NC0021253_Permit Modification_20120312

NPDES DOCIMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0021253
Havelock WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
(151:mit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
March 12, 2012
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reYerse side

ArtrA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakiid, P.E. Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
Mr. Dan Harbaugh
Director of Public Services
P. O. Box 368
Havelock, NC 28532
March 12, 2012
Subject: Issuance of Modified NPDES Permit
NPDES Permit NC0021253
Havelock WWTP
Craven County
Treatment Class IV
Dear Mr. Harbaugh:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for modification of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached modified NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant
to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between
North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as subsequently
amended).
Please note that the Neuse River receiving stream segment is listed as an impaired waterbody on the
North Carolina 303(d) Impaired Waters List. Addressing impaired waters is a high priority with the Division,
and instream data will continue to be evaluated. If there is noncompliance with permitted effluent limits and
stream impairment can be attributed to your facility, then mitigative measures may be required.
It is recommended that the System Annual Performance Report include a discussion on that year's
nitrogen speciation, its impact to treatable nitrogen, and the facility future nutrient removal capacity.
Summary of Modification from Existing Permit
1) Removed TRC requirements from Effluent Limit Page A. (1).
2) Added expansion Effluent Limit Pages A. (2), A. (3), A. (4); special conditions A. (9), A. (12); and diffuser
instream monitoring A. (5) for expansions above 1.9 MGD to 3.5 MGD with new outfall relocation in
Neuse River with diffuser. Map amended to show new outfall and diffuser instream sampling locations.
3) Amended supplemental cover page narrative to define expansion phases, new treatment components,
and new outfall stream classification.
4) Amended Priority Pollutant Scans requirements to three seasonal scans on designated calendar years as
stated in A. (10) narrative.
Page 1 of 2
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service:1-877-623-6748
Internet www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
No Carolina
utura!!y

If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days
following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter
150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final
and binding.
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 permits that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Ron Berry at telephone number (919)
807-6396 or at email [e-mail].
Sincerely,
tie,j harles Wakild, P.E.
Attachments
Cc: Washington Regional Office/Surface Water Protection Section (with copy of revised Fact Sheet)
EPA Region IV/Pamala Myers (email with revised Fact Sheet)
Environmental Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Unit/Susan Meadows (email)
Environmental Sciences Section/Ecosystems Unit/Carrie Rulhman (email)
Environmental Sciences Section/Ecosystems Unit/Steve Kroeger (email)
Hazen and Sawyer/Thomas Tant, P.E. (email: [e-mail])
George Mathis (email: [e-mail])
John Jacobson/Board VP Neuse Riverkeeper Foundation (email: [e-mail])
Central Files
NPDES Files
Page 2 of 2

Permit NC0021253
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
City of Havelock
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Havelock WWTP
North Jackson Drive
Havelock
Craven County
to receiving waters designated as East Prong Slocum Creek in the Neuse River Basin in accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV
hereof.
This permit shall become effective April 1, 2012.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on June 30, 2013.
Signed this day March 12, 2012.
arles Wakild, P.E., Director
dtc Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1

Permit NC0021253
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the
permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
City of Havelock
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 1.9 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting of the
following components:
o Manual bar screen and grit removal systems
o Influent composite sampler
o Influent pump station
o Distribution box
o Two (2) 840.000 gallon first stage aeration basins with fine bubble aeration
o Two (2) 150,000 gallon second stage aeration basins with coarse bubble aeration
o One (1) 190.000 gallon second stage aeration basin with coarse bubble aeration
o Final clarifier pump station
o 7,500 gallon storage tank and chemical additive systems for polyaluminum chloride
o Distribution box
o Two (2) 65 feet diameter final clarifiers
o 7,500 gallon storage tank and chemical additive system for methanol
o Three (3) 7,500 fe multimedia denitrifying filters
o UV disinfection basin
o One (1) reaeration basin with dual mechanical agitation
o Denitrification filters backwash pumps
o One (1) filter backwash waste detention tank
o Effluent flow meter
o Effluent composite sampler
o One (1) waste solids holding tank
o Gravity belt thickener
o Solids stabilization tank, pumps, basin, lime addition system, truck loadout
This facility is located at North Jackson Drive, Havelock, in Craven County.
Page 2

Permit NC0021253
2. Upon approval of an Authorization to Construct to expand above 1.9 MGD to 2.25 MGD with
relocation of outfall 001 to Neuse river, and after submittal of the signed Engineering Certificate,
to operate a 2.25 MGD treatment facility with the following minimum additional components:
o Upgraded UV disinfection system
o New effluent pump station with new force main
o New post gravity cascade aerator
o New 2,036 feet outfall pipe with .80 feet multiport diffuser
3. Upon approval of an Authorization to Construct to expand above 2.25 MGD to 2.8 MGD and
after submittal of the signed Engineering Certificate, to operate a 2.8 MGD treatment facility
with the following minimum additional components:
o New 570,000 gallon three -stage BNR treatment train
o New nitrification recycle pump station
o New final clarifier pump station and distribution box
4. Upon approval of an Authorization to Construct to expand above 2.8 MGD to 3.5 MGD and
after submittal of the signed Engineering Certificate, to operate a 3.5 MGD treatment facility
with the following minimum additional components:
o New manual bar screen
o New 180,000 gallon post -anoxic process train to increase BNR to five -stages
o New 65 feet diameter final clarifier
o New 7,500 ft multimedia denitrifying filter
o New solids storage and dewatering filters
5. Discharge from said treatment works through existing outfall 001 into East Prong Slocum Creek,
a Class C-Swamp NSW water in the Neuse River Basin, at the location specified on the attached
map. Discharge from said treatment works after expansion through relocated outfall 001 into the
Neuse River, a Class SB-Swamp, NSW water in the Neuse River Basin, at the location specified
on the attached map.
Page 3

City of Havelo ck
WWTP Facility
Neuse River Outfall
001 with diffuser
NC0021253
East Prong Slocum
Creek Outfall 001
NC0021253
Instream Sample Locations:
Si=10 feet upstream of diffuser
S2 = 10 feet downstream of diffuser
S3 = 10 feet from end on diffuser
Note: Diffuser 80 feet in length
o
USGS Quad: H31NW Havelock, NC
Latitude Longitude
Facility: 34° 53' 13.7" N 76° 54' 33.1" W
East Prong Slocum Creek Outfall: 34° 53' 20" N 76° 54' 30" W
Neuse River Outfall: 34° 57' 11" N 76° 52' 37" W
Receiving Stream / Class: East Prong Slocum Creek / C, Sw, NSW
Receiving Stream / Class: Neuse River / SB, Sw, NSW
Subbasin: 03-04-10 HUC:
North
Facility Location
City of Havelock WWTP
Craven County

Permit NC0021253
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expansion above 1.9 MGD or permit
expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge 1.9 MGD of treated municipal wastewater from
Outfall 001 into East Prong Slocum Creek. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the
Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Montlal Y
Average
Weekl �
Average
Dail y
Maximum;
Measurement :
Frequency :..
Sam le
p
Type .
Sam xe
1?..
Location 1
Flow (MGD)
1.9
Continuous
Recording
I or E
Total Monthly Flow (MG) 2
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Recorded or
Calculated
I or E
BODS 3
(April 1— October 31)
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
BODS 3
(November 1— March 31)
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 3
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Ammonia as N (NH3- N)
(April 1— October 31)
0.5 mg/L
1.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Ammonia as N (NH3- N)
(November 1— March 31)
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Not less than 5.0 mg/L, daily
average
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
PH
Not greater than 9.0 S.U. nor less
than6.0 S.U.
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature, °C
Daily
Grab
E
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 4
m g�
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
E
Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen
(NO2-N + NO3-N) 4, mg/L
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen (TN) 2,4, mg/L
TN = TKN + (NO2-N + NO3-N)
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
E
2
TN Load
Monitor & Report (lb/mo)
Monthly
Calculated
E
21,400 lb/years
Annually
Calculated
E
Total Phosphorus
(April 1— October 31)
0.7 mg/L (quarterly average) 6
Weekly
Composite
E

1.
Permit N00021253
(Continued A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS)
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
Total Phosphorus
(November 1— March 31)
1.0 mg/L (quarterly average) 6
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Measurement
Frequency
Weekly
Composite
Sample
Location 1
E
Total Copper, µg/L
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Zinc, µg/L
Quarterly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity 7
Quarterly
Composite
E
Effluent Pollutant Scan
See A.(10)
E
Footnotes:
1. I = Influent. E = Effluent. See special condition A. (5) (a) for instream monitoring requirements
and conditional waiver.
2. Total Monthly Flow and Total Nitrogen are required to calculate TN Load. See special condition
A. (6) for calculation and reporting requirements.
3. The monthly average BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of
the respective influent value (85% removal).
4. For a given wastewater sample, TN = TKN + (NO3-N + NO2 N), where TN is total nitrogen,
TKN is total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, and (NO3-N + NO2-N) are nitrate/nitrite nitrogen, respectively.
5. Compliance with this limit shall be determined in accordance with special condition A. (7).
6. The quarterly average for total phosphorus shall be the average of composite samples collected
weekly during each calendar quarter (January - March, April - June, July - September, October -
December).
7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) @ 90% conducted in January, April, July and October; see
special condition A. (8) of this permit.
THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS.
SEE SPECIAL CONDITION A. (12) IF CHLORINE OR A CHLORINE DERIVATIVE IS UTILIZED.

s'
Permit NC0021253
A. (2) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning upon expansion to 2.25 MGD and receipt of the signed Engineering Certificate, and lasting
until permit expiration or further expansion, the Permittee is authorized to discharge 2.25 MGD of
treated municipal wastewater from Outfall 001 through a submerged multiport diffuser into the Neuse
River. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
y .�Veek1
Average .
;Daily..' .::
Maximum
Measurement
- .
Frequency
Sample.:
Type
� Sample
=
Location
Flow (MGD)
2.25
Continuous
Recording
I or E
Total Monthly Flow (MG) 2
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Recorded or
Calculated
I or E
BODS 3
(April 1— October 31)
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/LDailyComposite
p
I E
'
BODS 3
(November 1— March 31)
10.0 mg/L15.0
mg/LDailyComposite
p
I E
'
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 3
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Ammonia as N (NH3- N)
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Not less than 5.0 mg/L, daily
average
Daily
Grab
E
Enterococci
(geometric mean)
35/100 ml
276/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
pH
Not greater than 8.5 S.U. nor less
than 6.8 S.U.
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature, °C
Daily
Grab
E
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 4
mg/L
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
E
Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen
(NO2 N + NO3-N) 4, mg/L
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen (TN) 2'4, mg/L
TN = TKN + (NO2-N + NO3-N)
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
E
TN Load 2
Monitor & Report (lb/mo)
Monthly
Calculated
E
21,400 lb/years
Annually
Calculated
E
Total Phosphorus (TP)
2.0 mg/L (quarterly average) 6
Weekly
Composite
E

Permit NC0021253
(Continued A. (2) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS)
Daily
Maximum
Total Copper, µg/L
MONITORING REQUIREMENT.
Measurement
Frequency
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Zinc, µg/L
Quarterly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity 7
Quarterly
Composite
E
Effluent Pollutant Scan
See A.(10)
E
Footnotes:
1. I = Influent. E = Effluent. See special condition A. (5) (b) for instream monitoring requirements
and conditional waiver.
2. Total Monthly Flow and Total Nitrogen are required to calculate TN Load. See special condition
A. (6) for calculation and reporting requirements.
3. The monthly average BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of
the respective influent value (85% removal).
4. For a given wastewater sample, TN = TKN + (NO3-N + NO2 N), where TN is total nitrogen,
TKN is total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, and (NO3-N + NO2 N) are nitrate/nitrite nitrogen, respectively.
5. Compliance with this limit shall be determined in accordance with special condition A. (7).
6. TP quarterly limit is based on membership in the Lower Neuse Nutrient Compliance
Association. Termination of membership will automatically assign 1.0 mg/L as the TP monthly
limit. The calendar quarters are January -March, April -June, July -September, and October -
December.
7. Chronic Toxicity (Mysidopsis bahia) @ 15% conducted in January, April, July and October; see
special condition A. (9) of this permit.
THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS.
SEE SPECIAL CONDITION A. (12) IF CHLORINE OR A CHLORINE DERIVATIVE IS UTILIZED.

Permit NC0021253
A. (3) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning upon expansion to 2.8 MGD and receipt of the signed Engineering Certificate, and lasting
until permit expiration or further expansion, the Permittee is authorized to discharge 2.8 MGD of treated
municipal wastewater from Outfall 001 through a submerged multiport diffuser into the Neuse River.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
;ITS
MONITORING REQUIREMEN'
lv�ontn
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Location .
Flow (MGD)
2.8
Continuous
Recording
I or E
Total Monthly Flow (MG) 2
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Recorded or
Calculated
I or E
BOD5 3
(April 1— October 31)
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
BOD5 3
(November 1— March 31)
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 3
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Ammonia as N (NH3- N)
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Not less than 5.0 mg/L, daily
average
Daily
Grab
E
Enterococci
(geometric mean)
35/100 ml
276/100 mi
Daily
Grab
E
pH
Not greater than 8.5 S.U. nor less
than 6.8 S.U.
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature, °C
Daily
Grab
E
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 4
mg/L
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
E
Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen
(NO2-N + NO3-N) 4' mg/L
Total Nitrogen (TN) z,4, mg/L
TN = TKN + (NO2-N + NO3-N)
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Weekly
Composite
Composite
E
E
TN Load 2
Monitor & Report (lb/mo)
Monthly
Calculated
E
21,400 lb/year 5
Annually
Calculated
E
Total Phosphorus (TP)
2.0 mg/L (quarterly average) 6
Weekly
Composite
E

Permit NC0021253
(Continued A. (3) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS)
Monthly
Average
Total Copper, µg/L
TS
[ONITORING REQUIREMENTS
easurement
t requency
Quarterly
Composite
Sample
ovation a
E
Total Zinc, µg/L
Quarterly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity 7
Quarterly
Composite
E
Effluent Pollutant Scan
See A.(10)
E
Footnotes:
1. I = Influent. E = Effluent. See special condition A. (5) (b) for instream monitoring requirements
and conditional waiver.
2. Total Monthly Flow and Total Nitrogen are required to calculate TN Load. See special condition
A. (6) for calculation and reporting requirements.
3. The monthly average BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of
the respective influent value (85% removal).
4. For a given wastewater sample, TN = TKN + (NO3-N + NO2-N), where TN is total nitrogen,
TKN is total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, and (NO3-N + NO2-N) are nitrate/nitrite nitrogen, respectively.
5. Compliance with this limit shall be determined in accordance with special condition A. (7).
6. TP quarterly limit is based on membership in the Lower Neuse Nutrient Compliance
Association. Termination of membership will automatically assign 1.0 mg/L as the TP monthly
limit. The calendar quarters are January -March, April -June, July -September, and October -
December.
7. Chronic Toxicity (Mysidopsis bahia) @ 16% conducted in January, April, July, and October;
see special condition A. (9) of this permit.
THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS.
SEE SPECIAL CONDITION A. (12) IF CHLORINE OR A CHLORINE DERIVATIVE IS UTILIZED.

Permit NC0021253
A. (4) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning upon expansion to 3.5 MGD and receipt of the signed Engineering Certificate, and lasting
until permit expiration, the Permittee is. authorized to discharge 3.5 MGD of treated municipal
wastewater from Outjall 001 through a submerged multiport diffuser into the Neuse River. Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
TTS
Weekly
Average.
Flow (MGD)
MONITORING REQUIREMEN'
Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
I or E
Total Monthly Flow (MG) 2
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Recorded or
Calculated
I or E
BOD5 3
(April 1— October 31)
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
BOD5 3
(November 1— March 31)
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 3
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Ammonia as N (NH3- N)
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Not less than 5.0 mg/L, daily
average
Daily
• Grab
E
Enterococci
(geometric mean)
35/100 ml
276/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
pH
Not greater than 8.5 S.U. nor less
than 6.8 S.U.
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature, °C
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 4
mg/L
1
Monitor & Report
Daily
Weekly
Grab
Composite
E
E
Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen
(NO2-N + NO3-N) 4, mg/L
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen (TN) 2'4, mg/L
TN = TKN + (NO2-N + NO3-N)
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
E
TNLoad 2
Monitor & Report (lb/mo)
Monthly
Calculated
E
21,400 lb/year 5
Annually
Calculated
E
Total Phosphorus (TP)
2.0 mg/L (quarterly average) 6
Weekly
Composite
E

Permit NC0021253
(Continued A. (4) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS)
Monthly.
Average
easurement
Frequency
RED
UIREMENTS
ample
Location
Total Copper, µg/L
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Zinc, µg/L
Quarterly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity 7
Quarterly
Composite
E
Effluent Pollutant Scan
See A. (10)
E
Footnotes:
1. I = Influent. E = Effluent. See special condition A. (5) (b) for instream monitoring requirements
and conditional waiver.
2. Total Monthly Flow and Total Nitrogen are required to calculate TN Load. See special condition
A. (6) for calculation and reporting requirements.
3. The monthly average BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of
the respective influent value (85% removal).
4. For a given wastewater sample, TN = TKN + (NO3-N + NO2 N), where TN is total nitrogen,
TKN is total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, and (NO3-N + NO2-N) are nitrate/nitrite nitrogen, respectively.
5. Compliance with this limit shall be determined in accordance with special condition A. (7).
6. TP quarterly limit is based on membership in the Lower Neuse Nutrient Compliance
Association. Termination of membership will automatically assign 1.0 mg/L as the TP monthly
limit. The calendar quarters are January -March, April -June, July -September, and October -
December.
7. Chronic Toxicity (Mysidopsis bahia) @ 16% conducted in January, April, July and October; see
special condition A. (9) of this permit.
THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS.
SEE SPECIAL CONDITION A. (12) IF CHLORINE OR A CHLORINE DERIVATIVE IS UTILIZED.

Permit NC0021253
A. (5) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
a) Instream monitoring is provisionally waived while discharging into East Prong Slocum Creek as
long as the Permittee continues to maintain membership and participation in the Lower Neuse Basin
Association. Should the Permittee end its participation in the Association then instream monitoring
is required for the following parameters and locations while discharging into East Prong Slocum
Creek:
enurement
tre uency
ample
ocation 1
Fecal Coliform, #/100 ml
3/week
Grab
U, D
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
3/week
Grab
U, D
Temperature, °C
3/week
Grab
U, D
Footnote:
1. Instream monitoring shall be conducted at U and D locations defined by the Division.
b) Instream monitoring is required for the following parameters and locations while discharging via a
diffuser into the Neuse River. No provisional waiver is applicable:
S 1 = upstream 10 feet (approximately 2,076 feet offshore, perpendicular to diffuser center);
S2 = downstream 10 feet (approximately 2,076 feet offshore, perpendicular to diffuser center);
S3 = within 10 feet beyond the end of the diffuser and in line with the diffuser.
EFFLUENTSample
CHARA
Type
Measurement Frequency
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Vertical
(1 meter increments)
Weekly
(April — October)
Monthly
(November — March)
Temperature, °C
Vertical
(1 meter increments)
Weekly
(April — October)
Monthly
(November — March)
Salinity, ppt
Vertical
(1 meter increments)
Weekly
(April — October)
Monthly
(November — March)
pH, S.U.
Vertical
(1 meter increments)
Weekly
(April — October)
N/A
Enterococci, #/100 ml
Surface
Weekly
(April — October)
Monthly
(November — March)
Secchi Depth, m
Photic Zone
2/MonthN/A
(June — September)
TKN, mg/L
Depth integrated
(use composite sampler)
2/Month
(June — September)
N/A
Chlorophyll -a, mg/L
Depth integrated
(use composite sampler)
2/Month
(June — September)
N/A
NO2-N + NO3 N, mg/L
Depth integrated
(use composite sampler)
2/Month
(June — September)
N/A

Permit N00021253
1
(Continued A. (5) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (b))
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
NH3-N, mg/L
Total Phosphorus, mg/L
Depth integrated
(use composite sampler)
Depth integrated
(use composite sampler)
2/Month
(June — September)
2/Month
(June — September)
N/A
N/A
A. (6) CALCULATION OF TOTAL NITROGEN LOADS
a. The Permittee shall calculate monthly and annual TN Loads as follows:
i. Monthly TN Load (lb/mo) = TN x TMF x 8.34
where:
TN = the average Total Nitrogen concentration (mg/L) of the
composite samples collected during the month
TMF = the Total Monthly Flow of wastewater discharged during the
month (MG/mo)
8.34 = conversion factor, from (mg/L x MG) to pounds
ii. Annual TN Load (lb/yr) = Sum of the 12 Monthly TN Loads for the calendar year
b. The Permittee shall report monthly Total Nitrogen results (mg/L and lb/mo) in the discharge
monitoring report for that month and shall report each year's annual results (lb/yr) in the December
report for that year.
A. (7) ANNUAL LIMITS FOR TOTAL NITROGEN
a. Total Nitrogen (TN) allocations and TN Load limits for NPDES dischargers in the Neuse River
basin are annual limits and are applied for the calendar year.
b. For any given calendar year, the Permittee shall be in compliance with the annual TN Load limit in
this Permit if:
i. the Permittee's annual TN Load is less than or equal to said limit, or
ii. the Permittee is a Co-Permittee Member of a compliance association.
c. The TN Load limit in this Permit (if any) may be modified as the result of allowable changes in the
Permittee's TN allocation.
i. Allowable changes include those resulting from purchase of TN allocation from the Wetlands
Restoration Fund; purchase, sale, trade, or lease of allocation between the Permittee and other
dischargers; regionalization; and other transactions approved by the Division.

