NC0026611_Permit Issuance_20050627

NPDES DOCIMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0026611
Morehead City WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Technical Correction
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
June 27, 2005
This dociiment is printed on reuse paper - iggnore any
content on the resrerse side

Mr. David G
Town of Morehe
706 Arendell S
Morehead City,
Dear Mr. G
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
June 27, 2005
, Director of Water and Sewer Department
d City
eet
orth Carolina 28557-4234
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit
Permit No. NC0026611
Morehead City WWTP
Carteret County
Division per onnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject
permit. Accor• ' gly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is
issued pursu to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the
Memorandum f Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency dated y 9, 1994 (or as subsequently amended) .
The followin modifications from the draft permit are included in the final permit:
• Spe al condition A (7.) Notification of Release - The Shellfish Sanitation and
Recr ational Water Quality Section submitted comments to the draft permit
requgsting that the city notify them of any spills that reach Calico Creek within
threee , hours of occurrence. As discussed with the town, a special condition
describing the notification process has been incorporated in the permit.
• BOD 86 TSS percent removal — The percent removal for BOD and TSS for the
existing flow was corrected to agree with the requirements of the federal
regulations of 85 % removal for BOD and TSS.
• Ente ococci limit — A daily maximum effluent limit of 501 / 100 ml for
ente ococci is included in the final permit. Federal regulations require that
limit?d parameters have both a monthly average and weekly average or daily
maximum. This daily maximum is the criteria promulgated by the EPA for
infrequently used coastal waters. The Division is in the process of developing
state standards for enterococci in coastal waters. These limits may change in
the future if the state implements different standards than the published
criteria.
If any parts measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit
are unaccepta a to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request
within thirty (3 ) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a
written petitio , 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.
lv ° Carolina
/VaturaII
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet h2o.enr.state.nc.us 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Permit No. NC0026611
Town of Morehead City WWTP
Page 2
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 Teresa Rodriguez at
telephone number [phone], extension 553.
Cc:
Sincerely,
/ -fir .
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
NPDES Files
Central Files
Wilmington Regional Office
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
USEPA Region 4
F. Tyndall Lewis, P.E. - McDavid Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 1776
Goldsboro, North Carolina 27533

Permit No. NC0026611
DEPART
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
NT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
N.AITIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Manageme s t Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
Town of Morehead City
is s ereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Morehead City WWTP
Treatment Plant Road
Northwest of Morehead City
Carteret County
to receiving wa ers designated as Calico Creek in the White Oak River Basin in accordance with
effluent limitati• ns, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and
IV hereof.
This permit shill become effective August 1, 2005.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on July 31, 2007.
Signed this day ljune 27, 2005.
-fir
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Dir( for
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1

Permit No. NC0026611 .,,,
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 induded herein..
Town of Morehead City
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 1.7 MGD wastewater treatment facility located at
Treatment Plant Road, Morehead City, Carteret County, and consisting of:.
• Mechanical bar screen
• Influent flow metering
• Grit removal
• Primary cla rif ers
• Dual trickling filters
• Dual secondary clarifiers
• Dual chlorine chamber
• Post aeration chamber
• Effluent flow metering
• Aerobic digesters
• Sludge drying beds
• Emergency generator
2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division, construct and operate
facilities for a design capacity of 2.5 MGD, and
3. Discharge from said treatment works, through outfall 001, into Calico Creek, a Class SC-
HQW water in the White Oak River Basin, at the location specified on the attached map.
+?\
Page 2

Latitude:
Longitude:
Quad #:
Permitted Flow:
Town of Morehead City
34°44'00"
76°44'15"
I32NW
1.7 MGD
Sub -Basin:
Stream Class:
Receiving Stream:
03-05-03
SC- HQW
Calico Creek
North
Town of Morehead City
NC00266I1
Morchead City WWTP

Permit No. NC0026611
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration or expansion above 1.7
MGD, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
MONITORING
REQUIRE_11 JNTS •..
EF_FLUEN
LIIvlI CATIONS
PARAMETER ,
. -,
' F , ,, : 4
P,.-.... . , , .<..
Monthly
Average, .
� ,_.
_r Weekly1, �:
j +aa ti. z
>> ....
¢._,���-x
• Dian
,r t ,y
,, � z
1VIaxin�um
_ .....;
Measurement
Sample Type ,'
4
Sample
Location,
;, F,tequea±cy
Flow (MGD)
1.7
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD5 (Summer)23
20.0 mg/L
30.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
I, E
BOD5 (Winter)2'
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
I, E
NH3 as N
Weekly
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily average not less than 5.0 mg/L
3/Week
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform
86/100 ml
172/100 ml
3/Week
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine4
13 µg/L
3/Week
Grab
E
Enterococci (geometric mean) 5
35/100 ml
501/100 ml
3/Week
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
TN (mg/L)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
pH
Between 6.8 and 8.5 Standard Units
3/Week
Grab
E
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
E
Total Zinc
2/Month
Composite
E
Acute Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
E
Footnotes:
1. I: Influent. E: Effluent. See condition A. (3) of this permit for instream monitoring requirements.
2. The monthly average BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. Summer shall be defined as April 1— October 31 with winter defined as the balance of the year.
4. See Condition A.(4.)
5. See Condition A.(5)
6. Acute Toxicity (Mysidopsis bahia) P/F, February, May, August and November; see special condition A.
(6.) of this permit
THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE
AMOUNTS.
Page 4

Permit No. NC0026611
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning on
discharge treats
the Permittee a
ie effective upon expansion above 1.7 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to
wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by
specified below:
r
�
•
LUNL A
}! x-L�t d x i�
3.3
ONTONGIEM
Q
r 1"� R
N T.
Monthly
Average
,'eekly°^
Average :
r Daily
.,,1. -.. 4. •
Measurement
Frequency
t
Sample Type
` Sample.;
J
Flow (MGD)
2.5
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BODs (Summer)a3
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
BODs (Winter)Z3
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended
Oolids2
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
NH3 as N (Summer)
.
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
E
NH3 as N (Winter)3
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily average not less than 6.0 mg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform
14/100 ml
28/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine
13 µg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Enterococci (geometric
mean)
35/100 ml
501/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
TN (mg/L)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
pH
Between 6.8 and 8.5 Standard Units
Daily
Grab
E
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
E
Total Zinc
2/Month
Composite
E
Acute Toxicity's
Quarterly
Composite
E
Footnotes:
1. I: Influent E: Effluent. See condition A. (3) of this permit for instream monitoring requirements.
2. The monthly average BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. Summer shall be defined as April 1— October 31 with winter defined as the balance of the year.
4. Acute Toxicity (Mysidopsis bahia) P/F, February, May, August and November, see special condition A.
(6.) of this permit
THERE SHALL
AMOUNTS.
E NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE
Page 5

Permit No. NC0026611
A. (3.) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Instream monitoring is required for the following parameters at the locations specified:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
Measurement Frequency
Sample Type
Sample
Location1
Fecal Coliform
June -Sept
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
1/week
Dissolved Oxygen
June -Sept
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
1/week
Temperature
June -Sept
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
1/week
Chlorophyll -a
Monthly
Grab
U, D
Total Nitrogen
Monthly
Grab
U, D
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Grab
U, D
Footnotes:
1. U - Upstream at Barbour Road Bridge, D- Downstream at Piggotts Bridge.
A. (4.) Total Residual Chlorine
The limit for total residual chlorine shall become effective upon completion of the installation of a
disinfection system but no later than 18 months from permit issuance. If a method different than
chlorination/dechlorination is used, the total residual chlorine limit will not be applicable.
A. (5.) Enterococci Water Quality Criteria
Based on findings from recent epidemiological studies, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) has developed new water quality criteria for enterococci in both
freshwater and marine waters. Enterococci are enteric bacteria used to indicate fecal
contamination and the possible presence of pathogens in water. Currently, the US EPA does not
have validated enterococci methods for use in effluent matrices. The Agency is in the process of
trying to validate methods for use with wastewater effluent. As a result of the new US EPA water
quality criteria and because the US EPA has not yet promulgated/approved testing methods for
use in effluent matrices, the permittee will have limits and monitoring requirements for
enterococci as follows:
• Twelve (12) months following the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall monitor
for Enterococci (with no effluent limit) as required by A. (1.) above; and
• Twenty-four (24) months following the effective date of this permit, the monthly average
limit for Enterococci shall take effect.
Page 6

Permit No. NC0026611
A. (6.) Quarte
The permittee s
North Carolina
Toxicity In A Si
monitoring s
effluent concen
(defined as trea
purposes must
The tests will b
lY Acute Toxicity Limit
all conduct acute toxicity tests on a quarterly basis using protocols defined in the
rocedure Document entitled "Pass/Fail Methodology For Determining Acute
gle Effluent Concentration" (Revised July, 1992 or subsequent versions). The
be performed as a Mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia) 24-hour static test. The
ation at which there may be at no time significant acute mortality is 90
ent two in the procedure document). Effluent samples for self -monitoring
e obtained during representative effluent discharge below all waste treatment.
performed during the months of February, May, August and November.
All toxicity tes ' g results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Mo ' oring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the
parameter code TGE3E. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-2 (original) is to be sent to the following
address:
ttention: 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 1
measurements 1
Total residual c
employed for d
e complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical
erformed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data.
�lorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is
sinfection 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 re uirement 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 moni ring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon
passing, this ra nthly 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 Divisi f n 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.
Page 7

Permit No. NC0026611
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. (7.) Notification of Release
The permittee shall notify the Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Section of any
release of partially treated wastewater or untreated wastewater into Calico Creek. The notification
shall be made within three hours of the spill to the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
communication center at 252-726-7021. This notification does not relieve the permittee of other
spill notifications procedures as required by other agencies.
Page 8

Permit No. NC0026611
A. (8.) EFF UENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The permittee sh 11 perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the table below
(in accordancewith 40 CFR Part 136). The annual effluent pollutant scan samples shall represent seasonal
(summer, winter, fall, spring) variations over the 5-year permit cyde. Unless otherwise indicated, metals
shall be analyzed as "total recoverable." Additionally, the method detection level and the minimum level
shall be the most ensitive as provided by the appropriate analytical procedure.
Ammonia (aslN)
Chlorine (to 1 residual, TRC)
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
1,1-dichloroethylene Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Dissolved ox gen 1,2-dichloropropane Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Nitrate/Nitri 1,3-dichloropropylene 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Total Kjelda nitrogen Ethylbenzene Butyl benzyl phthalate
Oil and greas Methyl bromide 2-chloronaphthalene
Total Phosph rus Methyl chloride 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolv d 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-dichlorobenzene
Cadmium 1,1,2-trichloroethane 1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromium Trichloroethylene 1,4-dichlorobenzene
Copper Vinyl chloride 3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Lead Acid -extractable compounds: Diethyl phthalate
Mercury P-chloro-m-cresol Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel 2-chlorophenol 2,4-dinitrotoluene
Selenium 2,4-dichlorophenol 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 phenolil+c compounds 4-nitrophenol Hexachlorobutadiene
Volatile organic dnmpounds: Pentachlorophenol Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Acrolein Phenol Hexachloroethane
Acrylonitrile 2,4,6-trichlorophenol Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene Base -neutral compounds' Isophorone
Bromoform Acenaphthene Naphthalene
Carbon tetra.hloride Acenaphthylene Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenz e Anthracene N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodibro omethane Benzidine N nitrosodimethylamine
Chloroethan Benzo(a)anthracene N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-chloroethy vinyl ether Benzo(a)pyrene Phenanthrene
Chloroform 3,4 benzofluoranthene Pyrene
Dichlorobro omethane Benzo(ghi)perylene 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1,1-dichlorothane Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1,2-dichloroe,'thane Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
* All samples collect d for Mercury shall be analyzed by a low level method (EPA Method 1631)
Test results shall a reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPA1 or in a form approved by the Director,
within 90 days of sampling. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Central Files to the following address:
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.
Page 9

CARTERET COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Before the undersigned, a notary public of said County and State, duly commis-
sioned, qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths, personally appeared
Patti J. Lyerly who being
first duly sworn, deposes and says that he (she) is Clerk
(Owner, partner, publisher or other officer or employee
authorized to make this affidavit)
of THE CARTERET PUBLISHING CO., INC., engaged in the publication of a
newspaper known as CARTERET COUNTY NEWS -TIMES, published, issued,
and entered as second class mail in the Town of Morehead City, in said County
and State; that he (she) is authorized to make this affidavit and sworn statement;
that the notice or other legal advertisement, a true copy of which is attached here-
to, was published in CARTERET COUNTY NEWS -TIMES on the following
dates: 04/01/2005
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper, document, or legal adver-
tisement was published was, at the time of each and every such publication, a news-
paper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the
General Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within the mean-
ing of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.
This lst day of April, 2005
AlrirCiu a
(Signa ure o p son 'ng affidavit)
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this:
lst day of April, 2005
QQ-aa) AanisuAi
Notary Public
My commission expires July 16,2006
Public Notice
State of North Carolina
Environmental Management
CommissionlNPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notification of Intent
to Issue a NPDES
Wastewater Permit
On the basis of thorough staff review and application of NC
General Statute 143.21, Public law 92-500 and other lawful
standards and regulations, the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission proposes to issue
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) wastewater discharge permit to the person(s)
listed below effective 45 days from the publish date of this
notice.
Written comments regarding the proposed permit will be
accepted until 30 days after the publish date of this notice.
All comments received prior to that date are considered in
the final determinations regarding the proposed permit. The
Director of the NC Division of Water Quality may decide to
hold a public meeting for the proposed permit should the
Division receive a significant degree of public interest.
Copies of the draft permit and other supporting information
on file used to determine conditions present in the draft
permit are available upon request and payment of the costs
of reproduction. Mail comments and/or requests for
information to the NC Division of Water Quality at the above
address or call the Point Source Branch at [phone],
extension 520. Please include the NPDES permit number
(attached) in any communication. Interested persons may
also visit the Division of Water Quality at 512 N. Salisbury
Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1148 between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to review information on file.
The Town of Morehead City, NPDES permit number
NC0026611, has applied for a permit expansion to 2.5 MGD
discharging treated domestic wastewater to Calico Creek,
a class SC -HOW water in the White Oak River Basin. BOD.
Total Residual Chlorine, Total Suspended Solids and
Ammonia are water quality limited parameters. This
discharge may impact future allocations of the receiving
stream.A1
13102343
13535511

s
Draft Permit Review
•
Subject: Draft Permit Review
From: John Giorgino <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 20 A i r 2005 14:32:07 -0400
To: Teresa Rodri ez <[e-mail]>
Hi Teresa, I r viewed NC0026611 (Morehead City WWTP). I have no comments. Thanks
for forwarding it.
-John
John Giorgino
Environmental iologist
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental ciences Section
Aquatic Toxico ogy Unit
Mailing Address:
1621 MSC
Raleigh, NC 2799-1621
Office: 919 733-2136
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Web Page: http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us
1 of 1
6/17/2005 8:34 AM

Re: Morehead City Permit NC01)26611
Subject: Re: Morehead City Permit NC0026611
From: teresa ro ' guez <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 J 2005 11:03:47 -0400
To: Hyatt.Marsha [e-mail]
Marshall, Tha s for your response, this email is sufficient for the record.
Teresa
H att.Marshalloe•amail.e•a.•ov wrote:
sorry for the
limit for ent
requirement f
this email su
delay in getting back to you. I am ok with the daily max
rococci that you've proposed, as well as the 85% removal
r TSS and how you intend to address Hg monitoring. will
fice or do you want a no comment letter?
1 of 1
6/8/2005 12:57 PM

Re: comments on NC0026611, Morehead City WWTP
Subject: Re: comments on NC0026611, Morehead City WWTP
From: Teresa Ro guez <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:37:21 -0400
To: Hyatt.Marsh [e-mail]
Marshall, I'm
have definite
removal effici
documentation.
will have to j
method 1631 fo
samples before
enterococci li
standards grou
sure yet what
I still have t
you a new draf
Thanks,
Teresa
orry I wasn't able to respond to your comments before. I still don't
nswers for some of them. I talked to the town and apparently the
ncies were agreed as part of some settlement but we don't have
They are looking at their files to try to find it. I told them they
stify it if they still need to keep it in the permit. They didn't use
mercury, so they will need to do it. Will they need to do the 3
we issue the permit or can they submitt them latter? Regarding the
it, I will probably use the maximum daily from the rules. Our
is going to be developing our state standard soon, but we are not
pproach we will take.
address other commnets I received on the draft permit and will send
with modifications.
H att.Marshallce•amail.e•a..ov wrote:
•
will be glad to discuss these with you whenever. will you be able to
respond by April 25? thanks Marshall
1. For the e
When is the e
existing disc
application o
the interim.
factors in 40
these waivers
2. Based on
permit applic
measure Hg.
pansion, the permit requires 85% removal for BOD5 and TSS.
pansion expected to occur? My concern is that for the
arge, no rationale has been provided for rejustifying
the 26% removal for BOD5 and the 31% removal for TSS in
W/o a rationale and documentation based on one of the
CFR Part 133.103, EPA will have to object to inclusion of
from secondary treatment requirements.
he effluent data and detection limits attached to the
tion, it did not seem that Method 1631E was used to
3. Re the en erococci limit, it's my understanding that when EPA
promulgated the Beach rule, states were given the option of developing a
single sample maximum which could be implemented as a daily max in a
permit. If they did not choose that option, they still must conform
with 40 CFR P rt 122.45(d)(2), which requires POTWs to have both monthly
and weekly av values, as we/you did with ammonia. Because this is the
first NC permit I've seen with such limits, to develop a weekly avg
limit, we bel'eve you have two options. You could use the TSD
statistical a proach and see what number comes out of that and possibly
use that same number for other coastal POTW permits. Or, you could use
a simple mult'plier of two, for example to convert the monthly avg to a
weekly avg. You might want to try both options and compare the values
that result. If the draft permit is not changed so that it contains
either a week y avg or a daily max enterococci value, EPA will object.
Teresa Rodriguez, P.E.
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
919-733-5083
1 of 2
6/21/2005 2:41 PM

Morehead WWTP
Subject: Morehe
From: "Lees.Sab
Date: Mon, 11 A
To: Teresa Rodri
Teresa,
I found my fol
concerning the
some time tryi
Attached are t
Creek. Hope t
requests to be
I am still try
so please advi
this expansion
d WWTP
" <[e-mail]>
r 2005 16:32:43 -0400
uez <[e-mail]>
er containing prior communications with DENR staff
Morehead City expansion. Thought this would save you
g to find them in your files.
o memos and a report of dye study conducted in Calico
ey explain our concerns and the need for inclusion of our
made a permit condition on the NPDES.
ng to find my way through the red tape of NPDES permits,
e me what steps I should take to restate our position on
if in fact more is necessary.
Thank you for our time.
Lees
Environmental S
Shellfish Sanitati
Division of Envir
ecialist II
n and Recreational Water Quality
tY
nental.Health, DENR
NPD
Content -Type: application/msword
S Morehead City WWTPdoc Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: application/msword
hddye0l Murphey.doc
Content -Encoding: base64
mhdwwtpmemo Murphey.doc
Content -Type: application/msword
Content -Encoding: base64
1 of 1
4/12/2005 8:16 AM

February 23, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Hannah Stallings
Environmental Assessment Coordinator
Construction Grants and Loans Section
FROM: Lees Sabo
Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Section
SUBJECT: Town of Morehead City, 201 Facilities Plan
Project No. CS370567-02
The revised Town of Morehead City — Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 201
Facilities Plan has been reviewed. It has been determined that the proposed discharge
will not have a direct adverse affect on any SA waters.
We concur with the construction and implementation of the above referenced Plan,
provided that the facility is operated and maintained properly, the stated effluent limits
are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the designated water
quality standards. In addition, we request that, as a condition of the permit, direct
notification of Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Section staff be made
immediately upon any release of raw or partially treated sewage, should one occur.
This section conducted the Morehead Wastewater Treatment Plan Dye Study in 2001,
and a copy is attached to this correspondence. The dye study strongly indicated that
during certain tidal conditions, effluent from the treatment plant could travel to the
current closure line near Crab Point Thoroughfare in less than four hours. This
notification would allow adequate time to enact any additional temporary shellfish
closures necessitated by such a spill. Twenty-four hour communication is available
through the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries communications center at 252-
726-7021.
While we do not perceive any direct deleterious effects of the treatment facility as
proposed, we are concerned with the subsequent upland development that will occur as
a result of the increased capacity of the facility. Any new development should
incorporate adequate stormwater management in its design, so that the benefits to SA
waters from a well functioning treatment facility is not minimized by excessive
stormwater runoff associated with increased impervious surfaces.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If we can be of further assistance, please
contact us.

MEMORANDUM
T 1 : Melba McGee
FRO : Steve Murphey, Shellfish Sanitation
DAT : October 11, 2001
SUBJEC : Town of Morehead City Wastewater Treatment Plant
201 Facilities Plan — Project #1134
A dye stu s y was conducted on September 27 in Calico Creek to determine if the shellfish
closure li a in the Crab Point Thoroughfare would be sufficient to allow additional
discharge f treated effluent into upper Calico Creek. To test whether effluent would
reach the urrent closure line near the Haystacks in the Crab Point Thoroughfare, dye was
released ' to the discharge pipe during the last three hours of an ebbing tide. As a result,
dye travel d out of Calico Creek and when the tide shifted and began to flood it was
carried no into the Thoroughfare.
The dye s dy strongly indicated that dye movement does track to and past the current
Thorough are closure line. Possible malfunctions between the secondary clarifier and;-.,
disinfection would not present a health threat; however, malfunctions occurring at the 1
headwor4 or primary clarifier could potentially pose a significant health risk. Potentiali
fecal colif rm MPNs of 180 and 310 mightexpected at the closure lines under similar ;
flow rates anbe d tidal conditions with existing and proposed treatment plant flow rate's:
The current line in the Thoroughfare therefore is not sufficient at present to handle a.
"worst case scenario" of a raw or partially treated sewage spill from the discharge site.
Therefore, the proposed increase in design flow from 1.7 to 2.5 MGD would not in itself
cause an increase in the current Thoroughfare closure line.
A more realistic threat to the current closure line would be failures from existing lift
stations. The new plant proposes to use the existing lift stations with little modification.
Spills froth lift stations located along Calico Creek at Piggotts Bridge (20th Street) and
behind th Recreation Center could potentially cause an increase in fecal coliform MPNs
to unsafe vels at and beyond the current Thoroughfare closure line. Travel time from
the disch ge pipe and these two lift stations to the Thoroughfare closure line is between
2 hours 4 minutes and four hours under similar tidal conditions. The dye study was
conducted on a calm, almost windless day. Strong southwest winds would exacerbate the
pollution otential from a spill by pushing the water towards the Thoroughfare closure
line.
Construction of the new plant as proposed with a design capacity of 2.5 MGD would not
cause additional shellfish closures; however, the Shellfish Sanitation Section strongly
recommends that the NPDES permit for the new plant and any renewal permit for the

existing plant be conditioned so that our office be notified within three hours of any spill
requiring notification to the Division of Water Quality. The short reporting time is
necessary in order to provide adequate additional closures in an expanded buffer area of
the Thoro ghfare and Newport River.
The water immediately beyond the current Thoroughfare closure line are currently
classified Approved. Our office may consider developing a buffer zone outside the
current cl sure line and reclassifying this area as Conditionally Approved Open. This
Condition lly Approved buffer zone will be in a stronger position for inclusion on the
303(d) lis as an impaired water body under the current basin plan in the event temporary
closures b come necessary as a result of spills and subsequent reporting.

