NC0025348_Environmental Assessment_20060815

New Bern EA - DENR #1358
Subject: New Bern EA - DENR Al l';R
From: Toya Fields <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:21:38 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: Darlene Kucken <Darlene. Kucken @ ncmail.net>, [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Hi Jim,
I've reviewed the supplemental information submitted by the City of New Bern. I have
no additional concerns at this time. We'll handle permitting specifics when the
facility submits its application.
Thanks,
Toya
Toya Fields - toya.,[e-mail]
Environmental Engineer I
Western NPDES Program
Division of Water Quality
Tel: [phone] x 551
Fax: [phone]
I of 1 8/15/2006 11:14 AM

lW H Fpn
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
G9ril
DIII
[ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
p - 111� Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
22 June 2006
TO: Melba McGee, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
FROM: Alex Marks, Division of Water Quality/(ta
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment —New Bern water supply project, DENR #1358
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed the environmental assessment for the City of New
Bem's proposed water supply and treatment project (WTP). We have the following questions
S (re ardring Appendix C: NPDES Discharge Permit Engineering Alternatives Analysis:
qo z 1. The EEAA was developed for a proposed 5.5 MGD facility, however the document states that
Q( V New Bern anticipates the need for an expansion to 7.5 MGD by 2018. NPDES staff usually
asks facilities to look at their needs over a 20-year horizon and plan accordingly. In this
case it isn't clear why the plans are limited at 5.5 MGD when there will be an immediate
need for 7.5 MGD.
2. What is the expected volume of the discharge for the 7.5 MGD facility?
3. Will the proposed project require New Bem to expand treatment capacity at its WWTP? It
appears the city's current permit allows the plant to be expanded from 4.7 MGD to 6.5
MGD; however, it is unclear if the proposed WTP flow was considered in those capacities.
It appears that the City understands that the WWTP permit will be modified to include this
additional wastestream. The NPDES Unit may treat the WTP flow as an "internal outfall,"
however compliance will be judged after all wastestreams have been combined.
4. We would like to see the results of the CORMIX model (already developed for the diffuser)
re -run with this new wastestream included (WWTP flows and WTP flows), and a
characterization of the combined streams and a description of its effect on the receiving
stream.
5. What is the design capacity of the diffuser?
Please contact Ms. Toya Fields in the DWQ East NPDES Permitting Unit ([phone] ext.
551) should you have any questions regarding these comments.
c: oya Fields
�am�" nCarolina avaUura!!y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality/Planning Branch 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone]
hup//www,h2o.enr.state.nc.us 512 North Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
DENR Customer Service 1-877-623-6748 An Equal Opportunity/Affumative Action Employer

S.S m t4nke AW AS 7
G�de � ob/g
6:�j ;- 16.6� f�l Q �o
4�d 1�e o�4 4 Ate�, Ac"'s
4t*r- &dl

A A s s s s .ate A A A A i a A A x m m m
HOG ISLAND
DIFFUSER SITE
N
2350LF.t1
DIRECTIO`tVAL
r 0
,� •� B RE,THR,0UGHf
SWAMP-.AAVD' �T` �'
EXISTING
F 'DIFFUSER SITE
p �..• - _•+Apr ,r",5 _ t '1 .< - A Ei'j.TINN36°B.33'
!ji I
t �
a r A3jLNABTE ' �{ \ Cl1 \
f , FORCE MAN'po`�, P
11 _ ki
x4 ! /
y,� sr'
1 • _ v r � � � � tr ,`�` II=. -:fir �k d d"�_
TJNG
ss,
\ EUOOf✓d!
. ProMAIP SI'A27TTON SITE,
r
65
10 BACH'MA3RWASPE
u ` NATFnR dlNN Ts "� FORS
EE 95
/a
`i IYA.TER MAIN / ^ `,w7
tRC eCALB�
s� \r$yver�
CO 'TE1jA _ar,✓ �' `*>c , "; '� / d n
T� �iL�� � WIP ANP�O pSpVARCE 91E5
PROPO,,,S'1;D*
w scN.c v-rayon �'�'o
0'.\NCWBCRN-2520O-WTP Design\Dwgl eli mmNotForConsmmtion\W-2870A Preliminary WTP Site Plan 101105.dwg, WTPtoDIFFOSER SW ALT, 10Y27R005 11:03:55 AM, Miuli

WTP WASTE
0.5 MGD AVERAGE
FILTER BACKWASH WASTE
AND SOFTENER BACKWASH
WASTE
0
o
e
SETTLING SETTLING STORAGE
LAGOON LAGOON LAGOON
6.0 MGD
WWTP
NEUSE RIVER
0
0.5 MGD AVERAGE EXISTING WWTP
PUMPED EFFLUENT DI FUSER
FROM WTP
EFFLUENT
PUMP
STATION
WA5'TE PROCESS S�CHEMa ?7C

S0 ' d -11ZI101
North C.Arolin
1�
E�tvisloa of
T nOmmental Heakh
Division of Environmental Health
Terry L. Pierce, Director
Public Water Supply Section
Jessica G. Miles, Section Chief
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (F�NSI)
City of Now Bern
Water Supply and Treatment Project
Craven Cou ntyy North Carolina
State ofNerm CWaltna
Mk"d F. Easley, Gommor
QW tmenl arRAftnment and
NetUW Reaawaea
WdlE= G. Rose, 8eoretsry
The State Environmental Policy Act (G.S. I I3A) requires that the Division of Environmental Health determine whether a
proposed major agency action will sipificantly affect the environment. The City of New Bern
Water Supply and Treatment Project is such a major action. This project is seeking funds from the federally sponsored
Drinking Wator State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). Under the DWSRF program requirements, the proposed project must be
subjected to an environmental review in accordance with the State Environmental Review Procedates (SW) negotiated
between the US Environmental Protection Agency and the state's Division of Environmental Health. This project is
covered by the SERF. This project should be reviewed as a NBPA-Like review based on the (SERP).
In order to detminune whether construction of a water supply system of a 5.5 million gallons a day well field comprised of
16 wells and approximately 10 miles of S - 24 inch raw water transmission mains, a 5.0 million gallons a day Water
Treatment Plant, on approximately 67 acres of land, consisting of an aerator and raw water detention tank, filter pumps,
pressure filters and softeners, chemical feed system, treatment building, finished water storage tank, finished water
transmission pumps and waste treatment facilities and a 2 million gallon ground storage tank with finished water pumps
and approximately 3 miles of 20 inch finished water transmission main to an existing 4 million gallon clearwell will
cause significant environmental impacts, an environmental assessment has been prepared. The environmental assessment
is attached. It contains detailed information on the kcy issues, including a brief description of the proposed project and a
summary of probablo environmental impacts and proposed mitigations. None of the impacts were found to be significant.
On the basis of the analysis of the impacts as shown in the environmental assessment, no environmental impact statement
(BIS) will be prepared. This FONSI completes the enviromnental review record. The FONSI and Environmental
Assessment shall be available for inspection and comment for 30 days at the State Clearinghouse. This FONSI will
become effective upon successful release from the State Clearinghouse review.
Summary of FONSI for publication in the Environmental Bulletin: After completion of an environmental assessment
under G.S. 113A, a FONSI has beta made in the oase of the City of New Bern Water Supply and Treatment Project in
Craven County based on the data in the environmental assesaxncyrrlt ' h included information supporting the need for the
proposed project, along with relative impacts, other alternative app ches mitigating measures.
1D �D
L '(Dale)
Director, Environmental Health
1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1634 ratffarjap?;
neCrTelephone 919-733-2321 A Fax [phone]$74 • Lab Form Fax [phone]
http:Ilncdrinkingwater state.nc.usl
CW A WS117 CT). ATA AAnq ?la I Hm n T-'[anA NWgn IM bV ! AZ QM07—TS— )nN

CITY OF NEW BERM
CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NPDES DISCHARGE PERMIT
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
(EAA)
March 2006
rs
Ussociates,inc.
Since1918
107 East Second Street
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
[phone]
kovk CA
22987% :z
G 4: � Thomas C. Howell III, P.E.
',� � �•«� . �'•
Vice President
•r�4�� ��
+<<llrmiltt, �
3 23 e4-
M-► bate
M. Blaine Humphrey, .E. Ann.
Project Engine 1
Date
4>-RoUers`on, E.I.
ign Engineer
Date
F"

City of New Bern WYP IDES Discharge Permit - EAA March 2006
IM
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of New Bern is required to provide an adequate, dependable, and safe source of
water for its residents. Currently the City depends on five (5) existing wells for its water
supply. These five wells can :produce approximately 5 mgd when pumped 12 hours per day.
This will not be sufficient -to meet the City's current and future demands as well production
is reduced in order to comply with Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA)
Rule requirements, and as the population increases.
By 2018, the State of North Carolina, under the CCPCUA Rule, will require a 75%
reduction in water supply from the Cretaceous Aquifer (from current Approved Base Rates).
As a result, the City of New Bern proposes to upgrade and expand its water supply system.
This Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is to evaluate waste effluent disposal options
for a new 5.0 mgd net capacity (5.5 mgd gross) Pressure Filter/Zeolite Softening Water
Treatment Plant for the City of New Bern. The raw water supply will be the Lower Castle
Hayne Aquifer. The project is expected to include sixteen (16) wells, raw water
transmission mains, treatment plant facilities, a finished water transmission main, as well as
backwash waste lagoons, supernate pump station, and a backwash waste force main.
The WTP will consist of a raw water detention tank, filter pumps, pressure filters and
softeners, chemical feed systems, treatment building, finished water storage tank, finished
water transmission pumps, and waste treatment facilities, as .described above.
Where economically feasible, consideration will be made for designing the facilities such
that the plant can be expanded to 7.5 mgd net or 8.25 mgd gross capacity, by the year 2018.
Most of the process facilities will be sized to meet the initial treatment requirements (5.0
mgd net or 5.5 mgd gross). However, the waste discharge force main will be designed to
accommodate the future expected waste flow.
M 2.0 NEED FOR PROJECT
2.1 Population Growth
The year-round population of New Bern was approximately 23,637 in 2003 (North Carolina
State Data Center). As economic growth continues, additional residential growth is
expected. This growth is expected to continue at a rate similar to historical population
growth patterns. The North Carolina State Data .Center does not have population projections
for New Bern; therefore, future population and water demands are based on information
provided in the 2002- New. Bern Vater Supply Plan included -in Appendix A. -The 'water
Supply Plan population projections were based on the following information.
'�' •- Population -growth from 1985 to 1995 was at an annual rate of 1.8%, or 1.0% greater
than that of Craven County. (City of New Bern 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan)
Rivers and Associates, Inc. Page I

City of New Bern WTP NPDES Discharge Permit - EAA March 2006
• The City experienced an approximate 1.1% average annual growth from 1993 to 2003
(North Carolina State Data Center), or 0.3% greater than the Craven County population on
growth.
• The City estimates an average annual growth of 2.1 % through 2010. This initial on
growth rate is higher than historical averages to reflect currently planned development
projects in the area west of New Bern and south of the Trent River.
.,
• Projected growth*from 2010 to 2020 is anticipated to be 1.5% per year (or 1.1% greater
per year than Craven County).
• Projected growth from 2020 to 2030 is anticipated to be 1.4% per year (or 1.1% greater
per year than Craven County).
Figure 2.1 depicts historical trends and population projections for Craven. County and the
City of New Bern. Craven County's historical population is shown from 1993 to 2003, and
projections from the North Carolina State Data Center are displayed until 2030. Population
projections for the City of New Bern are depicted from several recent studies.
• The New Bern 201 Plan estimate contains the highest projections, and was based on a
10-year period of greater growth.
• The New Bern WTP NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis projection is lower,
and is based on the most recent 10-year period of data available, from 1993 to 2003.
• The New Bern 2002 Water Supply Plan projection figure is between these two, and is a
reasonable representation of expected population growth.
Figure 2.1 illustrates that the 2002 Water Supply Plan population projections conform to
historical and expected increases in growth for this area. As such, the 2002 Water Supply
Plan projections are used as the basis for water demand projections included in this study.
2.2 CCPCUA Reductions
The majority of the need for the project is the mandatory reduction in current well field
production in order to comply with CCPCUA's requirements. These requirements will
result in cumulative reductions to the existing well Meld water supply of: 0.621 mgd in 2002
(ABR); 1.680 mgd in 2008 (25%); 2.740 mgd in 2013 (50%); and 3.799 mgd in 2018 (75%),
as shown in Table 2.1. The City requires additional water supply by 2008 in order to meet
the demands of its residents while adhering to the reduction requirements of the CCPCUA
regulations.
..
Ow
..
am
am
Rivers and Associates, Inc. page 2
MM