Permit NC0021253
(Continued A. (7) ANNUAL LIMITS FOR TOTAL NITROGEN)
ii. The Permittee may request a modification of the TN Load limit in this, Permit to reflect
allowable changes in its TN allocation. Upon receipt of timely and proper application, the
Division will modify the permit as appropriate and in accordance with state and federal
program requirements.
iii. Changes in TN limits become effective on January 1 of the year following permit modification.
The Division must receive application no later than August 31 for changes proposed for the
following calendar year.
iv. Application shall be sent to:
NCDWQ / NPDES Unit
Attn: Neuse River Basin Coordinator
Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
d. If the Permittee is a member and co-permittee of an approved compliance association, its TN
discharge during that year is governed by that association's group NPDES permit and the TN
limits therein.
i. The Permittee shall be considered a Co-Permittee Member for any given calendar year in
which it is identified as such in Appendix A of the association's group NPDES permit.
ii. Association roster(s) and members' TN allocations will be updated annually and in accordance
with state and federal program requirements.
iii. If the Permittee intends to join or leave a compliance association, the Division must be notified
of the proposed action in accordance with the procedures defined in the association's NPDES
permit.
(1) Upon receipt of timely and proper notification, the Division will modify the permit
as appropriate and in accordance with state and federal program requirements.
(2) Membership changes in a compliance association become effective on January 1 of
the year following modification of the association's permit.
e. The TN monitoring and reporting requirements in this Permit remain in effect until expiration of
this Permit and are not affected by the Permittee's membership in a compliance association.
A. (8) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 90 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in
the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or
subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of
January, April, July and October. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.

Permit NC0021253
(Continued A. (8) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY))
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the
permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two
following months as described in `North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test
Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the
highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest
concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of
"detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are
specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DENR / DWQ / Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no later
than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate
signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if
chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test
form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report
with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the
Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring
will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re-
opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.

Permit NC0021253
(Continued A. (8) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY))
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently then required by this permit, the results of such
monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted on the DMR and AT
Forms.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls,
shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later
than the last day of the .month following the month of the initial monitoring.
A. (9) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Mysidopsis bahia at an effluent concentration of 15% at 2.25 MGD, 16% at 2.8 MGD, 16%
at 3.5 MGD.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using procedures described below
to establish compliance with the permit condition. The tests will be performed during the months of
January, April, July, and October. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results. in a failure or ChV below the
permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two
following months as described in EPA Method 1007.0, Mysid, Mysidopsis bahia, Survival, Growth, and
Fecundity Test, as described in Short -Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents
and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms, Second Edition, EPA/600-4-91/003, July
1994.
The test procedure will be based on EPA Method 1007.0, Mysid, Mysidopsis bahia, Survival, Growth,
and Fecundity Test, as described in Short -Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms, Second Edition, EPA-600-4-91-
003, July 1994. The procedure will be performed as written with the following exceptions:
• The test treatments will consist of a control and a 15% at 2.25 MGD, 16% at 2.8 MGD, 16%
at 3.5 MGD effluent concentration ("pass/fail,") or a control and five effluent concentrations,
one of which will be 15% at 2.25 MGD, 16% at 2.8 MGD, 16% at 3.5 MGD and one of
which will be 7.5% at 2.25 MGD, 8% at 2.8 MGD, 8% at 3.5 MGD.
• The test will be performed at 20 ppt salinity.
• Mortality for pass/fail tests will be evaluated using the t test described on page 91 in Methods for
Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition.
EPA/600/4-90/027, September 1991, applying an alpha level of 0.05.
• The growth endpoint for pass/fail tests will be determined using Appendix G of Short -Term
Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and
Estuarine Organisms, Second Edition, EPA/600-4-91/003, July 1994, applying an alpha level of
0.01.

Permit NC0021253
(Continued A. (9) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY))
• Mortality and growth endpoints for multiple -concentration tests will be determined using
hypothesis testing as described in EPA Method 1007.0, Mysid, Mysidopsis bahia, Survival,
Growth, and Fccundity Test, as described in Short -Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms, Second Edition,
EPA/600-4-91/003, July 1994.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed. For pass/fail results,
report using the parameter code TGP3E and the DWQ Form AT-4 (original) is to be sent to the address
below. Additionally, for reporting Chronic Value results use the parameter code THP3E and DWQ
Form AT-6 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no later
than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate
signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if
chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test
form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report
with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the
Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring
will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re-
opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently then required by this permit, the results of such
monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted on the DMR and AT
Form.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival; minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls,
shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later
than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.

Permit NC0021253
A. (10) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The Permittee shall perform a total of three (3) Effluent Pollutant Scans for all parameters listed below.
One scan must be performed in each of the following years: 2009, 2010, and 2011. Analytical methods
shall be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 and shall be sufficiently sensitive to determine whether
parameters are present in concentrations greater than applicable standards and criteria. Samples should
be collected with one quarterly toxicity test each year, and must represent seasonal variation [i.e., do not
sample in the same quarter every year]. Unless otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total
recoverable."
Ammonia (as N)
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
I Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Chlorine, total residual (TRC)
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Methyl bromide
2-chloronaphthalene
Phosphorus
Methyl chloride •
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids
Methylene chloride
Chrysene
Hardness
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Antimony
Tetrachloroethylene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic
Toluene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Beryllium
1,1,1-trichloroethane
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 (Method 1631E)
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
Fluoranthene
Thallium
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Zinc
2,4-dinitrophenol
Fluorene
Cyanide
2-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds
4-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
Volatile Organic Compounds
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Acrolein
Phenol
Acrylonitrile
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Benzene
Base -neutral .Compounds,.
Bromoform
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Acenaphthylene
Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Anthracene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Chlorodibromomethane
Benzidine
Chloroethane •
Benzo(a)anthracene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Chloroform
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Pyrene
Dichlorobromomethane
Benzo(ghi)perylene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1,2-dichloroethane
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane

Permit NC0021253
(Continued A. (10) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN)
Test results shall be reported on DWQ Form -A MR PPA 1 (or in a form approved by the Director) by
December 31st of each designated sampling year. The report shall be submitted to the following
address:
Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection / Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Note: Submittal of Effluent Pollutant Scan results with NPDES renewal application is required.
A. (11) TOTAL NITROGEN ALLOCATIONS
The following table lists the Total Nitrogen (TN) allocation(s) assigned to, acquired by, or transferred to
the Permittee in accordance with the Neuse River nutrient management rule (T15A NCAC 02B .0234)
and the status of each as of permit issuance. For compliance purposes, this table does not supercede any
TN limit(s) established elsewhere in this permit or in the NPDES permit of a compliance association of
which the Permittee is a Co-Permittee Member.
Base
Assigned by Rule
(T15A NCAC 02B .0234)
12/7/97;
4/1/03
ocation amount (1}
Estuary
(lb/yr)
21,400
Discharge
(lb/yr)
21,400
Active
TOTAL
21,400
Active
Footnote:
(1) Transport Factor = 100%
A. (12) USE OF CHLORINATION FOR DISINFECTION
If chlorine or chlorine derivative compounds are used as a means of chlorination disinfection, the
permittee must inform the Surface Water Protection Section staff of the Washington Regional Office of
this action. Also, a total residual chlorine (TRC) daily compliance limit will immediately apply for the
duration of the chlorination, 17 µg/L for discharge to East Prong Slocum Creek, or 13 µg/L for
discharge to the Neuse River. Daily TRC monitoring shall be conducted for the duration of the
chlorination and TRC values reported on the monthly discharge monitoring report. TRC values reported
below 50 µg/L are considered to be in compliance with the permit. However, the Permittee shall
continue to record and submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including
field certified), even if these values fall below 50 µg/L.
If the effluent TRC level is anticipated to exceed or exceeds the compliance limit, approved
dechlorination methods shall be employed to meet compliance and ensure protection of water quality in
the receiving stream.

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES PERMIT NC0021253
Revised: 3/12/12
Facility. Information
Applicant/Facility
Name:
City of Havelock WWTP
Applicant Address:
P. O. Box 368; Havelock, NC 28532
Facility Address:
304 North Jackson Drive; Havelock, NC 28532
Permitted Flow
1.9 MGD (Existing)
Type of Waste:
100% domestic
Facility/Permit Status:
Class IV /Active; Expansion Modification
County:
Craven County
State Grid / USGS
Quad:
H31NW
Havelock, NC
Regional Officer
Washington
Subbasin:
03-04-10
HUC:
03020204
1.9 MGD (Existing)
Receiving Stream:
East Prong Slocum
Creek
Stream Classification:
C, Sw, NSW
Drainage Area (mi2):
n/a
Index No.
27-112-2
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Tidal
303(d) Listed?
No
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Tidal
30Q2 (cfs):
Tidal
Average Flow (cfs):
Tidal
IWC (%):
100%
2.25 MGD expand and relocate outfall to Neuse River with diffuser. (Phase I)
2.8 MGD (Phase II) expand
3.5 MGD (Phase III) expand
Receiving Stream:
Neuse River
Stream Classification:
SB, Sw, NSW
Drainage Area (mi2):
n/a
Index No.
27-(104)b
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Tidal
303(d) Listed?
Yes, Chlorophyll a,
high pH
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Tidal
*Phase I- IWC (% o):
14.6%
30Q2 (cfs):
Tidal
*Phase II- IWC (%o):
15.6%
Average Flow (cfs):
Tidal
*Phase I1I- IWC (%):
16.3%
*Model summer dilution data defines IWC
(%) at 10 ftradius
Writer:
Ron Berry
_Permit
Dater
3/12/12
BACKGROUND
The City of Havelock operates a 1.9 MGD tertiary wastewater treatment facility with additional
biological nutrient reduction treatment that serves the Havelock community, population 13,000.
The City of Havelock facility discharges treated 100% domestic wastewater to the East Prong
Slocum Creek, a freshwater tidal class C, Sw, NSW water in the Neuse River Basin. The
Permittee was advised that no further expansion into East Prong Slocum Creek would be
allowed.
The City of Havelock has applied for modification of its current permit to relocate its outfall to a
segment of the Neuse River, a saltwater tidal, class SB, Sw, NSW water with concurrent
expansion to 2.25 MGD. The modification application also include request for effluent limit
pages for future expansions to 2.8 MGD and 3.5 MGD.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0021253
Page 1 of 7

HISTORY
The facility was permitted in 1981 to discharge 1.0, MGD.. to the current location, East Prong
Slocum Creek. The 1981 permit limits were based on a stream model developed by the Division
and imposed stringent limits on BOD and NH3, and required meeting the minimum DO water
quality standard. An expansion to 1.25 MGD was granted in 1982. Prior to 1986 the . facility
operated under an SOC. An expansion was granted in 1988 to 1.5 MGD which lower the BOD
and NH3 limits to maintain the loading as defined by a stream model. The DO limit continued.
The City of Havelock was granted an expansion limit page to 1.9 MGD as part of its 1992
renewal and was informed that no further expansion would be granted for this discharge location.
The completion of the 1.9 MGD expansion facility occurred in 1996 and included conversion to
a fine bubble diffusers system for aeration, addition of TP treatment, addition of new clarifiers,
addition of tertiary/denitrification filters, addition of a uv system, and addition of various support
systems. Subsequent permit renewals were issued for a permitted flow of 1.9 MGD only.
A request to rerate the existing facility and thus expand to a permitted low of 2.25 MGD was
made in 2003 but was denied. Ongoing water quality issues downstream and lack of additional
stream assimilations capacity were the reasons for the denial. Various toxicants were evaluate
during each permit renewal cycle and permit modifications were made were justified.
Downstream issues in Slocum Creek were further impacted by area oil spills from Cherry Point
Air Base. The oil spill area became a superfund site.
Discussions were begun in 1992 on relocating the outfall to the Neuse River with a diffuser to
accommodate future expansion considerations. The Division provided initial speculative limit for
the proposed Neuse outfall relocation in 1995. Additional speculative limits for various
expansions at the Neuse discharge location were provided in 2009. As part of the Neuse River
Nutrient Strategy this facility received an annual mass TN Load allocation and TP limit prior to
2004. As a major discharger the 2004 permit added a requirement for submittal of an annual
priority pollutant.
The Division received an Environmental Assessment and Altemative Evaluation Analysis in
2010 for relocating the discharge to the Neuse River with phased expansions over the next 30
years. After some additional information was obtained the Division concurred with the
assessment. An extensive tidal model was developed by Tetra Tech for the proposed new
discharge location on the Neuse River, its diffuser design, and its impacts up and down stream.
Further discussions with the Permittee and their consultant Hazen and Sawyer, as well as
documentation, was requested by the Division to demonstrate treatment capability for TN
concentrations less than 3.0 mg/1 at the expanded permitted flows.
The Permittee has maintained its membership in the Lower Neuse River Association monitoring
coalition and has an approved waiver on the permit designated instream monitoring for the East
Prong Slocum Creek discharge. However, the coalition has stated it would perform the permit
Neuse River discharge designated instream monitoring protocol sot upon expansion it will not be
waived. As of January 2012 the Permittee was accepted into the Neuse River Compliance
Association nutrient compliance group and will be governed by the Neuse River Compliance
Association permit.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0021253
Page 2 of 7

TREATMENT PROCESS
Currently, untreated domestic waste is introduced to the plant headworks via a 24 inch forced
sewer main where mechanical screening followed by grit removal is conducted on the influent
before it is collected in the influent pump station. The influent pumps convey the wastewater to a
distribution box that controls the rate to the two parallel first stage 840,000 gallon aeration
basins. The distribution box also serves as a mixing point to recycle RAS. A fme bubble diffuser
system is used to distribute the air and to provide mixing in the basins.
The effluent from the first stage aeration basins are combined and then flow through three in
series second stage aeration basins. Basins one and two volumes are 150,000 gallons, the third
basin volume is 190,000 gallons. The second stage basins provide addition biological treatment
including nitrification. Coarse air is used in the second stage aeration basins. The effluent from
the third second stage aeration basin is collected in the final clarifier pump station.
Pumps transfer the wastewater from the final clarifier pump station to the final clarifier
distribution box. The pumps provide sufficient head to allow gravity flow for the remainder of
treatment process to final discharge in East Prong Slocum Creek. To enhance suspended solids
removal and TP removal in the final clarifiers, polyaluminum chloride is added to the final
clarifier pumps discharge header. The polyaluminum chloride additive system consists of a 7,500
gallon storage tank, chemical feed pumps, and controls.
From the distribution box the influent is directed to two parallel 65 feet diameter final clarifiers.
WAS and RAS are removed from the final clarifiers with the WAS being diverted to the waste
solids holding tank. The effluents from the final clarifiers are combined and flow to three in
series. multimedia 7,500 ft3 denitrification filters. To further enhance denitrification methanol is
added as a carbon source to the filters influent. A 7,500 gallon storage tank and chemical feed
system make up the methanol system.
The effluent from the denitrification filter enters the original chlorination channel, which was
retrofitted with a uv disinfectant system, then flows through the reaeration basin, then the
effluent flow meter channel, and then is discharge into East Prong Slocum Creek. Two
mechanical aerators provide aeration in the reaeration basin. Backwash water is pump from the
reaeration basin thru the denitrification filters, accumulated in the filter backwash waste
detention tank, and then pumped back to the influent pump station.
Solids from the waste solids holding tank are further dewatered, thickened by chemical treatment
and/or gravity belt thickener, and trucked off site for land application. Additional solids storage,
chemical storage, and truck loading facilities make up the solids operation. Any capture water
from the solids operation is recycled to the wastewater treatment plant.
The Phase I expansion to 2.25 MGD proposes hydraulic upgrades to the existing 1.9 MGD
facility to meet 2.25 MGD, or where more practical implement upgrades for 3.5 MGD. Phase I
also includes upgrade and expansion of uv disinfectant system, and relocation of the outfall to
the Neuse River approximately six miles from the current location. A new effluent pump station
will be located after the existing reaeration basin and will transfer the treated effluent through a
forced main to a new gravity cascade aerator located at the Neuse River location. The treated
wastewater will gravity feed from the cascade aerator through a pipe extending 2,036 feet across
the river bottom and discharge into the Neuse River via a 80 feet multiport diffuser. The 3.5
MGD design criteria will be applied for all components associated with the outfall relocation.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0021253
Page 3 of 7