MOREHEAD CITY/CALICO CREEK
DYE STUDY
NC Division of Environmental Health
Shellfish Sanitation Section
November 27, 2001
INTRODUCTION
A dye stu y was conducted in Calico Creek, a tributary of the Newport River, on
Septembe 27, 2001. The purpose of the study was to determine if current shellfish
closure 1es in the Crab Point Thoroughfare are sufficient for the potential pollution
impacts fr m a proposed additional 0.8 million gallons per day (MGD) discharge from
the waste eatment plant outfall in Calico Creek. In particular, the study sought to
determine the tidal and potential pathogen movement during the last part of an ebbing
tide and ough the flooding tide. The results from the study are based on dilution of the
Rhodami a WT dye concentration found in Calico Creek and Newport River area and
travel time of the dye from the discharge pipe to the shellfish closure line.
The Morehead City wastewater treatment plant is a dual path trickling filter facility. The
current permitted flow for the plant is 1.7 (MGD). Average monthly flow during 2000
was 1.5 MGD with the highest three-month average flow of 1.989 MGD. Wastewater.. ;
enters the plant from lift stations and enters the headworks at the northern portion of the
plant. Ef uent is then sent through dual path primary clarifiers, trickling filters and '
second clarifiers prior to being disinfected, aerated and discharged into Calico Creek.
The town of Morehead City has proposed the construction of a new 2.5 MGD oxidation
ditch faciity at the existing Morehead City wastewater treatment plant site. The
proposed lant will provide a higher level of treatment including nutrient removal and
would co tinue to discharge into Calico Creek at the current location; therefore, an
additional 0.8 MGD of treated effluent would be permitted for discharge into Calico
Creek.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Tidal info ation was monitored in the Calico Creek area, particularly near the 20th
Street Bri ge (Pigott's Bridge). The study sought to ascertain the flow direction and
concentra on of partially treated effluent discharged during the last part of an ebb tide
and throw the first half of the flood tide. The best scenario for this study was
determined to be on September 27, 2001. Low tide at the 20th Street Bridge was
predicted io be between 10:50 and 11:00 am.
A solutioi
study. Fr
prepared.
of 1.2 X 107 parts per billion (ppb) Rhodamine WT dye was used for the dye
m this solution, a known concentration of 50 ppb Rhodamine WT dye was
A Turner Design Model 10AU Flourometer with continuous flow was field

calibrated using the known concentration. Background readings were taken the morning
of Septem er 27 in Calico Creek and subtracted. Temperature corrections for the dye
concentration readings were not necessary.
The 1.2 X 107 ppb Rhodamine WT dye was continuously released into the manhole riser
on the outfall pipe at a rate of 50 ml/min for 218 minutes starting at 8:30 am. The flow
rate of sewage during the dye release was 1.45 MGD. The Turner Design flourometer
was used to measure dye concentrations in Calico Creek and the Newport River.
Concentr tion of the dye in the discharge pipe was determined by the following formula:
Cs = Cd Qd Where Cd is the concentration of the Rhodamine Wt dye
Qs Qd is the Flow Rate of the dye
Qs is the Flow Rate of the sewage
The conci
by the flo
ntration of the dye in the discharge pipe was divided by the concentration read
�rometer to give an instantaneous dilution factor.
Samples were taken at the headworks, primary clarifier weir and secondary clarifier weir
and were tested for fecal coliform bacteria using the five tube dilution method to t
`determinet a Most Probable Number (MPN) 'of fecal coliform bacteria colonies per 100
mi.. Pote tia1 fecal coliform loading toany given point in the study area was determined .
by avid- g the MPN at the plant by the dilution factor.
A Trimbl. Geo Explorer III handheld GPS unit was used to record the location where n,_.
dilution factors were determined.
RESULTS
Conditions at the study area were calm with a 5 knot or less south to southwest wind,
increasing to 5 to 10 knots around 11:00 am. Water temperatures ranged from 63.3 to
75.7 degres Fahrenheit. The intake hose for the Turner Design flourometer was kept at
approximately 1 foot of depth due to shallow water in many areas.
Travel time from the discharge pipe to a point approximately 300 yards east of Pigott's
Bridge w 54 minutes. The first readings were logged with the flourometer at the bridge
at 9:34 . An initial dilution of 187:1 was measured at the bridge at 9:41. The travel
time to th closure line located in the Crab Point Thoroughfare was three hours and forty-
five minu es. Readings were taken in Calico Creek until the tide began to flood at
approximately 11:10 am. The dye was then tracked toward the Crab Point Thoroughfare
with dilut on factors logged at landmarks and similarly spaced intervals.
Dye was tacked from Pigott's Bridge to approximately the eastern most ends of the
Newport River marshes. Dilution factors ranged from 187:1 at the bridge to 92,529:1
along the . outhern shore of Calico Creek. The lowest dilution factor at the closure line

(station 11) was 8887:1 with an average dilution factor of 15,188:1. The last dilution
factor of the study was logged at 1:10 pm.
Fecal coliform samples taken from the three sections of the Morehead City wastewater
treatment lant produced the following results:
Plant Location MPN/100 ml
Headworks >1,600,000
Weir at primary Clarifier >1,600,000
Weir at secondary Clarifier 33,000
The five tube dilution method was used to determine the MPN of fecal coliform colonies
per 100 ml water. Samples with readings > 1,600,000 MPN were not diluted further;
therefore, MPNs for the headworks and primary clarifier would have been higher than
1,600,000 colonies per 100 ml.
DISCUS
ION
Readable levels of Rhodamine dye were traced into the open areas beyond the Crab Point
Thoroughfare closure line. Dye was not visible past Pigott's Bridge and most dye
concentrations logged were in the tenths or hundreds of a part per billion. The release of
the dye appeared to be during the best time frame to test the tide change theory. A 50 ml
per minute release could have been increased to 70. or 80 ml per minute to give a stronger
presence of dye in the study area.
When potential fecal contamination is calculated from the treatment plant samples and
minimum dilution factors at various points of the study area, two factors are of interest.
First, in the event of a raw or partially treated sewage spill at the plant with similar flow
rates, the current line in the Crab Point Thoroughfare would not be sufficient to protect
public health. Using an MPN of 1,600,000 for raw sewage or sewage that had only been
treated through the primary clarifier, possible fecal coliform MPNs at the closure line
could be as high as 180. This follows the assumption that the flow rate from the plant
would be about the same as during the study but would not necessarily mean that a great
volume would need to be discharged. Potential MPNs at the current closure line for the
proposed flow at the new plant could be as high as 310.
A failure of the disinfection process following the secondary clarifier at the existing plant
could produce a minimum fecal coliform MPN of 33,000, based on plant sampling.
Assuming a spill with conditions similar to the dye study, fecal contamination at the
closure lire would only have a potential MPN of around 3.7, which would be within the
limits for an area open to shellfish harvesting. Using the same numbers for the proposed
plant would increase this number by a factor of 1.7, resulting in an MPN of around 6.4,
which is still within acceptable limits for open shellfishing areas.

Additionally, and possibly of more concern is the relatively short travel time of the dye
from lift stations in the area to the closure line. For example, travel time from the lift
station near the Morehead Recreation Center to the closure line in the Crab Point
Thorough are is about 2 hours and 45 minutes. A spill from this station under similar
condition as the dye study, could dangerously raise fecal coliform counts near the
closure li e. Travel time from the lift station on the north side of Pigott's Bridge to the
closure li a would be just a few minutes longer.
The water immediately beyond the present Thoroughfare closure line are classified as
Approved The development of a buffer zone outside the line with a reclassification to
Condition lly Approved Open would allow for development of a management plan for
the area. eclassification may also ensure protection of the area under the Division of
Water Qu lity's 303(d) list for impaired water bodies in the event that temporary closures
become necessary as a result of spills and subsequent reporting.
CONCLUSIONS
The dye study strongly indicated that during an ebb tide/flood tide change, partially
treated or raw sewage from the Morehead City wastewater treatment plant could travel to
the current closure line in concentrations great enough toexceed safe levels for harvest. .
and direct consumption of shellfish. The travel time from the discharge pipe at the
treatment plant and from several lift stations to the current closure line in the Crab Point
Thoroughfare were relatively short, less than 4 hours. Other factors such as a strong
southwest wind or higher sewage flow rates could exacerbate a, worst case scenario.
A concerted effort should be made by the plant staff to notify the Shellfish Sanitation
Section within a few hours of any spill requiring notification to the Division of Water
Quality. This could be accomplished by conditioning the NPDES permit for the plant so
that a three hour notification time would be required following a spill. Prompt
notification would allow sufficient time for additional closures to be made beyond the
current closure line in Crab Point Thoroughfare.
Based on this study, the current line in the Crab Point Thoroughfare is not adequate for a
worst case scenario of raw or partially treated sewage being discharged under similar
tidal and weather conditions with the same or greater flow rate. Therefore, the proposed
increase in design flow from 1.7 to 2.5 MGD would not in itself cause an increase in the
current closure line. A spill from the plant after treatment at the secondary clarifier poses
little threat to the current closure line. Even the expanded flow design capacity of 2.5
MGD from the proposed new plant would not threaten shellfish waters past the current
closure line with a post secondary clarifier spill and similar MPN fecal readings of
33,000.

t
ACKNO EDGEMENTS
I would li e to acknowledge the assistance from the town of Morehead City wastewater
treatment i lant who provided information, access, and flow information for the study.
Also, ths to Mike Millard, Paul Moore, Timmy Moore, and J.D. Potts of the Shellfish
Sanitation Section for their invaluable field assistance. Thanks to Gina Brooks of
Shellfish anitation for editorial assistance.

DENRJDWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0026611
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Morehead City WWTP
Applicant Address:
706 Arendell Street, P.O. Drawer M, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Facility Address:
Treatment Plant Rd., Morehead City, North Carolina
Permitted Flow (MGD):
1.7
Type of Waste:
Domestic
Facility Classification:
3
Permit Status:
Expansion
County:
Carteret
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Calico Creek
Regional Office:
Wilmington
Stream Classification:
SC-HQW
State Grid / USGS Quad:
132NW
303(d) Listed?
No
Permit Writer:
Teresa Rodriguez
Basin/Subbasin:
03-05-03
Date:
3/22/05
Drainage Area (mi2):
NA
- -r- ~ :,
'
_
j��
Lat. 34° 44' 00" N Long. 76° 44' 15" W
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
Tidal
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Tidal
30Q2 (cfs)
Tidal
Average Flow (cfs):
Tidal
IWC (%):
N/A
Summary: The Town of Morehead City submitted an application for a permit modification to expand the
treatment system from 1.7 MGD to 2.5 MGD. A 201 Facility Plan was approved by the Construction Grants
and Loan Section and a FNSI was issued on June 16, 2004. The Division provided speculative limits for the
expansion to 2.5 MGD on November 1998. The proposed treatment plant will provide nutrient removal and
tertiary treatment and should produce a better quality effluent than the existing plant. The Division has
determined that the proposed expansion is necessary to accommodate social and economic growth in the
area and that it will not result in contravention of surface water quality standards or loss of designated uses in
the receiving stream.
The permit was last renewed in June 2003 and has an expiration date of July 31, 2007.
Facility Description: The existing treatment system consists of a mechanical bar screen, influent flow
metering, grit removal, primary clarifiers, dual trickling filters, dual secondary clarifiers, dual chlorine chamber,
post aeration chamber, effluent flow metering, aerobic digesters, sludge drying beds, emergency generator.
The proposed plant will include an oxidation ditch preceded by anaerobic/anoxic chambers, two secondary
clarifiers, dual tertiary filters, and dechlorination.
Basin Plan: All waters in the sub -basin are partially supporting on an evaluated basis for the fish consumption
use category because of a statewide fish consumption advisory on bowfin. Bogue Sound and tributaries are
not supporting shellfish harvesting. Newport River downstream of the discharge and Bogue Sound are listed in
the North Carolina 303 (d) list for fecal coliform violations.
Development of Permit Limits
• Three pollutant analysis were submitted with the permit application. The only parameters detected were
copper and zinc. The permit includes monitoring for both parameters.
■ The limit for pH was modified to 6.8 to 9 standard units. The pH limit of 6 to 9 standard units is an incorrect
limit for SC waters, the water quality standard for pH in SC waters is 6.8 to 8.5 standard units.
■ A limit for Total Residual Chlorine of 13 pg/L was added to the effluent limitations. The limit corresponds to
SC classification. Per Division policy limits will be implemented for all facilities.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0026611
Page 1

• A limit of 35/1 0 ml (geometric mean) as a monthly average was included for Enterococci. EPA
promulgated nterococci criteria for marine waters in December 2004.
• Limits for expansions in HQW are specified in 15 A NCAC 2B.0224. The Division determined in 1998
when it providd speculative limits to Morehead City that more stringent limits were necessary for
ammonia nitro en and fecal coliform to protect the receiving stream and downstream waters. The limits
for the propos d expansion to 2.5 MGD are as follows:
Permit Condiion
Proposed Limit
Comments
BOD
5 mg/L summer monthly average
10 mg/L winter monthly average
Regulation 2B .0224 High Quality Waters
TSS
10 mg/L monthly average
Regulation 2B .0224 High Quality Waters,
Primary Nursery Area
NH3N
1 mg/L summer monthly average
2 mg/L winter monthly average
Protection of the receiving stream based
on modeling for Calico Creek
Fecal Coliform
14/100 ml monthly average
28/100 ml weekly average
Protection of the receiving stream.
Total Residual
Chlorine
13 ug/L daily maximum
Division policy. Protection of the receiving
stream from toxicity.
Enterococci bacteria
35/100 mL geometric mean
Water quality criteria for coastal waters
promulgated by EPA on December 2004
pH i
6.8 to 8.5 standard units
Regulation 2B .0220, standards for class
SC waters
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice:
Permit Scheduled to Issue:
NPDES DIVISION
CONTACT
March 30, 2005
May 23, 2004
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact Teresa
Rodriguez at [phone] ext. 553.
NAME: 2 '-'`--*
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENTS
NAME:
DATE:_ 3/o) V/O
SUPERVISOR:
DATE:
DATE:
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0026611
Page 2

AMMENDMENT TO FACT SHEET
6/20/05
Based on comments received during the public notice period the following modifications were included in the final
permit:
• 85 % removal BOD & TSS - The previous permit allowed for a removal efficiency of 74% for BOD and 69% for
TSS. EPA sub itted comments asking for the justification for the variance to the 85% removal requirement. The
facility could n t find any records as to why the percent removal was modified. We don't have any information
either, we beli ve it may have been part of a settlement agreement. Currently they are meeting the 85% removal
most of the ti e. The removal efficiencies listed in the permit were modified to 85 % to meet the federal
regulations.
• Enterococci li its — A daily maximum limit was added to the permit after discussions with EPA. The promulgated
criteria of 501/ 00 ml for infrequent used coastal recreation waters was used for the daily maximum limit.
• The Shellfish anitation and Recreational Water Quality Section submitted comments to on the draft permit. They
supplied copie of their comments on the EA for the expansion. They conducted a study in Calico Creek to
evaluate the a ect of a spill or the discharge of partially treated sewer on the current closure line near Crab Point
Thoroughfare. In their comments to the EA they requested that the permit include a requirement for them to be
notified if any spill reached Calico Creek. The Town of Morehead City agreed to notify them if such a spill
occurred. A condition was added to the permit with the requirement to notify the Marine Fisheries communication
center.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0026611
Page 3

OF \N ATF Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
+ Y Division of Water Quality
Certified Mail 003 0500 0004 8598 1871
Return Receipt equested
Mr. R. Randy artin
Town Of More ead City
P.O. Box Drawer M
Morehead City, NC 28557-4234
Dear Mr. Marti
•
March 11, 2005
Subject: NPDES Compliance Inspection Report
Morehead City WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0026611
Carteret County
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality conducted a recent inspection of the Town Of
Morehead Citys Wastewater Treatment Facility on February 3, 2005. This inspection was
conducted to verify that the facility is operating in compliance with the conditions and limitations
specified in NPDES Permit No. NC0026611.
A summary of the findings and comments noted during this inspection is provided in Section D on
Page 2 of the attached copy of the complete inspection report entitled "Water Compliance Inspection
Report". There were no issues or findings noted during this inspection. Therefore, a written response
to this report is not required .
If you have anY questions concerning this report, pldas§,eo act e,at- )<,3.3 xt. 218 in
the Wilmington Regional Office.
Sincerely,
flksar
Thomas F. Moore
Environmental hemist I
Attachments
MAR 1 5 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Cc: Wilmington Regional Office — Yellow File
Maureen Crawford (DWQ / NPDES Permit Unit — Raleigh)
Karen M ault
Morehead City WWTP
P.O. Box Drawer M
Morehead City, NC 28557
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Phone: [phone] / Fax: [phone] / Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
NorthCarolina
!Vaturallij

United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection
1 ILII 2 I s l 3) NC0026611 111 121 05/02/03 117
Type Inspector Fac Type
18 U 19 U 20 U
1111111111166
Remarks
211111 1111 1111111111111111111111111111
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA
671 169 701 J 71 U 72 I J
Reserved
731 1 174 75 11 1 1 1 1 1 180
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Morehead City WWTP
Loop Rd
Morehead City NC 28557
Entry Time/Date
01:00 PM 05/02/03
Permit Effective Date
03/08/01
Exit Time/Date
02:50 PM 05/02/03
Permit Expiration Date
07/07/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)tritles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Karen J Mault/ORC/252-726-6237/
Other Facility Data
.
Name, Address.of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Randy Randy Martin,PO Drawer M Morehead City NC 28557/City Contacted
Manager/252-726-5243/2527262267 No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review Compliance Schedules
Effluent/Receiving Waters Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
•
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Tom M or WIRO WQ/// 3 f r( j o s
r 1
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.

Section D: Summary of Findings/Comments
(Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
1. Permit:
2.
Your permi became effective August 1, 2003 and will not expire until July 31, 2007.
The permitt-e is reminded to read, understand and comply with all of the terms and conditions
contained i the permit. If you have questions concerning your responsibilities, call the
Wilmingto Regional Office to speak to a Division of Water Quality staff member.
Com . lianc
Schedules:
The permit ' oes not have any outstanding compliance schedules for this facility.
3. Facility Sit Review:
The overall condition of the plant site was satisfactory. The appearance of the facility was in
acceptable dondition indicating that the current housekeeping practices are good.
The facility has made collection system improvements to reduce I&,I to the WWTP, reduced
sludge recycle rates in wastewater treatment process, and increased frequency of cleaning of
the chlorine contact chamber(s) in an effort to reduce the amount of solids carry over and
buildup in the contact chamber(s). This was evident during the inspection in which the chlorine
contact chamber(s) had minimal sludge build up and the effluent had significantly less solids
than during the previous inspection.
4. Self -Monitoring Program:
You are re
appropriate
and a certifi
Your opera
activities u
activities in
the facility
The acili
inded that your monitoring samples must be collected, preserved, and analyzed by
rocedures and methods. You should maintain records of the sampler temperature,
d laboratory must calibrate the sample thermometers annually.
or is reminded that he/she must keep a logbook of all operation/maintenance
dertaken at the facility. The logbook should include all daily process control
luding any field measurements conducted for process control. A visitation log for
ust also be maintained.
currentl in corn liance with these reuirements.
5. Records/Re • orts:
a) A revie of the daily monitoring data submitted during the previous 12-month period
indicate the facility was in compliance with the permit requirements and/or limitations and
was not ssued any Notice of Violations or Penalty Assessments for this period.
The per ittee currently does not have any unpaid penalties. However, the permittee is
reminde of his obligation to pay anv penalties levied by the State of North Carolina for
non-corri liance with your NPDES permit.
b) All labo atory and field parameter testing must be conducted by a certified laboratory and/or
operator for all data submitted on the discharge monitoring reports.
The oie ator is currentl in compliance with these requirements.

6. Laboratory:
A certified laboratory and/or operator must perform all field parameter and laboratory analysis.
The operator needs to be sure to calibrate all meters/instrumentation before each use and retain
all calibration records.
The facility is currently in compliance with these requirements. The facility has its own certified
laboratory and uses one contract laboratory, Oxford Labs.
7. Flow Measurement:
If the permit requires a flow measurement device for determining the effluent flow, the flow
measurement device must be calibrated annually.
The effluent flow meter has been calibrated within the past 12 months.
8. Effluent/Receiving Waters:
The effluent discharge should be clear with a continuous flow with no visible changes to the
receiving waters.
The effluent discharge was clear and flow was continuous. The receiving waters looked
relatively clear with no visible changes from the effluent discharge. Calico Creek typically
exhibits high turbidity and fecal coliform during tidal changes, which was evident during this
inspection. The. effluent discharge quality looked very good which is evident from the
compliance sample analysis noted below.
9. Compliance Sampling:
Compliance sampling was conducted during this inspection. The results of the sampling are as
follows:
Sample Location Parameter Result Wkly Limit Units
WWTP Effluent Discharge Fecal Coliform <2 172 count/100 ml
TSS 17 45 mg/L
BOD 12 45 mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen 10.01 >5.0 mg/L
pH 7.97 6 - 9 standard units
Temperature 11.9 degrees C
Calico Creek adjacent to Fecal Coliform 20 count/100 ml
Outfall 001 TSS 33 mg/L
BOD 4.4 mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen 13.6 mg/L
pH 8.15 standard units
Temperature 7.4 degrees C
The results of the compliance sampling was in compliance with the permit limits and the
effluent discharge did not appear to be adversely affecting the quality of the receiving stream.

