NC0025348_Permit Modification_20070817

o OFWA"k
Ors A
r' NCDENR
0 �
Mr. Walter B. Hartman, Jr.
City Manager
City of New Bern
P.O. Box 1129
New Bern, North Carolina 28563
Dear Mr. Hartman:
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
August 17, 2007
Subject: Modification of NPDES Permit NCO025348
New Bern WWTP and WTP
Craven County
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for modification of the subject permit to
include wastewater from a proposed Water Treatment Plant. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES
discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1
and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated
May 9,1994 (or as subsequently amended).
There are two changes to this permit from the draft previously sent to you for review:
➢ There are three effluent pages in this permit. The first, A. (1) regulates the discharge of the WWTP through
Internal outfall 002. Internal outfall 002 is defined as downstream of the WWTP and before the quarry
discharge line and the WTP discharge line. The second, A. (2) regulates the WTP discharge through Internal
outfall 003 which is defined as downstream of the WTP but before the tie-in to the diffuser. Page A. (3)
contains the requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing, which must be performed on a composite
sample representative of the wastewater discharged to the diffuser, Outfall 001. ,
➢ The Whole Effluent Toxicity test organism has been changed to Mysid Shrimp at the request of the plant. It
is still a 24 hour acute pass/ fail test at 90%.
For assistance with Total Residual Chlorine testing, please contact Dana Satterwhite of the Laboratory
Certification group at [phone], ext. 243.
The Nitrogen allocation can be adjusted by requesting another Permit Modification, or at renewal in 2009. If
this was done at this time, we would have to go back to Public Notice and start a new Public Comment clock which
would significantly delay issuance of this permit.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable to
you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of
this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit Phone: [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 fax: [phone]
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us DENR Customer Service Center:1800 623-7748

Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may require
modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain
other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land
Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be
required. If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Jim McKay at telephone number (919)
733-5083, extension 595.
pp Sdin�c"er'ely�,
-her; Coleen H.1/S,uulli s
cc: Central Files
Washington Regional Office/ Surface Water Protection
NPDES Unit Filese
EPA, Region 4
Aquatic Toxicology Unit/ Susie Meadows
PERCS

Permit NCO025348
.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and
regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
City of New Bern
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from facilities located at the
New Bern Wastewater Treatment Plant
NCSR 1404
Craven County
And
New Bern Water Treatment Plant
NC Highway 55
Craven County
to receiving waters designated as Neuse River in the Neuse River Basin in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III, and IV hereof.
The permit shall become effective October 1, 2007
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on June 30, 2009
Signed this day August 172 2007
Coleen H. Sullins, Directo/
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

s
Permit NCO025348
4 SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked. As of this permit
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 included herein.
The City of New Bern is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate the existing wastewater treatment plant, which is approved for an average design flow of 6.5 MGD
through internal outfa11002 and consists of:
• Influent flow meter
• Automatic and manual bar screen
• Grit removal
• Flow splitter box
• 4 anaerobic basins
• 2 anoxic basins
• 2 oxidation ditches with 2 mixers each
• 2 secondary anoxic basins
• 2 reaeration basins
• Secondary flow splitter box
• 2 clarifiers
• 3-cell tertiary filter
• Flash mix tank
• 2 chlorine contact tanks with liquid chlorine
• Dechlorination with sodium bisulfite
• Reaeration basin with 2 discharge basins
• 2 effluent flow meters
• 3 aerated sludge tanks
• Filter press
• Pasteurization (lime and heat) vessel
• sludge storage area .
This facility is located at the New Bern WWTP, off NCSR 1404 near New Bern in Craven County
2. After obtaining an Authorization To Construct from Construction Grants and Loans for the Waste Water Treatment portion
of the Water Treatment Plant, and construction is complete, to operate a drinking water treatment plant with a discharge of
waste water from filter backwash and softener regeneration backwash through Internal Outfall 003. The Water Treatment
Plant Wastewater Treatment consists of:
• Settling lagoon
• Pump
• Force main to tie into the existing WWTP discharge line, with a check valve installed between the WTP connection and
the line to the quarry.
This facility is located at the New Bern Water Treatment Plant TW #2 WTP off NC Highway 55 near New Bern in Craven
County.
3. Discharge treated wastewaters from the wastewater treatment plant and the drinking water treatment plant into the Neuse
River, currently a class SC -Swamp NSW water in the Neuse River Basin, at the location specified on the permit map (next
page) through outfali 001.
4. Continue to operate a pump station, force main, and infiltration system for disposal of tertiary treated wastewater to the
former Martin Marietta quarry, as approved and conditioned by permit WQ0017635.

FLI - — ry�� 1 ✓� I �i.. it �� ` 14i�
.a. I
��u
rn I tt . I ytte j III
_ � A
)� High -Rate Infiltration
U 'A' Quarry Disposal System
1 _ ..r" Discharge Point
outfall 001
"t. 35o 08 20' r'
— Long Tl 03' 37
V���J
%
a
Water Treatment Plant
a
Yarke¢Kt �%oP •� � j`,I /u c�¢
��� � ' sum awe .. � � I � 1'' �� � ' •�� .+ ewt.
h�tu a
o ,
_ _ •{ - 'I L 1. _ n''•. \FN 13P � al L. •� -gyp fs
♦ Z " Fit r a C1
ay
Cy(\ t
300i,
VICINITY MAP
City of New Bern NC0025348
New Bern Wastewater Treatment Plant and
Facility L tion Water Treatment Plant
Receiving Stream: Neuse River
Stream Classification: SC -Swamp NSW
USGS Quad: G30NE River Basin: Neuse
(New Bern) Sub -Basin #: 03-04-10

Permit NCO025348
P
1
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - 6.5 MGD
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from internal outfall 002 — Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent. Such discharges
shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
PARAMETER
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly Weekly Daily
Average Average Maximum
Measurement Sample Sample
Frequency Type Location (1)
Flow — 002
6.5 MGD (2)
Continuous
Recording
E1
Flow — WWT
6.5 MGD (2)
Continuous
Recording
I
Flow — QIS (Quarry)
Continuous
Recording
E2
BOD, (3,4) Summer
Winter
5.0 mg/L 7.5 mg/L
10.0 mg/L 15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E1
Total Suspended Solids (4)
30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, El
NHYN (3) Summer
Winter
1.0 mg/L 3.0 mg/L
2.0 mg/L 6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
El
pH
Shall be within the range of 6.8 and 8.5
standard units at all times
Daily
Grab
El
Enterococci (6)
(geometric mean)
35/100 mL 276/100 mL
Daily
Grab
El
Total Residual Chlorine
13 pg/L
Daily
Grab
E1
Total Nitrogen
NOz-N + NO3-N + TKN
No Effluent Limitation (mg/L)
Weekly
Composite
E1
No Effluent Limitation (lb/month)
Monthly (Calculated)
E1
58,569 lb/year (annual mass loading) (7, 8)
Annually (Calculated)
E1
Total Phosphorus
2.0 mg/L (monthly average)
Weekly
Composite
E1
Total Copper (pg/L)
2/Month
Composite
El
Selenium (pg/L)
2/Month
Composite
El
Total Silver (pg/L)
2/Month
Composite
El
Total Zinc (pg/L)
2/Month
Composite
E1
Cyanide (pg/L)
2/Month
Grab
E1
Total Mercury (pg/L)
2/Month
Grab
El
Phenols (pg/L)
Monthly
Grab
El
Fecal Coliform (5)
(geometric mean)
200/100 mL 400/100 mL
Daily
Grab
El, U, D (1)
Temperature (°C)
Daily
Grab
El, U, D (1)
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily average shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L
Daily
Grab
El, U, D (1)
pH
Footnote (1)
Grab
U, D (1)
Conductivity
Footnote (1)
Grab
U D (1)
Salinity
Footnote (1)
Grab
U, D (1)
Effluent Pollutant Scan
See A. (9)
Annual
Grab
E1
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Footnotes are on the next page

Permit NCO025348
Footnotes:
(1) Sample locations: I - Influent to VWVTP; E1 - Effluent to Internal Outfall 002, upstream of E1/E2 split; E2 — Effluent to Quarry
Infiltration System; U - Upstream at Gap Landing; D = D1 + D2; D1 - Downstream at mid -channel across from Lewis Ferry; D2 —
Downstream at mid -channel at US Highway 17. All upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Instream samples at D2 shall
be collected three times per week during the months of June, July, August and September, and once per week during the remaining months
of the year. Instream samples at D1 shall be collected once per week during the months of June, July, August and September. All instream
samples except fecal coliform shall be collected at the top and bottom of the water column. Salinity, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and
temperature should be taken at one -foot intervals, measured vertically in the water column. Instream monitoring requirements may be
provisionally waived per Condition A.(4.).
(2) The Permittee may measure flow through the treatment plant and/or flow to Internal Outfall 002 using any reasonable combination of
measurements that will provide accurate results. Whenever separate flow measurements are used to calculate either of these reportable
flows, the daily sum of the component flows shall be calculated first, and monthly average flow shall then be calculated as the average of
these daily flows.
(3) For the purposes of this permit, summer is defined as the period from April 1 through October 31 and winter is defined as the period from
November I through March 31 of each year.
(4) The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent values
(85% removal).
(5) The limits and monitoring for fecal coliform will expire when revisions to rule 15A NCAC 2B become effective.
(6) The enterococci limit becomes effective on April 1, 2008. Monitoring is required beginning on the effective date of this permit.
(7) The annual mass loading for total nitrogen for Internal Outfall 002 shall be monitored and calculated as prescribed in Condition A.(3.).
(8) The annual mass loading limit for total nitrogen shall become effective with the calendar year beginning on January 1, 2003 unless it is
provisionally waived per Condition A.(6.), Annual Limits for Total Nitrogen.