The Phase II expansion to 2.8 MGD proposes additional hydraulic upgrades to the 2.25 MGD
facility, reconfiguration of existing second stage aeration basins, replacement of final clarifier
pump station and distribution box, addition of new NRCY pump station, and addition of new
570,000 gallon three -stage BNR tank upstream of the existing first stage aeration basins.
The Phase III expansion to 3.5MGD proposes additional hydraulic upgrades to the 2.8 MGD
facility, addition of 180,000 gallon tankage to the existing three -stage BNR system to expand to
five -stage BNR, addition of a third 65 feet diameter final clarifier, and addition of a fourth
multimedia 7,500 ft3 denitrification filter.
As the treatment capacity is increased additional solids process capability and/or storage will
need to be added. A proposal to add three belt filter presses and contingency for alternative
solids disposal are under review
COMPLIANCE HISTORY
Since July 2008 this facility has had two limit violations which resulted in total civil penalties of
$10,552. However, the 2009 annual TN Load exceedance violation, a $10,011 civil penalty, was
determined to be a calculation error by the Permittee at a later date, and the Division is in process
of reconciling this enforcement action. The second limit violation was for exceedance of a BOD
limit in 2010. There were some minor missing data events but none resulted in enforcement
actions. This facility has a good compliance history and operational record.
PERMIT MODIFICATION DEVELOPMENT
The existing and expanded treatment process utilizes biological treatment to reduce Total
Nitrogen so the facility treatment designation for all permitted flows in this permit will continue
to be Class IV.
The final modified permit will be developed from:
(1) the current permit 1.9 MGD effluent limit page with discharge to East Prong Slocum Creek,
Chronic toxicity limit special condition, and special conditions for calculation of TN Load,
annual limit TN Load, TN allocation, and annual priority pollutant scan;
(2) three new effluent limit pages for 2.25 MGD, 2.8 MGD, and 3.5 MGD with a new discharge
outfall into the Neuse River class SB, Sw, NSW receiving stream via a diffuser;
(3) a new Chronic toxicity permit limit special condition and a new section to the instream
sampling special condition for the new expansion flows diffuser location.
Since UV is currently the disinfectant method and will be upgraded to meet future expansion
requirements, a new provisional TRC special condition will be added to the permit and replace
the 1.9 MGD TRC limit and narrative. The TRC special condition will provide the applicable
TRC limit associated with each effluent limit page.
Each expansion phase will require an Authorization to Construct approval, and the receipt of the
signed Engineer Certificate for each expansion phase to activate the appropriate effluent limit
page.
The available expansion process descriptions were used to amend the supplemental page to
include new narratives for each expansion and the new Neuse River outfall. The amended
supplemental page narrative may change after the final permit is issued and each expansion is
approved. Technical correction will be at the discretion of the Division, and will not require
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0021253
Page 4 of 7

r r
•
` reopening of the permit. The permittee must provide an accurate accounting of process
components as part of any permit renewal or modification.
Based on EPA guidelines a mixing zone equal to the 10 feet water column height above the
diffuser was defined as the mixing zone radius. The Tetra Tech Model was reviewed and the
data used to define the equivalent IWC % at the boundary of the 10 feet radius mixing zone for
each expansion. The water quality based limits for each expansion effluent limit page, NH3-N
and TRC, were calculated based on the appropriate IWC %. The Chronic test saltwater
concentration for each expansion was defined based on the 10 radius model data.
The effluent TP concentration limit for the expanded flows discharging into the new Neuse River
location is set at 2.0 mg/L as a quarterly average, per the Neuse Nutrient Strategy Rules and the
Permittee membership in the Neuse River Compliance Association. Upon relocation of the
outfall to the Neuse River if the Permittee does not maintain membership in the Neuse River
Compliance Association then the effluent TP concentration limit of 1.0 mg/L as a monthly
average will applied. A conditional footnote narrative for the TP concentration limit is included
on each expansion effluent limit page. The current 1.9 MGD effluent limit page TP concentration
limit is unique to the discharge to East Prong Slocum Creek and does not change.
The current facility annual TN Load mass limit is a fixed allocation and will remain set at 21,400
lbs/yr regardless of which effluent limit page is active. Additional special condition narratives
provide details on TN calculation and compliance. Monthly calculation and reporting of TN
Load mass is required on all effluent limit pages. Starting in 2012 the Permittee annual TN Load
will be part of the Neuse River Compliance Association compliance.
To meet the annual TN Load mass limit for 2.8 MGD and 3.5 MGD requires treatment upgrades
to achieve effluent TN concentrations, 2.5 mg/L and 2.0 mg/L respectively, less than the
recognized technology based 3.0 mg/L threshold. Data and documentation was provided by the
consultant that supports the ability to use a combined aeration, BNR, and denitrification filter to
achieve the necessary 2.5 mg/L and 2.0 mg/L effluent TN concentrations. The main point for
achieving the low level of TN concentration was based on the less than 1.5 mg/L inert TN
species inherent in Havelock influent, resulting in the majority of the influent TN species being
treatable. For further clarification, the proposed new treatment components for each expansion
phase will be listed on the supplement to permit cover page as minimum components needed to
achieve that expansions treatment capability.
Seasonal BOD limits were imposed as defined by the Neuse River Basin Plan for a new
discharger in this segment of the Neuse River, and were applied to all expansion effluent limit
pages. As a new discharge location, year round NH3-N limits were applied for all expansion
effluent limit pages based on utilizing the best available technology. TSS and pH limits were
applied based on secondary limits for domestic discharge into saltwater, and were applied to all
expansion effluent limit pages. Since the expanded flows are for treated domestic discharge to
saltwater, enterococci limits were applied to all expansion effluent limit pages. A DO limit was
imposed to meet saltwater water quality standards at end of pipe, and was applied to all
expansion effluent limit pages.
The expanded flows require effluent monitoring and reporting of the calculated total monthly
flow (TMF), nitrogen species (TKN, NO2-N + NO3-N), total copper, total zinc, and temperature.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0021253
Page 5 of 7

Instream Monitoring
The City of Havelock is a member of the Lower Neuse Basin Association. The current discharge
to East Prong Slocum Creek instream monitoring requirements are waived contingent on the
Permittee membership in this association.
To be consistent with accepted instream monitoring requirements for a diffuser in this segment
of the Neuse River, the Cherry Point instream monitoring parameters were adopted for the City
of Havelock diffuser. Three instream sample locations for the City of Havelock diffuser were
defined based on the 10 feet radius mixing zone. The Lower Neuse Basin Association has stated
it will not be responsible for the instream monitoring requirements associated with the Neuse
River diffuser so the waiver does not apply. The existing special condition for instream
monitoring requirements was amended to include a new section for the Neuse River outfall
location.
Priority Pollutant Scan
Frequency was amended from annual to 3 per designated years to be consistent with federal
guidelines. The special condition narrative was revised.
Stream Impairment
The new Neuse River discharge outfall is into a segment of the Neuse River which is listed on
the 303 (d) impairment list. The specific impairments were addressed in the facility treatment
design and the permit effluent limits. A narrative will be incorporated in the draft and final cover
letter stating the impairment status.
Other Reviewers
As a major permitted discharger the EPA will be sent copies of the modification application,
factsheet, and draft permit for review and comment. The Aquatic Toxicology Unit will also be
asked to review and comment on the draft. Ecosystems Unit was consulted on impact to coalition
monitoring program.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
In keeping with Division policies the following will be incorporated into the permit
modification:
• New effluent limit page for expansion to 2.25 MGD with relocated discharge with
diffuser to Neuse River. Includes monitoring with limits for:
- BOD summer limits, 5.0 mg/L monthly/7.5 mg/L weekly
- BOD winter limits, 10.0 mg/L monthly/15.0 mg/L weekly
- TSS limits, 30.0 mg/L monthly/45.0 weekly
- pH limit range, 6.8 S.U. to 8.5 S.U. daily
- NH3-N limits, 1.0 mg/L monthly/3.0 mg/L weekly
- Enterococci limits, 25/100 ml monthly/276/100 ml weekly
- DO limit, 5.0 mg/L daily
- TP limit, 2.0 mg/L quarterly
- TN Load limit, 21,400 lbs/yr annually (equivalent effluent TN = 3.1 mg/L)
- Chronic saltwater toxicity limit, 15%
Effluent limit page includes effluent monitoring and reporting for monthly total flow,
monthly TN Load, temperature, total copper, total zinc, TKN, NO2-N+NO3-N, and
priority pollutant scan.
• New effluent limit page for expansion to 2.8 MGD. Same monitoring and limits as
applied for 2.25 MGD except for:
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0021253
Page 6 of 7

- NH3-N limits, 1.0 mg/L monthly/3.0 mg/L weekly
- TN Load limit, 21,4001bs/ys annually (equivalent effluent TN = 2.5 mg/L)
- Chronic saltwater toxicity limit, 16%
• New effluent limit page for expansion to 3.5 MGD. Same monitoring and limits as
applied for 2.25 MGD except for:
- NH3-N limits, 1.0 mg/L monthly/3.0 weekly
- TN Load limit, 21,400 lbs/yr annually (equivalent effluent TN = 2.0 mg/L)
- Chronic saltwater toxicity limit, 16%
• New special condition narrative for Chronic saltwater toxicity tests.
• New special condition narrative for use of chlorine or chlorine derivative disinfectant.
Replaced 1.9 MGD TRC limit and footnote.
• Modified special condition narrative for instream monitoring to include requirements
and sample locations for diffuser discharge.
• Modified supplemental page narrative to reflect existing and future expanded discharge
operations and a list of minimum treatment components.
• Modified effluent limit pages and A.(10) to reflect 3 Priority Pollutant Scans
requirements.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice: December 21, 2011
Permit Scheduled to Issue: March 2012
NPDES DIVISION CONTACT
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Ron Berry at,(�19) 807- 396 or email [e-mail].
NAME: DATE: 3// //Z-
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENTS
NAME: DATE:
SUPERVISOR: DATE:
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0021253
Page 7 of 7

• USDA Adak
simin Development
United States Department of Agriculture
Rural Development
State Office
(Exh. E. — SI 1794-1)
SUBJECT: City of Havelock
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion and Neuse River Ouffall
Finding of No Significant Impact
TO: Project File
The attached Environmental Assessment has been prepared and reviewed in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
6941 et seq.); the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508); and 7 CFR Part 1794, Rural Utilities Service's
Environmental Policies and Procedures. Upon review of the environmental
documentation included and referenced in the Environmental Assessment, I find
that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the human
environment and for which an Environmental Impact Statement will not be
prepared.
-Poe Randall A. Gore
State Director
Rural Development
�v -- /� __•zc� 1C�
Date
4405 Bland Road, Suite 260 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • TDD: [phone] • Web: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/nc
Committed to the future of rural communities.
'USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender."
To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call [phone] (voice), or [phone] (TDD).
4 5a- EF -1

Notice of Finding of No 'Significant Impact
The USDA, Rural Utilities Service has received an application for financial assistance from
the City of Havelock. The City of Havelock proposes to expand and improve its existing
wastewater treatment facilities, construct a new outfall pipeline and relocate an existing National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge from the East Prong of Slocum
Creek to the main stem of the Neuse River. The upgrades from a 1.9 to a 3.5 mgd wastewater
treatment facilities will be constructed in three phases and include the following components:
• Ph. 1 - Construction of a new effluent pump station, installation of large pumps at influent
pump stations, upgrade existing ultraviolet disinfection units and existing bar screens
as well as various hydraulic improvements to meet Ph. 1 design flow. In conjunction
with Ph. 1 VVWTP expansion, the effluent discharge location on the East Prong of
Slocum Creek will be abandoned and a new 24-inch effluent pipe routed through
MCAS Cherry Point to the new proposed discharge location in the Neuse River. The
effluent pipe will primarily be installed in existing utility/roadway rights of way.
• Ph. 2 — Construction of a 570,000 gallon process train 2, a new nitrified recycle pump
station, a new intermediate clarifier pump station, a new dewatering building, and
conversion of an existing second —stage aeration basin coarse bubble system to fine
bubble aeration as well as various hydraulic improvements to meet Ph. 2 design flow.
• Ph. 3 — Construction of a new 180,000 gallon post -anoxic process train 2, a new
secondary clarifier, a new denitrifying filter, replacement of the grit removal system with
larger unit, as well as various hydraulic improvements to meet Ph. 3 design flow.
The proposed improvements will provide wastewater service capacity to meet forecasted
demand in the service area and improve the ecology of Slocum Creek with the relocated
discharge.
As required by the National Environmental Policy Act and agency regulations, the Rural Utilities
Service has assessed the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The
Availability of the Environmental Assessment was first published on August 4, 2010 for a 30-day
public comment period. All comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Upon consideration
of the applicant's proposal, federal and state environmental regulatory and natural resource
agencies, and public input, the Rural Utilities Service has determined that the proposal will not
have a significant effect on the human environment and for which an Environment Impact
Statement will not be prepared. The basis of this determination is a thorough review and
analysis of the environmental information reported in the environmental assessment including
public and regulatory agencies' comments regarding the proposed project.
In order to avoid or minimize any adverse environmental impacts, the Rural Utilities Service will
require the applicant to incorporate the following mitigation measures into the proposed project's
design:
1. Potential adverse impacts to important resources will be mitigated through the use of
directional drilling at all stream crossings.
2. The outfall line into the river would be constructed at the discharge location using
trenchless technology and sub -aqueous construction techniques.

3. Other potential adverse impacts will be mitigated through incorporating "best
management" construction practices into the project plans and specifications such as
following an approved sedimentation and erosion control plan.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment can be reviewed at the City of Havelock City Hall
located at 1 Government Ave., Havelock, NC 28532 (252-444-6403) or at Hazen and Sawyer
located at 4011 West Chase Blvd., Suite 500, Raleigh, NC 27607 (Telephone:[phone])
or at the USDA, Rural Development office located at 2044-C Hwy. 11/55 South, Kinston, NC
28501. For further information please contact Mr. Elmer Langston, Area Director at (252) 526-
9799 Ext. 5.
"USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender." To file a complaint of
discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S. W.,
Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call [phone] (voice), or [phone] (TDD).
A general location map of the proposal is shown below.

Craven County,
NC
Relocated Discharge
0
East Prong of
Slocum Creek
Neuse River
Proposed 32,200 ft 24-inch
Effluent Pipeline and Outfall
MCAS Cherry Point
Havelock WWTP
NC101
Havel
ck, NC
\,
Craven County, NC
Havelock WWTP Expansion and New Outfall Pipeline
Project Location Map

12/09/2010 17:5e 2526331841
Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact
net U30A• Rosa lams Service hoe tocOtigd ee n0Pee3Sm rrr fn.nl79
O rolttenen room leeClep a 1lmplrek. 1 ha CIey of n.vatetk omae•!,'- le
mend ono knprcve asexeenp ellr/xatnr IMteent Wiere. eanl1rutt
e new llwe1 emtelAn Ana 11Neate en entente N.Ilonal Paellanl D!tthdtp0
Er[naphen system (14000$) r6yhattn from the Cesl PNeve of S1ttam
C1v4k la Me meet ctem Ot Mt Nom RMar, 1b [yyraelee lathe 19 ec
311n00wnalv0F1MI[A10M113Chret 0:2Le MnNuchne !Nee 08e00
and *etude the lo6rxing comPonants:
• Ph, 1. Cene'4ucl'on.ef o new 084,41e pump nInden. netelhiOp, of !Me
M0m11 al Y:lvpM pump e!faons. tgllnt* *AVM. .ylavatet d40 200l On
h64e reel en!s!Inn nn1 ee4n4M e: well of WW2 hyti10, lmMevenlenll to
men Pn 1 desyn 1104. 1n con;netn rn w•:11 Ph 1 VNJIP enter she1, 010 erne -
col *Mims oeveket on me Eeel 1,10110 0' 015e001 Creek 1ve11m elmMos2l
.td a,uwr24•nch N(w11 ripe mated Iltrr4ah MCA$ Che'N Peal a leo
new pr0pa,od d4<nnen 1,enlon tot .t. dabs,. r11. o The elr.ral 01v1r.kr
p1Mlny be *stelae le O' 10a7 u8Staosatny dynn of way.
• pet. 2-Connexion of n 570.000 oaten Leotnsetr.+'e 2,a nee Nei..d
1n_-y6.o. pap Matta. a eme It 5,n0w21e t!AUnr porno teas.. o ralw ee•
...awns aordr..p. end or ,,r.lc , w: ra PCsdrq tnr!ea11.1ge tetra Ma'n
Coate t020IO oytam to raw beet3e menthe. es web at 0.nove Iylkal131
neve:ovett re meld Ph. 2 deit32 foe,
• Pn.3- CePteuctan Of new 100.000 Cake ryp6nencpte^0ls bale
2. a ten P etesesfy 0Llrfer• 1 Ave de: 2041-0 1W. 4M2Mmeel et Ins 0!1
1941.4.01.yeleme.1111ansee u1L nslvalt tit vlvlMnhg01.0c neemste etic
leave( Pe. 3 d2A le tan,
Taa 0N7eCM ImPtenomonl.11! neeekM 1vtr5. Y.uN rem* taceuei w
& let reme4tr ed noun I In the e0Mce et re t xt Iroproen the e040*7 a1
Stamm, Come weft Inn rNeealnd ten name ,
A. re9, 0od by IN Non;n.l Enettenmenlal Pete:yew. end Natty K,lett..
dens- Ise Hunt Ut1ides Ser4ce has spooled 1n4 oet1416M enNennerenelol
Mee:, el the rowed peeiect 1 ne Av8YON0:/ of the EnJ4e.1mx.1M Asa't.
mnnlwee rmt004.1thad en Aeon: 4, 2010 fora 30 any P4b3o;ow0101
ter;wtl. A7. cowmen hove been oor:1.1clotay ,ld0ressed. Upon sonnet.
mhn 01 the OP R. uda prapeee1. 140944 Nei Unto enurenmen0d ren4ulelny
Ina 'Natal ,O[Ceee a(tette%e. end PONI0 Inpd. 0n0 nwm1 Vt4141 Ettheee
h„ aNnor44101In.V In p•apn0N w4 not h..P a nInn:4Am 0441 on Ow M..
men enelrwment min k1: 1th an Enrhefer11n! lmp0c15lata,len1unmet by
p0Iwe•J The bet!, 14 Lsb dam o.leenr1le a lnaouys Meet* A+a arla'ysit
011.9 M1+,0nmMIOI Waneehn refeoM In lie envto'ellent;t ee;eeam tell
lecLelen pe,Ic end nrydMrry satin ue.' eon ennnt.. rogueng the rmemcd
propel
In crate to eve a or re'4.wl26 00 y a12re00 tm.rn!neael 0Msc!e. rib Rm.l
thaws servx4 wY 1e014rn the ere=alai la evaporate 010 teo✓nn7 m: „3.
1cn mc.l;ur0t :rein the 11/6pe,0,1pia)oer. {Hare
.1. eat:ontoada.ne rep:Nit*l.11vnant letee[aelW1Le mitigated d:ot,th
Pn Ira tl ds . Metal d•4hq N NI nveam ua1 0110:. .•
The, 0v444 mo Pao the leer w3040 20 comtwel0e'sl the ataute 7e Inca -
OM oleo nominees 1Ce6Cieify end tab ae000Ve 0enl1Ntaensnake:!%.
3. Olher wentaI ed vrte Impede tat be mJ5.tod W aup11 I1.Capanekn
'aMl rn µ• homed' cease an of ntree In* tn. onXecl Oen, wul alwt/.
:em!ln, a•A nl tellewkle .1n apr[aga lretm,elltten And arosoa axial
n!an.
CepiO0 et len Leven. 4
morielA134.1moal Cen . •'•�e4t -.
be renewed et the City of ;..•. '. OlNfK;
Neeeleek C1ly Naplepl:d '.'.• o'-, }
at 1 eovemmenlAveC ne_cf lry;;l l4"
lloyelack: NC 28832 252-
444.5403) or al Hazen 40d a :"' •' C��"a
sawyer heeled al4011 '4 . e
West Chew UMM., Suer
500. R.Mnyb, NC 27807
fletepnenc: Ain.823.71521
re et lee USDA.Rem! Do-
nels,lrrr.n• y.1t;•N[Y.od el
2044.0II.e. 1 V55 Sark.
1: • tlt .: 26561 Te.
hover 111enra'iUt Wee..1
oo latl 2s.Clrew Lc:ogee.
N en Mat f (252) 878•
WO Ka. 5.
V.0DAla0 noel weamo
fly mow), mete -tar eta
kmor': To On rampalnt
tit cletatr111, el on. vane
It 0A. Wreaks, Woo of
Cho R 3/ 1*.. 1403 met.
fun,leeee Aeon Ie. 5. W.
Y.inettcnten. DC 20280.
0410 to can (OCT 7658272 __ --
twee). s202.}72ce3e?
from. • • .
SUN JOUPI4i3L
, Affidavit of Publication
SUN -JOURNAL
New Bern, N.C.
Personally appeared before me, a Notary
Public of the County of Craven, State of
North Carolina. 1telr
on this the _a.l day of bet. _20i 0
of the Sun Journal sworn,
states that the notice eptNleda
7�R6Nt�J.•csH7" �C7!
a true copy of which Is attached hereto,
appeared in the Sun Journal, a newspaper
published In the City of New Bern, County
of Craven, Stale Of North Carolina,
1 71M ES a week for
wpe$s DIl�O 1e following dates:
7fiAl�dfU. bet . _zow
Ct ? zo 1L
2080
200
200
200
200
200
200
The New Bern61Vn Journal
1
Subscribed and sworn tgltils r'..o.4,%
y ipl^'1a 70pii
ague Ll;
t•••Notar e.143ilc
s1 2rs t %:fi lf.
�- A:yCOrwni;0bn 1r,,,Nr0p,11
Ekpltes
.. • Ibx•f Il4
PAGE 02/02