- --- I - I I _7 - I I `I I 7 I
City of New Bern WTP NPDES Discharge Permit-EAA
FIGURE 2.1
ESTIMATED CRAVEN COUNTY AND NEW BERN POPULATION
1993 - 2030
rn m o O o 0 0
YEAR N N N
—*—Craven County Population +201 Plan Estimate t EAA Estimate CIF New Bern 2002 WSP Population
N
0
N
I I I
March 2006
110000
100000
90000
80000
70000
C
s000a
0
a
0
a
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Rivers and Associates, Inc. Page 3

M
City.offew_Bern WrFJVPDESDischargehermit -FAA . March 2006
em
M
em
FM
em
TABLE 2.1
CAPACITY REDUCTION vs DEMAND GROWTH (in MGD)
YEAR_
. WELLS
12=HOLTR ..
CAPACITY
WELLS
.CCPCUA --
CAPACITY'
WELLS
.. -CAPACITY.
REDUCTION
DEMAND..:
DEMAND
2002
4.860
4.290 (1)
0.621
4.268
-0.062
2005
4.860
4.239 0)
0.621
4.330
0.000
2007
4.860
4.239
0.621
4.680
0.350
2008
4.860
3.180 (2i
1.680 (2)
4.850
0.520
2010
4.860
3.180 (2)
1.680 (3)
5.190
0.810
2013
4.860
2.120 (3)
2.740 (3)
5.420
1.090
2017
4.860
2.120 (3)
2.740 (3)
5.710
1.380
2018
4.860
1.061 (4)
3.799 (4)
5.790
1.460
2020
4.860
1.061 (4)
3.799 (4)
5.940
1.610
2030
4.860
1.061 (4)
3.799 (4)
6.830
2.500
(1) Approved Base Rate 2) 25% Reduction (3) 50% Reduction (4) 75% Reducdon
2.3 Demands
Generally, the system demands increase at a rate similar to the estimated population growth.
The demands- fisted -in -the Water Supply Flux for 2002, 2010, and 2030;-are shown-in`T les
2.1 and Table 2.2. Intermediate years are interpolated in both tables. The future water
supply needs in Section 7 of the 2002 Water Supply Plan have been adjusted downward by
removing the estimated backwash so that the demand figures in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 are net
finished water demand from the WTP and Cove City wells.
Comparing demand growth from 2005 through the end of the Central Coastal Plain Capacity
Use Rule's (CCPCUA's) reductions in 2018, it is obvious that the demand growth by 2018
of 1.460 mgd is much less than the CCPCUA reduction of 3.799 mgd in 2018. The growth,
while an important factor, is not the major cause of the need for the new water treatment
plant by 2008. The CCPCUA reductions and increased demand together will result in a total
need of approximately 4.729 mgd by 2018, as shown in Table 2.2. Therefore, the City will
require additional water supplies to meet its future population demands and to offset the
75% reduction required by the CCPCUA.
Table 2.2 illustrates the effects that a proposed 5.0 mgd (net) water treatment plant online in
2018 together with an additional 2.5 mgd (net) capacity by 2018 would have on New Bern's
water-snpply. tc 5:� ,mgd piaat wiii be adegnate -until 2018, when the final -Capacity-Use
Reduction goes into effect. At that time, an additional capacity of 2.5 mgd will be needed.
Rivers and Associates, Inc. Wage 4

City of New Bern WTP NPDES Discharge Permit - EAA . March 2006
TABLE 2.2
PROJECTED DEMAND AND CAPACITY (in MGD)
Year
Wells
CCPCUA
Capacity
Demand
Total
Need
WTP
Capac#y
Total
Potable Wtr
Capacity
90 % of Total
Potable Wtr
Ca aci
2002
4.860
4.268
0.0
4.860
4.374
2005
4.860
4.330
-0.530
0.0
4.860
4.374
2007
4.860 (1)
4.680
-0.180
0.0
4.860
4.374
2008
3.180 c2)
4.850
1.670
5.0
8.180
7.362
2010
3.180
5.190
2.010
5.0
8.180
7.362
2013
2.120 c3y
5.420
3.300
5.0
7.120
6.408
2017
2.120 (3)
5.710
3.590
5.0
7.120
6.408
2018 (s)
1.061 (4)
5.790
4.729
5.0
6.061
5.455
2018 ( )
1.061 (4)
5.790
4.729
7.5 (b1
8.561
7.705
2020
1.061 (4)
5.940
4.879
7.5
8.561
7.705
2030
1.061 (4)
6.830
5.769
7.5
8.561
7.705
0)Approved Base Rate (2) 25% Reduction (3) 50% Reduction
(4) 75% Reduction (s) Without 2.5 MGD Expansion (6) With 2.5 MGD Expansion
3.0 TREATMENT PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS
Source Water Analysis
Source water for the proposed New Bern WTP is based on testing from four (4) different
test wells. A summary of the test well data is included in . Appendix B. The raw water
quality data was compared to the EPA National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Standards. It was determined that due to high iron concentrations and hardness, a filter and
ion exchange process would be the preferred treatment alternative.
Water Treatment Process
am
Raw water will be treated utilizing conventional pressure ffltration/zeolite softening
technology to meet State and Federal Drinking Water Standards. Filters will be used to so
lower the iron concentration while the ion exchange process will be incorporated to decrease
hardness in the water.
The following is a summary of the chemicals that will be used in the WTP to treat the water:
• Potassium permanganate (KMn04) - fed after aeration to oxidize remaining iron and
manganese
• Brine (NaCl) - required for softener regeneration
Rivers and Associates, Inc. Page 5 *,

MR
City.cfJ1%fer-WIPN'DES*DisdhargeP2 mit.- EAA March 2006
MW
• Chlorine (C12) — fed after aeration to oxidize iron and for chlorination disinfection of the
finished water
• Ammonia (NH3) = for chloramination (impede formation of trihalomethanes)
• Fluoride (H2SiF6) - for dental health
• Corrosion inhibitor — to minimize corrosive effects on iron, copper, and lead
components of the distribution and -plumbing systems
• Sodium bisulfate (NaHS03) — for dechlorination of the treated 'waste effluent before
discharge to the Neuse River, if necessary
Waste Treatment Process
The treatment process will produce a 0.5 MGD waste stream from filter backwash and
softener regeneration/backwash. The waste' treatment system will include multiple lined
lagoons operated in a series to receive wash water from the filter backwash and softener
regeneration processes. The lagoons will promote quiescent settling of the oxidized iron and
manganese, and sufficient volume will be provided for storage of the iron sludge. A
supernatant pump station will be provided to pump the treated waste effluent 5 miles to the
existing WWTP diffuser. The remaining sludge will be removed, dewatered, and hauled to
an approved lined landfill approximately every 5 years. A Residuals Management Plan is
'E included in Appendix H.
Effluent luent Characterization
By implementing an ion exchange technology, the wastestream to the proposed WTP will be
a highly concentrated brine discharge which cannot be land applied. The WTP discharge
' will be consistent with the source water characteristics as listed in the New Bern Test Well
Raw Water Quality Data Table in Appendix B, except where the treatment process has
MW modified the source water to meet EPA National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Standards, or State Water Quality Standards for Class SC waters. The expected effluent
concentrations are based on raw water quality data from the test wells and effluent data from
similar falter and ion exchange WTPs.
Due to the salinity of the effluent stream and the possibility of a point discharge into the
Neuse River, ambient water quality data was collected to compare the receiving waters with
the discharge. Three (3) monitoring stations kept by the USGS and NCDENR-DWQ were
selected upstream and downstream of the discharge location at the New Bern WWTP
,,a, diffuser and are described in the New Bern WTP Neuse River Monitoring Stations Table
and the Monitoring Station Map in Appendix B. The data from the three (3) ambient
monitoring stations indicates that the expected effluent will be within the acceptable range
of the river's ambient conditions as mentioned in the Water Quality Parameters. of Concern
and summarized in ifie Ambient Water Quality Table in Appendix B.
"M Rivers and Associates, Inc. Page 6

City of New Bern WTP NPDES Discharge Permit - EAA March 2006
4.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
This is an evaluation of the alternatives for the NPDES effluent discharge for the new WTP.
The following are alternatives that were considered for the disposal of effluent from the
proposed New Bern WTP:
• Connection to an Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Land Application 0M
• Wastewater Reuse
• Surface Water Discharge
• Combination of Alternatives MR
4.1 Connection to an Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
The New Bern Wastewater Treatment Plant will not accept the proposed WTP waste stream.
(See attached letter dated October 6, 2005 from David Muse, City Engineer, in Appendix
C.) Therefore, this alternative is considered technologically infeasible. am
4.2 Land Application
Possible land application alternatives include onsite subsurface systems, drip irrigation, and
spray irrigation. However, the EAA Guidance Document Version June 23, 2005, Page 4,
published by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality — NPDES Unit, indicates highly
concentrated waste streams from WTPs employing an ion exchange system "are not
amenable to land application and do not have to be evaluated for this alternative". Since the
proposed New Bern WTP incorporates filters and ion exchange softeners, the waste stream
is expected to be highly concentrated and, therefore, is not appropriate for land application.
MM
4.3 Wastewater Reuse
Page 5 of the EAA Guidance Document lists possible reuse options for use within the
WWTP property for "irrigation, toilet flushing, backwashing" or for applications outside the
WWTP facility including, "golf course irrigation, crop irrigation, athletic field irrigation,
landscape uses, and commercial/industrial uses." However, the New Bern WWTP will not MW
accept the WTP waste stream; therefore, toilet flushing, backwashing on the WWTP site,
and commerciAl industrial uses, are not feasible because they will ultimately be sent to the
WWTP for treatment. As previously mentioned, since the waste stream is anticipated to be r••
highly concentrated, land application is not allowable. Therefore, implementing wastewater
in irrigation or landscaping is not a reasonable alternative.
am
4.4 Surface Water Discharge
According to the USGS North Carolina Water Science Center, the discharge location by the No
New Bern WWTP in the Lower Neuse River is tidally influenced. (See e-mail
correspondence from USGS Hydrologist regarding "7Q10 and 30Q2 stream flows in the
lower Neuse region near New Bern, NC", dated October 5, 2005, in Appendix D.) r'
Rivers and Associates, Inc. Page 7 •,

MMM
No
Therefore, the receiving waters are not affected by zero 7Q10 or 30Q2 stream flows.
Ambient water quality data for the areas upstream and downstream of -the Wastewater
Treatment Plant Diffuser indicates environmental impacts will be 'minimal when compared
to the expected effluent characterization (see "Ambient Water Quality Table" in Appendix
B). The Lower Neuse River experiences times of highly concentrated chloride levels (up to
to be J.cdn .y :less
(approximately 2,500 mg/L). The "Water Quality Parameters of Concern" in Appendix B
shows that the expected effluent is within the range of the ambient conditions. Also, since
the proposed New Bern WTP discharge consists of inorganic matter, there is minimal
concern for discharge of oxygen -consuming wastes in the Neuse River. The WTP waste
treatment system will include dechlorination of the waste stream with sodium bisulfate
which will be carefully controlled.
The proposed New Bern WTP will consist of filters and ion exchange softeners to treat
groundwater (see the Filters and Softeners Process Schematic diagram in Appendix E). As
shown on the Facility Site Plans in Appendix E, the discharge site will be located on land
previously acquired by the City of New Bern, and will comply with the Reliability
Requirements and the Minimum Design Requirements as specified by the North Carolina
Administrative Code.
4.5 Combinations. of Alternatives
As - previously- mentioned, a- cmmection -tc-the -New Bern WWT? is not feasible. Land
application is not appropriate for the highly concentrated effluent, and wastewater reuse is a
technologically infeasible alternative for the New Bern WTP. Therefore, surface water
r--=` discharge is the only viable solution for effluent disposal.
4.6 Summary of Alternatives and Present Worth Analysis
Since surface water discharge is the only technologically feasible alternative for .the
proposed New Bern WTP, the following two surface discharge locations were evaluated:
• Discharging at the existing WWTP diffuser; and
M • Discharging at a proposed diffuser at Hog Island.
The following is a description and Present Worth Analysis of each alternative. The Present
Worth Analyses were calculated based on the cost differences between the two discharge
alternatives. The cost differences in the discharge alternatives include differences for
piping, pumps with VFD's, and diffuser costs.
Existing WWTP Diffuser
MIMI
The waste holding lagoon overflow will be pumped to the WWTP effluent line and diffuser
in the Neuse River. The WTP waste line will tie in to the WWTP effluent line downstream
M, of the WWTP effluent meter and sampling point. A check valve will be installed on the
Rivers -and Assoc""agates, Inc. Page 8