Permit NCO025348
A. (2.) 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 Wastewater
from filter backwash and softener regeneration backwash from the Water Treatment Plant from internal outfall 003. Such discharges shall be
limitPe) and mnnitnred by the Permittee as snecified below:
PARAMETER
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly Weekly Daily
Average Average Maximum
Measurement Sample Sample
Frequency Type Location (1)
Flow — 001
0.5 MGD
Continuous
Recording
E3
Total Residual Chlorine (2)
13 pg/L
Weekly
Grab
E3
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
E3
Total Dissolved Solids
2/Month
Grab
E3
Total Copper
2/ Month
Composite
E3
Total Chlorides
2/ Month
Composite
E3
Total Iron
2/ Month
Composite
E3
Total Manganese
2/ Month
Composite
E3
Total Lead
2/ Month
Composite
E3
Total Zinc
2/ Month
Composite
E3
Ammonia Nitrogen
2/ Month
Composite
E3
Flouride
2/ Month
Composite
E3
Total Nitrogen
2/ Month
Composite
E3
Total Phosphorus
2/ Month
Composite
E3
pH
Shall be within the range of 6.8 and 8.5
standard units at all times
Weekly
Grab
E3, U, D (1)
Temperature (°C)
2/ Month
Grab
E3, U, D (1)
Salinity
2/ Month
Grab
E3, U, D (1)
Conductivity
2/ Month
Grab
E3, U, D (1)
Dissolved Oxygen
2/ Month
Grab
E3, U, D (1)
Footnotes:
1. Sample locations: I - Influent to WWTP; E1— WWTP Effluent to Internal Outfall 002, upstream of El /E2 split; E2 — WWTP
Effluent to Quarry Infiltration System, E3 —WTP Effluent to Internal Outfall 003; U - Upstream at Gap Landing; D = D1 + D2; D1
- Downstream at mid -channel across from Lewis Ferry; D2 — Downstream at mid -channel at US Highway 17. All upstream and
downstream samples shall be grab samples. Instream samples at D2 shall be collected three times per week during the months of
June, July, August and September, and once per week during the remaining months of the year. Instream samples at D1 shall be
collected once per week during the months of June, July, August and September. All instream samples shall be collected at the top and
bottom of the water column. Salinity, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and temperature should be taken at one -foot intervals, measured
vertically in the water column. Instream'monitoring requirements may be provisionally waived per Condition A.(4.).
2. The Total Residual Chlorine limit is applicable only if chlorine is present in the waste water.
All samples collected should be from a representative discharge event.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NCO025348
A. (3.) 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 Wastewater
from filter backwash and softener regeneration backwash from the Water Treatment Plant and treated wastewater from the WWTP from outfall
nm c,,, t, A;crha{aPc chnll he limited and mnnirnred by the Permittee as specified below:
PARAMETER
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly Weekly Daily
Measurement Sample Sample
Average Average Maximum
Frequency Type Location (2)
Acute Toxicity (1�
Mysidopsis bahia, 24-hr.,
Quarterly Composite 2
No Significant Mortality at 90%
Footnotes
(1) Acute Toxicity (Mysidopsis bahia) P/F @ 90 % with testing in March, June, September and December (see A. (7)).
(2) Samples for the Whole Effluent Toxicity Test shall be representative of the discharge. If both the W ]rP and WTP effluent is discharging
to the diffuser, samples of each waste stream must be mixed in the ratio of discharge flow rate. If the WWTP effluent is being diverted to
the quarry, it must not be diverted to discharge to the diffuser for the purpose of diluting the WTP effluent.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0025348
A. (4.) INSTREAM MONITORING
Instream monitoring requirements in this NPDES permit shall be provisionally waived so long as the
Permittee remains a member of the Lower Neuse Basin Association and the Association continues to
function as approved by the Division and the Environmental Management Commission. If the Permittee
does not participate in the Association or if the Association ceases to function, the instream monitoring
requirements in this permit become effective immediately; and the Division may reopen this permit by
administrative letter to establish additional instream monitoring requirements it deems necessary to
adequately characterize the effects of the discharges on water quality in the receiving stream.
A. (5.) TOTAL NITROGEN MONITORING
The Permittee shall calculate the annual mass loading of total nitrogen as the sum of monthly loadings,
according to the following equations:
(a) Monthly Mass Loading (lb/mo) = TN x Q x 8.34
where: TN = the average total nitrogen concentration (mg/L) of the
composite samples collected during the month at each outfall
Q = the total wastewater flow discharged during the month at each
outfall(MG/mo)
8.34 = conversion factor, from (mg/L X MG) to pounds
(b) Annual Mass Loading (lb/yr) _ (Monthly Mass Loadings) for the calendar year
The Permittee shall report the total nitrogen concentration for each sample and the monthly
mass loading in the appropriate self -monitoring report and the annual mass loading of total
nitrogen in the December self -monitoring report for the year.

Permit NCO025348
A. (6.) ANNUAL LIMITS FOR TOTAL NITROGEN
(a) The Neuse Nutrient Management Strategy rule for point sources (15A NCAC 2B. 0234)
provides that annual mass limits for total nitrogen shall be included in the permits for all
dischargers with permitted flows (as defined in the Strategy) greater than or equal to 0.5 MGD
and that those nitrogen limits, including the limits in this permit, shall become effective with
the calendar year beginning on January 1, 2003.
(b) The Neuse rule also provides that members of a group compliance association shall not be
subject to individual annual mass limits for total nitrogen. At the time of permit issuance, the
Permittee had expressed interest in joining such an association. Accordingly,
(1) the total nitrogen limit in Conditions A.(1.) - (2.) of this permit is deemed waived
provided that the following conditions are met:
(i) a formal agreement between the association and Environmental Management
Commission, as outlined in 15A NCAC 2B. 0234, is established and is in effect; and
(ii) the Permittee is a party to said agreement; and
(1) the association and the Permittee substantially conform with the agreement.
(2) So long as the total nitrogen limit in Conditions A.(1.) - (2.) is waived, the group nitrogen
allocation established pursuant to the agreement referenced above and any subsequent
amendments is hereby incorporated as an enforceable part of this permit.
(c) If the Division determines, at any time during the term of this permit, that these conditions are
not being met, it shall notify the Permittee in writing of this determination and of its basis. The
consequence of such a determination shall be that the Permittee's annual mass limit for total
nitrogen and its effective date shall be reinstated immediately. The Division shall accept and
consider written responses received from the Permittee and/or the association within thirty (30)
days of the original notice before making a final decision and will provide that decision in
writing.
(d) The Permittee shall notify the Division in writing within five (5) working days if, at any time
during the term of this permit, the Permittee elects not to join the association, or if it withdraws
or otherwise loses its membership in the association. Notification shall be sent to:
NCDENR / Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

Permit NCO025348
A. (7.) ACUTE TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY)
The Permittee shall conduct acute toxicity tests on a quarterly basis using protocols defined in the North
Carolina Procedure Document entitled "Pass/Fail Methodology For Determining Acute Toxicity In A
Single Effluent Concentration" (Revised July, 1992 or subsequent versions). The monitoring shall be
performed as a Mysid Shrimp (Mysidopsis babia) 24-hour static test. The effluent concentration at which
there may be at no time significant acute mortality is 90% (defined as treatment two in the procedure
document). Effluent samples for self -monitoring purposes must be obtained during representative effluent
discharge below all waste treatment. The tests will be performed during the months of March, June,
September, and December.
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
TGE3C. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-2 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental 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
Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring
will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test
requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should the Permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly
test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from either these monitoring requirements or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality 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 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.
A. (8.) NON -DETECTION REPORTING AND DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE
When pursuant to this permit a pollutant analysis is conducted using an approved analytical protocol with
the appropriate minimum detection level and a result of "non -detectable" or "below quantitation limit" is
obtained, the Permittee shall record that result as reported. For the purpose of determining compliance
with a permit limit for the pollutant, the numerical value of that individual analytical result shall be zero.

Permit NCO025348
A. (9.) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The Permittee shall perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the attached table (using a
sufficiently sensitive detection level in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 136). Samples shall represent seasonal
variations. Unless otherwise indicated,
metals shall be analyzed as "total
recoverable."
Ammonia (as N)
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
1,1-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Dissolved oxygen
1,2-dichloropropane
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Nitrate/Nitrite
1,3-dichloropropylene
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ethylbenzene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Oil and grease
Methyl bromide
2-chloronaphthalene
Phosphorus
Methyl chloride
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids
Methylene chloride
Chrysene
Hardness
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Antimony
Tetrachloroethylene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic
Toluene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Beryllium
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,2-dichlorobenzcne
Cadmium
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromium
Trichloroethylene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Copper
Vinyl chloride
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Lead
Acid-extractabk coVoxndr.•
Diethyl phthalate
Mercury
P-chloro-m-cresol
Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Selenium
2,44chlorophenol
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Silver
2,4-dimethylphenol
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Thallium
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Fluoranthene
Zinc
2,4-dinitrophenol
Fluorene
Cyanide
2-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds
4-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
i/olatik o panic c oXndr.
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Acrolein
Phenol
Hexachloroethane
Acrylonitrile
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene
Base -neutral cam�oundr:
Isophorone
Bromoform
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Acenaphthylene
Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Anthracene
. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodibromomethane
Benzidine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Chloroethane
Benzo(a)anduacene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Chloroform
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Pyrene
Dichlorobromomethane
Benzo(ghi)perylene
1,2,4trichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1,2-dichloroethane
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- A MR-PPA1 or in a form approved by the
Director within 90 days of sampling. The report shall be submitted to the following address: Division of
Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Central Files,1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina
27699-1617.