Environmental Assessment for
City of Havelock Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
2. Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Six alternatives were considered for meeting future wastewater treatment and effluent discharge needs
through the year 2030. In each of the alternatives, with the exception of the No -Action alternative,
Havelock's WWTP will require expansion in conjunction with the listed effluent discharge management
method.
1. No -Action.
2. Expand Havelock WWTP to 3.5 mgd and reroute effluent pipe to discharge to the
Neuse River (Recommended Alternative).
3. Expand Havelock WWTP to 3.5 mgd and manage effluent via.rapid infiltration.
4. Expand Havelock WWTP to 3.5 mgd and manage effluent via land application.
5. Expand Havelock WWTP to-2.5 mgd, discharge effluent to Neuse River, and divert
1.0 mgd to City of New Bern and Carolina Pines WWTP.
6. Expand Havelock WWTP to 3.0 mgd, discharge effluent to Neuse River, and divert
0.5 mgd to City of New Bern.
2.1 Alternative 1- No -Action
Under the "no -action" alternative, the plant will not be expanded and wastewater generated in the City of
Havelock's current service area would continue to be treated at the Havelock WWTP in accordance with
the existing permit. This alternative is not considered feasible because it would not .meet immediate and
projected needs for additional flow capacity, and would require new development in the service area to be
served by private wastewater treatment facilities or septic tanks. Use of private wastewater treatment
facilities is not considered acceptable because such facilities historically have resulted in lower quality
effluent discharging into receiving streams. Larger, centralized wastewater treatment facilities are preferred
over smaller decentralized facilities. The coastal area provides poor conditions for septic systems, and
limited:septic use and switchover to City sewer is a goal of the City of Havelock where they exist. Much of
Havelock consists of hydric soil conditions, which are less able to support septic systems (Urban
Resources Group, 2009). Existing septic systems in the area are known to operate inadequately and are
prone to failure.
2.2 Alternative 2- Expand Havelock WWTP to 3.5 mgd and Reroute Effluent Pipe to Discharge to the Neuse
River- Recommended Alternative
Under this alternative Havelock's WWTP will be expanded to accommodate the projected 3.5 mgd
wastewater flow by the year 2030. The current effluent discharge location on the East Prong of Slocum
Creek will be abandoned and the effluent will be re-routed across MCAS Cherry Point to discharge
existing and future effluent flows to the Neuse River.
Hazen and Sawyer Project No. 30906.005
HAZFdVAND SAWYER
2-1
Environmental Eaelassn 8 8elsatlsts

Environmental Assessment for
City of Havelock Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As described in Section 1.1, the WWTP will be expanded in three phases. In conjunction with Phase 1 of
the WWTP expansion, the effluent pipeline will be constructed, as seen in Figure 1-1. The proposed 28,900
linear feet of effluent pipe route will temporarily disturb approximately 20 acres of land, assuming a 30-
foot construction corridor. It is anticipated that an additional three acres will be required for temporary
construction easement associated with contractor lay. down/staging areas and to accommodate
construction of a cascade aerator on the bank of the Neuse River. The effluent pipe will primarily be
installed in existing utility and roadway corridors, and will require a permanent easement across MCAS
Cherry Point. The effluent pipeline crosses a limited distance of wetland area as well as Slocum Creek,
Mill Creek, and Hunters Branch. Directional drilling will be used for stream crossings, which will reduce
the area of disturbance and avoid direct impacts. Wetland impacts are mostly temporary as access to
the pipeline is available from existing defined utility and roadway corridors, however approximately 0.14
acres will be converted from forested wetlands to herbaceous. It is anticipated that 3,300 feet of
outfall/diffuser pipe would be constructed in the Neuse River using trenchless technology and sub-
aqueous construction techniques. • •—-'
The proposed effluent discharge pipeline route crosses areas designated as Areas of Environmental
concern (AEC) by the North Carolina Division of Costal Management; including Slocum Creek, Mill
Creek, Hunters Branch, and the Neuse River. In order to minimize disturbances to these AEC's and to
ensure there is no impact to water quality, directional drilling, and/or other subaqueous construction
techniques will be employed. In addition, the Spring -flowering goldenrod (Solidago Vema) was identified
by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program as a threatened federal specie of concern. The
Havelock WWTP outfall pipeline passes through an area on the west side of Roosevelt Boulevard that
includes habitat for Spring -flowering goldenrod. The City of Havelock will survey the pipeline corridor
prior to construction to determine if any spring -flowing goldenrod is present. If found, the City would
propose to relocate the goldenrod to an area adjacent to but unaffected by pipeline construction activity
or modify the pipeline location within the recommended corridor to avoid the goldenrod.
The Havelock WWTP property has limited room for expansion. It is anticipated that the current site
perimeter will remain unaltered throughout the three -phased expansion of the facility. Some facilities will
require relocation on site in order to expand and treat a higher flow rate at the WWTP. The present
worth cost of this alternative over the 20-year planning period is approximately $53 million.
The recommended alternative is the most economically feasible alternative for the City of Havelock in
terms of present worth cost and initial capital cost. Unlike other alternatives discussed in Section 2 of the
report, expanding the existing WWTP facility to accommodate a future flow of 3.5 mgd will allow
Havelock to treat the anticipated wastewater projections through the year 2030 in a centralized location
enabling Havelock to maintain control over its wastewater treatment in the long term. It will result in high
quality treatment as well as a single discharge location at the Neuse River, which modeling has shown
will have negligible environmental impacts on the river, and will in turn alleviate nutrient loadings on the
East Prong of Slocum Creek.
Hazen and Sawyer Project No. 30906-005
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
2-2

Environmental Assessment for
City of Havelock Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
2.3 Alternative 3- Expand Havelock WWTP to 3.5 mgd and manage effluent via rapid infiltration
Under this alternative Havelock's WWTP will be expanded to accommodate the projected 3.5 mgd
wastewater flow by the year 2030. The current effluent discharge location on the East Prong of Slocum
Creek will be abandoned and the effluent will be diverted to rapid infiltration facilities.
In January 2009, Groundwater Management Associates, Inc. prepared a white paper for the City of
Havelock evaluating wastewater disposal options using high rate infiltration with groundwater lowering.
The following observations, based on a review of the report, do not support the implementation of a rapid
infiltration system due to Havelock's specific geologic and environmental conditions:
• Rapid infiltration is a relatively new practice for managing wastewater and is
primarily limited to smaller installations.
• Environmental impacts as•well.as•long-term-effectiveness-are difficult to determine
due to the lack of experience with this approach.
• Havelock's high water table would likely require significant groundwater table
lowering to allow high rate infiltration, thus requiring an extensive ground water
pumping system.
• Sustainability of long-term groundwater quality is uncertain with infiltration induced
by groundwater pumping.
• There could be some detrimental effects adjacent to the facility due to lowering the
groundwater table.
• The infiltration system's effectiveness is a function of the geology in the vicinity of
the facility, which can be quite variable in the Havelock area.
• Reliably predicting the system's performance during extended wet periods as was
experienced in 2003 could be difficult.
The large basins used for rapid infiltration provide prime habitat for ducks, geese, and other birds to
congregate. The City of Havelock along with MCAS Cherry Point are concerned about the risks and safety
introduced to flight personnel, flight equipment, and the entire City of Havelock population due to the
potential for large groups of birds to congregate so close to MCAS Cherry Point. The hazard of birds in the
area surrounding MCAS Cherry Point must be considered during discussions of the viability of this
alternative.
The rapid infiltration facility will require additional land to be acquired by the City. An extensive evaluation of
prospective sites for this application would be required before considering this technology an option. Due to
the questionable reliability of the overall performance of the system, uncertain environmental impacts, and
public safety concerns related to the potential for birds to interfere with the operating of aircraft at MCAS
Cherry Point, the rapid infiltration alternative has been eliminated as a feasible project altemative.
Hazen and Sawyer Project No. 30906.005
HAZENAND SAWYER
2-3
Environmental Eaplaeers 8 t8eleatlets

Environmental Assessment for
City of Havelock Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
2.4 Alternative 4- Expand Havelock WWTP to 3.5 mgd and manage effluent via land application
Under this alternative, Havelock's WWTP is expanded in three phases to accommodate the projected
3.5 mgd wastewater flow by the year 2030. The effluent discharge location on the East Prong of Slocum
Creek would be abandoned and the WWTP effluent would be diverted to areas of land suitable for land
application. The land application of effluent involves the construction of storage ponds and land application
facilities, which would be located at dedicated land application sites. Havelock has investigated possible
sites for land application and three sites were identified in a preliminary site investigation by Soil, Water, &
Environmental Group in 2006 as shown on Figure 2-1 (Soil, Water, & Environmental Group, September
2006). These sites include the 548 acre Weyerhaeuser site east of MCAS Cherry Point, a 1,254 acre site
south west of the City bordering the west side of Lake Road, and the 375 acre site adjacent to Carolina
Pines Boulevard. Approximately 1,100 acres is required for land application. Due to the high percentage of
wetlands on each of the sites none of the three sites identified for land application provide sufficient
acreage for the land application alternative. However, if all- three*sites • are combined the acreage
requirement will be met. In addition to the land requirements, the City will need to acquire utility easements
or use road right-of-ways to construct pipelines to convey treated effluent from the WWTP to each site.
In lieu of constructing treatment facilities at the land application sites this alternative will make use of the
existing treatment facilities. Similar to the proposed expansion outlined in Section 1.1, the WWTP will be
expanded in three phases. However, due to the less stringent effluent limitations associated with land
application (Environment and Natural Resources Department Rules section 15A NCAC 02T, Waste Not
Discharged To Surface Water) a few proposed improvements could be eliminated from the design of the
WWTP expansion. The present worth cost of this alternative over the 20-year planning period is
approximately $82 million.
The Weyerhaeuser site and the Lake Road site are in close proximity to the *Croatan National Forest and
both sites are saturated with wetlands. Due to Havelock's high water table and undesirable soil conditions
the long-term impacts to the Croatan National Forest as well as the wetlands are uncertain. In addition, the
cost associated with this alternative is considerably higher than the recommended alternative.
Subsequent to the initial land application alternative investigation, MCAS Cherry Point made known that
the US Navy and the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund currently hold easements on a portion of
the Carolina Pines site and are currently pursuing an easement on the remainder of the property. The
easements do not allow for land application. Consequently, an additional land application site or sites
would need to be identified if this alternative were to be pursued. Considering this, as well as the
previously mentioned factors, land applying treated effluent from the WWTP has been eliminated as a
feasible alternative.
Hazen and Sawyer Project No. 30906-005
HAZENAND SAWYER
2-4
r_.
EnvIronmsatsl Eaglaars 8 Scbatlst•

Environmental Assessment for
City of Havelock Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
2.5 Alternative 5- Expand Havelock WWTP to 2.5 mgd, discharge effluent to Neuse River, and divert 1.0 mgd
to City of New Bern and Carolina Pines WWTP
This alternative assumes the Havelock WWTP is expanded to a treatment capacity of 2.5 mgd in two
phases and the remaining 1 mgd is diverted and split between the New Bern and Carolina Pines
wastewater treatment facilities. Phase 1 of the WWTP expansion is identical to the Phase 1 expansion for
the recommended alternative. In conjunction with the WWTP Phase 1 expansion, the facilities required for
diverting 0.5 mgd of flow to New Bern will be constructed. The second phase assumes the Havelock
WWTP will be expanded to a capacity of 2.5 mgd and the Carolina Pines WWTP will be expanded to a
treatment capacity of 0.5 mgd. The pipelines and the new and modified existing facilities required for this
alternative are provided in Figure 2-2.
This alternative presumes the City of Havelock can negotiate an arrangement with the City.of New Bern to
discharge 0.5 mgd of wastewater -oh amaximum. monthly basis to -New Bem's wastewater collection
system for handling and treatment. Approximately 0.25 mgd of this .flow would be diverted to the New Bern
pumping station from the planned Croatan Station development, which is located near the proposed New
Bern pumping station. The remaining 0.25 mgd would be diverted from existing developments in the City of
Havelock, and requires modifying two existing pump stations and installing a 16,000-foot long 12-inch force
main. The Tucker Creek, McDonald Downs, and Westbrook pump stations are three pump stations that are
estimated to pump a combined maximum month sewer flow of approximately 0.25 mgd on a maximum
monthly basis. The flow from the existing pump stations would discharge into the New Bern pumping
facility at the Croatan Station development. The New Bern pumping facility would serve as the connection
point to New Bern.
The Carolina Pines WWTP is an existing wastewater treatment plant that is currently permitted for
0.125 mgd, with a NPDES permit to expand to 0.5 mgd. Currently, the facility treats 0. 6..mgd, leaving
0.44 mgd of available treatment capacity if the plant were expanded. Under this alternative, this facility
would be expanded to 0.5 mgd in conjunction with the Phase 2 expansion of Havelock's WWTP. Flow from
Havelock would be diverted to the Carolina Pines WWTP via 9,100 feet of 12-inch force main that tees
from the 12-inch force main conveying flow to the proposed New Bern pumping station. The Carolina Pines
WWTP expansion would require the installation of 8,300 feet of 8-inch effluent discharge pipe to convey the
treated flow to the current discharge location on the Neuse River.
Under this alternative Havelock's WWTP will require fewer upgrades to manage future flows of 2.5 mgd as
compared to the three -phased expansion to 3.5 mgd for the recommended alternative. However, this
alternative will still require constructing a new outfall pipeline to the Neuse River from the Havelock WWTP,
expanding the Carolina Pines WWTP to 0.5 mgd, and constructing an outfall pipeline to the Neuse River
from the Carolina Pines WWTP. This alternative would result in multiple treatment locations as well as
multiple discharge points into the Neuse/River. In addition, Havelock will still be responsible for managing
0.5 mgd of future wastewater flow in the event the contract between New Bern and Havelock is not
renewed. Dialog between Havelock and New Bern is still underway concerning the possibility of
Hazen and Sawyer Project No. 30906-005.
HAZEN AND SAWYER 2-6
EnvIrannintel Eaplarnn 8 Oelictbts

Legend 0 0.5 1
a Pipe Routes Miles
16-attch Foroe aten to Lake Rel Sae
sst 12-ratts Fonts Matt to Caesars Pam SM
ffl-iten Fate MaInbVleeerhsyserse.
Landappuesan sites
Ftanaleck0ty Lints
F-1 WAS Cnrny Point
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
Figure 2-1
Land Application Sites
City of Havelock, NC
0 1.3090610051EA.ER tat Effluent DischespeIGIS1EA Figura 2-1 Land Applinot on sites msd
Apnl 15. 2010

•
r
Environmental Assessment for
City of Havelock Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
transferring flow to New Bern, and there is no guarantee that the two cities will reach an agreement. The
present worth cost of this alternative over the 20-year planning period '
tic 1:. -4.e 1)3 C o k; h e, 1 J-
(1.;. V R.s-
trce o•s"
,1C fw rl s w
ems, e
Hazen and Sawyer Project No. 3030E-005
HAZENAND SAVVYER
Environments! Eaplasets ti Seteatlsts
2-7

Legend
* Carolina Pines W ffP
* Proposed New Bern Pumping Station
Proposed 8-inch Carolina Pines Effluent Force Main
Proposed 20-inch Effluent Force Main
Proposed 12-inch Force Main to New Bern Connection
iwissiv Proposed 12-inth Force Main to Carolina Pines WWTP
Existing Sewer Force Maher Used to Divert Flow
0 0.25 a 1
Miles
Proposed Carolina Pines
Location
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 6 Scientists
Proposed City of Havelock
Effluent Discharge Location
Figure 2-2:
Diversion to New Bern
And Carolina Pines WWTP
City of Havelock, NC
0.,309C6 051EAER for EIeue5 Doefory r0ISEA Fowe 2.2mad
Apnl 15.2010

• r
•
Environmental Assessment for
City of Havelock Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
2.6 Alternative 6- Expand Havelock WWTP to 3.0 mgd, discharge effluent to Neuse River, and divert 0.5 mgd
to the City of New Bern
This alternative assumes the Havelock WWTP will be expanded to a treatment capacity of 3.0 mgd in two
phases and the remaining 0.5 mgd is diverted to New Bern's wastewater treatment facilities. Under this
altemative, the Carolina Pines WWTP will not receive flow from Havelock's service area. Recommended
upgrades for Phase 1 of Havelock's WWTP expansion are identical to those listed for the recommended
alternative in Section 1.2. Recommended upgrades for Phase 2 of the expansion are also similar to those
listed for Phase 2 for the recommended alternative with the exception that some of the facilities for this
alternative will be sized slightly larger to manage 3.0 mgd of flow, versus 2.8 mgd. The current effluent
discharge location for Havelock's WWTP, the East Prong of Slocum Creek, will be abandoned and existing
and future flows will be discharged via a 20-inch pipe into the Neuse River through a new effluent pipe
route across MCAS Cherry Point. The pipelines and the new and existing facilities required for this
alternative are shown in Figure 2-3. •
Identical to the previous alternative in Section 2.4, this alternative presumes the City of Havelock can
negotiate an arrangement with the City of New Bern to discharge 0.5 mgd of wastewater on a maximum
monthly basis to New Bern's wastewater collection system for handling and treatment. Approximately
0.25 mgd of this flow would be diverted to New Bern from the planned Croatan Station development, which
is located near the proposed New Bern pumping facility near the intersection of U.S. 70 and Carolina Pines
Blvd. The remaining 0.25 mgd would be diverted from existing developments in the City of Havelock, and
requires 16,000 feet of 12-inch force main. Tucker Creek, McDonald Downs, and Westbrook pump station
pumps shown on Figure 2-3 would perform adequately when diverting 0.25 mgd out of the existing service
area. The flow from existing development and new development would discharge into the New Bern
pumping facility at Croatan Station, the connection point to New Bern's system.
Under this alternative Havelock's WWTP will require fewer upgrades to manage future flows of 3.0 mgd as
compared to the three -phased expansion to 3.5 mgd associated with the recommended alternative.
However, this alternative will still require constructing a new outfall pipeline to the Neuse River from the
Havelock WWTP. Havelock will still be responsible for managing future wastewater in the event the
contract between New Bern and Havelock is not renewed. Dialog between Havelock and New Bern is still
underway concerning the possibility of transferring flow to New Bern, and there is no guarantee that the two
cities will reach an agreement. The present worth cost of this alternative over the 20-year planning period is
$61 million.
Hazen and sawyer Project No. 30906-005
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environments! Esalnssts t 8ebntlsts
2-9

Proposed
Croatan Station
Development
Proposed New Bern
Pumping Station
Legend
Proposed New Bern Pumping Station
Proposed 20-inch Effluent Force Main
Proposed 12-inch Force Main to New Bern Connection
.movro Existing Sewer Farce Mains used to Divert Flow
fll MCAS Cherry Point
0 025 05
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
Proposed City of Havelock
Effluent Discharge Location
Proposed 32,200 ft 20-inch Effluent Pipe and Outfall
MCAS Cherry Point
HW 101
Figure 2-3:
Diversion to New Bern
City of Havelock, NC
r
01309061005 \EA -ER for Effluent Discharge‘GIS \EA Figure 2-3.mxd
April 15, 2010