10. Pretreatme
t:
This facility influent stream consists of 100% domestic wastewater and does not require pre-
treatment.
11. Solids Handling/Disposal:
The facility must dispose of solids by an acceptable method such as a landfill or utilize the
services of an approved solids hauling and disposal contractor, which requires the facility to be
included under the contractor's non -discharge permit (i.e. land application). The facility is
reminded to maintain adequate records (i.e. shipment dates, quantities, etc.) of any solids
hauling and/or disposal activities.
The facility is in compliance with these requirements and residual solids are disposed of under
the Morehead City land application permit, Permit No. W00006018. The facility has indicated
they will arrange to utilize a mobile dewaterinz system to help facilitate better solids
management over the coming months.
The facility i
such as long
Wilmington
idicated that they might need to chanze their solids handling practices in the future
term storage of solids on -site in drvinz beds. Should the facility need to do so, the
regional Once should be contacted before any such changes taking place.
The facility should contact the Aquifer Protection Unit in the Wilmington Regional Office for
assistance rei arding solids disposal requirements (i.e. Class A/B sludge).
12. Operations Maintenance:
There were iII o items or findings noted during this inspection.
Name and Sign ture of Inspectors:
ma,n,
Thomas F. Moore
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Re • 'onal Office
3/110 5
Date

Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Comment:
Operations & Maintenance
Does the plant have general safety structures in place such as rails around or covers over tanks, pits, or wells?
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Comment: The facility has made collection system improvements to reduce I&I to the VVVVfP, reduced sludge recycle
rates in wastewater treatment process, and increased frequency of cleaning of the chlorine contact chamber(s) in an
effort to reduce the amount of solids carry over and buildup in the contact chamber(s). This was evident during the
inspection in which the chlorine contact chamber(s) had minimal sludge build up and the effluent had significantly less
solids than during the previous inspection.
Bar Screens
Type of bar screen
Yes No NA NE
❑ O ■ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
O O ■ O
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
111000
Yes No NA NE
a.Manual �
b.Mechanical ■
Are the bars adequately screening debris? 1 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris? •❑ ❑ ❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance? •❑ ❑ ❑
Is the unit in good condition? •❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Grit Removal Yes No NA NF
Type of grit removal
a.Manual 1111
b.Mechanical
Is the site free of excessive organic content in the grit chamber? •❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive odor? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is disposal of grit in compliance? 11000
Comment:
Primary Clarifier Yes No NA ME
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? 111000
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? •❑ ❑ ❑
Are weirs level? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of weir blockage? 1000
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting? 1 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is scum removal adequate? •❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? 1 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the drive unit operational? • 0 0 ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? •❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NF
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? •❑ ❑ ❑
Are weirs level? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑

•
Secondary Clarifier
Is the site free of we r blockage?
GIs the site free of eviflence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adgquate?
Is the site free of ex
Is the drive unit oper
Is the sludge blanke
Is the return rate ac
Is the overflow dear
Is the surface free o
Comment:
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Are pumps in place?
Are pumps operation
ssive floating sludge?
tional?
level acceptable?
ptable (low turbulence)?
f excessive solids/pin floc?
bulking ?
I?
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment: Facility h s made reductions in RAS to help minimize solids carryover to contact chamber.
Trickling Filter
Is the filter free of po ding?
Is the filter free of leas at the center column of filter' s distribution arms?
Is the distribution of ow even from the distribution arms?
Is the filter free of un ven or discolored growth?
Is the filter free of slo ghing of excessive growth?
Is the site odor -free?
Are the filter' s distrib tion arms orifices free of clogging?
Is the filter free of ex ssive filter flies, worms or snails?
Comment:
Disinfection
Type of system ?
Are cylinders secure adequately?
Are cylinders protect d from direct sunlight?
Is there adequate res rve supply of disinfectant?
Is ventilation equipment operational?
Is ventilation equipment properly located?
Is SCBA equipment vailable on site?
Is SCBA equipment o erational?
Is staff trained in ope ating SCBA equipment?
Is staff trained in eme gency procedures?
Is an evacuation plan in place?
Are tablet chlorinate operational?
Are the tablets the pr per size and type?
Number of tubes in u e?
(Sodium Hypochiorite Is pump feed system operational?
Is bulk storage tank ntainment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
Is the level of chlorin residual acceptable?
Is there adequate detntion time
Yes No NA NE
• 000
•❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
1.000
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NF
!MOOD
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
1 ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NF
Gas
11000
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ 1
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ 00.
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
1 ❑ ❑ ❑

Disinfection Yes No NA NE
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Pump Station - Effluent Yes No NA NF
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures? • 0 0 0
Is the general housekeeping acceptable? •❑ ❑ ❑
Is the wet well free of excessive grease? 1 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps present? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps operable? •❑ ❑ ❑
Are float controls operable? 1 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational? 00110
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational? •❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Standby Power ' Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available? 11000
Is generator tested weekly by interrupting primary power source? •❑ ❑ ❑
Is generator tested under load at least quarterly? •❑ ❑ ❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection? 000111
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site? 1 ❑ ❑ ❑
Does generator have adequate fuel? •❑ ❑ ❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power? 0 0 • 0
Comment:
' Laboratory Yes No NA NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory? •❑ ❑ ❑
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab? •❑ ❑ ❑
Is the facility using a contract lab? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs? 1 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)? 0 0 0 •
Incubator (Fecal Conform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees? 0 0 0 •
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/-1.0 degrees? 000111
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE
Is flow meter used for reporting? •❑ ❑ ❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually? • 0 0 0
Is flow meter operating properly? •❑ ❑ ❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? • 0 0 0
Comment:
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit? 11000
Is all required information readily available, complete and current? 11000
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)? •❑ ❑ ❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs? •❑ ❑ ❑
Are sampling and analysis data adequate and include: 1 ❑ ❑ ❑
Dates, times and location of sampling •
Name of individual performing the sampling 1

Record Keeping
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person p - rforming analyses
Transported COC
Plant records are adequate, available and include
O&M Manual
As built Engineerin, drawings
Schedules and dat-s of equipment maintenance and repairs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
Has the facility subm tted its annual compliance report to users?
(If the facility is = or 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification?
Is a copy of the curre t NPDES permit available on site?
Is the facility descript on verified as contained in the NPDES permit?
Does the facility anal ze process control parameters, for example: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable Solids, DO, Sludge
Judge, pH, and othe that are applicable?
Facility has copy of p evious year's Annual Report on file for review?
Comment:
Effluent Sampling •
Is composite samplin flow proportional?
Is sample collected b low all treatment units?
Is proper volume coil cted?
Is the tubing clean?
Is proper temperaturg set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility samplin I performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)?
Comment:
Upstream 1 Downstream Sampling
Is the facility samplin performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and sampling location)?
Comment:
Aerobic Digester
Is the capacity adequate?
• Is the mixing adequate?
Is the site free of ex ssive foaming in the tank?
Is the odor acceptabl ?
Comment:
Drying Beds
Is there adequate drying bed space?
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
Is the site free of dry Mudge remaining in beds?
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
Is the filtrate from stu ge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
Is the sludge dispose of through county landfill?
Yes Na NA NF
•
•
•
❑ ❑ ❑ •
0
• 000
O 00111
O 0.0
• 000
• 000
111000
• 000
• 000
• 000
❑ ❑ ❑•
Yes No NA NF
• 000
1000
• 000
• 000
• 000
• 000
Yes No NA NF
11000
Yes No NA NE
• 000
• 000
• 000
• 000
Yes No NA NE
. 000
11000
• 000
O 1100
• 000
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
o ■❑❑

Drying Beds Yes No NA NE.
Is the sludge land applied? 11000
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate? 00110
Comment: The facility is in compliance with these requirements and residual solids are disposed of under the
Morehead City land application permit, Permit No. W00006018. The facility has indicated they will arrange to utilize a
mobile dewatering system to help facilitate better solids management over the coming months. The facility indicated
that they might need to change their solids handling practices in the future such as Tong -term storage of solids on -site
in drying beds. Should the facility need to do so, the Wilmington Regional Office should be contacted before any such
changes taking place. The facility should contact Jim Buschardt, Aquifer Protection Unit, in the Wilmington Regional
Office for assistance regarding solids disposal requirements (i.e. Class NB sludge).
Compliance Schedules Yes No NA NE
Is there a compliance schedule for this facility? 0010
Is the facility compliant with the permit and conditions for the review period? 0 0 • 0
Comment:
Fffluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? • 0 0 ❑
Are receiving water free of solids and floatable wastewater materials? 1 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the receiving waters free of solids / debris? 11000
Are the receiving waters free of foam other than a trace? •❑ ❑ ❑
Are the receiving waters free of sludge worms? 1 ❑ ❑ ❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? 00110
Comment: The effluent discharge was dear and flow was continuous. The receiving waters looked relatively clear with
no visible changes from the effluent discharge. Calico Creek typically exhibits high turbidity and fecal conform during
tidal changes, which was evident during this inspection. The effluent discharge quality looked very good which is evident
from the compliance sample analysis noted below.

Re: Morehead City WWTP sta
and spec limits
Subject: Re: Morehead City WWTP status and spec limits
From: Mark McIntire <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 24 M
To: Stephanie G
CC: Teresa Ro
<Dave.Goodrich
2005 11:37:38 -0500
ett <[e-mail]>
ez <[e-mail]>, Dave Goodrich
cmail.net>, Rick Shiver <[e-mail]>
thanks steph. we'l get it fixed.
Stephanie Garrett ote:
thanks for the u date Mark! Know you are busy. Calico Creek is also a designated PNA and
following the 1 A NCAC 02B .0224 for HQW, effluent concentrations of TSS are limited to 10 mg/1
for trout waters and PNAs, and to 20 mg/1 for all other HQW. Hope it's not too late to catch.
Appreciate yo help and hope you have a nice easter!
Stephanie
Mark McIntire ote:
hey stephani - . sorry this one slipped throught he cracks. teresa rodriguez of my staff is about to
notice the m + dification for morehead for their expansion to 2.5. the limits are consistent with the
spec with a f - w exceptions. they'll have a 20 mg/L monthly average TSS limit as the facility
discharges in o an HWQ water. they'll get a 13 ug/L TRC limit a 35 colony/100 ml .limit for.:
enterococci.
hope this hel o s.
mark
Table 2. urrent and Speculative Effluent Limits for the Morehead City WWTP.
Parameter
Flow (MG )
BOD (mg ) Apr -Oct
BOD (mg ) Nov -Mar
NH3-N (mg/1) Aprt-Oct
NH3-N (mIg/I) Nov -Mar
TSS (mg/I
Fecal Coli orm (col/100m1)
(geometric mean)
Total Nitrdgen (mg/I)
(NO2+73+TKN)
Current Limits Speculative Reuse Limits
Monthly Weekly Limits Monthly Daily
Average Average Average Max
1.7 2.5
20 30 5 10 15
30 45 10 10 15
NL NL 1 4 6
NL NL 2 4 6
30 45 30 5 10
86 172 14 14 25
NL NL NL NL NL
1 of 2
3/24/2005 12:55 PM

Re: Morehead City WWTP status and spec limits
Total Phosphorus (mgll)
NL NL NL NL NL
2 of
3/24/2005 12:55 PM

Re: [Fwdf Calico]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Calico]
From: Mark McIntire <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 24 MIr 2005 11:12:35 -0500
To: Dave Goodri?h <[e-mail]>, Rick Shiver <[e-mail]>
CC: Teresa Rodriguez <[e-mail]>
Dave/Rick,
Teresa is about to notice the expansion request for Morehead. The TSS monthly average/weekly average
limits for the exp ded flow are 20 mg/L/30 mg/L respectively. The HQW rules specify the tighter limits
for new/expansio s.
Mark
Dave Goodrich wrote:
No, not if we made a mistake on this. I'll ask Mark to look into it and then we can do one of two
things:
• Unilatera ly re -open the permit OR
• Write the a letter explaining our oversight and tell them that we'll change the permit upon
renewal ( 007)
Rick Shiver wrote:
Hi, Dave,
Steph just finiished an internal report on Calico Creek. I was interested in her comment on the TSS
limit for the Morehead WWTF. Is it too late to consider a tighter TSS limit? Thanks, Rick
Subject:
Calico
From:
Steph ie Garrett <[e-mail]>
Date:
Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:55:28 -0500
To: Rick Shi er <Rick.Shiver ancmail.net>
Hi Rick!
Had to hit the road so wanted to let you know a couple things regarding our recommendations - I
put the most urrent one in your inbox.
Cam was out for the day so I talked w/ Jennifer Everett and here is a summary of her take on things:
• Once we provide Michelle et al. the appropriate data for impairment, the waterbody goes
onto the 303d list and does not wait for the basin cycle and TMDLs will be required
1 of 2 3/24/2005 11:26 AM

Re: [Fwd Calico]
• TMDL development takes 8 to 13 years to develop. EPA will be taking over development of
TMDLs for SA waters which should help processing time w/ the modelers in the future.
• she do
small
leave
her op
NSW,
nutrier
esn't think that Jay's concern that no more NSWs would be approved would apply to a
watershed like Calico, but rather the big guys like the Neuse. She thinks we should
e recommendation in and that should we pursue it and apply for reclassification, in
'pion, it would probably be reclassified.. It takes approximately 2 years for a reclass to
assuming we already have provided sufficient data. Certainly a faster approach to
t reduction.
Also, I don't ecall if we talked about it or not, but once I read the HQW admistrative code (.0244) I
saw that the DES limit for TSS should be 10 mg/1 for PNAs, and the spec limits are 30 and 45. I
know you m ntioned that the plant was designed based on the spec limits, but I wonder know how
set in stone ey are, particularly in light of the HQW requirements. We talked about the nutrient
overenrichm nt issue in light of those requiements for limits on nitrogen and phosphourous. I
believe we h ve determined that the creek is overenriched but don't know how to proceed to pursue
"appropriate effluent limits". I guess if we don't try, we won't know.
Anyway, I he
Alan. If not,
�e you'll be in Monday so we can talk and can get this completed and sent on up to
ust let me know how you want me to proceed.
Hope you have a great weekend!!
Stephanie
2 of 2
3/24/2005 11:26 AM

M MCDAVID ASSOCIATES, INC.
INC. Engineers • Planners • Land Surveyors
CORPORATE OFFICE
[phone] • Fax [phone]
120 N. Main Street • P.O. Drawer 49
Farmville, NC 27828
February 2, 2005
Mr. Mark McIntire, Acting Supervisor
NPDES Unit East
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJECT: Application for Increase in Flow
NPDES Permit NC 002661
Town of Morehead City
Carteret County, NC
Dear Mr. McIntire:
GOLDSBORO OFFICE
[phone] • Fax [phone]
109 E. Walnut Street • P.O. Box 1776
Goldsboro, NC 27533
Attached please find the following items:
1. NPDES Permit Application (1 original and 2 copies)
2. 201 Facilities Plan approval letter dated June 30, 2004
3. FONSI submittal letter to State Clearinghouse dated May 11, 2004
4. Speculative Effluent Limits letter dated November 27, 1998
The Town plans to increase the capacity of its wastewater treatment plant from 1.7 MGD to 2.5
MGD. The Town's 201 Plan and FONSI have been approved by the Construction Loans and Grants
section. The Town is on the current year's funding list and would like to go to construction the
summer of 2005.
Please review the application and issue the NPDES Permit as soon as possible. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
McDAVID ASSOCIATES, INC.
F. Tynda1YLewis, P.E.
Goldsboro Office
FTL:
Attachments
cc: R. Randy Martin (w/attach)
Ken Pohlig (w/attach)
Ow A
•
TNI FEB 3 1005
DE'1R - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
1\G-PC 1 \D 8051 FTL\20051M HCD WQIF. PMT 1
MHC-D WQ-N PDES-PERMIT-NC-002661
050202

-;rsss UNITEL) STATES
���,,` DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
-'' GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
CRAB PT. VILLAGE Jj hlr
76°45' 340000m.E I ► 342
34°45' I----
}
3846afmm.N.
3845 - • ..'. ' ` =>_ EXISTIf3
EXIST NG INFLUENT PUMP S1TEr •
STATir NO. 10
XISTING INFLUENT PUMP
TATION NO. 9 •
3844
„w II
,n o Light
3 .. o;ccoc°
Z i 1, DolF�ins
lk
42'30"
WWTP
OPOSED
P SITE
Piggotts
Bridge
• 85y1/iew
•
343
Point Neck
. Crab -Point
Bay E Gable
42'30"
Calico Creek �� AI. •`1f
L.:
�l Vile:1lftl S5 11C8 i�C•��I
'-l•••, 1 I .i �1--r�� ��`�-'�f�r IIL• fl�;,�jg7.�..�C _ _ �-_:�y... :... ���,
F.
-1 _lI�,� A o r. _ P a '1 l' �4301—I
I - •14 1��� -1'' •` — t-_��JIChi ney ��_ _, >
..pa 'rti �_ — ._ _i J.- J�_ il' _,, III 71r �l__I' 13 i
Tower V 7
CJ
•
Willis Pt
E A D
Cem,'
INTRACOASTAL
$OGU
6t.
Beacon, SUgyrt�aaf
Spa
e Beacon
o Light •WATERWAY
SO UND
FIGURE 1
ALTERNATIVE IV
NEW WWTP (RE -USE QUALITY)
SITE LOCATION MAP

PROPOSED
30.000 GPD
PACKAGE
TERTIARY WWIF-.--
FOR REUSE
CLEAN WATER
PROJECT.
PROPOSED 5
ACRES REUSE
IRRICA TION
SOO FIELD
CLEAN WATER
PROJECT.
r
T
PROPOSED
STANDBY
ELECTRICAL
GENERATOR
EXISTING
STANDBY
ELECTRICAL
GENERATOR
EXISTING
MECHANICAL
BAR SCREEN
1.440.000 CPO
INFLUENT
WASTEWATER
1.065.00 GPD
INFLUENT
WASTEWATER
PROPOSED
MECHANICAL
BAR SCREEN
CLEAN WATER
PROJECT
PS NO. 9
INFLUENT
PUMPING
EXISTING
TWO 2500
CAM PUMPS
PS N0. 10
INFLUENT
PuMPING
PROPOSED
TWO 1850
GPM PUMPS
EXISTING
STANDBY
ELECTRICAL
GENERATOR
PROPOSED
AERATED
GRIT CHAMBER
IWX18rX14. SKI
ANOXIC
REACTOR
208.333
GALLONS
4HR0.T.
•CLEAN WATER PROJECT 1N
CONSTRUCTION 2003-2004 WITH
ANTICIPATED MAY 2004
COMPLETION DATE
ANAEROBIC
REACTOR
206.333
GALLONS
2HRO.T.
ANOXIC
REACTOR
208.333
GALLONS
4HRO.T.
UIXEO UOUOR
RECYCLE PUMPING
68-3472 CPU
PROPOSED
OXIDATION OITCH /1
1.562,500 GALLONS
30 HOURS
DETENTION TIME
PROPOSED
OXIDATION DITCH 12
1.562.500 GALLONS
30 HOURS
DETENTION TIME
MIXED LIQUOR I
RECYCLE PUMPING
868-3472 CPU
J
J
CHEMICAL
FEED
ROPOSE
CLARIFIER
70FT01
288 CPU SPFNT BACKWASH RETURN
868-2600 CPU SLUOGF RETURN
DUAL
AEROBIC
DIGESTERS
609.000
GALLONS EACH
60 DAYS
DETENTION
AERATED
SLUDGE
HOLDING
450.000
GALLONS
30 DAYS
DE TEN TION
SLUDGE
PUMPING
4
EXISTING UNITS 1 AND 2 DUAL
497.734 GALLONS TO AERATED
REMAIN AS BACKUP OICESTERS j
8ELT PRESS
2X TO 18X
SOLIDS
DUAL
TERTIARY
FILTERS
2 EACH
12.5.X48.
600 SF
EACH
FILTER
EFFLUENT
SCHWING-BIOSET
CHEMICAL
FEED SYSTEM
EXISTING
CHLORINE
CHAMBER Ill
23.781 CALLONS
ADF-13.7 MIN. 0.T
PEAK FLOW.-
5.5 MIN. D.T.
EXISRNG
CHLORINE
CONTACT
CHAMBER /2
59.326 GALLONS
ADF-34.2 MIN 0. T,
PEAK FLOW-
13.7 um D.T.
EXISTING
P05T AERATION
PROPOSED
10 HP AERATOR
ADF-.10 MIN. 0.T.
PEAK FLOW-
4 MIN
I " ' I
EXISTING 10 EA 80'X30.
•
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS To
REMAIN AS BACKUP
I
I 1 I
I
CLASS A
SLUDGE
5000 S0. FT.
SLUDGE STORAGE
BUILDING
PROPOSED
DECHLORINA TION
1502)
CALICO CREEK
EXISTING
24- P.E.
OU TFALL
FINAL DISPOSAL
VIA LAND DISPOSAL

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Depa. 1ment of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E, Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
June 30, 2004
The Honorable Gerald A. Jones, Jr., Mayor
Town of Morehead City
706 Arendell Street, #M
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-4234
SUBJECT:
Dear Mayor Jones:
Approval
Town of Morehead City
201 Facilities Plan
Project No. CS370567-02
The Construction Grants and Loans Section of the Division of Water Quality has
completed its review of the town of Morehead City 201 Facilities Plan. The project includes
improvements to Influent Pump Station No. 10 and construction of a new 2.5 MGD oxidation
ditch type wastewater treatment facility capable of producing reuse quality effluent on the
existing wastewater treatment plant site. Improvements to the Influent Pump Station No. 10 will
include replacing the existing pumps with dual 1,850 gpm variable speed pumps, replacing the
existing wet well, providing a standby power generator, and the existing 10-inch diameter force
main to the WWTP will be replaced with a 16-inch force main. The new wastewater treatment
plant facilities will consist of aerated grit removal facilities, two oxidation ditches preceded by
anaerobic/anoxic chambers for biological nitrogen removal, two secondary clarifiers, dual
tertiary filters, chlorination equipment, dechlorination using sulfur dioxide injection, post
aeration, dual sludge return pumps, a sludge wasting pump, and a new standby generator. New
sludge treatment facilities capable of producing Class A sludge will consist of a sludge transfer
station, dual aerobic digesters, aerated sludge holding, a belt press, and a chemical feed system.
The subject town of Morehead City 201 Facilities Plan is hereby approved.
It is the Construction Grants and Loans Section's understanding that the town has agreed
to voluntary mitigation measures to address the impacts of increased stormwater as a result of
increased development. Copies of the mitigation measures and related correspondence are
attached. The town is to be commended for their interest in protecting and enhancing water
quality in the Morehead City Area.
Air ir.rA
tvCC�EI'4
Construction Grants & Loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 [phone]
Web site: v,,,•r,^. rccgl.net FAX [phone]
Customer Service
1-877- 623-6748

The Honorable
Page 2
June 30, 2004
If you
of our staff at (
KLH/dr
Attachment
Gerald A. Jones, Jr., Mayor
ve any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Larry Horton, P.E.
19) 715-6225.
Sincerely,
ohn R. B10 " e, P.E., Chief
Construction Grants and Loans Section
cc: Tyndall Lewis, P.E., McDavid Associates
Rick Shiver, DWQ Wilmington Regional Office
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Hannah Stallings
DMU/PMB/FEU/SRF
•

