [phone] IN

Storage Shed
r
F.
Beaver Hill WTP
Pump and Softener
t_
9*
10
n
M
Well #3
Beaver Hill

TOWN OF EDLNTON
Beaver Hill Water Treatment Plant
Name
Capacity
Age
Years
Notes
WTP capacity
0.5 MGD*
*Based on high service pump capacity. LWSP
capacity lists 0.725 MGD
Induced Draft Aerator
650 gom
62
General Filter Company
Raw Water Basin
50,000 gal.
62
Estimated from Aerial Measurements
High Service Pump #1
350 gpm
6
Replaced in 2006. Pump TDH 70 to 75 psi pressure
High Service Pump #2
350 gpm
6
Replaced in 2006. Pump TDH 70 to 75 psi pressure
Brine Tank
8,451 gal.
12
Manufactured March, 2000; "C" Veil
Softener
500 m
62
New media, sand and gravel in 2005, three port valve
port rebuilt in 2005
Chlorine Feed
50 ppd
<20 yrs
2x Model A-816 Regulators with 3/8" Vent and Vacuum
Fittings (estimated capacity)
2.1.1 CATION EXCHANGE SOFTENER WITH BYPASS
The softener removes hardness from the well water using sodium based cation exchange resin. Hardness
(mainly calcium (Ca
+2) and magnesium (Mg+z)) takes the place of the sodium (Na) on the resin. Two
Na+ ions are placed in the water for every Ca+2 or Mg+2 ion taken out. The exchange resin removes
hardness until the resin capacity is reached. At that time, the softener is taken off-line and regenerated for
service using a concentrated brine (NaCl) solution. The wastewater from this regeneration process is
discharged via a NPDES permit. Some of the aerated well water can be bypassed around the softener.
This is done for two reasons. First, the softened water has practically no hardness in it. This makes the
water very aggressive and corrosive. Therefore, the system is designed so that unsoftened water can be
blended with the softened water to make the finished water more stable and thus less corrosive. Second,
it is more economical to provide customer's water with some hardness left in it. Generally speaking,
people will have no objection to hardness of up to a value of approximately 100 mg/l. However, at the
Freemason plant the operators are not currently bypassing because of detection of monochloramine in the
raw water.
There is one existing softener at the WTP. Based on original manufacturing data each softener is 9-foot
diameter (63 sq. ft.) and has a 7 foot straight shell height. The unit has a 4,200 kilograins hardness
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018
10
V
THE WOOTEN COMPANY

capacity and is rated for a flow of 510 gpm. The softener has 200 cubic feet of Zeolite resin and a 38 inch
bed depth. Based on the original manufacturing data, the maximum hydraulic loading rate is 8 gpm/ftz.
The resin capacity is approximately 21,000 grains per cubic feet. These values are on the high end of the
design range as recommended by Ten State Standards. For exchange softening, the North Carolina
Department of Environment Quality (NC DEQ) uses the Ten State Standards. The resin media and
associated support sand and gravel media was replaced at the Beaver Hill WTP in 2005. The three port
valves were also replaced in 2006.
The capacity of the fiberglass brine storage tanks are approximately 8,400 gallons at the Beaver Hill
WTP. Brine tanks should provide a minimum of 30-days salt supply. The operator indicates the salt
storage tank at the Beaver Hill WTP currently provides approximately 2.5 months of salt supply.
At the Beaver Hill WTP, softener regeneration cycles are set to automatically occur for every 410,000
gallons of water treated through the softener. The salt regeneration cycle includes a 20 minute brine
rinse, 30 to 40 minute slow water rinse and 20 minute fast rinse. The operators indicate that raw water is
used for the slow and fast rinse cycles. The volume generated during the regeneration cycle and reported
on discharge monitoring reports are estimated values and not measured. The softener is regenerated on
average approximately every other day.
2.1.2 DISCHARGE OF REGENERATION WASTE WATER EFFLUENT TO FILBERT CREEK
As indicated in the softener description, water generated during the softening regeneration cycle is
currently discharged to Filbert Creek in accordance with the NPDES permit issued. The discharge
location is shown in Figure 2.1. Based on the fact sheet in Appendix A and discussions with the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Filbert Creek has no stream gauging station
and is assumed by NCDEQ to be the same classification as Edenton Bay, the water body to which the
tributary discharges. According to NCDEQ, Edenton Bay has a Class C freshwater classification, but is
also tidally influenced. For tidally influenced waters, USGS will not develop a low flow value for the
creek (also known as 7Q10 or the 7-day low flow with a 10 year recurrence interval). For tidally
influenced water, NCDEQ sets the creek 7Q10 flow to zero by default and permit requirements are
currently based on zero flow in Filbert creek. Thus, the existing permit does not allow any dilution factor
for toxicity testing on the effluent at present. Appendix A includes correspondence from USGS regarding
zero flow in Filbert Creek.
A stream determination for Filbert Creek was requested from the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources in June 2017. The purpose of this request was to determine the character of this creek based on
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 11 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

Division criteria. This determination was received on July 26, 2017 and is included in Appendix A. The
determination indicates the stream is intermittent/perennial and was further classified as perennial. This
determination indicates that in reality there is some dilution in Filbert Creek at present. Historically, there
has been no consideration of this creek as anything other than a zero flow stream. A gauging study could
be conducted to determine if this creek is indeed tidally influenced or not and if the receiving creek is
indeed a zero flow stream. However, the NPDES permit requires that this discharge evaluation study be
conducted to evaluate alternatives to the existing discharge to Filbert Creek.
2.2 DISCHARGE WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
The discharge from the softening regeneration process produces a wastewater that is discharged to Filbert
Creek. Data from permit Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) from January 2012 to April 2017 were
reviewed for flowrate and water quality parameters to determine the character of the discharges. The data
set is provided in Appendix C and is summarized below. It is important to note that discharge samples
are grab samples and thus may not reflect the total salt concentration in the discharge, depending on when
the grab samples are collecting in the regeneration cycle. The summary data below indicates that the
discharge has TDS, chlorides and conductivity values characteristic of weak brine. Typically, an 8 to
10% salt by weight solution is used for regeneration. Based on discussion with the WTP operators, the
flow volume is an estimated volume and is not currently measured.
Based upon existing data from the DMRs, the following data represents current discharges from the
Freemason WTP:
Regeneration Volume/Cycle
Total Chlorides
Total Dissolved Solids
Salinity
Conductivity
9,000 gpd
149 mg/L
794 mg/L
0.74 ppt
1,695 µmhos/cm
Additional sampling of the effluent and analysis for other parameters may be necessary in the future if
discharge to a larger water body is pursued.
2.3 PROPOSED FUTURE WTP CHANGES AND POTENTIAL EFFECT ON
WTP DISCHARGES
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018
12
TAT
THE WOOTEN COMPANY

The water distribution system for the Town of Edenton has experienced violations of Total
Trihalomethane (TTHM) standards. Based on laboratory analysis, bromated forms of TTHMs are more
prevalent that other forms. The Town of Edenton hired a separate consultant to evaluate methods to
address the TTHMs. A pilot study was recently performed evaluating the use of an ion exchange resin
after softening for bromide and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) removal. These constituents are precursors
to TTHM formation after chlorine is added for disinfection. This pilot study was performed by Purolite, a
manufacturer of ion exchange vessels and the study report is included in Appendix D. The Town is
currently designing for a Freemason WTP upgrade (Stroud Associates) including replacement of the
existing softener system with a two train system, each treatment train consisting of a new pressure
softening unit followed by a pressure -type ion exchange unit with special media for TOC and bromide
removal. The design WTP capacity is 0.576 MGD with each train providing half of this capacity.
Each of the new treatment trains will require a salt regeneration step for the new softener unit and the new
ion exchange unit. Information on the amount of regeneration wastewaters was provided by Stroud and
Associates and is provided in Appendix H. It is anticipated that at current daily demands that one train
will operate per day before regeneration. Thus, wastewater from one regeneration cycle per day will be
the normal flow. From a practical standpoint, it is anticipated that one train would be in service one day
and then regenerated the next day while the other train is in service. However, in order to meet the needs
WTP at full capacity, two regeneration cycles per day would be needed. The future wastewater flow
generated for a single treatment train regeneration cycle at the Freemason WTP is listed below:
New Softener Unit
Volume of water treated between regeneration cycles 225,000 gallons
Volume of salt brine per regeneration (10% brine) 940 gallons
Volume of backwash and rinse waters 4,060 gallons
Volume of displaced water 1,050 gallons
Total volume per regeneration 6,050 gallons
New [on ExchanEe linit
Volume of water treated between regeneration cycles 150,000 gallons
Volume of salt brine per regeneration (10% brine) 1,913 gallons
Volume of rinse and backwash water per regeneration 6,900 gallons
Total volume per regeneration 11,375 gallons
Town of Edenton 1
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 13 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

Total Volume for one regeneration of both units — 17,600 gallons
For the purposes of this discharge evaluation report, the discharge option must be able to accommodate
the total design wastewater volume from the WTP at design capacity. This situation requires two
regenerations at the WTP per day. Thus, the design daily regeneration wastewater volume from the
WTP would be would be approximately 34,900.
2.4 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
Toxicity testing is currently conducted on a composite sample of backwash, brine, and rinse water. Due
to the rating of Filbert Creek as a zero flow stream, 90% effluent strength is used in the toxicity testing
procedure. Historical pass/fail testing results are included in the effluent summary data in Appendix C.
Toxicity tests are conducted using Ceria Daphnia dubia and results have been mixed with failures for
approximately half the samples over the last 5 years. In general, failure of the test occurs due to the brine
content of the effluent (regeneration water). For 2017, two of four toxicity tests conducted for the Beaver
Hill WTP passed the test.
Pass/fail toxicity testing was conducted by the Aquatic Toxicity Branch (ATV) laboratory of the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality on effluent and raw water samples collected at the Beaver
Hill WTP on November 3`d and November 5"', 2015. These results are provided in Appendix C. The
report indicated a test failure for the pass/fail test for the effluent and a fail test result for the raw water.
The failure of the raw water sample (used for backwashing) indicates that backwash water itself may be
toxic. Follow-up serial dilution tests were conducted by the ATV lab on November 11, 2015. These
results indicated that the effluent sample passed toxicity testing with a dilution to 10% effluent with 90%
freshwater dilution. This test suggests that dilution to 10% effluent with 90% freshwater could result in a
passing test for the toxicity test.
It would be prudent to conduct additional serial dilution tests for discharge of WTP effluent to a larger
freshwater body. This data would be used to verify a dilution factor at which the discharge would no
longer be toxic (this could be used as a mixing parameter in CORMIX modeling efforts). As options for
discharge to a larger water bodies may include tidal/saltwater locations, a toxicity test with serial dilutions
with Mysid Shrimp could also be conducted to evaluate a preliminary dilution needed if the brine
regeneration water is discharged to a water classified as saltwater (S type classification). Serial dilution
toxicity testing has not been performed to date to determine the dilution water necessary to be mixed with
the discharge to pass a toxicity test.
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 14 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

3.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
3.1 CONNECT DISCHARGE TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
(WWTP)
This alternative would eliminate the surface water discharge by connection to a WWTP. If a discharge
line to a WWTP were constructed, this line would accept the effluent flows from both of the WTPs
(Freemason and Beaver Hill). The Town of Edenton owns and operates a lagoon based WWTP with final
spray irrigation to forest land. In certain situations, the WWTP is currently overloading the hydraulic
loading rate of the existing irrigated land. At present, the Town of Edenton is under a Special Order of
Consent (SOC) to address this problem. The Town is currently identifying potential additional land for
spray irrigation to handle the existing WWTP effluent (freshwater). The existing WWTP average effluent
flow is 716,000 gallons per day (gpd). Addition of the future regeneration flows from the two water
plants (-35,000 gpd average and 69,000 gpd design) at the average WWTP flow would result in a dilution
of the regenerate to a final concentration approximately 5 to 10% of the effluent. After addition of the
effluent from the WTPs, the TDS level would be approximately 1,800 mg/L with sodium and chloride
levels in the 500 to 900 mg/L range.
The addition of salt to the WWTP effluent would have a deleterious effect on crops and the soil.
Appendix E includes two table excerpts (Table 2 and 3) of an EPA design guidance for spray irrigation
based on Soil Adsorption Ratios (SARs), TDS, sodium and chloride levels. If Edenton WTP discharges
were sent to the WWTP, the WWTP effluent values for TDS, sodium, and chloride would be in the
"severe" range listed in the guidance. Calculations for SAR values also indicate values of 15 to 20 meq/L
which are above the "severe" range listed in the EPA design guidance. SAR values over 9.0 are
considered severe. Thus, discharge to the WWTP is not considered a feasible option from an irrigation
and soil stability standpoint.
The WWTP lagoon system also has sludge build-up to address at this time and ultimate disposal of this
sludge would be more difficult if a briny wastewater is discharged to the WWTP lagoon adding salt to the
sludge. The lagoon is also not completely mixed and thus the saltier water would tend to sink to the
lagoon bottom and at the inlet to the lagoon. Finally, the WWTP is located approximately 3.3 miles from
the WTPs and is thus further away than a discharge to Pembroke or Edenton Bay. For all these reasons,
discharge to the existing WWTP is not considered a feasible option.
Chowan and Bertie counties do not have WWTPs. The Town of Hertford has a WWTP, but it 14 miles
away and would be prohibitively expensive to pump this far from the Freemason WTP. In addition, due to
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 15 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

the small size of the Hertford WWTP, Hertford is unlikely to accept brine wastewater. Thus, the option of
discharge to a neighboring WWTP is not considered feasible.
3.2 OBTAIN A NON -DISCHARGE PERMIT
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 effects; specific ion toxicity;
and soil particle dispersion, which reduces soil permeability and the water infiltration rate. Chloride
levels above 350 mg/l and conductivity levels above 3,000 µS/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 uses relating to land -based water features (i.e., stream flow
augmentation), and 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
This alternative requires installation of a wastewater treatment method to enable the facility effluent to
consistently pass the WET test. Typically, the brine solution used for regeneration is 10% by weight salt
solution. The slow and fast rinse water would be raw water with a TDS of 700 to 1000 mg/L (based on
the current raw water from the Virginia and Freemason Wells). Based on design information in
Appendix D, the blended TDS of the regeneration wastewater is expected to be approximately 17,000 to
18,000 mg/L. The treatment process must be capable of removing salt/brine (Sodium and Chloride) from
the discharge.
A candidate treatment technology for removal of salt is reverse osmosis (RO) technology. However, for
such a high salt content in the feed water, the RO system would need very high pressure and the percent
recovery through the process would be 50% or less. Thus, RO process would produce 8,000 to 17,000
gallons of a concentrated brine still requiring discharge to a large water body. There are evaporative type
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 16 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

systems that could evaporate the water off the brine wastewater to produce a solid (salt), but these are
energy intensive and expensive. For example, the cost for a 120 gpm zero discharge brine concentrator
and crystallizer system alone (General Electric) would cost approximately $11 million dollars. 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 SOURCE
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 an
engineering study performed for Edenton's water system (Preliminary Engineering Report for Water
System Improvements, Sept 2015, The Wooten Company), it is estimated the Town will have a 2035
average daily demand (ADD) of 0.63 million gallons per day (MGD) and a maximum daily demand
(MDD) of 1.2 MGD. For the purposes of an alternate water source, the Town would need to obtain up to
1.2 MGD from the alternate source to meet the MDD.
3.4.1 CHOWAN COUNTY SUPPLY
The Town of Edenton has discussed obtaining water or building a joint WTP with Chowan County in the
past but the discussions have not advanced past a preliminary stage. Chowan County operates the
Valhalla WTP which is located approximately 7 miles northeast of the Freemason WTP. Based on the
2016 Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) the Valhalla WTP has a permitted capacity of 2.3 MGD. Current
maximum daily demands are 1.16 MGD. At the latest meeting with Chowan County representatives on
December 17, 2015, County representatives indicated the Valhalla WTP does not currently have the
capacity to accommodate Edenton's water demands. In fact, the Valhalla WTP is experiencing a toxicity
problem with softening regeneration discharge from its WTP. The Valhalla plant is also evaluating
discharge options at this time. Thus, it is not feasible to build a 7-mile water main to the Valhalla WTP
and increase the volume of the Valhalla WTP waste discharges when the discharges constitute a current
problem. The NCDEQ engineer in the Washington Regional Office (Mr. Dyk Luben) was contacted and
he confirmed it is not feasible for Edenton to obtain water from the Valhalla WTP or to send any
regeneration wastewater to the Valhalla WTP.
3.4.2 PERQUIMANS COUNTY SUPPLY
Perquimans County has two WTPs, Bethel and Windfall No. 2, with a combined capacity of 1.87 MGD.
According to the Perquimans County 2016 Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP), the Bethel WTP has a
capacity of 1.15 MGD and the Windfall WTP has a capacity of 0.72 MGD. The Bethel WTP is closer to
Edenton. Based on the 2016 LWSP, the Bethel WTP has three "regular" and one emergency groundwater
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 17 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

wells. The combined 12-hour capacity of the three "regular" wells is of 0.79 MGD and the emergency
well capacity is 0.14 MGD. Current average withdrawal from the Bethel wells is 0.12 MGD with a
maximum day withdrawal of 0.15 MGD. The Bethel WTP well supply capacity would need to be
doubled or tripled to supply 1.2 MGD to the Town of Edenton. The Bethel WTP is located
approximately 9 miles from the Edenton and any water main would need to cross Bethel Creek. There is
a high likelihood that high water ages and chlorine boosting would be challenges for water supply from
the Bethel system. Based upon existing information, supply from Perquimans County is considered
impractical due to the need for additional supply wells, the high cost of a long water main ($3 to 5 million
dollars) and potential water quality issues.
3.5 ALTERNATIVE WATER TREATMENT METHOD
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.
Treatment technologies that could replace the existing softening exchange unit would be nanofiltration or
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 is evaluated in Section 3.7.
Conventional lime softening in open tanks and dual filter media filtration is a possible alternative to the
softening system. However, this process will not address source water salinity or the TTHM problem
(due to bromated forms in the source water) and will require a significant capital cost investment that is
not considered cost effective. This alternative is not considered feasible for the Beaver Hill WTP.
As indicted in Section 2.0, the Town is currently designing a retrofit to the Freemason WTP consisting of
a two train system with new softeners and new ion exchange units to remove hardness, total organic
carbon, and bromides in the source well water. The purpose of the ion exchange units is to remove Total
Trihalomethane (TTHMs) precursors in order to lower the TTHM values in the distribution system. This
retrofit is targeted to solving a recurring problem with TTHM exceedances in the distribution system.
This treatment process actually increases the brine flow discharge from the WTP for average conditions
and increases flow by a factor of four at WTP production capacity. However, the existing Freemason
WTP already does produce a problematic brine discharge that has to be handled differently in the future
anyway. Thus, the increased flow due to the ion exchange units will serve to increase the dilution needed,
but not change the main problem of handling a brine discharge differently than it is now handled. The
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 18 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

change in discharge flow will require a NPDES permit modification (according to Mr. Ron Berry at the
NPDES Permitting Section of the North Carolina Division of Water Resources).
3.6 DISCHARGE TO LARGER WATER BODY
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. As both the Freemason and Beaver Hill WTPs have similar WTP discharge problems, it
would be most advantageous and cost effective to combine the discharge from both WTPs and discharge
though a single discharge line and diffuser to a single diffuser location. Thus, the combined daily volume
for discharge would range from 35,000 to 70,000 gallons per day (the upper volume value represents
production at full design capacity for both plants). A wastewater pump station would be installed at each
WTP and these pump stations would discharge to the combined discharge line leading to a single diffuser
outlet. Based on the locations of the existing drain lines at each WTP, preliminary pump station locations
at each plant are shown in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2. Currently, at each plant, regeneration brine waste
is combined with other liquid waste (roof drains, floor drains, etc.) at the plant. The brine drain will need
to be separated from these other drains prior to pumping the regenerate wastewater to the discharge line.
For the Beaver Hill WTP, liquid waste in the facility drains to a manhole located south of the WTP
building (Figure 3.3). At the Freemason WTP, the waste drain is located west of the WTP building and
runs underneath an existing building. To access this drain, the existing concrete floor of the WTP building
and an adjacent garage will need to be jackhammered open. Thus, there would be costs associated with
isolating the drain line at both plants.
The regeneration cycle volume is produced in approximately 100 minutes at each WTP. The highest
discharge rate during the regeneration cycle is 200 gpm (during fast rinse for the new ion exchange and
backwash for the replacement softening units) and the waste flow from each plant will be combined and
discharged to the receiving body. Assuming that only one unit (softening or ion exchange) in a train is
regenerated at a time and that both plants regenerate units at the same time, the combined flow rate in the
common discharge line is 400 gpm (200 gpm max rate for each unit times 2 plants). Using a 6-inch
discharge force main line from the pump station to the discharge line, a 200 gpm pump for each pump
station would provide sufficient scouring velocity above 2.0 ft/sec.
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. Larger water
bodies around Edenton include the Chowan River, Pembroke Creek, Edenton Bay, and Albemarle Sound.
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 19 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