Review of Permits
16 Subject: Review of Permits
From: Susan Meadows <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:28:06 -0400
To: james.mckay@,ncmail.net
Hello Jim,
I looked over the New Bern Permit Modification (NC0025348) & everything looks fine.
I also looked at 2 drafts:
Bogue Bank (N00083089) and Pine Street WTP (NC0072699), both of which look good.
Susie Meadows
Susan Meadows, Environmental Biologist
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
DWQ/Environmental Sciences Section
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
susan.meadows(ancmail.net
t: [phone] x256
f. [phone]
1 of 1 9/5/2007 2:58 PM

T
Y
a
a
RCDENR
NcRTH CAROUNA DePARTMenT or
F.tmRONMaNr ANC NAnjuL Re=uFecw
Facilit
Facility Name:
Permitted Flow (MGD):
Facility Class:
Facility Status:
(New or existing)
Permit Status:
(i.e., New, Renewal,
or Modification)
County:
Regional Office:
USGS Topo Quad:
Permit Writer:
Date:
Summagy
Fact Sheet - NPDES Permit
New Bern WWIP
7.0 MGD
IV Biological WPCS
Existing
Modification
Craven
Washington
G30NE
(New Bern)
Jim McKay
8/7/2007
City of New Bern
NPDES No. NC0025348
Receiving Stream
Receiving Stream: Neuse River
Subbasin: 03-04-10
Index No.:
Stream Class:
303(d) Listed:
Use Support:
Drainage Area (m12):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
SC -Swamp NSW
Yes (Nutrient TMDL has been
approved by EPA).
NS
Tidal
Average Flow (cfs): Tidal
IWC (%): 90 (acute), 2.2 (chronic)
The New Bern WWTP is a major municipal plant operating in Craven County. The facility serves 24,400
people in New Bern and discharges to the mainstem of the Neuse River. In August 2003, the facility
completed installation of a diffuser as part of major upgrade and expansion. The main purpose of the
upgrade was to install biological nutrient removal systems for both nitrogen and phosphorus. The previous
permit authorized expansion to 6.5 MGD.
In order to comply with Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) Rule requirements to reduce
groundwater withdrawal from the Cretaceous aquifer by 75% by 2018, and to provide for population growth,
the City plans to install a new well field to withdraw groundwater from the Castle Hayne aquifer. The City
has applied for a Major Modification to it's NPDES permit to add 0.5 mgd of filter backwash and softener
regeneration backwash from a new 5 mgd drinking water treatment plant to the WWTP discharge. The
connection will be after the Wastewater Treatment Plant, the diversion line to the quarry, and before the
diffuser to the Neuse River. A check valve will be installed to prevent WTP wastewater containing high
levels of salt from being diverted to the quarry.
En—oineerinQ Alternatives Analvsis
The following alternatives were evaluated:
• Connection to an existing wastewater treatment plant
• Land application
• Wastewater reuse
• Surface water discharge via the existing WWTP diffuser, or a new diffuser at Hog Island
• Combination of alternatives.
The analysis showed that surface water discharge via the existing diffuser to be the most viable alternative. A
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by NCDENR on 9/13/2006.

Pretreatment
The city has an approved pretreatment program with 3 non categorical SIU and 5 categorical industrial users.
The permitted flow for the pretreatment program is 0.275 mgd. The city will continue to implement the
approved pretreatment program.
Basinwide Plan
According to the Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan for the Neuse, the primary water quality
considerations for point sources in the basin are discharges of (1) oxygen -demanding substances and (2)
nutrients.
The entire Neuse River Basin is classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters. The Environmental Management
Commission adopted Nutrient Management Strategy rules in December 1997, with revisions in March 2000.
The rules set nitrogen discharge limits for all point source dischargers larger than 0.5 MGD; and they extend
the coverage of phosphorus limitations to some dischargers not previously affected by the rules. Under the
Nutrient Management Strategy rule, the City's discharge to the Neuse River is subject to a total nitrogen ('IN)
Emit. The City has joined a group compliance association, as allowed under the rule, in which case the TN
Emit will be met by collective efforts of the association, and in -stream sampling requirements are waived.
DMR data from lanuaEy 2006 through April 2007are summarized below.
NCO025348 Effluent Data (January 2006-April 2007)
Compliance History
The facility has been meeting all permit limits after new treatment units have been installed in 2003.
The most recent compliance evaluation inspection conducted in October 2005 indicated that all records and
reports are up to date and the facility appeared to be well maintained and operated. It was found to be in
compliance with permit limits. The Washington Regional Office recommends renewal of this permit.
Wastewater Reuse & Groundwater Recharge
The City has explored reuse as one means of reducing its direct discharge flows to the river and has received
authorization to make use of the nearby Glenburnie quarry (see permit map) for this purpose. Since
dewatering was halted when the quarry closed in recent years, the quarry pit has filled to form a lake as the
groundwater level has returned to normal. The City has begun to discharge reuse -quality water to. the lake at
up to 3 MGD. The water will then infiltrate into the ground, helping to recharge the surrounding aquifer.
There is considerable uncertainty on several key questions; for instance, how much water can infiltrate
through this system? How much will eventually reach the Neuse River? How much of the nutrients or other
materials in the wastewater will move into the aquifer or the river? How will the discharge affect water quality
in the lake?
This system is expected to reduce the amount of nitrogen discharged to the river (and eventually the estuary).
This could be taken into account in measuring the City's TN load into the river and estuary. However, given
the uncertainty surrounding the project, it is not possible at this time to know how to estimate the amount of
nitrogen permanently diverted from the river. The quarry project will serve to demonstrate the actual
performance of the system and may provide enough understanding to allow those estimates to be made.

The City has developed a Lake Management Plan that outlines a strategy for preventing degradation of water
quality in the lake. The plan includes a monitoring schedule and identifies specific actions to be taken to
ensure the lake is not adversely impacted.
Hydraulic Treatment CoVagity
Normally, a permit's flow limitation serves two purposes: (1) it limits the amount of wastewater (hence, the
pollutant load) discharged to the river, and (2) it prevents the flows through the treatment plant from
exceeding the approved Average Design Flow. Both limits are essential to protecting water quality. Normally,
a single flow limit is sufficient to meet both needs.
Confusion can arise when a facility diverts some portion of its effluent for reuse or other non -discharge
options. A single flow limit no longer meets both needs, and it becomes necessary to distinguish between
plant flows and discharge flows and to limit both.
This permit proposes separate flow limits for the WWTP (measured at the influent) and for Qutfall 001, in
order to make the distinction between the two flows and ensure that flows do not exceed either the receiving
stream's assimilative capacity or the planes hydraulic capacity. It also proposes continuous monitoring of the
quarry flow to ensure accurate measurement there.
Quarry DischaWe. The City has received a non -discharge permit, No. WQ0017635, to reuse any or all of
its treated effluent (effectively limited by infiltration capacity in the quarry system). Effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements, sampling point(s), and other conditions for reuse are established in the non -
discharge permit. The NPDES permit does not include an effluent page for reuse; instead, it simply
authorizes the diversion on the Supplement to Cover Page and refers to additional requirements to be found
in the non -discharge permit for the reuse water flows. This permit has been developed assuming 100% of the
effluent will discharge to the river with minor provisions related to measuring flows though the WVVTP as
well as discharges to both potential sites. The facility has been diverting up to 3 mgd to the quarry since the
fourth quarter of 2006.
Toxicity Testing:
Type of Toxicity Test: Acute P/F
Existing Limit: 001: Acute P/F @ 90%
Recommended Limit: 001: Acute P/F @ 90%
Monitoring Schedule: March, June, September, and December
Test organism: Mysid Shrimp (Mycidopru Bahia)
The test organism was changed to Mysid Shrimp from Fathead Minnow at the plant's request. The Aquatic
Toxicology group has agreed to this change.
This facility has passed all of it's toxicity tests since installation of upgraded equipment. It has been passing
the test since July 2003.
Reasonable Potential Analysis:
Reasonable potential analyses were conducted for cyanide, selenium, silver, copper, zinc, phenols, and
mercury. Reasonable Potential to exceed Water Quality Standards was found for copper, silver and zinc.
No limits were added as copper, silver and zinc are action level parameters, and the plant has passed all
toxicity tests since July 2003. All cyanide data was reported as less than detect except two reports at 5.0 ug/
L in November 2006. The State of North Carolina considers 10 ug/ L to be the minimum detectable level
for cyanide, and that reported values less than 10 ug/ L are suspect. They are counted as Zero for
compliance purposes. Based on the 2005 — 2007 YTD data for cyanide, the monitoring frequency was
reduced to monthly from twice per month. A footnote was added to the Effluent Limitations page A.(1) to
state the Division's cyanide data reporting strategy.
Proposed Changes:
Limits. -
The daily maximum total residual chlorine (I'RC) limit has been changed to 13 ug/ L in keeping with the
Division's new TRC in salt water strategy.

As a result of EPA's promulgation of the bacteria criteria in November 2004, enterococci limits of 35/ 100
ml monthly average and 276/ 100 ml weekly average were added to the permit. The limits become effective
six months after the effective date of the permit; monitoring is to begin on the effective date. When
revisions to 15A NCAC 2B become effective, fecal coliform limits and monitoring will expire.
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements:
There are three Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements pages. Page A.(1) has the requirements
for the WWTP influent and effluent at internal outfall 002 after the DWWP and before the tie-in to the
quarry discharge line, and before the tie-in from the WIP to ensure at least 85% reduction of BOD5 and
TSS in the WWTP, and to regulate the flow rate through the WWI? to prevent the flows through the
treatment plant from exceeding the approved Average Design Flow. Page A.(2) has the requirements for the
waste stream from the Water Treatment Plant at internal outfall 003. Page A.(3) has the requirements for
Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing based on a composite samples from both waste streams that should be
representative of total discharge through outfall 001 to the diffuser.
Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: June 20, 2007 (est.)
Permit Scheduled to Issue: August 15, 2007 (est.)
Permit Effective Date: September 1, 2007 (est.)
State Contact:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact Jim
McKay at [phone] ext. 595.
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT:
NAME:
EPA COMMENT:

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
New Bern WWTP + WTP
Outfall 001
NCO025348
Ow = 7 MGD
Time Period 112005 - 412007
Ow (MGD) 7
WWTP Class IV
7010S (cfs) 0
lWC (%) ® 7010S 100
7010W (dts) 0
Q 701 OW 100
3002 (cls) 0
@ 3002 100
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 0
® QA 100
RecWg Stream Neuse River
Stream Class SC, Swamp, NSW
STANDARDS
PARAMETER
TYPE
CRITERIA (2)
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NCVIQSI NFAV/
a 004 taPndcw Afbwzbieft
(1)
Chronk Acute
Acute: WA
Arsenic
C
50
ug/L
0 0
NIA
_- — •
--- - ------- — — —- --------
— — — —
trltroni� 50
Acute: WA
Beryllium
C
6.5
ug/L
0 0
WA
_ _•
- --------
— — — — — —
Chronic 7
-
Acute: 42
Cadmium
NC
5 42
ug/L
0 0
WA I-----•—•—•
- --- - --- —
— — — — _
Chrartic: 5
- -
Acute: 1.022
Chromium
NC
20 1.022
ug/L
0 0
WA--
-
--- — — —
Chronlc: 20
- --
Acute: 6
-
Copper
NC
3 AL 5.8
tWL
51 4
41.9
— — — - . ------
Chronic: 3
—
Acute. 1
Cyanide
NC
1 N 1
10
ug/L
200 2
5.0 I----------
_-_--- --- ------ — —
Chronic: 1
- ..-
Acute: NIA
Fluoride
NC
1,800
ug/L
0 0
NIA
___
— _
--
Acute: 221
Lead
NC
25 N 221
ugh.
0 0
WA
I--------
------ — --- — - --
-
Chronic:— 25
- ---- _ - -
Acute: WA
Mercury
NC
25
2.0000
nglL
62 28
14.4570
_ _ •_ _
--- ^- -^-_-
Chronic:
Acute: WA
Molybdenum
A
3,500
ug/L
0 0
WA
•_
- - --- ---- —_
Acute: 75
Nickel
NC
8 75
ug/L
0 0
WA
I------ - --
- - - -
— — — — — — — —
Chronlc:— 8
-- ---- _
Acute: WA
Phenots
A
1 N
ugh-
22 3
5.4
-- -
-1
- —_—_---_ --_----
— — — --- — —
Chronic:
Acute: WA
Selenium
NC
71.0
ug&
52 0
5.0
-_ _ -
•----_---_-_- --—
— --- —
Chronic: 71
-
Acute: 2
Silver
NC
0.10 AL 1.9
ug&
46 1
7.3
--0
- -
----------- ----_---
— ---
Chronic:
--- -
Acute: 95
Zinc
NC
86 AL 95
ug/L
45 31
268.4
-_ _
_---- _ — — — —
_
Chronic: 88
- -
• Legend. " Freshwater Discharge
C = Carckogenk
NC = Non-carCtnogenk
A = Aesthetk
25348 npdes rpa 2004031. rpa
6/4/2007

Table 1. Project Information
Facility Name
WWTP Grade
NPDES Permit
outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
7Q10s (cfs)
7Q10w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
Time Period
Data Source(s)
New Bern WWTP +'WTP
.iv
NCO025348
001
7.0
Neuse 'River
SC, Swamp, NSW
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 /2005 - 4/2007
Par01
ParO2
ParO2
Par04
ParOf
ParOE
ParO7
Par08
Par09
Par1C
Parl 1
Par12
Par12
Parl4
Par15
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Arsenic
C
50
ug/L
Beryllium
C
6.5
ug/L
Cadmium
NC
5
_42
ug/L
Chromium
NC
20
1022
ug/L
Copper
NC
3
AL
5.8
ug/L
Cyanide
NC
1
N
1
10
ug/L
Fluoride
NC
1800
ug/L
Lead
NC
25
N
221
ug/L
Mercury -
NC
25
2.0
.ng/L
l Molybdenum
A
.3500
uglL
Nickel
NC
8.3
75
uglL
Phenols
A
1
N
ug/L
Selenium
NC
71
ug/L
'Silver
NC
0.1 '
AL
1.9
ug/L
Zinc
j NC
1 86
1 AL
95
ug/L
25348 npdes rpa 2004031, input
6/4/2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Arsenic
Beryllium
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
1
Sid Dev.
NO DATA
1
Sid Dev.
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
4
n
0
4
n
0
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
6
Mult Factor=
N/A
7
Max. Value
0.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
0.0 ug/L
6
Max. Fred Cw
N/A ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A ug/L
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
59
59
60
60
199
199
200
200
25348 nodes rpa 2004031, data
- 1 - 6/4/2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Cadmium
Chromium
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
1
Sid Dev.
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
4
n
0
4
n
0
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
6
Mult Factor =
N/A
7
Max. Value
0.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
0.0 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A ug/L
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
59
59
60
60
199
199
200
200
25348 npdes rpa 2004031, data
-2- 6/4/2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Copper
Cyanide
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
<
10
5.0
Std Dev.
4.2770
1
<
5
5.0
Sid Dev.
0.0000
2
<
10
5.0
Mean
6.2157
2
<
5
5.0
Mean
5.0000
3
<
10
5.0
C.V.
0.6881
3
<
5
5.0
C.V.
0.0000
4
<
10
5.0
n
51
4
<
5
5.0
n
51
5
<
10
5.0
5
<
5
5.0
6
<
10
5.0
Mutt Factor =
1.8200
6
<
5
5.0
Mult Factor=
1.0D00
7
<
10
5.0
Max Value
23.0 ug/L
7
<
5
5.0
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
8
<
10
5.0
Max. Pred Cw
41.9 ug/L
8
<
5
5.0
Max. Pred Cw
5.0 ug/L
9
16
16.0
9
<
5
5.0
10
<
10
5.0
10
<
5
5.0
11
<
10
5.0
11
<
5
5.0
12
<
10
5.0
12
<
5
5.0
13
<
10
&0
13
<
5
5.0
14
<
10
5.0
14
5
5.0
15
<
10
5.0
15
5
5.0
16
<
10
5.0
16
<
5
5.0
17
<
10
5.0
17
<
5
5.0
18
<
10
5.0
18
<
5
5.0
19
<
10
5.0
19
<
5
5.0
20
<
10
5.0
20
<
5
5.0
21
<
10
5.0
21
<
5
5.0
22
<
10
5.0
22
<
5
5.0
23
<
10
5.0
23
<
5
6.0
24
<
10
5.0
24
<
5
5.0
25
<
10
5.0
25
<
5
5.0
26
22
22.0
26
<
5
5.0
27
<
10
5.0
27
<
5
5.0
28
<
10
6.0
28
<
5
&0
29
<
10
5.0
29
<
5
5.0
30
<
10
5.0
30
<
5
5.0
31
21
21.0
31
<
5
5.0
32
<
10
5.0
32
<
5
5.0
33
<
10
5.0
33
<
5
5.0
34
<
10
5.0
34
<
5
5.0
35
<
10
5.0
35
<
5
5.0
36
<
10
5.0
36
<
5
5.0
37
<
10
5.0
37
<
5
6.0
38
<
10
5.0
38
<
5
5.0
39
<
10
5.0
39
<
5
5.0
40
<
10
5.0
40
<
5
5.0
41
<
10
5.0
41
<
5
5.0
42
23
23.0
42
<
5
6.0
43
<
10
5.0
43
<
5
5.0
44
< .
10
5.0
44
<
5
5.0
45
<
10
5.0
45
<
5
5.0
46
<
10
5.0
46
<
5
5.0
47
<
10
5.0
47
<
5
5.0
48
<
10
5.0
48
<
5
5.0
49
<
10
5.0
49
<
5
5.0
50
<
10
5.0
50
<
5
5.0
51
<
10
5.0
51
<
5
5.0
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
59
59
60
60
199
199
200
200
25348 npdes rpa 2004031, data
-3- 6/4/2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Fluoride
Lead
Date Data
BDL=1/21)L Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
1
Sid Dev.
NO DATA
1
Sid Dev.
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
Mean
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
C.V.
NO DATA
4
n
0
4
n
0
5
5
6
Mult Factor =
WA
6
Malt Factor =
N/A
7
Max. Value
0.0 u9/L
7
Max. Value
0.0 uglL
8
Max Pred Cw
N/A ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A ugtL
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
5o
57
57
58
58
59
59
60
66
199
199
200
200
25348 npdes rpa 2004031, data
-4- 6/4/2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Mercury
Molybdenum
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
1
1.4
1.0
Std Dev.
1.2144
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
2
<
1
1.0
Mean
1.5371
2
Mean
NO DATA
3
<
1
1.0
C.V.
0.7901
3
C.V.
NO DATA
4
2.3
2.3
n
62
4
n
0
5
1
1.0
5
6
<
1
1.0
Mult Factor =
1.83
6
Mult Factor=
N/A
7
<
1
1.0
Max. Value
7.9 ng/L
7
Max. Value
0.0 ug/L
8
<
1
1.0
Max. Pred Ow
14.5 ng/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
N/A ug/L
9
<
1
1.0
9
10
<
1
1.0
10
11
<
1
1.0
11
12
<
1
1.0
12
13
<
1
1.0
13
14
<
1
1.0
14
15
<
1
1.0
15
16
<
1
1.0
16
17
<
1
1.0
17
18
<
1
1.0
18
19
<
1
1.0
19
20
2.4
2.4
20
21
<
1
1.0
21
22
<
1
1.0
22
23
<
1
1.0
23
24
<
1
1.0
24
25
<
1
1.0
25
26
1.3
1.0
26
27
2.7
2.7
27
28
1.1
1.0
28
29
<
1
1.0
29
30
1.8
1.0
30
31
<
1
1.0
31
32
1.5
1.0
32
33
<
1
1.0
33
34
<
1
1.0
34
35
<
1
1.0
35
36
2.5
2.5
36
37
<
1
1.0
37
38
<
1
1.0
38
39
<
1
1.0
39
40
<
1
1.0
40
41
2.5
2.5
41
42
<
1.0
1.0
42
43
2.6
2.6
43
44
2.3
2.3
44
45
1.9
1.0
45
46
7.9
7.9
46
47
<
1
1.0
47
48
<
1
1.0
48
49
3.2
3.2
49
50
1.7
1.0
50
51
1.6
1.0
51
52
5.2
5.2
52
53
1.8
1.0
53
54
4.3
4.3
54
55
2.3
2.3
55
56
1.7
1.0
56
57
2.3
2.3
57
58
2.2
2.2
58
59
1.7
1.0
59
60
3.6
3.6
60
199
1.6
1.0
199
200
1.5
1.0.
1 200
25348 npdes rpa 2004031, data
-5- 6/4/2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Nickel
Phenols
Date Data
BDL=1I2DL Results
Date Data
BDL-1I2DL
Results
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
1
3
3.0
Std Dev.
0.5011
2
Mean
NO DATA
2
<
2
1.0
Mean
1.1818
3
C.V.
NO DATA
3
<
2
1.0
C.V.
0.4240
4
n
0
4
<
2
1.0
n
22
5
5
<
2
1.0
6
Mult Factor =
NIA
6
<
2
1.0
Mult Factor =
1.8000
7
Max. Value
0.0 ug/L
7
<
2
1.0
Max. Value
3.0 ug/L
8
Max. Fred Ow
N/A ug/L
8
<
2
1.0
Max. Pred Cw
5.4 ug/L
9
9
<
2
1.0
10
10
<
2
1.0
11
11
<
2
1.0
12
12
2
2.0
13
13
<
2
1.0
14
14
<
2
1.0
15
15
<
2
1.0
16
16
<
2
1.0
17
17
<
2
1.0
18
18
<
2
1.0
19
19
<
2
1.0
20
20
<
2
1.0
21
21
2
2.0
22
22
<
2
1.0
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
59
59
60
60
199
199
200
200
25348 npdes rpa 2004031, data
6 - 6/4/2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Selenium
Silver
Date
Data
BDL=1I2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
<
10
5.0
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.5160
2
<
10
5.0
Mean
5.0000
2
<
5
2.5
Mean
2.5761
3
<
10
5.0
C.V.
0.0000
3
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.2003
4
<
10
5.0
n
52
4
<
5
2.5
n
46
5
<
10
5.0
5
<
5
2.5
6
<
10
5.0
Mult Factor =
1.0000
6
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.22D0
7
<
10
5.0
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
<
5
2.6
Max. Value
6.0 ug/L
8
<
10
5.0
Max. Pred Cw
5.0 ug/L
8
<
5
2.5
Max. Prod Cw
7.3 ug/L
9
<
10
5.0
9
<
5
2.5
10
<
10
5.0
10
<
5
2.5
11
<
10
5.0
11
<
5
2.5
12
<
10
5.0
12
<
5
2.5
13
<
10
5.0
13
<
5
2.5
14
<
10
5.0
14
<
5
2.5
15
<
10
5.0
15
<
5
2.5
16
<
10
5.0
16
<
5
2.5
17
<
10
5.0
17
<
5
2.5
18
<
10
5.0
18
<
5
25
19
<
10
5.0
19
<
5
2.5
20
<
10
5.0
20
<
5
2.5
21
<
10
5.0
21
<
5
2.5
22
<
10
5.0
22
<
5
2.5
23
<
10
5.0
23
<
5
2.5
24
<
10
5.0
24
<
5
2.5
25
<
10
5.0
25
<
5
2.5
26
<
10
5.0
26
<
5
2.5
27
<
10
5.0
27
<
5
2.5
28
<
10
5.0
28
<
5
2.5
29
<
10
5.0
29
<
5
2.5
30
<
10
5.0
30
<
5
2.5
31
<
10
5.0
31
<
5
2.5
32
<
10
5.0
32
<
5
2.5
33
<
10
5.0
33
<
5
2.5
34
<
10
5.0
34
<
5
2.5
35
<
10
5.0
35
<
5
2.5
36
<
10
5.0
36
6
6.0
37
<
10
5.0
37
<
5
2.5
38
<
10
5.0
38
<
5
2.5
39
<
10
5.0
39
<
5
2.5
40
<
10
5.0
40
<
5
2.5
41
<
10
5.0
41
<
5
2.5
42
<
10
5.0
42
<
5
2.5
43
<
10
5.0
43
<
5
2.5
44
<
10
5.0
44
<
5
2.5
45
<
10
5.0
45
<
5
2.5
46
<
10
5D
46
<
5
2.5
47
<
10
5.0
47
48
<
10
5.0
48
49
<
10
5.0
49
50
<
10
5.0
50
51
<
10
5.0
51
52
<
10
5.0
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
59
59
60
60
199
199
200
1 200
25348 npdes rpa 2004031, data
-7- 6/4/2007