GERALD A. JONES, JR., Mayor
DAVID HORTON, Mayor Pro-Tem
Council
FLOYD M. CHADWICK, JR.
PAUL W. CORDOVA
JOHN F. NELSON
DEMUS L. THOMPSON
YOR
HEAD crr 7
NORTH CAROLINA
P.M. DrawerM
706 Arendell Street
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-4234
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
www.townohnorehead.com
June 14, 2004
Mr. John R. Blowe, P.E., Chief
Construction Grants and Loans Section
Division of Water Quality
163 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1633
Dear Mr. Blowe:
R. RANDY MARTIN
City Manager
The Town of Morehead City is concerned about the impacts of stormwater runoff
within its jurisdiction. In an effort to minimize any potential adverse impacts of
increased stormwater runoff, particularly any associated secondary impacts of the Town's
proposed upgrade of its Wastewater Treatment Plant [WWTP], the Town recognizes the
need to plan for mitigation measures. The Town desires to undertake certain steps as
detailed on the attached Voluntary Mitigation Measures to Address Impacts of Increased
Stormwater as a Result of Increased Development.
The Town developed these measures with the assistance and input of
representatives of the North Carolina Coastal Federation and requests that the
information be included as comments in the review process for the Town's requested
WWTP upgrade and that mitigation measures be considered for inclusion in the NPDES
permit for the plant, as appropriate. The Council of the Town of Morehead City endorsed
these measures on June 8, 2004. If this information needs clarification, please advise.
RRM:Ivs
Enc.
Sincer
R. Randy Mart/1
City Manager '-
ADAiEOE; P Equal Opportunity Employee Provider

Voluntary Mitigation Measures to Address the Impacts of Increased Stormwater as
a Result of Increased Development:
1. No sew r service to Sugarloaf Island, Haystacks Marsha, Newport Marshes (more
specifi 1ly identified as being west of Northwoods Subdivision, north of Westhaven
Subdivi ion and east of now/formerly Luther Jones property) and Phillips Island.
2. To the aximum extent practical, by the completion of the new wastewater treatment plant,
the To will proceed with voluntarily developing and implementing a local stormwater
manage ent program for the Town's entire jurisdiction designed to utilize measures
identified in the State of North Carolina's NPDES Stormwater program including:
a. Public Education
b. Public Involvement
c. Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination
d. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Controls
e. Post Construction Stormwater Management.
f Municipal Housekeeping & Pollution Prevention
3. Inventory potential opportunities for Clean Water Management Trust Fund grant applications
which in Ludes identification of environmentally sensitive areas and pursue grant funding.
4. Pursue grants to enhance and complement the Advanced Identification of Wetlands wetlands
mapping that was completed for Carteret County in the 1990's, including Morehead City.
5. Continued cooperative efforts between various state agencies and environmental groups to
evaluate and improve stormwater management in Morehead City (i.e. Visitor's Center
Stormwater Project).
6. No additional or enlarged stormwater discharge points into SA waters in accordance with
State regulations.
7. In an effo to mitigate and reduce wastewater and existing stormwater discharges into.Calico
Creek, th Town will complete an inventory of existing stormwater discharges and evaluate
retrofit o iportunities prior to completion of the new wastewater treatment plant. The Town
will pursue grant funding to complete this study and to fund retrofit opportunities. It will also
pursue projects such as the demonstration water reuse project which pipes discharge to a 5
acre sod area on North 25`h Street.
8. Pursue staff training to assist the state in monitoring stormwater projects. Implement a model
"Comm ity Watch" system as an extension of the State's stormwater program and convey
collected ata to the Division of Water Quality.
9. Conduct a self -evaluation of existing ordinances and policies utilizing the Watershed
Protection Manual provided by the Center for Watershed Protection.
4
;J.
., r

North Carolina
Coastal Federation
cosHighway ze(ucea„)r t, NC 28570
June 15, 2 1 04
John R. B1 a we, Chief
Constructi • n Grants and Loans Section
N.C. Division of Water Quality
163 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1 b3 3
Dear Mr. Blowe:
elt0
The N.C. Coastal Federation (NCCF) is quite concerned that the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) failed to address the deleterious water -quality effects of stormwater
spawned by centralized sewer systems in its draft Environmental Assessment of
Morehead c ity's proposed sewer plant. In fact, the word appears just once in the
document, and then only obliquely. Though Alan KIimek mentions "mitigative
measures" in his draft FNSI, none is outlined in the assessment.
Fortunately, officials in Morehead City are well aware of the dangers and want to take
steps to prevent them. NCCF staff worked with the town to devise a set of voluntary
measures that will help mitigate for the some of the secondary effects of stormwater
pollution. Tl e town sent those measures to you in a separate letter. They include:
• No s wer service to currently undeveloped islands in the Newport River
• Voluntary application for a Phase II NPDES permit
• Inventory and attempt to acquire environmentally sensitive land
• No additional or enlarged stormwater discharge points into SA waters in
accordance with state regulations
• A Om to retrofit existing stormwater outfalls
We applaud tine town for taking these steps, which we heartily endorse, and we strongly
urge that DWQ include them as mitigative measures in the final FNSI and in Morehead
City's NPDE permit.
Sincerely,
Frank Tursi
Cape Lookout Coastkeeper
Pho
e: 252-393-8185 Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Website: www nccaast.org
4

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
May 11, 2004
Mr. R. Randy artin, Town Manager
Town of More ead City
706 Arendell Sreet, #M Morehead Cityl North Carolina 28557-4234
Dear Mr. Marti
•
SUBJECT: Town of Morehead City
201 Facilities Plan
Project No. CS370567-02
This is o inform you that the Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) and the
Environmental ssessment (EA) have been submitted to the State Clearinghouse. The
documents will be advertised for thirty (30) calendar days in the N.C. Environmental Bulletin.
Advertising the FNSI is required prior to a local unit of government receiving financial support
from the State Revolving Fund. You will be informed of any significant comment or public
objection when the advertisement period is completed.
A copy f the documents is transmitted for your record. The documents should be made
available to the public.
If there ire any questions, please contact me at [phone].
HS/dr
Attachment (all
cc's)
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Blaisdell, Assistant Chief
Engineering Branch
cc: Tyndall Lewis, P.E., McDavid Associates, Inc.
Larry Horton, P.E.
Hannah Stallings
PMB/DMU/SRF
Construction Grants anc Loans Section t e33 Mai: Service Center Rare: r NC 27699-1633 (919) 733-6 :`G
Web Site: w:1w.ncool.ne( FAX nX '919} 7 13-Bz2C
Mi'A
\CGE* 4.
Customer Service
1 ann a�1_77A

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TOWN OF MOREHEAD CITY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
CONTACT: JOHN R. BLOWE, P.E., CHIEF
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS AND LOANS SECTION
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
1633 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1633
[phone]
May 5, 2004

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FNSI)
Article I, Chap er 113A of the North Carolina General Statutes requires an action to be subject to
the requiremen s of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) if it involves the
expenditure of .ublic funds and a potential impact is anticipated to the environment. The project
has been evalu• ted for compliance with the NCEPA and determined to be a major agency action
which will affe t the environment.
Project Appli
4.i
nt: Town of Morehead City, North Carolina
Project Description: The town of Morehead City will construct a new 2.50 MGD treatment
facility that will produce reuse quality effluent at the existing wastewater
treatment plant site. The proposed project also involves the production of
Class A sludge via chemical addition. The existing treatment facility will
continue in service until the completion of the proposed project. The
proposed project is intended to rectify Morehead City's past history of
non-compliance with its NPDES permit by providing facilities capable of
meeting effluent limits and to reduce the adverse impacts of its discharge
on Calico Creek. The proposed project will include an increase in
capacity for the town from 1.7 MGD to 2.5 MGD.
Project Numb :r: CS370567-02
Project Cost: $8,598,200
State RevoIvin
Fund Loan: $8,500,000
Local Funds: $98,200
The review pro•ess indicated that significant adverse environmental impacts should not occur if
mitigative meas res are implemented, and an environmental impact statement will not be
required. The d - cision was based on information in the 201 Facilities Plan Amendment and
reviews by governmental agencies. An environmental assessment supporting this action is
attached. This 1 NSI completes the environmental review record, which is available for
inspection at the State Clearinghouse.
No administrative action will be taken on the proposed project for at least thirty days after
notification that the FNSI has been published in the North Carolina Environmental Bulletin.
Sincerely,
iteek—
Alan W. Klimell, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Proposed Facilities and Actions
Figure 1 identi es the location of the proposed wastewater treatment facilities.
New Treatmen Facilities. The town of Morehead City will construct a new oxidation ditch
type wastewate treatment facility with a flow capacity of 2.5 million gallons per day (MGD)
that is capable . f producing reuse quality effluent at the existing 1.7 MGD wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) ite. The new facility will discharge treated effluent to Calico Creek. The
existing wastewater treatment plant will continue in service until the completion of the proposed
wastewater treatment plant. The existing sludge handling facilities will remain for back-up use
and the existing chlorine contact/post aeration structure, office building, and laboratory will
continue in use. A new standby generator will be provided to supply power during periods of
power outages. Influent Pump Station No. 9 (North 26th Street) will continue in use with dual
2,500 gpm vari ble speed pumps. Influent Pump Station No. 10 pumps will be replaced with
dual 1,850 gpmvariable speed pumps, the wetwell will be replaced,
d, the existing mechanical bar
screen will continue in use, and the existing 10-inch diameter force main to the WWTP will be
replaced with a 16-inch force main. The new WWTP facilities will consist of aerated grit
removal facilities, two oxidation ditches preceded by anaerobic/anoxic chambers for biological
nitrogen removal, two secondary clarifiers, dual tertiary filters, dechlorination using sulfur
dioxide injection, dual sludge return pumps, and a sludge wasting pump. Sludge treatment
facilities capable of producing Class A sludge will consist of a sludge transfer station, dual
aerobic digesters, aerated sludge holding, a belt press, and a chemical feed system.
B. Existing Environment
Topography and Soils. The town of Morehead City lies in the Coastal Plain physiographic
province. The land in Morehead City is characterized as nearly level to gently sloping. Slopes in
the area rarely exceed 5%, except on banks of streams or on the escarpments that separate marine
terraces from one another. Elevations in Morehead City range between sea level around Calico
Creek and BoguSound to 30 feet above sea level on uplands away from Calico Creek and
Bogue Sound. ive major soil associations are present in the town of Morehead City service
area: Wando-Se brook-Kureb, Altavista -Augusta -State, Baymeade-Onslow-Lynchburg, Leon-
Murville-Manda 'n, and Laflite-Hobucken-Carteret. These soils range from being nearly level to
gently sloping, oderately to excessively well -drained sandy soils found on uplands and terraces
to nearly level, v ry poorly drained, mucky and sandy soils found in salt marshes along salt
water. The twelve acres of the treatment plant site consists of Conetoe soils (loamy fine sand)
and Tomotley soils (fine sandy loam).
Surface Water. The Morehead City WWTP and its receiving stream, Calico Creek, are located
within Area E-4 f White Oak River Subbasin 03-05-03. Calico Creek is an estuary with low
dissolved oxyge values. Calico Creek above and below the town's WWTP is identified as

being "Prohibited/Restricted" for shellfishing activities and is considered permanently closed to
shellfish harvesting. Calico Creek has a class "SC HQW" designation. The intended uses of the
water include fi h and wildlife propagation. There are no nutrient -sensitive (NSW) designations
for surface wat rs in the Morehead City area.
Water Supply. The town of Morehead City's drinking water is taken from five deep wells that
tap into the Castle Hayne aquifer. Groundwater availability is considered plentiful, and the
town's Water Supply Plan indicates that the existing five wells will be able to meet demand until
2040. The well are typically screened between 300 to 400 feet. Static water levels are often
within 20 feet o the land surface, and pumping levels are typically within 50 feet of the surface.
Water quality i the aquifer is good, with low iron and manganese concentrations. However,
water from the quifer has high hardness and a slight color. The five wells have a combined
capacity of app oximately 2.5 MGD based on 12 hours per day pumping time. The system
currently uses approximately 1.1 MGD.
C. Existing Wastewater Facilities
The town of M rehead City's wastewater collection system consists of approximately 63.9 miles
of sewer lines, 1,100 manholes, and 24 pumping stations. The town's wastewater treatment
facilities are loc ted on two sites. A limited amount of preliminary treatment is provided at the
North 26th Stree pumping station site serving "old" Morehead City by a mechanical bar screen
that removes rags, sticks, and other bulky debris and by a grit pump, cyclone, and bin which
remove a portion of the grit in the incoming sewage. These two processes remove items from
the sewage that could clog the station pumps. At the treatment plant site, the remaining grit is
removed in an aerated grit chamber. The sewage then flows through a splitter box to dual
primary clarifies where suspended solids settle out and are pumped to dual aerobic digesters.
Primary effluen is sent to dual trickling filters for stabilization and then to two secondary
clarifiers where uspended solids settle out. The secondary effluent is then chlorinated and held
in contact chambers to kill any pathogenic bacteria that may be in the wastewater. The
chlorinated effluent is then passed through a post aeration chamber where oxygen is added prior
to discharge to Calico Creek. Aerobic digesters stabilize the sludge which is periodically placed
on the drying beds and allowed to dry. Dried sludge is then removed and stored prior to final
land disposal. The various units at the 1.7 MGD Morehead City WWTP include the following:
1) mechanical bar screen; 2) grit pump, cyclone, and bin; 3) influent pump stations No. 9 and 10;
4) influent flow metering; 5) aerated grit removal facility; 6) dual primary clarifiers; 7) dual
trickling filters; ) dual secondary clarifiers; 9) dual chlorine contact chambers; 10) post aeration
chamber; 11) ch orine and chemical feed facility; 12) effluent flow metering; 13) primary sludge
pump station; 1) secondary sludge pump station; 15) recirculation pumping station;
16) aerobic di eters• 17)sl
udge sl dge drying beds; and 18) emergency generators. Morehead City's
existing sludge treatment and disposal program involves the aerobic digestion of excess sludge in
two parallel aerobic digesters, dewatering the digested sludge in on -site sand drying beds,
storage of the dewatered sludge in an on -site building, and final application of the dewatered
Class B sludge on land within Carteret County via a contract sludge hauler. •

The effluent limits for the current WWTP are as
Parameter
Flow, MGD
BOD, MG/L (Apr -Oct)
BOD, MG/L (Nov -Mar)
NH3-N, MG/L (Apr -Oct)
NH3-N, MG/L (Nov -Mar)
TSS, MG/L
Fecal Coliform
follows:
Limit
1.70 MGD
20.0 mg/1
30.0 mg/1
NL
NL
30.0 mg/1
86/100 ml
D. Need for Proposed Facilities and Actions
The proposed itreatment facility is needed to correct the town's past history of non-compliance
with the 1.7 MGD flow limit in its current NPDES Permit. Future growth of Morehead City will
be in jeopardy without the proposed expansion in capacity to 2.5 MGD. Upgrades at the WWTP
will increase the efficiencies of removing various pollutants in the wastewater that will improve
water quality in Calico Creek and achieve compliance with significant effluent limit changes
anticipated to be included in the town's NPDES Permit upon renewal. Memos from the Division
of Water Qual'ty (DWQ) have indicated Calico Creek to be severely impacted below the
WWTP. The igh natural organic loading in the estuary from detritus in combination with the
sluggish, often indeterminate flow pattern of Calico Creek make it very difficult to determine
and evaluate impacts from the WWTP versus non -point sources of pollution and the natural
estuarine conditions. DWQ correspondence has advised the town that it does not consider
continued discharge to Calico Creek to be a viable long-term option beyond the current 20-year
planning period and believes that the discharge should ultimately be removed from the stream.
The speculative limits for the proposed facilities
Parameter
Flow, MGD
BOD, MG/L (Summer -Winter)
NH3-N, MG/L (Summer -Winter)
TSS, MG/L
Fecal Coliform
are:
Limit
2.50 MGD
5 mg/1 and lO mg/1
1 mg/1 and 2 mg/1
30.0 mg/1
14/100 ml
In general, the' speculative limits are equal to or more restrictive than reuse limits, except reuse
limits specify a daily maximum fecal coliform of less than 25/100 ml and a monthly average TSS
of less than or equal to 5 mg/1. The proposed WWTP facilities that are necessary to comply with
the speculativ limits are considered adequate to also meet reuse limits thereby providing the
advantages as ociated with reuse quality effluent. Significant non -discharge opportunities for
reuse may be developed and expanded in the future.
Reuse standards require the treatment process to produce a tertiary quality effluent in accordance
with the following limitations:

.
•
.
.
Monthly average TSS S 5 mg/1 with a daily maximum <_ 10 mg/1
Monthly Mean Fecal Coliform S 14/100 ml with a daily maximum
<_ 25/100 ml
Monthly Average BOD5 <_ 10 mg/1 with a daily maximum <_ 15 mg/1
Monthly Average NH3 < 4 mg/I with a daily maximum _< 6 mg/I
E. Alternatives Analysis
A facilities plan was prepared, and six options for wastewater treatment were evaluated: 1) no
action; 2) land application; 3) optimum operation of existing facilities; 4) new WWTP
(producing reuse quality effluent) at the existing site; 5) conservation and waste reduction; and 6)
regionalized astewater treatment. Three alternatives for sludge treatment and disposal were
also consider d: 1) continuation of current Class B sludge treatment and disposal practices; 2)
Class A slud a production and disposal via chemical addition; and 3) Class A sludge production
and disposal via heat drying.
The "No Action" alternative will result in Morehead City continuing to utilize its current WWTP
which is not capable of meeting its NPDES Permit limits. Choosing this alternative would not
adequately address and correct the town's wastewater needs and problems. The "No Action"
alternative was rejected.
Land application alternatives were considered. One land application alternative that was
considered would involve secondary treatment at the existing WWTP followed by spray
irrigation on 4,310 wetted -acres -at -Open Grounds Farm. This alternative would require that
Influent Pump Station No. 10 be replaced with new 1,850 gpm variable speed pumps and that
approximately 14 miles of 24" force main be installed to convey the wastewater from the WWTP
to the Open drounds Farm. A second land application alternative that was considered involved
land application of effluent on constructed wetlands. Components of this
is alternative would
include upgrading the existing WWTP to include tertiary treatment, nutrient removal and
disinfection followed by effluent storage, effluent pumping, 19 miles of 24" force main, and 75
acres of constructed wetlands. A third land application system that was considered involved the
land application of effluent in conjunction with continued WWTP discharges to surface waters
and three Iand application scenarios were identified: 1) agricultural irrigation to farm lands in
the Newport vicinity; 2) a constructed wetland system near the Pocosin Wilderness; and
3) an agricultural irrigation system in conjunction with a wetland system. This land application
alternative w %Id involve treatment to reuse standards for three reasons: 1) reduction in buffer
requirements t proposed agricultural sites and minimization of potential adverse environmental
impacts; 2) to optimize potential reuse opportunities along the route of the pipeline by providing
reuse quality ,rater thereby significantly reducing regulations/restrictions regarding usage(s) of
the reuse wate ; and 3) minimization of potential environmental damages associated with
pipeline leaks or failures. The cost of this land application system would be in addition to the
costs of the pr ferred alternative which treats the wastewater to reuse standards. All land
application -al rnatives were rejected because they do not provide the most'cost-effective
solution for the town's needs.

The alternative of optimizing the existing facilities was considered. The existing system does
not have adequate hydraulic capacity or treatment facilities and therefore does not have the
capability to operate at the level required to consistently achieve compliance with its NPDES
Perrnit.conditil ns. The existing clarifiers allow excessive solids to be discharged during periods
of peak flow. The existing facility also does not have dechlorination facilities. For these
reasons, the o f Lion of optimizing the existing facilities was rejected.
The alternative of constructing a new WWTP (producing reuse quality effluent) at the existing
site involves the construction of additional facilities on -site to increase the capacity from 1.7
MGD to 2.5 MGD. Proposed improvements include the following: 1) Replacement of Pump
Station No. 10 with new 1,850 gallons per minute (gpm) variable speed pumps constructed along
with a new lar er wet well; 2) The existing 10-inch force main from Pump Station No. 10 to the
WWTP will b replaced with a 16" forcemain; 3) An aerated grit removal system 4) Activated
sludge type bi logical reactors; 5) Secondary clarifiers; 6) Dual tertiary filters; 7) Dechlorination
facilities 8) Dual sludge return pumps (2,600 gpm each) will be constructed in a pump building
along with a sludge wasting pump (500 gpm). This building will also contain rooms for
electrical equipment and alum and/or ferric chloride feed equipment; 9) installing standby
electrical power; and 10) sludge treatment facilities. Discharge of the effluent will continue out
the current outfall to Calico Creek. The proposed WWTP facilities necessary to comply with the
speculative limits are considered adequate to also meet reuse limits, thereby providing the
advantages associated with reuse quality effluent. Therefore, significant non -discharge
opportunities &or reuse may be developed and expanded in the future. This is the preferred
option of wastewater treatment because it is the most cost-effective solution.
Conservation and waste reduction efforts are ongoing in Morehead City and may be expected to
become more prominent in the future. While the town encourages and promotes conservation
and plans to become more involved in conservation techniques in the future, it is unreasonable to
expect conservation activities to reduce existing flows to the point that the existing WWTP
would have adequate capacity for existing development and future growth. Therefore, the option
of using conservation and waste reduction efforts instead of constructing a new WWTP was
rejected.
Morehead City supports the concept of regionalized wastewater treatment and is willing to
become a member of a future regional system. However, Morehead City has more immediate
needs that must be addressed, and neighboring towns are not currently in a position to participate
in a regional venture with Morehead City. The town of Beaufort's present priorities involve
correcting significant existing problems within its system, and it is not financially capable at this
time of participating in a regional WWTP with Morehead City. Newport is implementing an
expansion of its WWTP from 0.5 MGD to 0.75 MGD in the near term that will address
Newport's needs for at least the next ten years. Newport does not have the additional funds to
participate in al regional system in addition to implementing its current expansion. Atlantic
Beach and Moehead City have held discussions regarding a regional WWTP to serve both
towns and the Fonsensus was that it is not currently possible to pursue a joint project. While
Morehead Cit3Ps needs are immediate and Morehead City has the capability to address these
needs, Atlantic Beach faces serious financial and environmental questions that cast doubt on the
feasibility of constructing a central sewer system. This doubt makes it difficult for Atlantic