•
•
ti
Environmental Assessment for
City of Havelock Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
2.7 Cost Comparison of Alternatives
The present worth cost associated with each feasible alternative's construction cost, project cost, O&M
cost, and salvage value through the year 2030 is provided in Table 2-1. Alternative 2, which is a three -
phased expansion of Havelock's WWTP to 3.5 mgd and rerouting the effluent pipe to discharge to the
Neuse River, is the recommended alternative and is the most economically feasible of all the alternatives.
Table 2-1: Present Worth Cost Comparison
Alternative No.2
Recommended
Alternative
Alternative No.4 Alternative No.5 Alternative No.6
Land Application Divert 1.0 mgd Diver 0.5 mgd
Construction Cost $20,892,000 $53,870,000 $26,497,000 $21,687,000
Non -Construction Costs .$3,156,000 • $8,903,000 $3,770,000 $3,229,000
Total Project Costs $24,048,000 $62,773,000 430;267,000 $24,916,000. ....;
Average Annual O&M • $2,864,000 $2,668,000 $4,081,739 $3,511,869
Present Worth O&M $34,885,000 $32,504,000 $43,679,000 $42,251,000
Salvage Value @YR 20-$10,194,000 -$22,752,000 -$13,000,000 -$10,566,000
-$5,755,000 -$12,844,000 -$7,339,000 -$5,965,000
Present Worth
Total Present Worth
$53,178,000 $82,433,000
$66,607,000
$61,202,000
Hazen and Sawyer Project No. 30906-005
HAZENAND SAWYER
Eavlroamiatal Minds $ Oclantlsts
2-11

• D.
•
Environmental Assessment for
City of Havelock Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion
Affected Environment / Environmental
Consequences
3. Affected Environment Environmental Consequences
Land Use/important Farmlands/Formally Classified Lands
A3.1.1 General Land Use
3.1.1.1 Affected Environment
A summary of the land uses for the service area was obtained using GIS data and is provided in Table 3-1.
Table 3.1: City of Havelock Existing Land Use Profile
Land Use
Service Area
Acres
Percent
Residential
Low Density 486.66 8.12
Medium Density 1,174.22 19.60
High Density 376.48 6.28
Hotel/Motel 18.76 0.31
Subtotal 2,056.12 34.31
Non-residential
Business & Office 355.26 5.93
Institutional and Public Facilities 464.88 7.76
U.S. Military Base 0.00 0.00
Agriculture 2,808.33 46.87
ti.- Parks & Recreation 192.96 3.22
National Park Land 5,406 40 _
Industrial 114.38 1.91
Vacant (unprotected) 1,094.91 18.27
Subtotal 3,935.81 65.69
I.
ROW, Water Bodies) Etc N/A N/A
Subtotal N/A N/A
Total 5,991.93 100.00
3.1.1.2 Environmental Consequences
The recommended alternative does not result in any direct land use changes for the City of Havelock or
MCAS Cherry Point. The plant expansion will be entirely within the existing site boundary. The project
Hazen and Sawyer Project No. 30906-005
HAZEN AND SAWYER 3-1
Envftoamsatsl Initialers & Seltottsts

lV RPORATFJ 1g5‘)
January 26, 2012
NCDENR-DWQ
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
Attn: Ron Berry
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Ref: Draft of Modified Permit
NPDES Permit NC0021253
Havelock WWTP
Review Comments
Dear Mr. Berry:
PUBLIC SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
104 OUTER BANKS DRIVE
PO BOX 368
HAVELOCK, NC 28532
252-444-6409
Fax [phone]
OV@IOJAN
3 0 2012
ivtriNG"I
GENR: WA rER QUALITY
VO STORE WATER BRANCH
We are writing this letter in compliance with your letter dated December 21, 2011
transmitting the referenced document for our review and comments. We received that
letter on December 27, 2011 and based on that date we are submitting this reply within
the stipulated 30 days from receipt. We have been reviewing the content of the letter
and the draft permit with our consulting engineer, operators and other staff. The
following is provided as a consolidated set of comments on our behalf.
Summary of Comments
The City of Havelock respectfully requests that the language in the cover letter be
changed for the listed requirements 3) and 4). Special condition A(6) outlines the
requirements for total nitrogen calculation. We do not want any confusion in the cover
letter regarding our permit requirements for total nitrogen. Our requested changes are
as follows:
1. Concerning Requirement 3- Effluent requirements were determined for an expanded
2.8 MGD treated domestic wastewater facility discharging through a diffuser to this
segment of the Neuse River. The facility has an annual TN Load limit allocation, and
the TP limit will be based on membership in the Neuse River Compliance
Association. Also, the expanded treatment must be able to achieve a mass -based
load allocation of 21,400 lb/year at the permitted flow.
2. Concerning Requirement 4- Effluent requirements were determined for an expanded
3.5 MGD treated domestic wastewater facility discharging through a diffuser to this

♦
•
•
Draft of Modified Permit
NPDES Permit NC0021253
Havelock WWTP
Review Comments
January 26, 2012
Page 2 of 2 pages
segment of the Neuse River. The facility has an annual TN Load limit allocation, and
the TP limit will be based on membership in the Neuse River Compliance
Association. Also, the expanded treatment must be able to achieve a mass -based
load allocation of 21, 4001b/year at the permitted flow.
This constitutes our comments on the Draft Permit Package we received. We
appreciate the professionalism and cooperation your agency has exhibited in this
matter. We recognize that it is no easy task moving this sort of major permit revision
forward in a manner that is respectful of the diverse interests of a broad group of stake
holders. The City of Havelock is committed to continue to operate our WVVTP in
compliance with all regulatory requirements.
Please contact this office should any questions arise on this correspondence.
Sincerely,
c_3(i.a
Daniel Harbaugh
Director of Public Services
Cc: Jim Freeman- City Manager
Art Hough- INWfP Supervisor & ORC
Tom Tant, PE- Hazen and Sawyer

Berry, Ron
From: Thorpe, Roger
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:20 PM
To: Berry, Ron
Subject: Havelock WWTP NPDES Draft permitNC0021253
Ron
I have reviewed the draft permit and find no problems with it. Thanks for the opportunity to review it.
Roger

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
NCDENR/ DWQ/ POINT SOURCE
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 276991617
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Wake
County North Carolina, duly commissioned and
authorized to administer oaths, affirmations, etc.,
personally appeared Debra Peebles, who being
duly sworn or affirmed, according to law, doth
depose and say that he or she is Accounts
Receivable Specialist of The News & Observer a
corporation organized and doing business under
the Laws of the State of North Carolina, and
publishing a newspaper known as The News &
Observer, in the City of Raleigh, Wake County and
State aforesaid, the said newspaper in which such
notice, paper, document, or legal advertisement
was published was, at the time of each and every
such publication, a newspaper 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 meaning of Section
1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina,
and that as such he or she makes this affidavit; and
is familiar with the books, files and business of said
corporation and by reference to the files of said
publication the attached advertisement for
NCDENR/ DWQ/ POINT SOURCE was inserted in
the aforesaid newspaper on dates as follows:
12/23/2011
Debra Peebles, Accounts Receivable Specialist
Wake County, North Carolina
Ad Number
0000014539
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mall Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-161 7
Notice of Intent to Issue a
NPDES Wastewater Pe rmit
The North Carolina Environmental Man-
e agement Commission proposes to issue a
NPDES wastewater discharge permit to
the persons) listed below.
Written comments regarding - the pro-
posed permit will be accepted until 30
days after the publish date of this notice.
The Director of the NC Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) may hold a public hearing
should there bea significant degree of
public interest. Please mall comments
and/or information requests to DWQ at
t1w—aSove. address.—lnterested-- persons
may visit the DWQ at 512 N. Salisbury
Street, Raleigh, NC to review Information
on file. Additional information on NPDES
permits and this notice may be found on
our website: htlp://portal.ncdenr.org/
webhvq/swp/ps/npdes/calendar, or by call-
ing [phone].
City of Havelock requested modification
of permit NC0021253 for expansion of Ha-
velock WWTP In Craven County; this
modified permitted discharge is for treat-
ed domestic wastewater to the Neuse RiV-
er, Neuse River Basin.
N8,0: December 23, 2011
Sworn to and subscribed before me
This 27th day of December, 2011
My Commission Expires: /041042
otary Signature

•
r •r
HAZENANDSAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
MEMORANDUM
PREPARED FOR:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
Introduction
Ron Berry
Hazen and Sawyer
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4011 WestChase Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27607
919-833-7152
Fax: [phone]
NC License # C-0381
DATE: December 15, 2011
H. Thomas Tant, P.E., Ronald L. Taylor, P.E., Katya
Bilyk, P.E., and David Wankmuller, E.I.
Response to December 2, 2011 comments by Ron
Berry regarding the November 3rd, 2011 memo to
the City of Havelock NDPES Permit
This Memorandum lists Ron Berry's December 2, 2011 comments to the November 3`d, 2011 Memo
entitled: City of Havelock DPDES Permit: Documentation of Regional WWTPs Meeting TN below 2.5
mg/L, and summarizes Hazen and Sawyer's response to those comments.
Comments and Responses
Comment # 1:
The process flow diagrams and speciation data provide on the other facilities need to be at the same
level of detail as presented for the Havelock expansion (figure 3). Need to indicate the BNR
process/configurations and the recycle streams at each facility (i.e. Culpeper and Waynesboro).
Response to Comment #1:
• Johnston County WRF -There was limited information on speciation for the historical period of
record shown in the memorandum. Speciation data for September 2005 —August 2006 are
shown in Figure 1. An updated process flow diagram with recycle streams is shown in Figure 2.
• Neuse River WWTP — Speciation data from January 2004 to May 2011 is shown in Figure 3.
• Culpeper WCPF — Speciation data is not readily available. An updated process flow diagram with
recycle streams is shown in Figure 4.
• Waynesboro WWTP — Speciation data is not readily available. An updated process flow diagram
with recycle streams is shown in Figure 5.

I1f�l�G1� AM) S&WIR
Page 2 of 13
3
® Effluent NOx (mg/L)
■ Effluent Organic N (mg/L)
• Effluent Ammonia (mg/L)
J 2.5
m
c
to
2 2
Z
H
d 1.5
w
0)
m
E
o
1
Q
T
s
Y
0
Q
2
0.5
0
ul vl N vl tD
0 0 9 0 0
O.U C
0 0 ) ^
vi O z 0
w
0
11
d
u.
Date
tD
0
L
CJ
iD
9
a
Q
LO
0
T
f0
0
0
C
^
l0
0
LD
0
Oo
7
Q
Figure 1: Typical Effluent Nitrogen Speciation for the Johnston County WRF
Bar
Screens
NRCY
Alum r.1inanci
Anoxic Aerobic
Zone Zone
xrzr.a.�ar. cosy MVP PON. re.
co
So :ds
Recycle
RAS
Final
Clarifiers
WAS
Denite UV Cascade
Filters Disinfection Aerator
Figure 2: Process Flow Diagram of Johnston County WRF
Discharge to
Neuse River

TMTA/N JET A''V,m, OYER
Page 3 of 13
5
u Effluent NO3 (mg/L)
Effluent Organic N
4.5
• (mg/L)
• Effluent Ammonia (mg/L)
Monthly Average Effluent Total
O N N
U1 F+ N N V1 U
I.
�r
u r r r r
cr et v to ul ul ID l0 n n r co co co co m 0 0 0 0 e•1 rl
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-i .-I .-1 .-I
6 > 6. c > 6. c > 6. c >. 6. c > 6. c > 6. 6 > 6. 6 >
ro ro cu ro al co N a) ro no cu ro co al ro ro cu co ro al ro to
Date
Grit
Removal
Figure 3: Typical Effluent Nitrogen Speciation for the Neuse River WWTP
.101 AMNON
cic
Ps
NlCY
Ca/boo
rw
Alan
S.ordasy
amnion
4m �..�i�.�
Flash Floc Se Macon Dante W
Ma Tail Basel Tank Fitters Disinfection
MIEN
Figure 4: Process Flow Diagram of Culpeper WPCF
Mrer* Bar Pants$ Gin
Pure Station Screens Firm Removal
..
Rmcycw
RAa
FoulSoararry Clinker Deno UV
Facers Disirecton
WAS
Figure 5: Process Flow Diagram of Waynesboro WWTP
The speciation for the Johnston County and Neuse River WWTPs shows that very little nitrate is in the
effluent. This is consistent with earlier statement regarding the City of Havelock's approach to achieving
lower effluent TN concentrations while remaining below its nitrogen mass allocation —the plant will
reduce the concentration of nitrate in its effluent. The Johnston County and Neuse River plants have
comparable ammonia and organic nitrogen values to Havelock, and lower nitrate concentrations. Also,

s
HAMAMSOVER
Page 4 of 13
5
it should be noted that these two facilities could further reduce nitrate at a higher chemical cost. The
current treatment performance is well below the nitrogen mass allocations for these two facilities such
that there is not a reason to operate at a higher cost to further remove nitrate at this time. Based on
the effluent speciation at Havelock, the effluent nitrate concentrations will be reduced significantly
while the organic nitrogen and ammonia values are expected to remain similar to their current values.
Comment #2
In the case of the Raleigh facility a larger, more legible drawings is requested.
Response to Comment #2
A larger, more legible drawing of the Neuse River WWTP is provided in Figure 6 below.

HAM AND %WM
Page 5 of 13
Plant mnuent —► ////ar/3Cre6n/a /
/ / _
// H
//////
•
Grll
Removal
kssat
Grit
Ger Grineir
Feet,
Pump
Gravity Bell TWAS
Thickener Pump
Influent
Pwnp
Stiffen
wet
Well
Wet
well
Pnmary sna ViAS
TWAS /MOM
Pump otpwtenl
BFP Filtrate
Dey
Tanks
Pre
Anoxic
9att Fitter
Praef
Carbon
Alum
Pos
F not lC
RAS
QUICK
Lime
'r" w
Conveyor
System
kilter
r r
Raleigh PIUe
screw Conveyor
3econaary
CIarffiere
4l 111 ! Tor lent,
Compoaung
�c
Application
Figure 6: Process Flow Diagram of Neuse WWTP
Carbon
C»nlirIticabon
Fillers
►
uv oHlnrection
To
Hew* River
c.

HAZENANDS&WER
Page 6 of 13
Comment #3
The TN concentration data for all facilities needs to be presented in terms of annual average.
Response to Comment #3
• Johnston County WRF — TN concentration data in terms of annual average for the years of 2006
— 2010 are located in Table 1. Although a few of the years have a value higher than 2.5 mg/L on
a concentration basis, the plant has always met its annual mass allocation and demonstrates
that it can reliably treat to TN concentrations below 2.5 mg/L.
• Neuse River WWTP — TN concentration data in terms of annual average for the years of 2004 —
2011 are located in Table 2. Although one year (2004) had a value higher than 2.5 mg/L on a
concentration basis, the plant has always met its annual mass allocation and demonstrates that
it can reliably treat to TN concentrations below 2.5 mg/L.
• Culpeper WPCF — The fully upgraded facility has only been online since January 2011, so an
annual average could not be calculated. The average TN concentration for January 2011 to
August 2011 was 2.07 mg-N/L, as previously reported. Monthly average values during this time
frame are summarized in Table 3.
• Waynesboro WWTP — A full years worth of TN data was not readily available for the
Waynesboro WWTP. The average TN concentration for October 2010 — April 2011 was 1.67 mg-
N/L as previously reported. Monthly average values during this time frame are summarized in
Table 4.
Table 1: Annual Average TN Concentration for Johnston County WRF
Year
AA TN
mg/L
2006
1.91
2007
2.81
2008
2.72
2009
1.77
2010
1.56
Table 2: Annual Average TN Concentration for Neuse River WWTP
Year
TN
mg/L
2004
2.87
2005
2.54
2006
2.29
2007
1.82
2008
2.36
2009
2.14
2010
2.46

HAZENANDSWYER
Page 7 of 13
Table 3: Monthly Average TN Concentration for Culpeper WPCF
Date
TN
(mg/L)
January-11
3.2
February-11
2
March-11
2.4
April-11
1.5
May-11
2.4
June-11
1.6
July-11
1.7
August-11
1.7
Table 4: Monthly Average TN Concentration for Waynesboro WWTP
Date
TN
(mg/L)
October-10
2.1
November-10
1.5
December-10
0.7
January-11
1.5
February-11
3.1
March-11
2.2
April-11
0.7
Comment #4
The annual flow average used to calculate TN mass load for each facility needs to be provided. Included
with the annual flow data the percentage of permitted flow.
Response to Comment #4
• Johnston County WRF — Between September 2005 —August 2006 the average flow was 3.92
mgd. This average flow is 52.2% of the permitted flow of 7.5 mgd.
• Neuse River WWTP — Annual and permitted flow data is shown in Table 5 for the years of 2004-
2010.
• Culpeper WPCF— Flow data for the date range of January 2011 to August 2011 is summarized in
Table 6.
• Waynesboro WWTP — Flow data for the date range of October 2010 to April 2011 is summarized
in Table 7.

f
HAZENANDS&YER
Page 8 of 13
t
Table 5: Annual Average Flow for Neuse River WWTP
Year
Flow
MGD
Percentage of
Permitted Flow
2004
45.4 '
75.7%
2005
46.2
77.0%
2006
44.8
74.7%
2007
42.0
70.0%
2008
40.9
68.1%
2009
42.5
70.9%
2010
43.8
73.1%
Table 6: Monthly Average Flow for the Culpeper WPCF
Date
Flow
(MGD)
Percentage of
Permitted Flow
January-11
2.2
36.7%
February-11
2.6
43.3%
March-11
3.6
60.0%
April-11
3.3
54.6%
May-11
3.3
54.7%
June-11
2.6
43.7%
July-11
2.3
38.3%
August-11
3.2
53.9%
Table 7: Monthly Average Flow for the Waynesboro WWTP
Date
Flow
(MGD)
Percentage of
Permitted Flow
October-10
2.5
41.7%
November-10
2.2
36.7%
December-10
2.5
41.7%
January-11
2.2
36.7%
February-11
1.8
30.0%
March-11
3.4
56.7%
April-11
3.5
58.3%

t
IIAZENANDSYER
Page 9 of 13
Comment #5
Provide an explanation for the obvious peak values in the Raleigh and Johnston County data.
Response to Comment #5
The general response to this comment is that there will be more variability in data as treatment plants
approach the limits of technology, and that this variability is normal and does not compromise the
plant's ability to reliably meet an annual average effluent TN concentration of 2.5 mg/L. In 2009, the
results of a WEF/WERF study on this matter were published under the title Cooperative Study of BNR
Plants Approaching the Limits of Technology: II. Statistical Evaluation of Process Reliability by Dr. Charles
Bott, et. al. This study evaluated the performance of 11 BNR plants achieving TN limits of 3 mg/L and/or
TP limits of 0.1 mg/L. The study proposed using the median, or 50th percentile value, of effluent
concentration as the basis for defining "reliable" treatment. The study also documents that there will be
increased variation in effluent data, defined as the ratio between the 90th and the 50th percentile
effluent values. In other words, this ratio increases as the effluent TN concentration that the plant has to
meet approaches the limit of technology.
The specific reasons for higher than typical TN values (that did not impact the plant's ability to meet
their mass load allocation) at the Neuse River plant and Johnston County plant are not known. However,
having a few high values in the data set is expected and normal. In addition, it is noted that these plants
easily comply with their annual mass allocations for nitrogen. This being the case, there may be times
when variations in plant performance are deemed acceptable because the variation has no bearing
upon permit compliance. As flows approach the permitted flow condition, it is expected variability may
be more tightly managed.
Percentile plots for TN data for Neuse River WWTP and Johnston County WRF are located in Figure 7
and Figure 8, respectively. As these plots indicate, the 50th percentile value is approximately 2 mg/L for
both plants.
Intentionally left blank

HAZINAMSOVVER
Page 10 of 13
Figure 7: Neuse River WWTP TN Percentile Ranking Plot
12
10
8
2
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percentile Ranking
Figure 8: Johnston County WRF TN Percentile Ranking Plot