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Zinc
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
37
37.0
Std Dev.
22.6997
2
40
40.0
Mean
26.6889
3
49
49.0
C.V.
0.8505
4
32
32.0
n
45
5
5
2.5
6
25
25.0
Mult Factor =
2.1300
7
28
28.0
Max. Value
126.0 ug/L
8
5
2.5
Max. Fred CW
268.4 ugrL
9
41
41.0
10
47
47.0
11
5
2.5
12
5
2.5
13
5
2.5
14
45
45.0
15
43
43.0
16
5
2.5
17
18
19
28
28.0
20
5
2.5
21
5
2.5
22
26
26.0
23
36
36.0
24
28
28.0
25
29
29.0
26
5,
2.5
27
126
126.0
28
30
30.0
29
29
29.0
30
32
32.0
31
31
31.0
32
34
34.0
33
5
2.5
34
32
32.0
35
34
34,0
36
35
35.0
37
34
34.0
38
22
22.0
39
66
66.0
40
29
29.0
41
35
35.0
42
5
2.5
43
16
16.0
44
47
47.0
45
5
2.5
46
5'
2.5'
47
5
2.5
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
199
200
25348 npdes rpa 2004031, data
- 8 - 6/4/2007

Ti#g of Nefu �exn
ALDERMEN
JULIUS C. PARHAM, JR.
ROBERTG RAYNOR, JR.
MACK L. "MAX" FREEZE
JOSEPH E. MATTINGLY, JR.
BARBARALEE
DANA E. OUTLAW
t4ree (fenturies of Nart4 Tarofitta ritage
FOUNDED 1710
Phone: [phone] P.O. Box 1129
Zefo fern, �Q 28563-1129
July 17, 2007
Mr. Jim McKay
NPDES Unit
1617 Mall Se^:ice Ccnter
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Draft NPDES Permit NCO025348
Dear Sir,
TOM BAYLISS, III
MAYOR
WALTER B. HARTMAN, JR.
CITY MANAGER
VICKIE H. JOHNSON
CITY CLERK
MARY B. MURAGLIA
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
J U L 2 3 2007 .
I have reviewed the proposed NPDES permit. The City requests the monitoring points be
amended for two reasons:
1) The City has a conjunctive use permit and will limit our discharge to the river to a
minimum, particularly during the summer months beg-nning about April 1st. During the
summer the discharge from the Water Treatment Plant will be the only discharge. As a
matter of function, the City feels the Water Treatment Plant discharge should stand alone
through out the year.
2) The discharge through the existing diffuser was a logical choice to avoid installing a
second diffuser in the river. The Water Treatment Plant should stand on its own for the
discharge to the river and should not be considered for the WWTP performance. We
presently are designing the sampling facilities to be located aL the new Water Treatment
Plant and discharge downstream ofthe sampling equiptent used at the WWII,.
Installing the sampling equipment as the proposed pert;,iI. suggests would require
significant changes to our design and the sampling would be remote to the operations.
The City requests the sampling for the water plant be taken at the discharge pumps at the Water
Plant and discharge downstream of the WWTP sampler through the common diffuser. Each
plant should stand on its own treatment and discharge limits. Rather than one end of pipe into
the river. the C.".ity is proposing combining these discharges. An alternative would be for the City
to instal I a second diffuser to the Neuse River and have separate NPDES permits for each. To
install the second diffuser and discharge would simply be a waste ofuser fees and exercise _n
futility. Please reconsider the monitoring points for compliance as suggested.
A second point of contention is the 13 umg/I limit for chlorine. Can these detection limits be
,itribing for xrelleure

achieved with standard continuously monitoring equipment? We do not think this is possible.
The third request is the toxicity test for the Water Treatment Plant. If the WTP discharge does
stand on it own, can the toxicity test be changed to brine shrimp as is used for the City of
Washington?
Lastly, the City has removed the discharge of the Stately Pines WWTP from the Neuse River and
the Trent River WWTP from the Trent River. Based upon recent information, the City has not
been credited with the allocation from these plants. The information I have does however grant
the allocation from the proposed Taylor WWTP from the Bridgeton area. I ask that the
allocation from the two WWTP recently removed from the Neuse and Trent River be credited to
the City. I would ask that this be changed at a time that will not cause undo hardship in the
permitting process.
If you have any questions concerning our requests, do not hesitate to contact me at 252-639-
7526.
Sincerel ,
David A. Muse, P.E.
City Engineer
cc: Walter B. Hartman, Jr., City Manager
Scott Davis, City Attorney
File