Beach to make the financial commitments necessary to construct a regional system. Therefore,
the option of onstructing a regional wastewater treatment facility was rejected.
Morehead City also considered three options for sludge treatment and disposal:
1) continuation of current Class B sludge treatment and disposal practices; 2) Class A sludge
production and disposal via chemical addition; and 3) Class A sludge production and disposal via
heat drying. Option 1 includes: construction of a sludge pump station to transfer clarifier sludge
return flow to proposed digesters; construction of dual aerobic digesters with 60 days detention
to produce Class B sludge; construction of aerobic sludge holding structure (30 days detention);
installation of belt press for sludge dewatering; continued use of existing sludge storage building
for temporary Sludge storage; continued used of contract sludge hauler to land apply dewatered
Class B sludgI; and utilize existing aerobic digesters and sludge drying beds as emergency
back-up facilities. Option 2 would involve the production of Class A sludge via processes
similar to the processes under Option 1, plus the addition of chemicals (lime and sulfamic acid).
Option 2 includes: construction of sludge pump station to transfer clarifier sludge return flow to
proposed dige ters; construction of an aerobic digester with 30 days detention; installation of a
belt press for ewatering; installation of a chemical feed system; continued use of existing sludge
storage buildi g for temporary sludge storage; land application of Class A sludge to public
properties; and utilization of existing digesters and sludge drying beds as emergency back-up
facilities. Option 3 involves the production of Class A sludge via similar processes to Option 2,
but with the addition of dryer equipment following the belt press. Option 3 includes the
following com,onents: construction of a sludge pump station to transfer clarifier sludge return
flow to digesters; construction of an aerobic digester with 30 days detention; installation of a belt
press for dewaering; installation of a sludge drying plant; installation of a chemical feed system;
continued use of existing sludge storage building for temporary sludge storage; land application
of Class A sludge to public properties; and utilization of existing digesters and sludge drying
beds as emergency back up facilities. Option 2, Class A sludge production and disposal via
chemical addition is the most cost-effective option and is therefore recommended for
implementation.
The selected plan for Morehead City involves the construction of a new 2.5 MGD WWTP at the
site of their ex sting WWTP and the production of Class A sludge via chemical addition.
F. Environmental Consequences, Mitigative Measures
There are no s wer line extensions associated with this project. The proposed project
will include a increase in design capacity for the town from 1.7 MGD to 2.5 MGD. The
proposed new astewater treatment plant will be located within the property limits
of the existing plant site. Therefore, no direct change in land use is required. There are
no activities associated with the proposed project that will directly impact wetlands.
The existing WWTP site is located within the floodplain. All WWTP units will be
constructed in accordance with guidelines governing construction within floodplains. A
review of the alternatives has determined the only practicable alternative for the proposed
project involv+ siting the project in a floodplain. Provisions of Executive Order 11988
have been and will be followed during the planning process. Design of the proposed

project will be accomplished so as to minimize harm to or within the floodplain. All
proposed treatment facilities and improvements will be designed to provide continuous
operation durng a 25-year flood and not to sustain damages or be overtopped during a
100-year flood. The project will not disturb prime or unique agricultural lands because
the soils at the existing treatment plant site do not allow this land to be classified as such.
Since the proposed osed facilities are located on existing treatment plant property, there will be
no direct effets�on public lands,scenic and recreational areas. Although gh the treatment
plant site does not represent significant recreational potential, the treatment plant is often
utilized as an educational resource to host tours of local students. No areas of
archaeological or historical value are expected to be directly impacted by the proposed
project because the proposed facilities are located within areas previously disturbed by
construction of the existing treatment plant. Construction activities associated with the
construction ci•f the proposed project will result in some minor noise and air quality
impacts due t? the operation of construction equipment and traffic from delivery of
materials to the treatment plant site. These impacts will be localized and of short
duration. Dir ct impacts from noise during construction will be mitigated by mufflers on
equipment an vehicles. Long-term impacts from noise caused by WWTP operations will be
mitigated by riaintenance of noise control features on WWTP equipment. OSHA
requirements regarding noise are expected to protect workers and citizens from exposure
to excessive noise levels during construction. Covers over the aeration devices in the
proposed oxidation ditches will be provided to minimize noise levels. Very little noise
will be generated by plant operations, and it is unlikely that sounds from plant operations
will be heard more than 250 feet from the plant site. Air quality impacts are anticipated to
be limited to the construction site and are not expected to generate significant off -site
problems. Direct impacts on air quality during construction will be mitigated by
pollution control equipment on vehicles and heavy machinery used for construction and
by dust control measures to prevent excessive dust. Air quality impacts following
construction afire not anticipated to be any different than prior to construction since all
treatment processes will be aerobic and are not anticipated to generate noxious odors.
Long-term direct impacts resulting from odors will be mitigated by the operation controls
employed by the town to prevent odors. During construction, equipment will generate
noise. There will be no long-term impacts on noise or odor production at the treatment
plant site. The existing WWTP site contains approximately five acres of woodlands that
will be cleared in order to accommodate the construction of the proposed project. Since
these five acres were cut -over to remove large pines in 2001, minimal clearing will be
required to clear the site. Given that there are woodlands adjacent to the treatment plant
site and there are significant woodlands that remain in Carteret County, clearance of these
five acres is not anticipated to have a significant impact on forest resources in the area.
Habitat corridors near the plant will remain intact. Because the WWTP is located in an
urban setting and there are woodlands along the edge of the treatment plant site adjacent
to Calico Crek that will not be disturbed by the proposed project, the proposed project is
not anticipated to significantly threaten wildlife or its habitat. The five acres that will be
cleared will also be graded to accommodate construction of the proposed WWTP.
Existing topography at the site varies between 7 to 9 feet above mean sea level and the
final grades following construction are anticipated to remain within the same ranges
between 7 anci 9 feet above mean sea level. The topography will be altered as necessary

to prevent standing water following construction activities with approximately 6,000 to
12,000 cubic yards of material being moved onsite during the construction process.
Erosion and sedimentation control structures and features such as silt fencing, rip -rap
gravel filter check dams, and seeding will be implemented to prevent off -site
sedimentation. Topography off -site will not be altered by the proposed project. Calico
Creek above and below the Morehead City WWTP is identified as being "Prohibited/Restricted"
for shellfishing activities and is considered permanently closed to shellfish harvesting.
The discharge) from the WWTP will remain at the same location. The proposed project will
enable the torn of Morehead City to comply with more restrictive effluent discharge limits.
Since the proposed treatment plant will have the capability to remove phosphorus via chemical
feed equipment and nitrogen removal capability via operational techniques, the levels of nitrogen
and phospho s in the town's effluent will be reduced from current levels. Therefore, the
discharge fro the proposed WWTP is anticipated to have less adverse impacts on fisheries in
the area than a current discharge. The continued development of Morehead City's reuse
facilities in the future will further reduce nutrient loading to Calico Creek, thus improving
surface water quality and the aquatic habitat for fish and shellfish. The proposed project will not
have any significant impacts on groundwater quality. All proposed treatment plant
improvements will have impermeable liners or concrete bottoms which will protect groundwater
from contacting wastewater. Sludge disposal involves land application pursuant to Division of
Water Quality approval, and the permit conditions are expected to ensure that groundwater
resources are rotected. The additional demands placed on the town's water supply due to
growth acco anying the increase in capacity are not expected to be significant since the town's
groundwater pply is believed to be ample and readily available to accommodate short-term and
long-term nee s. Since the proposed project incorporates de -chlorination in its design, it is
believed that the impact from the introduction of toxic substances will be minimized and
significantly reduced from current levels. The higher level of treatment provided by the
proposed WWTP is also expected to significantly improve effluent toxicity. Morehead City has
a land use plan, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations, in addition to State requirements
(erosion control, stormwater, and CAMA), and federal requirements (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers) to guide the future development of the town. Significant future changes in land use
in Morehead City are not expected, and growth is expected to be steady and consistent with the
town's presen character.
The Non -Point Discharge Elimination System Unit of the Division of Water Quality has received
a request by the Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Section of the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Health that they be notified upon any release of raw or
partially treated sewage should such event occur' The North Carolina Division of Water Quality
concurs with t e proposed project. The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management concurs
with the prop sed project. The North Carolina Division of Environmental Health concurs with
the proposed project. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission concurs with the
proposed project. The North Carolina Division of Air Quality concurs with the proposed project.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there are no threatened or endangered species
known to inhabit this previously disturbed site. The North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources is not aware of any properties of architectural, historical, or archaeological
significance that would be affected by the project. The Wilmington Regional Office concurs
with the proje t. Other state agencies did not submit objections to this project.

G. Public Participation, Sources Consulted
A public hea 'ng was held on Thursday, April 22, 2004, on the proposed project. While two
citizens expre sed their concerns on the proposed project, neither of these opinions was in
opposition to a project. The proposed project will require the town of Morehead City to
increase its ra es for sewer service. The current user charge for an existing average residential
water and sewer bill is estimated at $36.03 per month and the average post construction user
charge is expected to be $47.49 per month.
Sources consulted about this project for information or concurrence included:
1) The town of Morehead City
2) North Caroina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
- Wildlife Resources Commission
Divisio of Coastal Management
Divisio of Air Quality
- Divisio -of Environmental Health
Shellfi Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Section
Water uality Section
Wilmington Regional Office
- Legislative and Governmental Affairs
3) North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
4) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
5) North Carolina State Clearinghouse

UNITEL) STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
76°45' 340008m.E
34° 45' I R.
.opt
3846000m.N.
0 �0
G If gF�� Course
CRAB PT.
" • •• • -.1*. t .
•,=;
•
EXIST,NG INFLUENT PUMP. -I �N
��`Sk
STATI¢N NOI IO
EXISTING INFLUENT MVP
TATION NO. 9 ,
3844
zo
0.. J
Ww
al
oc c
21 ', Dolphins
42'30"
•••a
7,'� =.: .�r=.ram . ••
o Light
A 44ANI%Ilit _ � ,r_ �1t� 60. �ST iICA'QL 'Tsc• • n
VILLAGE 0.5 MI
1342
Crab Point
Ir. ..:: 'ham
�aasJ
Calico
Cerra(
343
42'30"
Willis Pt
I �I ' 'till—_JL _!!
11
Park of; �� 'jI _kin) ,I ��,-_ 3�` b�..: ►�_
Eccu-rr,�Il . ';r L�iNr J,-� ertl�; ^tTr�i� lk • ��6v.eti•
ChCL
IIaI
'N7;9ACOASTAG
O � v
Beacon° I
° Beacon
0 Light
1301.
•
�Vailace E• -
1I 11"
Aik and ' _L
SOUND
FIGURE 1
ALTERNATIVE IV
NEW WWTP (RE -USE QUALITY)
SITE LOCATION MAP

SELECTED PAGES FROM THE
TOWN OF MOREHEAD CITY
201 FACILITIES PLAN
PAGES 3 - 23 "CURRENT SITUATION" DESCRIBING EXISTING 1.7 MGD
TRICKLING FILTER WWTP
PAGES 62 - 76
"ALTERNATIVE IV - NEW WWTP AT EXISTING SITE"
DESCRIBING PROPOSED 2.5 MGD TERTIARY WWTP

0
SECTION 2 - CURRENT SITUATION
2.1 BACKGROUND
e Town of Morehead City is the largest town in Carteret County and is the retail trade
cent r for the county. A majority of the retail sales establishments in Carteret County are located
within Morehead City. The Town also serves as a tourist center for the many coastal visitors each
year The tourist industry is a major factor in maintaining economic stability in Morehead City.
Industrial activities in Morehead City include the State Port Facilities, a roofing plant, and
variqus other light industrial activities. A large number of persons are employed in government
service. The State has many agencies with offices in Morehead City and the Cherry Point Marine
Base in Havelock provides many jobs for area residents. Agricultural operations provide
employment but have been declining for several years.
Prior to 1965 the Town of Morehead City did not treat its wastewater. The untreated
wastewater was collected and discharged directly into Calico Creek on the north, or into Bogue
Sound on the south. The storm water collection system also discharged directly into Calico Creek
or into Bogue Sound, but in many instances, the storm water was diverted into the sanitary sewer
system to eliminate the need for parallel sanitary and storm sewer lines. In 1964, the Town
awarded contracts for the construction of a sewage treatment plant, located on the north side of
Calico Creek; for installation of interceptor lines along the sound and along the creek; and for
construction of pump stations to pump all the town's wastewater to the treatment plant. During
construction, all sanitary sewer lines that were discharging directly into the sound or into the
creek were intercepted and their flow diverted to one of the new sewage pump stations. Storm
drains that were discharging into the sanitary collection system were disconnected or diverted to
discharge either into Calico Creek or into Bogue Sound.
Since 1965, increased growth, higher water quality standards, and decreased mechanical
reliability created the need to upgrade the Town's wastewater treatment facility. The Town
initiated work on its first 201 Plan in 1972. Revisions to the Plan were made in later years prior
to final approval. Plans and specifications for upgrading the facility were completed in 1984 and
bids were received in January, 1985. Construction began in the spring of 1985 and was
completed in May, 1986. The addition of parallel units (primary clarifier, trickling filter and
aerobic digester) was completed in a subsequent project in 1989.
The Town's wastewater treatment plant has produced outstanding effluent quality since the
facility was first put in operation. Flow at the plant has steadily increased over recent years and
has now reached the point that the Town must make preparations to expand the facility. The
purpose of this 201 Facilities Plan is to identify and address the Town's current and future
wastewater treatment needs.
2.2 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
The Morehead City wastewater treatment facilities are located on two sites. A limited amount
of treatment is provided at the North 26th Street pumping station site serving "old" Morehead
City by a mechanical bar screen which removes rags, sticks, and other bulky debris and by a grit
pump, cyclone, and bin which remove a portion of the grit in the incoming sewage. These two
processes remove items from the sewage which could clog the station pumps.
11G-PC 1 M8051P 1'L120041MH201 PR2.TXT
MH-C1TY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT
3
040223

At the treatment plant site, the remaining grit is removed in an aerated grit chamber. The
sewage next flows through a splitter box to dual primary clarifiers where suspended solids settle
out and are pumped to dual aerobic digesters. Primary effluent is sent to dual trickling filters for
stabi ization and then to two secondary clarifiers where suspended solids settle out. The secondary
efflu nt is then chlorinated and held in contact chambers to kill any harmful (pathogenic) bacteria
whic may be in the wastewater. The chlorinated effluent is then passed through a post aeration
chain er where oxygen is added prior to discharge to Calico Creek.
The aerobic digesters stabilize sludge which is periodically placed on the drying beds and
allowed to dry. Dried sludge is then removed and stored prior to final land disposal.
The various units which comprise the Morehead City wastewater treatment facility include
the following:
1) Mechanical Bar Screen - Removes rags, sticks, and other bulky debris.
2) Grit Pump, Cyclone, and Bin - Removes a portion of grit to prevent pumps from
clogging and to reduce wear.
3) Influent Pump Stations No. 9 and 10 - Pumps influent sewage to the aerated grit
removal facility at the treatment plant.
4) Influent Flow Metering - Measures and records influent flows.
5) Aerated Grit Removal Facility - Removes remaining grit and preaerates sewage.
6) Dual Primary Clarifiers - Removes suspended solids.
7) Dual Trickling Filters - Biological treatment unit to stabilize primary effluent.
8) Dual Secondary Clarifiers - Remove suspended solids from trickling filter effluent.
9) Dual Chlorine .Contact . Chambers - Hold chlorinated wastewater to provide contact
time for killing harmful bacteria.
10) Post Aeration Chamber - Aerates effluent to maintain a minimum dissolved oxygen
level.
11) Chlorine and Chemical Feed Facility - Stores and feeds chlorine and other chemicals.
1
Effluent Flow Metering - Measures and records effluent flows and provides signal to
pace chlorine feed to maintain constant dosage rate.
13) Primary Sludge Pump Station - Pumps primary clarifier sludge to aerobic digester.
14) Secondary Sludge Pump Station - Pumps secondary clarifier sludge to primary
clarifier.
15) Recirculation Pumping Station - Provides recirculation flow to trickling filters to
maintain filters in continuously wet condition and to provide additional stabilization.
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH2O1 PR2.TXT 4
MH-CI TY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT
040223

16) Aerobic Digesters - Stabilize sludge prior to disposal on drying beds and land
application.
1
1
7) Sludge Drying Beds - Dewaters sludge wasted from digester prior to on -site storage
and final disposal.
8) Emergency Generators - Provide standby electric power generation in the event of loss
of utility company power.
low diagrams of the various unit processes at the main pumping station and at the treatment
plan are included in Figures 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. Effluent from the wastewater treatment
plan is discharged to Calico Creek which bears a Class "SC" classification.
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH201 PR2.TXT
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT
5
040223

16" F
T
•
EMERGENCY
GENERATOR
RCE MAIN
WWTP
TWO 8 FT DIA
STANDBY
MAINTENANCE
WET WELLS
PUMPS
AND
CONTROLS
WET
WELL
11.5' R
(SEMI-
CIRCLE)
X17'
DEPTH
MECHANICAL
BAR SCREEN
MANHOLE
GRIT FLOW
PUMPING STATION NO. 9 (26TH STREET)
TWO EACH 800/2500 GPM VARIABLE SPEED PUMPS
EMERGENCY
GENERATOR
10" FORCE MAIN
TO WWTP
PUMPS
AND
CONTROLS
WET
WELL
10.X
11.5'X
8' I0
PUMPING STATION NO. 10 (WWTP ROAD)
TWO EACH 1000 GPM SELF -PRIMING PUMPS
PROPOSED
MECHANICAL
BAR SCREEN
(CLEAN WATER
PROJECT)
INFLUENT
GRIT FLOW
RETURN
GRIT CYCLONE
AND BIN
INFLUENT
FIGURE 2.1
FLOW DIAGRAM
INFLUENT PUMPING STATIONS 9 AND 10
TOWN OF MOREHEAD CITY
CARTERET COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH201 PR2.T XT 6
MH-CTTY-20I-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

MECHANICAL
BAR SCREEN
a
0
M
r
PS NO. 9
TWO 2500
GPM PUMPS
2500 1000
EXISTING
STANDBY
ELECTRICAL
GENERATOR
GPM
3500
GPM
GPM
GRIT
REMOVAL
14'X14'X12' SWO
2
a
0
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
50 FT DIA
TRI
F
100
KUNG
L TER
FT DIA
3850
GPM
ECONOAR
CLARIFIER
60 FT DIA
swo
1750
GPM
1800
SPLITTER
BOX
GPM
1800
GPM
50
RECIRC.
PUMPING
1750
GPM
1800
PS NO. 10
TWO 1000
GPM PUMPS
GPM
1800
GPM
1750
GPM
CALICO CREEK
SLUDGE
PUMPING
GPM
50
GPM
POST
AERATION
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH201 PR2.TXT 7
MH-C1TY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT
GPM
1750
GPM
PROPOSED
MECHANICAL
BAR SCREEN
CLEAN WATER
PROJECT
EXISTING
STANDBY
ELECTRICAL
GENERATOR
TRICKLING
FILTER
100 FT DIA
T 3850
GPM
ECONDAR
CLARIFIER
60 FT DIA
11' SWO
CALICO CREEK
f
FIGURE 2.2
FLOW DIAGRAM
MOREHEAD CITY WWTP
040223

A description of each unit process, the flow sequence, and the treatment processes employed
is provided in the following paragraphs.
Mec anical Bar Screen
e mechanical bar screen at Pump Station No. 9 (N. 26th Street) was constructed in 1986.
Pum i Station No. 10 is scheduled for the addition of a similar mechanical bar screen in 2002.
e purpose of the bar screen is to remove large solids such as rags, sticks, and trash that
may nterfere with treatment operations. The bar screen consists of inclined steel bars spaced at
equa intervals across a channel through which the wastewater flows. The bars retain large solids
in th flow. At appropriate intervals, accumulated debris is removed by a travelling rake and
depo ited in a container for subsequent disposal.
The bar screen drive assembly travels up and down, driven by a pair of cogwheels engaged
in a pin rack located on each side of the frame of the unit. The cycle begins when the drive
assen
desce
cogw
armt
scree
the s
rake
scree
and
bly is activated to remove the screenings deposited on the bar rack. The drive assembly
nds from its stopped position with the rake arm in an extended position. When the
heels reach the bottom, they rotate around the bottom pin of the pin rack engaging the rake
ines with the bar rack. As the cogwheels walk up the pin rack, the rake arm transports the
Wings upwards towards the discharge position. A hinged wiper assembly aids in discharging
:reenings from the rake shelf by engaging the shelf as it reaches the discharge point. The
shelf swings out over the discharge chute and, as it returns, the wiper discharges the
Wings onto the chute. This ensures that the screenings fall directly onto the discharge chute
got back into the channel.
When not in operation, the drive assembly remains at rest at the top of the unit until it is
restarted. A limit switch mounted to the side frame defines the exact position where the assembly
stops'.
The bar screen can be operated manually or automatically. In the automatic mode, the drive
is activated by a time clock or by a water level differential sensor which detects increasing head
causeid by a clogged screen. The bar screen structure includes a bypass channel and manually
cleaned bar screen to permit isolation of the mechanical screen for maintenance or repair.
Grit Pump. Cyclone. and Bin
A grit pump, cyclone, and bin system is provided at Pumping Station No. 9 (N. 26th Street)
to re ove a portion of the large quantities of grit which are occasionally experienced. Past
expe ience has shown that without grit removal facilities, grit will accumulate in the wet well and
bloc the suction lines to idle pumps preventing them from operating when started. The grit
syste also reduces wear on the sewage pumps by reducing the total amount of grit.
The grit pump is a vortex type pump with a fully recessed impeller specially designed for
pumping grit slurries. The grit pump suction is at the lowest point in the wet wells below the
sewage pump suction lines. The grit pump discharge containing the grit is piped to the grit
cyclone.
The grit cyclone separates grit from lighter weight organics by creating a cyclonic swirl. The
swirl sets up centrifugal forces which force the grit to the apex end of the unit where it is
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH2OI PR2.TXT 8
MH-C1TY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

discharged to the grit bin. Organics are forced to the lower pressure area at the vortex end where
they exit and are returned to the influent flow.
'he grit bin is a storage tank with a slotted screen. Grit slurry is discharged from the
cycl ne into the bin. The liquid portion of the slurry passes through the screen and is returned
to th influent flow. Grit is retained in the bin for subsequent removal and disposal.
'he grit system is operated intermittently by a timer relay in the grit pump motor starter.
The Imer is adjusted for cycle times which prevent grit accumulations in the wet well.
Influ nt Pump Station No. 9 (North 26th Street)
Pump Station No. 9 was constructed in 1964 and upgraded in 1986. The station consists of
a wet well, dry well, control room, and accessory construction.
The dry well and wet well are below ground level and consist of a 25 ft. diameter concrete
cylinier with a center dividing wall. The wet well has a half cone bottom to direct the sewage
to the pump suction lines. The wet well is equipped with a ventilating blower and fresh air duct
to remove harmful gases which have historically caused deterioration of the wet well. The wet
well was rehabilitated by reconstructing the interior walls to the original lines of construction and
by replacing the concrete top slab in 1986. Access hatches are provided in the top slab.
Two 8 ft. diameter precast manholes were constructed in 1986 which can be used to provide
continued pumping in the event the main wet well must be taken out of service for maintenance
or repair.
The dry well contains two sewage pumps and the grit pump. The control room is located
abor ground directly over the dry well and houses electrical equipment, pump controls, and a
seal water pump. The seal water pump provides water to lubricate and cool the grit pump
packing.
e sewage pumps are immersible type pumps with close coupled motors. The pump
impe lers are screw centrifugal type designed to pump raw sewage. The pumps are operated by
a variable drive controller to vary the pump operating speeds to match the pumping rate to the
Influ nt flow rate. Each pump is capable of pumping a design peak flow of 3.4 MGD so that
stat n design capacity is maintained with one of the pumps out of service. The pumps discharge
into common 16 inch force main which terminates at the treatment facility.
ewage Pump No. 1 and the grit pump have suction lines from the main wet well (No. 1)
and om the back-up wet well (No. 2). Sewage Pump No. 2 has suction lines only from the main
wet ell (No. 1). Normal operation is from wet well No. 1 with only one sewage pump operating
at th time. Wet well No. 2 is to be used only when wet well No. 1 is out of service.
The control system is a duplex type for controlling two pumps. The control system senses
liqui5l level in the wet well and starts, stops, and varies the speed of the pumps in response to the
liquid level in the wet well. Liquid levels are sensed by submersible level transducers located in
the 1et wells.
with a rise in liquid level in the wet well to a preset level, the control system causes the
selected pump to start at a preset minimum speed and run at that speed for a preset time and then
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH2O 1 PR2.TXT 9
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