nn
City of New Bern WTP NPDES Discharge Permit - EAA March 2006
ow
WWT? effluent line to prevent WTP backwash effluent from going to the New Bern
WWT? Pump Station or the quarry's discharge line. The preliminary design parameters for ow
the discharge line and pump station are as follows:
Length
27,600 feet -�
Diameter
12 inches, min.
Material
PVC, SDR-21
Hazen -Williams "C"
120
Average Discharge
440,836 gpd @ 5.5 mgd WTP
Projected Maximum Discharge
520 gpm
Velocity
1.5 fps
Two (2) waste pumps at 20-hp
36 kw
The Present Worth Analysis for the effluent discharge into the existing diffuser at the
WWTP is presented in Appendix F as follows:
Capital Cost Opinion $9399000
Annual O&M Cost Opinion $ 79300
Present Worth Cost Opinion $911,649
New Diffuser at Hog Island
..
The waste holding lagoon overflow will be pumped to a diffuser near Hog Island in the
Neuse River. The preliminary design parameters for the discharge line and the pump station
are as follows: on
Length
14,800 feet
Diameter
10 inches,
Material
PVC, SDR 21
Hazen -Williams "C"
120
Average Discharge
440,836 gpd @ 5.5 mgd WTP .•
Projected Maximum Discharge
520 gpm
Velocity
2.1 fps
Two (2) waste pumps at 25 hp
44 kw ■-
The Present Worth Analysis for the effluent discharge into the diffuser _at Hog island is
presented in Appendix F as follows:
Capital Cost Opinion $1,5192000
Annual O&M Cost Opinion $ 9,060
Present Worth Cost Opinion $1,454,265
4.7 Conclusions and Recommendations
The WWTP Diffuser Alternative is less expensive overall, even with a higher O&M cost
accrued from the larger waste pumps; but this alternative requires less capital funds. A new
om
Rivers and Associates, Inc. Page 9

rq
City of ew Bern W'P NPDES Discharge Permit - EAA March 2006
diffuser at Hog Island would require more capital funds primarily due to the material and
installation costs of the diffuser, and the cost of the use of a directional bore under the Neuse
River. Therefore, the WWTP Diffuser Alternative is the most economically feasible option
for the New Bern WTP discharge.
5.0 -PLAN SELECTION
mq� 5.1 Selected Plan and Selection Reasons
The discharge at the existing V;WTP diffuser is the selected alternative. This is the least
costly alternative and has a similar effect on the environment as the discharge at Hog Island.
A drawing of the existing diffuser and the proposed tie-in with the WTP waste discharge
line is included in Appendix E in the Facility Site Plan. However, this does require that the
NPDES WWTP Permit issued to the City of New Bern be amended due to the flow increase
and altered flow characterization (see NPDES Permit No. NCO025348 in Appendix G.)
PAMUNANew Bem\WTP1NPDES Altematives Analysis-24041AWAAMNAL REPOR'INFINAL Report.doc
rsa
M
rm
we
fm
fm Rivers and Associates, Inc. Page 10

httpJ/www.ncwaier.orerwa.�._� rr• _- --_ -
-- ,p update 1.0
_ +
POE
— Feedback View Plan Submit : Help : Logout
Date:12.19.2003
Homepage :
Part 1: Water Supply System Report
SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION
( 1=A ] Water System: City of New Bern (1=B 1 PWSID: 04.25-010
[ 1_C ] Bub-Basin(s): Neuse River (10-1 ), Trent River (10.3)
[ 1,_D ] Ccunty(s): Craven
,—• (1•=E j Contact Person: David A. Muse [ 1_F ] Tlde: City Engineer
( 1.r, ]Address: Newl 29
BernNC 28560
— [ 1_H ] Phone: (252) 63& 4004 (1_I ] Fax: [phone]
[ 1_1 ] Email: [e-mail]
(1_K 1 Ownership Type: Municipality
_
SECTION 2: WATER USE INFORMATION
,
(p Year -Round: 23,850
2 population Served In 2002:
--- Seasonal (If applicable): 0 Months:•None
[ 2_B ] Total Water Use for 2002 including all purchased water: 1,535.545 Million Gallons (MG)
,
Annual Daily Water Use In 2002: 4,207 Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
2-C ]Average
Average Annual Daily Water Use by Type In Million Gallons per Day (MGO):
[ 2_D ] 2002
^ Metered Connections Non -Metered Connections
Total Average Use (MGD)
Type of Use Number Average Use (MGD) Number Est Average Use (MGD)
,•
0 0.000
• (1) Residential 13,389 2.3�'•
2.344
'— 000 0.
(2) Commercial 1,626 0.945 0
0.945
(3)Indusidal 48 0.342 0 0.000
0,342
—• 0.175
(4) InsBtuadonal 1 0 0.000
0.175
(5) Sales to other Systems
0.037
(6) System Process Water
0.000
(7) Subtotal
3•843
(8) Average Annual Daily Water Use
4207
(9)unaccounted-for water
0.364
(10) Percent Unaccounted-for water
9 %
Note:
Daily and Maximum Day Water Use by Month In Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
[ 2=E) Average
Avg. Daily Use Max Day Use Avg. Daily Use Max Day Use
Avg. Daily Use Max Day Use
4.287 5.388
Jan 3.688 4.873 May 4.656 5.786 Sep
a 6.178 Oct
3.675 3.957 Jun 4.999
4.092 5267
Feb
12/t9/03 2:42 1

MSp Update 1.0
http://www.ncwater.t%q*7/WatelOuPY►y r ,LL""Llv 16 , —V 1 446-14
r
Mar 3.737 4.482
Jul 4.690 6.46a rvov .
4.02 6.020
Aug 4.783 6.587 Dec 3.690
Apr
Note:
•
Water Users and their Average Annual Daily Use In Million Gallons per day (MGD) for 2002
j Largest
2-F j
Avg Davy Use
Type of Use
Residential
0.001
Commercial
0.003
Industrial
0.082
Institutional
0.175
5.120
5.184
Note:
[ ?.G j Water Sales To Other Systems
Water. Supplied To: Average Daily Amount Contract Amount
Pipe Sbs(s) R cr E
Inches
• WaterSyst�em PWSID MGD # of Days MGD Expiration Date
Cove City 04-25-045 0.037 365 0.098
6 R
Note:
What Is the Total Amount of Sales Contracts for Regular Use? 0.098 MGD
.
[ j
SECTION 3: WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
[ �; surface Water - Ust surface water source tnformation.
Is counDay Available Raw
Useable
On -Stream R
Drainage court Day
Area Su"asln Intake With" With. Weber Supply
Raw Water Year or
Supply Orillne
drawal drawal
Stream Reservoir (il re d Is
E
;Storage
.. Mies) Metered? located MGO Days MGD MGD t0ual.
MG ,
No surface water sources are currently listed.
Note: .
13.8 j Total Surface Water Supply available for Regular use? 0.000 MGD
Does this system have o!f-stream raw water supply storage? No Useable Capacity: 0 MWion Gallons
13.0 j
. [ g�D j Water Purchases From Other Water Systems
Water Supplied By: Average Daily Amount Contract Amount
Pipe sin4s) R
or
Water System pWSID MGD # of Days MGD Expiration Date
Inches
E
No water purchases are currently listed.
'
Note:
[ 3,_E i What is the Total Amount of Purchase Contracts available for Regular Use? 0.000 MGD
€ 3 F j Ground Water - List well Information.
Screen Pump Avg. DailWithdrawal Maximum
IsDay
Available Supply Year R
Name Well Casing Depth Well Intake
or Diameter Well Withdrawal
Depth m Depth0
Otiilne or
of
(ft) (ft.) Top Sot. (Inches) Metered? MGD pays (MGD)
MGO Qualllser
of Well VW 00
No
No
no
an
ao
OR
as
— en
12/19/03 2:42

'SP Update 1.0
http://www.Ilc"Eer.urvl
R' Well No.. 842 490 490 837 10 220
Y
0.869
358
2.218
0.972
12HR
1
Well No. 820 460 460 815 10 220
Y
0.806
365
2.120
0.900
12HR
2
Well No. T96 465 465 779 10 240
Y
1.036
364
2.356
0.972
12HR
3
Well No. S39 465 465 834 10 240
Y
0.982
361
2.074
0.972
12HR
4
'
Well No. S69• 495 496 889 10 240
Y
0.630
269
1.909
1.044
12HR
5
Note:
is the Total Available Supply of aA wells for Regular Use? 4.860 MGD
'
13.G ] What
1 _3.H ] Are ground water levels monitored? Yes Haw often?
Monthly
system have a wellhead protection program?
Yes
1 N ] Does this
V�•
13 ]Water Treatment Plants. List an water treatment plants, Including any under construction during 2002.
Is Famished
R
R
R
R
R
.. Permitted Capacity is Raw Water Output Source(s)
Water Treatment Plant Name (MGD) Water Metered? Metered?
No water treatment plants are currently listed.
Note:
( ] What is the total WTp capacity? 0.000 MGD
3.L ] Dud the average daily water production exceed 80% of the approved WTP capacity for five consecutive days In 2002? No
If yes, was any water conservation implemented?
1�
] Did the average daily water production exceed 90% of the approved WTP capacity for five consecutive days In 2002? No
if yes, was any water conservation implemented?
Wt'►at is the systems finished water storage capack? Million Gallons
SECTION 4: WASTEWATER INFORMATION
List the Average Dally Wastewater Discharge by Month -for 2002 In Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
4.A
1 ] Average Daily Average Daily
Average Daily Average Daily Discharge . Discharge
Discharge Discharge
3.480 Apr 3.790 Jul 3.420 Oct 3.270
Jan 3.260•
Feb 3.520 May
BA60 Aug 3.380 Nov
Mar 4.030 Jun
3.420 Sep 3.730 Dec 3.160
Note:
(4-3 ) List all Wastewater Discharge and/or Land Application Permits held by the system.
'RI NPDES Permitted Design Avg. Annual Max. Daily Receiving
Name a of of Sub -Basin
and/or Capacity Capacity Daily Discharge Discharge Stearn
Land ApRticatfon (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
P_8�1 permit Number
4.700 4.700 3.490 5.480 Neuse River Neuse River (10-1)
NC0025348
RM
Note:
14 C I List all Wastewater Discharge Interconnections with other systems.
12/ 19/03 2:42

http://wwwncwater.,- /water supply ruswuuW'A'%,� .ra.u,&T-oup...
WSp Update 1.0
�..
Average Daily
Contract
Wastewater Discharger Wastewater Recelever Amount Discharged
Maximum
PWSID Name PWSID MGD
# of Days
MGD
Name
No Wastewater discharge interconnections are currently listed.
�
Note:
j 4-D J Number of sir service connections: 10,844
�..
[ 4E J Number of water service carurectians with septic systems: 2,900 .
jI Are there plans to build or expand wastewater treatment facilities to the next 10 years? No
if yes, please explain: .
SECTION 5: SYSTEM MAP
Please send us your system map• Click here far Instructions on how to do so.
Part 2: Water Supply Planning Report
• SECTION 6: WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
• [ j.A j Population to be served:
2002 2010 2020
2030
2040 2050
Year -Round: 23,850 27,280 31,740
36,366
0 0
• 0
Seasonal•(tf applicable): 0 0
0
0 0
Note:
Nfanths of any future seasonal demand: None
[ ,0I projected Average Daily Service Area Demand In Million Gallons •per Day (MGD).
• 2002 2010 2020
2030
2040 2050
Identia 2.344 2.990 3.470
3.950
0.000 0.000 �.
Comrnercla • 0.948 1.130 1.316
1.630
0.000 0.000
Indusb-ist 0.342 0.385 .0.420
0.480
0.000 0.000 .•,
• Institutio 0.175 0.210 0.240
0.260
0.000 0.000
Backwash 0.000 0.400 0.400
0.600
0.000 0.000
' Unaccounted-for water 0.364 0.380 0.400
0.420
0.000 0.000 ^
Service Area Demand 4A70 5.495 6.24
7.33
0 0
Note:
.
water use expected to change signiftcantly through 2030 from current levels of use? No
[ 6-G I Is non-residential
If yes, please explain'.
[ 6-D J Future Sales Contracts - List new sales to be made to other systems.
Water Supplied To• Contract Amount and Duration
Pipe Sl*s) R or E .�
Inches
System Name PWSID MGD Year Begin Year End
No future sales are currently listed.
12/ I9/03 2:42 _