-Draft NPDES Permit
Subject: Draft NPDES Permit
From: "David Muse" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:16:36 -0400
To: <james. mckay@ncmail. net>
CC: "Scott Davis" <[e-mail]>, "Bill Hartman" <[e-mail]>, "Judy
Majstoravich" <[e-mail]>
Mr. McKay,
I have reviewed the proposed NPDES permit. I will send you a formal reply by mail by July 20th. I am taking
vacation next week and wanted to give you some items of concern I see.
The City will request that the monitoring be changed for two reasons:
1) The City has a conjunctive use permit and will limit our discharge to the river to a minimum, particularly during
the summer months beginning about April 1st. During the summer the discharge from the Water Treatment Plant
will be the only discharge. We feel this discharge should stand alone through out the year.
2) The discharge through the existing diffuser was a logical choice to avoid installing a second diffuser in the
river. The Water Treatment Plant should stand on its own for the discharge to the river and should not be
considered for the WWTP performance. We presently are designing the sampling facilities to be located at the new
Water Treatment Plant and discharge downstream of the sampling equipment used at the WWTP. Installing the
sampling equipment as the proposed permit suggests would require significant changes to our design and the
sampling would be remote to the operations.
We will request the sampling for the water plant be taken at the discharge pumps at the Water Plant and discharge
downstream of the WWTP sampler through the common diffuser. Each plant stands on its own treatment and
discharge limits.
A second point of contention is the 13 umg/I limit for chlorine. Can these detection limits be achieved with
standard continuously monitoring equipment?? We do not think this is possible.
The third and final request for information is the toxicity test for the Water Treatment Plant if the discharge does
stand on it own be changed to brine shrimp as is used for Washington.
Last, but not least, the City has removed the discharge of the Stately Pines WWTP from the Neuse River and the
Trent River WWTP from the Trent River. I will request in my letter the nitrogen for these plants be added to the
allocation for the New Bern WVV7P. Cindy Finan and Mike Templeton have had some recent correspondence
concerning this request. r o ,
Thanks for your consideration ;,�,'�l ✓' ey j^.e e �'
1`—
�f &Ae ��i'' m �/ 5 A -A
----------------------- ------------------------------
Automatic GroupWise signature added by GWAVASIG i "%'� ° i� n e m ///
Get your free copy at http://www.gwava.com
-----------------------------------------------------
1 of 1 7/2/2007 8:25 AM

re New Bern WWTP, NCO025348
Subject: re New Bern WWTP, NCO025348
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:46:00 -0400
To: [e-mail]
EPA will not be reviewing this permit.
I of 1 6/25/2007 12:56 PM

§ 122.45
(1) Frequency (for example, a batch
discharge shall not occur more than
once every 3 weeks);
(2) Total mass (for example, not to
exceed 100 kilograms of zinc and 200
kilograms of chromium per batch dis-
charge);
(3) Maximum rate of discharge of pol-
lutants during the discharge (for exam-
ple, not to exceed 2 kilograms of zinc
per minute); and
(4) Prohibition or limitation of speci-
fied pollutants by mass, concentration,
or.other appropriate measure (for ex-
ample, shall not contain at any time
more than 0.1 mg/1 zinc or more than
250 grams (1/4 kilogram) of zinc in any
discharge).
(f) Mass limitations. (1) All pollutants
limited in permits shall have limita-
tions, standards or prohibitions ex-
pressed in terms of mass except:
(i) For pH, temperature, radiation, or
other pollutants which cannot appro-
priately be expressed by mass;
(ii) When applicable standards and
limitations are expressed in terms of
other units of measurement: or
(iii) If in establishing permit limita-
tions on a case -by -case basis under
§ 125.3. limitations expressed in terms
of mass are infeasible because the mass
of the pollutant discharged cannot be
related to a measure of operation (for
example, discharges of TSS from cer-
tain mining operations), and permit
conditions ensure that dilution will not
be used as a substitute for treatment.
(2) Pollutants limited in terms of
mass additionally may be limited in
terms of other units of measurement,
and the permit shall require the per-
mittee to comply with both limita-
T(g) pollutants in intake water. (1) Upon
est' of the discharger, technology -
based effluent limitations or standards
shall be adjusted to reflect credit for
pollutants in the discharger's intake
water if:
(i) The applicable effluent limita-
tions and standards contained in 40
CFR subchapter N specifically provide
that they shall be applied on a net
basis; or
(ii) The discharger demonstrates that
the control system it proposes or uses
to meet applicable technology -based
limitations and standards would, if
40 CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-00 Edition)
properly installed and operated, meet
the limitations and standards in the
absence of pollutants in the intake wa-
ters.
(2) Credit for generic pollutants such
as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
or total suspended solids (TSS) should
not be granted unless the permittee
demonstrates that the constituents of
the generic measure in the effluent are
substantially similar to the constitu-
ents of the generic measure in the in-
take water or unless appropriate addi-
tional limits are placed on process
water pollutants either at the outfall
or elsewhere.
(3) Credit shall be granted only to the
extent necessary to meet the applica-
ble limitation or standard. up to a
maximum value equal to the influent
value. Additional monitoring may be
necessary to determine eligibility for
credits and compliance with permit
limits.
(4) Credit shall be granted only if the
discharger demonstrates that the in-
take water is drawn from the same
body of water into which the discharge
is made. The Director may waive this
requirement if he finds that no envi-
ronmental degradation will result.
(5) This section does not apply to the
discharge of raw water clarifier sludge
generated from the treatment of intake
water.
(hj7nternal waste streams. (1) When
permit effluent limitations or stand-
ards imposed at the point of discharge
are impractical or infeasible, effluent
limitations or standards for discharges
of pollutants may be imposed on inter-
nal waste streams before mixing with
other waste streams or cooling water
streams. In those instances, the moni-
toring required by §122.48 shall also be
applied to the internal waste streams.
(2) Limits on internal waste streams
will be imposed only when the fact
sheet under §124.56 sets forth the ex-
ceptional circumstances which make
such limitations necessary, such as
when the final discharge point is inac-
cessible (for example, under 10 meters
of water), the wastes at the point of
discharge are so diluted as to make
monitoring impracticable, or the inter-
ferences among pollutants at the point
of discharge would make detection or
analysis impracticable.
964

Diffuser Calculations for New Bern WWTP Discharge Modification
Subject: Diffuser Calculations for New Bern WWTP Discharge Modification
From: "Blaine Humphrey"<[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:18:33 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, "Tom Howell " <[e-mail]>
Jim,
Attached are PDF scans of the design calculations for adding the water
treatment plant discharge flow to the existing wastewater treatment
plant discharge. Based upon these calculations, the diffuser should
have no trouble handling the additional flow.
Although the Design information discusses installing a check valve in
the WTP discharge line, to prevent flow from the WWTP into the WTP line,
the Design information does not discuss one on the WWTP line. We are,
in fact, planning to install a check valve in the diffuser line,
upstream of the tie-in, to prevent flow from the WTP from flowing to the
quarry. Please call if you have any questions once you have had a
chance to review, or if you have any further questions or comments
regarding this project.
M. Blaine Humphrey, P.E.
Project Manager
Rivers and Associates, Inc.
107 E. Second Street
Greenville, NC 27834
[phone] Phone
[phone] Fax
mail to: [e-mail]
website: www.riversandassociates.com -
"You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem."
- Eldridge Cleaver
i
Diffuser Calcs - Revised.pdf
-- ..........._ -- - ....... .... --
Diffuser Calcs - 7-20-06.pdf
Content -Type: application/pdf
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: application/pdf
Content -Encoding: base64
1 of 1 4/4/2007 8:21 AM

1ive-rL,s
... Ussociates Inc.
Since 19ta
TO:
25200 - K
FROM:
Jonathan N. Britt, E.I.
DATE:
July 20, 2006
ENGINEERS
PLANNERS
SURVEYORS
SUBJECT: Hydraulic Model for New Bern Water Treatment Plant Backwash Waste Force Main
Revised for 700 gpm Pump
As part of the proposed New Bern Water Treatment Plant (WTP), a 12 inch diameter backwash
waste force main, designed for a capacity of 0.5 million gallons per day (MGD) (Peak 1.0 MGD), is
proposed to discharge into the existing New Bern Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) 24 inch
diameter effluent force main. New Bern's WWTP has the capacity to treat approximately 6.5 MGD
(Peak 16.25 MGD). The combined discharge from the two (2) plants then flows to an existing
diffuser positioned below the Neuse River water surface. The original diffuser hydraulic model was
created and run to facilitate the design for the diffuser which was to accept discharge from the 6.5
MGD WWTP. The WWIP effluent force mains are designed such that plant discharge may be
directed to the Martin Marietta Quarry and/or the diffuser. The hydraulic model was modified with
the proposed 12 inch diameter, 29,610 LF backwash waste force main from the WTP tied -in to the
existing 24 inch diameter WWTP effluent waste force main. A check valve was set in the WTP
force main to prevent flow from the WWTP from backing up into the WTP backwash force main at
any time. Elevations at nodes were adjusted from NAD 29 to NAD 88 by subtracting 1.09 feet at
each elevation input point. The proposed WTP pump will draw wastewater from a storage lagoon
with a bottom elevation of 26 feet and a high water elevation of 30 feet. The elevation for the pump
was set to 28 feet.
The purposes for the modified hydraulic model runs were to evaluate the performance of a selected
WTP effluent pump (700 gpm . @ 60 feet head single design point) and system behavior under the
following worst -case, steady-state conditions:
1.) Maximum backpressure due to maximum flow conditions through the force main leading to
the diffuser (WWTP pumps operating at peak flow with all discharge directed to the
diffuser).
2.) Minimum backpressure due to flow being generated by the WTP pump only at peak flow
(No flow from the WWTP).
The two (2) conditions were simulated in the hydraulic model as follows:
In Condition No. 1, the pipe to the quarry is closed, forcing all discharge from the WWTP to the
diffuser.
In Condition No. 2, the pipe between the force main leading to the quarry and the tie-in to the
WTP backwash force main is closed.
PAMUNANew Bem\WTP\Design-25200\Hydmul'sc Analysis\Memo-DiffusecModelResults700gpmPump071406.doc Page l of