to gradually accelerate to the required speed based on the wet well level. The pump speed varies
there fter between the preset minimum and maximum speed in response to liquid level changes
in th wet well. Should the incoming flow rate drop below the pumping rate at minimum speed,
the control system shuts down the pump when the liquid level has dropped to a preset level. Upon
a ris in wet well level, the above described sequence is repeated.
The control system is equipped with circuitry to protect the sewage pumps from no flow,
seal noisture, or high temperature conditions. Upon the occurrence of pump shutdown due to no -
flow, seal moisture, or high temperature conditions, the control system automatically switches
over to the other pump to provide continuous pumping capability.
Influent Pump Station No. 10 (WWTP Road)
Influent Pump Station No. 10 was constructed in 1985 to receive wastewater from the Calico
Cree
outfall extending west of the wastewater treatment plant.
wo 1,000 gpm self -priming type Gorman -Rupp pumps are provided to pump the wastewater
from the 10' x 12' wet well to the wastewater treatment plant. The two pumps are piped together
in a common manifold to a 10 inch diameter force main approximately 900 feet in length which
terminates at the aerated grit removal structure.
Pump controls provide for automatic alternation. In the event the water level in the wet well
continues to rise after one pump has been activated, the second pump will be activated. A high
wate alarm will be activated in the event the water level in the wet well continues to rise after
the scond pump has been activated. The pump control panel is also equipped with elapsed time
meters for each pump which indicate the actual number of hours each pump has been in
operation.
Aerated Grit Removal Facility
Influent flow to the wastewater treatment facility is discharged at the aerated grit removal
unit here grit is removed. Reasons for removing grit include (1) protecting moving mechanical
equi ment from abrasion and accompanying abnormal wear; (2) reducing accumulation and
clog ing in pipes and sludge hoppers; and (3) prevent accumulations in sludge digesters and the
consequent loss of usable volume. Grit is characterized as (1) nonputrescible, (2) having a settling
velocity substantially greater than that of organic putrescible solids, and (3) generally discrete as
opposed to flocculent in nature. Materials failing into these categories include sand, gravel, silt,
ashes, clinker, egg shells, coffee grounds, bone chips, seeds, cigarette filter tips, and similar
items
e aerated grit removal unit consists of a 9 inch Parshall flume, aerated grit chamber with
grit 1 ft pump, a grit washer, and two air blowers. The Parshall flume is used in conjunction with
influent flow metering equipment.
The aerated grit chamber is a 14 ft. square concrete tank with a 12 ft. sidewater depth and
volume of 2,352 ft3. The tank bottom is sloped on all four sides toward the center to form a
hoPp r. The tank was designed to provide a minimum of five minutes detention time at peak
flow (5.07 MGD). The influent sewage enters the chamber where grit particles tend to settle to
the bottom at rates dependent on size, specific gravity, shape, and the velocity of roll in the
chamber. The rate of air diffusion governs the velocity of roll and thereby the size of particles
\\G-PC11D805\FTL\20041MH2O1PR2.TXT 10
MH-CrrY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

of a given shape and specific gravity that will be removed. The diffused air is used as a method
of velocity control that is flexible and not dependent of sewage flow rates.
eavier grit particles with higher settling velocities drop to the bottom while lighter organics
are s spended by the roll and eventually exit the tank over the effluent weir. Particles that settle
• to th bottom are moved by the spiral flow of the water across the tank bottom into the hopper
wher they are removed by the grit lift pump.
e grit lift pump is an air lift type pump consisting of an eductor pipe with an air injector
near II e bottom. As air is forced into the liquid within the eductor pipe, a mass of air bubbles
per �eates the liquid reducing the average density of the mixture relative to the outside of the
pipe. The density difference causes the mixture in the eductor pipe to rise with a resulting flow
of water. The bottom of the eductor pipe is located near the hopper center and one to two feet
above the hopper bottom. As grit settles to the hopper bottom, the pumping action of the grit lift
pump removes it and conveys a grit/water slurry to the grit washer.
e grit washer consists of an inclined screw conveyor with the lower end submerged in a
smal well. The grit washer separates the grit from the pumped flow and dewaters the grit prior
to di charge into a container for subsequent disposal. Grit slurry is discharged into the well where
grit articles settle to the bottom and organics remain in suspension for discharge over a weir and
return to the aerated chamber. The settled grit is conveyed up the inclined screw and dropped into
the storage container below. The action of the screw in conveying the grit out of the well
provides agitation which will resuspend any organics which might have settled to the bottom of
the veil. The screw operates at slow speed to permit water to run back into the well before the
dewatered grit is charged.
Two positive displacement rotary lobe type blowers are provided to supply air to the aerated
grit chamber and air lift pump. Each blower is capable of providing the total volume of air
required by the system to provide continuous operation in the event one of the blowers is out of
service for maintenance or repair. The blowers are equipped with inlet filters, silencers, pressure
relief valves, check valves, and isolation valves.
A bypass channel is provided on the perimeter of the aerated grit chamber to permit the unit
to be bypassed in the event it must be taken out of service for maintenance or repair. Yard piping
will permit bypassing of the entire unit if necessary.
Dual
Primary Clarifiers
Wastewater flows from the aerated grit removal facility by gravity to dual primary clarifiers
where settleable and floatable solids are removed. Each clarifier is a circular concrete structure
50 ft7 in diameter with a 9 ft. 6 in. side water depth. Each unit is a center feed type with
peripheral takeoff. The surface area of each clarifier is approximately 1963 sq. ft. with a volume
of approximately 140,000 gallons. At the average design flow of 1.7 MGD, the clarifier overflow
rate is 433 gpd/sf, the weir loading rate is 5,400 gpd/ft, and the detention time is 4 hours.
The process employed in the primary clarifiers is a physical unit process called
sedimentation. Sedimentation is the separation of suspended particles heavier than water from
water by gravitational settling. Particles in suspension may be classified as discrete or flocculent.
Discrete particles settle independently of each other without change in size, shape, or weight. A
typical example is settling of sand particles. Flocculent particles tend to cluster during settling
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH2O1 PR2.TXT 11
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

with changes in size, shape, and relative density. The clustered particles tend to settle more
rapidly than the individual particles. Settleable solids comprise that portion of the suspended
material which settles under quiescent conditions in a reasonable time.
Wastewater flows to each tank center through inlet pipes underneath each clarifier and up
into nfluent wells where inlet velocities are dissipated. The flow moves radially from the well
to th peripheral weir and over the weir into the effluent trough. Quiescent conditions in the tank
allo settleable solids to settle to the tank bottom where they are raked to a sludge hopper near
the t nk center by revolving scraper arms attached to a drive unit at the center of the tank.
Coll cted sludge is drawn from the sludge hopper and placed in the aerobic digester for
stabi ization. Floatable material is removed by a skimmer arm driven by the sludge scraper
mec anism and deposited in a scum box. A baffle plate is provided to trap floatable solids and
prey nt their escape over the effluent weirs.
The sludge scraper and scum skimmer mechanisms are driven by a 1 Hp motor and speed
reduction gearing mounted at the tank center at the end of the service walkway. The scraper
mechanism operates continuously to remove sludge as quickly as possible.
Dual Trickling Filter
The primary clarifier effluent flows by gravity to dual trickling filters for biological
treatment. The function of a trickling filter is to remove dissolved organics and finely divided
organic solids from wastewater and to oxidize these materials biologically to form a more stable
mateirial. A trickling filter consists of a bed of media, such as crushed rock, and a mechanism
for distributing the wastewater flow uniformly over the surface of the bed. The wastewater
trickles down through the bed to an underdrain system where it is collected and discharged
throt.gh an outlet channel. A slimy jelly -like film containing microorganisms forms on the surface
of the media soon after the filter is placed in operation. As wastewater trickles through the slime
covered media, fine suspended, colloidal, and dissolved organics in the wastewater collect on the
film where they are assimilated by the microorganisms. Oxygen is supplied by the circulation of
air through the voids in the media and from oxygen dissolved in the wastewater. The slime layer
continues to build-up thickness until diffused oxygen is consumed before it can penetrate the full
depth of the slime layer creating an anaerobic environment near the surface of the media. As the
slime layer continues to thicken, the absorbed organic matter is consumed before it can reach the
surface of the media. Consequently, the microorganisms near the media surface enter into an
endogenous growth phase and lose their ability to cling to the media. The flowing wastewater
then 'washes the slime off the media and a new layer starts to grow. The process of losing the
slime layer is called sloughing and will occur continuously. Sloughing creates biomass particles
in the filter effluent which must be settled out in secondary clarifiers.
The trickling filter process often employs recirculation to help improve efficiency.
Recirculation provides additional flow during low influent flow periods to help operate reaction
type istributors and to maintain the media surface in a continuously wet condition. The increased
flow also maintains the necessary shearing forces to slough excess growths and thereby helps
redu a filter clogging. Also, organic matter that may not have been absorbed on its first pass
thro gh the filter may be captured on the second pass.
The trickling filters at the Morehead City wastewater treatment facility are circular concrete
structures with. internal diameters of 100 ft. each. The media in the original trickling filter
constructed in 1965 is rock with a depth of 4.25 ft. The media in the second trickling filter
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120o41MH2O1 PR2.TXT 12
MH-CRY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

constructed in 1989 is plastic with a typical depth of 4 ft. The distributors are four arm reaction
type units designed to distribute a minimum flow of 1,400 GPM and a maximum flow of 4,000
GPM each.
rimary clarifier effluent and recirculation flows are piped to the center of the filter and up
into e distributor center column. The distributor arms receive the flow from the center column
mech nism. Orifices and spreader plates are spaced along the arms to uniformly distribute the
flow ver the filter surface. The reaction of the flow exiting the arms provides the driving force
to to the distributor. The rotation of the distributor provides uniform intermittent dosing of the
filter
'he water flows down through the media where it is collected by the underdrain system and
discharged to the secondary clarifier splitter box.
Secondary Clarifiers
Trickling filter effluent flows by gravity to the secondary splitter box where the flow is
divided into two parts. From the splitter box, the divided flow goes to two secondary clarifiers
whe4 settleable solids are removed. Both clarifiers are center feed type with peripheral takeoff
in a ircular concrete structure. Clarifier No. 1 was constructed in 1965 and rehabilitated with
a ne sludge collection mechanism installed in 1985. Clarifier No. 2 was constructed in 1985.
Physical and loading parameters for each clarifier are shown below.
SECONDARY CLARIFIER PARAMETERS
Parameter
Clarifier No. 1 Clarifier No. 2
Diameter 60 ft. 60 ft.
Side water depth 7.0 ft. 11.0 ft.
Surface area 2827 sf. 2827 sf.
Perimeter 188.5 ft. 188.5 ft.
Volume 148,000 gal. 232,600 gal.
Design flow 0.85 MGD 0.85 MGD
Overflow rate 300 gpd/sf. 300 gpd/sf.
Weir loading rate 4500 gpd/ft. 4500 gpd/ft.
Detention time 4.18 hours 6.57 hours
The process of sedimentation employed in the secondary clarifiers is a physical process and
has been described above in the description of the primary clarifier. The settleable solids in the
secondary clarifier consist primarily of biological slime sloughed from the trickling filter.
'silastewater flows to the tank center through an inlet pipe suspended from a support beam.
An influent well is provided to dissipate inlet velocity. Flow moves radially from the well to the
peripheral weir and over the weir into the effluent trough. Quiescent conditions in the tank allow
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH201 PR2.TXT 13
MH-C1TY-20i1-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

the settleable solids to settle to the tank bottom where they are raked to a sludge hopper near the
tank enter by revolving scraper arms attached to a drive unit at the center of the tank.
Iudge is withdrawn from the sludge hoppers through sludge drawoff lines. A swinging
elbo and drawoff pipe is provided in Clarifier No. 1 and a telescoping valve is provided in
Clari ler No. 2 to control the sludge drawoff rates. The water level in the clarifiers provides the
head ecessary to draw off the sludge. The rate of drawoff is increased or decreased by lowering
or ra sing, respectively, the drawoff pipe or the telescoping valve. The withdrawn sludge flows
by gravity to the secondary sludge pumping station where it is pumped to the primary clarifiers
for concentration and combination with the primary sludge.
The sludge scraper mechanisms are driven by 1 Hp motors and speed reduction gearing
moulted at the tank centers at the end of the service walkways. The scraper mechanisms operate
continuously to remove sludge as quickly as possible.
The secondary clarifiers are equipped with recirculation launders attached to the outside of
the influent well. Orifices allow water to flow into the launders. The flow is then piped to the
recirculation pumping station. The benefits of recirculation have been discussed previously in the
description of the trickling filter.
The 7 ft. sidewater depth of Clarifier No. 1 is considered to be a "weak link" since it is
subject to "upsets"during peak flow events. Rising sludge during peak flow events has little
distance to travel before reaching the overflow weirs due to the shallow 7 ft. sidewater depth.
Chlorine Contact Chambers
Effluent from the secondary clarifiers flows by gravity to two chlorine contact chambers
operating in series. Disinfection is accomplished to destroy pathogenic microorganisms in the
wastewater prior to discharge to Calico Creek.
Chlorine is the disinfecting agent used at the Morehead City treatment facility. The
effectiveness of chlorine as a disinfecting agent is proportional to its concentration and to the
reaction or contact time. Concentration and reaction time are interdependent. With long reaction
times`, low concentrations might be adequate, whereas short reaction times will require higher
concentrations to accomplish the same kills. The two contact chambers provide the necessary
contact time for the disinfecting agent to work.
The wastewater flows into Chamber No. 1 first. Chamber No. 1 was constructed in 1965
and consists of a circular concrete structure with a 30 ft. inside diameter and a water depth of
4.5 ft Concrete masonry baffle walls at 5 ft. on centers provide a circuitous flow path to prevent
short circuiting. Detention time at average design flow (1.7 MGD) is approximately 20 minutes.
Chlorine solution added at the influent to the chamber is mixed with the influent flow by the
turbulent inlet velocities.
The wastewater flows from Chamber No. 1 to Chamber No. 2. Chamber No. 2 was
constructed in 1985 and consists of a concrete structure with a water surface area of
approximately 1175 sq. ft. and a water depth at design flow (1.7 MGD) of 6.75 ft. Concrete
baffle walls are provided to prevent short circuiting. Detention time at average design flow (1.7
MGD) is approximately 50 minutes. Chlorine solution is added in a small mixing chamber at the
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH201 PR2.TXT 14
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

t
influent where it is mixed with the influent flow by turbulent inlet velocities and by a small 1/2
Hp fl : h mixer. The flash mixer operates continuously to provide effective mixing.
Post eration Chamber
e wastewater flows from contact Chamber No. 2 over a four ft. rectangular weir directly
• into e post aeration chamber. Post aeration is required to maintain a minimum dissolved oxygen
level of 5.0 mg/1 in the plant effluent at all times as required by the Town's NPDES permit.
e post aeration chamber and chlorine contact Chamber No. 2 are adjacent to each other
and s are two common walls. The aeration chamber is a 20 ft. square concrete structure with a
wate depth of 6.0 ft. Detention time at average design flow (1.7 MGD) is approximately 15
minu es.
eration is provided by a dual speed floating aerator. The aerator is rated at 7.5 Hp at 1800
RPM and 3.1 Hp at 1200 RPM. The aerator is basically a propeller pump mounted on a float
which pumps water from the tank and discharges it in a spray pattern above the water surface.
The spray pattern breaks the flow into small droplets of water which absorb oxygen from the
atmosphere. A dual speed unit has been provided to permit power savings during periods which
do ndt require full aeration such as low flows or during winter months.
The aerator is equipped with a fixed mooring system which will permit wide variations in
water level. This feature is necessary to protect the unit from floodwaters backing into the
chamber from Calico Creek.
The treated wastewater flows out of the post aeration chamber and into the plant effluent pipe
for d scharge into Calico Creek.
Chlorine and Chemical Feed Facility
The chlorine and chemical feed facility provides for storage, handling, preparation, and
feedi g of chemicals used in the treatment processes.
The primary chemical used is chlorine which is used as a disinfecting agent. Chlorine is
deliv red to the site in standard one ton cylinders and stored under a covered open sided shelter.
A 3 t n electric hoist and trolley system is used for moving cylinders. Four storage trunnions are
available for storage of inactive or empty cylinders.
The chlorine feed equipment consists of a vacuum operated dual automatic switchover
proportional feed chlorinator system for each contact chamber to ensure continuous chlorination.
Automatic switchover means that vacuum regulators mounted on two chlorine cylinders are
connected to a common manifold with one cylinder feeding chlorine and the other on standby.
When the active cylinder becomes empty, the system will automatically switchover to draw
chlorine from the standby cylinder. The operator may then disconnect the empty cylinder and
corn ct a new cylinder without interrupting the disinfection process. The new cylinder will then
be o standby.
hlorine gas is piped under vacuum to cabinet mounted flow rate control valves and flow
meters. Two units are provided for each contact chamber with one unit for each beingin service
and one on standby. The .flow rate control valves respond to signals from the effluent flow
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH2O1 PR2.TXT 15
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

metering equipment to pace the chlorine feed rate to flow to maintain a constant dosage rate. The
flow meters mounted on each cabinet indicate the chlorine feed rates.
The chlorine gas is piped to wall mounted injectors directly behind the cabinets where the
chlorine is mixed with water. These injectors also provide the necessary vacuum to operate the
entire system. The chlorine solution is then piped to each contact chamber.
The water supply to operate the injectors is provided by two 2 Hp centrifugal pumps located
in the room with the chlorinator cabinets. Each pump has suction lines to both contact chambers
for \Tater supply. The pumps discharge into a common pipe which carries the water through a
strainer to the injectors.
The chlorination room is equipped with a chlorine leak detector which will sound an alarm
if a chlorine leak is detected. An exhaust fan and air inlet louver are available to exhaust
contaminated air. Pressure demand gas masks are also available.
A 6,000 gallon FRP storage tank and chemical feed metering pump are provided to store and
feed a coagulant, such as ferric chloride, to improve secondary clarification. An emergency
shower and eyewash stand are also available for operator safety.
The primary operational problem with the existing contact basins involves accumulations of
solids and difficulties with cleaning the structures. If accumulations are not often removed,
excess solids may be discharged during peak flow events. High effluent chlorine residuals are
currently maintained which may have adverse impacts on Calico Creek.
Primary Sludge Pump Station
Two primary sludge pumps are provided for each digester in the digester buildings to pump
sludge from the primary clarifiers to the aerobic digesters. These pumps are air driven diaphragm
pumps which pump approximately 4.1 gal/stroke and can be operated at up to 40 strokes per
minute for a maximum pumping rate of 164 GPM. With this type pump, the pumping rate can
be riatched to the sludge accumulation rate yielding a more concentrated sludge.
The discharge stroke is accomplished by applying air pressure on top of the pump diaphragm
whici pushes the contents out the discharge line in a pulse pattern. Air pressure is released and
a spliing assembly retracts the diaphragm creating a vacuum for the suction stroke causing the
pump cavity to be filled from the suction line. Ball check valves are used to assure proper flow
diregtion. The average pumping rate is controlled by varying the number of strokes per minute.
appurtenant equipment for these pumps include air solenoid valves, air pressure regulators,
air c mpressors, air storage and piping, air after coolers, air dryers, and control panels. The air
solenoid valves control the flow of air to and from the pumps. Air pressure regulators control
the air pressure applied to the pumps controlling the head capability of the pumps. The solenoid
valves are controlled by a pump control panel which includes on/off switches, stroke rate
adjustments, and stroke counters for each pump.
Air to operate the pumps is provided by two 5 Hp air compressors mounted on a 200 gallon
receiver. These compressors operate on a lead/lag automatic alternation basis to equalize wear.
An after cooler and air dryer are provided to condition the air prior to use.
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH2O 1 PR2.TXT 16
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

Recirculation/Secondary Sludge Pump Station
wo secondary sludge pumps are provided in the recirculation/sludge pumping station to
pum sludge from the secondary clarifiers. These pumps also pump wastewater from the
labor tory, chemical feed building and underflow from the sludge drying beds. Sludge is returned
to th primary clarifiers for concentration and combination with the primary sludge.
e pumps are self -priming centrifugal sewage pumps rated at 350 GPM. The pumps draw
liqui from a wet well located underneath the station and discharge into a common force main.
The pumps are controlled automatically in response to liquid level variations in the wet well
and are automatically alternated on successive cycles. The control system includes circuitry to
protect the pumps from no flow or high temperature conditions.
Three recirculation pumps are provided in the recirculation/sludge pumping station to provide
recirculation flow to the trickling filters. These pumps are mixed flow submerged propeller
pumps with a capacity of 1,800 GPM. The pumps are mounted in a wet well below the floor of
the building with drive motors located above the floor. The pumps discharge into a common force
main.
One pump typically operates continuously to maintain a minimum flow to the trickling
filters
of hi
level,
Dual
. The control system includes circuitry which will shut down these pumps during periods
h influent flow if the operator so selects. When the influent flow drops to a preset lower
the pumps are restarted.
Aerobic Digesters
Sludge from the primary clarifiers is pumped to the aerobic digesters for stabilization.
Digester No. 1 was originally constructed in 1965 as an anaerobic digester with a floating cover.
The cover was removed and a fixed bridge low speed surface aerator installed in 1985 to aerate
and mix the digester contents. Digester No. 2 was constructed in 1989.
The digester tanks are circular concrete structures with 45 ft. inside diameters and 22 ft. side
wall heights. The bottom of each tank is an 8 ft. deep conical shaped hopper. The side water
depth is 18 ft. yielding a total operating volume of approximately 33,000 cu. ft.
Aeration is provided in each digester by a 50 Hp low speed surface aerator mounted on a
bridge spanning the tank. A draft tube below the aerator impeller assures complete mixing of the
tank contents. The rotating impeller causes turbulent surface conditions and a very high pumping
rate up the draft tube. The high pumping rate creates high turnover rates, scouring velocities, and
more complete mixing to maintain solids in suspension. Turbulence causes more surface area at
the air/water interface giving a high rate of oxygen transfer. Air is also entrained in the liquid
due to the high turnover rates allowing additional oxygen diffusion.
Ile aerator typically operates continuously to maintain aerobic conditions and complete
mixin . A swinging elbow is provided to decant supernatant. An overflow pipe and baffle is
provi ed to prevent overfilling the tank. Supernatant is piped to the secondary sludge wet well
and t en pumped to the primary clarifier for further treatment since it is high in BOD and
suspe ded solids.
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH2O 1 PR2.TXT 17
MH-C1TY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