• L1L[P://WWvy.uc:.w:uct.a,L� if �..•••-rr-+_ - - --
�P update 1.0 '
Note:
( E j Future Supplies - list new sources or facilities to be added.
Additional Supply Year On -tine R or E
Source or Facillty Name PWSID Source Type MGD
Castle Haynes Water Treatment Plant
0425-010 Ground 4.000 2007 R
lam 04-25.010 Ground 2.000 2012 R
Castle Haynes WTP Expansion _ Well No. fi 2004 'R
04-25-010 Ground 0.846
,
Note:
• SECTION 7: FUTURE WATER SUPPLY NEEDS
local overnments shoutd.maintaln adequate water supplies to ensure that average daily water demands do not exceed 80% of the available
su ply. The {O(iowing table will demonstrate whether existing supplies are adequate to satisfy this requirement and when additional water
supply VAII be needed. .
[ 7 j Average Daily Demand as Percent of Supply
Available Supply, MGD 2002 2010 . 2020 2030 2040 2050
'M9 o.rzo0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
(1) Existing SctOMWater Suacty
Graund Water SuoAty 4.860 4.860 4.860 4.860 4.860 4.860
(2) Existing •_
base Contr c 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
(3) Existing P-f-----•-
. 4,846 •6.846 6.846 6.846 6.846
(4) uture Su ties
r 4.660 9.706 11.706 i 1.706 11.705 11.706
(5) Total Avagable Supply
Average Oally Demand MGD 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Service rea Demand 4.170 5.495 6.240 7.330 0.000 0.000
(6' 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098
(7) Existing &ales Cantrac s
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
(8) mto Sates Contracts
4.288 5.593 6.338 7,428 0.098 0.098
(9) Total Average Daily Demand
1°k
(10) Demand as Percent of Supply
88% S8VA 54% 63% 1%
11 Additional Supply Needed to Maintain 80% ' 0.475 0.000 0.000 0.000 Q.000 0.000
�
I )
{dote:
r� [ B ] Uns 10 does not Indlcatie that demand will exceed 80% of available supply before the year 2030. Therefore you do not have to submit
the following information:
before demand exceeds 80% cf available supply. The sooner the additional supply wail be
(1) plans fcr obtaining additional water supply .
needed, the more specific your plans need to be. .
(2)
A demand management program to ensure efficient use of your avaitabfleer �supply de mexap conducting
Y+fe� ramie structures ter audits t least
annually to closely monitor water use; targeting large water customers
Identifying and reducing the amount of teaks and unaccounted-for water, and reusing reclaimed water for nonImAeble uses).
g Restrictive measures to control demand if the additional supply is not available when demand exceeds 80% of available sup y,
including:
a placing a moratorium on additional water connections until the additional supply
ismanda a wbbler conservation as water demand
e.
e Amending or developing your water shortage response ordinance to bigger
approaches the available supply.
` ' [ 77-C ] Are peat[ day demands expected to exceed the water treatment plant capadty by 20107 No
If yes, what are your plans for increasing water treatment plan capacity?
12/ 19/03 2:42 P

LWSP Update 1.0
http://Www.ncwater.Orv)Waw] Suppty_rta11131" Local waxer pup...
T ? 13 ]pass this system have an interconnection with another system capable of providing water In an emergency? No
if not, what are your plans for interconnecting (or please explain why an interconnection Is not feasible or necessary?
[ ?& ] Has this system partidpated in regional water supply or water use planning? No
• if yes, please describe:
[ 7 F ] Ust the major water supply reports or studies used for planning
[ ha] Please describe any other needs or issues regarding your water supply sources, any water system de
frcienaes or needed ■•.
Imporvements (storage, treatment, etc.) or your ability to meet present and future water needs. Include both quantity and quality
considerations, ss well as financial, technical, managerial, permitting, and compliance Issues.
[ H ] Does this system rely on the transfer of surface wafer between river basins for any of its existing water supply? No ..
if yes, please describe:
[ Z-1 ] Does this system anticipate transferring surface water between river basins? No.
if yes, please describe:
Part 3: Water Conservation and Demand Management '
•
.
SECTION 8: WATER USE EFFICIENCY
0M
What Is the estimated total miles of distribution system lines?
212 Miles
..
[ ]
[ 8 ] List the primary
types and sues of distribution Lines:
Asbestos Cement Cast Iron
Ductile Iron Galvanized Iron
(GI)
Plyvinyl Chloride Other
(PVC)
(AC) (CI)
(DI)
Size Range (inches)
6-12 6-12
6-16 2
2-12 30
Estimated % of lines
2% 32%
15% 3%
41 % 7%
Note:
Were any lines replaced in 2002? No 0 linear feet
• [ 8D ] Were say new water mains added to 200V Yes 11,300 linear feet
( 8E ] Does this system have a program to work or flush hydrants? Yes How often? Once a Month
[ 8F ] Does this system have a valve exercise program? No How often? None
[ 8G ] Does this system have a cross-wrmecdon control program? No
[ 88-H j Does this -system have a meter replacement program? Yes Meters replaced In 2002: 360
[ V ] Haw old are the oldest meters In the system? 10 Years
[ gd ] Are there meters for outdoor water use, such as Irrigation, which are not billed at a different rate? Yes
# of meters 688
[ K ] Has water pressure been Inadequate In any part of the system? No
If yes, please explain:
[ 8 L j Does this system have a leak detection program? No '
If yes, what type of program? .
( M ] Would this system like help to plan a leak detection program? Yes
(&N ] Does this system have an active water conservation public education program? Yes
( p ] Does this system have a program to encourage replacement or retrofit of older, high water -use plumbing fixtures? No
( 8-P ] What type of rate structure is used? Flat
Does this system have seasonal rates? No
[ 8-R j Does this system use reclaimed water or plan to use it within the next five years? Yes
12/ 19/03 2:4,-

„gyp Update 1.0
ttttp://www.=wa=t.v&p •Ya«, _--r•r-,j-.r --- •, — — -
rim
Number of cortnections: 0 ; 0.000 MGD
( g-g ] Do you need help to measure or monitcr streamSows to determine the now at your intake? No
( S&T j Are you required to maintain minimum flows downstream of your intake or dam? No
'
( U ]Oaring 200 2� did you have problems meeting sales contracts to other water systems? No
( &V ] Do you monitor and record the amount of water supply from all available sources for your system? Yes
How Often? Daily -
a
rim
; W ] How much water was Una-ac mu ted for to the last water audlCi 159�a Year.1897
(”] Was your water supply limited in 2002 because of acdvlty of other users of the same water source? No
,a,
If yes, please explain the problem:
How was the problem resolved'? •
other voluntary programs could hasp foster water conservation and
water reuse measures In your
What kinds of incentive programs or
(com8-Y munity?
'o+
(&Z J Water Use Restrictidns 1998 - 2002 1998
1999 2000 2001 2002
FM
0
(1) Number of moriths In Voluntary Stage
0 0 0 0
0
0
(2) Number of months In Mandatary Stage
0 0 0
0 0
f
0
(3) Number of months In Emergency Stage
0 0
'
No No Na No
(4) Was temporary piping or pumps installed andfcr used to supplement water supply? No
.
l of water? No
(5) Did you have an Interconnection to obtain an emergency Supply
No No No Na
No
(6) Was water use restricted for industrial customers?
No - No No No
• No
(7) Were sales to other systems restricted?
No No No No
(a) Weis to customers required to be at the some level of water use restrictions? No
No No No No
' g Are you required to be at teh same level of water use restrictions as your water supplier'? No
()
No No No No
r-,
(10)Were enforcement measures used to encourage compliance with water use restrictions? No
No No No No
(11) Did you wtdertake public educational activities to encourage water conservation? No
No No No No
•
(12) Was a water audit conducted to account for all water produced or purchased? No
No No No No
(13) Was Public Water Supply Section Regional Office notifled about water use restrictions? No
No No No No
SECTION 9: WATER SHORTAGE RESPONSE PLANNING
( 9-A ] Did this water system have a Water Shortage Response Plan prier to 20027 No
( 9 B ] Did this system develop a Water Shortage Response Plan during 2002? No
9-C ] if you have a Water Shortage Response Plan does it Include a drought ordinance to trigger water use mstdcdons? No
t o of the Water Shortage Response Plan developed for your system to the Division
Yes
if you answered in s-A or 9-8, please send a copy
of Water Resources by either method listed below:
e Email:
Tax: [phone]
a US Mail:
t North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Supply Planning
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-161 i
If you answered No to 9-A and 9-8, You
must submit a Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) with your 2002 Local Water Supply Plan.
• The WSRP should include objective measures of water availability as triggers to activate and deactivate water use reduction
12119103 2:42 P
-. r n

htfip://www.ncwater O-V W atex �uppLy_rLbLLLUU�u,..� .. a�•..,� ter...
LWSP Update I.0 .
activities. Ow
• WSRP's should designate essential, economically important, and non -essential uses of drinking water. Uses included in each of
these categories wM vary for individual water systems.
preparing a water Shortage Response Plan, a han_pv
is•avaliable to view or download from the ater
To assist in updating or
conservation section of the Division of Water Resources website at www rtcwaterora. Please contact Q for assistance with
Updating or preparing your Water Shortage Response Plan.
Part 4: Interbasin Transfer Worksheets
This part does at apply to your system. .
[Tog Of Page I
• nn
. 12/ 19/03 2:4
n _CO

NEW BERN TEST WELL DATA
l � �
REV 10/06/2005
Well
Static
W.L.
Top
Aquifer
S�r+een
Actual
Drwdn
Act.
Yield
Sp. Cap.
Est
Drwdn �
t
Pumping
Bar'
Est
Yield
Trans.
Fl
Fe
Mn
Color
Total
Hardness
Total
THMFP
THMFP
w/
9HrN
Chlorides
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Slit
Dbdslty
Ihdsx
Desdription
(ft)
Est,'
({{)
(fi)
(GPM)
(9Pm�)
(R)
Level'
(n)
(gPM)
(ff/day)
(m91Q
(m38-)
(m9n-)
(CU)
(mgn-)
(ugn')
(mS4-)
(ft)
f0)
(ug;L)
(mgn-)
(SDI)
Upber TWA
21
60 - 80
65
9.38
178
0.11
1.74
0.029
16
269
A;$$, ,r
9
290
(Race Track Rd)�°
Lower TW
20
163 - 283
6s
3.38
638
986
0.11
1.61
0.067
24
207
92.4
12.6
9
266
(Race Track Rd)
Prod. Well
266 - 276
27
267t
&
177
644
3.8
177
204
63
986
(Race Track Rd)
280 - 285
TW #2
21.2
232
232 - 257
70
6.7
152
171
61
600
2700
0.13
3.82
0.085
22
247
122.7
22.8
6
318
5.22
(WTP Property)
TW #3
13.85
195
195 - 225
50
2.24
130
1"
51
350
800
< 0.1
2.48
0.066
65
240
27.3
< 1
5
310
2.3
(Moorb Property)
TW #4
20.93
205
205 - 230
60
3.65
130
151
154
400
1300
<0.1
2.34
0.047
24
212
16.4
< 1
.5
291
1.67
(Moore Property)
'* Provided by Groundwater Management Associates, Inc.
PAMUNl1New Bem1WTP1NPDES Alternatives Analysis-24041.11EAA1Draft - EAAINew Bem Test Well Data w Chloridesads