For each of these two (2) conditions, three (3) scenarios were created. Scenarios were set up for
varying water levels in the WTP storage lagoon: one (1) for a mid level (28 feet), one (1) for a high
level (30 feet), and one (1) for a low level (26 feet), all with the Neuse River at the 100 year flood
level. Scenario 4 was also modeled with the Neuse River at normal water level to more closely
examine the highest expected WTP discharge pumping rate. This scenario was named Scenario 7.
Results for each of the seven (7) model runs. are presented below.
Scenario Results
Scenario 1 — WTP lagoon @ Mid Level (28 feet), pumping against Max. Backpressure (Meuse @
100-YR flood level)
WTP pumping against flow from WWTP (18.27 MGD output from model) results in a
WTP pump discharge of 786.42 gpm @ 54.75 feet of head. Flow velocity through the
backwash force main will be approximately 2.23 feet per second (fps) and the
combined flow velocity from the WWTP and WTT through the 24 inch effluent waste
force main to the diffuser will be 9.26 fps.
Scenario 2 — WTP lagoon @ Mid Level (28 feet), pumping against Min. Backpressure .(Neese @
100-YR flood level)
WTP pump pumping freely into the 24 inch force main leading to the diffuser results in
a WTP pump discharge of 871.08 gpm @ 49.03 feet of head. Flow velocity through
the backwash force main will be approximately 2.47 fps and after entering the 24 inch
effluent waste force main will decrease to 0.61 fps.
Scenario 3 — WTP lagoon @ High Level (30 feet), pumping against Max. Backpressure (Meuse @
100-YR flood level)
WTP pumping against flow from WWTP (18.27 MGD output from model) results in a
WTP pump discharge of 800.4 gpm @ 53.85 feet of head. Flow velocity through the
backwash force main will be approximately 2.27 fps and the combined flow velocity
from the WWTP and WTP through the 24 inch effluent waste force main to the diffuser
will be 9.35 fps.
Scenario 4 — WTP lagoon @ High Level (30 feet), pumping against Min. Backpressure (Neuse @
100-YR flood level)
WTP pump pumping freely into the 24 inch force main leading to the diffuser results in
a WTP pump discharge of 885.3 gpm @ 48.01 feet of head. Flow velocity through the
backwash force main will be approximately 2.51 fps and after entering the 24 inch
effluent waste force main will decrease to 0.62 fps.
Scenario 5 — WTP lagoon @ Low Level (26 feet), pumping against Max. Backpressure (Neese @
100-YR flood level)
WTP pumping against flow from WWTP (18.27 MGD output from model) results in a
WTP pump discharge of 780.33 gpm @ 55.15 feet of head. Flow velocity through the
backwash force main will be approximately 2.21 fps and the combined flow velocity
PAMUNANew Bem\WTP\Design-25200\Hydmulic Analysis\Memo-DiffuserModeiResults7oogpmPump071906.doc Page 2 of 3

from the WWTP and WTP through the 24 inch effluent waste force main to the diffuser
will be 9.34 fps.
r
Scenario 6 — WT? lagoon @ Low Level (26 feet), pumping against Min. Backpressure (Meuse @
100-YR flood level)
WTP pump pumping freely into the 24 inch force main leading to the diffuser results in
a WTP pump discharge of 866.86 gpm @ 49.33 feet of head. Flow velocity through
the backwash force main will be approximately 2.46 fps and after entering the 24 inch
effluent waste force main will decrease to 0.6 fps.
Scenario 7 — WTP lagoon @ High Level (30 feet), pumping against Min. Backpressure (Neese @
Normal water level, 0.24ft.)
WTP pump pumping freely into the 24 inch force main leading to the diffuser results in
a WTP pump discharge of 919.74 gpm @ 45.47 feet of head. Flow velocity through
the backwash force main will be approximately 2.61 fps and after entering the 24 inch
effluent waste force main will decrease to 0.64 fps.
Attachments to this memo include a table sirrnmarizing the results for all scenarios and a schematic
of the hydraulic model.
PAMUNI\New Bern\WTP\Design-25200\Hydraulic Analysis\Memo-DifluserModelResults700gpmPump071906.doe Page of

VkI
SCENARIO RESULT SUMMARIES
Results based on WTP Pump Design Point (1 Point) of 700 gpm @ 60 feet TDH.
WaterCAD cale'd shut-off point of 0 gpm @ 80 feet TDH.
WaterCAD calc'd max. operating point of 1,400 gpm @ 0 feet TDH.
WTPPump;l -WTP '
0lscharge Pump Force Main Main Dlscttarge
(9 Head V,eloctiX• Y' P)
4TP
Lagoon
f Level, ft. ;
Neuse
•: Water
Level fi.
1
WTP Mid Level Max. Head (Neuse @ 100-YR Level
786.42
54.76
2.23
9.26
28
7.91
2
WTP Mid Level Min. Head Neuse @ 100-YR Level
871.08
49.03
2.47
0.61
28
7.91
3
WTP High Level Max. Head (Neuse @ 100-YR Level)
800.4
53.85
2.27
9.35
30
7.91
4
WTP High Level Min. Head (Neuse @ 100-YR Level)
885.3
48.01
2.51
0.62
30
7.91
5
WTP Low Level Max. Head Neuse @ 100-YR Level)
780.33
55.15
2.21
9.34
26
7.91
6
WTP Low Level Min. Head Neuse @ 100-YR Level)
866.86
49.33
2.46
0.6
26
7.91
7
WTP High Level Min. Head (Neuse @ Normal Level)
919.74
45.47
2.61
0.64
30
0.24
%f(oa
WT17CuwLaV .'• Ip_: " Lo /00-yR &,O�
OleVSo! ral.e s�:e�ae%j�rl� h•�
49,3%
7,q/,
0.6
2(0
79I
P:\MUNI\New Bem\WTP\Design-25200\Hydraulic Analysis\ModelRunSummary700gpm60ftWTPPump.xls
7/20/2006

P1veJ0
Ussodates.lnc.
Since1918
TO: 25200 - K
FROM: , Jonathan N. Britt, E.I.
ENGINEERS
PLANNERS
SURVEYORS
DATE: July 21, 2006
SUBJECT: Hydraulic Model for New Bern Water Treatment Plant Backwash Waste Force Main
Scenario 6a — Diffuser Valves Resized for Reduced Flow
This memo serves as a supplement to the memo, Hydraulic Model for New Bern Water Treatment
Plant Backwash Waste Force Main, dated July 20, 2006.
An additional model scenario was developed to analyze the effects of the diffuser valves on the
Water Treatment Plant (WTP) discharge pump. This scenario was based on Scenario 6 included as
part of the July 20th memo. Diffuser valve sizes (represented by pipes) and minor loss coefficients
were adjusted to account for the reduction of flow being dispersed by the diffuser while only the
Water Treatment Plant was operating. Under these conditions the 700 gpm WTP pump pumped
866 gpm @ 49.38 feet of head. The effective open areas of flow for diffuser valves were set such
that flow throughout the diffuser was evenly distributed through the 10 valves.
r.
These modifications to the diffuser valve sizes had a minimal influence on the operating conditions
of the WTP pump when compared to Scenario 6 with unmodified, original diffuser valve sizes.
Discharge from the WTP pump reduced from 866.86 to 866.1 gpm and the pumping head increased
from 49.33 to 49.38. These results confirm that the selected operating point of 700 gpm @ 60 feet
for the WTP pump is acceptable for the above stated conditions.
Scenario Results
Scenario 6a — WTP lagoon @ Low Level (26 feet), pumping against Min. Backpressure (Neese @
100AR flood level), effective area of each diffuser valve reduced to account for
reduced flow conditions.
WTP pump pumping freely into the 24 inch force main leading to the diffuser results m
a WTP pump discharge of 866.1 gpm @ 49.38 feet of head. Flow velocity through the
backwash force main will be approximately 2.46 fps and after entering the 24 inch
effluent waste force main will decrease to 0.6 fps.
Attachments to this memo include an updated table summarizing the results for all scenarios,
including Scenario 6a, a WaterCAD pipe report showing characteristics for the pipes representing
diffuser valves, and a schematic of the hydraulic model.
P.\MUN(1New Bem1WTP\Design-25200\Hydmulic Analysis\Memo2-ResixedDiffuserValvesScenario6-072[06.doc Page I of 1

SCENARIO RESULT SUMMARIES
Results based on WTP Pump Design Point (1 Point) of 700 gpm @ 60 feet TDH.
WaterCAD ealc'd shut-off point of 0 gpm @ 80 feet TDH.
WaterCAD calc'd max. operating point of 1,400 gpm @ 0 feet TDH.
_ _... •_ :.• .-
_ _
WTP Pump j WTPI
Discharge Pump
9p111):c Head (ft.);
..
WTP Y3 ckwash I
Force.Maln
K ; Velocity
WWTP/WTP Force
- Main Discharge
Velocity (fps)
WTP
Lagoon
Level on
Neuse-
Water
Level (ft.)
1
WTP Mid Level Max. Head (Neuse @ 100-YR Level)
786.42
54.76
2.23
9.26
28
7.91
2
WTP Mid Level Min. Head Neuse @ 100-YR Level
871.08
49.03
2.47
0.61
28
7.91
3
WTP High Level Max. Head Neuse @ 100-YR Level
800.4
53.85
2.27
9.35
30
7.91
4
WTP High Level Min. Head Neuse @ 100-YR Level)
885.3
48.01
2.51
0.62
30
7.91
5
WTP Low Level Max. Head Neuse @ 100-YR Level
780.33
55.15
2.21
9.34
26
7.91
6
WTP Low Level Min. Head (Neuse @ 100-YR Level)
866.86
49.33
2.46
0.6
26
7.91
7
WTP High Level Min. Head Neuse @ Normal Level
919.74
45.47
2.61
0.64
30
0.24
60
WTP Low Level Min. Head (Neuse @ 100-YR Level),
Diffuser valve sizes adjusted for reduced flow
866.10
49.38
2.46
0.6
26
7.91
P:WUNIWew Bern\WTP\Design-25200\Hydraulic Analysis\ModelRunSummary700gpm60ftWTPPump.Yds 7/21/2006