RAZENANDSWFR
1
Page 11 of 13
Comment #6
Provide results of split samples that verify performance at Waynesboro.
Response to Comment #6
The City of Waynesboro WWTP reported plant performance results that were better than expected and
parallel sampling validated the reported performance of less than 1.0 mg/L. The City retained two Tabs,
Research Environmental & Industrial Consultants (REIC) and James R. Reed & Associates (REED), to
analyze split effluent samples to validate the reported results. Results of split samples are shown in
Table 8 and Table 9 below. It should be noted that REIC and REED reported any concentration Tess than
the detection level (QL) as zero, as shown by TKN and Nitrite. Therefore the reported TN is 0.46 and 0.51
mg/L as reported by REIC and REED, respectively. However, Waynesboro reports a "ND" result as half of
the QL in its Daily Monitoring Report reported monthly to the Virginia DEQ, which is the required
approach in the plant's VPDES permit. This means that the TN would be 0.835 mg/L from the REIC lab
and 0.785 mg/L from the REED lab. In both cases, these data support the plant's ability to achieve very
low levels of nitrogen in its effluent.
Table 8: REIC TN Lab Results
REIC
Parameter
Result
QL
Value Reported
by Lab
TKN
ND
0.7
0
Nitrate
0.46
0.02
0.46
Nitrite
ND
0.05
0
Table 9: REED TN Lab Results
REED
Parameter
Result
QL
Value Reported
by Lab
TKN
<0.50
0.5
0
Nitrate
0.51
0.02
0.51
Nitrite
<0.005
0.05
0
Independent of the split sampling exercise and on a different date, Hazen and Sawyer also conducted
special sampling at the Waynesboro WWTP and Culpeper WPCF. The effluent quality measurements
obtained at each facility are summarized in Table 10. The TN at Culpeper was approximately 1.4 mg/L,
and the TN at Waynesboro was less than 2.02 mg/L (the detection limit for the TKN test being utilized
was 1 mg/L). Again, these data support the plant's ability to achieve very low levels of nitrogen in its
effluent and are consistent with the plants' monthly average performance.
Table 10: Results of Special Sampling Conducted by Hazen and Sawyer
Parameter
Units
Culpeper
WPCF
Waynesboro
WWTP
TKN
mg/L
1.06
<1.00
Ammonia
mg/L
0.01
0.03
Nitrate
mg/L
0.37
1.01
Nitrite
mg/L
0.00
0.01
TN (calculated)
mg/L
1.43
<2.02

ilAZENAM SOWER
Page 12 of 13
It should be noted that neither the Waynesboro WWTP or Culpeper WPCF needs to add carbon to its
denitrification filters. Therefore, neither is using its denitrification filters in a denite mode, and the very
low effluent TN values shown for this facility are being achieved with a 5-stage BNR process alone. As
the plant approaches design flow it is anticipated that carbon addition at the filters may be required, but
at the present time each facility is able to achieve its mass allocation for nitrogen and maintain a
concentration below 2.5 mg/L without carbon addition at the filters.
Comment #7
The letter did not present any actions that Havelock would take to keep the expanded facility speciation
in check, or contingency actions if speciation changed, or contingency actions if the required TN
concentration is not achieved.
Response to Comment #7
There are several features to the proposed design of the Havelock WWTP that provide contingencies
that would allow the expanded facility to respond to any changes in the influent wastewater speciation.
Contingency actions that the City could take if the speciation changes in a negative way or if the effluent
TN concentration goals are not achieved are also discussed below. .
As discussed in the November 3, 2011 letter regarding the Havelock WWTP permit, nitrogen is divided
into the four components: ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, soluble organic N, and particulate organic N.
Removal of each species is achieved through a specific process. Ammonia and nitrate/nitrite removal
are achieved through effective nitrification and denitrification, respectively. These biological systems
must be robust for reliable performance. Soluble organic nitrogen can be further subcategorized to
include biodegradable and unbiodegradable soluble organic nitrogen. A portion of soluble organic
nitrogen can be removed through chemical coagulation or adsorption. Refractory dissolved organic
nitrogen (RDON) is the unbiodegradable component of soluble organic nitrogen and cannot be removed
through the treatment process. Particulate organic nitrogen, the fourth component of total nitrogen,
can be removed through a solids separation process such as filtration.
The most common issue impacting removal of nitrogen to low levels is difficulty in achieving complete
nitrification of ammonia. In the event that effluent ammonia concentrations increase, the plant would
have the ability to increase the portion of the 5-stage BNR process that is operated in an aerobic
condition and achieve further nitrification. The flexibility will be provided in the design to operate part
or all of the post -anoxic zone aerobically. This would result in complete nitrification, lowering ammonia
by converting ammonia to nitrates. This in turn would produce a higher nitrate load to the
denitrification filters. The denitrification filters were sized to produce a low effluent nitrate
concentration (< 1 mg/L) even if receiving filter influent nitrate concentrations of 15 mg/L. Currently the
filters receive an influent nitrate concentration of approximately 10 mg/L on average. With the
conversion to 5-stage BNR process, it is expected that the filter influent concentration will be reduced to
an average level of 3 to 5 mg/L, resulting in the need to only achieve a minor trim of a few parts of
nitrate across the filters. However, the filters would remain capable of treating a higher nitrate load
should it be necessary. Increases in nitrate concentrations will routinely be addressed by the addition of

IIt7LNANDS&WER
Page 13 of 13
supplemental carbon as part of the design of the expanded plant. The Havelock WWTP will have the
ability to add carbon to the anoxic zones of the 5-stage BNR process and to the denitrification filters.
This provides a robust double barrier for denitrification within the plant.
If additional denitrification capacity is determined to be needed to achieve reliable compliance with the
total nitrogen limits, the City's first additional step would be to adjust, mixed liquor concentrations,
dissolved oxygen concentrations, and chemical dosages to more fully optimize the nutrient removal
performance. This process optimization process has proved successful in reducing total nitrogen to the
desired levels at many facilities. If it is determined that additional treatment is needed for compliance,
the next step would be to add BNR treatment volume or denitrification filter capacity. In the unlikely
event that these conventional treatment approaches could not meet the treatment objectives, the City
could also choose to install ion exchange resins to target ammonia and/or nitrate removal after
filtration. The City would also have the option to convert the proposed BNR tank volume to a membrane
bioreactor (MBR) process, which can provide greater treatment capacity within the footprint of the BNR
tankage. While these process modifications are not anticipated to be needed to provide compliance
with the future total nitrogen concentration requirements, the City could pursue this technology if it is
determined necessary for long term reliable compliance.
If the organic nitrogen portion of the effluent were to increase due to changes in influent characteristics,
there are several unit processes that have been shown to be effective at targeting organic nitrogen
removal. These include but are not limited to: flocculation processes that remove colloidal organic
nitrogen and can be placed between secondary clarifiers and filters, membranes that could be placed
downstream of secondary clarification, the addition of ozone followed by granular activated carbon
(GAC) after filtration, or ion exchange after filtration. All of these processes effectively reduce organic
nitrogen. Of the nitrogen species, organic nitrogen tends to be quite stable over time, and municipalities
can control variables that have the potential to increase organic nitrogen loads in the treatment plant
influent such as limiting the acceptance of industrial discharges. If the City wanted to accept a new
industrial discharger, they could first evaluate the treatability of the wastewater and/or control organic
nitrogen load to the treatment plant through implementation of pretreatment requirements.
It is expected, based on the historical operational data for the plant, that the Havelock WWTP will be
able to meet its effluent TN goals with the facilities proposed. However, in the event that this is
determined not to be the case, it is acknowledged that the NCDENR would have the option to not
authorize the subsequent phase of construction (Authorization to Construct) until adequate provisions
including but not limited to those discussed above were added to the project scope.

•
0
RE Follow up to November 3 2011 Letter for Havelock
From: Tant, Thomas H. [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 10:54 AM
To: Berry, Ron
Subject: RE: Follow Up to November 3, 2011 Letter for Havelock
Ron:
We'll get right on this.
Tom
From: Berry, Ron [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 10:03 AM
To: Tant, Thomas H.
Subject: Follow Up to November 3, 2011 Letter for Havelock
Mr. Tant,
There are several details in the City of Havelock November 3 letter that the
Division request more
clarity. Please review the list below and provide the information requested:
1) The process flow diagrams and speciation data provide on the other
facilities need to be at the
same level of detail as presented for the Havelock expansion (figure 3). Need to
indicate the
aBNR
nd process/configurations and the recycle streams at each facility (i.e. Culpeper
waynesboro).
2) in the case of the Raleigh facility a larger, more legible drawings is
requested.
3) The TN concentration data for all facilities needs to be presented in terms
of annual average.
4) The annual flow average used to calculate TN mass load for each facility
needs to be provided.
Included with the annual flow data the percentage of permitted flow.
5) Provide an explanation for the obvious peak values in the Raleigh and
Johnston County data.
6) Provide results of split samples that verify performance a waynesboro.
7) The letter did not present any actions that Havelock would take to keep the
expanded facility
speciation in check, or contingency actions if speciation changed, or contingency
actions if the
required TN concentration is not achieved.
As far as items that impact the draft permit, items 1) and 7) are the most
significant, and if possible
should be addressed as soon as possible.
if you need further details on any information requested please contact Mike
Templeton.
Sincerely,
Ron Berry [e-mail]
Engineer I
DWQ/Point Source/NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
NCDENR
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
office: Archdale Building Room 925N
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other
Page 1

•
Follow up to Dec 2 2011 email
From: Berry, Ron
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 10:07 AM
To: 'Thomas Tant'
Subject: Follow up to Dec 2, 2011 email
Mr. Tant,
FYI,
The email sent to you Dec 2, 2011 was also emailed cc to:
Templeton, Mike; 'Belnick, Tom'; 'James Freeman'
Ron Berry [e-mail]
Engineer I
DWQ/Point Source/NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
NCDENR
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone].
Office: Archdale Building Room 925N
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other
regulation.
Page 1

HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
November 3, 2011
Mr. Ron Berry, Engineer
Complex Permitting Unit
Point Source Branch
Surface Water Protection Section
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: City of Havelock
Havelock WWTP
NPDES Permit Modification Permit No. NC0021253
Supplemental Data Regarding Nitrogen Removal
Dear Mr. Berry:
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4011 WestChase Blvd.
Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
We have enclosed three (3) copies of a Technical Memorandum that addresses the topics
we discussed during our October 6, 2011 meeting regarding the City of Havelock's proposed
NPDES permit modification and the ability for the proposed design to achieve compliance
with the proposed permit conditions.
If after your review you find that you have further questions or need additional
documentation, please let us know. We are very appreciative of your assistance on this
matter.
Very truly yours,
H. Thomas Tant, P.E.
Vice President
Enclosure:
cc: Mr. James W. Freeman
Mr. Dan Harbaugh
Mr. Ronald L. Taylor
ai_MWgL
NOV 0 7 2011
DEW --WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Berry 2011-11-02.Itr.doc
New York, NY • Philadelphia, PA • Raleigh, NC • Charlotte. NC • Greensboro, NC • Charleston. SC • Atlanta, GA • Fairfax, VA • Hampton Roads, VA • Baltimore. MD • Cincinnati, OH • Hollywood, FL • Boca Raton, FL • Miami, FL

fIAZENAND SAVWER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
Technical Memorandum
To: Mr. Ron Barry, NCDENR Division of Water Quality
From: H. Thomas Tant, P.E., Ronald L. Taylor, P.E., Katya Bilyk, P.E., and
David Wankmuller, E.I.
Date: November 3, 2011
Subject: City of Havelock, North Carolina NPDES Permit
Documentation of Regional WWTPs Meeting TN below 2.5 mg/L
1.0 Introduction
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4011 WestChase Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27607
919-833-7152
Fax: [phone]
NC License # C-0381
On October 6, 2011, representative from the City of Havelock and Hazen and Sawyer met with the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) to discuss the City's application for tiered flow expansion of the
Havelock Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) under their NPDES Permit. The application requests
three flow tiers as follows: 2.25 mgd, 2.8 mgd and 3.5 mgd. The major point of discussion was whether
the permit should be issued for the second and third tiers since these flow conditions along with the
fixed annual mass total nitrogen allocation for the Havelock WWTP represent required nutrient removal
performance at lower total nitrogen concentrations than have been historically permitted for other
facilities in the State. To meet the annual mass allocation for total nitrogen at the permitted flows, the
Havelock WWTP will have to achieve a total nitrogen concentration of 2.5 mg/L for the second flow tier
and a total nitrogen concentration of 2.0 mg/L for the third flow tier of the proposed NPDES permit.
Consensus was gained in the October 6th meeting that these levels of total nitrogen removal are
achievable in a properly designed treatment plant and DWQ requested that Hazen and Sawyer
document that the required performance is being achieved at other treatment facilities in the region.
The purpose of this memorandum is to document the fact that the proposed level of treatment is
achievable with the technology that the City of Havelock proposes to install for the proposed future flow
tiers. Information is provided concerning the proposed process enhancements to the Havelock WWTP
and the anticipated performance improvements related to those enhancements. This memorandum
also documents the performance of several other wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in the region
that are achieving total nitrogen (TN) performance in a similar range to that proposed for the Havelock
WWTP. These other wastewater treatment plants are using the same process configuration proposed

IIHGEN AND %INVER
City of Havelock NDPES Permit
November 3, 2011
Page 2
for the Havelock WWTP, a multi -stage biological nutrient removal (BNR) process followed by
denitrification filters, and would be expected to provide similar treatment performance.
The process flow schematic proposed for the Havelock WWTP is shown below in Figure 1, and includes a
5-stage BNR process followed by denitrification filters.
Raw
Influent
So ids
Recycle
Anaerobic
Zone
CJJ
NRCY
Pre•AnoxIc
c1
Carbon
O
O 00 0 0
O O
Aerobic o0
e pO e
eta 00 C e°O ee°e
RAS
Alum Alum, Methanol
•
WAS
A WAS
Denitirfication
Filters
Figure 1. Proposed Process Flow Diagram for the Havelock WWTP
Effluent
The current configuration of the Havelock WWTP includes a biological treatment process that provides
for nitrification but no denitrification. Existing denitrification filters are used for reducing total nitrogen
in the plant effluent. An analysis was completed to determine whether the effluent total nitrogen from
the Havelock WWTP would be suitable for additional treatment to comply with a low total nitrogen
concentration. When meeting total nitrogen limits below the 3 mg/L range, the speciation of the
nitrogen becomes critical. Nitrogen is divided into the four components presented in Figure 2:
ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, soluble organic N, and particulate organic N. Removal of each species is
achieved through a specific process. Ammonia and nitrate/nitrite removal are achieved through
effective nitrification and denitrification, respectively. These biological systems must be robust for
reliable performance.
Soluble organic nitrogen can be further subcategorized to include biodegradable and non -biodegradable
soluble organic nitrogen. A portion of soluble organic nitrogen can be removed through chemical
coagulation or adsorption. Refractory dissolved organic nitrogen (RDON) is the non -biodegradable
component of soluble organic nitrogen and cannot be removed through the proposed treatment

HAM AND StwER
City of Havelock NDPES Permit
November 3, 2011
Page 3
process. Particulate organic nitrogen, the fourth component of total nitrogen, can be removed through
a solids separation process such as filtration.
Total
Nitrogen
Ammonia, NH3-N
Nitrate 1 nitrite, NOx-N/
Soluble organic N
Particulate organic N\•
Figure 2: Nitrogen Speciation
Data from the Havelock was analyzed to determine whether significant portions of the treatment plant
effluent total nitrogen is in a treatable form such that very low total nitrogen concentrations could be
achieved. As shown in Figure 3, the majority of the Havelock WWTP effluent total nitrogen is in the
form of nitrate which is readily treated through effective denitrification in the biological treatment
process and in downstream denitrification filters. Review of this data would indicate that effective
denitrification could reduce the total nitrogen in the effluent well below 2.0 mg/L.

HALINANDSVVER
City of Havelock NDPES Permit
November 3, 2011
Page 4
Monthly Average Effluent Total Nitogen (mg/L)
7.00 "-
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Eff Nox (mg/L) mg/L
Effluent Organic N mg/L
Effluent Amm ms/L
1
■
1
0.00
Jan-03
n i
Jun-03 Nov-03 Apr-04 Sep-04 Feb-05 Jul-05 Dec-05 May-06
Date
Figure 3. Typical Effluent Nitrogen Speciation for the Havelock WWTP
This memorandum also presents data from four different plants that use 2-stage, 4-stage, or 5-stage
BNR with denitrification filters to show the effectiveness of these process combinations. These plants
have equivalent or less robust BNR treatment in comparison to the design improvements that would be
implemented at the Havelock plant.
Descriptions, process flow diagrams, and recent effluent TN data for the following wastewater
treatment plants are presented in this memo:
(1) The Johnston County Water Reclamation Facility (JCWRF) - Smithfield, North Carolina
(2) The Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) - Raleigh, North Carolina
(3) The Waynesboro Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWWTP) - Waynesboro, Virginia
(4) The Culpeper Water Pollution Control Facility (CWPCF) - Culpeper, Virginia

HAZENANDSOYER
City of Havelock NDPES Permit
November 3, 2011
Page 5
2.0 WWTP Performance Data
This section documents the WWTP performance data for the JCWRF, NRWWTP, WWWTP, and CWPCF to
demonstrate that the proposed treatment approach for the City of Havelock WWTP is capable of
achieving treatment performance for total nitrogen as would be required for compliance with the
NPDES permit for each of the proposed flow tiers.
2.1 Johnston County, North Carolina
The Johnston County WRF, located in Smithfield, North Carolina, is currently a 7.5 mgd facility. The plant
operates a two -stage BNR process upstream of the filters, as shown in Figure 4.
/� '1,.; /
Bar Screons
111111
Alum
IoI
Anoxic Aerobic
Zone Zone
Methanol
�
Final
V
CIa
WAS and RAS
Denitrification
Filters
►
UV Disinfection
Figure 4. Process Flow Diagram of Johnston County WRF
►
Cascade
Aerator
► Discharge to
Neuse River
Over the years, the plant has achieved a high quality effluent. The plant is currently permitted for an
annual mass allocation of total nitrogen based on an average concentration level of 2.5 mg/L for TN.
The Johnston County WRF discharges to the Neuse River in the Neuse River basin, similar to the
Havelock WWTP. Methanol is the carbon source fed to the denitrification filters. Effluent TN has
averaged 2.1 mg/L from September 2006 —September 2011 (Figure 5). Notably, this plant achieved and
annual average total nitrogen concentration of 1.99 mg/L for the 2010 calendar year.

HAZEN AM SAWYER
City of Havelock NDPES Permit
November 3, 2011
Page 6
12
10
• ♦ • •
e• ••t••
?IA114 t
♦ •� s'
•
•
•
•
♦
• •
•
• • •
• •
•
•
/l1//200 11 9/ 001,
♦
♦ Avg = 2.08 mg/ i
• ••
••
• ♦ ••
• • • ••
• ♦ •• •♦ •♦ •. I►..
• tat • • s• *, t V•
• ♦•
4/12/2008 8/25/2009 1/1/2011
Date
•
♦
•
• • • •
Figure 5: Effluent TN Concentrations for Johnston County WRF
2.2 Neuse River WWTP
The Neuse River WWTP is located in Raleigh, North Carolina. It is a 60 mgd facility with 4-stage BNR,
secondary clarification, denitrification filters, and UV disinfection (Figure 6). The plant uses methanol in
the post -anoxic zone and on the filters. The plant is located in the Neuse River basin, and has to meet a
strict TN limit of 2.5 mg/L to comply with its annual mass allocation. Effluent TN has averaged 2.34 mg/L
from January 2004 —June 2010 (Figure 7).