The locations of these water bodies in relation to Edenton are shown in Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4. For
any selected discharge location, a CORMIX study will need to be performed to determine if the discharge
location has sufficient mixing to achieve the required dilution. Wooten consulted with a company that
performs CORMIX modeling (Groundwater Management Associates) and has specific knowledge on the
character of these water bodies. The Chowan River is likely to have sufficient flow for effective mixing
and is a good candidate location. Pembroke Creek is a less favorable location overall due to less available
volume/flow for mixing. Discharging to Edenton Bay is possible provided the discharge line extends far
into the bay. The shoreline limits mixing of the discharge waste with the receiving water and extending
the discharge line further into the bay will discharge the waste into a region of better mixing. It is not
clear exactly how far into the bay would be necessary, however for the purposes of this report a distance
of 1,100 ft. was selected. Discharge to Albemarle Sound near the Northeast Regional Airport is a viable
alternative and would take advantage of the change in classification of the water body from freshwater to
saltwater.
Classifications for these water bodies are listed in Table 3.1. Information regarding the classifications
listed is provided in Appendix A. Class B standards are the same as Class C except that for Class B fecal
coliform standards are lower. Mr. Curtis Weaver of the USGS was contacted regarding availability of low
flow criteria (7Q10 values) for each of these water bodies. According to Mr. Weaver, each of these water
bodies are tidally influenced and thus no 7Q10 values are available (see e-mail correspondence,
Appendix A). As indicated previously, NCDEQ considers tidally influenced waters as equivalent to a
zero 7Q10 values and thus zero dilution. In order to determine the actual dilution factor for any of these
water bodies, a flow study and a CORMIX mixing modeling effort is required at each location. Results
of one or more CORMIX studies would be used in order to obtain approval for the new discharge location
and establish a dilution ratio. The study and mixing work typically requires approximately 3 to 6 months.
Town of Edenton '
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 20 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

Discharge Evaluation Report
120 fiutlli Solari Ammit Mcgl+ Nf. � 16ps•l4ia
919' ms7?.!I I" i19 wo 3SP

Figure 3.3
Proposed Routes
for Beaver Hill and Freemason
WTP Discharge Mains,
Chowan River and Pembroke Creek
February 2018
Legend
0 Discharge Point
® WTP
Chowan River
I. Discharge Alignment
Pembroke Creek
'r Discharge Alignment
Parcel
Municipal Boundary
0 900 1.800
Feet
1 inch = 1, 800 feet
T T
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
The Ww 'El C;,r par y makes a.ery elr_n L f-rCduCe an7 J0 i� GIS Iaps us ny the moil
eIlatJn�_�Iale ilJw•IiAiull p-��Lle, n'—, I'ie mdy>nl�sh i'_11y fs p'dl �I riy yn p��e,
ply Tli. 'lnry-i rd 6n iJnl it .Ileleanl'.i �I GuL�irn�iJ lrrvale i.r�i.I.
xd .1.ela l I¢e-s ri •IR maps.aeh rFh/-I Fnihallrr•. Moo, n=nliru-.+d rnhur lvii.-,i� .—I— san—A-ld be conarlled r, sre & -irn n( lh= n on Ilya m3� The
/:nNn Companyaaa rree NO-rV.' bdy[xIhe'r lnrm�li-r—, nnm rn Ihr• map, iir 1--
themaF.'�s sgnr and s=aled 6ya Ucerse•i'rnkss �zl LendS ne/�r rl:as?-1—the
GM Cmu.al013)020,052'for data ,'—r irrcn-ehon

Figure 3.4
Proposed Routes
for Beaver Hill and Freemason
WTP Discharge Mains,
Edenton Bay and Old WWTP
February 2018
Legend
yDischarge Point
® WTP
Edenton Bay
Discharge Alignment
Albemarle Discharge
Alignment
Parcel
:s Municipal Boundary
0 900 1,800
Feet
1 inch = 1,800 feet
T T
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
The Woctin Cwparym k a—yertalGipmduce and a lb lit. GAS naps us ng the most
—ar,I a d anzrafe iriwmbua l—sib", have s Im! nips am sUk"I f s pan ing pu pcses
orly The maps am mq_ied Will rewrded duels plals and Mvr public end p, bale leaf ds
and rlala Ikws rr Op mapsav lumM/ Yfni !hat sin efinemPnfimed ryiAk: pri'wn.
kil—efr Burrsehonfi—ic onthi map The
'f/-Kdm(` penyanai NOw -Wti lityMlhei,f m hwmmmnMrni"map,%,xlnm
th—pneCned and aeeM hyaG tined profess malLmd Survn'/�r Pl—crnllsl
GIs Group at Z) OTdWSf' or frahon@lhewoetencunp-y— for data Hurts rfcrrefon

Table 3.1 Water Bod), Information
Water Body
Classification
Low Flow (7Q10), cfs
Chowan River
Class B, Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW)
Tidal, not available
Pembroke Creek
Class B, Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW)
Tidal, not available
Edenton Bay
Class C, Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW)
Tidal, not available
Albemarle Sound
Class SB, Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW)
Tidal, not available
— near the Edenton airport
3.6.1 DISCHARGE TO CHOWAN RIVER
The Chowan River is located west of Edenton. A discharge forcemain from the combined discharge from
the Freemason and Beaver Hill WTP would be approximately 4.2 miles along Twiddy Avenue to West
Queen/Queen Street to Highway 17 and then to the south of the Highway 17 bridge at the Chowan River
as shown on Figure 3.3. The NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) has historically discouraged
discharges to this river as a general policy. The advantage in a new discharge to the Chowan River south
of the Highway 17 bridge is that there is amble flow and based on ambient river monitoring data it is not
unusual to find chloride concentrations above 240 mg/L. Thus, there is some saline character to the river
at this point. It is estimated that it may be necessary to discharge up to 1,000 feet from the shoreline for
adequate river depth (6 feet depth or greater). Discharging to this point will result in a relatively long
forcemain and it could be more difficulty to obtain a discharge permit to the Chowan River. However,
the option is retained due to the favorable mixing potential of the location.
3.6.2 DISCHARGE TO PEMBROKE CREEK
Pembroke Creek is located southwest of Edenton. A discharge forcemain from the combined discharge
from the Freemason and Beaver Hill WTP would be approximately 1.0 mile long and run along Twiddy
Avenue and then West Queen Street to the bridge location as shown in Figure 3.3. This location is
shorter than the Chowan route, however, the drainage basin to this creek is relatively small and it is
unlikely that the flow will be adequate to provide adequate mixing and dilution of the wastewater
discharge. Of the four potential locations, this location is the least favorable.
Town of Edenton V
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 25 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

3.6.3 DISCHARGE TO EDENTON BAY
Edenton Bay is located south of Edenton. A discharge forcemain from the combined discharge form the
Freemason and Beaver Hill WTP would be approximately 1.2 mile long and run in the grassed area east
of the Beaver Hill WTP, then along Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, connect with discharge from the
Freemason WTP, and continue on W. Albemarle Street. The main would turn south on Broad Street, turn
east on Church Street before heading south on Court Street to reach the bay. The end of the discharge
line pipe will run into the bay —1,100 ft. The route is shown on Figure 3.3. Edenton Bay is a rather
shallow bay and has relatively slow or low flushing of the bay. The prevailing winds in this bay are
primarily from the southwest tending to counteract flow to the south out of the bay. A wastewater
discharge into the bay has to potential to be undispersed due to low water movement and even the
potential to "pile-up" towards one of the shorelines. It is unclear how far into the bay a discharge line
would need to extend to counteract the prevailing winds and the lack of water velocity in the bay. The
bay is classified as a freshwater bay, although it is likely to be influenced by saltwater. Overall, this
discharge location is not as favorable as the Chowan River or a discharge to Albemarle Sound.
3.6.4 DISCHARGE TO ALBEMARLE SOUND NEAR THE NORTHEASTERN REGIONAL AIRPORT
(NEAR EDENTON)
The Northeast Regional Airport is located southeast of the Town of Edenton near at a point where the
Albemarle Sound becomes classified as a SB, NWS water. This classification is better suited for the
WTP wastewater discharge salt character and would be more favorable from a permitting standpoint. The
former Edenton WWTP is located near the airport. This WWTP is no longer utilized, however, there is
an existing discharge pipe into the Sound at this location. Thus, this location is considered a promising
location for a discharge from the WTPs. A combined discharge forcemain from the Freemason and
Beaver Hill WTPs to this location would be approximately 4.2 miles per the route shown in Figure 3.4.
The end of the WTP discharge forcemain would be installed on the former WWTP property and then the
discharge line would follow the former WWTP effluent pipe location and then extend out approximately
1,000 feet off the shore into Albemarle Sound. The classification of this water body as saltwater and the
fact there Albemarle Sound is a large water body will make this location favorable for a discharge of the
wastewater from the WTPs.
3.7 COMBINATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Regulatory requirements for a discharge evaluation study indicate a combination of alternatives should
also be considered. The alternative in Section 3.7.1 includes broader reaching changes including WTP
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation I
February 2018 26 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

consolidation, treatment of source well water by RO to remove TTHM precursors and source water
salinity, and one RO concentrate discharge source (although at a greater volume flow).
3.7.1 CONSOLIDATE EXISTING WTPS INTO ONE RO WTP WITH RO CONCENTRATE
DISCHARGE TO LARGER WATER BODY
In a previous study for Edenton's water treatment system (Preliminary Engineering Report for Water
System Improvements, September 2015, The Wooten Company), decommissioning the Freemason WTP
and expanding the Beaver Hill WTP to treat all flow with new reverse osmosis (RO) units was evaluated.
Concentrate water from one new RO WTP would be transmitted via force main to one of the larger water
body listed in Section 3.6.
In this alternative, the Freemason WTP would be decommissioned and the existing Virginia Well and
Freemason Well discharge line would be rerouted to the Beaver Hill WTP site. The Beaver Hill WTP
would be upgraded to a treatment capacity of approximately 1.2 MGD. The treatment process would be
changed to a reverse osmosis (RO) process. Appendix F includes a number of diagrams illustrating
osmosis, reverse osmosis and RO systems. In the RO process raw water is forced through a semi-
permeable membrane under pressure. The water flows from one side of the membrane to the other but
salt (and other ions, TOC, etc.) is prevented from passing through the membrane by the small pore size.
The water that passes through the membrane is called the permeate and the water that does not pass
through the membrane is the concentrate (waste brackish water). The permeate water is very low in TDS,
hardness, TOC, and ions in general. The concentrate has four to five times the concentration of TDS and
salts versus the raw water. The membranes can also effectively remove bacteria and viruses. In the case
of Edenton, the RO process can lower the TDS and also lower the chlorides, bromides and TOC,
(precursors to TTHMs). Typically, 75 to 80% of the raw water entering the RO membrane is converted to
permeate and 20 to 25% is discharged as concentrate. Thus, to produce sufficient permeate water, the raw
water pumped must be 20 to 25% more than the design demand.
An RO system for the upgraded Beaver Hill plant would consist of two RO skids. Each skid will have a
cartridge filter, acid and anti -sealant pumps, high pressure feed pumps, and the RO membrane tubes.
Each skid would have a raw water feed rate of approximately 380 gpm with 300 gpm of permeate (treated
water) produced and 80 gpm going to waste as waste concentrate. An additional 120 gpm of raw water
would be by-passed around each RO skid such that the permeate will be blended with the bypassed water
to have a combined rated finished water of 420 gpm (0.6 MGD) for each skid or 840 gpm (1.2 MGD) for
the two skids combined. This mixing will re-establish natural minerals in the RO treated water. Sodium
hypochlorite (bleach) and corrosion control chemicals would be added after the permeate and a finished
Town of Edenton '
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 27 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

water storage tank provided. New high service pumps would pump from the storage tank to the
distribution system.
The raw water from the wells currently contains fluctuating levels of iron (0.08 to 3.5 mg/L) that are a
concern for RO systems. Once the iron concentration exceeds approximately 1 to 2 mg/L, it is best to
pre -treat the water prior to the RO units. The secondary drinking water standard for iron is 0.3 mg/L.
This alternative includes adding a new aerator and using the existing raw water reservoir and new
conventional filters to remove iron from the raw water by-pass in order to meet the iron criteria.
This alternative would require a new WTP building to be constructed to house new equipment. The
existing WTP building could house the raw water by-pass treatment equipment (by-pass pumps and
conventional filter). As the concentrate is under pressure, the brine can be directly discharge to a waste
concentrate pipe leading to the discharge point in the Chowan River, Pembroke Creek or Edenton Bay. A
waste concentrate discharge line will require obtaining a new NPDES permit. This in turn will require a
flow study near the discharge point and detailed CORMIX modeling. A new finished water transmission
line from the Beaver Hill WTP to the Twiddy Tank would also be added.
Figure 3. shows the new well location and the rest of the water system infrastructure for this alternative.
The expected finished water quality with implementation of this alternative would be as follows: TDS
250 mg/1 Hardness; 80-100 mg/I; Chlorides less than 250 mg/l; TTHM — Less than 0.40 mg/l (half the
other alternatives).
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 28 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

Figure 3.5 - Alternative 2
Consolidate WTPs, RO
Treatment, RO Concentrate
Discharge to Large Water Body
Edenton, NC
February 2018
Legend
�w Existing Wells
®Existing Water Treatment
Plant
Albemarle Discharge
Alignment
+ Railroad
Parcels
C 1 Municipal Boundary
0 600 1,200 2,400
Feet
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
Tile 1Vcolen Cumpa iY makes every affal to oroduce and publish GIS naps A"it the nus
cumem are ao_urats nfominabor- p-ble, nawever Re maps ere smctly Az plannng perooses
only. The maps are complod from recorded dcods, plots, and after pubko and pdro•.a rocords
and data Users o'the maps are hereby nebfiec U1at the alonamelti—c! public prmar/
atrormauon sources snmd to consulter for eerincatlon ct the inrorma•lol on this map -ne
N'oothn Ccmpany assumes NO raspon il,ky for the ;nformstcn oontauted on the maps idese
the Tap is signed and sealed ty a Uceneed Professional Lard Surwl,VD, Please contact the
GISGroupat(919)82e-0531crt-otan@the,Nwtenmmpatycomtorc2esource nformaUon

3.8 DISCHARGE VARIANCE
The Town of Edenton 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 statue reads as
follows:
"Variances. — Any person subject to the provisions of G.S. 143-215.1 or 143-215.108 may apply to the
Commission for a variance from rules, standards, or limitations established pursuant to G.S. 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 hereunder, 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 serious
hardship without equal or greater benefits to the public, provided that such variances shall be consistent
with the provisions 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."
Representatives of the DWR NPDES permit section were contacted (Mr. Derek Denard and Ms. Julie
Grzyb) to discuss the conditions under which a variance would be considered. It was indicated that this
Discharge Evaluation Study would need to have been performed looking at the feasible of seven
alternatives (presented in Section 3.0) and that this evaluation would need to indicate that all these options
are either infeasible or if feasible cannot be achieved economically given the resources of the Town.
Capital and present worth costs for discharge to an alternate water body have been developed and are
presented in Section 4.0.
The cost for discharge to an alternate water body is approximately equal to the upgrade of one of the two
existing WTPs to address the existing TTHM problem. The Town is currently facing potential regulatory
disciplinary action regarding TTHMs in its water distribution system. The Public Water Supply section is
currently requiring the Town to address the TTHM problem. The proposed upgrade to the two WTPs is
being designed at present to address the THMM problems. However, moving forward on the ion
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 30 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

exchange projects at each WTP is dependent on receiving approval of the WTP discharge permits for the
higher effluent flows.
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 for each WTP. DWR
staff indicated the Town should perform a long-term capital cost comparison for continual variance
requests at each WTPs versus the cost for combining the two WTP wastewaters with future discharge of
the combined wastewater to a saltwater body. It is not clear at this point what cost would be incurred for
the variance requests for each WTP in the future as the requirements are determined on a case by case
basis. However, the present worth cost for discharging to Albemarle Sound (a saltwater body) is
presented in Section 4 and would be the cost to compare against the cost for current and future NPDES
variance requests.
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018
01
TT
THE WOOTEN COMPANY

4.0 ALTERNATIVES PRESENT WORTH COSTS
4.1 ALTERNATIVES PRESENT WORTH
The basic guidelines from which a cost-effective analysis must be developed are based on requirements
by the North Carolina DEQ Division of Water Infrastructure funding. The method of cost-effective
analysis to be used is the total present worth method. The total present worth of a particular alternative is
the amount of money needed now in order to build, operate, and maintain the system over a specified
planning period. The planning period has been specified as 20 years. A discount rate of 4.785% was used
to convert future (replacement) costs and annual (operation and maintenance) costs to present worth costs.
Due to the preliminary nature of these cost estimates, alternatives having a present worth within 10% of
one another are considered equal, and a recommendation is made based on a combination of cost and non -
monetary considerations.
Detailed estimated cost estimates for viable alternatives are included in Appendix G. The capital costs for
each alternative contain a 10% contingency. Cost estimates are based on current prices and must be
updated during detailed (final) engineering design
The estimated costs for the different discharge locations are summarized in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Discharge to Larger Water Body Cost Comparison
Alternative
DescriptionCapital Cost
(2018)
Annual
O&M Cost
Total Present
Worth
Alternative la
Combined Plant Discharge to $2,420,000
$19,000
$2,700,000
Chowan River
Alternative lb
Combined Plant Discharge to
$1,840,000
$16,000
$2,040,000
Pembroke Creek
Combined Plant Discharge to
i
$2,220,000
Alternative lc
$2,020,000
$16,000
Edenton Bay
$2,400,000
Alternative I
Combined Plant Discharge to
$20,000
$2,650,000
Albemarle Sound (near airport)
Based on the cost estimates presented in Table 4.1, Alternatives lb and lc are the least cost alternatives
and approximately equal in cost. Alternatives lc and Id are higher cost due to the longer force main.
However, Alternatives lc and Id are considered to have a significantly higher likelihood of successfully
meeting DWR requirements for mixing and dilution for a new NPDES permit. Thus, if discharge to a
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 32 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

larger water body is implemented, it is recommended that CORMIX flow and mixing studies be pursued
at the Chowan River location and/or the Albemarle Sound (airport) location. Thus, the cost for a
discharge to a larger water body would be the cost associated with either Alternative la or Id.
To compare Alternative 2 to Alternative 1, the cost of upgrading both WTPs has to be added to
Alternative 1 cost because Alternative 2 includes consolidation of the WTP into one plant and changing
the type of treatment to reverse osmosis (RO). The RO concentrate water would need to be disposed of
by discharge to a larger water body (i.e. one of the locations listed in Table 4.1). For proper comparison,
the capital cost of upgrading each WTP (softening and ion exchange upgrades at each WTP) is estimated
to be — $2.1 million dollars at each WTP (based on funding applications by Stroud & Associates). The
O&M costs for Alternative 1 are based on operating both plants in the future. Each alternative includes
the cost for discharge of WTP wastewater to the Albemarle Sound location. In the case of Alternative 2
there would be a larger volume for discharge on a daily basis. The resultant cost comparison is provided
in Table 4.2.
The cost values in Table 4.2 indicate that Alternative 1 has a lower present worth cost. However, it
should be noted that the ion exchange process does not provide treatment to address any future
deterioration (i.e. salt increase) in the source water. Alternative 2 does address this concern by providing
a reverse osmosis treatment process which does remove salt. Alternative 2 also provides an additional
250,000 gallon finished water tank. However, due to cost and funding considerations, the Town of
Edenton has elected to proceed with the softening and ion exchange projects at each WTP. If source
water quality deteriorates further in the future, the Town will need to address that issue at a future date.
Town of Edenton 7
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 33 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