NEW BERN TEST WELL RAW WATER QUALITY DATA REV 10/06/2005
see
see
r•
sse
ass
Well No.2
Average Raw
Water
Concentration'
EPA National
Primary Drinking
Water Standards
Anticipated
Effluent
Concentration
Filter Softener
Plant
Effluent
Wader Ouaitly
Standards
(Saltwater)
Aquatic Life
Description
Test
Method
unas
Upper TW
Race
Track Rd
Lower
TW Race
Track Rd
TW#2
(WTP
Property)
TW#3
(Moore
Property)
TW#4
(Moore
Property)
Acidity
SM 2310B
m91
15
14
22
28
20
21
21
Alkalinity
SM2320B
meA
240
197
256
211
236
221
221
Aluminum
EPA 200.8
m9A
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.010
.05-20
0.010
Antimony
EPA 200.8
m9rl
0.002
0.OD1
0.001
0.007
0,001
< 0.001
0.006
0.001
Arsenic
EPA 200.8
-YL
< 0.005
0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0,005
< 0.005
0.01014
< 0.005
0.05
Sedum
EPA 200.8
m9rL
0.029
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
2.0
< 0.010
Beryllium
EPA 200.8
mall
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.001
Cadmium
EPA 200.8
eQk
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.001
< 0.001
< 0,001
< 0.001
0.005
< 0.001
0.005
Calcium, as CaCOe
SM 3111 B
melt.
272
255
103
210
210
Calcium, as Ca
m9IL
103
89.8
108.8
1J 102
13 41.2
64.4
Carbon Dioxide
SM 2310B
-91
19
25
22.0
22
Chiantis,
SM 4600B
mall
9
9
6
5
5
6.250
250°
\2.60041J00t
Chromium
EPA 200.8
MS&
0.01
0.012
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.005
< 0.007
0.100
0.007
0.02
Chlorophyll a
m9A
0.04 (N)
Color(PlalinumCobalt)
SM 2120B
CU
16
24
22
65
24
33.750
150
Copper
EPA 200.8
mg&
< 0.003
0.003
< 0.003
< 0.003
0.088
< 0.024
1.33, (11)
< 0.02425
0,003(AL)
Cyanide
SM 4500 C&E
met
< 0.005
1 0.005
< 0.005
< 0,005
< 0.005
0.005
0.2
< 0.005
0.001
Dissolved Oxygen @ 23.5 C
SM 4500C
m3IL
7.6
6.58
7.090
T09
5
Fluoride
SM 4500BIG
matL
0.11
0.11
0.13
1 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.110
4 (2 °)
0.110
Hardness, Total
SM2510B
mist
269
207
247
240
212
227
227
Insoluble Iran
Calculation
marl
2.48
2.480
2.48
Insoluble Manganese
Calculation
me&
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
Iran
SM 3111S
matt.
1.74
1.51
3.82
2.48
2.34
2.508
0.3
Iron - Soluble
SM 311 is
m9ll
< 0.01
0.01
< 0.010
< 0.01
Langlier Index, Conosivily
Calculation
-0.81
.0.03
Noncorrosive°
Lead
EPA 200.8
mgri
< 0.003
0.003
< 0.003
< 0.003
0.003
< 0.003
0151
< 0.003
0.025 (N)
Magnesium
SM 3111B
matt
1.94
0.98
1.86
1.62
1.7
1.540
1.540
Manganese
EPA 200.8
M-A
0.029
0.067
0.085
0.066
0.047
0.066
.059
O re
Manganese- Soluble
EPA 200.8
-91
0.081
0.065
0.073
0,073
Mercury
EPA 245.1
mglL
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
0.002
< 0.0002
0.000025
Nickel
EPA 200.8
mglL
< 0.005
< 0005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.0083
Nitrate
SM 4500 F-B
mgI
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.100
to,
< 0.1
Nitrate-Mbile
SM 450OF
mg&
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.100
< 01
Nitrite
SM 45WB
mglL
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.050
1 z
< 0.05
Odor
SM 2150B
fuel
none
none
3 freehold odor no. °
Pesiliddes
Aldrin
EPA 525.2
mgrl
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
0.000003
Chlordane
EPA 525.2
m9&
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
0.002
< 0.0002
0.000004
DDT
-OIL
0.000001
Demeton
mgI
0.0001
Disarm
EPA 525.2
rig&
< 0.0002
DD2
0.0002
0.0002
0.000DO02
Endosulfan
mglL
0.000009
Endrin
EPA 525.2
mWL
< 0.000D1
0001
0.00001
0,002
0.00001
OD00002
Guthion
mglL
100D
0.00001
Heplachlor
EPA 525.2
MIL
< 0.00004
< 0.00004
0.0004
< 0.00004
0.000004
Undane(gamma-BHC)
EPA 525.2
mall
< 0.00002
0002
0.00002
0.0002
0.00002
0.000004
McOwxyciJor
EPA 525.2
matt
< 0.0001
001
0,0001
0.040
0A001
0.00003
See Footnotes on Page 4
PAIMUNIWew Bem\WTPWPDES Alternatives Analysis-24041.1\EAMFINAL REPORT\Test Well and Raw Water Ouality.xls 1of4

NEW BERN TEST WELL RAW WATER QUALITY DATA REV 10/06/2005
aal
2
Well No.
Average Raw
Water
Concentration'
EPA National
Primary Drinking
Water Standards
Anticipated
Effluent
Concentration
Filter Softener
Plant'
Effluent
Water Ouahiy
Standards
(Saltwater)
Aquatic Life
Description
Test
Method
Units
Upper TW
Race
Track Rd
Lower
TIN Race
Track Rd
TW # 2
(WTP
Property)
TW # 3
(Moore
Property)
TW # 4
(Moore
Property)
Pesticides cent.
Mire.
mglL
0.000001
Parathion
mprL
0.000178
Toxaphene
EPA 508
mllL
0.001
< 0.001
0.001
< 0.001
0.003
0.001
0.0000002
PCB Screen
EPA 508
mgh
< 0.0001 1<
0.0001
0.0001
< 0.0001
0.001
0.0001
PH - lab
SM 4500 B
SU 7.1
7.20
6.30
7.25
6.80
6.888
6.".5 r
6.89
6.8-8.5
Polychlorinated biphenyls
mgh
0.0(10001
Potassium
SM 3111B
melt
3.84
2.98
3.410
3.41
Selenium
EPA200.8
mg&
0.005
< 0.W5
< 0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.050
< 0.005
0.071
Silver
EPA 200.8
m9/L
< 0.002
< 0.002
< 0,002
< 0.002
< 0.002172
02
0.1 s
< 0.002
0.0001 (AL)
Sodium
SM31118
mWL
4.2
6.95
5.62
5.85
4.1235
5.635
Solids, settleable
melt
(N)
Sulfate
SM 4500 D 8
mg&
59
7
9
8
550
250.
725
Suede
SM 4500D
mgh
< 0.1
0.1
0.100
< 0.1
Surfactants; MBAS
SM 5540C
m9VL
< 0.025
0.025
25
0.50
< 0.025
Temperature
EPA 170.1
PC
20
20
.0
(N)
Thallium
EPA200.8
melt
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.001
< 0.001
0.00101
0.002
0.001
Gross Alpha
EPA 900.0
PCOL
1.2
< 1.2
1.4267
15
Gross Bela
EPA 900.0
pC6L
3.2
3.8
2.7233
50"
Radium 226
EPA 903.1
pCOL
0.1
0.2
0.3200
Ss
Radium 228
EPA Ra-05
Pca
0.9
1
< 0.9933
Uranium
EPA 908.0
'Ca
< 0.8
1.21
27'
THM-FP W/O NH,-N
ug/L
92.4
122.7
27.3
16.45
Total THM W/ NH�-N
ugh
88.4
12.6
22.8
< 1
1
350
80
HAA W/O NH,-N
ugh
32.5
58.9
8.5
10.8675
Total HAA W/ NH,-N
u9h
. 7.5
13.6
2
< 2275
Total Dissolved Solids
SM 2540C
m91
290
266
318
310
29196
500,
296.25
Total Organic Carbon
SM 5310C
mgh
0.93
1.84
3.26
< 0.5
0.5525
1.525
Todc substances
MWL
(T)
Trialkyltin
mgh
O.000002
Turbidity(NTU)
SM 21308
NTU
8.8
9.8
18
23
9.5
15.075
TT'
15.075
25(N)
Zinc
EPA200.8
mill
0.024
O.D62
0.04
0.027
0.069
0.050
5°
0.0495
0.056(AL)
p-IsopmpNtoluene
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
Chloromethans
EPA 502.2
mgL
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
Dichlorodi8uoromelhane
EPA 502.2
mgvL
< O.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
&omomethane
EPA 502.2
merL
< 0,0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
0.001
0.0005
Chlorcethane
EPA 502.2
mph
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
0.0005
Fluoromchloromelhane
EPA 502.2
mglL
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
Hexachlorobuladiene
EPA 502.2
M&
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0,001
0.0005
Naphthalene
EPA 502.2
mg/.
< 0,0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
0.001
0.0005
1,2,4-Tnchlorubenzene
EPA 502.2
m9h
< O.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
0.070
0.0005
cis-1,2-Dichloroethens
EPA 502.2
mg1-
< 0,0005
< 0,0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
0.001
< 0.0005
Dibromomelhane
EPA 502.2
m9/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
0.001
< 0.0005
1,1-Dimlompropene
EPA 602.2
mgh
< 0.0005
< 0,0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
0.001
0,0005
1,3-Dichlwopropane
EPA502.2
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
0.001
0.0005
1,3-Dichloropropene(total)
EPA 502.2
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< O.OD05
< 0.001
< 0.0005
1,2,3-Trichlompropane
EPA 502.2
JnVIL
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< O.OD05
0.001
0.0005
2,2-Dichlampropane
EPA 502.2
< 0,0005
< 0.0005
1< 0,0005
< 0.0005
0.001
O.OD05
See Footnotes on Page 4 _
P:WUNl\New Bem\WTPNPDES Alternatives Analysis-24041.1\EAA\FINAL REPOR11Test Well and Raw Water Ouality.xls 2 of 4

7
NEW BERN TEST WELL RAW WATER QUALITY DATA REV 10/06/2005
FOR
I
rm
r�
l�7
Well No. 2
Average Raw
Water
Concentration'
EPA !National
Primary Drinking
Water Standards
Anticipated
Effluent
Concentration
Filter Softener
Plant 2
Effluent
Water Qualtly
Standards
(Saltwater)
Aquatic Life
Description
Test Method
Units
Upper TW
Race
Track Rd
Lower
TW Race
Track Rd
TW # 2
(WTP
Property)
TW # 3
(Moore
Property)
TW # 4
(Moore
Property)
1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
n-Butylbenzene
EPA 502.2
mg/L.
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
EPA 502.2
RXA
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
tert-Butylbenzene
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
sec-Butylbenzene
EPA 502.2
MOIL
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
Bromochloromethane
EPA 502.2
mg/.
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
Chloroform
EPA 502.2
MOIL
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
Bromaform
EPA 502.2
mgll.
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
Bromodichloromethane
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
Chlorodibromomethane
EPA 502.2
MOIL
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
Xylenes (total)
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
10
< 0.0005
Dichloromethane -
EPA 502.2
mgll
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
0.005
< 0.0005
o-Chlorotoluene
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
p-Chlorototuene
EPA 502.2
MOIL
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
m-Dichlorobenzene
EPA 502.2
mglL
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
o-Dichlorobenzene
EPA 502.2
mglL
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
0.600
< 0.0005
p-Dichlorobenzene
EPA 502.2
mgA.
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
0.076
< 0.0005
Vinyl chloride
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
0.002
< 0.0005
1,1-Dichloroethene
EPA 502.2
Mgt
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
1,1-Dichloroethane
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
trans-1,2-0ichloroethene
EPA 502.2
MOIL
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
1,2-Dichloroethane
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
0.005
< 0.0005
1,1,1-Tdchloroethane
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
0.200
< 0.0005
Carbon tetrachloride
EPA 602.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
0.005
< 0.0005
1,2-Dichloropropane
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
0.005
< 0.0005
Trichloroethene
EPA 502.2
MOIL
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
1,1,2-Tdchloroethane
EPA 502.2
MOIL
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
0.005
< 0.0005
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
EPA 502.2
MOIL
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
Tetrachloroethene
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
Chlorobenzene
EPA 502.2
MOIL
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
0.1
< 0.0005
Benzene
EPA 502.2
MOIL
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
0.005
< 0.0005
Toluene
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
1
< 0.0005
Ethylbenzene
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
0.7
< 0.0005
Bromobenzene
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
Isopropylbenzene
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
Styrene
EPA 502.2
MCA
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
0.100
< 0.0005
n-Propyibenzene
EPA 502.2
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
EDB (1,2-Dibromoethane)
EPA 504.1
mg/L
< 0.00001
< 0.00001
< 0.00001
< 0.000
< 0.00001
DBCP
EPA 504.1
mg/L
< 0.00002
< 0.00002
< 0.00002
< 0.00002
0.0002
< 0.00002
2,4-13
EPA 515.1
mgll
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.00010
0.07
< 0.0001
2,4,5-TP (Siivex)
EPA 515.1
mg/L
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
< 0.00020
0.05
< 0.0002
Dalapon
EPA 515.1
mg/L
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.00100
0.200
< 0.001
Dicamba
EPA 515.1
mg/L
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.00100
< 0,001
Dinoseb
EPA 515.1
mg/L
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
< 0.00020
0.007
< 0.0002
Pentachlorophenol
EPA 515.1
MOIL
< 0.00004
< 0.00004
< 0.00004
< 0.00004
0.001
< 0.00004
Picloram
EPA 515.1
1mg1L
I
j< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.500
< 0.OW1
See Footnotes on Page 4
P:WUNI%New Bem1WTPWPDES Alternatives Analysis-24041.11EAA%FINAL REPORT\Test Well and Raw Water Quality.xls 3 of 4