Scenario: VVTP- w Level Min. Head
Steady State Analysis
Pipe Report
Label
Length
(ft)
Diameter
(in)
Material
Hazen-
Williams
C
Check
Valve?
Minor
Loss
Coefficient
Control
Status
Discharge
(GPM)
Upstream Structure
Hydraulic Grade
(ft)
Downstream Structure
Hydraulic Grade
(ft)
Pressure
Pipe
Headloss
Headloss
Gradient
(ft/100011)
Maximum
Velocity
(ft/s)
P-1 a
1.00
3.20
PVC
120.0
false
0.86
Open
85.22
8.08
7.91
0.17
173.55
3.40
P 2a
1.00
3.20
PVC
120.0
false
0.86
Open
84.97
8.08
7.91
0.17
172.54
3.39
P-3a
1.00
3.20
PVC
120.0
false
0.86
Open
84.77
8.08
7.91
0.17
171.74
3.38
P-4a
1.00
3.25
PVC
120.0
false
0.89
Open
86.17
8.08
7.91
0.17
171.67
3.33
P-5a
1.00
3.25
PVC
120.0
false
0.89
Open
86.06
8.08
7.91
0.17
171.21
3.33
P-68
1.00
3.25
PVC
120.0
false
0.89
Open
85.98
8.08
7.91
0.17
170.89
3.33
P-7a
1.00
3.30
PVC
120.0
false
0.90
Open
88.27
8.08
7.91
0.17
170.84
3.31
P-8a
1.00
3.30
PVC
120.0
false
0.90
Open
88.23
8.08
7.91
0.17
170.72
3.31
P-9a
1.00
3.30
PVC
120.0
false
0.90
Open
88.22
8.08
7.91
0.17
170.67
3.31
P-10a
1 1.001
3.301
PVC
1 120.01
false
1 0.901
Open
1 88.211
8.081
7.911
0.17
170.611
3.31
Title: New Bem WTP/WWTP Discharge Mains Protect Engineer. Jonathan N. Britt. E.I.
p:1... ldiffuser-bw-forcemainandwtpdischpump.wcd WaterCAD v7.0 [07.00.061.001
07/21/06 11:32:27 AM 0 Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1

d rwp }n.os
f5p �
r
-g
O1
TfU�VPPnP
}ub
r vn sv rww }iw
tam VIP �ovoon
201t>
Ylflfp' la[nW
111 NNe ¢Nfl` Ae'ICO
}IOJ
d
P4
d
}]
}a }m
Fa
P-aa PJb
s
1
Nb }I>
}{
P-w
P-M H
}a
}m }m
P4
e
F6
d
}T
t]n t)e
F"!
cac v-vb
F
M
P9
Pie F9b
}m }yy
}p
F
;Lt.FN

ALDERMEN
JULIUS
R.
ROBERC.. RAYNO, ,JR.
ROBERT G. RAYNOR, JR.
MACK L. "MAX" FREEZE
JOSEPH E. MATTINGLY, JR.
BARBARALEE
DANA E. OUTLAW
T4ue (fi£nfnries et{ XM4 Tarultna Peritage
FOUNDED 1710
Phone: [phone] P.O. Box 1129
-New Prit, 7Q. 285133-1129
January 31, 2007
Mr. Jim McKay
NCDENR — Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: New Bern WTP/WWTP NPDES Permit
Dear Mr. McKay:
TOM BAYLISS, III
MAYOR
WALTER B. HARTMAN. JR.
CITY MANAGER
VICKIE H. JOHNSON
CITY CLERK
MARY B. MURAGLIA
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
The City of New Bem submitted an Application for NPDES Permit for a new Water
Treatment Plant discharge, by letter dated January 12, 2007 from Rivers and Associates,
Inc. We would like to withdraw that application. Instead, we want to request a
modification of the current Wastewater Treatment Plant's NPDES Permit No.
NCO025348, to add an additional 0.5 mgd discharge from the proposed Water Treatment
Plant to the discharge of the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant. The supporting
information in the original application is still applicable to the modification.
Enclosed is the permit fee of $860.00 for a modification to the existing NPDES Permit.
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
W.B. Hartman,
City Manager
Enclosures
cc: David Muse, P.E.
Judy Majstoravich
Rivers and Associates, Inc.
PAMUNI\New Bern\WTP\Design-25200\Corr\D\Plant Permits\Ltr McKay NPDES Permit Modification.doc
Stribing for gxrellPnce

avers Engineers
&ASsoclates,lnc. Planners
Since1918 Surveyors
January 12, 2007
Ms. Theresa Rodriguez
NCDENR — Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: City of New Bern - WTP - —
NPDES Permit
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:
On behalf of the City of New Bern, Rivers and Associates, Inc. is submitting the enclosed
information package for review and approval by your agency.
The City of New Bem is proposing the construction of a new Water Treatment Plant and
Water Supply Well Field utilizing groundwater from the Lower Castle Hayne aquifer
located west of New Bern. Treatment will be accomplished via the proposed 5.0 mgd net
capacity (5.5 mgd gross capacity) Pressure Filtration/Zeolite Softening WTP centrally
located within the well field on property currently owned by the City of New Bern. The
proposed Water Treatment Plant 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.
Finished water will be pumped from the WTP site to the existing 4.0 MG clearwell
located near the intersection of Glenburnie Road and Neuse Boulevard. Treated waste
effluent will be pumped from the WTP site to the WWTP site, and combined with the
existing WWTP tertiary treated effluent for final disposal via the Neuse River diffuser
(NC0025348).
A supernatant pump station will be provided to pump the treated waste effluent via a 12"
minimum diameter force main approximately five (5) miles to the WWTP diffuser. The
force main will be constructed of standard piping materials in or adjacent to previously
disturbed corridors including highway/street rights -of -way and the Martin Marietta
quarry site that is now owned by the City of New Bern.
Enclosed are three (3) copies of the following items for review by your agency:
• NPDES Permit Application — Short Form C — WTP;
• Location Map of Existing WWTP Diffuser (NC0025348);
• Schematic of WTP Waste Treatment Process;
• Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued by NCDENR dated 9-13-06;
107 East Second Street. Greenville, NC 27858 • Post Office Box 929 • Greenville. NC 27835 • [phone] • FAX [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

'BkPPYers
ci —
Since1918
Engineers / Planners / Surveyors
• Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) dated March, 2006 (Water Quality Data
located in Appendix B).
On behalf of the City of New Bern, we would like to thank you for your assistance with
the proposed project. If you have any questions or require additional information, please
do not hesitate to contact me at 252-752-4135.
Sincerely,
Environmental Planner
Enclosures
CC: Walter B. Hartman, City of New Bern
David Muse, P.E., City of New Bern
Tom Howell, P.E., Rivers & Assoc., Inc.
PAMUNRNew Bem\WTMNPDES Pemut Application\ltr010307-dwq-npdes.doc

HOG ISLAND
DIFFUSER SITE
1 �
��
235OLF t,
DIRECTIONAL V
BORE THROUGH� 4, [j `
SWAMP LAND t' '
IIST7NG
DIFFUSER SITE
EXISTING Nss^e.ss'
s h — T4wTp, w s.ss'
\ G80
,o^DACK17SN-WASTL t nDd \
.,ORCC NA1N
vn y
\1 s
6XISlf�G. AACUDN�\ '� ��t - �\ �..�•• "'V �.v�
:. `-OoPDdfP STATION 5'ITE
[/IC n $,�r,•y�
7i Op[cb 10 HACKW�j6H WASTE �� ) i) �1 +
2E `FfMSIfED j \
�� 1 WAT,SR Pfe1fN 1 �'2 � FORCC 1✓AINQi
i IYF. TER mlIN e _
IVm[ - r � � �� c �•, - OWIM
Olul
er
AL
rig!
ROu%ES .......
;' ..�. • / WARC sfes
✓ ;PROPOSED''*`(R r" _ ��'••:• parvat�u
TP SITE 1' 1.
m� es
0:\NEWBERN-252W.WTP DesiP\DwgPrelimmmyNoTo.Consmwtion\W-2870A Pmlimmmy WTP Siro Plm 101105.dwg, WTPoDIFFUSER b ALT, 10/27/20051103:55 AM, Mieli

P'
1
w
WTP WASTE
0.5 MGD AVERAGE
FIL TER BACKWASH WASTE
AND SOFTENER BACKWASH
WASTE
v v
v
♦ W
WIN
OF
SETTLING SETTING STORAGE
LAGOON LAGOON LAGOON
6.0 MGD
WWTP
NEUSE RIVER
v
0.5 MGD AVERAGE EXISTING WWTP
PUMPED EFFLUENT OF SER
FROM WTP
EFFLUENT
PUMP
STA TION
WASH FfMESS SCHEMAnC
ww NO Jnm

S0 ' d -b101
Nonh rwohna
Division of Environmental Health
Terry L. Pierce, Director
State of North Carotlna
+ i
MkMW ll, Easley. Qoverrmor
oepammemf erenv"ament and
Public Water Supply Section
Natural Rea umo
wiftlon of
Wiliam 0. Ross, 3ecretery
Environmental Health
Jessica G. Miles, Section Chief
FINDING OF NO SlG1�I�FICANT IMPACT (FONS1)
City of Now Barn
Water Supply and Tir'aatment Project
Craven County, North Carolina
The State Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A) requires that the Division of Environmental Health determine whether a
proposed major agency action will significantly affect the environment. The City of Now Bern
Water Supply and 'Treatment Project is such a major action. 7%is project is seeking funds from the federally sponsored
Drinking Water 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 Procedms (SERP) negotiated
between the US Environmental Protection Agency and the state's Division of Environmental health. This proj ect is
covered by the SERF. 'this project should be reviewed as a NEPA-Like review based on the (SERP).
In order to determine 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 8 - 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 ctiviromnental assessment
is attached. It contains detailed information on the kcy issues, including a brief description of the proposed project and a
summary of probable 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
(CIS) will be prepared This FONSI completes the environmental review record The FONSI and Environmental .
Assessment shall be available for inspection and comment for 30 days at the State Clearinghouse. This FON'SI 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 C.S. 113A, a FONSI has been 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 assessment n6h
included information supporting the need for the
proposed project, along with relative impacts, other alternative ap es mitigating measures.
t
L (Dal*)
Director, Environmental He"
1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1634 V2�r
ne
Telephone [phone] A Fax [phone] ♦ Lab Form Fax [phone]
http:l/ncdrinkingwater.state,nc.usI
CA' A b)S'b ICT). ATA ,-wna Xq I HM 1 T1AnA ?Wqn -W bi' :AT CPn7—TG1-nr W