2s more primary sludge is added and the digestion process continues, the solids level in each
digester tank increases and sludge must be wasted. The aerator is stopped and the solids allowed
to se le to provide a highly concentrated sludge. The concentrated sludge is drawn off the hopper
botto through an 8 inch pipe and placed on the sludge drying beds for dewatering. The water
level n the digester tank provides the head necessary to draw off the sludge.
erobic digestion is a biological process involving direct oxidation of organic matter and
endo enous oxidation of microorganism cell tissue. Microorganisms will oxidize organic matter
in the sludge to form cell tissue and to reproduce new cells. As the number of microorganisms
incre ses, the supply of available organics (food) will decrease. The microorganisms will then
begin to consume their own cell protoplasm to obtain energy for cell maintenance in a process
calle endogenous respiration. As the process continues, cell tissue is oxidized to carbon dioxide,
wate , and ammonia. Approximately 75 to 80 percent of the cell tissue can be oxidized this way.
The remainder is composed of inert compounds and non -biodegradable organics.
Aerobic conditions must be consistently maintained in each digester for the process to
proceed properly. Failure to maintain aerobic conditions will cause poor digestion of the sludge
resulting in an odorous sludge with poor drying characteristics.
Excessive amounts of suspended solids are currently returned from the digesters to the
WWTP since the swinging elbows are typically not utilized for decanting supernatant. The fixed
aerators require a constant depth for normal operations. If a "draw and fill" approach is utilized
to remove supernatant, the aerators cannot be returned to operation until the water level returns
to the "normal" level. Normal wasting to the digesters amounts to approximately 8,000 gallons
per dray thereby requiring several days to return to the "normal" water level if supernatant is
removed on a draw and fill basis. The Town has typically operated the digesters by allowing
new flows to the digesters to displace an equal flow back to the WWTP. This "return" discharge
is essentially "mixed liquor", high in suspended solids and BOD. Improved WWTP efficiencies
may pe achieved if the digesters were converted to floating aerators such that a "draw and fill"
method could be implemented for decanting supernatant following a brief period for solids
settling.
Sludge Drying Beds
Digested sludge from the aerobic digesters is periodically placed on sludge drying beds for
dewaiering prior to final disposal. Ten drying beds are available at the Morehead City plant. Each
bed is rectangular with 18 inch high concrete walls and wooden access gates. Each bed is 80 ft.
long by 30 ft. wide for a total drying bed area of 24,000 sq. ft.
The use of drying beds for sludge dewatering is a relatively simple process. Digested sludge
is placed on a bed and allowed to dewater and dry under natural conditions. After the sludge has
dewatered sufficiently, it is removed from the bed and stored on -site in a 5,000 sq. ft. metal
building prior to final disposal via land application. Dewatered sludge is characterized as a damp
solid with a minimum solids content of 15 percent, although this is not a hard and fast rule. The
drying bed process is a fill and draw operation.
ewatering sludge on drying beds involves the processes of drainage and evaporation.
Immediate) after the sludge isplaced on a bed, water will begin to drain into the sand media and
Y g g
down ! into the underdrain collection system. Drainage will continue at decreasing rates until the
pores of the media surface are clogged and drainage ceases. The drainage process usually takes
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH201 PR2.TXT 18
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

3 to 5 days to complete. Drying then proceeds by evaporation. As the sludge continues to dry
by evaporation, it will eventually crack exposing more area which aids in drying. The evaporation
proc ss typically requires several weeks to complete. After sufficient drying the sludge is
considered dewatered and may be removed for disposal.
coves
proce
relati
had ti
the s
unac
effici
Flow
'he drying bed process is greatly affected by local weather conditions. Precipitation, cloud
, temperatures, relative humidity, and winds are significant factors which affect the drying
ss. Generally, high temperatures and high wind velocity improve drying, whereas, high
✓e humidity and precipitation retards drying. During 2003, a very wet year, Morehead City
utilize a subcontractor to dewater its digesters via a portable belt press in order to reduce
ilids concentration in the digesters. The lack of drying bed space during 2003 resulted in
eptably high solids concentrations in the WWTP which would have significantly impacted
ncies if the subcontractor had not been utilized.
Metering and Recording
Flow metering and recording is provided to monitor plant operations and to comply with the
Town's NPDES permit. Separate systems have been provided to monitor influent and effluent
flows.
The influent system consists of a 9 inch Parshall flume and flow transmitter located at the
aeratd grit removal facility, a chart recorder in the laboratory building, and a signal loop to the
recirculation pump control panel. The Parshall flume has a known head/discharge relationship
allowing determination of flow rate by measuring the depth of flow at the control point. The flow
transmitter measures this depth with an ultrasonic transponder, computes and displays the flow
rate, and totalizes the flow on a digital totalizer. The transmitter also sends flow signals to the
chart recorder and to the recirculation pump control panel. The chart recorder displays the flow
rate and records it on a 12 inch circular. chart. The recorder also includes a digital flow totalizer.
The recirculation pump control panel monitors the flow signal and controls the recirculation
pumps as discussed previously.
The effluent system consists of a 4 ft. rectangular weir and flow transmitter located at
chlorine contact Chamber No. 2 and a flow rate indicator located in the chlorination room. The
weir has a known head/discharge relationship allowing determination of flow rate by measuring
the depth of flow at the control point. The flow transmitter measures this depth with an ultrasonic
transponder, computes and displays the flow rate, and totalizes the flow on a digital totalizer. The
transmitter also sends a flow signal to the flow rate indicator. The flow rate indicator displays
the flow rate and repeats the signal to pace the chlorination system to maintain the proper dosage
of chlorine. The indicator also includes a test signal generator to permit operator simulation of
varying flow rates for checking chlorinator operation. By simultaneously reading the effluent flow
rate and chlorine feed rates shown on the chlorinators, the operator can calculate dosage and
make necessary adjustments.
Emergency Generators
mergency generators are provided at Pumping Stations 9 and 10 and at the treatment
facility to prevent the discharge of untreated sewage in the event of loss of utility company
electric power.
11G-PC I ID8O51FTL120041MH2O 1 PR2.TXT
MH-CI TY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT
19
040223

Generators rated at 75 KW each are provided at Pumping Stations 9 and 10 to operate the
pump control systems and one sewage pump at each station. The bar screen, grit system, station
lights, and other equipment at Pump Station No. 9 are not supplied with standby power.
75 KW generator at the plant is provided to maintain the chlorination and certain other
oper for selected functions. The operator can select to operate any one of the following
combinations of equipment:
) Chlorination facility, clarifier drives, one primary sludge pump compressor, and one
secondary sludge pump.
2)
Chlorination facility and one recirculation pump.
Equipment not supplied with standby power will not be operable during power outages.
2.3 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA
Effluent quality achieved by the existing plant may be described as outstanding for a trickling
filter type plant. Effluent BODS concentrations typically average less than 15 mg/l. Ammonia
concentrations average less than 3 mg/I. Effluent data for the period 1997 through 2002 is
presented in Table 2.1.
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH201 PR2 .TXT 20
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

TABLE 2.1
1997-2002 EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
MOREHEAD CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Date
Flow
BOD
NH3
N
P
TSS
Permit Limits
1.70
20
NL
NL
NL
30
1997
January
1.315
7.8
.90
3.2
2.1
15.2
February
1.276
8.6
.89
1.8
2.0
15.65
March
1.309
8.1
.99
1.5
1.9
14.93
April
1.155
7.5
.71
2.2
2.2
15.52
May
1.147
9.0
5.37
35.0
3.4
16.47
June
1.156
10.0
1.20
23.4
7.5
15.73
July
1.134
8.2
1.21
14.7
3.8
12.77
August
1.172
7.8
1.50
16.2
3.6
14.9
September
1.355
7.2
1.33
15.7
3.2
13.95
October
1.270
9.3
1.35
8.9
3.0
17.11
November
1.256 -
10.9
1.80
19.4
1.9
17.89
December
1.540
9.1
1.60
13.2
2.0
15.3
1997 Average
1.258
8.6
1.57
12.9
3.1
15.45
Highest 3-Month Average
1.403
10.1
2.92
25.9
5.0
17.16
Lowest 3-Month Average
1.146
7.5
.83
1.8
1.9
13.87
1998
January
1.852
13.7
1.67
10.7
3.5
22.27
February
2.525
16.0
2.10
12.3
1.6
27.57
March
1.690
14.3
1.82
10.9
2.4
22.76.
April
1.468
13.6
1.70
26.0
2.6
20.31
May
1.697
12.2
1.70
19.8
2.4
23.90
June
1.268
11.5
2.82
15.3
2.3
20.18
July
1.259
8.7
1.62
16.6
3.4
14.97
August
1.572
8.3
1.55
15.1
3.2
15.95
September
1.952
7.2
1.30
9.8
1.1
14.67
October
1.256
7.4
1.35
15.6
2.8
11.71
November
1.088
7.3
1.30
15.2
3.0
14.33
December
-
1.181
7.5
.92
17.1
3.5
15.76
1998 Average
1.567
10.6
1.65
15.4
2.65
18.70
Highest 3-Month Average
2.110
14.7
2.25
21.0
3.5
24.74
Lowest 3-Month Average
1.175
7.3
1.17
10.5
1.7
13.57
\\G-PC11D805\FTL\2004\MH2O1 PR2.TXT
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT
21
040223

TABLE 2.1 (CONTINUED)
1997-2002 EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
MOREHEAD CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Date
Flow
BOD
NH,
N
P
TSS
Permit Limits
1.70
20
NL
NL
NL
30
1999
January
1
1.321
8.9
1.50
14.5
2.6
19.1
February
1.280
11.0
1.65
19.6
3.1
22.2
March
1.138
10.4
1.7
11.0
3.5
22.3
April
1.108
11.6
1.6
20.7
3.2
19.50
May
1.270
12.7
1.8
17.7
2.9
23.7
June
1.225
10.8
1.2
15.4
3.5
15.79
July
1.216
10.9
1.1
.16
3.6
14.40
August
1.312
11.77
1.5
17.55
3.2
18.20
September
2.315
13.8
3.0
9.28
1.6
20.40
October
1.598
13.0
1.8
10.8
2.0
20.80
November
1.243
16.4
1.28
12.2
2.2
25.6
December
1.173
18.45
1.92
6.3
3.2
22.25
1999 Average
1.350
12.48
1.67
12.9
2.9
20.35
Highest 3-Month Average
1.745
16.22
2.24
19.3
3.5
23.87
Lowest 3-Month Average
1.140
10.03
1.19
5.2
1.9
16.13
2000
January
1.240
19.43
2.42
13.5
3.0
30.3
February
1.222
15.0
1.9
5.58
2.8
17.0
March
1.172
15.3
.87
4.25
3.05
20.32
April
1.356
15.37
1.52
15.0
3.5
21.15
May
1.399
16.4
1.64
8.5
2.8
21.1
June
1.623
14.4
1.50
14.1
.
2.0
23.45
July
1.780
13.74
1.97
4.5
3.1
16.57
August
1.907
12.6
2.20
4.7
2.6
14.70
September
2.281
13.6
2.85
7.7
1.8
15.73
October
1.390
14.5
1.30
8.70
.15
16.90
November
1.260
14.3
.72
3.37
3.30
19.80
December
1.372
17.7
.75
6.10
.43
23.10
2000 Average
1.500
15.20
1.64
8.0
2.4
20.01
Highest 3-Month Average
1.989
17.84
2.49
14.2
3.3
25.62
Lowest 3-Month Average
1.211
13.31
.78
4.0
.8
15.67
11G-PC 11D8051FTL\20041MH201 PR2.TXT
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT
22
040223

TABLE 2.1 (CONTINUED)
1997-2002 EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
MOREHEAD CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Date
Flow
BOD
NH3
N
P
TSS
Permit Limits
1.70
20
NL
NL
NL
30
2001
January
1.176
14.5
1.4
4.4
2.9
19.4
February
1.014
12.5
1.06
2.1
3.4
14.5
March
1.239
12.7
1.5
7.7
2.5
17.6
April
1.089
13.2
0.73
2.2
3.6
18.6
May
1.070
14.3
1.35
5.6 _
3.0
17.8
June
1.218
13.5
1.45
5.3
0.81
15.6
July
1.066
12.0
1.78
5.25
1.95
14.6
August
1.325
12.1
1.5
4.4
1.55
12.6
September
1.215
10.1
1.42
4.97
1.1
17.6
October
1.036
11.2
1.48
1.29
0.32
13.1
November
0.923
13.9
1.3
10.09
2.3
13.2
• December
0.958
15.1
1.31
11.55
1.7
14.3
2001 Average
1.111
12.9
1.4
5.4
2.1
15.7
Highest 3-Month Average
1.261
14.6
1.6
9.8
3.3
18.6
Lowest 3-Month Average
0.965
11.1
1.0
1.9
0.7
13.0
2002
January
1.017
14.3
2.21
14.02
1.56
15.3
February
1.039
16.9
2.19
15.33
1.3
20.7
March
1.255
18.9
1.39
14.86
2.28
19.9
April
1.091
17.7
1.52
13.54
0.05
16.5
May
1.165
15.7
1.28
1.71
2.23
14.2
June
1.237
12.2
0.99
4.66
2.58
12.5
July
1.383
10.6
1.68
2.5
<0.01
11.2
August
1.539
10.8
1.93
2.5
0.61
13.5
September
1.708
11.3
1.26
3.I
2.1
10.6
October
1.380
16.7
1.4
3.21
1.84
12.6
November
1.377
17.6
1.40
3.51
0.97
16.2
December
1.204
17.24
1.18
8.13
0.03
17.02
2002 Average
1.283
15.0
1.5
7.3
1.3
15.0
Highest 3-Month Average
1.543
18.1
2.1
14.7
2.4
19.2
Lowest 3-Month Average
1.049
10.9
1.1
2.2
0.03
11.4
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH201 PR2.TXT
MH-C1TY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT
23
040223

4.6 ALTERNATIVE IV - NEW WWTP (RE -USE QUALITY) AT EXISTING SITE
Alternative IV involves the construction of a new 2.50 MGD oxidation ditch type treatment
facility at the existing Morehead City wastewater treatment plant site. The existing wastewater
treat ent plant will continue in service until the completion of the proposed wastewater treatment
plant The existing sludge handling facilities will remain for back-up use while the existing
chlor ne contact/post aeration structure, existing office building, and laboratory will continue in
use. new standby generator will be provided to supply power during periods of power outages.
roposed facilities and modifications will be designed in accordance with NCAC 2H.0219 -
Mini num Design Requirements and NCAC 2H.0124 - Reliability Requirements. Proposed
facilities to be constructed are described as follows:
Influ nt Pum Stations - Influent Pump Station No. 9 (North 26th Street) will continue in use
with no changes. The 2,500 gpm pumps at Pump Station No. 9 have proven to be capable of
pum ing the system peaks in the past and should continue to do so in the future, particularly in
view of the collection system rehabilitation improvements constructed in 2003 to reduce I/1. Pump
Station No. 9 serves the old portion of Morehead City with little future growth potential.
Pump Station No. 10 (WWTP Road) consists of two 6" self -priming pumps rated at 1,000
gpm. These pumps are limited to upsizing due to the six inch suction piping, building dimensions
and small wet well (10' x 12' x 1.5' effective depth - 1,350 gallons). The future growth to the
west and north of Morehead City will enter the WWTP via Pump Station No. 10. It is proposed
to replace Pump Station No. 10 with new 1,850 gpm variable speed pumps constructed along
with a new larger wet well with approximately 10,000 gallons of operating depth. The mechanical
bar screen constructed by the Town's Clean Water Grant -Loan project in 2003 will continue in
use. Standby power will be provided for the new pump station. The existing 10" force main from
Pump Station No. 10 to the WWTP will be replaced with a 16" force main.
Aerated Grit Removal - An 18 ft. x 18 ft. aerated grit structure is proposed for grit removal
based on the peak average daily flow rate of 6.25 MGD and a peak hourly flow rate of 7.5
MGI,. A minimum liquid sidewater depth of 14 feet will be provided. Diffused aeration will be
utilized to control water velocities within the structure such that organic solids will pass through
to th? plant while heavier grit particles will settle to the structure's hopper bottom. Grit from
the hopper bottom will be pumped to a grit waster including an inclined screw which will convey
the grit to a waste receptacle for land disposal. Mechanical screening for coarse solids removal
will be included prior to the aerated grit chamber at the two influent pumping stations.
Qxidation Ditches - The proposed oxidation ditch design incorporates a combination of anaerobic,
anox c and aerobic zones within the WWTP to accomplish total nitrogen removal. This concept
typic 11y utilizes a first stage anaerobic reactor, a second stage anoxic reactor and a third stage
aero is reactor. In this case it is proposed to construct two oxidation ditches preceded by
anaeobic/anoxic chambers all with common sidewalls. Total detention time in the oxidation
ditch structures will be 30 hours (3,125,000 gallons). An influent splitter box with adjustable
weirs will allow the two ditches to operate in parallel or in series. Nitrogen removal concepts
may be achieved in operating the ditches either in parallel or in series.
In the series operational mode, influent wastewater will be mixed with the return sludge from
the sjcondary clarifiers in the anaerobic reactor at the head of the WWTP. The anaerobic reactor
will have a volume of approximately 210,000 gallons and an operating depth of 15 feet. Flow
\\G-PC 1\D805\FTL\2004\MH2O 1 PR2.TXT 62
MH-CrrY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

will pass from the anaerobic reactor into an anoxic reactor and then into the oxidation ditches.
Two noxic reactors will be provided (one on each side of the anaerobic reactor) each holding
appr ximately 210,000 gallons with 15 ft. liquid depths. The oxidation ditches will contain a total
of 3, 25,000 gallons (30 hours detention). A total of eight cage rotors will be located within the
oxida ion ditches. Mixers will be provided within the anaerobic and anoxic reactors. Mixed liquor
recyc e pumps (4) will be provided in the oxidation ditches with the capacity to pump up to 400%
of d ign flow. The purpose of the mixed liquor recycle pumps is to enhance the nitrogen
remo al process. The oxidation ditch rotors will have dual speed capabilities in order to maximize
flexi ilities to achieve electrical savings yet provide the capability of operating within different
sche es.
In parallel operation influent wastewater will enter the anaerobic reactor along with return
sludge from the secondary clarifiers. The incoming flows will be equally divided to the two
anoxic reactors. Flow from each anoxic reactor will be directed to the parallel oxidation ditches.
One hundred percent of the total flow may be directed through either parallel train in the event
of an emergency.
Thirty hours detention time within the oxidation ditches is recommended in order to achieve
compliance with proposed effluent BOD limits of 5 mg/l and ammonia limits of 1 mg/l. Thirty
hours detention time provides "buffering" of expected flow and organic load variations and
enhances the WWTP's capability to comply with effluent limitations.
The two oxidation ditches will have an organic loading of approximately 15 lbs BOD5 per
1,000 cubic feet based on an influent BOD5 of 250 mg/1 and a total ditch volume of 417,781
cubic feet. This loading is equal to the 15 lbs BOD5 per 1,000 cubic feet maximum
reco ended in Ten States Standards. An operating depth of 14 feet within vertical sidewalls
is rec mmended.
The Town of Snow Hill completed construction of a new 0.5 MGD WWTP in December,
2001 designed by McDavid Associates along the same concepts as proposed to be utilized for the
Morehead City WWTP. Effluent data from the Snow Hill WWTP for the period January, 2002
through October, 2003 is presented in Table 4.2.
e proposed design to accomplish biological nitrogen removal (BNR) was selected versus
other BNR systems since the BNR capability is easily realized by slight modifications to the
tradit onal oxidation ditch design. The 30 hour detention oxidation ditch design is dictated by the
very stringent effluent BOD and ammonia limits of 5 mg/I and 1 mg/I, respectively. The addition
of small anoxic reactors preceding the oxidation ditches in combination with the operational
flexibility provided by the aeration equipment in the oxidation ditches creates the 'capability to
easily remove nitrogen by biological processes. These slight variations in traditional oxidation
ditch esign concepts are favored over other methods of BNR such as methanol addition and deep
bed r actors which employ very different operating techniques.
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH2O 1 PR2.TXT 63
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

TABLE 4.2
EFFLUENT DATA
TOWN OF SNOW HILL 0.5 MGD WWTP
JANUARY, 2002 THROUGH OCTOBER, 2003
Period
Flow
(MGD)
BOD
(mg/1)
Ammonia
(mg/1)
Total
Nitrogen
(mg/1)
Phosphorous
(mg/1)
TSS
(mg/1)
2002
Janilary
0.186
2.00
0.37
9.51
0.42
1.4
February
0.182
2.70
0.10
2.97
0.12
1.0
Mach
0.216
3.70
0.04
1.83
0.09
1.1
Aptli1
0.227
2.70
. 0.04
.1.76
0.31
1.0
May
0.195
4.50
0.04
1.81
1.49
1.6
Jun
0.181
2.90
0.04
1.87
2.50
1.4
Jul)
0.162
3.60
0.04
0.83
0.48
1.4
August
0.161
3.10
0.06
1.02
0.85
1.9
September
0.156
3.50
0.04
1.11
0.42
1.4
Octbber
0.192
2.64
0.07
0.66
0.27
3.8
November
0.176
3.55
0.13
1.93
1.23
3.5
December
' 0.180
2.36
0.07
2.16
0.35
1.2
2003
Jan4iary
0.168
2.52
0.41
3.50
0.29
5.3
February
0.171
4.85
0.07
2.68
0.71
1.4
March
0.199
3.55
0.11
1.04
1.12
2.4
April
0.200
4.96
0.04
1.55
1.28
2.3
May
0.206
3.23
0.06
1.24
2.40
1.5
June
0.198
3.75
0.09
0.98
0.30
2.1
July
0.221
4.40
0.06
1.13
0.68
3.2
August
0.235
4.83
0.24
1.35
1.11
4.8
September
0.206
3.06
0.09
1.53
0.98
2.1
October
0.190
3.08
0.09
2.26
1.17
1.3
22-Mont Average
0.192
3.43
0.10
2.03
0.84
2.1
11G-PC 11D80S1FI'L120041MH201 PR2.TXT
MH-C1TY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT
64
040223