Ir"
NEW KERN TEST WELL RAW WATER QUALITY DATA
REV 10/06/2005
2
Well No.
Average Raw
Water
Concentration
EPA National
Primary Drinking
Water Standards
Anticipated
Effluent
Concentration
Filter Softener
Plant 2
Effluent
Water Qualtiy
Standards
(Saltwater)
Aquatic Life
Description
Me thod
units
Upper TW
Race
Track Rd
Lower
TW Race
Track Rd
TW # 2
(WTP
Property)
TW # 3
(Moore
Property)
TW # 4
(Moore
Property)
Alachlor
EPA 525.2
mg/L
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
< 0.0002
0.002
< 0.0002
Atrazine
EPA 525.2
mg/L
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.003
< 0.0001
Benzo(a)pyrene
EPA 525.2
mg/L
< 0.00002
< 0.00002
< 0.00002
< 0.00002
0.0002
< 0.00002
Butachlor
EPA 525.2
mgA.
< 0.008
< 0.008
< 0.008
< 0.008
< 0.008
Di-2(ethythexyl)adipate
EPA 525.2
mg/L
< 0.0006
< 0.0006
< 0.0006
< 0.001
0.400
< 0.0006
DI-2(ethy1hezyl)phthalate
EPA 525.2
mg/L
< 0.00132
< 0.00132
< 0.00132
< 0.001
0.006
< 0.00132
Heptachlor Epoxide
EPA 525.2
mg/L
< 0.00002
< 0.00002
< 0.00002
< 0.00002
0.0002
< 0.00002
Hexachlorobenzene
EPA 525.2
mg/L
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.001
< 0.0001
Hexachlorocylopentadtene
EPA 525.2
mg/L
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.050
< 0.0001
Metolachlor
EPA 525.2
mg/L
< 0.0008
< 0.0008
< 0.0008
< 0.0008
< 0.0008
MetribuAn
EPA 525.2
mg/L
< 0.0008
< 0.0008
< 0.0008
< 0.0008
< 0.0008
Propachlor
EPA 525.2
mg/L
< 0.006
< 0.006
< 0.006
< 0.0060
< 0.006
Simazine
EPA 525.2
mg/L
< 0.00007
< 0.00007
< 0.00007
< 0.0001
0.004
< 0.00007
Carbary l
EPA 531.1
mg/L
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
Methomyl
EPA 531.1
mg/L
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
Oxamyi (Vydate)
EPA 531.1
mg/L
< 0.002
< 0.002
< 0.002
< 0.002
0.2
< 0.002
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
EPA 531.1
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
Atdicarb Sutfone
EPA 531.1
mg/L
< 0.0008
< 0.0008
< 0.0008
< 0.001
< 0.0008
Carbofuran
EPA 531.1
mgA.
< 0.0009
< 0.0009
< 0.0009
< 0.001
0.04
< 0.0009
Aldtcarb
EPA 531.1
mg/L
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.001
< 0.0005
3-Hydroxycarbofuran
EPA 531.1
mgA.
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
< 0.004
' Concentrations indicated in blue exceed EPA Narl Drinking Water Standards
2 Concentrations indicated in red exceed Saltwater Aquatic life Standards
EPA Nail Primary Drinking Water Stnds Treatment Technique Action Level
I _
Nitrate and Nitrite measured as Nitrogen
° EPA Narl Primary Drinking Water Stnds Radium 226 and Radium 228 (cornbined) is 5 pCVL
° Rivers estimate using TOC
_ r EPA Narl Primary Drinking Water Stnds Treatment Technique Turbidity: At no time can trubidit (cloudiness of water) go above 5 NTU; systems that filter must ensure that the turbidity go no higher than
1 NTU (0.5 NTU-for conventional or direct filtration) in at least 95°% of the daily samples in any month. As of January 1, 2002. for systems servicing >10.000 , and January 4, 2005. for systems
servicing<10,000, turbidity may never exceed 1 NTU, and must not exceed 0.3 NTU in 95% of daily samples in any month.
!IM ° EPA Nat1 Primary Drinking Water Stnd for Uranium is 30 ugA. E.P.A. considers 27 Picocuries/L to be the level of concern for uranium.
° EPA Narl Secondary Drinking Water Sind
10 EPA Narl Primary Drinking Water Stnd as of 1/23/06
EPA Narl Primary Drinking Water Sind for Gross Beta is 4 millirems/year. EPA considers 50 Pico curies/L to be the level of concern for beta particles.
I .
12 Concentrations are process modified and estimated using data from Onslow County Hubert WTP & Washington WTP
" Concentrations calculated by Rivers using Ca as CaCO3
t�
1
r�
re See Footnotes on Page 4
P.WUNIWew Bem1WTPINPDES Alternatives Analysis-24041.11EAAIFINAL REPORTITest Well and Raw Water Quality.xis 4 of 4

New Bern WTP
Neuse River Monitoring Stations
10/10/2005
Monitoring
Station N
Organization
Station ID
Station Description
Latitude
Longitude
Northing
(feet US)
Easting
(feet US)
Distance
to
Diffuser
Neuse River at CM 53 at
1
NCDENR-DWQ
J8290000
Mouth of Narrows NR
35.1501
-77.0749
515135.4888
2575406.549
1.3
Washington Forks
2
NCDENR-DWQ
J8570000
Neuse RiverBattrUS 17 at Now
35.1097
-77.0317
500688.4245
2588608.734
2.4
Water Quality Data for the
Neuse River at New Bern,
NC
3
USGS
2092162
35.1094
-77.0328
500572.7456
2588281.992
2.4
Real Time Data for the
Neuse River at New Bern,
NC
FM

` I 1 -may
b p:
.: Monitoring
--t— Station No. 1 1�
N35` 9.007'
W77` 4.496' ce asf ye e
f, j
�e
,
�I i Wildlife
Landingy
Gap
C
Lanai q I D11tUSer
Raai N35` 8.332'
Re W77' 3.34T
.a ��• a •>t°.o .( � , _.�---.—.—__ Fsm G'�"r - aG�S BM 8. �I D
'•'�:.�: ,.•• arrY :- � .. 'g l o®Tcr pmdy..+•os+
♦ Radio ipwer s
/sus• tWCT,)
••� �� -` .tea • r . "oRed
e To er ri
r NEtiSE RIVER
1 emfits iuo �' �� to e� gam'
400 Ha
m ca a a t,• NEW AERN`l
10011itanng p c-
•l roe 2
\, � ��cP Station No.
.' N35` 6 581'
v W77'
�e }/1: \ �; � 1 r $ � rave ti �.a ✓ � - l .._'fiinP
• 1'' t /' � f .. _ errape� 3i � � �� �,-''� Nlonrtoriny
Station No 3'
i1135 6 56.,
1 r 1Sx —�.fi & -' rn nccoc iit �i. s (i_ lb i'�Fmng l
�W71 .f 965'_j �l
6H7�
Urcen Point "
�` Sandy Point
Rid o Towers (i
_eua NEW BERN
WTP DISCHARGE

rX"
MM
r�r
air
FM
ea�
New Bern WTP Discharge
Ambient water Quality Table
RE% :10/13/2005
Toxicants
Monitoring Station
No.
1
2
3
Average
Anticipated
Effluent
Concentration
Filter Softener
Plant
(m9n)
Station ID
J8290000
J8570000
2092162
Aluminum (All •
Averse m
0.43
0.34
0.31
Q•91
Max m A
1.4
0.9
0.439
Min (mgn)
Non -Detectable
Non -Detectable
0.235
' # drSam les
36
..w
3
Date Ranges
1976-1978;
1885-1986;
1989;1993;
1995-1996
19764978;
1985-1986;
1992-1993;
1995-1996
1970-1972
Calcium (Ca)
Average m
8.8
30
14
88
Max m
8.8
30
123
Min m
8.8
30
3.8
# of Samples
1
1
98
Date Ranges
1989
1988
1958-1964;
1968-1973•
Chlorides (Cr)
Average m
498
1,527
315
276
2,5W .4,7001
Max m
4 700
10,000
720
4 735
Min m
7.0
8.0
4.6
36.4
# of Samples
161
191
95
Z090
Date Ranges,
1976;
1978-1981;
1983-1986
1976-1996
1958-1964;
1968-1973
7/18/2005-
8/18/2005
Capper (Cu)
Averse
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.024
Max m
0.029
0.040
0.01
Min
0.002
0.002
0
# of Samples
91
114
3
Date Ranges
1974-1998
.1976-1998
1072;
1969-1970
Iron (fe)
Average (mg/)
0.963
0.83
0.182
1.0
Max m
3.900
0.0032
0.400
Min
0.310
0.130
0
Samffts
52
-63
45
Date Ranges
1974-1981;
1993;
1995-1996
1976-1982;
19921993;
1995-1998
1958-1962;
19%
Lead (Pb)
Average m
7.2
3.7
0
0.003
Max m
200
100
0
Akin (mgll)
Non -Detectable
100
0
# of Samples
89
108
4
Date Ranges
1974-1996
1978-1996
1989-1972
Manganese (Mn)
Ave e m
0.09
0.09
0.02
0.0'
Max m
0.43
0.34
0.02
Min m
Non -Detectable
0.022
0.02
# of Samples
22
26
1
Date Ranges
1974-1981;
1993
1976-1981;
1991
1970
pH
Averse
6.7
7.1
6.8
7.0
7.1-7.98'
Max
8.3
9.1
7.5
7.4
Min
5.0
5.3
6.0
6.6
# of Samples
344
362
128
2989
Date Ranges
1969-1971;
1972-1906
1973-1974;
1976-1993
1958-1964;
19e8-1973;
1988-1989
7118rAM&
8/18/2005
Total Dissolved
.SoUd& (MS)
Avers m
1230.22
20282
6472
5,300
Max m
97912
13292 2
101002
Min &GAL
622
722
48 s
# of Samples
81
127
94
Date Ranges .
"
1970; '-197
1982
1974; 197„
1984; 1986;
1988-1989
-19581864;
1969-1973
Zinc (Zn)
Average m
0.006
0.007
0.020
0.06
Max m
0.064
0.140
0.030
Mtn m
0.011
0.011
0.01
# of Samples
89
113
3
Date Ranges
1974-1996
1976-1996
1 1969-1970;
1972
'• Concentrations are process modiffed and estimated ustrtg data from Onslow County Hubert WTP & Washington WTP
2 CorwentraSms are Rivers calculated using Total Solids and Total Suspended Solids
r�
P.WUNANew SoMMMPOES AlleffoUves Analysts-24"1.11EAA%OraR - EAA%A &md Morgtaft Swvv"j is

Rivers and Associates, Inc.
New Bern WTP Discharge
Water Quality Parameters of Concern
October 13, 2005
rM This listing of water quality parameters from the proposed New Bern WTP effluent
discharge -indicates that the anticipated effluent characteristics of the "Parameters of
Concern" are within the ambient conditions in the Neuse River, and should be
RIM acceptable without additional dilution. The following "Ambient Water Quality Table"
data is summarized from the data of record available for the years indicated in the table.
Aluminum
Expected aluminum concentrations in the effluent are well below the average
ambient concentrations in the Neuse River. On average, we anticipate 0.01 mg/1 of
aluminum in the effluent, while the river maintains an average between 0.31 mg/l and
0.43 mg/l.
Calcium
Calcium concentrations in the discharge stream are expected to be on the order of 84
mg/l. This concentration is below the maximum level of 123 mg/I found in the ambient
water quality, but higher than the average concentration range of 9 mg/l to 30 mg/l.
Chlorides
The WTP backwash concentrations from two (2) existing filter/softener -plants
discharge chlorides at an average concentration of 3,300 mg/l to .4,700 mg/l. "We
calculate the New Bern WTP effluent will have an average chloride concentration of
2,500 mg/l. The ambient monitoring station data upstream and downstream of the
sc arge ocation indicates high background levels of chloride concentration, from
276 mg/i on average, to a maximum of 1D,000 mg/1. Therefore, the anticipated
chlorides from the New Bern WTP discharge will be within the existing ambient
conditions.
Chlorine
The New Bern WTP will operate a de -chlorination process to reduce the discharge of
residual chlorine into the Neuse River to meet anticipated limits.
Copper
The average copper concentration expected in the effluent is 0.024 mg/l. Ambient
' water quality data in the river indicates average copper concentrations of 0.002 mg/l to
0.003 'mg/l, and maximum concentrations of 0.04 mg/l, which is well above the
expected effluent discharge.
Hydrogen Sulfide
Any hydrogen sulfide present in the raw water will be removed through aeration in
the WTP- process, thereby eliminating this constituent from the discharge flow into the
river.
en
r--_n
PAMUN11New B=\WTP\NPDES Alternatives Analysis-24Q41.11EAA\Dmft - EAMEAA - Effluent Ch=cterization.doc