5.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
This study has been conducted to meet NPDES permit requirements to assess methods for
treatment/discharge of wastewater from the two existing Edenton WTPs to avoid the toxicity impact on
Filbert Creek. The feasibility of alternative methods and costs for feasible methods (i.e. discharge to a
larger water body) were presented in Sections 3 and 4. The cost of discharge to a larger water body is
significant. The Town may wish to consider applying for a variance to the existing WTP NPDES
discharge permit requirements due to the economic impacts on the Town of discharging to a larger water
body.
If the Town were to proceed with discharging to a larger water body, the preferred would be combining
the discharge of Freemason and Beaver Hill WTPs and pumping the effluent to the Chowan River or
Albemarle Sound (near the airport). CORMIX modeling could be performed at more than one location as
part of implementation to determine which of the closer locations are more suitable.
5.1 ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION
There a number of steps that need to be completed as part of implementation. It is important to note the
recommended alternative is to combine the discharges from each WTP. The recommended
implementation steps are as follows:
1. Collect composite samples from a regeneration cycle at the Freemason WTP. Measure permit
parameters plus any other parameters deemed necessary by DEQ for discharge to a larger water
body.
2. Perform a serial dilution toxicity test on a composite of the existing regeneration wastewater to
verify that dilution to approximately 10% is needed to address toxicity for freshwater. It is
recommended that serial dilution toxicity testing for saltwater species be performed. The
purposes of saltwater testing would be to evaluate discharge to the Albemarle Sound location
which is a Class SB water (saltwater).
3. Conduct a flow study and CORMIX mixing study at two potential discharge points to determine
that sufficient mixing and dilution are available based on the WTP volume and discharge
characteristics. The Chowan River and Albemarle Sound discharge points are approximately
equal distant from the WTPs and would be the first choice for the flow and CORMIX study. Once
the CORMIX study indicates that the receiving water body has sufficient mixing for the
discharge, proceed to Step 4. If the CORMIX results are not favorable, testing at an alternate
discharge location may be required.
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 34 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

4. Presently, each WTP has its own NPDES permit with separate discharge locations and discharge
must be monitored for both plants. Since the discharge flow rate has increased with the addition
of ion exchange units, the Town must reapply for new permits and provide the new discharge
flows and characteristics. In the preferred alternative, the discharge from the two plants would be
combined and the Town would either apply for a single NPDES permit (both plants would be
listed on the permit) or two separate permits with a common discharge point.
5. Design the new pump stations at each WTP and the new combined discharge line and diffuser
and submit to DEQ for approval. At each WTP, a pump station will need to be added to pump
the waste stream to the discharge line. The brine discharges at each plant will need to be isolated
from the other roof and floor drains at each WTP (which discharge to the storm sewer). Only the
discharge waste from the treatment units would be transmitted to the discharge point. After
approval of the design by DEQ, the project would be bid for construction.
6. After bidding and selection, construct the new pump station and combined discharge line and
water body diffuser.
The force main route from the WTPs to the discharge location will need to be approved by the Town for
either discharge location.
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation I
February 2018 35 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

5.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE
The following project schedule provides a time line if the Town proceeds at a future date with a discharge
to a larger water body as described in the preferred alternative above. This schedule is written in terms of
days from Day 0 which is the start of the Project.
Table 5.1 Preliminary
Project Schedule
Action
Item
Action
Duration
Start
Finish
1
Project Start
--
Day 0
--
2
Perform toxicity dilution testing and CORMIX flow
3 months
Day 1
Day 90
study and modeling for discharge points
3
Choose discharge location based on CORMIX study
1 month
Day 90
Day 120
results
Prepare application for new NPDES discharge
permit for new discharge location and submit to
4
DEQ. It is assumed the Discharge Alternative
1 month
Day 120
Day 150
Evaluation will serve as the Engineering
Alternatives Analysis typically required for a new
NPDES discharge permit
5
Prepare CAMA/401/404 permit for the new
2 months
Day 150
Day 210
discharge location (as necessary)
6
DEQ approve NPDES permit
12 months
Day 150
Day 515
7
Division of Coastal Management approve CAMA
9 months
Day 210
Day 450
permit
8
Submit Plans and Specifications for Project
6 months
Day 240 1
Day 420
(simultaneous with environmental reviews)
9
DEQ Final Plans and Specification Approval &
3 months
Day 420
Day 540
Authorization to Proceed
10
Advertising and Open Bids for Construction
1 month
Day 540
Day 570
11
Construction of Project
6 months
Day 570
Day 750
12
Project Closeout
1 month
Day 750
Day 780
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018
36
V
THE WOOTEN COMPANY

Appendix A NPDES PERMIT INFORMATION
Town of Edenton ��
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

DENR / DWR / NPDES
EXPEDITED FACT SHEET - NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES Permit NCO086291
Derek Denard. Comnliance & Exnedited Permitting Unit / 919-807-6307 25Aug2014
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name
Town of Edenton -Beaver Hill Water Treatment Plant (WTP)
Applicant Address
P.O. Box 300, Edenton, NC 27932
Facility Address
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, Edenton, NC 27932
Permitted Flow (MGD)
Not limited
Type of Waste
Water Plants and Water Conditioning Discharge — dechlorinated
filter -backwash — Ion Exchange water soft WTP System
Facility Class
PCNC
County
Chowan
Permit Status
Renewal
Regional
Office
WaRO
Stream Characteristics
ReceivingStream
UT "Filbert Creek°°
to Edenton Bay
Stream Classification
C; NSW
Stream Segment
[26-11
Drainage basin
Chowan
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
0.0
Subbasin
03-01-04
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
0.0
Use Support
ND
30Q2 (cfs)
0.0
303(d) Listed
NO
Average Flow (cfs)
0.0
State Grid
C32SE
IWC (%)
100%
USGS Topo Quad
Edenton, NC
Facility Summary
This facility is an ion exchange technology water treatment plant with discharge of wastewaters from media
filter backwash and sedimentation basins with a design potable flowrate of 0.725 MGD and a maximum,
monthly average wastewater discharge of 0.009 MGD based on data submitted. Because the waste flow is
<0.050 MGD, instantaneous monitoring is allowed. The facility consists of the following water and
wastewater treatment units:
• well water supply system
• aeration basin
■ retention basin
■ ion -exchange water -softener
• chemical usage consists of
o chlorine
o phosphate
o sodium chloride brine
Monthly avers e FLOW MGD — Last 36 months Ju12011-Jun2014:
[Ave 0.009 MGD; Maximum, Monthly reported flow = 0.009 MGD]
Tox'ci —With an IWC >0.25%, this permit requires Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing using
Ceriodaphnia dubia to be performed as a 7-day pass/fail test at 90% effluent concentration, during
January, April, July and October [TGP3B]. Ten (10) out of twelve (12) (with a pass rate of 16.7%)
toxicity tests were reported as "FAIL" within three years (July2011-Jun2014). A special condition [Section
Fact Sheel
Rene%NA 20l=! -- NNrinit NC0086291
I'aee I

A.(4.)] is added for discharge alternatives evaluation because of the four (4) toxicity failures within the
most recent four (4) quarters. See attached data spreadsheet.
Renewal Summaiy — This permit reflects discharge at Outfall 001 and renewal strategy for WTP, revised
in 2009. DWR updated the facility description and Map; added parameter codes to Section A. (L); added
Electronic Reporting - Discharge Monitoring Reports page [Section A. (3.)]; added monthly Turbidity
monitoring; removed flow limit, Total Iron and Total Lead; added 2/month sampling for effluent pH;
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) limit was updated from 28µg/L to 17µg/L as a result of discharge to Tidal
tributary with no modeling or 7Q 10; and added Discharge Alternative Evaluation [Section A. (4.)]
because of TOX test failure within most recent four (4) quarters.
Samplijig, — As with the previous permit, all sampling is grab since flow is less than 30,000 GPD in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0505(C).
Stream — Discharge from WTP for Outfall 001 is into an unnamed tributary "Filbert Creek" to Edenton
Bay [Stream Segment 26-1]. The segment [26-1] is not currently listed as impaired in the 2012 North
Carolina 303(d) List.
RPA — A Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) was conducted on Copper, Lead and Zinc effluent
parameters data because Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) reported concentration above method -
detection levels (MDLs) for the past four and a half (4'h) years (Jan2010-Jun2014), unless otherwise noted).
[See attached RPA summary sheets.]
■ Lead did not show reasonable potential to violate state WQS since the predicted maximum effluent
concentration was less than 50% of the allowable concentration monitoring will not be required.
• Iron did not show reasonable potential to violate state WQS since the predicted maximum effluent
concentration was less than 50% of the allowable concentration monitoring will not be required
using two (2) years of data (July2012-June2014).
Fact Sheet
Renewal 2014 -- NI'DEiS t4C0086291
Page

RMENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
Ms. Anne -Marie Knighton, Town Manager
Town of Edenton
P.O. Box 300
Edenton, NC 27932
Dear Ms. Knighton:
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
October 15, 2014
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NCO086291
Beaver Hill WTP
Chowan County
The Division of Water Resources (the Division) hereby issues the attached NPDES permit for the subject facility.
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.
The changes between this permit and the previous permit include the following:
Flow limit has been removed.
• Total Iron and Total Lead is no longer required
Added monthly turbidity monitoring.
• Effluent pH monitoring is twice per month.
Total Residual Chloride (TRC) limit is 17 µg/L. The Division shall consider TRC effluent 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 -certified test method (including field certified), even if these values
fall below 50 µg/L.
Updated discharge stream segment to an unnamed tributary "Filbert Creek" to Edenton Bay [26-1] , currently
a Class C; NSW waterbody with Subbasin 03-01-04 of the Chowan River Basin.
Whole Effluent Toxicity test results submitted during the past three years have demonstrated that the Water
Treatment Plant's effluent is showing potential for causing aquatic toxicity in the receiving stream. As a result, the
Town of Edenton shall perform a Discharge Alternatives Evaluation as described in Section A. (4.) of this permit.
This evaluation is being requested to determine whether there are any economical and technologically feasible
alternatives available to the Town to comply with all NC Water Quality Standards. The permittee will be given
approximately one permit cycle to evaluate and document possible treatment/discharge alternatives to eliminate
aquatic toxicity. The evaluation shall be submitted with the perinittee's next permit renewal application and will be
carefully reviewed by the Division and the results will be used in the development of a compliance schedule or
possible variance request for the Town.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Phone: [phone]Internet: www.ncwalerquality.org
An Equal opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper

Ms. Knighton
October 15, 2014
Page 2 of 2
Proposed federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and specify
that, if a state does not establish a system to receive such submittals, then permittees must submit DMRs
electronically to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Division anticipates that these regulations will
be adopted and is beginning implementation.
The requirement to begin reporting discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic
Discharge Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application has been added to your NPDES permit. [See Special
Condition A. (3.)] For information on eDMR, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please
visit the following web page:
http://poital.ncdenr.org/web/wq/admin/bog/ipu/edmr.
For information on EPA's proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, please visit the following web site:
http://www2. epa.gov/compliance/proposed-npdes-electronic-reporting-rule.
If any parts, measurement frequencies, or sampling requirements contained in this permit are.unacceptable, you
have the right to an adjudicatory hearing, upon written request submitted within thirty (30) days after receiving this
letter. Your request must take the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of North Carolina
General Statutes, and you must file it with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such a demand is made, this permit shall remain final and binding.
This permit is not transferable except after notifying the Division of Water Resources. The Division may require
permit modification, or revocation and re -issuance. Please note that this permit does not affect your legal
obligation to obtain other permits required by the Division of Water Resources, the Division of Energy, Mineral
and Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act, or other federal or local governments.
If you have questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact Derek Denard at
[[e-mail]] or call [phone].
espec ully,
Thomas A. Reeder
Enclosure: NPDES Permit NCO086291(Issuance Final)
hc: Central Files
NPDES Program Files
WaRO Files/ Attn: David May
ec: ESS/Aquatic Toxicology Unit, Susan Meadows [[e-mail]]

NPDES Permit NCO086291
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
(N DES)
In compliance with the provisions 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 Edenton
is hereby authorized to discharge treated wastewater from a facility known as
Beaver Hill Water Treatment Plant (WTP)
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, Edenton 27932
Chowan County
to receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary "Filbert Creek" to Edenton Bay, within the
,River Basin in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set
forth in Pails I, II, III and IV hereof.
The permit shall become effective November 1, 2014.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on November 30, 2017.
Signed this day October 15, 2014.
C
7� L
Tlf {nas A. Reeder, Director
ffivision of Water Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1 of 8

NPDES Permit NCO086291
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revolted, and as of this issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective.
Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit
conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions described herein.
Town of Edenton
is hereby authorized to:
1. continue to operate an ion exchange water treatment plant with discharge of wastewaters from media
filter backwash and sedimentation basins with a design potable flowrate of 0.725 MGD and a
maximum, monthly average wastewater discharge of 0.009 MGD, with water and wastewater
treatment consisting of,
■ well water supply system
• aeration basin
• retention basin
• ion -exchange water -softener
• chemical usage consists of
o chlorine
o phosphate
o sodium chloride brine
located at the Beaver Hill Water Treatment Plant (WTP), Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, Edenton,
Chowan County; and
2. discharge from said treatment works via Outfall 001 at a location specified on the attached map,
into an unnamed tributary "Filbert Creek" to Edenton Bay [Stream Segment 26-1], currently a
Class C; NSW waterbody within Subbasin 03-01-04 of the Chowan River Basin.
Page 2 of 8

NPDES Permit NCO086291
PART I
A. (L) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge filter backwash via Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited
and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below;
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTIC
[PARAMETER CODES]
LIMITS
1
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location 2
3
Flow GD
50050
2/Month
3
Instantaneous
E
Total Residual Chlorine 4
50060
1� 4
2/Month
Grab
E
pH (su)
00400
Not < 6.0 or > 9.0
standard units
2/1\4onth
Grab
E
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/L)
C0530
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
2/Month
Grab
E
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) (mg/L)
70295
Monthly
Grab
E
Turbidity (NTU)
00070
Monthly
Grab
E
Temperature (°C)
00010
Monthly
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
00300
Monthly
Grab
E
Salinity (ppt)
00480
Monthly
Grab
E
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
00094
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Copper (µg/L)
01042
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Chloride (mg/L)
00940
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Manganese (µg/L)
01055
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Zinc (µg/L)
01092
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Fluoride (mg/L)
00951
Monthly
Grab
E
Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3) (mg/L)
C0610
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
C0600
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
C0665
Monthly
Grab
E
Chronic WET Testing 5
TGP3B
Quarterly
Grab
E
pH (su)
00400
Monthly
Grab
U & D
Temperature (°C)
00010
Monthly
Grab
U & D
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
00300
Monthly
Grab
U & D
Salinity (ppt)
00480
Monthly
Grab
U & D
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
00094
Monthly
Grab
I U & D
Footnotes:
1. 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. (3.).
2. E = Effluent; I = Influent; U = upstream at least 50 feet from the outfall; D = downstream at least
100 feet fiom the outfall.
3. For instantaneous flow monitoring, the duration of the discharge must be reported in addition to the
total flow.
Page 3 of 8

NPDES Permit NCO086291
4. The Division shall consider TRC effluent 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 -certified test method (including field certified), even if these values fall below 50µg/L.
5. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing - testing of Ceriodaphnia dubia shall be performed as 7-day
pass/fail test at 90% effluent concentration, during January, April, July and October [See A. (2)].
Samples shall be taken at the outfall but prior to mixing with the receiving waters.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 4 of 8

NPDES Permit NCO086291
A. (2.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL MONITORING (QUARTERLY)
The permittee shall conduct quarterl chronic toxicity tests using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised December 2010, or subsequent
versions.
The effluent concentration defined as treatment two in the procedure document is 90%. The testing shall
be performed as a Ceriodaphnia dubia 7-day pass/fail test. The tests will be performed during the
months of January, April, July and October. These months signify the first month of each three
month toxicity testing quarter assigned to the facility. Effluent sampling for this testing must be
obtained during representative effluent discharge and shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final
effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code
TGP313. Additionally, DWR Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than 30
days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine
of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of
the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test
form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report
with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the
Water Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, then
monthly monitoring will begin immediately. Upon submission of a valid test, this monthly test
requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division
of Water Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls,
shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later
than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.
Page 5 of 8

NPDES Permit NCO086291
A. (3.) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS
Proposed federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs)
and specify that, if a state does not establish a system to receive such submittals, then permittees must
submit DMRs electronically to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Division anticipates
that these regulations will be adopted and is beginning implementation in late 2013.
NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within Part II of this
permit (Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits):
• Section B. (11.) Signatory Requirements
• Section D. (2.) Reporting
• Section D. (6.) Records Retention
• Section E. (5.) Monitoring Reports
1. Re ortin Su pei•sedes Section D. 2. and Section E. 5, a
Beginning no later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall begin
reporting discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge
Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application.
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month and
submitted electronically using eDMR. The eDMR system allows permitted facilities to enter
monitoring data and submit DMRs electronically using the internet. Until such time that the state's
eDMR application is compliant with EPA's Cross -Media Electronic Reporting Regulation
(CROMERR), permittees will be required to submit all discharge monitoring data to the state
electronically using eDMR and will be required to complete the eDMR submission by printing,
signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy of the computer printed eDMR to the
following address:
NC DENR / DWR / Information Processing Unit
ATTENTION: Central Files / eDMR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or due to the facility
being physically located in an area where less than 10 percent of the households have broadband
access, then a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements may be granted
and discharge monitoring data may be submitted on paper DMR forms (MR 1, 1. 1, 2, 3) or
alternative forms approved by the Director. Duplicate signed copies shall be submitted to the
mailing address above.
Requests for temporary waivers from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements must be
submitted in writing to the Division for written approval at least sixty (60) days prior to the date the
facility would be required under this permit to begin using eDMR. Temporary waivers shall be valid
for twelve (12) months and shall thereupon expire. At such time, DMRs shall be submitted
electronically to the Division unless the permittee re -applies for and is granted a new temporary
waiver by the Division.
Page 6 of 8

NPDES Permit NC0086291
Information on eDMR and application for a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting
requirements is found on the following web page:
http :Ilportal. ncdenn orglweblwgladminlbo gliMuledrru
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 Reauirenrents [Supplements Section B. (11.) (b) and supersedes_ Section B. (11.) (d)1
All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person described in Part H,
Section B. (I 1.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that person as described in Part II,
Section B. (I 1.)(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:!/Por,tal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/admin/boglipu/ed=
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system shall make
the following certification [40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION
WILL BE ACCEPTED:
'7 certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared tinder 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 penaltiesfor submitting false information, including the
possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations. "
3. Records Retention ISunplements Section D. (6.)l
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 8

NPDES Permit NCO086291
A. (4.) DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION:
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. 0Main a Non -discharge hermit: 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.
S. Use Alternative Water Treatment Nlethod: 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 waterbod IPerfarm 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.nodenr.org/web/wq/syT/ ss//n des/permits.
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 June 1, 2017) to:
NC DENR / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting
NPDES, Wastewater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Page 8 of 8

� 1 r � �• �a'• ; f • � �� �r xAA
`" "s-''������� • -' • .; r NC I-Iwy 32
' _ Radio
32
Outfa11001
US Hwy 17 � r ' � rr t � r I ' � (flows South) L
'� �•� � � `li ij. '' , C �-�_ � it � ��
Jim• �• • h�C. r � � I y •� •r fi
Approximate
Facility Boundary
- , 17
Bus U's5 Hwy 17
(W Queen St Exd) .� _ -.� •:
Boundary Between
Pembroke Creek & _
- Edenton Bay ..
Edenton Bay .. � ---_ :� �,� i I
- = oLlgltt
~ �+
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill Water Treatment Plant (WTP)
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, Edenton 27932
State Grld1USGS Ouad: C32SE / Edenton, NC Stream Segment: 26-1
Draivaze Rasin: Chowan River Basin Sub-13as111: 03-01-04
LatiNide: 36' 03' 59" Lonsdtude: 76' 36' 52"
,90TAIn Clnsa: Q NSW HUC: 03010205
Receivins= Stream: UT "Filbert Creek" to Edenton Bay
UT "Filbert Creek" to
Edenton Bay [flows south]
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Ave
(_W Albemarle St)
r 2j;
� n
NPDES Permit NCO086291
CountyChowan

Casev Garland
From: Weaver, John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 10:30 AM
To: Carl Scharfe
Cc: Miles Galloway; Jeanne Robbins; John C Weaver
Subject: Response from USGS concerning... Re: Stream flows for Edenton WTP discharges (Filbert
Creek)
Mr. Scharfe,
In response to your inquiry about the low -flow characteristics (7Q10) for two points of interest on an unnamed tributary to Edenton Bay at
Edenton in Chowan County, the following information is provided:
Visual inspection of topographical maps showing these two points of interest (identified by lat/long coordinates via your email dated July 17,
2017) indicate the stream locations to be tidally affected.
The USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center (Raleigh office) currently refrains from providing (or updating previously determined) low -
flow estimates for streams known or suspected of being tidally affected.
There are currently no techniques that allow for quantifying the effects of tides on low flows.
Concerns that tides may possibly reduce low -flow discharges (that is, relative to low -flow estimates for the same stream not tidally -affected)
lead us to speculate that any such estimates for these streams may be too high. Given the "back-n-forth" flow dynamics associated
with tidal effects, attempting to determine low -flow characteristics based on the assumption of uni-directional flow characteristics is not
meaningful.
You will need to contact the NCDEQ Division of Water Resources to obtain further guidance concerning any efforts to obtain an NPDES
permit for a location in a tidally -affected stream.
Again, I regret this response does not provide the flow statistics you were seeking, but hope this information provides some direction in your
efforts on this matter.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE Email. kweaverOusgs.gov
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center Online: IaIwww.usgs.uav/waterlsauthatlarrtFc_
North Carolina - South Carolina - Georgia
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Carl Scharfe <cscharfe@thewootencorn an.com> wrote:
Curtis: I am e-mailing to ask you if there are any 7Q10 and 30Q2 flow numbers for two WTP discharge
locations into Filbert Creek near Edenton, NC. The lat and long from the NPDES permit maps are
below. Attached are map figures from the existing permits.