HAZEN ANDS&\WER
City of Havelock NDPES Permit
November 3, 2011
Page 7
1"
1!
J
E10
c
0
c
0
its
a (,
2
c
c
w
c.-
_f 1
• f
▪ 4646 •
Figure 6: Neuse River WWTP Process Flow Diagram
•
Avg =2.34 mg/L
• • •
• •
•_
•
•r= 44,
1
•
• •
•
•s
•
•
•
•
•
• •
• `
• • `t •
♦ • • • •r. • : • •
• • • • Ito,: i • 4 • • 4. :I
.11 • •••
Y ` i 1.+yam ... - t ii' 1-v-
♦
• ♦ 3.• i 0*. ••♦
0 10/6/200.3 2/17/2005 //2/200b 11/14/200/ 3/2S/2009 s/10/2010
Date
Figure 7: Effluent TN Concentrations for Neuse River WWTP

Removal Clarifier Box
City of Havelock NDPES Permit
November 3, 2011
Page 8
2.3 Culpeper WPCF
The Culpeper WPCP is located in Culpeper, Virginia. The Culpeper WPCF is a 6 mgd average annual flow
facility with 5-stage BNR, secondary clarification, intermediate pump station, flash mix tank, floc basin
and sedimentation tank, denitrification filters, and UV disinfection (Figure 8). The plant is currently
permitted for annual mass total nitrogen limits based on a concentration of 3.0 mg/L. This plant was
recently upgraded to this configuration to comply with stringent Chesapeake Bay criteria for nitrogen
and phosphorus. The monthly average effluent TN concentration from January 2011 — August 2011 was
2.07 mg/L (Figure 9). Glycerin is the current carbon source, but it is only been added in the mixed liquor
process currently. It is anticipated that additional total nitrogen reductions would be achievable if
supplemental carbon were also added to the denitrification filters.
Glyce
Gm Pnmary Sputter 5-Stage
BNR-
Secondary
Clarifier
Intermedia e
Pump Station
Nnm
Flash I Floc Sedimentation Dende
Mih, Tank Basin Tank Fitters
WAS kAS/RAS
Figure 8. Process Flow Diagram of Culpeper WWTP
Uv
Dtsinfedion
Muunlam
Run

H Z NAND► OUR
City of Havelock NDPES Permit
November 3, 2011
Page 9
5.00
4.50
- 4.00
0
m 3.50
QJ
03.00
- 2.50
w 2.00
tv
0
2
0.50
0.00
•
•
•
•
♦
•
♦
• •
♦ Avg = 2.07 mg/L
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ♦ •
♦ •
• •
•
• •
♦
•
1/1/11 3/2/11 5/1/11 6/30/11 8/29/11
Date
Figure 9: Effluent TN Concentrations for Culpeper WPCF
2.4 Waynesboro WWTP
The Waynesboro WWTP, located in Waynesboro, Virginia, is a 6 mgd average annual flow facility with 5-
stage BNR, final clarifier, denitrification filters, and UV disinfection (Figure 10).
Influent Bar Parshall Gnt
Pump Station Screens Flume Removal
rf
/j,////;�/// / I
Splitter
Box
Atoe C.
Glycr:rm
5-stage I Final
8NR Clarifier
/rj
Met.
Denite UV
Filters Disinfection
South
River
Figure 10. Process Flow Diagram of Waynesboro WWTP

HAM AND &MYER
City of Havelock NDPES Permit
November 3, 2011
Page 10
The plant is currently permitted for an annual mass total nitrogen loading based on an average
concentration level of 3.0 mg/L for TN. This plant was recently upgraded to this configuration to comply
with stringent Chesapeake Bay criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. The monthly average effluent TN
concentration from October 2010 — March 2011 was 1.69 mg/L (Figure 11). Because the performance of
this plant has been better than expected, Hazen and Sawyer performed parallel sampling to validate the
reported performance and found that the reported performance is, in fact, being achieved. Micro C
Glycerin is the carbon source used at this facility; however, the carbon has only been added in the mixed
liquor process to date. It is anticipated that additional total nitrogen reductions would be achievable if
supplemental carbon were also added to the denitrification filters.
3.5
nn
3
0
2.5
c
✓ ♦
•
u 2
z Avg = 1.69 mg/L
z
°'1.5 ♦ ♦
w
N
ao
ra
L
a% 1
� 1
Q
L ♦ ♦
2 0.5
0
8/10/2010 9/29/2010 11/18/2010 1/7/2011 2/26/2011 4/17/2011
Date
Figure 11: Effluent TN Concentrations for Waynesboro WWTP

WIN AID SOWER
City of Havelock NDPES Permit
November 3, 2011
Page 11
3.0 Additional Considerations
Two additional design considerations should be discussed relative to the NPDES permit application for
the Havelock WWTP: (1) maximum month flow versus annual average flow, and (2) wet weather flow
impacts.
3.1 Maximum Month Flow versus Annual Average Flow
The City of Havelock NPDES permit application is based upon the projected future maximum month
flows for the Havelock WWTP. Although not relied upon in the process design for the Havelock WWTP,
but in reality, the corresponding annual average flow will be less than the permitted design flow which
effectively increases the target concentration required to achieve the mass load limit. Therefore, for the
second flow tier of 2.8 mgd (maximum month permitted flow condition), the annual average flow
corresponding to this maximium month condition is projected to actually be only a flow of 2.25 mgd.
Based on that projection, and since total nitrogen limits are on an annual mass basis, the City will have
to achieve annual total nitrogen performance for the second tier equivalent to a concentration of 3.1
mg/L as shown in the following calculation:
21,400 Ib/yr / (365 days/yr * 8.34 Ib*L/mg*MG * 2.25 mgd) = 3.1 mg/L
Similarly, the 3.5 mgd flow for the third flow tier is the maximum month permitted condition associated
with a projected annual flow of 2.8 mgd. Since total nitrogen limits are calculated on an annual mass
basis, the City will have to achieve annual total nitrogen performance equivalent to a concentration of
2.5 mg/L for the third flow tier as shown in the following calculation:
21,400 lb/yr/ (365 days/yr * 8.34 Ib*L/mg*MG * 2.8 mgd) = 2.5 mg/L
As shown in the earlier discussion regarding the Havelock WWTP having a significant portion of the
effluent total nitrogen in the form of nitrate, the Havelock WWTP should easily be able to achieve these
treatment goals. In addition, each of the example treatment plants described in Section 2 of this
memorandum are achieving similar treatment results using the same treatment process configuration.
3.1 Wet Weather Performance Concerns
During our October 6th meeting with DWQ, we discussed the importance of wet weather performance
in determining the success of treatment facilities in meeting very low total nitrogen levels on a

MvAND SOUR
City of Havelock NDPES Permit
November 3, 2011
Page 12
consistent basis. Hazen and Sawyer and the City of Havelock concur with observations that wet weather
flow control and assumptions regarding the same are essential elements in the City's long term planning
for the future upgrade and expansion of the City's treatment capacity. It is helpful to understand that
Hazen and Sawyer's process design for the Havelock WWTP is based on a level of conservatism in the
design assumptions that assumes the need to treat wet weather peak flows, even without the use of
flow equalization. The BioWin process modeling was conducted for a number of extreme treatment
conditions, including wet weather flow simulations. The process design was demonstrated to be robust
for these conditions, even in the maximum month flow conditions with maximum waste loads and
minimum wastewater temperatures. While it is agreed that future flow equalization or additional wet -
weather peak flow reductions via I/1 removal may be appropriate and certainly would be helpful on a
number of fronts, the process design that the City is proposing is not depending upon these wet
weather flow control improvements to achieve the required process performance. Since the City
continues to make strides in flow reductions as a result of its continuing commitment to I/1 reductions, it
is respectfully requested that this issue be revisited when the requests for authorization to construct the
proposed future expansions for the Havelock WWTP are made rather than as part of the NPDES permit
approval process. The City's future success in achieving I/1 reductions may determine whether
equalization is needed and, if so, appropriate sizing criteria.
4.0 Conclusions
The City of Havelock is well into the planning and design stages for future expansion of the Havelock
WWTP. Planning indicates that expansion to the build -out capacity be implemented in three steps and
the City has applied for a NPDES permit for each of the three flow tiers: 2.25 mgd, 2.8 mgd and 3.5 mgd.
While consensus between DWQ, the City of Havelock and Hazen and Sawyer was reached that the
proposed treatment performance can be achieved with the proposed treatment technology, this
memorandum provides additional documentation that effluent TN performance below 2.0 mg/L can be
achieved for the Havelock WWTP. Several other treatment plants with equivalent or less robust BNR
treatment than proposed for the Havelock WWTP were investigated. All four of the treatment facilities
have achieved a TN of Tess than 2.5 mg/L while also providing evidence of performance of less than 2.0
mg/L, with over 14 total years of data documenting this level of performance. The average effluent TN
concentration from each plant is summarized in Table 1.

HAZNANDStWER
City of Havelock NDPES Permit
November 3, 2011
Page 13
Table 1: Effluent TN for Four WWTPs in the Region Meeting TN < 2.5 mg/L
Treatment Facility
Effluent TN (mg/L)
Johns o Non WWTP _
R.0$
Neuse River WWTP
2.34
Culpeper WPCF _ (
2 07
Waynesboro WWTP
1.69
As discussed in the October 6, 2011 meeting, it is anticipated that the majority of biological nutrient
removal plants will continue to improve performance in the future. Hazen and Sawyer has noted that,
for many of the nutrient removal plants in our region, the majority of the total nitrogen discharged from
these facilities is in the form of nitrate. Nitrate can typically be denitrified to very low levels, indicating
that a carefully controlled BNR plant with denitirifcation filters could achieve reliable treatment
performance below 2.5 mg/L total nitrogen. On-line nutrient analyzers are also becoming more
commonplace, and these instruments provide instant performance feedback to the plant operators
allowing continued process optimization for these BNR processes. The City of Havelock fully anticipates
achieving compliance with the total nitrogen mass allocation for the Havelock WWTP for each of the
three proposed flow tiers. It is respectfully requested that this additional information be accepted as
part of the Havelock NPDES permit application.

a
,Grzyb, Julie
From: Grzyb, Julie
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 4:11 PM
To: Stallings, Hannah
Cc: Belnick, Tom
Subject: City of Havelock
Hannah,
I have reviewed Hazen & Sawyer's responses (letter dated 10-25-2010) to my questions on the EA.
They have addressed all my concerns adequately.
Julie Grzyb
Julie A. Grzyb, Environmental Engineer
NC DENR / Division of Water Quality / Surface Water Protection Section
NPDES Complex Permitting, Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
919/807-6389 (wk); 919/807-6495 (fax)
**Please note, my email address has changed to iulie.,erzvbQ,ncdenr.Rov
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
1

RE Havelock WWTP Outfall
From: Berry, Ron
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 3:02 PM
To: Ruhlman, Carrie
Subject: RE: Havelock WWTP Outfall
Attachments: diffuser instream sample requirements.pdf
Carrie,
Attached is a map with outfall coordinates and recommended NPDES permit narrative
that defines the
new Havelock WWTP instream monitoring requirements for the new Neuse River outfall
discharge.
The new outfall utilizes a modeled diffuser which is submerged in 10 feet of water
approximately 2000
feet off shore. This new location is mandatory for Havelock to expand. The current
outfall discharge is
located in Slocum Creek but will be eliminated once the new outfall is placed in
service.
If you have any questions let me know.
Ron
Ron Berry [e-mail]
Engineer I
DWQ/Point Source/NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
NCDENR
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Office: Archdale Building Room 925N
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other
regulation.
From: Ruhlman, Carrie
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:45 AM
To: Berry, Ron
subject: Havelock WWTP Outfall
Hi Ron,
To follow-up on our conversation the other day, I'd like to start looking into the
potential for the LNBA
to pick-up the new Havelock in -stream sampling. When you get a chance, can you
please send me the
coordinates of the new outfall and those of the required sampling sites? Thanks!
Carrie Ruhlman
Monitoring Coalition coordinator
NC Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ess/eco/coalition
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties.
??Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Page 1
1 C-e Gin
41 3 t A-, r1 ! / 2- ) - ( t IGLU-e -u (

Permit NC0021253
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS -RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Instream monitoring is required for the following parameters and locations while discharging via a
diffuser into the Neuse River:
1. Si=10 feet upstream from the diffuser, perpendicular to the diffuser;
2. S2 = 10 feet downstream from the diffuser, perpendicular to the diffuser;
3. S3 = 10 feet beyond the end of the diffuser and in line with the center of the diffuser.
Sample Type
Measurement Frequency
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Vertical
(1 meter increments)
Weekly
(April — October)
Monthly
(November — March)
Temperature, °C
Vertical
(1 meter increments)
Weekly
(April — October)
Monthly
(November — March)
Salinity, ppt
Vertical
(1 meter increments)
Weekly
(April — October)
Monthly
. (November — March)
pH, S.U.
Vertical
(1 meter increments)
Weekly
(April — October)
N/A
Enterococci, #/100 ml
Surface
Weekly
(April — October)
Monthly
(November — March)
Secchi Depth, m
Photic Zone
2/MonthN/A
(June — September)
TKN, mg/L
Depth integrated
(use composite sampler)
2/Month
(June — September)
N/A
Chlorophyll -a, mg/L
Depth integrated
(use composite sampler)
2/Month
(June — September)
N/A
NO2-N + NO3-N, mg/L
Depth integrated
(use composite sampler)
2/Month
(June — September)
N/A
NH3-N, mg/L
Depth integrated
(use composite sampler)
2/Month
(June — September)
N/A
Total Phosphorus, mg/L
Depth integrated
(use composite sampler)
2/Month
(June — September)
N/A

Instream sample
points:
perpendicular
line
to
to
with diffuser
S 1 = 10 feet upstream of diffuser/
diffuser
S2 = 10 feet downstream of diffuser/perpendicular
diffuser
S3 = 10 feet from end of diffuser/in
.
t
I
e
. 4 .�' . �.:z. fi fi
4 A� 'i i.t9F
4.
1 Q r ,
r'r .r!..r r ; c
'0.11,1
r"_`
Sae=:4 > ism' „> "
•:.ice. irre?cLi R d#q .04 K..
I: NikV:lis ,
t-:r.
• i t
' ,` itl ��dce � )y JPPC3 �y. 'G
9,i. rT 0 7
T4i 17!Al_A 1
P pa#f� _s - r�ti -t's
s>
e .�_, ar
New outfall V01 with
USGS
Latitude:
Longitude:
Receiving
Quad: H31NW Havelock,
Outfall
NC
Facility
��
Location
34° 57' 11" N
76° 52' 37" W
Stream Class: SB, Sw, NSW
Subbasin: 03-04-10 HUC: 03020204
Stream: Neuse River
-e-
North
City of Havelock WWTP— New outfall 001
Craven County

•
Permit NC0003816
A. (2) Instream Monitoring Requirements
The Permittee shall conduct instream monitoring for the following parameters and at these specified Monitoring
Sites:
1. Within 10 feet of the center of outfall (discharge point);
2. Upstream 100 yards (1500 yards offshore, perpendicular to outfall);
3. Downstream 100 yards (1500 yards offshore, perpendicular to outfall).
PARAMETER
LOCATIONS
FREQUENCY
Weekly
(April — October)
•
Dissolved Oxygen
Vertical
(1 meter increments)
Monthly
(November — March)
Temperature
Vertical
(1 meter increments)
Weekly
(April — October)
Monthly
(November — March)
Salinity
Vertical
(1 meter increments)
Weekly
(April — October)
Monthly
(November — March)
pH
Vertical
(1 meter increments)
Weekly
(April — October)
N/A
Enterococci
Surface
Weekly
(April — October)
Monthly
(November — March)
Secchi Depth
Photic Zone
2/Month
(June — September)
N/A
,I;
ICN
Depth integrated
(use composite sampler)
- 2/Month
(June — September)
N/A
Chlorophyll -a
Depth integrated
(use composite sampler)
2/Month
(June — September)
N/A
NO +NO
2 3
Depth integrated
(use composite sampler)
2/Month
(June — September)
N/A
NH;-N
Depth integrated
(use composite sampler)
2/Month
(June — September)
N/A
Total Phosphorus
Depth integrated
(use composite sampler)
2/Month
(June — September)
N/A
A. (3.) Calculations of Total Nitrogen Loads
a. The Permittee shall calculate monthly and annual TN Loads as follows:
i. Monthly TN Load (pounds/month) = TN x TMF x 8.34
where:
TN
=
the average Total Nitrogen concentration (mg/L) of the composite samples
collected during the month
TMF
=
the Total Monthly Flow of wastewater discharged during the month (MG/month)
8.34
=
conversion factor, from (mg/L x MG) to pounds
ii. Annual TN Load (pounds/year) = Sum of the 12 Monthly TN Loads for the calendar year
b. The Permittee shall report monthly Total Nitrogen results (mg/L and pounds/month) in the appropriate
discharge monitoring report for each month and shall report each year's results (pounds/year) with the
December report for that year.

. 1-1- fas-t e / Mf
A. (1) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Permit NC00038 } 6
PARAMETER
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Averaje
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location 1
•
Flow
3.5 MGD
Continuous
RecordingInfluent
or
Effluent
BOD5 (Summer) 2
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
BOD5 (Winter) 2
10.0 mg/L
0 15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
30.0
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3-N (Summer) 2
.0 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3-N (Winter) 2
,4.0�mgg//L,
20.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
f ly Average = 6.0 mg/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Enterococci
35/100 ml
276/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
1
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) 3
28 µg/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
TKN (mg/L)
Monitor & eport
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NO3-N + NO2-N (mg/L)
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
TN (mg/L) 4
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
TN Load 5
Monitor & Report
39,421 pounds/year
Monthly
Annually
Calculated
Calculated
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
2.0 mg/L Quarterly Average 6
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
pH
> 6.8 and < 8.5 Standard Units
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity 7
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Toxic Organics (TTO) 8
280 µg/L
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Mercury
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1 See Part I, A. 2 for instream monitoring requirements.
2 Summer is defined as April 1— October 31; winter is defined as November 1— March 31.
3 TRC monitoring is required only if chlorine is used to disinfect. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values
reported below 50 µg/L to be "in compliance" with this permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to report all
values recorded using North Carolina -certified field and lab test methods, even if these values fall below 50 in/L.
4 For a given wastewater sample, TN = TKN + NO3-N + NO2-N, where TN is total nitrogen, TKN is total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen, and NO3-N and NO2-N are nitrate and nitrite nitrogen, respectively.
5 Report TN load as the mass quantity discharged in a given time period [See A. (3.)]. For TN compliance, see A. (4)]
6 To calculate a quarterly average for total phosphorus, the Permittee shall average the Weekly composite samples
collected during each respective calendar quarter (Jan -Mar, April -Jun, July -Oct, and October -December).
7 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 14%; March, June, September, December. See Part I, A. 5 of this permit.
8 In lieu of monitoring for TTO, the Permittee may submit the following certification: "Based on my inquiry of the person
or persons directly responsible for managing compliance with the permit limitation for Total Toxic Organics, I certify
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, no dumping of concentration toxic organics into the wastewater has
occurred since the filing of the last discharge monitoring report."
The Permittee shall discharge no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.