New Bern WTP Discharge — Water Quality Parameters of Concern Page 2
October 13, 2005 on
Iron
Iron in the source water will be removed in the treatment process, and the majority of
the iron will be settled in the lagoons. We have estimated, based on existing WTP
effluent data that the iron discharge concentration will be on the order of 1.0 mg/l,
based on information from existing similar WTPs. Since the Neuse River's average
concentration is approximately 0.96 mg/l, and has spiked to 3.9 mg/l, a discharge
concentration of 1.0 mg/l will be within existing ambient conditions.
Lead
Background concentrations of lead in the Neuse River are above the average
discharge concentration of the backwash waste stream. Expected discharge levels are ■-
0.003 mg/1 of lead, with ambient river concentrations ranging from 0 mg/l to 7 mg/l.
Manganese
Manganese in the. source water will be removed in the water treatment process, and
settled in the lagoons. Therefore, our anticipated discharge concentration of 0 mg/l is
based on similar existing filter/softener WTPs. By eliminating manganese in the
discharge stream, we eliminate any concerns for manganese contamination -in the river.
pH
The anticipated effluent pH can range from 7.1 to 8.0. The ambient monitoring data
indicates the Neuse River has a pH in the range of 6.0 to 9.1. The WTP discharge falls
within the pH range observed in the Neuse River.
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the WTP effluent based on data from existing WTP 0"
discharges are projected on the order of 5,300 mg/l. The Neuse River has an average of
approximately 1,300 mg/l TDS and a maximum of 13,300 mg/l. Therefore, the WTP MR
discharge of TDS will be within the ambient river conditions.
Zinc '
om
Expected zinc concentrations in the WTP effluent are 0.05 mg/l. . The ambient
monitoring stations report average zinc concentrations upstream and downstream of the
discharge location in the range of 0.006 mg/l to 0.02 mg/l with maximumup
concentrations of 0.03 mg/1 to 0.14 mg/l, respectively. The discharge into the river is
within range of the existing ambient concentrations.
M
AJR/BH/sr
go
AM
am
PAMUN11New Bern1WTP1NPDES Alternatives Analysis-24041.11EAA1Draft - EAAIEAA - Effluent Characterization.doc

-011ty of Nefu fern
ALDERMAN
TOM BAYLISS, III
MAYOR
JULIUS C. PARHAM, JR
ROBERT G. RAYNOR, JR.
WALTER B. HARTMAN, JR.
,MACK L.'MAx' FREEZE
CITY MANAGER
JOSEPH E. MATTINGLY. JR.
BARBARA LEE
VICKIE H. JOHNSON
WILLIAM H. BALLENGER
CITY CLERK
7 /.�T L� �r North �{���� 1
ghree (Eenfurw o North &rLU[na Egritage
—
MARY B. MURAGLIA
'FOUNDED 1710
CITY TREASURER
Phone:[phone] P.O. Box 1129
^
ide5r tern, X(9 28553-Mg
October 6, 2005
NCDENR/DWQ/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
SUBJECT: City of New Bern Water Treatment Plant
Backwash Waste Effluent Disposal
—
Dear Sir:
Our engineering consultant, Rivers & Associates, Inc., is preparing an Engineering Alternatives
Analysis for the treated waste effluent disposal associated with our proposed Water Treatment Plant
_ (WTP). As a part of this analysis, we were requested to provide our written response for an
alternative to discharge the treated waste stream to the head of our existing Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP).
The proposed WTP will utilize pressure filters and softeners for removal of iron and hardness. The
softeners' ionic exchange resins require periodic regeneration by saturating the media with brine
solution to restore the molecular charge. Excess brine solution is backwashed from the softeners to
the waste treatment lagoons located on the WTP plant site. Brine will pass through the waste
treatment lagoons and be discharged from the WTP site at a concentration of approximately 2,500
mg/L to be discharged to the Neuse River.
The City of New Bern will not accept brine of this concentration at the head of our WWTP from any
industrial pretreatment discharge, nor will we accept this discharge from one of our own facilities.
The brine is toxic to the microorganisms upon which our activated sludge treatment process is based.
However, we support the idea of discharging the WTP waste effluent through the existing WWTP
diffuser into the Neuse River, The WTP discharge pipe would need to tie into the WWTP effluent
force main downstream of the WWTP effluent pump station. A separate check valve should be
_ installed on the WWTP effluent force main to ensure that WTP waste will not discharge to the
Martin Marietta Quarry.
—
riwn for'fxceflenre

NCDENR/DWQ/NPDES
October 6, 2005
page 2 of 2
Should there be any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 252-639-7526.
Sinc ly.
David Muse, P.E.
City Engineer
Cc: Walter B. Hartman, Jr., City Manager
Greg Churchill, P.E., Rivers & Associates, Inc.
File
ON
.o
..
..

'"1na Roberson - Re: 7Q1O and 30Q2 stream flows in the lower Neuse region near NewOBern, NC w Page 1
From: John C Weaver <[e-mail]>
To: "Anna Roberson"<[e-mail]>
Date: 10/5/2005 4:42:20 PM
Subject: Re: 7Q10 and 30Q2 stream flows in the lower Neuse region near New Bern, NC
�., Ms. Roberson,
In response to your inquiry about the low -flow characteristics for lower
Neuse River near New Bern, the following information is provided:
Unfortunately, an estimate of the low -flow characteristics is not
available for the lower Neuse River in vicinity of New Bern. Part of this
is attributed to the lack of data in the lower reaches, but primarily due
to the presence of tides that affect flows in this area. The techniques
used for estimating low -flow characteristics in streams do not include the
ability to properly quantify the effects of tides on streamflows.
Therefore, the USGS presently does not provide low flow characteristics
for tidally -affected streams.
The downstream -most location for which low -flow estimates are available on
the Neuse River is Fort Barnwell (in Craven County, station Id 020918141
drainage area approx. 3,900 sqmi). The previously published 7Q10 and 30Q2
for this site is 400 cfs and 855 cfs, respectively. The values are based
. on analyses completed as part of a basinwide low -flow Investigation in the
Neuse River basin using data through 1996 (USGS WRIR 98-4135, Low -flow
characteristics and discharge profiles for selected streams in the Neuse
River basin, North Carolina). No update of the low -flow analyses has been
completed since the report was published.
If you wish to obtain a copy of the basinwide low flow report for the
Neuse River basin, you can contact 1-888-ASK-USGS (275-8747) or visit the
following URL:
http://store.usgs.gov/scriptstwgateiZWW20/1? theme=gp&OSTORE=USGSGP&—OKCODE=STARTMAT
L&g matnr=18147
Sorry that we're unable to provide the exact information you're seeking,
�+ but hope the above information is helpful in some manner.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
***�***�**,�**,�*�**,r,�r�►***********«*�,�,r,►�******ter*****�*,�*,tee
lqw� J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
E-mail address -- [e-mail]
Internet address -- http://nc.water.usgs.gov/
MR
sm

Anna Roberson Re: 7Q10 and 30Q2 stream flows in the lower Neuse region near NewOBem,
"Anna Roberson" <[e-mail]>
09/3012005 04:57 PM
To
<[e-mail]>
cc
Subject
7Q10 and 30Q2 stream flows in the lower Neuse region near New Bern, NC
Mr. Weaver,
'Ramona Traynor gave me your name and indicated you may be able to help
me identify the 7Q10 and 30Q2 for the lower Neuse River near New Bern.
I have looked at the USGS online gage information, and it does not
provide specific flow data for the area. The closest gage is USGS
02092162 NEUSE RIVER AT NEW BERN, NC. Your help with this information
..
would be greatly appreciated. Let me know if I need to provide you with
further information or if you require a map of the point of interest.
Thank you,
Anna Roberson
Design Engineer
Rivers & Associates Inc.
107 E Second St
Greenville, NC 27858
[phone] Ext. 257
mailto: [e-mail]
.q
CC: John C Weaver <[e-mail]>

I 3 I i I I I I I I I I I. I I I 1 i i
WELL
AERATION
nE7Evnoa
KMn04
PUMP
BACKWASH WASTE
I BRINE WASTE
PRESSUREI I I��X
FlL7ER SOf7ENfR
BYPASS
CL2 NN3
ELEVA 7ED
TANK .
PUMP
GROUND
STORAGE
DlS7RlBUA
SYS7EM
RVERS AND NE14CSPROCESS SCHEMATIC
BACKWASH WASTE
PRESSUREI I��� fIL1ER SOf7ENER
BRINE WASTE
WASTE PROCESS
SC EMM
TO STREAM
0:WEWBERN-2S200-WTP DcsigaWv gg-ReportsWewBctn-PiIbmmmOoMES EAADWG, Modal, I01MA 5 9:I4:42 Ally Wnc6

HOG ISLAND
DIFFUSER SFTE
N
235OLFt\ O
\ DIRECTIO*AL
BORE THROUGH'
SWAMP ,LtYD, \ R r \,� �FdISTING
DIFFUSER SITE
3'!41 N35'8.33'
\\ M a 15.h W7M.35'
r yp 1
FD, BADff, A'A3fS
lAt
\ MMT1NC. PACIA+Y',
` ,.i,00wPLW S)=ON S'ITB�, •Q
���.�+..... i.. ;LLD- � a•?O ��, I : , 'R ON `r , w
'Al
\ � 24• ^gyp �`—� ss 10' BACfCII'�Sff HASTE - � r �'. •. .
XFAT M N PoRCE i(A(H r,
'l r M, i \mac •`1 ,t - f ,,, , 14 \ _
7, 4' RAW \y..,..
ER MAN 8
7A32
WTI .61 1 % y' GRnPnm scnL^.
�� A •�
R vvrs - -
j
1 r [ , _ w W!P AND p5ClIARDE 91f5 ..°•
ldrnr`IO°ONEW
eewri
PROPOSED
r n
c WTP'
0:\NEWBERN-25200.WTP Design\DwgPreiimma NotFo,Construlion\W-2870A Prelvni WTP Site Plan 101105.dwg,WTPt.DIFFUSER Wit ALT, IMM0051103:55 AM, M.1i

L
II
F
L
r
L

�J ell, f f
K-1 fell
r r
r J 1/01, J
r r r
04
apr
(I-) � ��ms i���
Q"MA ANC VM s41Ch6dNwwlldd.8ida
1 a..��e+.sie mse 7m.tue nrq�Nc zree {��asasq
t I/�f/� / 1/� i r� r/� r If PRELIMINARY
� � � J � J � � JJ � � � � � WATER TREATMENT PLANT SUE PLAN
WA MR 7REA 7MINT PUNT LYTY OF NEW BERN
rCRA VEN COUNTY
EMWDG in pRaiErr Hm SHM
AS SHOWN W-2870A 252002 2
91
2
K 10 10
° o
R
Y t ..r C-�� _rr rrrr .rrr .--rrrr rr rr rr rr' rrr r'r rr rrrr rrr
-IQ
RAW XC40-10
-20 -20
3
n�
} -30 -30
III z
7fao sfaa w ago tarao MW line t�fao
b-aszao-� nestcr�nv�v-ze�rn�sawvc

MR
REV: 3/20/2006
.w
CITY OF NEW BERN WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
ALTERNATIVE 1 - DISCHARGE AT WWTP
rs,
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF.PROBABLE COST
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
1. Capital Cost:
Oty. Unit Description Service Ufe
1 LS Piping (ir avc & u• steel csov) 40 yr
1 LS Valves, Etc. (l4 wmg A r Release VaWs. Atdomatic Ar Rebase Vah�m Etc) 40 yr
e�
1 LS Pump & VFD 20 yr
Total Construction Cost
Contingency (10%)
r=,
Engineering Services
Legal & Administrative
SRF Closing (2%)
tom,
Total Capital Cost
II. Annual Q & M Costs:
t�
Electrical - 20 Hp Waste Lagoon Pumps
Total Annual O&M:
PRI
1IL Present Worth Cost:
A. Salvage Value Equipment Pining. Structtresl
'-M-"
Remaining Original
Life Cost
Description
Piping 50% $572,250
Valves, Etc. 50% $129,000
Pump & VFD 0% $75.000
Total Salvage Value (Equipment, etc.)
Present Worth of Salvage Value (Equipment, etc.) at 20 years @ 5-7/8%
B. Salvage Value (Land
0 acres @ 3% escalation compounded for 20 years
($10,000/acre x 1.8061 x 0 acres)
Present Worth of Escalated Land Value 20 years @ 5-7/8%
($0 x 0.3193)
C. Present Worth of Annual O & M Costs 20 years Cum 5-7/8%
($7,300 x 11.5872)
11.5872 =[ (1+i)A20-1]/(I"(1+€)"20)
D. Total Present Worth Cost for Alternative No.1
t�
Total Capital Cost
Plus O & M Present Worth
Minus Salvage (Equipment, etc.) Present Worth
Minus Salvage (Land) Present Worth
Total Present Worth (20 years @ 5-7/8%)
rM
' These amounts are in 2005 dollars, and may need to escalated for subsequent years.
3 No additional cost is assumed for discharge route
Total
$572,250
$129,000
$75.000
$777,000
$78,000
$64,000
$4,000
$16,000
$939,000
$7,300
$7,300
Salvage
Value
$286,125
$64.500
$0
$350,625
$111,937
$0
$0
$84,587
$939,000
$84,587
($111,937)
$0
$911,649
can
P:WUNIWew 8em1WTPWPOES Alternatives Analysis-24041.11COMPSWtemate Discharge Cost Est & PW-REV032006.xis