Water Resources ~
Environmental Quality
July 26, 2017
Town of Edenton
Attn: Ms. Anne -Marie Knighton, Town Manager
P O Box 300
Edenton, NC 27932
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
DWR #2017-0815
CHOWAN County
Subject: On -Site Determinations for Applicability to Water Quality Standards (15A NCAC 02B .0211)
Subject Property/ Project Name: Town of Edenton — Filbert Creek
Address/Location: Approximately 0.22 NE Intersection of Twiddy Avenue and Dr. MLK, Jr. Avenue, Edenton
Stream(s) Evaluated: Ut to Edenton Bay
Determination Date: 07/24/17
Determination Type:
Buffer:
Staff: Anthony Scarbraugh
Stream:
❑ Neuse (15A NCAC 02B .0233) ® Intermittent/Perennial Determination
❑ Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 02B .0259)
❑ Catawba (15A NCAC 02B .0243)
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 02B .0267) (governmental
and/or interjurisdictional projects)
❑ Randleman (15A NCAC 02B .0250)
❑ Goose Creek (15A NCAC 02B .0605-.0608)
Stream
E/I/P
Not
Subject
Start@
Stop@
Soil
USGS
*
Subject
_
Survey
Topo
P
X
X
X
2017-0815
Flag 2017-0815 Begin
Flag 2017-0815
End
*E/I/P/NSP = Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial/No Stream Present
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) has determined that the streams listed above and included on the attached
map have been located on the most recent published NRCS Soil Survey of CHOWAN County, North Carolina and/or
the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale and evaluated for applicability to the Water
Quality Standards. Each stream that is checked "Not Subject" has been determined to not be at least intermittent
or not present on the property. Streams that are checked "Subject" have been located on the property and possess
characteristics that qualify them to beat least intermittent streams. There maybe other streams or features located
on the property that do not appear on the maps referenced above but may be considered jurisdictional according
to the US Army Corps of Engineers and subject to the Clean Water Act.
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected parties
that dispute a determination made by the DWR may request a determination by the Director. An appeal request
must be made within sixty (60) calendar days of date of this letter to the Director in writing.
If sending via US Postal Service: If sending via delivery service (UPS, fedEx, etc.):
---:7�Nothing Compares--,
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources -Water Quality Regional Operations Section -Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina27889
252-946.6481

c/o Karen Higgins
DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
PALUSTRINE GROUP, LLC
EDGECOMBE County
06/16/2017
Page 2 of 2
clo Karen Higgins
DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
This determination is final and binding as detailed above, unless an appeal is requested within sixty (60) days.
The project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries regarding applicability to
the Clean Water Act should be directed to the US Army Corps of Engineers Washington Regulatory Field Office at
[phone].
If you have questions regarding this determination, please feel free to contact Anthony Scarbraugh at (252) 948-
3924.
Sincerely,
Robert Tankard, Assistant Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
cc: Carl Scharfe, The Wooten Company (via email: [e-mail])
WaRO DWR File Copy
LASERFICHE
Filename: 170815 Town of Edenton -Filbert Creek StreamDet,docx

15

� ' •ids_ -�� . _
J ; •.s` ! �'. T ri : die �''�•+. r
qr
.00
it
_: n x! - �. �, r.. ` �a {� ��"*;�•• ar. in-:. ..
bt
F ,,.
+r:. r
vi�•: �, ': it , � ' J � : _ i i.. r - .. .
, 4,i
�. " +
IIIDx
�'.t�.». •�j' •* � i � _ /ter; yt. • ' .'�i'�'.� • ni''.
i -�

Casey Garland
From: Weaver, John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 11:02 AM
To: Casey Garland
Cc: Carl Scharfe; Jeanne Robbins; John C Weaver
Subject: Fwd: USGS response concerning... Re: USGS gauging station and 7Q10 flows for two
river locations near Edenton NC
Casey,
Per email correspondence a few minutes ago. 1
Forwarded is the email response dated June 26, 2017, that I sent to Carl Scharfe (The Wooten Company) in
response to his low -flow request for the Chowan River and Pembroke Creek.
Although Carl did not mention Edenton Bay in his request, the same means of response would apply there as
well.
You will need to contact the NCDEQ Division of Water Resources to obtain further guidance concerning any efforts to obtain an NPDES
permit for a location in a tidally -affected stream.
Again, I regret this response does not provide the flow statistics you were seeking, but hope this information is helpful in some manner or at
least provides some direction to you in your efforts on this matter.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE Email: kweaver®usas.aov
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center Online: h w us s. ov ce s -w er
North Carolina - South Carolina - Georgia
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Weaver, John <jcweaver@usgs. >
Date: Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:54 AM
Subject: USGS response concerning... Re: USGS gauging station and 7Q10 flows for two river locations near
Edenton NC
To: Carl Scharfe <[e-mail]>
Cc: Liz Lorscheider<[e-mail]>, Jeanne Robbins <[e-mail]>, John C
Weaver <jcweaver@us s. ov>
Mr. Scharfe,

In response to your inquiry about the low -flow characteristics (7Q10) for a location on the Chowan River and Pembroke Creek in the vicinity
of Edenton in Chowan County, the following information is provided:
The Chowan River and Pembroke Creek at the points of interest (identified by lat/long coordinates via your email dated June 22, 2017) are
known or considered to be tidally affected.
The USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center (Raleigh office) currently refrains from providing (or updating previously determined) low -
flow estimates for streams known or suspected of being tidally affected.
There are currently no techniques that allow for quantifying the effects of tides on low flows.
Concerns that tides may possibly reduce low -flow discharges (that is, relative to low -flow estimates for the same stream not tidally -affected)
lead us to speculate that any such estimates for these streams may be too high. Given the "back-n-forth" flow dynamics associated
with tidal effects, attempting to determine low -flow characteristics based on the assumption of uni-directional flow characteristics is not
meaningful.
You will need to contact the NCDEQ Division of Water Resources to obtain further guidance concerning any efforts to obtain an NPDES
permit for a location in a tidally -affected stream.
I regret this response does not provide the flow statistics you were seeking, but hope this information is helpful in some manner or at least
provides some direction to you in your efforts on this matter.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE Email: kweaverOusas.aov
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center Online: h www.us v w er ha /antic
North Carolina - South Carolina - Georgia
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Carl Scharfe <cscharfe@thewootencom an .com> wrote:
Curtis: I am e-mailing to ask you if there is any 7q 10 flow numbers for the lower Chowan River and Pembroke
Creek near Edenton, NC. The approximate lat and long from Google earth for the two locations are below. I
am trying to see if there is any 7g10 data at all or is it labeled as tidal in both locations by USGS? I attached a
google earth file if you have Googe earth available on your computer.
Chowan River: 36 03'98.52" N 76 41' 01.9" W
Pembroke Creek: 36 03'34.48" N 76 37' 30.51" W
I see Figure 2 of the attached Rural flooding paper by you shows some stream gauges on the upper
Chowan. However, the 2015 presentation shows many discontinued gauges on Page 20. It does not appear
there are gauges in the locations I am interested in.

Regards,
Carl Scharfe
Project Manager/Process Engineer
The Wooten Company
120 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603 EM
p.919.828.0531
f.919.834.3589
www.thewootencom an .corn
TV
THE WOOTEN COMPANY

Appendix B WELL INFORMATION FOR BEAVER HILL WTP
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018
THE WOOTEN COMPANY

Beaver Hill and Boswell Well Information
Edenton is supplied by four deep wells into the Castle Hayne. A detailed hydrogeologic investigation of
the aquifer system in the vicinity of Edenton was conducted in October 2006 (GMA, 2006). The purpose
of this study was to identify potential areas to place a new well or wells to replace wells that were
experiencing saltwater intrusion (primarily the Freemason Well). The information below on the
Freemason and Virginia supply wells is provided on each well is based primarily on this report.
The Beaver Hill well (Well# 3) was drilled in 1971. It is screened in the Castle Hayne aquifer. New pump
installation, pump maintenance, and well rehabilitation were performed in 2005. The well was filled
with sediment to 255 feet in 2005. The well was cleared to full depth and was treated by air bursting as
part of the 2005 work. Repair work was performed on the vertical turbine pump in November 2005.
Based on 2006 drawdown testing, this well has a yield of approximately 533 gpm. In 2009 the well was
air bursted again. A new 25HP submersible well pump was installed in April 2012 (pumping capacity —
500 gom). Water from this well is pumped to the Beaver Hill plant for treatment. The Beaver Hill well is
typically run from 7 pm to 7 am.
The Boswell Street well (Well# 4) was drilled in 1993. It is screened in the Castle Hayne aquifer. The
original well yield was reported as 500 gpm. In 2001, jetting work was performed due to production of
excessive fine sand. During jetting, the lower screen collapsed. Pearson had to seal the lower half of well
with cement to about 245 feet depth to stabilize lower screen and prevent further collapse of screen at
that time. Pump testing in 2001 indicated a well yield of approximately 396 gpm. The current well pump
is a 30 HP submersible pump (-400 gpm @ 235 feet of head) that was installed in June 2009. Water
from this well is pumped to the Beaver Hill plant for treatment. The Boswell Well is typically run from 7
am to 7 pm. The operator indicated that this well can experience power outages during lightning storms
and that is why this well is run during daylight hours (fewer storms in the daytime).
A summary of current well capacities from the 2006 study versus the capacity currently in the Local
Water Supply Plan (LWSP) is listed below:
Well
Well
Pumping
Est. Pump
2013
12-hour
Groundwate pump
Installation
Water
Capacity
Well Yield
LWSP
capacity
r Well Year Age, yrs
Level, (ft)
(gpm)
(gpm)
(gpm)(1)
(MGD)(ZI
/HP
bgs
---_ rs/
Freemason 1973 2.5 y
-170
� —400
425
431
0.306
25 HP
460
438
0.324
Virginia Road
1936 (1991
7 yrs/
63
—400
repairs)
20 HP
�
Beaver Hill
1971
2.5 yrs/
103
—500
533
480
0.345
25 HP
I_
_
1993
>75
—400
396 400
Boswell
5 yrs/
0.288
Street
30 HP
(1) Determined by US Rural Development
(2) Based on the lower of the well yield or the 2013 LWSP column well gpm capacities.
Groundwater Management Associates (GMA) prepared a report titled Hydrogeological Evaluation of the
Town of Edenton Well Field in the Castle Hayne Aquifer —Dated Oct 12 ,2006 which is an in-depth
evaluation of the hydrological setting of the ground water resources available at Edenton. It concluded

that the Town is located in close proximity to the fresh water /salt water interface within the Castle
Hayne aquifer. This results in upcoming of salt water into the fresh water portion of the aquifer when
the wells are pumped hard. As result the report recommends limiting run time on all wells to no greater
than 12 hours a day and reducing the pumping rate of the Freemason and Virginia Wells to 250 to 350
gpm. They conclude that "Based upon the regional hydrogeological setting, GMA concludes that the
Castle Hayne Aquifer is the only significant viable source of fresh water for Edenton public water system,
Sustaining a freshwater supply from the Castle Hayne Aquifer will require continued diligent
management of existing wells and development of new sites in the area that are less vulnerable to
saltwater intrusion."

Appendix C BEAVER HILL DISCHARGE DATA
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation r
February 2018 THEWOOTEN COMPANY

Division of Water Resources
January 21, 2016
rWnirnvM
To: David May
Water Quality Program Inc al Supervisor, WaRO
Through: Cindy A. Moore
Supervisor, Aquatic Toxicology Branch
.I
From: Carol Hollenkamp C�\
Quality Assurance Officer, Aquatic Toxicology Branch
Subject: Whole effluent toxicity test results
Beaver Hill WTP
NPDES Permit # NC0086291/001
Chowan County
ATB conducted three Ceriodaphnia dubia toxicity tests using samples collected at Beaver Hill WTP in
November 2015. 2 sets of multiple concentrations tests were conducted using composited effluent samples,
and 1 pass/fail test was conducted using the raw source water at the Beaver Hill WTP.
Toxicity tests for Beaver Hill WTP effluent have frequently failed due to either mortality or low reproduction
for test organisms in 90% effluent. Beaver Hill WTP has a 90% toxicity testing limit because it discharges
into a small stream without much streamflow. Ceriodaphnia dubia toxicity test failures are typical of many
ion exchange and/or reverse osmosis water treatment plants that discharge into small freshwater streams. The
purpose of the multiple concentration tests was to determine the effluent percentage that did not exhibit
toxicity to the Ceriodaphnia dubia. The purpose of the raw water test was to determine if the raw water
used at Beaver Hill showed toxicity before it was used in the water treatment backwash/flushing process.
Additionally, chemical analyses was performed on the effluent samples.
Beaver Hill WTP has an effluent discharge entering Filbert Creek (7Q 10 NA). Whole effluent samples were
collected on 11/3/15 and 1115115 by facility representative Roy Alon and transferred to Robbie Bullock for
use in a chronic Ceriodaphnia dubia multiple concentration toxicity test. The test using these samples
resulted in a fail. The test was terminated on Day 2 because all Ceriodaphnia dubia in all test concentrations
were dead. The controls were all alive and reproducing normally. Toxicity test information follows. 3'd brood
reproduction data is not included because the test was not carried out to 7 days.
Test Type
Test Concentrations
Test Result
Control Survival
Test Treatment Survival
First Sample pH
First Sample Conductivity
First Sample Total Residual Chlorine
Second Sample pH
Second Sample Conductivity
Second Sample Total Residual Chlorine
3-Brood Ceriodaphnia dubia chronic full range
50, 60, 70, 80, 90%
Fail
100%
0%
7.82 SU
18.61 millimhos/cm
<0.10 mg/L.
8.22 SU
1375 micromhos/cm
<0.10 mg/L
Test results for the above samples indicate that the effluent may be predicted to have water quality impacts
on receiving water. The first effluent sample had an extremely high conductivity at 18.61 millimhos/cm
Aquatic Toxicology Branch Water Sciences Section

which is unusual for this facility. The conductivity for this facility normally ranges between 1000-1500
micromhos/cm. The high conductivity/total dissolved solids is likely the reason for the 100% mortality in
all test concentrations by Day 2. As a follow-up to the unexpected mortality in all test concentrations,
another chronic Ceriodaphnia dubia test using samples collected on 11/3/15 and 1115115 was set up on
11/11/15 at the following concentrations: 10, 20, 30, 40% effluent. The results from this test indicate that
the test may pass at 10% effluent with these samples.
The results of these tests should be interpreted cautiously due to the unusually high conductivity for the first
sample. Because the conductivity was an order of magnitude higher than normal, these results may not be
representative for this facility. The composite sample is collected by combining multiple grab samples
taken at timed intervals over the course of effluent discharge. ATB had requested that 4 L of effluent be
collected rather than the usual i L of effluent so that chemical analyses could be performed as well as the
toxicity testing. One possibility for the extremely high conductivity may be that a higher proportion of
saline sample made up the composite in order to accommodate the 4 L request.
The Beaver Hill raw source water was also evaluated for toxicity at 90% effluent. Raw water grab samples
were collected on 11/3/15 and 1115115 by Robbie Bullock for use in a chronic Ceriodaphnia dubia pass -fail
toxicity test. This test resulted in a fail due to reduced reproduction. There was no mortality. This
indicates that the Beaver Hill sourcewater has the potential to be toxic before the backwash/flushing
process. The effluent test indicates that the backwash/flushing treatment process increases the toxicity.
Test Type
Test Concentration
Test Result
Control Survival
Control Mean Reproduction
Test Treatment Survival
Control Mean Reproduction
First Sample pH
First Sample Conductivity
First Sample Total Residual Chlorine
Second Sample pH
Second Sample Conductivity
Second Sample Total Residual Chlorine
3-Brood Ceriodaphnia dubia chronic pass fail
90% Raw Source Water
Fail
100%
29.8
100%
16.9
8.04 SU
1711 micromhos/cm
<0.10 mg/L
8.16 SU
1183 micromhos/cm
<0.10 mg/L
The final chemistry report for the effluent samples from the DWR chemistry lab was released on 1/8/16.
These results are attached. ATB will review these results and compare them with previous studies
regarding toxicity due to ion imbalance. A summary of this review will follow. The chemistry results show
large differences in alkalinity and hardness levels, and the first sample had high concentrations of chloride,
sodium, strontium, and zinc. Each of these factors could cause toxicity to the Ceriodaphnia dubia.
Due to the large disparity in the 2 effluent samples, ATB recommends conducting additional toxicity testing
and chemical analyses. If you wish to schedule additional testing, please call 919-743-8401 or email
carol.hol lenkaMP,,nedenn god
Basin: CH004
cc: Central Files
Robbie Bullock, WaRO
Aquatic Toxicology Branch Water Sciences Section

w1•>
AC24041
NC D"1, WaterSciences Section -Chemistry Laboratory &Surts
County: CHOWAN
Sample ID:
AC24041
River Basin
PO Number #
16VV7033
Report To WSs
DWR
Date Received:
11106/2015
Time Received:
13:16
Collector: C F{OLI..ENi{AIAP
Labworks LoginlD
TASCENZ01
Region: WSs
DWlslon of Witter Resources
Final Report Date:
118116
Sample Matrix: WAS R
iB piss
Report Print Date:
01/0812016
Loc. Type: Effluentiiia�
Emergency Yes/No
VisitlD
COC Yes/No
Loc. Descr.: Beaver Hill WTP
Location ID: 8629101 fi L.L-:
Collect Date: 11/06/2015
Collect Time: 10:55
Sample Depth
!f this report is labeled preliminary report, the resu/ts have not been validated. Do not use for Regulatory purposes.
Result/ Method Analysis Validated by
CAS # Anal a Name FQL Qualifier Units Reference Date
LAB
Sample temperature at receipt by lab
3.9 °C
1116/15 MSWIFT
Alkalinity to pH 4.5 of liquid
_TITLE_
mg/L as CaCO APHA2320B-20th
11/10/1;
ESTAFFORDI
Alkalinity4.5
1.0
380
mg/L as CaCO APHA2320B-20th
11/10/1;
ESTAFFORD1
Alkalinity8.3
1.0
1 U
mg/L as CaCO APHA2320B-20th
1111011E
ESTAFFORDI
Bicarbonate
1.0
380
mg/L as CaCO APHA2320B-201h
1111011E
ESTAFFORDI
Carbonate
1.0
1 U
mg/L as CaCO APHA2320B-26th
1111011E
ESTAFFORDI
pH -Alkalinity
7.7
mg/L as CaCO APHA2320B-20th
11/10/1E
ESTAFFORDI
WET
Ion Chromatography
_TITLE
mg/L EPA 300.0 revIll
11/18/1E
CGREEN
Fluoride
0.4
2.0 U,P
mg/L EPA 300.0 rev2.1
1111811E
CGREEN
Chloride
1.0
5800
mg/L EPA 300.0rev2.1
11118/1E
CGREEN
Bromide
0.4
20 U,P
mg/L EPA 300.0 rev2.1
1111811E
CGREEN
Sulfate
2.0
100
mg/L EPA 300.0 rev2.1
11/18/1,
CGREEN
Total Dissolved Solids in liquid
12
9020 J3
mg/L SM 2540 C-1997
11113/1;
CGREEN
MET
7440-22-4
Ag by furnace
5.0
1.0 U
ug/L EPA 200.9
1219115
ESTAFFORDI
7429.90.5
Al by ICP
50
62
uglL EPA200.7
1111911E
ESTAFFORDI
Antimony by ICPMS
v 10 T -"
50 P
ug/L EPA200.8
11)19/1E
ESTAFFORD1
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
As by furnace
2.0
2.0 U
ug/L EPA200.9
12/9115
ESTAFFORD1
7440-38-3
Ba by ICP
10
86
ug/L EPA200.7
11/24/1E
ESTAFFORD1
7440-41-7
Be by ICP
5.0
5.0 U
ug/L EPA200.7
11119/1'.
ESTAFFORDI
7440-70-2
Ca by ICP
0.10
920
mg1L EPA200.7
11)2411E
ESTAFFORDI
7440-43-9
Cd by furnace
0.50
2.5 P
ug/L EPA200.9
12/9/15
ESTAFFORD1
7440-48-4
Cobalt by ICP
50
50 U
ug/L EPA200.7
11/19/11
ESTAFFORDI
7440-07-3
Cr by ICPMS
5.0
25 P
ug/L EPA200.8
1111811!
ESTAFFOR01
7440-50-8
Cu by furnace
2.0
2.0 U
ug/L EPA200.9
12/9115
ESTAFFORD1
7439-89-6
Fe by ICP
50
91
ug/L EPA200.7
11)19/1E
ESTAFFORD1
7439-97-6
Hg 245.1
0.2
0.20 U
ug/L EPA245.1
11/19/1!
ESTAFFORDI
7440-09-7
K by ICP
0.10
130
mg/L EPA200.7
11124/19
ESTAFFORD1
WSS Chemistry Laboratory>> 1623 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1623 [phone]
Fora detailed demiDfion of the nuelifieroodes refer to <httD://Dortal.ncdenr.ore/web/wo/ons/methods-and-nals>
Page 1 of 2