Secondary Clarifiers - Dual secondary clarifiers with low overflow rates and 14 foot sidewater
depths are proposed in order to achieve compliance with the proposed stringent effluent limits.
An overflow rate of approximately 325 gal/ft2 is achieved at average daily flow (ADF) with dual
70 foot diameter clarifiers. The peak solids loading rate of 33 lbs/ft2 is less than the maximum
solid loading of 35 lbs/day-ft2 recommended by Ten States Standards. The peak overflow rate
is 1, 00 gal/ft2 based on a peaking factor of 2.5 coupled with a 150% return sludge flow rate.
Tertihry Filters - Dual 600 sq. ft. "travelling bridge" type shallow filters are proposed for fine
solid removal. The proposed loading rate is 1.45 gpm/ft2 based on the design flow of 2.5 MGD
(1,7 6 gpm).
ravelling bridge filters are typically shallow bed filters consisting of numerous small cells
that n ay be isolated from the remainder of the filter for backwashing via a "travelling bridge."
Back ash is typically triggered by relatively small levels of head loss (2 to 6 inches) as compared
to co ventional deep bed filters. By trapping solids only within the upper 2-3 inches of the 12"-
24" + /- shallow filter and initiating backwash cycles on small head losses, backwash can be
effecive at a 2-3 gpm/ft2 rate for 30 seconds as compared to a deep bed filter backwash rate of
15 m/ft2 for 10-15 minutes. Operating head through this type filter from influent to effluent
is t ically one foot as compared with several feet for a deep bed filter. The need for a large
clear well and mudwell is also eliminated since backwash cycles use only small quantities of
water. Backwash pumps for travelling bridge type filters are typically 3 HP versus 25-100 HP
pumps often required for deep bed filters.
Chlorination/Dechlorination/Post Aeration Structure - Effluent chlorination, dechlorination and
post aeration will be accomplished in the two existing chlorine contact structures. Effluent
chlorination and dechlorination will be proportional to flow. Detention time in the two
chlor nation structures will be approximately 48 minutes. at ADF and 19 minutes at peak flow.
Dete tion time in the first chlorine contact structure (23,781 gallons) is 13.7 minutes at ADF (5.5
minu es at 6.25 MGD Peak Flow). Detention time in the second chlorine contact structure
(59,326 gallons) is 34.2 minutes at ADF (13.7 minutes at PF). Post aeration will be accomplished
folio ing chlorination via a 10 horsepower mechanical aerator. A second "standby" 10 HP unit
will e maintained on -site. The existing post aeration structure is a single structure and therefore
must be cleaned without removing the structure from service. The second 10 HP unit to be
main ained on -site is proposed in order to comply with the requirement for dual units. Detention
time n the post aeration zone is approximately 10 minutes at ADF and 4 minutes at peak flow.
The xisting structures are operated in series but either structure may be isolated for cleaning.
Efflu nt flow measuring and totalizing equipment is located in the chlorination/dechlorination
struc re. Effluent sampling is accomplished by a composite sampler located at the post aeration
structure. Dechlorination will be accomplished via sulfur dioxide injection at the effluent weir
leaving the post aeration structure.
Pump/Chemical Feed Building - Dual sludge return pumps (2,600 gpm each) will be constructed
in a pump building along with a sludge wasting pump (500 gpm). The building will also include
rooms for electrical equipment and alum and/or ferric chloride feed equipment. A fiberglass
chemical storage tank will be located outside the building for storage of alum or other chemicals
which may be used to lower phosphorus concentrations to meet Permit requirements.
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH201 PR2.TXT 65
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT
040223

Water: Re -use - The Town took its first step toward water re -use by its commitment to construct
a "sod farm" approximately five acres in size adjacent to Pump Station No. 9 west of 25th Street.
The proposed re -use improvements are anticipated to be completed in May, 2004 along with
collection system renovations financed by a $1,000,000loan and $2,000,000 Clean Water grant.
Reuse improvements include dual submersible pumps, a 30,000 gpd extended aeration tertiary
type p ckage plant, 25,000 gallon effluent storage tank, UV disinfection, 115 gpm vertical turbine
irriga ion pump, and 4.9 acre sod irrigation system. Irrigation will be accomplished consistent
with s d needs and will not exceed 2,661,000 gal/yr (7,300 gpd on an annualized basis) due to
Perm limitations based on site characteristics. The submersible pumps are located in an alternate
wetw 11 at Pump Station 9 and will intercept flow immediately prior to entering Pump Station 9.
It is anticipated the package plant will operate throughout the year. The overflow from the 25,000
gallon storage tank will be pumped from Pump Station 9 to the main WWTP during periods the
irrigat on system is not in operation. Since the volume of treated wastewater used for sod
irrigation will be based on sod needs and will not exceed 7,300 gpd on an annual basis, it is not
significant as compared to the Town's proposed 2.5 MGD WWTP. All water disposed of via
irrigation does, however, represent that much less water to be treated by the 2.5 MGD facility.
Standby Power - A standby power generator is proposed to be added such that essential plant
units may provide continuous service during power outages. The generator will be located
adjacent to the existing electrical service (lab building) and will include an automatic transfer
switch.
Sludg Treatment/Disposal - Federal 503 regulations dictate sludge processing and disposal
requirements. Several options of sludge processing/disposal are provided in the 503 regulations;
however, the only viable option for disposal for Morehead City is land application. Prior to land
application the sludge must meet minimum treatment standards specified in the 503 regulations.
P 9 llutant limits for the land application of sludge are identified in Tables 1-4 of 503.13 as
follow:
TABLE 1 OF 503.13.
CEILING CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
Ceiling concentration
(milligrams per kilogram)'
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
1'Iolybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
75
85
4300
840
57
75
420
100
7500
1 Dry weight basis.
11G-PC 11D80517L120041MH201 PR2.TXT
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT
66
040223

TABLE 2 OF 503.13.
CUMULATIVE POLLUTANT LOADING RATES
Pollutant
Cumulative pollutant loading
rate (kilograms per hectare)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
41
39
1500
300
17
420
100
2800
TABLE 3 OF 503.13.
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
Monthly average
concentration (milligrams
per kilogram)1
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead. -
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
41
39
1500
300
17
420
100
2800
Dry weight basis.
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH2O1 PR2.TXT
MH-C ITY-201-PLAN-R02 .TXT
67
040223

TABLE 4 OF 503.13.
ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADING RATES
Pollutant
Annual pollutant loading rate
(kilograms per hectare per
365 day period)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
ercury
Nickel
Selenium
�Linc
2.0
1.9
75
15
0.85
21
5.0
140
Sludge sold or given away in a bag or container cannot exceed the ceiling concentrations
illustrated in Table 1. Sludge land applied must either not exceed the cumulative loadings in
Table 2 or must be less than the limits in Table 3 (high quality sludge). Sludge applied to a lawn
or home garden must comply with the limits in Table 3. If sludge is sold or given away in a bag
or container either the concentrations must be less than Table 3 or the annual loading must be less
than indicated in Table 4. The concentrations of the above pollutants in Morehead City's sludge
have t pically been well below the limits listed above. The above limits have not significantly
affect d the design and operation of the Town's sludge processing/disposal program.
In addition to meeting the above pollutant limits, sludge must be treated for the "reduction
of pat�logens" and the "reduction of vector attraction". The "reduction of pathogens" may be
achieveed by meeting either "Class A" or "Class B" requirements. Class B standards must be
achieved at a minimum. Class A standards must be achieved if sludge is to be applied to lawns
and/or gardens or sold or given away in bags or containers.
C{ ass B standards may be achieved in a number of ways. The most desirable method of
meetinggClass B standards in Morehead Citywould be via aerobic digestion designed for a
g g
minimum of 40 days detention at 20°C or 60 days at 15°C. Site restrictions for the disposal of
Class B sludge are identified in 503.32(b)(5) and are summarized as follows:
1.
3.
Food crops above the land surface shall not be harvested for 14 months following
sludge application.
Food crops below land surface shall not be harvested for 20 months following sludge
application where the sludge remains on the land surface four months or longer.
Food crops below land surface shall not be harvested for 38 months following sludge
application where the sludge remains on the land surface for less than four months.
11G-PC11D8051FTL120041MH2O1 PR2.TXT 68
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

Food crops, feed crops and fiber crops shall not be harvested for 30 days following
sludge application.
5. Animals shall not be allowed to graze on the land for 30 days following sludge
application.
6
7
Turf shall not be harvested for one year following application of sludge when the turf
is to be placed on either land with a high potential for public exposure or a lawn.
Public access to land with a high potential for public exposure shall be restricted for one
year after application of sewage sludge.
Public access to land with a low potential for public exposure shall be restricted for 30
days after application of sewage sludge.
Class A standards for pathogen reduction may be achieved by any one of various methods
including composting, heat treatment, irradiation, heat drying, thermophilic aerobic digestion,
pasteurization, and other equivalent methods. The most promising alternatives to meet Class A
requirements in Morehead City appear to be heat drying or pasteurization via chemical addition.
Vector attraction reduction must be achieved for Class A and/or Class B sludges. Vector
attrac 'on reduction requirements are identified in 503.33 and in general are described as follows:
1. Volatile solids shall be reduced by a minimum of 38%.
2
3
4
If volatile solids reduction is less than 38% for anaerobically digested sludge, the
digested sludge can be further anaerobically digested in a lab for 40 days with the
determination that volatile solids are not further reduced by more than 17 % .
If volatile solids reduction is less than 38% for aerobically digested sludge, vector
attraction reduction can be demonstrated by further aerobically digesting a portion of
the previously digested sludge with less than 2% solids in the lab for 30 days at 20°C
and determining that volatile solids are not further reduced by more than 15%.
The specific oxygen uptake rate (SOUR) for aerobically digested sludge is demonstrated
to be equal to or less than 1.5 mg per hour per gram of total solids at 20°C.
5. Aerobic digestion for 14 days or longer at a temperature more than 40°C and the
average sludge temperature greater than 45°C.
6.
7.
8.
The pH of the sludge raised to 12 or higher via alkali addition and remaining more than
12 for 2 hours and more than 11.5 for an additional 22 hours.
The percent solids of sludge not containing unstabilized solids generated in a primary
wastewater process shall be equal to or greater than 75% based on the moisture content
and total solids prior to mixing with other materials.
The percent solids of sludge that contains unstabilized solids in a primary wastewater
process shall be equal to or greater than 90% based on the moisture content. and total
solids prior to mixing with other materials.
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH2O 1 PR2 .TXT
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT
69
040223

v
9. Sludge is injected beneath the surface of the land.
1
0. Sludge placed on the surface of the land is incorporated into the soils within 6 hours.
1. Sludge placed on an active sludge unit shall be covered with soil at the end of the
operating day.
The method of vector attraction reduction must be one of items 1 through 8 above if the sludge
is to be applied to a lawn or home garden, sold or given away in a bag or container.
Sludge determined to comply with the Pollutant Concentrations (Table 3 of 503.13), Class
A "pathogen reduction requirements" and one of the first eight "vector attraction reduction"
requirements listed in 503.33 is typically exempt from the State's general permit requirements
otherwise applicable to land disposal of sludge.
Morehead City's existing sludge treatment and disposal program involves the aerobic
digestion of excess sludge in two parallel aerobic digesters, dewatering the digested sludge in on -
site sand drying beds, storage of the dewatered sludge in an on -site building and final land
application of the dewatered sludge on land within Carteret County via a contract sludge hauler
(Synagrow).. The digesters have a total capacity of 497,734 gallons (two each 45' diameter, 18
feet straight site water depth, and 8 ft. cone bottom). A total of 32.9 days detention time is
provided by the existing digesters based on a sludge production rate of .15 lb/person-day, a
design population equivalent of 16,830, and a sludge concentration of 2 % . Ten existing drying
beds each 80' x 30' are used to dewater sludge from the digesters. Approximately 1,400,000
gallo of sludge was wasted annually during the 7 year period 1994 - 2000. Dewatered sludge
remo ed from the drying beds is temporarily stored in a 5,000 ft.2 storage building. Stored
sludg is land applied once or twice each year at the time the land application site is changing
crops. A copy of the Town's sludge handling Permit is included in Attachment K.
The Town's existing sludge disposal program revolves around land application of dewatered
solids rather than liquid disposal due to the lack of land suitable for liquid sludge disposal. The
avail bility of land suitable for sludge disposal in Carteret County is very limited due to high
wate tables, environmental concerns, ability to accommodate traffic during wet periods, and
other rules and regulations. In order to have a dependable sludge disposal program, the Town
cons cted an on -site storage structure to temporarily store dewatered sludge until the sludge
coul be land applied in the spring or fall during crop rotation periods. The program has proven
to be economical and relatively dependable over past years; however, land availability has
significantly diminished over the past 10 years and unusually wet weather during 2003 has
significantly affected the Town's ability to dewater sludge. Inasmuch as the drying beds are not
dependable during extended periods of wet weather and due to doubts associated with the future
availability of labor for cleaning drying beds, it is believed inappropriate to consider the
expansion of drying beds as a viable long term method of dewatering sludge.
Proposed sludge treatment/disposal options recommended for future consideration and
implementation are as follows:
Option A - Continuation of Current Class B Sludge Treatment/Disposal Practices
Option B - Class A Sludge Production/Disposal via Chemical Addition
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH201 PR2.TXT
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT
70
040223

a
Option C - Class A Sludge Production/Disposal via Heat Drying
Attac ment H contains calculations and data for each of the above options.
ption A includes the following components:
Construction of sludge pump station to transfer clarifier sludge return flow to proposed
digesters
Construction of dual aerobic digesters with 60 days detention to produce Class B sludge
Construction of aerobic sludge holding structure (30 days detention)
Installation of belt press for sludge dewatering
Continued use of existing sludge storage building for temporary sludge storage
Continued use of contract sludge hauler to land apply dewatered Class B sludge
Utilize existing aerobic digesters/sludge drying beds as emergency back-up facilities
Excess sludge is projected to be 15,138 gpd based on a sludge production rate of .151b/person-
day and a sludge concentration in the digester of 2%. The equivalent of approximately 45,000
gpd oi clarifier return sludge flow (0.7% solids) must be transferred to the digesters each day at
design flow. A sludge wasting pumping rate of 500 gpm is recommended. Two aerobic
digestrs are proposed each containing approximately 450,000 gallons (60 days detention). Each
digester will be 45 ft. in diameter, with 12 ft. liquid sidewater depth, 4 ft. freeboard, and 4 ft.
conical bottom. Each digester will be aerated with a dual speed 75/31.5 HP floating aerator.
Swing]lng elbows will be provided for supernatant decanting.
Sljudge wasted from the digesters will be transferred to an aerated sludge holding tank with
approxiimately 350,000 gallon capacity (30 days detention). Normal operating procedures will
involve dewatering the aerated sludge tank during one week each month utilizing a 1.75 meter
belt press. Approximately 333,000 gallons of sludge will be processed at approximately 139 gpm
during one 40 hour operating week per month. Dewatered sludge will be stored in the 5,000 ft.2
storag building for land application twice per year. A total of approximately 2,033 cubic yards
of dewatered sludge will be produced each year at design conditions.
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH201 PR2.TXT 71
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

Construction, operating and present worth costs for Option A are as follows:
Construction Cost
Structure $ 709,000
Equipment 650,000
Construction Total $ 1,359,000
O & M Cost
Average Annual Operating Cost
20 year present worth of O&M:
PW value of current usage
Salvage Value (15 year life for equipment,
20 years for pump stations, 50 years
for structures)
60% x $709,000 =
PW of salvage value
.3193 PWF x $425,000 =
$ 217,600
$ 2,522,000
$ 425,000
$ 136,000
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH VALUE OF OPTION A
Construction + $ 1,359,000
PW O&M + 2,522,000
PW Salvage 136,000
Total 20 Year PW Value = $ 3,745,000
Option B involves the production of Class A sludge via similar processes as described in
Option A plus the addition of chemicals (lime and sulfamic acid). Components are described as
follows:
. Construction of sludge pump station to transfer clarifier sludge return flow to proposed
digesters.
Construction of aerobic digester with 30 days detention
• Installation of belt press for dewatering
Installation of Schwing-Bioset Class A EQ Biosolids System
Continued use of existing sludge storage building for temporary sludge storage
I\G-PC11D805J\FTL120041MH201PR2.TXT 72
M H-C 1TY-201-PLAN-R02 .TXT
040223

v
•
Land apply Class A sludge to public properties
Utilize existing digesters/sludge drying beds as emergency back-up facilities
Option B is similar to Option A except the aerobic digester will be based on 30 days detention,
a Schwing-Bioset Class A EQ Biosolids System will be utilized to achieve Class A standards and
final isposal will be via Town employees on public lands or given to farmers for agricultural
purpo es. The Schwing-Bioset System will receive dewatered sludge from the belt press and add
lime and sulfamic acid to produce Class A sludge. The system includes a mixing unit, lime
storage facility, piston pump, reactor chamber with 60 minute detention, solid acid handling
system, ammonia scrubber and control panel. The end product can be stored or bagged for
ultimaie land disposal on lawns, public lands or farmlands.
Adequate private and/or public lands are available for the convenient disposal of high quality
Class A sludge. The Town's current sludge disposal Permit identifies six privately owned tracts
used for Class B sludge disposal including a total of 72 acres (Attachment K). The elimination
of restrictions associated with Class B sludge is expected to significantly expand and enhance
disposal opportunities for Class A sludge. Thousands of acres of land in agricultural production
are located near Morehead City, Beaufort and Newport with naturally acidic soils which will
derive benefits from the Town's alkaline Class A sludge. Public lands which may be available
for high quality Class A sludge disposal include the WWTP site, the Town's 5 acre water reuse
sod farm at Pump Station 9, the street department maintenance complex, the Town bikeway,
pump tation lots, elevated tank sites, and park and recreation areas. It is obvious sludge quality
must be high and not contain objectional debris in order to be desirable; however, if high quality
is maintained its alkaline characteristic will make it a very useful product with substantial
demand.
Construction, operating and present worth costs for Option B are as follows:
Construction Cost
Structure $ 454,500
Equipment 960.500
Construction Total $ 1,415,000
O&MCost
Average Annual Operating Cost
20 year present worth of O&M:
PW value of current usage
Salvage Value (15 year life for equipment,
20 years for pump stations, 50 years
for structures)
60% x $454,500 =
PW of salvage value
.3193 PWF x $273,000 =
$ 142,350
$ 1,650,000
$ 273,000
$ 87,000
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH201 PR2.TXT
MH-C1TY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT
73
040223

3
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH VALUE OF OPTION B
Construction + $ 1,415,000
PW O&M + 1,650,000
PW Salvage - 87.000
Total 20-Year PW Value = $ 2,978,000
ption C involves the production of Class A sludge via similar processes to Option B, but
with a addition of dryer equipment following the belt press. Components are described as
follows:
•
Construction of sludge pump station to transfer clarifier sludge return flow to proposed
digesters.
Construction of aerobic digester with 30 days detention
Installation of belt press for dewatering
Installation of sludge drying plant
Installation of Schwing-Bioset Class A EQ Biosolids System
Continued use of existing sludge storage building for temporary sludge storage
Land apply Class A sludge to public properties
Utilize existing digesters/sludge drying beds as emergency back-up facilities
Option C utilizes an aerobic digester with 30 days detention, a belt press for dewatering sludge,
a dryer for evaporating moisture, followed by temporary storage in the storage building with
ultimae land application via Town employees on public lands or given to farmers or residents.
The sludge dryer system includes a thin film evaporator, chopper, and belt dryer to produce an
end product with 90% solids. Sludge received from the belt press (18% solids) enters the thin
film evaporator where it is dried to 40-45% solids and extruded through a chopper which cuts
extruded strands into pellets. The pellets subsequently pass through a belt dryer for further drying
resulting in an end product consisting of 90% solids. The end product can be stored or bagged
for ult mate land disposal on lawns, public lands or farmland. The end product produced by
Option C will have the most desirable characteristics of any of the sludge treatment/disposal
options. Since the end product consists of 90% solids and is in pellet form, it will require
signifi gantly less space for storage, involve significantly less handling for disposal, and be a much
cleane , more user friendly product for handling and distribution. It is not beyond reason to
expect a public to go to the Town WWTP to obtain and distribute the Class A sludge produced
by Option C.
•
11G-PC11D8051FTL120041MH2O1 PR2.TXT 74
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223

onstruction, operating and present worth costs for Option C are as follows:
Construction Cost
Structure $ 489,500
Equipment 1.305.500
Construction Total $ 1,795,000
O & M Cost
Average Annual Operating Cost
20 year present worth of O&M:
PW value of current usage
Salvage Value (15 year life for equipment,
20 years for pump stations, 50 years
for structures)
60% x $489,500 =
PW of salvage value
.3193 PWF x $293,700 =
$ 220,600
$ 2,557,000
$ 293,700
$ 94,000
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH VALUE OF OPTION C
Construction + $ 1,795,000
PW O&M + 2,557,000
PW Salvage 94.000
Total 20-Year PW Value = $ . 4,258,000
A summary of sludge treatment/disposal option present worth values is as follows:
Option A - Continuation of Current Class B
Sludge Treatment/Disposal Practices $ 3,745,000
Option B - Class A Sludge Production/Disposal
via Chemical Addition $ 2,978,000
Option C - Class A Sludge Production/Disposal
via Heat Drying $ 4,258,000
Option B - Class A Sludge Production/Disposal via Chemical Addition is the lowest cost
option and is therefore recommended for implementation.
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH201 PR2.TXT
MH-CITY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT
75
040223

Monitoring - Monitoring requirements are as follows:
Item Frequency Location Code
Flow Continuous I or E I = Influent
BOD Daily E, I E = Effluent
TSS Daily E, I U = Upstream
DO Daily E, U, D D = Downstream
Fecal Coliform Daily E, U, D
Chlorine Daily E
Temperature Daily E, U, D
Total N Monthly E, U, D
Phosphorus Monthly E, U, D
NH3 3/Week E
pH Daily E
Chlorophyll -a Monthly U, D
Conductivity Daily E, U, D
Acute Toxicity Quarterly E
'pie Town plans to utilize existing laboratory equipment to perform all testing onsite except
for those analyses required monthly or quarterly.
The site for the new wastewater treatment plant is land owned by the Town at the existing
WWTP. The location proposed for the new wastewater treatment plant facilities does not contain
any wetlands.
Preliminary design information is presented in Attachment H. Table 4.3 illustrates the
Preliminary Cost Analyses for Alternative IV. Figure 4.3 illustrates the proposed location of
Alternative IV on a USGS topographic map. Figure 4.4 provides a schematic diagram of the
proposed treatment units. Figure 4.5 illustrates the existing WWTP site and proposed WWTP
layout)
4.7 SELECTED PLAN
Twenty year present worth costs for each alternative are as follows:
L d Application $33,693,000
ew WWTP $12,556,970
Alternative IV - "New WWTP (Re -use Quality)" is the most cost effective alternative that
accomilishes the stated goals and is recommended for implementation. It is recognized that
DWQ's March 12, 2003 letter (Attachment D) indicated continued discharge to Calico Creek was
not co sidered a viable long-term option and encouraged the Town to consider non -discharge
alternatives. Several non -discharge alternatives have been considered in this section and have been
determined not to be affordable at this time. The analyses of the non -discharge alternatives in this
section resulted in similar findings and conclusions reached in three other previous similar studies
entitled "Feasibility Study for Regional Wastewater Management", "Land Application Feasibility
Study) and "Carteret County Regional Wastewater System Phased Implementation Plan".
Alternative IV is compatible and consistent with a phased approach to non -discharge alternatives
in that all the regional studies previously referenced endorse the concept of the expansion and
upgrade of Morehead City's WWTP at its existing site as a necessary step to produce the high
quality effluent required for non -discharge alternatives. The Town intends to seek every
opportunity in the future to expand its reuse system.
11G-PC 11D8051FTL120041MH201 PR2.TXT 76
MH-CrTY-201-PLAN-R02.TXT 040223