M"
REV: 4/12/2006
CITY OF NEW BERN WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
ALTERNATIVE 2 - DISCHARGE AT HOG ISLAND
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
1. Capital Cost:
'w
My. Unit Description
Service Ufe
Total
1 LS Piping cia-m ur stew caft. a tr Hoo eml
40 yr
$902,970
1 LS 16" Diffuser
40 yr
$70,000
1 LS Diffuser Installation - Divers
$75,000
r#1
1 LS Valves, Etc. (mwmw Ar Rdesn v*.,m Aw mast At Ra mva m Ex)
40 yr
$79.000
1 LS Pump & VFD
20 yr
$90,000
1 LS Diffuser Bedding, Concrete Ballasts, & Misc.
40 yr
$15,000
Total Construction Cost
$1,232,000
ram,
Contingency (10%)
$123,200
Engineering Services
$133,500
Legal & Administrative
$6,200
SRF Closing (2%)
$24,700
Total Capital Cost
$1,519.600
r
11. Annual 0 & M Costs:'
Electrical - 25 Hp Waste Lagoon Pumps
$9,060
Total Annual 0&M:
$9,060
Ill. Present Worth Cost:
A. Salvage Value (Equipment, Piping, Structures)
r�1
Remaining
Original
Salvage
Life
Cost
Value
Description
rjw-9
Piping 50%
$902,970
$451,485
16" Diffuser 50%
$70.000
$35,000
Valves, Etc. 50%
$79,000
$39,500
Pump & VFD 0%
$90,000
$0
r�
Diffuser Bedding, Concrete Ballasts, & Misc. 50%
$15,000
$7 500
Total Salvage Value (Equipment, etc.)
$533,485
Present Worth of Salvage Value (Equipment, etc.) at 20 years 5-7/8%
$170,315
B. Salvage Value-(1-and
0 acres @ 3% escalation compounded for 20 years
($10,000/acre x 1.8061 x 0 acres)
$0
Present Worth of Escalated Land Value 20 years @ 5-7/8%
($0 x 0.3193)
r�
$0
C. Present Worth of Annual 0 & M Costs 20 years 9D 5-7/8%
($9,060 x 11.5872)
$104,980
11.5872 =[ (1+i)A20 - ly(i`(1+i)A20)
r�1
D. Total Present Worth Cost for Alternative No.i
Total Capital Cost
$1,519.600
Plus 0 & M Present Worth
$104.980
Minus Salvage (Equipment, etc.) Present Worth
($170,315)
Minus Salvage (Land) Present Worth
$0
Total Present Worth (20 years a@ 5-7/8%)
$1,454,265
' These amounts are in 2005 dollars, and may need to escalated for subsequent years.
Z Pipe route on Progress Energy easement Therefore, no cost is assumed.
fm
P-wUNi1New Bem14yTP%NPQES Attematives Analys1s-24041.1=MPSWtemz1a OW"a COO Est a Pw4tev032W6.x13

M"
NEW BERN WTP
RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PLAN
March 2006
Background
The City of New Bern plans to construct a new 5.0 mgd net capacity (5.5 mgd gross) pressure
filter/zeolite softening water treatment plant to replace lost capacity due to the Central Coastal Plain
Capacity Use Area reductions. The raw water supply will be the lower Castle Hayne aquifer. The
project is expected to include sixteen (16) wells, raw water transmission mains, treatment plant
facilities, a finished water transmission main, as well as backwash waste lagoons, supernate pump
station, and backwash waste supernate force main. It is anticipated that the force main will
discharge downstream of the existing WWVTP effluent pump station into the existing Neuse River
diffuser
.
Raw water pumped from the well field will be treated for removal of hydrogen sulfide, iron,
manganese and hardness. The WTP will consist of a raw water detention tank, filter pumps,
pressure filters and softeners, chemical -feed systems, treatment building, finished water storage
tank, finished water transmission pumps, and waste treatment facilities as described above.
Waste Removal Mechanisms
The hydrogen sulfide will be stripped from the raw water via two induced draft aerators located
above two raw water detention tanks. The aerators induce a counter -current flow of air through the
raw water as it cascades by gravity across an aluminum and PVC grid system. No residuals will be
generated as a result of this process.
Soluble iron and manganese will similarly be oxidized by aeration and chemical addition at the
detention tanks. Chlorine and potassium permanganate will be injected at the upstream end of the
detention tank. A mechanical mixer will be provided in the tank to ensure sufficient distribution
and mixing of the chemicals. The detention tanks will be sized to provide thirty minutes of
detention to allow sufficient reaction time for oxidation to occur. Filter pumps will be provided to
pump water from the detention tank through the filter and softener train into a ground storage tank.
The oxidized iron and manganese will be removed by pressure filtration. Periodic backwashing of
the filters is required to clean the filters of the buildup of oxidized iron and manganese.
Backwashing will occur either at the point of saturation or at the point of excessive headloss. The
backwash water from the filters will be discharged to the waste lagoons where quiescent conditions
will allow settling of the oxidized iron and manganese. A sump and piping with quick -connect will
be provided to alloy -insertion of a sludge pump into -the- detention tank for perie& removal -of
accumulated sludge. The sludge will be pumped to the waste lagoons for temporary storage until
final removal and disposal from the lagoons.
Softening of the hard Castle Hayne water will be provided by pressure zeolite softeners. The
softeners operate on the ion exchange principle. The softeners are loaded with cation exchange
resin that removes hardness ions, e.g. calcium and magnesium, from the filtered water replacing
'W APPENDIX H

New Bern WTP
Residuals Management Plan
March 2006
Page 2
them with sodium ions. After the resin bed is exhausted so that hardness ions t egin to break
through into the softened water stream, capacity is restored by regeneration with brine.
Regeneration is initiated automatically after an operator -defined. amount of water has passed
through the softener. Regeneration is followed by a rinse cycle to flush excess rime from the
softeners to the waste lagoons.
Waste Lagoons
Multiple lined lagoons will be provided for operational flexibility. Backwash (rinse) at from the
filters and softeners will be periodically discharged to the first of three lined lagoons arranged in a
series. The backwash water will be laden with iron, manganese and brine. The t two lagoons
will provide for quiescent settling of the oxidized iron and manganese. The brie will be in
solution in the supernate. These two primary lagoons will be sized to provide fie (5) days of
detention initially at the expected waste flow of approximately 500,000 gpd. The :upernate will
then be periodically pumped from the final basin to the existing New Bern WWTP for discharge
into the Neuse River. The chlorides concentration of the supernate stream is wi the normal
range for ambient water quality in the Neuse River Estuary.
The remaining sludge will be stored in the lagoons until sludge buildup will requv
The first two lagoons have enough capacity to hold the sludge for 5 years. The C
contractor to dewater the sludge with portable equipment to 60% solids and haul it 1
lined lagoon for disposal. Refer to the attached calculations from the New Bern W
Plant Design Memorandum.
fto
no
wo
.,
am
am
its removal.
y will hire a
an approved "•
er Treatment
Ow
..
am
am
ma
APPENDIX H

�s
New Bern WTP Page 3
Residuals Management Plan
.March 2006
New Bern WTP Design Memorandum Calculations:
WASTE HOLDING LAGOON
The waste holding lagoon and pumping station will receive flows from filter and softener washing.
Maximum rate and total flows to be received are outlined below:
em
Softener Backwash @ 6 gpm/sq R
6 gpm/sq R x 113.1 sq ft x 10 min = 6,780 gals
Softener Brining Regeneration @ 10% Salt
1.84 gpm x 20. min = 3,685 gals
Softener Slow Rinse @ Dilution Rate
121 gpm x 20 min = 2,421 gals
Softener Fast Rinse @ Softening. Rate
40 gal/cf x 548 cf = 21,920 als
Softener Run Time: 24 hours
TOTAL PER SOFTENER PER REGENERATION = 34,806 GALS
Filter Backwash @ 12 gpm/sq ft -
12 gpm/sq ft x 113.1 sq ft x 10 min = 13,572 gals
Filter Rinse @ 2.8 gpm/sq ft x 113.1 sq-ft x 5 min = 1,697-als
Total Per Filter Per Backwash = 15,269 gals
Filter Run Time: 19 hours
Total Filter Volume =12 Filters x 15,269 gals/filter x 24 hrs/19 hrs = 231,446 gals
Total Softener Volume = 6 Softeners x 34,806 gals/softener x
1 day per recycle = 208,836 gals
Total Waste/Day = 440,282 gals
'm Percent Waste = 440,282 gals/5,000,000 gals, or 8.8%, or 0.440282 mgd.
This is a theoretical number. The typical value is 6% to 10% waste. We will provide enough raw
water from the well field to account for up to 10% waste.
Estimated average chloride concentration of discharge is based on the theoretical waste per day of
440,282 gals/day.
FM APPENDIX H

New Bern WTP
Residuals Management Plan
March 2006
ro
Page 4
19,728 Is NaCl/day x 60.7% chlorides tin NaCD = 3,621 mg/L chlorides
0.440282 mgd x 8.341b/gals/mg/L
Chlorides from similar filter/softener WTPs (Onslow County and Washington) range from
3,300 mg/L to 4,700 mg/L. These chlorides are expected to be similar to ambient co ditions at the
diffuser discharge location, without dilution.
Manganese from KMnO4 138.2 Is. KMnO4 x 35% Mn (in KMnO4)
Manganese from Raw Water
Iron from Raw Water
Total Sludge per Day
Sludge Volume
Note
Volume of Waste Holding Basins
Size of Waste Holding Basin
Final Basin Size
Operation
= 48.37 Is
0.1 mg/L Mn x 8.34 x 5.5 = 4.6 Is
3.0 mg/L Fe x 8.34 x 5.5 mgd = 137.6 I)s/day
48.4 Is + 4.6 Is + 137.6 lbs= 190.6 It s
190.61bs/day x 365 days = 69,5691bs/3 ear
69,5691bs/yr and 347,8451bs/5 yrs
@ 3% solids=11,594,833 Is sludge
11,5943,8331bs/8.34 lbs/gal/7.48 gals/c =
185,865 cf of iron sludge/5 yrs
All calculations of basin volume are based
on dimensions at the bottom slab and ij pore
the volume in the side slopes.
5 Days detention @ 0.5 mgd waste allo ance
500,000 gals/day x 5 days = 2,500,000 gals
2,500,000 gals/7.48 = 334,225 cf total
2 R Free board & 4 ft storage
334,225 cf/4 ft = 83,556 sq ft
2.Basins: 150 ft x 279 ft minimum
Make basin bottom 150 ft x 300 R x 4 deep @ 2
each = 360,000 cf total
Operate 3 basins in series. Sludge in le first 2
basins and supernatant in the 3'd (final) basin.
Pump out of the P (final) basin.
am
me
me
am
a.
am
No
wo
aft
N,�N 6. 161

New Bern WTP Page 5
Residuals Management Plan
March 2006
an i Basin Loading in 5 Years 185.865 cf of sludge in 5 years = 51% full.
360,000 cf for 2 basins
Me' Backup and Future Provide- three basins initially. Provide space for up to
two more basins in the future.
NPDES Permit limits are typically 0.1 mg/L settleable solids, 30 mg/L suspended solids, and no
chlorine. Discharge point to be located at WWTP Diffuser in the Neuse River.
Vftm The majority of the iron concentration in backwash stream settles out in the lagoons/waste holding
basins. From experience at other water plants, the iron concentration in the effluent from the
,e lagoon is 1.0 mg/L ±. The iron is expected to be similar to ambient conditions at the diffuser
discharge location.
M"
SLUDGE REMOVAL
Sludge disposal will be contracted out for removal every 4-5 years at $400 per wet ton of sludge.
The sludge will be dewatered with portable equipment to 60% solids, and then hauled by the
Contractor to a landfill for disposal.
We anticipate the dry iron and manganese sludge to be 251,140 lbs/5 years:
60% Solids Sludge = 347,8451bs/5 years = 579,742 wet lbs/5 years
0.60 (solids)
= 579,742 wet lbs/5 years — 289.9 wet tons/5 years
2,OOO lbs/ton
Cost of Removal = 289.9 wet tons/5 years x $400/wet ton
$115,960/5 years
►95k P.VAUNI\New Bem1WTP1NPDES Altematives Analysis-24041.11RES MGMT PLAN\Residuals Mgmt Plan-2.doc
am APPENDIX H