NC VWR, La6oratory Section R,esuCts
Location ID: 8629101 Sample ID: AC24041 Collect Date: 11106/2015 Collect Time:: 10:55
ME7
CAS #
7439-93-2
Analvte Name
Li ICP
PQL
25
Result/
Qualifier
140
Units
ug/L
Method
Reference
EPA200.7
AnaiY&-is
Date
11/19/1E
Validated _t�f
ESTAFFORDI
7439-95-4
Mg by ICP
0.10
410
mg/L
EPA200.7
11/24/1t
ESTAFFORDI
7439-96-5
Mn by ICP
10
30
ug/L
EPA200.7
1111911!
ESTAFFORDI
7439-98-7
Mo by ICPMS
10
50 P
ug/L
EPA200.8
11/1911.1
ESTAFFORD1
7440-23-5
Na by ICP
0.10
2900
mg1L
EPA200.7
11124/1!
ESTAFFORDI
7440-02-0
Ni by ICPMS
2.0
23`
ug/L
1 PA200.8
11/18/1;
ESTAFFORD1
7439-92-1
Pb by furnace
2.0
2.7
ug/L
EPA 200.9
12/9/15
ESTAFFORDI
7782-49-2
Se by furnace
1.0
7.9
ug1L
EPA200.9
1219/15
ESTAFFORDI
7440-31-5
Sri by ICPMS
10
50 P
ug/L
EPAX200.8
11/19/1F
ESTAFFORD1
7440-24-6
Sr by ICPMS
'10
1fi006
ug/L
EPA200.8
11/19/1t
ESTAFFORDI
7440-28-0
Thallium (TI) ICPMS
2.0
5.0 P
uglL
EPA200.8
11/19/1'
ESTAFFORDI
7440-32-6
Ti (Titanium) by ICP
10
50 P
ug/L
EPA200.7
11/19/1°
ESTAFFORDI
7440-62-2
V by ICP
10
IOU
ug/L
EPA200.7
11119111!
ESTAFFORDI
7440-66-6
Zn by ICP
10
36
ug/L
EPA200.7
11/19/1f
ESTAFFORDI
Sample Comments
WET: F, Br-P-adjusted PQL; used sample dilutions due to matrix interference.
WET:TDS-J3-estimated-Sample matrix interfered ability to achieve constant weight
WSS Chemistry Laboratory>> 1623 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1623 [phone]
For a detailed description of the auelifier codes refer toChttD://DOrtal.ncdenr.org/web/wu/ODs/methods-and-Dals>
Page 2 of 2

AC24042 NC (7" Water Sciences Section -Chemistry Laboratory &su(ts
County: CHOWAN
Sample ID:
AC24042
River Basin
PO Number #
i5W7034
Report To WSS
DWR.Labworks
Date Received:
1110612015
Time Received:
13:16
Collector: C HOLLENICAMP
LoglnlD
TASCENZO1
Region: WSS
Dhrtslon of Water Resources
Final Report Date:
118116
Sample Matrix: WASTEWATER
Final Report
Report Print Date:
01/08/2016
Loc. Type: Effluent
..��
Emergency Yes/No
VisltlD
COC Yes/No
Loc. Descr.: BEAVER HILL WTP
Location ID: 8629102 (,0 A,
A
I Collect Date: 11/0612016
Collect Time: 11:00
Sample Depth
I /f this report is labeled preliminary report, the results have not been validated. Do not use for Regulatory purposes.
CAS # Anal& Name PQL Result! Units Method Analysl_s Validated by,
Qualifier Reference Date
LAB
Sample temperature at receipt by lab 3.9 °c 11/6/15 MSWIFT
MIC
7440-66-6 Alkalinity to pH 4.5 of liquid
_TITLE
mg/L as CaCO APHA2320B-20th
11/10/1E
ESTAFFORDI
Alkalinity4.5
1.0
390
mg/L as CaC0 APHA2320B-20th
11/10/1E
ESTAFFORDI
Aikalinity8.3
1.0
1 U
mg/L as CaCO APHA2320B-215th
11/10/1'.
ESTAFFORDI
Bicarbonate
1.0
390
mg/L as CaCO APHA2320B-20111
11/10/1E
ESTAFFORD1
Carbonate
1.0
1 U
mg/L as CaCO APHA2320B-20th
11/10/1E
ESTAFFORDI
pH -Alkalinity
8.3
mg/L as CaEC APHA2320B-20th
11110/1E
ESTAFFORD1
WET
Ion Chromatography
_TITLE_
mg/L
EPA300.0 rev2.1
11/18/1E
CGREEN
Fluoride
0.4
0.79
mgA-
EPA 300.0 rev2.1
11/18/11,
CGREEN
Chloride
1.0
160
mg/L
EPA300.0rev2.1
11/18/1E
CGREEN
Bromide
0.4
0.59
mg/L
EPA300.0 rev2.1
11/18/1E
CGREEN
Sulfate
2.0
46
mg/L
EPA 300.0 rev2.1
1111811E
CGREEN
Total Dissolved Solids in liquid
12
688
mg/L
SM 2540 C-1997
11113/1E
CGREEN
MET
7440-22-4
Ag by ICPMS
1.0
1.0 U
ug/L
EPA200.8
12l1/15
ESTAFFORD1
7429-90-5
Al by ICP
50
50 U
ug/L
EPA200.7
11/19/11
ESTAFFORD1
7440-36-0
Antimony by ICPMS
10
IOU
ugfL
EPA200.8
11/19/11
ESTAFFORDI
7440-38-2
As by ICPMS
2.0
2.0 U
ug/L
EPA 200.E
12/1/15
ESTAFFORDI
7440-35-3
Ba by ICP
10
IOU
ug/L
EPA200.7
11124/1!
ESTAFFORDI
7440-41-7
Be by ICP
5.0
5.0 U
ug/L
EPA200.7
11/19/1E
ESTAFFORD1
7440-70-2
Ca by ICP
0A0
1.4
mg/L
EPA200.7
1112411E
ESTAFFORD1
7440-43-9
Cd by ICPMS
0.50
0.60 U
ug/L
EPA200.8
12/1/15
ESTAFFORDI
7440-48-4
Cobalt by ICP
50
50 U
ug/L
EPA 200.7
11/1911!
ESTAFFORDI
7440-47-3
Cr by ICPMS
5.0
5,0 U
ug/L
EPA200.B
1111811E
ESTAFFORDI
7440-50-8
Cubyfurnace
2.0
6.2
ug&
EPA200.9
1219/15
ESTAFFORD1
7439-89-6
Fe by ICP
50
200
ug/L
EPA200.7
11119/1E
ESTAFFORDI
7439-97-6
Hg 245.1
0.2
0.20 U
ug/L
EPA245.1
11/19/1E
ESTAFFORD1
7440-09-7
KbyICP
0.10
5.8
mg/L
EPA200.7
1112411E
ESTAFFORD1
WSS Chemistry Laboratory» 1623 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1623 [phone]
Fore detailed description of the qualifier codes refer to <htt0://Dortal.ncdenr.org/web/Wo/ons/methods-and-nals>
Page 1 of 2

NC (1)`AR, Laboratory Section rq'esults
Location ID: 8629102 Sample ID: AC24042 Collect Date: 1110612016 Collect Time:: 11:00
E
CAS #
7439-93-2
Analvte Name
Li ICP
P(1L
25
Result/
Qualifier
25 U
Units
ug/L
Method
Reference
EPA200.7
Analysis
Date
11/19/11
Validated by
ESTAFFORD1
7439-95-4
Mg by ICP
0.10
0.51
mg/L
EPA200.7
11/24/1,'
ESTAFFORDI
7439-96-5
Mn by ICP
10
IOU
u911-
EPA200.7
11/19/1F
ESTAFFORD1
7439-98-7
Mo by ICPMS
10
IOU
ug/L
EPA2O0.8
11/19/1.1
ESTAFFORD1
7440-23-5
Na by ICP
0.10
320
mg1L
EPA2O0.7
1V24/1F
ESTAFFORD1
7440-02-0
Ni by ICPMS
2.0
2.0 U,
ug/L
EPA200.8
11/1811!
ESTAFFORD1
7439-92-1
Pb by ICPMS
2.0
2.0 U
ug1L
EPA200.8
11/18/1f
ESTAFFORDI
7782-49-2
Se by ICPMS
1.0
1.0 U
ugJL
EPA200.8
11/18/11
ESTAFFORDI
7440-31-5
Sri by ICPMS
10
IOU
ug/L
EPA2O0.8
11/19/11
ESTAFFORD1
7440-24-6
Gr by ICPMS
10
12
ug/L
EPA200.8
11/19/1f
ESTAFFORDi
7440-28-0
Thallium (TI) ICPMS
2.0
2.0 U
ug/L
EPA200.8
11119/1f
ES7AFFORD1
7440-32-6
Ti (Titanium) by ICP
10
IOU
ug/L
EPA200.7
11/19111
ESTAFFORD1
7440-62-2
V by ICP
10
IOU
ug/L
EPA200.7
11/19/11
ESTAFFORD1
7440-66-6
Zn by ICP
10
IOU
ug/L
EPA200.7
11/19/1!
ESTAFFORDI
WSS Chemistry Laboratory>> 1623 Mall Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1623 [phone]
For a detailed description of the qualifier codes refer to <httD://-oortal.nedenr.ora/web/wo/ons/methods-and-nals>
Page 2 of 2

Town of Edenton : 2478-FU
NPDES Permit Data
Beaver Hill WTP
Year Month
Day
Flow
TSR
Total Chloride
Salinity
Conductivity
TDS
Whole Eff. Tox.
Pass/Fail
2012 January
12
0.009
<
2.7
116
0.67
1340
725
80.60%
Fail
17
0.009
<
2.7
25
0.009
February
3
0.009
7
0.009
<
2.7
119
0.75
1490
785
22
0.009
<
2.6
March
6
0.009
<
2.6
123
0.64
1280
780
7
0.009
20
0.009
<
2.6
21
0.009
April
3
0.009
<
2.8
84
0.5
1020
57
87.70%
Fail
4
0.009
17
0.009
24
0.009
<
2.6
May
1
0.009
<
2.7
149
0.73
1450
609
2
0.009
15
0.009
<
2.7
June
5
0.009
<
2.5
127
0.61
1310
851
13
0.009
21
0.009
27
0.009
July
6
0.009
10
0.009
22.64%
Fail
17
0.009
<
2.8
126
0.64
1250
756
24
0.009
<
2.7
August
7
0.009
<
2.7
129
0.64
1290
731
15
0.009
28
0.009
<
2.6
29
0.009
Septembe
4
0.009
<
2.7
146
0.69
1390
829
5
0.009
25
0.009
<
2.7
26
0.009
October
2
0.009
<
2.5
118
0.62
1250
731
14.94%
Fail
5
0.009
25
0.009
30
0.009
<
2.7
December
5
0.009
11
0.009
<
2.7
123
0.65
1300
768
18
0.009
<
3.8
19
0.009

2013 January
9
0.009
<
2.8
200
0.65
1310
768
83.72%
30
0.009
<
2.7
February
12
0.009
<
2.8
141
0.65
1300
805
13
0.009
27
0.009
<
2.7
March
5
0.009
<
2.8
140
0.67
1340
734
6
0.009
20
0.009
<
2.6
April
2
0.009
<
2.7
142
0.67
1340
760
92.73%
3
0.009
23
0.009
<
2.8
24
0.009
May
7
0.009
<
2.8
142
0.61
1230
743
8
0.009
22
0.009
<
2.8
June
4
0.009
<
2.8
158
1.41
2730
800
5
0.009
19
0.009
<
2.8
July
9
0.009
<
2.8
133
0.63
1260
742
42.59%
10
0.009
24
0.009
<
2.6
25
0.009
August
13
0.009
<
2.7
157
0.72
1440
844
14
0.009
28
0.009
<
2.8
29
0.009
Septembei
3
0.009
<
2.6
155
0.7
1400
823
11
0.009
25
0.009
<
2.6
October
1
0.009
<
2.6
163
0.84
1670
858
97.51 %
2
0.009
23
0.009
<
2.6
30
0.009
November
5
0.009
<
2.6
147
0.77
1540
844
13
0.009
20
0.009
<
2.7
27
0.009
December
3
0.009
<
2.6
155
0.86
1700
866
4
0.009
18
0.009
<
2.6
2014 January
7
0.009
<
2.6
143
0.76
1510
826
78.78%
8
0.009
31
0.009
<
2.7
February
4
0.009
<
2.6
154
0.85
1680
5
0.009
March
12
0.009
<
2.6
147
0.85
1680
797
26
0.009
<
2.6
April
10
0.009
<
2.7
149
0.77
1540
822
97.50%
16
0.009
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail

21
0.009
28
0.009
<
2.6
May
6
0.009
<
2.7
144
0.77
1540
797
7
0.009
28
0.009
<
2.6
June
3
0.009
<
2.6
138
0.7
1450
791
4
0.009
18
0.009
<
2.6
July
7
0.009
<
2.6
141
0.83
1640
818
99.44%
Fail
9
0.009
23
0.009
<
2.6
August
5
0.009
<
2.6
151
0.71
1410
831
13
0.009
27
0.009
<
2.6
Septembei
2
0.009
<
2.6
0.76
3
0.009
24
0.009
<
2.6
November
4
0.009
<
2.6
144
0.74
1480
741
5
0.009
19
0.009
<
2.8
December
2
0.009
<
2.6
142
0.68
1360
800
10
0.009
17
0.009
<
2.6
2015 January
6
0.009
<
2.6
147
0.92
1810
821
34.91 %
Fail
7
0.009
21
0.009
<
2.6
February
2
0.009
<
2.7
138
0.65
1300
766
11
0.009
25
0.009
<
2.6
March
3
0.009
<
2.7
141
0.75
1500
779
71.89%
Fail
11
0.009
25
0.009
<
2.7
April
7
0.009
<
2.6
163
0.72
14301
846
95.91 %
Fail
15
0.009
29
0.009
<
2.6
June
8
0.009
<
2.6
164
0.77
1540
837
10
0.009
17
0.009
<
2.6
July
7
0.009
<
2.6
147
0.76
1510
812
18.92%
Pass
8
0.009
29
0.009
<
2.6
August
5
0.009
<
2.6
103
0.59
1180
632
12
0.009
26
0.009
<
2.5
Septembei
1
0.009
<
2.6
148
0.77
1540
829
16
0.009
<
2.6
30
0.009
October
7
0.009
<
2.6
158
0.74
1470
771
14
0.009

28
0.009
<
2.6
November
4
0.009
<
2.6
166
0.62
1250
807
2.41%
12
0.009
18
0.009
<
2.6
30
0.009
December
2
0.009
<
2.6
155
0.68
1370
804
9
0.009
16
0.009
<
2.6
2016 January
12
0.009
<
2.6
148
0.86
1700
730
3.59%
14
0.009
20
0.009
27
0.009
<
2.6
February
3
0.009
<
2.8
147
0.83
1650
820
10
0.009
24
0.009
<
2.6
March
3
0.009
<
2.6
151
0.8
1590
858
9
0.009
23
0.009
<
2.6
April
6
0.009
<
2.5
150
0.75
1490
822
97.60%
13
0.009
27
0.009
<
2.5
May
4
0.009
<
2.6
145
0.58
1170
807
12
0.009
<
2.6
June
8
0.009
<
2.7
161
0.37
764
851
22
0.009
<
2.6
23
0.009
July
6
0.009
<
2.6
149
0.76
1510
856
86.20%
August
10
0.009
11
0.009
<
2.7
184
0.94
1850
937
24
0.009
31
0.009
<
2.6
Septembei
7
0.009
<
2.5
173
0.74
1470
910
14
0.009
28
0.009
October
5
0.009
<
2.5
149
0.83
1650
786
49.40%
12
0.009
November
2
0.009
<
2.5
175
0.87
1720
864
16
0.009
<
2.6
23
0.009
December
7
0.009
<
2.5
164
0.77
1540
802
14
0.009
<
2.5
2017 January
4
0.009
<
2.5
17
0.009
<
2.5
179
0.76
1520
830
February
8
0.009
<
2.6
236
0.86
1710
866
15
0.009
<
2.5
March
8
0.009
<
2.6
157
0.77
1540
763
15
0.009
<
2.5
April
5
0.009
<
2.5
350
1.08
2110
1230
12
0.009
<
2.5
Pass
Pass
Fail
Fail
Fail

October
averages
9.60% Pass
0.0090 2.64 149 0.74 1,695 794 Pass 4
Fail 17

Abbendix D PUROLITE REPORT
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

This report was prepared for Potable Water
Systems LLC by Purolite Corporation.
09/28/2016
Francis Boodoo, Director of
Applied Technologies Darrell
Shaffer, Technical Sales Manager

Introduction
The Town of Edenton located in Chowan County NC operates two water treatment plants (a)
Beaver Hill WTP operating at a flowrate of 375 gpm and a daily requirement of 0.54MGD and
(b) Freemason WTP operating at a flowrate of 560 gpm and a daily requirement of 0.81 MGD.
Historically these plants have softened their water for a number of years to improve the
palatability and aesthetic value of the product that they provide to their customers and will
continue to do so moving forward. Design provisions in this report and proposal have been
provided to continue the softening tradition as dependent upon the particular well source as
their raw water ranges anywhere from moderately to extremely hard. And currently, greater
focus and concern has shifted to TOC (total organic carbon) and bromide reduction to make
their product water safer for long-term consumption.
TOC in the raw water varies between 1.7 to 5.5 and bromide varying 0.16 to 0.84 ppm. DBP
data shows that elevated TTHMs are created when a free chlorine residual is maintained. Data
for 2014 reveals that TTHMs can range from 115 to 211 ppb exceed 115 ppb to varies from
Brominated TTHMs amount to over 72% of the TTHMs due to the presence of bromide in the
raw water. Bromide and TOC reduction before the water is oxidized is expected to bring TTHM
into compliance. Purolite bromide/TOC removal process using its proprietary regenerable
BromidePlus/9218 resin is a proven commercial process for treating drinking water. The Town
of Edenton is interested in evaluating this process. This comprehensive report provides a
simulated process design for pre -softening before reducing bromide and TOC to facilitate the
installation of a commercial system.
The Town of Edenton is desirous of installing 2 — 50% ion exchange treatment trains at each
WTP that will include traditional softening followed by organic removal. Both trains have the
ability of operating simultaneously based on higher demand or with one train in service and
one train in stand-by mode during lower demand situations or vessel regeneration.
For the Beaver Hill, the minimum recommended design for producing current production
demand of 0.54 MGD is the installation of 2 — 50% trains each consisting of (1 softening + 1
TOC) ion exchange vessels, each capable of processing 0.27 MGD with a flowrate of 188 gpm.
For the Freemason WTP, the minimum recommended design for producing current
production demand of 0.81 MGD is the installation of 2 — 50% trains each consisting of (1
softening + 1 TOC) ion exchange vessels, each capable of processing
0.41 MGD with a flowrate of 280 gpm.
The permitted capacity of the two plants are 0.725 MGD (518 gpm) and 1.35 MGD (965 gpm)
for Beaver Hill and Freemason respectively. (Note: Design for these higher rates of production
should be considered if such growth is anticipated).

Pre -Softening Overview:
The following softening projects for both the Beaver Hill WTP and the Freemason
WTP compare two primary choice ion_ exchange resins side -by -side for maximum
efficiency, performance, cost savings and environmental impact.
The two resins compared are the Purolite C100E and the SSTC60, both NSF/ANSI
Certified (see attached). The C100E is a standard grade softening resin designed for
potable applications and is considered the workhorse of the industry. The Purolite
SSTC60 softening resin is also a resin that is used extensively in both potable and
industrial applications but has a the unique honors and capability of employ a
technology called "shallow shell technology" which helps to reduce salt
consumption and rinse water by up to 30% or more during the regeneration process.
Pre -Softening Projection Data — Beaver Hill WTP:
Calculations for Softening System © Puroib
Customer: Purolite Date: September 21st, 2016 Ver 12424Nov2014
Project: Town Of Edenton, NC WTP - Beaver Hill WTP - Pre -Softening
Water Chemistry & Targets for Design:
CATIONS
ANIONS
Ca
90 ppm as CaCO3
HCO3
50 ppm as CaCO3
Mg
77.869 ppm as CaCO3
CI
721154 ppm as CaCO3
Na
669.565 ppm as CaCO3
SO4
64.120 ppm as CaCO3
K
0.000 ppm as CaCO3
NO3
0.000 ppm as CaCO3
NH4
0 ppm as CaCO3
F
2.421052632 ppm as CaCO3
Ba
0 ppm as CaCO3
Other
0 ppm as CaCO3
Sr
0 ppm as CaCO3
Sub -total
16.756 mec/I
Fe 0.36111111 ppm as CaCO3
Si02
0.000 ppm as CaCO3
Other
0 ppm as CaCO3
CO2
0 ppm as CaCO3
Total Cations
16.76 megll
Total Anions
16.76 fret l
Treated Water Specifications: Average Endpoint
Total hardness Leakage - ppm as CaCO3 1 5 Influent temperature °F 59
i)

Plant Design; Units
Design Flowrate USgal/min 208.00 Plant Utilization -% 100
USgal/day 299520.00 Vessels in parallel service 1
Flamte per vessel U al/min 208.00
© Purolite:
Operating Conditions: Standard Resin (A) Performance Resin (B)
Purolite CON Purolite SSTC60
Cycle Time hours hours
24
24
Net Water per Cycle Usgal/cycle
299520.0
2995200
Sodium Chloride Dosage Ibs/fe
1600
10.00
Regenerant Mode( CF=coflow, CTF=counterflow)
CF
CIF
IRegenerant concentration %
10
10
Avg. Hardness leakage ppm
3.47
1.95
Design Factor
0.93
0.93
(Operating Capacity Kgrain/ft'
29.70
29.58
Wessel Design:
(Resin Volume ft'
100
100
specific Flowrate Usgpm/ft'
2
2
Diameter inches
60.00
60.00
Cross -sectional Area ft'
19.13
19.13
Linear Velocity Usgpm/ft'
10.6
106
Bed depth inches
62.7
62.7
Pressure Drop psi
7
7
ionic Loading:
Iconic Load per Train eq
3862
3834
IRegenerant used Ibs
1600
1000
IRegenerant used eq
12406
7754
(Excess regenerant eq
8543
3920
IRe enerant use as percent of theory %
371%
202%

© Ptrolm
Standard Resin (A) Performance Resin (B)
Purolite C100E Purolite SSTC60
ie Water:
wash water
USgal/ft'
14.96
14.96
ion Water
USgal/ft'
50.65
31.66
Rinse
USgal/ft
11.22
11.22
Rinse
USgal/ft
37.40
14.96
wash water volume recycled
USgal/ft
0.00
0.00
Volume Recycled
USgal/ft'
0.00
0.00
Volume Recycled
USgal/ft'
0.00
0.00
Waste Water
USRai
8,147.2
5,232.2
Regeneration Schedule - Purolite SSTC60
Select Brining/Slow Rinse rate:
Concn.
Water
Volume
Flowrate
Time
Source
USgal
USgallmin
minutes
Backwash (as needed):
Raw
1496.09
see graph
Brine 10
Softened
1118.0
24.9
44.8
Slow Rinse
Softened
1122.1
24.9
45.0
Fast Rinse
Raw
1496.1
208.0
7.2
Total (except backwash)
97.0
4

© Puroute
Savings:
Purolite C100E Savings B / A Purolite SSTC60
Waste water as %of production %
264.80
35.2%
171.69
Mass NaCl per Volume of Water Softened Ib/kUSgal
0.0053
37.5%
0.0033
Total Resin cost per train $/train
7499
0
12499
Water softened per year kUSgal/year
109325
109325
'Na stewatervolume kUSgal/year
2895
1877
Soft water used for dilution kUSgal/year
653
408
Soft water used for slow dnse kUSgal/year
410
410
NaCl use per year M.Tons/year
264.9
165.6
Unit cost of wastewater $/kUSgal
4
Unit cost for softened water $/kUSgal
4
Unit cost for NaCl $/M Tons NaCl
90
Annual NaCl cost $/year
23841
8940
14900
Annual water/waste water cost $/year
15830
5051
10778
Total regenerant & water cost $/year
39670
13992
25679
(Payback and Return on Investment:
Operating cost over 5 years per train $/train
198352
69958
128394
(Return on Investment (1101) -avg. per year %
280
(Payback in months months
4.3
Savings over 5 years $
64959
4Q000
35,000
tL
30,000
a
C25,000
u
t1 20,000
i 15,000
41
a
0 10000
5,000
Savings in Operating Cost/Year/Train
39,670
Salt $ water $ Total $ Resin $
Note: resin cost shown is intial cost spread over 5 years
5

Pre -Softening Projection Data — Freemason WTP:
Calculations for Softening System 0 Puroud
Customer: Purolite Date: September2lst, 2016 Ver12424NM014
Project: Town Of Edenton, NC WTP - Beaver Hill WTP - Pre -Softening
Water Chemistry & Targets for Design:
CATIONS
ANIONS
Ca
93.06 ppm as CaCO3
HCO3
0 ppm as CaCO3
Mg
67.050 ppm as CaCO3
Cl
366.680 ppm as CaCO3
Na
782.960 ppm as CaCO3
SO4
80.150 ppm as CaCO3
K
0.000 ppm as CaCO3
NO3
0.000 ppm as CaCO3
NH4
0 ppm as CaCO3
F
2.42 ppm as CaCO3
Ba
0 ppm as CaCO3
Other
0 ppm as CaCO3
Sr
0 ppm as CaCO3
Sub -total
8.985 meq/1
Fe
0.3 ppm as CaCO3
Si02
0.000 ppm as CaCO3
Other
0 ppm as CaCO3
CO2
0 ppm as CaCO3
Total Cations
18.87 wqA
Total Anions
8.99 rn qfl
Treated Water Specifications: Average End pint
Total hardness Leakaee - oom as CaCO3 1 5 Influent temperature °F 59
Plant Design. Units
Design Flowrate USgal/min 208.00 Plant Utilization - % 100
USgal/day 299520.00 Vessels in parallel service 1
Flowrate pet vessel Usgalkir 208.00
0

© Purolite
Operating Conditions: Standard Resin )A) Performance Resin )B)
Purolite C100E Purolite SSTC60
Cycle Time hours hours
24
24
Net Water per Cycle USgal/cycle
299520.0
299520.0
Sodium Chloride Dosage Ibs/ft
1600
1000
IRegenerant Mode) CF=coflow, CTF=counterflow)
CF
CF
IRegenerant concentration %
SO
10
Avg. Hardness leakage ppm
425
2.33
'Design Factor
090
089
Operating Capacity Kgrain/ft'
29.53
28.10
'Vessel Design:
'Resin Volume ft'
100
100
'Specific Flowrate USgpm/ft'
2
2
'Diameter inches
60.00
6000
Cross -sectional Area ft'
19.13
19.13
Linear Velocity USgpm/ft'
106
106
'Bed depth inches
62.7
627
(Pressure Drop psi
7
7
'Ionic Loading:
Ionic Load per Train eq
3683
3656
Regenerant used Ibs
1600
1000
Regenerant used eq
12406
7754
Excess regenerant eq
8723
4098
Re enerant use as percent of then %
337%
1 212%
© Purolite
Standard Resin )A) Performance Resin )B)
Purolite CSOOE Purolite SSTC60
Waste Water:
Backwash water
USgal/ft'
14.96
14.96
011ution Water
U5gal/ft'
50.65
31.66
Slow Rinse
U5gal/ft'
11.22
11.22
Fast Rinse
USgal/ft'
37.40
14.96
BackwaShwater volume recycled
USgal/ft'
000
0.00
Brine Volume Recycled
USgal/ft'
0.00
0.00
Rinse Volume Recycled
USgal/ft'
0.00
0.00
Total Waste Water
U Sgal
8,147.2
5,2'2 2

Regeneration Schedule - Purolite SSTC60
Select Brining/Slow Rinse rate:
Concn. Water Volume
% Source Usgal
Flowrate Time
15gal/min minutes
Backwash (as needed):
Raw
1496.09
see graph
Brine
10 Softened
1118.0
249 44.8
Slow Rinse
Softened
1122.1
24.9 45.0
Fast Rinse
Raw
1496.1
208.0 7.2
Total (except backwash) 97.0
© Purolite
:Savings:
Purolite C100E Savings B / A Purolite 5STC60
Waste water as % of production %
264.80
35.2%
171.69
Mass NaCl per Volume of Water Softened Ib/kUSgal
0.0053
37.5%
0.0033
rotal Resin cost per train $/train
7499
0
12499
Water softened per year kUSgal/year
109325
109325
Waste water volume kUSgal/year
2895
1877
Soft water used for dilution kUSgal/year
653
408
Soft water used for slow rinse kUSgal/year
410
410
NaCl use per year M.Tons/year
264.9
165.6
Unit cost of wastewater $/kUSgal
4
Unit cost for softened water $/kUSgal
4
Unit cost forNaCI $/M.Tons Nad
90
Annual Nad cost $/year
23841
8940
14900
Annual water/waste water cost $/year
15830
5051
10778
Total regenerant & water cost $/year
39670
13992
25679
Payback and Return on Investment:
Operating cost over 5 years per train $/train
198352
69958
128394
Return on Investment (ROI) -avg per year %
280
Payback in months months
4.3
Savings over 5 years S
64959

L.
m
}
0J
a
IAJ
u
c
i+
A
d
IL
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
O 10,000
5,000
FAM
Savings in Operating Cost/Year/Train
39,670
Salt$ Water $ Total $ Resin $
Note: resin costshown is intial costspread over5 years
■ Purolite C100E
■ Purolite SSTC60

TOC Reduction Pilot Data:
The following successful pilot data was reported for brine regenerable Purolite
BromidePlus/9218 resin for remova of both bromide and TOC from the inlet water at City of
Edenton, NC.
Beaver Hill Pilot Data
Beaver Hill Pilot Data
TOTALORGANIC
BROMIDE %
CARBON
%
COMMENTS
TOTALORGANIC
BROMIDE
CARBON
LOCATION
DATE
M6A REMOVAL
MG/L
REMOVAL
RAW
8/8/2016
0.434
3
'HAWWATER SPIGOT AT WTP,
BOSWELL STREET WELL
3/20/2015
0.534
2.88
BEAVER HILL WELL
3/20/2015
0.442
3.59
AFTERSOFTENER
8/8/2016
0.421
3.1
*PILOT RECEIVES WATER FROM A TAP AFTER EXISTING SOFTENER_
*"200 GALLON FLOW THROUGH AFTER MANUAL
REGENERATION. TOC VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE
REPORTING LEVEL OF 1.00 MG/L AND LESS THAN
PUROLITE PILOT
8/8/2016
< 0.01 > 97.62% <
0.1
> 96.77%
THEMDLOF0.100MG/L,
'DUE TO THE FREEMASON WTP BEING OFFUNE (MULTI -PORT REPAIR) THE PILOT RAN FOR "1200 GALLONS FLOW THROUGH AND
8/8/2016
THEN WAS REGENERATED. THE FILL CYCLE DID NOT REFILLTHE BRINE TANK TO PROPER LEVEL. WATER WAS ADDED.
8/10/2016
0.181 57.01%
0.55
82.26%
-8%A GALLON FLOW THROUGH ANDTHEN MANUAL REGENERATION
'SSA GALLON FLOW THROUGH AND THEN MANUAL
REGENERATION, TOC VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE
REPORTING LEVEL OF 1.00 MG/LAND LESS THAN
8/10/2016
0.186 55.82% <
0.1
> 96.77%
THE MDL of 0.100 MG/L.
8/11/2016
0-134 68.17%
0.37
88.06%
`GMGALLON FLOW THROUGH AND THEN MANUAL REGENERATION
8/12/2016
0.113 1 73.16%
1 O.S3
82.90%
845 GALLON FLOW THROUGH
Average
1 70.36%
1
89.35%
*PERCENT REMOVAL CALULATIONS BASED ON SAMPLE RESULTS
FROM 8/8/16 AFTER SOFTENER.
10

Freemason Pilot Data
Freemason Pilot Data
TOTAL ORGANIC
BROMIDE %
CARBON
%
COMMENTS
TOTAL ORGANIC
BROMIDE
CARBON
LOCATION
DATE
MG/L REMOVAL
MG/L
REMOVAL
RAW
8/12/2016
0.738
2.65
"RAW WATER SPIGOT ATWTP.
FREEMASON WELL
3/20/2015E
1.74
VIRGINIA ROAD WELL
3/20/2015
3.27
AFTER SOFTENER
8/12/2016
2.67
'PILOT RECEIVES WATER FROM A TAP AFTER EXISTING SOFTENER.
"13D GALLON FLOW THROUGH AFTER MANUAL
REGENERATION. TOC VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE
REPORTING LEVEL OF 1.00 MG/LAND LESS THAN
PUROLITE PILOT
8/12/2016
0.06 91.88% <
0.1
96.25%
THE VIOL OF0.100MG/L.
8/17/2016
0.054 92.69%
1.04
61.05%
*'"751 GALLON FLOW THROUGH.
'THE PILOT WAS REGENERATED ON 8/17 @ 925 GALLONS FLOW THROUGH.
THE WTP RAN VERY LITTLE AFTER THE
17TH REGENERATION DUE TO ISSUES
AGAIN WITH THE MULTI -PORT.
-81 GALLON FLOW THROUGH. TOC VALUE WAS LESS
TRAM THE REPORTING LEVEL OF 1.00 MG/L AND
8/18/2016
0.254 65.63% <
0.1
96.25%
LESS THAN THE MDL OF 0.100 MG/L.
8/22/2016
0.234 68.34%
0.199
92.55%
-SW GALLON FLOW THROUGH.
Average
79.63%
86.53%
•PERCENT REMOVAL CALULATIONS BASED ON SAMPLE RESULTS
FROM 8/12/16 AFTER SOFTENER.
11

Process Design for Bromide /TOC Removal
Below is a general description of the process that will be used to reduce both bromide and TOC
from the raw water.
Design Specs for Beaver Hill WTP and Freemason WTP:
The Bromide/TOC removal for each WTP plant will consists of 2 x 50% brine regenerated ion
exchange vessels.
Beaver Hill WTP:
Number iof Ion Exchange Vessels
Total plant flowrate
Design flowrate per vessel
Diameter of vessel
BromidePlus/9218 resin volume/vessel
Total resin for 2 vessels
Vessel freeboard
Design Mode
Height of resin
Height of resin to intermediate brine collector
Location fo intermediate brine collector
Salt dosage per regeneration
Salt concentration
Bromide limit in dry salt
Simultaneous brine flow
Minimum brine contact time
Slow rinse
Slow rinse rate
Fast rinse
Fast rinse rate
Freemason WTP:
2
376 gpm
188 gpm.
5 ft
120 ft3
240 ft3
min. 80%
Split -flow Counter -flow
72 inches
48 inches
2/3 resin below (80ft3), 1/3 above (40ft3)
1200 Ibs dry salt (10lbs/ft3)
8 to 10%
max of 100 ppm base on dry salt
1/3 thru top distributor; 2/3 thru bottom
40 minutes
2 bed volumes (15 gallons/ft3 of resin)
same as brining rate (min. of 2 BV/h)
5 bed volumes (37.5 gallons/ft3 resin)
same as service rate
Number iof Ion Exchange Vessels
2
Total plant flowrate
560 gpm
Design flowrate per vessel
280 gpm.
Diameter of vessel
6 ft
BromidePlus/9218 resin volume/vessel
171 ft3
Total resin for 2 vessels
342 ft3
Vessel freeboard
min. 80%
12

Design Mode
Height of resin
Height of resin to intermediate brine collector
Location for intermediate brine collector
Salt dosage per regeneration
Salt concentration
Bromide limit in dry salt
Simultaneous brine flow
Minimum brine contact time
Split -flow Counter -flow
72 inches
48 inches
2/3 resin below (114ft3), 1/3 above (57ft3)
1,710 Ibs dry salt (10 Ibs/ft3)
8 to 10%
max of 100 ppm based on dry salt
1/3 thru top distributor; 2/3 thru bottom
40 minutes
Slow rinse
2 bed volumes (15 gallons/ft3 of resin)
Slow rinse rate
same as brining rate (min. of 2 BV/h)
Fast rinse
5 bed volumes (37.5 gallons/ft3 resin)
Fast rinse rate
same as service rate
One vessel will be in service while the other is on standby or in regeneration
Volume of water treated per service cycle for Beaver Hill will be 108,000 gallons (or about 120
BV based on the BromidePlus/9218 resin). Volume of water treated per service cycle for
Freemason WTP will be 154,000 gallons (or about 120 BV based on the BromidePlus/9218
resin).
Bromide and TOC in the treated water will be reduced to less than 200 ppb and less than or
equal to than 75% of the inlet value respectively.
The leakage of bromide is a direct function of the concentration of bromide in the dry salt used
for regeneration. The above treatment goals are based on use of dry salt fo regeneration a
maximum of 100 ppm of bromide. If bromide is higher in the salt, then bromide leakage will be
higher. The general process layout for the service cycle and regeneration phases are shown in
Figures 1 and 2 below.
All water for makeup of brine and slow rinse will be softened water. A small water softener
should be included for providing softened water for brine and slow rinse use. The raw water to
be softened has an inlet total hardness of the raw water is 300 ppm as CaCO3 and a sodium
content of 307 ppm. Hardness content of the softened water should be less than 25 ppm as
CaCO3.
13

Bromide/TOC control in potable water
5OrAW
BromidePlus/8216
V31te*� QlMMOMOOMA
r Cdl l E C rpR
2%3 Reslri
PIrnm
Fig 1. Service Cycle Design of Bromide/TOC removal system
Bromide/MC control - Split -!Flow Regeneration with Brine
VA Ragenerant (2-4 RWhl
1
{ Sbw Rirae— same rate
I
I
I Feet Rinse - reclruAlte
I
C_,_ �y
I
I �':•I I II rE'H'
l
1
1
1
I Spent
rttp7l+�+rA�r
t13 Reemerent 42-4 RWhI
[7 PlllrolkEl<
Fig. 2. Regeneration using Split -Flow Regeneration with Brine
14

Americas
Europe
Asia Pacific
150 Monument Road
Llantrisant Business Park
Room 707, C Section
Bala Cynwyd, PA
Llantrisant
Huanglong Century Plaza
19004
Wales, UK
No. 3 Hangda Road
T+1800.343.1500
CF72 81-F
Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
T +1 610.668.9090
T [phone]
310007
F +1484.384.2751
T [phone]
T [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
T+86 571 876 31385
[e-mail]
Australia
India
Purolite Brazil
Indonesia
Canada
Italy
China
Japan
Czech Republic
Jordan
France
Kazakhstan
Germany
Korea
r
.
r
For further information on
Purolite® products & services,
visit www.purolite.com
Malaysia
South Africa
Mexico
Spain
Poland
Taiwan
Romania
Turkey
Russia
U.K.
Singapore
Ukraine
Slovak Republic
USA
■
r
•
@20157Purolite.
All rights reserved.

Appendix E REGULATORY AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
Town of Edenton 1
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 THEWOOTEN COMPANY

15A NCAC 02B .0219 FRESH SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS B WATERS
The following water quality standards apply to surface waters that are for primary recreation, including frequent or organized
swimming and are classified as Class B waters. Water quality standards applicable to Class C waters as described in Rule
.0211 of this Section also apply to Class B waters.
(1) Best Usage of Waters. Primary recreation and any other best usage specified by the "C" classification;
(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage. The waters shall meet accepted standards of water quality for outdoor
bathing places as specified in Item (3) of this Rule and shall be of sufficient size and depth for primary
recreation purposes. Sources of water pollution which preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or
long-term basis shall be considered to be violating a water quality standard;
(3) Quality standards applicable to Class B waters:
(a) Sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes: none which are not effectively treated to the
satisfaction of the Commission; in determining the degree of treatment required for such waste
when discharged into waters to be used for bathing, the Commission shall consider the quality and
quantity of the sewage and wastes involved and the proximity of such discharges to waters in this
class; discharges in the immediate vicinity of bathing areas may not be allowed if the Director
determines that the waste can not be reliably treated to ensure the protection of primary recreation;
(b) Organisms of coliform group: fecal coliforms not to exceed geometric mean of 200/100 ml (MF
count) based on at least five consecutive samples examined during any 30-day period and not to
exceed 400/100 ml in more than 20 percent of the samples examined during such period.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1);
Eff. January 1, 1990;
Amended Eff. October 1, 1995.
15A NCAC 02B .0220 TIDAL SALT WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS SC WATERS
General. The water quality standards for all tidal salt waters are the basic standards applicable to Class SC waters. Additional
and more stringent standards applicable to other specific tidal salt water classifications are specified in Rules .0221 and .0222
of this Section.
(1) Best Usage of Waters: any usage except primary recreation or shellfishing for market purposes; usages
include aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including fishing, fish and
functioning PNAs), wildlife, and secondary recreation;
(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage: the waters shall be suitable for aquatic life propagation and maintenance
of biological integrity, wildlife, and secondary recreation. Any source of water pollution which precludes
any of these uses, including their functioning as PNAs, on either a short-term or a long-term basis shall be
considered to be violating a water quality standard;
(3) Quality standards applicable to all tidal salt waters:
(a) Chlorophyll a (corrected): not greater than 40 ug/1 in sounds, estuaries, and other waters subject to
growths of macroscopic or microscopic vegetation. The Commission or its designee may prohibit
or limit any discharge of waste into surface waters if, in the opinion of the Director, the surface
waters experience or the discharge would result in growths of microscopic or macroscopic
vegetation such that the standards established pursuant to this Rule would be violated or the
intended best usage of the waters would be impaired;
(b) Dissolved oxygen: not less than 5.0 mg/l, except that swamp waters, poorly flushed tidally
influenced streams or embayments, or estuarine bottom waters may have lower values if caused by
natural conditions;
(c) Floating solids, settleable solids, or sludge deposits: only such amounts attributable to sewage,
industrial wastes or other wastes, as shall not make the waters unsafe or unsuitable for aquatic life
and wildlife, or impair the waters for any designated uses;
(d) Gases, total dissolved: not greater than 110 percent of saturation;
(e) Enterococcus, including Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus avium and
1 Enterococcus gallinarium: not to exceed a geometric mean of 35 enterococci per 100 ml based
J upon a minimum of five samples within any consecutive 30 days. In accordance with 33 U.S.C.
NORTH CAROLINAADMINISTRATIVE CODE I May 1 2007 I'a e 38

(b) Temperature: the Commission may establish a water quality standard for temperature for specific water bodies other than
the standards specified in Rules .0211 and .0220 of this Section, upon a case -by -case determination that thermal discharges to
these waters, that serve or may serve as a source or receptor of industrial cooling water provide for the maintenance of the
designated best use throughout a reasonable portion of the water body. Such revisions of the temperature standard must be
consistent with the provisions of Section 316(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended. A listing of existing
thennal revisions shall be maintained and made available to the public by the Division.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1);
Eff. February 1, 1976,
Amended Eff. May 1, 2007, April 1, 2003; February 1, 1993; October 1,1989; January 1,1985; September
9, 1979.
15A NCAC 02B .0209 VARIANCES FROM APPLICABLE STANDARDS
15A NCAC 02B .0210 BEST USE CRITERIA
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1;
Eff. February 1, 1976,
Amended Eff. September 9, 1979;
Repealed Eff. January 1, 1985.
15A NCAC 02B .0211 FRESH SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS C WATERS
General. The water quality standards for all fresh surface waters are the basic standards applicable to Class C waters. See
Rule .0208 of this Section for standards for toxic substances and temperature. Additional and more stringent standards
applicable to other specific freshwater classifications are specified in Rules .0212, .0214, .0215, .0216, .0217, .0218, .0219,
.0223, .0224 and .0225 of this Section.
(1) Best Usage of Waters: aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including fishing
and fish), wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture and any other usage except for primary recreation or as
a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes;
(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage: the waters shall be suitable for aquatic life propagation and maintenance
of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Sources of water pollution which
preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis shall be considered to be violating a
water quality standard;
(3) Quality standards applicable to all fresh surface waters:
(a) Chlorophyll a (corrected): not greater than 40 ug/l for lakes, reservoirs, and other waters subj ect to
growths of macroscopic or microscopic vegetation not designated as trout waters, and not greater
than 15 ug/1 for lakes, reservoirs, and other waters subject to growths of macroscopic or
microscopic vegetation designated as trout waters (not applicable to lakes or reservoirs less than 10
acres in surface area). The Commission or its designee may prohibit or limit any discharge of
waste into surface waters if, in the opinion of the Director, the surface waters experience or the
discharge would result in growths of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation such that the
standards established pursuant to this Rule would be violated or the intended best usage of the
waters would be impaired;
(b) Dissolved oxygen: not less than 6.0 mg/l for trout waters; for non -trout waters, not less than a daily
average of 5.0 mg/1 with a minimum instantaneous value of not less than 4.0 mg/l; swamp waters,
lake coves or backwaters, and lake bottom waters may have lower values if caused by natural
l conditions;
J
NORTH CAROLINAADM INISTRAT VE CODE Eff. :vla • 1 2007 Pa e 21

(c)
Floating solids, settleable solids, or sludge deposits: only such amounts attributable to sewage,
industrial wastes or other wastes as shall not make the water unsafe or unsuitable for aquatic life
and wildlife or impair the waters for any designated uses;
(d)
Gases, total dissolved: not greater than 110 percent of saturation;
(e)
Organisms of the coliform group: fecal coliforms shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100m1
(MF count) based upon at least five consecutive samples examined during any 30 day period, nor
exceed 400/100mI in more than 20 percent of the samples examined during such period.
Violations of the fecal coliform standard are expected during rainfall events and, in some cases,
this violation is expected to be caused by uncontrollable nonpoint source pollution. All coliform
concentrations are to be analyzed using the membrane filter technique unless high turbidity or
other adverse conditions necessitate the tube dilution method; in case of controversy over results,
the MPN 5-tube dilution technique shall be used as the reference method;
(f)
Oils, deleterious substances, colored or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not render the
waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation or to aquatic life and wildlife or adversely
affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the waters for any designated uses. For the
purpose of implementing this Rule, oils, deleterious substances, colored or other wastes shall
include but not be limited to substances that cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the
surface of the water or adjoining shorelines pursuant to 40 CFR 110.3(a)-(b) which are hereby
incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments and additions. This material is
available for inspection at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies maybe obtained from
the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
20402-9325 at a cost of forty-five dollars ($45.00);
(g)
pH: shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally shall range between 6.0 and 9.0
except that swamp waters may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural conditions;
(h)
Phenolic compounds: only such levels as shall not result in fish -flesh tainting or impairment of
(i)
other best usage;
Radioactive substances:
(i) Combined radium-226 and radium-228: the maximum average annual activity level
(based on at least four samples collected quarterly) for combined radium-226 and
radium-228 shall not exceed five picoCuries per liter;
(ii) Alpha Emitters: the average annual gross alpha particle activity (including radium-226,
but excluding radon and uranium) shall not exceed 15 picoCuries per liter;
(iii) Beta Emitters: the maximum average annual activity level (based on at least four samples,
collected quarterly) for strontium-90 shall not exceed eight picoCuries per liter; nor shall
the average annual gross beta particle activity (excluding potassium40 and other
naturally occurring radio -nuclides) exceed 50 picoCuries per liter; nor shall the maximum
average annual activity level for tritium exceed 20,000 picoCuries per liter;
(j)
Temperature: not to exceed 2.8 degrees C (5.04 degrees F) above the natural water temperature,
and in no case to exceed 29 degrees C (84.2 degrees F) for mountain and upper piedmont waters
and 32 degrees C (89.6 degrees F) for lower piedmont and coastal plain Waters; the temperature
for trout waters shall not be increased by more than 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F) due to the
discharge of heated liquids, but in no case to exceed 20 degrees C (68 degrees F);
(k)
Turbidity: the turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units
(NTU) in streams not designated as trout waters and 10 NTU in streams, lakes or reservoirs
designated as trout waters; for lakes and reservoirs not designated as trout waters, the turbidity
shall not exceed 25 NTU; if turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural background conditions,
the existing turbidity level shall not be increased. Compliance with this turbidity standard can be
met when land management activities employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) [as defined by
Rule .0202 of this Section] recommended by the Designated Nonpoint Source Agency [as defined
by Rule .0202 of this Section]. BMPs must be in full compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation, operation and maintenance of such BMPs;
(1)
Toxic substances: numerical water quality standards (maximum permissible levels) for the
protection of human health applicable to all fresh surface waters are in Rule .0208 of this Section.
Numerical water quality standards (maximum permissible levels) to protect aquatic life applicable
to all fresh surface waters:
NORTH CAROLIN A ADM IN ISTRATIVE COOK E . may 12007 Pare 7.2

(i) Arsenic: 50 ug/l;
(ii) Beryllium: 6.5 ug/l;
(iii) Cadmium: 0.4 ug/1 for trout waters and 2.0 ug/1 for non -trout waters; attainment of these
water quality standards in surface waters shall be based on measurement of total
recoverable metals concentrations unless appropriate studies have been conducted to
translate total recoverable metals to a toxic form. Studies used to determine the toxic
form or translators must be designed according to the "Water Quality Standards
Handbook Second Edition" published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
823-B-94-005a) or "The Metals Translator: Guidance For Calculating a Total
Recoverable Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion" published by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-96-007) which are hereby incorporated by reference
including any subsequent amendments. The Director shall consider conformance to EPA
guidance as well as the presence of environmental conditions that limit the applicability
of translators in approving the use of metal translators;
(iv) Chlorine, total residual: 17 ug/l;
(v) Chromium, total recoverable: 50 ug/l;
(vi) Cyanide, 5.0 ug/l, unless site -specific criteria are developed based upon the aquatic life
at the site utilizing The Recalculation Procedure in Appendix B of Appendix L in the
Enviromnental Protection Agency's Water Quality Standards Handbook hereby
incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments;
(vii) Fluorides: 1.8 mg/l;
(viii) Lead, total recoverable: 25 ug/l, collection of data on sources, transport and fate of lead
shall be required as part of the toxicity reduction evaluation for dischargers who are out
of compliance with whole effluent toxicity testing requirements and the concentration of
lead in the effluent is concomitantly determined to exceed an instream level of 3.1 ug/l
from the discharge;
(ix) Mercury: 0.012 ug/1;
(x) Nickel: 88 ug/l, attainment of these water quality standards in surface waters shall be
based on measurement of total recoverable metals concentrations unless appropriate
studies have been conducted to translate total recoverable metals to a toxic form. Studies
used to determine the toxic form or translators must be designed according io the "Water
Quality Standards Handbook Second Edition" published by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA 823-B-94-005a) or "The Metals Translator: Guidance For Calculating a
Total Recoverable Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion" published by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-96-007) which are hereby incorporated
by reference including any subsequent amendments. The Director shall consider
conformance to EPA guidance as well as the presence of environmentai conditions that
limit the applicability of translators in approving the use of metal translators;
(xi) Pesticides:
(A) Aldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(B) Chlordane: 0.004 ug/l;
(C) DDT: 0.001 ug/l;
(D) Demeton: 0.1 ug/l;
(E) Dieldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(F) Endosulfan: 0.05 ug/l;
(G) Endrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(H) Guthion: 0.01 ug/l;
(I) Heptachlor: 0.004 ug/l;
(J) Lindane: 0.01 ug/l;
(K) Methoxychlor: 0.03 ug/l;
(L) Mirex: 0.001 ug/l;
(M) Parathion: 0.013 ug/l;
(N) Toxaphene. 0.0002 ugll;
(xii) Polychlorinated biphenyls: (total of all PCBs and congeners identified) 0.001 ug/1;
(xiii) Selenium: 5 ug/l;
(xiv) Toluene: l 1 ug/l or 0.36 ug/l in trout waters;
NOR H CAROLINAADMINISTRATIVE COIF. Fff May. 1 2007 Page 23

(xv) Trialkyltin compounds: 0.07 ug/l expressed as tributyltin;
(4) Action Levels for Toxic Substances:
(a) Copper: 7 ug/l;
(b) Iron: 1.0 mg/1;
(c) Silver: 0.06 ug/l;
(d) Zinc: 50 ug/l;
(e) Chloride: 230 mg/1;
If the Action Levels for any of the substances listed in this Subparagraph (which are generally not
bioaccumulative and have variable toxicity to aquatic life because of chemical form, solubility, stream
characteristics or associated waste characteristics) are determined by the waste load allocation to be
exceeded in a receiving water by a discharge under the specified low flow criterion for toxic substances
(Rule .0206 in this Section), the discharger shall monitor the chemical or biological effects of the discharge;
efforts shall be made by all dischargers to reduce or eliminate these substances from their effluents. Those
substances for which Action Levels are listed in this Subparagraph shall be limited as appropriate in the
NPDES permit based on the Action Levels listed in this Subparagraph if sufficient information (to be
determined for metals by measurements of that portion of the dissolved instream concentration of the Action
Level parameter attributable to a specific NPDES permitted discharge) exists to indicate that any of those
substances may be a causative factor resulting in toxicity of the effluent. NPDES permit limits may be
based on translation of the toxic form to total recoverable metals. Studies used to determine the toxic form
or translators must be designed according to "Water Quality Standards Handbook Second Edition"
published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-94-005a) or "The Metals Translator:
Guidance For Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion" published by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-96-007) which are hereby incorporated by reference
including any subsequent amendments. The Director shall consider conformance to EPA guidance as well
as the presence of environmental conditions that limit the applicability of translators in approving the use of
metal translators.
For purposes other than consideration of NPDES permitting of point source discharges as described in this
Subparagraph, the Action Levels in this Rule, as measured by an appropriate analytical technique, per 15A
NCAC 02B .0103(a), shall be considered as numerical ambient water quality standards.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1);
Eff. February 1, 1976;
Amended Eff. May 1, 2007; April 1, 2003; August 1, 2000; October 1, 1995; August 1,1995; Apri11,1994;
February 1, 1993,
15A NCAC 02B .0212 FRESH SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS WS-I WATERS
The following water quality standards apply to surface waters within water supply watersheds that are classified WS-I. Water
quality standards applicable to Class C waters as described in Rule .0211 of this Section also apply to Class WS-I waters.
(1) The best usage of WS-I waters are as follows: a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or
food -processing purposes for those users desiring maximum protection of their water supplies; waters
located on land in public ownership; and any best usage specified for Class C waters;
(2) The conditions related to the best usage are as follows: waters of this class are protected water supplies
within essentially natural and undeveloped watersheds in public ownership with no permitted point source
dischargers except those specified in Rule .0104 of this -Subchapter; waters within this class must be
relatively unimpacted by nonpoint sources of pollution; land use management programs are required to
protect waters from nonpoint source pollution; the waters, following treatment required by the Division of
Environmental Health, shall meet the Maximum Contaminant Level concentrations considered safe for
drinking, culinary, and food -processing purposes which are specified in the national drinking water
regulations and in the North Carolina Rules Governing Public Water Supplies, 15A NCAC 18C .1500.
Sources of water pollution which preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis shall
be considered to be violating a water quality standard. The Class WS-I classification maybe used to protect
portions of Class WS-II, WS-III and WS-IV water supplies. For reclassifications occurring after the July 1,
1992 statewide reclassification, the more protective classification requested by local governments -shall be
considered by the Commission when all local governments having jurisdiction in the affected area(s) have
Jl adopted a resolution and the appropriate ordinances to protect the watershed or the Commission acts to
protect a watershed when one or more local governments has failed to adopt necessary protection measures;
NOItrII CAROLINAADMINISTRATIVE CODE E Mn 1 2007 Page 24

DESIGN SEMINAR
FOR
LAND TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER EFFLUENTS
PREPARED
FOR
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM
DESIGN FACTORS
PART I
kIkA
Im Metcalf & Eddy I Engineers
Bomon NevvYork PaloAlto Chicago NevvHaven

Table 2. QUALITY OF SELECTED SECONDARY EFFLUENTS
APPLIED TO THE LAND
Constituent
Values,
(except as
Range
mg/1
noted)
Average
BOD
6-42
26
Suspended solids
12-88
48
TDSa
480-1,235
900
Total nitrogen
6.5-33.4
18.5
Total phosphorus
2.1-16.0
8.8
Sodium
40-260
160
SARb
1.3-7.4
4.1
Boron
0.4-1.0
0.7
a. TDS = total dissolved solids.
b. SAR = sodium adsorption ratio.
Sources: Data for Abilene, Tex.;
Conejo Valley Sanitary District, Calif.;
Oak View Sanitary District, Calif.;
Pomona, Calif. [4].
Data for Moulton -Niguel Water District,
Calif.; Phoenix, Ariz.; Lake George, N.Y.;
Westby, Wis.; Woodland, Calif. [2].
Data for Muskegon, Mich. (5].
Data for Michigan State, Mich. [6].
Data for Pennsylvania State, Pa. [7].
Suggested values for major inorganic constituents in water
applied to the land are shown in Table 3. In arid portions of
the country, total dissolved solids may present a hazard in
irrigating certain crops. Crops vary in their tolerance to
salinity and boron [8,9].
Sodium can be toxic to crops; however, the effects of sodium on
permeability usually occur first. The sodium adsorption ratio
should be maintained below 9 to prevent deflocculation of the
soil structure or sealing of the soil [2]. The sodium adsorp-
tion ratio is of special concern when the soil has a high clay
content and it can be reduced by increasing the wastewater
concentrations of calcium and magnesium through the addition of
gypsum or other amendments [8]. The effects of other wastewater
constituents, such as heavy metals, are addressed in Part II.
C

Table 3. SUGGESTED VALUES FOR MAJOR INORGANIC
CONSTITUENTS IN WATER APPLIED TO THE LAND [10]
Problem and related constituent
Salinitya
EC of irrigation water, in millimhos/cm
Permeability
EC of irrigation water, in mmho/em
BAR (Sodium adsorption ratio)b
Specific ion toxicityc
From root absorption
sodium (evaluate by BAR)
Chloride, me/1
Chloride, mg/1
Boron, mg/1
From foliar absorptiond (sprinklers)
Sodium, me/1
Sodium, mg/1
Chloride, me/1
Chloride, mg/l
Miscellaneouse
4 N mg/l for sensitive crops
N0
3'
HCO3, me/1 only with over-
HCO3, mg/1 head sprinklers]
PH
No problem
<0.75
>0.5
<6.0
<3
<4
<142
<0.5
<3.0
<69
<3.0
<106
<5
increasing
problems
Severe
0.75-3.0
>3.0
<0.5
<0.2
6.0-9.0
>9.0
3.0-9.0
>9.0
4.0-10
>10
142-355
>355
0.5-2.0
2.0-10.0
>3.0
--
>69
--
>3.0
_-
>106
--
5-30 >30
<1.5 1.5-8.5 >8.5
<90 90-520 >520
Normal range = 6.5-8.4 --
a. Assumes water for crop plus needed water for leaching requirement (LR) will
be applied. Crops vary in tolerance to salinity. mmho/cm x 640 = approxi-
mate total dissolved solids (TDS) in mg/i or ppm; mmho x 1,000 = micromhos.
b. BAR Na where Na = sodium, mall, Ca = calcium, Mg - magnesium.
Ca I MIJ
2
c. Most tree crops and woody ornamentals are sensitive to sodium and chloride
(use values shown). Most annual crops are not sensitive.
d. Leaf areas wet by sprinklers (rotating heads) may show a leaf burn due to
sodium or chloride absorption under low -humidity, high -evaporation con-
ditions. (Evaporation increases ion concentration in water films on leaves
between rotations of sprinkler heads.)
e. Excess N may affect: production or quality of certain crops, e.g., sugar
beets, citrus, graves, avocados, apricots, etc. (1 mg/l NO3-N = 2.72 lb N/
acre-ft of applied water.) EC03 with overhead sprinkler irrigation may
cause a white carbonate deposit to form on fruit and leaves.
Note: Interpretations are based on possible effects of constituents on crops
and/or soils. Suggested values are flexible and should be modified when
warranted by local experience or special conditions of crop, soil, and
method of irrigation.
a

Appendix F RO INFORMATION
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

40
L
m
ma
LJ
0
L
E
0
LJ
a
0
L
CL
0
L Z
N
,_
Cl)
z
41
L
m
CL
Mm 2
inJOW
p
W
�aNQ
o
ma>z
0
OJ
J J
mw
GU
w
owc
1
WOO)
Z a 0
J
nW
�00
WU
J F-
NW
°W
�
UY
QO
Cl)
ON
W
J H
�a
(q m
z�
OU
ma
J
vm
wza
000
wCcU
ZLU1=
Cc i j V
O U)
�
J CCO_
a>
J
V
U)
M�
0
a
Ir
J
LL
(n
U)
zJ
O
mU
U�
�a
vw
_0
Om

iH
0
E
Un
0
�m
Sarni-p m4abfs FT mbra
L
LL 3
L.
A
lot
A
W
a!

L
A
aUj
3;LAJ
J0.�
v-Vd c�
z LNIO E
8E2
d
ro
3
i
ric
WLLJ
r
AL,- �::#�

F-
tJ
=2 w
LLI
EL
c�
z cra
cry
W
to O
LL1 Of
O IL
W
m
W
w
W
w
a
a
co N
2 w
C> I LLI
h-
co
LL
F-
v
H
C:
Z

E
vu-
CC
0
W
Frw F—
H J Z
■� a M W
U
0
.z W
ZQ cc
QL) W
L cc
0
L 0
(U v
O O
O fn
LL
W
a
cc
z
W
U
Z
O
0
W
Q
m
W
cn
W
Q
a
c�
w
w
N
Z_
m
O
Z
J
=
O
J
H
J
U)
z
w
J
U
cc ^
W�
m�
m(rL) lz
a�
U
cnCW
G
' a_w
w� W
0
o [L
a
w
00
E- >
�LU
w
ww
w
U
i
0 wa
m�
=a
w
0
z
=
EE
O
J
U
Wer
2LU
U) Q
Z?�

1--1
�
O
�
O
�
V
O
Q
O
�
v
�
�
Q
�
o
0
�
�
m
U
�
Q

Abbendix G ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018
F1
THEWOOTEN COMPANY

Table GA
Alternative la: Beaver Hill and Freemason WTPs Discharge to Chowan River
Town of Edenton
Estimated Capital Costs
Item
Capital Design Replace. Salvage
Cost Life Cost Value
6" PVC Force Main, 24,600 LF
$443,000
6" DIP Force Main, 100 LF
$3,000
6" Gate Valve and Box
$8,000
4' ID Air Release Manhole
$25,000
Directional Drill, 1,300 LF
$91,000
Diffuser Structure & Deflectors
$218,000
Yard Piping changes at WTPs
$22,000
Erosion Control along forcemain
$25,000
NCDOT Asphalt Roadway Repair
$10,000
Asphalt Driveway Repair
$8,000
Gravel Driveway Repair
$2,000
Two Pump Stations with Wet Wells
$700,000
Isolate brine discharge lines
$80,000
Capital Cost Subtotal
$1,555,000
Pump Station Electrical Service
$30,000
Mob./Demob.. BondingAns. (7%)
$111.000
Subtotal
$1,696,000
Capital Contingencies (10%)
$170,000
Total Estimated Capital Cost
$1,900,000
Easement Purchase
$100,000
Legal and Administrative
$12,000
Flow and CORMIX Studies
$100,000
NPDES Permit
$25,000
Technical Services (18%)
$280,000
Total Estimated Project Capital Cost
$2,420,000
Operation and Maintenance Costs $/units Units Annual Cost
Discharge Lift Stations, kW-hr, 2.8 hrs/day, 7 days/wk $0.070 67,679 $4,800
Labor, 1 hr/day, 5 days/wk $38 260 $9,900
Maintenance and Repair $4,000
Annual O & M Cost $19,000
20 Year Present Worth Estimated Present
Cost Worth
Initial Capital Cost $2,420,000 $2,420,000
Annual O & M Cost $19,000 $239,000
Replacement Cost (Year 15)
Salvage Value
fFC—ffAL ESTIMATE OF PRESENT WORTH R700 0"
Note: Present Worth estimated using discount rate 4.975%

Table G.2
Alternative lb: Beaver Hill and Freemason WTPs Discharge to Pembroke Creek
Town of Edenton
Estimated Capital Costs
Item
Capital Design Replace. Salvage
Cost Life Cost Value
6" PVC Force Main, 7,400 LF
$134,000
6" DIP Force Main, 100 LF
$3,000
6" Gate Valve and Box
$8,000
4' ID Air Release Manhole
$13,000
Directional Drill, Filbert Creek and Extended Discharge, 450 LF
$32,000
Diffuser Structure & Deflectors
$218,000
Yard Piping changes at WTPs
$22,000
Erosion Control along forcemain
$8,000
NCDOT Asphalt Roadway Repair
$4,000
Asphalt Driveway Repair
$2,000
Two Pump Stations with Wet Wells
$700,000
Isolate brine discharges both WTPs
$80,000
Capital Cost Subtotal
$1,144,000
Pump Station Electrical Service
$30:000
Mob./Demob., Bonding/Ins. (7%)
$82,000
Subtotal
$1,256,000
Capital Cont ingenc':cs (10%)
$126.000
Total Estimated Capital Cost
$1,400,000
Easement Purchase
$100,000
Legal and Administrative
$12,000
Flow and CORMIX Studies
$100,000
NPDES Permit
$25,000
Technical Services (18%)
$206,000
Total Estimated Project Capital Cost
$1,840,000
Operation and Maintenance Costs $/units Units Annual Cost
Discharge Lift Stations, kW-hr, 2.8 hrs/day, 7 days/wk $0.070 25,711 $1,800
Labor, 1 hr/day, 5 days/wk $38 260 $9,900
Maintenance and Repair $4,000
Annual O & M Cost $16,000
20 Year Present Worth Estimated Present
Cost Worth
Initial Capital Cost $1,840,000 $1,840,000
Annual O & M Cost $16,000 $202,000
Replacement Cost (Year 15)
Salvage Value
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF PRESENT WORTH $2,114I1,{II10
Note: Present Worth estimated using discount rate 4.875%

Table G.3
Alternative lc: Beaver Hill and Freemason WTPs Discharge to Edenton Bay
Town of Edenton
Estimated Capital Costs
Capital Design Replace. Salvage
Item Cost Life Cost Value
6" PVC Force Main, 8,200 LF
$148,000
6" DIP Force Main, 300 LF
$7,000
6" Gate Valve and Box
$8,000
4' ID Air Release Manhole
$13,000
Directional Drill, Filbert Creek and Extended Discharge, 1,400 LF
$98,000
Diffuser Structure & Deflectors
$218,000
Yard Piping changes at WTPs
$22,000
Erosion Control along forcemain
$9,000
NCDOT Asphalt Roadway Repair
$20,000
Asphalt Driveway Repair
$6,000
Two Pump Stations with Wet Wells
$700,000
Isolate Brine discharge lines at each WTP
$80,000
Capital Cost Subtotal
$1.249.000
Pump Station Electrical Service
$30,000
Mob./Demob., Bondin Ins. (7%)
$90,000
Subtotal
$1,369,000
Capital Contingencies (10%)
$137.000
Total Estimated Capital Cost
$1,600,000
Easement Purchase
$100,000
Legal and Administrative
$12,000
Flow and CORMIX Studies
$75,000
NPDES Permit
$12,000
Technical Services (18%)
$225,000
Total Estimated Project Capital Cost
$2,020,000
Operation and Maintenance Costs $/units Units Annual Cost
Discharge Lift Stations, kW-hr, 2.8 hrs/day, 7 days/wk $0.0.0 28,890 $2,100
Labor, 1 hr/day, 5 days/wk $38 260 $9,900
Maintenance and Repair $4,000
Annual O & M Cost $16,000
20 Year Present Worth Actual Present
Cost Worth
Initial Capital Cost $2,020,000 $2,020,000
Annual O & M Cost $16,000 $202,000
Replacement Cost (Year 15)
Salvage Value
'TOTAL ESTIMATE OF PRESENT WORTH $2.220,000
Note: Present Worth estimated using discount rate 4.875%

Table GA
Alternative 1d: Beaver Hill and Freemason WTPs Discharge to Albemarle Sound
Town of Edenton
Estimated Capital Costs
Item
Capital Design Replace. Salvage
Cost Life Cost Value
6" PVC Force Main, 22,200 LF
$400,000
6" DIP Force Main, 300 LF
$7,000
6" Gate Valve and Box
$8,000
4' ID Air Release Manhole
$13,000
Directional Drill, Filbert Creek and Extended Discharge, 1,800 LF
$126,000
Diffuser Structure & Deflectors
$218,000
Yard Piping changes at WTPs
$22,000
Erosion Control along forcemain
$23,000
NCDOT Asphalt Roadway Repair
$20,000
Asphalt Driveway Repair
$2,000
Two Pump Stations with Wet Wells
$700,000
Isolate Brine discharge lines at each WTP
$80,000
Capital Cost Subtotal
$1,539,000
Pump Station Electrical Service
$30,000
Mob.11lentob., Bondingllns. (7%)
$110,000
Subtotal
$1,679,000
Capital Contingencies (10%)
$168.000
Total Estimated Capital Cost
$1,900,000
Easement Purchase
$100,000
Legal and Administrative
$12,000
Flow and CORMIX Studies
$100,000
NPDES Permit
$12,000
Technical Services (18%)
$278,000
Total Estimated Project Capital Cost
$2,400,000
Operation and Maintenance Casts $/units Units Annual Cost
Discharge Lift Stations, kW-hr, 2.8 hrs/day, 7 days/wk $0.070 73,391 $5,200
Labor, 1 hr/day, 5 days/wk $38 260 $9,900
Maintenance and Repair $4,000
Annual O & M Cost $20,000
20 Year Present Worth
Actual Present
Cost Worth
Initial Capital Cost
$2,400.000 $2.400,000
Annual O & M Cost
$20,000 $252,000
Replacement Cost (Year 15)
Salvage Value
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF PRESENT WORTH $2,650,M)
Note: Present Worth estimated using discount rate 4.875%

Table G.5
Alternative 1: Upgrade Existing Water Treatment Plants, Discharge to Albemarle Sound
Town of Edenton
Estimated Capital Costs
Capital Design Replace. Salvage
Item
Cost Life Cost Value
Upgrade Existing WM
Freemason WTP - softening and ion exchange upgrade (Stroud & Assoc)
$1,400,000
Beaverhill WTP - softening and ion exchange upgrade (Stroud & Assoc)
$1,700,000
Combined Discharge to Albemarle Sound
6" PVC Force Main, 22,200 LF
$400,000
6" DIP Force Main, 300 LF
$7,000
6" Gate Valve and Box
$8,000
4' ID Air Release Manhole
$13,000
Discharge Pump Station
$700,000
Directional Drill, Filbert Creek and Extended Discharge, 1,800 LF
$126,000
Diffuser Structure & Deflectors
$218,000
Erosion Control along forcemain
$23,000
NCDOT Asphalt Roadway Repair
$20,000
Asphalt Driveway Repair
$2,000
Pump Station Electrical Service
$30,000
Mob./Demob.. Bondin ns. (7%)
$325,000
Subtotal
4t.972,f100
Capital Contingencies (10%)
$497,000
Total Estimated Capital Cost
$5,470.000
Easement Purchase
$100,000
Legal and Administrative
$12,000
Flow and CORMIX Studies
$100,000
NPDES Permit
$12,000
Technical Services
$980,000
Total Estimated Project Capital Cost $6,674,000
Operation and Maintenance Costs (pumping to discharge point only) $/units Units Annual Cost
Discharge Lift Station, kW-hr, 2.8 hrs/day, 7 days/wk $0.070 55,506 $3.900
Labor, 1 hr/day, 5 days/wk $38 260 $9,900
Maintenance and Repair $25,000
Annual O & M Cost $39,000
20 Year Present Worth Actual Present
Cost Worth
Initial Capital Cost $6.674.000 $6,674,000
Annual O & M Cost $39,000 $491,000
Replacement Cost (Year 15)
Salvage Value
TAL ESTIMATE OF PREswr WQItTH $7. I711.iH1i1
Note: Present Worth estimated using discount rate 4.875%

Table GA
Alternative 2: Consolidate Existing Water Treatment Plants, Discharge to Albemarle Sound
Town of Edenton
Estimated Capital Costs
Capital Design Replace. Salvage
Item
Cost Life Cost Value
New RO Plant with Consolidated Flows
10" Water Transmission Line
$150,000
14" Water Transmission Line
$213,000
Steel Encasement Pipe With Waterline by Dry Bore and Jack
$99,000
New Aerator for Post Treatment
$82,000
New RO Unit Skid Mounted
$1,199,000
Electrical Service & Controls
$55,000
Anti Scaling Chemical feed
$39,000
New Bleach System
$55,000
Acid Feed System
$33,000
New Blended Phosphate System
$33,000
Caustic Feed System
$88,000
Electrical & Controls
$82,000
Building and Administration Building
$690,000
Finished Water Ground Storage (250k)
$409,000
Finished Water Pumps (500 gpm)
$197,000
Landscaping /Fencing
$33,000
SCADA Controls
$82,000
Standby Generator 150 KW
$109,000
Site Grading
$9,000
Demolition exist Bldg
$17,000
Site Work (5% of subtotal)
$184,000
Yard Piping (10% of subtotal)
$368,000
Misc. Metals Q% of subtotal cost)
$111,000
HVAC (7% of bid cost)
$49,000
Plumbing (5% of bid cost)
$35,000
Site and Plant Electrical
$368,000
Combined Discharge to Albemarle Sound
6" PVC Force Main, 22,400 LF
$400,000
6" DIP Force Main, 300 LF
$7,000
6" Gate Valve and Box
$8,000
4' ID Air Release Manhole
$13,000
Discharge Pump Station (one station)
$350,000
Directional Drill, Filbert Creek and Extended Discharge, 1,800 LF
$126,000
Diffuser Structure & Deflectors
$218,000
Erosion Control along forcemain
$23,000
NCDOT Asphalt Roadway Repair
$20,000
Asphalt Driveway Repair
$2.000
Capital Subtotal
$5,956,000
MobdDemob.. Bondingllns. (7%)
_ $417,000
Subtotal
$6,373,000
Capital Coatingeocies (10%)
$637,000
Total Estimated Capital Cost
$7,100,000
Easement Purchase
$100,000
Legal and Administrative
$12,000
Flow and CORMIX Studies
$100,000
NPDES Permit
$12,000
Technical Services
$1,020,000
Total Estimated Project Capital Cost $8,340,000
Operation and Maintenance Costs pumping to discharge point only) $/units Units Annual Cost
Discharge Lift Station, kW-hr, 3 hrs/day, 7 days/wk $0.070 77,708 $5,500
Labor, 1 hr/day, 5 days/wk $38 260 $9,900
Maintenance and Repnir _ $16,000
Annual 0 & M Cost $32,000

Table G.6
Alternative 2: Consolidate Existing Water Treatment Plants, Discharge to Albemarle Sound
Town of Edenton
20 Year Present Worth Actual Present
Cos[ Worth
Initial Capital Cost
Annual O & M Cost
$8,340,000 $8.340.ODD
$32,000 $403,000
Replacement Cost (Year 15)
Salvage Value
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF PRESENT WORTH 58,740,00O
Note: Present Worth estimated using discount rate 4.875%

Appendix H CORRESPONDENCE (WTP UPGRADE
Town of Edenton
Beaver Hill WTP Discharge Evaluation
February 2018 THE WOOTEN COMPANY

Casey Garland
From: Knighton, Anne -Marie <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 2:27 PM
To: Gary Hartong
Subject: Fwd: [External] RE: Discharge Analysis -WTP
Hey Gary,
Below is information you and Carl requested regarding WTPs. Do I need to send an update to State
on where we are with discharge study?
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartplione
-------- Original message --------
From: Linwood Stroud <lstroud @ strouden ineencom>
Date: 12/6/17 2:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Knighton, Anne -Marie" <anne-marie.knighton @edenton.nc.gov_>
Cc: David Tuten <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Discharge Analysis -WTP
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail].
Anne -Marie,
The information requested by Wooten is in red below.
Linwood
From: Knighton, Anne -Marie [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 4:53 PM
To: Linwood Stroud
Cc: David Tuten
Subject: Discharge Analysis -WTP
Linwood and David,
Wooten said they need information from you to finish up the alternative analysis for WTP Discharge permits. See
below. Is this information that you can easily provide to them? Thanks.
Anne -Marie —
Thanks for sending the Purolite proposal. Has any engineering report been prepared by Stroud Engineering that outlines
the treatment unit design criteria for both WTPs that supports the funding applications request? We need to better
understand the basis for Purolite's proposed treatment vessel capacities as those vary from the capacities outlined in
our engineering report. Specifically, we are seeking the following information.

Freemason WTP
a. Volume of treated water through softener and ion exchange unit before regeneration needed for each vessel.
150,000 gallons through each ion exchange vessel before regeneration is needed. Also 150,000 gallons through each
softener before regeneration is needed; however there is a 30% bypass for the softener so water to the system is
approximately 225,000 gallons for each softener before regeneration is needed.
b. Anticipated daily softener total regeneration, rinse, and backwash volumes for each regeneration cycle. What is
the anticipated TDS of the water to be discharged?
Assuming 1 regen/day, and all waste volume is blended for the TDS calculations, see summary table below
assuming we are using SSTC60:
Backwash water
(7 min @ 5 gpm/ft2)
670 gallons
Mass dry Salt per Regen
840 Ibs
Volume 10% Brine
940 gallons
Displacement Water
(softened)
1,050 gallons
Fast Rinse (maximum)
2,625 gallons
TOTAL WASTE
6,050 gallons
APPROXIMATE TDS
17,000 ppm
C. Anticipated daily ion exchange total regeneration, rinse, and backwash volumes for each regeneration cycle. What
is anticipated TDS of these waters to be discharged?
Assuming 1 regen/day, and all waste volume is blended for the TDS calculations, see summary table for
BromidePlus/9218 resin:
Beaver Hill
(6' vessels)
Freemason
(7' vessels)
Backwash water
(7 min @ 2.5 gpm/ft2)
484 gallons
660 gallons
Mass dry Salt per Regen
1710 Ibs
1710 lbs
Volume 10% Brine
1,913 gallons
1,913 gallons
Displacement Water
(softened)
2,565 gallons
2,565 gallons
Fast Rinse (maximum)
6,413 gallons
6,413 gallons
TOTAL WASTE
11,375 gallons
11,551 gallons
APPROXIMATE TDS
18,000 ppm
18,000 ppm
d. How many new high service pumps are being proposed? And what capacity for each pump?
Two (2)
2. Freemason WTP
I assume this should be Beaver Hill. The Beaver Hill WTP is designed for the exact same capacity as Freemason. The
volumes and concentrations are the same.
a. Volume of treated water through softener before regeneration needed.
b. Anticipated daily softener total regeneration, rinse, and backwash volumes for each regeneration cycle. What is
the anticipated TDS of the water to be discharged?
C. Anticipated daily ion exchange total regeneration, rinse, and backwash volumes for each regeneration cycle. What
is anticipated TDS of these waters to be discharged?
d. How many new high service pumps are being proposed? And what capacity for each pump?
Two (2)

Casey Garland
From: Linwood Stroud <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 4:40 PM
To: Casey Garland
Cc: David Tuten
Subject: Edenton wastewater rates
Casey,
The rates are
For one softener vessel:
• Backwash 7 minutes @ 200 gpm
• Fast Rinse — 7 minutes @ 140 gpm
■ Slow rinse —45 minutes @ 17 gpm
For one anion exchange vessel:
• Backwash 7 minutes @ 96 gpm
• Fast Rinse — 32 minutes @ 200 gpm
• Slow rinse — 60 minutes @ 43 gpm
Use the same flow rates for Freemason and for Beaver Hill.
Linwood Stroud
1

Casey Garland
From: Linwood Stroud <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 9:29 AM
To: Casey Garland; Carl Scharfe
Cc: Gary Hartong; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Additional Information needed on Edenton WTPs regeneration
At full plant production we estimate one regeneration per day for each train at each plant.
From: Casey Garland[mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 9:08 AM
To: Carl Scharfe <[e-mail]>; Linwood Stroud <[e-mail]>
Cc: Gary Hartong <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Additional Information needed on Edenton WTPs regeneration
Hello all,
Linwood provided us with the flow rates that we need yesterday in another email chain. However, we are not clear
about the number of regenerations required at full plant production. The email provided lists the number of
regenerations but we assume this is based on current demand (not full plant production capacity). Please confirm this.
Kind Regards,
Casey
From: Carl Scharfe
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 8:49 AM
To: Linwood Stroud
Cc: Casey Garland; Gary Hartong; anne-marie.knighton@edenton,nc.gov
Subject: RE: Additional Information needed on Edenton WTPs regeneration
The e-mail you attached we already have. This does not answer my questions. Question 1 is asking about the
flow rates and time duration for each of the regeneration steps. Question 2 is asking about the regenerations
needed at full plant production. You answered question 3 below, but not the other two questions.
I am actually out with the flu and typing this from home. Please send the requested information to Casey
Garland (attached e-mail).
Regards,
Carl Scharfe
Project Manager/Process Engineer
The Wooten Company
120 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
p.919.828.0531
f.919.834.3589
www.thewootencompany.com