HAVELOCK WWTP EXPANSION MODEL DILUTION DATA
Winter Tetra Tech Model Data 90% Percentile
radius, m radius .ft %
1.8 5.905512 16.8
10 32.8084 16.4
25 82.021 13.7
50 164.042 7.06
75 246.063 2.28
85 278.8714 1.27
10 ft = 16.8%
h1kA3-r--1
141/ILI-A-
radiusm radius ,ft 12
1.8 5.905512 15.9
10 32.8084 15.5
25 82.021 13
50 164.042 6.57
75 246.063 2.07
85 278.8714 1.14
10 ft = 15.9%
�7c
radius, m radius ,ft
1.7 5.577428 14.3
10 32.8084 13.9
25 82.021 11.6
50 164.042 5.86
75 246.063 1.84
85 278.8714 1.01
10 ft =14.3%
17
16
15
y 14
13
c 12
ec
11
10
9
8
1,1
•
1 I III
2.8 MGD
1111 1111
11#1
1111
111
11�1 117{
1i
111
iHi ifi
1111
1111
II11 11I1
1111
1111
Illa
1111
1111 1111
�1
j11141111,1i11
II
111 1111
;1 1 ^ST'S'T
1111
1111
fTT"I
1111 1111
1111
111
1111
1111 1111
fill
1111
1111
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Radius, ft
14.5
14.0
v
g 13.5
u 13.0
3
12.5
12.0
iiii
14
11
1 I I
1 ! I
4
}
1iIt1
} }
}
+ I
ill
11I
2.25 MGD:
a 1 I
I 1 i I
11i1
I I I
I
I
llll
4i�1
111►
1 1 1 1
►111
1 1 1 I
111
{
1111
1111
1 1 1
10 20 30 40 50 60
Radius, ft

HAVELOCK WWTP EXPANSION MODEL DILUTION DATA
Summer Tetra Tech Model Data 90% Percentile
radius, m radius ,ft
1.8
10
25
50
75
85
5.905512
32.8084
82.021
164.042
246.063
278.8714
10ft=16.3%
16.3
15.9
13.2
6.48
1.95
1.05
radius, m radius ,ft %
1.7
10
25
50
75
85
5.577428
32.8084
82.021
164.042
246.063
278.8714
10 ft = 15.6%
I`1N3-
Z.o/6.0
radius, m radius ft
1.6
10
25
50
75
85
5.249344
32.8084
82.021
164.042
246.063
278.8714
loft=14.6%
15.6
15.1
12.3
5.61
1.48
0.74
14.6
14.1
11.4
5.02
1.25
0.61
17
16
15
c
• 14
13
c 12
a
0 11
10
9
8
- n 3.5 MGD 1
11
1-11
:'-�i_
hit11
1 111
till 1111 ili1
1
I1 11
11` 1 1-1-1--
-U�i 11I1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Radius, ft
16
15
• 14
13
12
8• 11
0
L' 10
9
8
s��,,` �a� ri 2.8MGD=
-++1tr111�t 'iII Il i1i till ,tll iit's T
11+ 111i 1111
1111
4:tt
1144
114
HH
1l1?
1144
4111
4iit 1411 till
1iI1- iii
11
1111 1111 4141
till 1114 till
II'
111i 11i1
;;11�'1fi'
111-1- 141
1411 4lli
1iss
4141
1111
1111
1111 111
1 1 1
�tf 1I 1 1111
1111 111i
1111 1111
1111
-I i tit tr
LI i 1
4
41
4441 1111
1111 1111
Iii• 'ill
iiii
ilil
1
a
till
t11i
1, 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Radius, ft
Concentrations,
15.0
14.5
14,0
13.5
13.0
12.5
12.0
i.
2.25
MGD
i
i
%
i I.
1
i
iLL__;_i1i
1111
11t
iill
HIT
1iii
i;
iili
;1I
iiii
1j1
slit
1111
t 4 1 1
l l
1! i
l i i i
4 ,
•
"1:
11
i 1 i
1 i 1 i
I i i I
i I 1 i
" 1
-I i i j
1 1
i 1
-1,
1 4
L,
111
'11
1 1 1
1 l j f
Ti 1
i i
i i i i
1 i i 1
1 i 1 1
1i11
-1ili
iiiI
ifil
I
iili
t
111
f„
i
i,„
i i 1
, i i
0
10
20
. 30
Radius, ft
40
50
60

IL.,k)c.1‹ �P ��+�� OD L-
vCz�F (.,a041'P) _
180
Winter
160 -- t -t -I
I I 1
I I t
140
1 1
1 I
120------ 1 1
1 I
1 � I
100 t I
L
1
1
6 I 1 '1 .
80 �' '- -r -1
I
1 jt4' _ 1
80 ,--1 + - -+ - `. _ . -I
I
4 t I
40-� . 1 J
0
t- t -1 I
1 I 1 1
1 I I I
L. .1. J -1
1 1 1 I
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
I 1
r r
T
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Radius from Discharge (m)
90th Percentile Average ---10th Percentile
70 80 90 100
Figure 4-4. Winter Dilution, Phase 3 = 3.5 M D
PlAt 5E.. I 2.25M 9
,pr 5 f- 2 z . G

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 permits that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Ron Berry at telephone number (919)
807-6396 or at email [e-mail].
Attachments
Cc: Washington Regional Office/Surface W
Environmental Sciences Section/Aqua
Central Files
NPDES Unit
Sincerely,
Coleen . Sullins
rotection Section
oxicology Unit/Susan Meadows (email)
Page 2 of 2

I-1 � L 3 c-kC -po ,ut.sioLt
mooEL
Ricr.- (10Mp) - .0Ste,
I I
160 — + f -1
180 .._...._................ __.............-1 .......... 1 .,r...._.._.....
r 'I
I I I I 1 1 I 1 I
I 1 1 1 1 1 i
80 2214 se ""'1 T•1t1,3/
T
I I- t---- ---I I
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
140 — 1 .1 J t L. 1- 1 ..I I
I I I I I I 1 I
I I I I I I I I
120 — 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 � I
_
I I i 1 I
I 1 1 1
I 1 1 I I I I 1
100---•-•-- 1 -- -- __ 1 ... 1 1 I I I
bF1 DF" I 1 OF ! I 1 1 1 I
1 I
0 1 9 i1.1101 1 2,0 I 5.00/ 1 1 1 1
Z _, 1 1 r---_-T- -- -�
1 1 1
6.11AS -2; 7 I t „3 % I e 12, S-4,
:I3:
f- + -1
1 J
20 --
0
1 1 I
I 1 1
I 1 1
1
I
15 L(0.41,6
I 1 1
1 1 1
1 J I
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
0
20 30
40
Radius from Discharge (m)
60 70 80
90th Percentile ---Average —10th Percentile
90 100
Figure 4-2. Summer Dilution, Phase 3 = 3.5 ►'Cab
PoAsf_- I = 2.2.S NAG n
?o ci-sF 2 — z, $ SD

vGi viGG t Gilwi I%a1G1611, 1,4 V1lll l aiullliYl G / (377-u i 14.). umess Sucn aemana is mace, tills aecislon shall be tinal
and binding.
Page 1 of 2
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
1
NorthCarolina
Naturally

NC 2010 Integrated Report Categories 4 and 5 Impaired Waters
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury slue to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
AU_Number AU_Name
AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
Category Parameter Reason for Rating
Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
Neuse River Basin
Neuse River Basin
Neuse River Basin
Middle Trent River Watershed 0302020402
Lower Neuse River Subbasin 03020204
Middle Trent River Watershed 0302020402
Q 27-101-15 Beaver Creek
5 Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
From source to Trent River 12.3 FW Miles C;Sw,NSW
Severe Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2000 1998
Q 27-101-17 Musselshell Creek
5 Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
From souce to Trent River 5.8 FW Miles C;Sw,NSW
Severe Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2005 2008
Neuse River Basin Upper Broad Creek-Neuse River Watershed 0302020404
Q 27-(96)b1 NEUSE RIVER Estuary From Bachelor Creek to the Trent River 2,363.1 5 Acres SC;Sw,NSW
(River and part of Upper Model segment)
5 Copper
Standard Violation Aquatic Life 2008 2008
Q 27-(96)b2 NEUSE RIVER Estuary From Trent River to a line across Neuse
River from Johnson Point to McCotter Point
(part of upper model segment)
3,473.6 S Acres SC;Sw,NSW
4t Chlorophyll a Standard Violation Aquatic Life 2008
5 Copper
Standard Violation Aquatic Life 2008 2008
27-(104)a NEUSE RIVER Estuary From a line across Neuse River from
Johnson Point to McCotter Point to a line
across Neuse River from 1.2 miles upstream
of Slocum Creek to 0.5 miles upstream of
Beard Creek ( middle model segment)
4t Chlorophyll a
13,736.0 5 Acres SB;Sw,NSW
Standard Violation Aquatic Life 2008 2008
5 Copper
Standard Violation Aquatic Life 2008 2008
5 High pH
Standard Violation Aquatic Lifc 2008 2008
Q 27-101-(39) Trent River From mouth of Brice Creek to Neuse River 500.1 S Acres SB;Sw,NSW
4b Chlorophyll a Standard Violation
Aquatic Life 2008
Neuse River Basin Cherry Point-Neuse River Watershed 0302020405
Q 27-(104)b NEUSE RIVER Estuary From a line across Neuse River from 1.2
miles upstream of Slocum Creek to 0.5
"KkEJO Otil i f4tt. t) Cirn-J1--( miles upstream of Beard Creek to a line
across Neuse River from Wilkinson Point to
Cherry Point (bend model segment)
4t Chlorophyll a Standard Violation
10,756.9 SAcres SB;Sw,NSW
Aquatic Life 2008
5 High pH
Standard Violation Aquatic Life 2008 2008
Q 27-(118)f
4t Chlorophyll a
NEUSE RIVER Estuary Prohibited area at Cherry Branch Minnesott 93.5 S Acres SA;HQW,NS
Ferry Landing south side of river W
Standard Violation Aquatic Life 2008 2008
5 Shellfish Growing Area -Prohibited Loss of Use Shellfish Harvesting 2006 2008
NC 2010 Integrated Report Category 4 and 5 303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 201 9/20/2010 Page 61 of 145

NC 2010 Integrated Report Categories 4 and 5 Impaired Waters
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
AU Number
Category Parameter
AU_Name
AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
Reason for Rating Use Category
Collection Year 303(d)year
Neuse River Basin
Q 27-112
5 Chlorophyll a
Slocum Creek
Cherry Point-Neuse River Watershed 0302020405
From source to Neuse River
Standard Violation Aquatic Life
659.1 SAcres SC;Sw,NSW
2008 2010
Neuse River Basin
Q 27-128c Adams Creek
5 Shellfish Growing Area -Prohibited
Town of Oriental-Neuse River Watershed 0302020406
DEH conditionally approved -closed area 317.0 S Acres SA;HQW,NS
from source to a line crossing Adams Creek W
at a point 406 meters south of mouth of
Kellum Creek to a point 637 meters north
of mouth of Beck Creek
Loss of Use Shellfish Harvesting
2006 2004
Q 27-128-lb
Adams Creek Canal
(Intracoastal
Waterway)
5 Shellfish Growing Area -Prohibited
From 0.4 miles north of White Oak River
Basin Boundary to Adams Creek
Loss of Use
126.3 S Acres SA;HQW,NS
W
Shellfish Harvesting 2006 2004
Q 27-128-3a
Back Creek (Black
Creek)
5 Fecal Coliform (recreation)
From source to Adams Creek excluding
swimming area near mouth
Standard Violation
259.5 S Acres SA;HQW,NS
W
Recreation 2008 2004
5 Shellfish Growing Area -Prohibited
Loss of Use
Shellfish Harvesting 2006 2004
Q 27-128-3b
Back Creek (Black
Creek)
5 Shellfish Growing Area -Prohibited
Swimming area near mouth
Loss of Use
2.1 SAcres SA;HQW,NS
W
Shellfish Harvesting 2006 2004
Q 27-123-4-1 Big Branch
5 Shellfish Growing Arca-Prohibited
From source to Mitchell Creek
Loss of Use
1.6 S Acres SA;HQW,NS
Shellfish Harvesting 2006 2004
Q 27-119 Cherry Branch
5 Shellfish Growing Area -Prohibited
From source to Neuse River
(1.20249724388123 S Miles)
Loss of Use
7.3 S Acres SA;HQW,NS
W
Shellfish Harvesting 2006 2004
Q 27-123 Clubfoot Creek
5 Shellfish Growing Area -Prohibited
From source to Neuse River
Loss of Use
562.6 S Acres SA;HQW,NS
Shellfish Harvesting 2006 2004
Q 27-125-(6)a Dawson Creek
5 Shellfish Growing Area -Prohibited
From mouth of Tarkiln Creek to 0.03 miles
upstream of Neuse River
Loss of Use
121.2 S Acres SA;HQW,NS
W
Shellfish Harvesting 2006 2008
Q 27-125-(6)b Dawson Creek
5 Enterrococcus
From 0.03 miles upstream of Neuse River
to Neuse River
Standard Violation
1.0 SAcres SA;HQW,NS
W
Recreation 2008 2010
4cr Recreation Advisory Postings
Loss of Use Recreation
2008 2010
NC 2010 Integrated Report Category 4 and 5 303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 201 9/20/2010 Page 62 of 145

MIXING ZONE EVALUATION 'TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NC
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on an evaluation of the DENR CORMIX 2 model and a review of available
literature, the mixing predicted by the DENR model is valid. However, the permit
limit imposes an extremely small mixing zone of less than 1 meter downstream
from the diffuser. Based on other mixing zones allowed at Camp Lejeune and the
City of Salisbury, a larger mixing zone is not unreasonable.
One guideline provided by EPA for sizing mixing zones recommends that the
smaller of 50 times the discharge length scale (defined as the square root of the
surface area of a single port on a multiport diffuser) or five times the local water
depth be used as the size of the mixing zone. At the WWTP outfall, the smaller of
) these two values is 50 times the discharge length scale. The port diameter of 0.152
meters corresponds to a mixing zone length of approximately 6.7 meters, or 0.1
percent of the river's width. At 6.7 meters, the predicted mixing is about 14.5:1.
It does not appear that extending the mixing zone would violate the criteria
established by DENR regarding mixing zones, including no acute toxicity to
aquatic life or prevention of free passage of aquatic organisms, no offensive
conditions, no production of undesirable aquatic life, and no endangerment of
public health or welfare.
The original CORMIX model predictions could not be duplicated due to changes
in CORMIX 2 since Version 1.2. The only significant problem found in the
original DENR model was the ambient density used. Changing the density to a
more appropriate value increased the mixing predicted when compared to the
Version 4.1 GT model using DENR input data.
Based on comparisons to previous mixing zones granted in North Carolina and on
EPA guidance, a mixing zone of 6.7 meters is reasonable. The CORMIX 2 model
predicts a mixing of 14.5:1 at a distance of 6.7 meters downstream from the
diffuser. Based on a water quality criterion of 0.025 pg/L, a dilution ratio of
14.5:1 would correspond to a discharge limit for mercury of 0.36 pg/L.
7 FEBRUARY 2002
AH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

Figure 3. Comparison of Predicted Near
Mixing Zones using Revised Model and E
Models
20
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
Distance Downstream
gtA) PA4
J,e , '' L_
Vtrs•,..., I
15

FW think this might be what you are looking for
From: Templeton, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:12 PM
To: Berry, Ron
Cc: Poupart, Jeff; Belnick, Tom
Subject: FW: think this might be what you are looking for
Attachments: 20110907111527315.pdf
Ron - Havelock has officially been accepted into the NRCA. The permit package
will need to reflect
that, so let's talk about it before you get much further. - Mike T
From: Haywood Phthisic [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:51 PM
To: Templeton, Mike
subject: FW: think this might be what you are looking for
Mike,
with the attached letter from Havelock they have met our requirements to become
a NRCA member as a co-permittee. I will be preparing a letter for Dan requesting
they be added to the NRCA permit for 2012. If you know of any issues that that would
impede this addition please let me know.
Thanks,
Haywood
From: Dan Harbaugh [mail to:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:36 PM
To: Haywood Phthisic ([e-mail])
Cc: Jim Freeman; Lee Tillman; Bill Ebron; Art Hough
subject: FW: think this might be what you are looking for
Haywood:
Attached please find the documentation received from USDA -Rd regarding funding
commitment for
our Phase I expansion of our WWTP. with this in place we have met the threshold set
by the Board of
the NRCA when considering Havelock for Membership. Please advise if this is
satisfactory
documentation and also the costs for membership for 2012.
Thanks for all your help!
Daniel Harbaugh
Director of Public services
city of Havelock
252.444.6409
From: Lee Tillman
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:23 AM
To: Dan Harbaugh
subject: think this might be what you are looking for
Page 1

USDA mai.
Devet�opnrent
United States Department of Agriculture
Rural Development
State Office
July 12, 2011
Mr. Jimmy Sanders, Mayor
City of Havelock
P.O. Drawer 368
Havelock, NC 28532
Dear Mr. Sanders:
JUL 2011
We are enclosing a copy of Form RD 1940-1, "Request for Obligation of Funds,"
as notice that your application for financial assistance from USDA, Rural Development has been
approved.
We are advised that the funds you requested are reserved in the amount shown in
Item 25. These funds will be administered by USDA, Rural Development.
If you have any questions concerning this reservation of funds, please contact
Connie Miller, Area Specialist, Kinston, NC. The telephone number for the Area Office is (252)
526-9799 Ext. 5.
Sincerely,
1304„,,pe-
William A. Hobbs
Community Programs Director
WAH/ahw
Enclosure
cc: Area Director
USDA, Rural Development
Kinston, NC
4405 Bland Road, Suite 260 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Phone: [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD: [phone] • Web: http:lhvww.rurdev.usda.gov/nc
Committed to the future of rural communities.
`USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and tender.'
To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14t and
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call [phone] (voice orTDD).

•
JJSDA-RD
Form RD 1940-I - _.
(Automated 8-97)
• REQUEST FOR OhLIGATION OF FUNDS
79 -
t i G /'J4 !
INSTRUCTIONS -TYPE IN CAPITALIZED ELITE TYPE IN SPACES MARKED
Complete Items 1 through 30 and applicable Items 31 through 43. See FML
1. CASE NUMBER
ST CO BORROWER ID
38 J 025 I *****3932
2. BORROWER NAME
Havelock, City of
LOAN NUMBER
3. NUMBER NAME FIELDS
1 I 1, 2, or 3 fromltem2)
FISCAL YEAR
4. STATE NAME
North Carolina
5. COUNTY NAME
Craven
6. RACE/ETHNIC
CLASSIFICATION
1- WR E
2-BLACK
I3-AVAN
4 - HISPANIC
5 -A/PI
GENERAL BORROWER/LOAN INFORMATION
7. TYPE OF 4 -PUBLIC BODY
41
APPLICANT 5-ASSOC. OF
FARMERS
6-ORG.OF
1- INDIVIDUAL FARM •
2 - PARTNERSHIP WORKERS
3-CORPORATION 7-OTHER
10. SEX CODE 3-FAMILY UNIT
4 - ORGAN. MALE OWNED
6 I 1- MALE 5 - ORGAN. FEMALE OWNED
2 - FEMALE 6 -PUBLICS BODY
14. DIRECT PAYMENT
3I 1)
18. COMMUNITY SIZE
.I
8. COLLATERAL CODE
1= REAL ESTATE 4-MACHINERY ONL
SECURED 5 - LIVESTOCK ONL
2 - REAL ESTATE 6 - CROPS ONLY
AND CHATTEL 7 - SECURED BY
3 - NOTE ONLY OR BONDS •
-7 CHATTEL ONLY
9. EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP CODE
11. MARITAL STATUS
1-MARRIED 3 -UNMARRIED (INCLUDES
12-SEPARATED WIDOWED/DIVORCED)
12. VETERAN CODE
15. TYPE OF PAYMENT
1'-MONTHLY 3-SEMI-ANNUALLY
2 2-ANNUALLY 4-QUARTERLY
I 1-YES
2 - NO
1-EMPLOYEE
2 - MEMBER OF FAMILY
I3 - CLOSE RELATIVE
4- ASSOC.
13. CREDIT REPORT
2 I 1-YES
2-NO
16. FEE INSPECTION
1-YES
2 2-NO
1-10,000 OR LESS (FOR SFH AND
2 - OVER 10,000 . ' HPG ONLY)
20. TYPE OF
ASSISTANCE
062 I (&eFlo)
24. TYPE OF SUBMISSION
I -INITIAL •
2 I 2-SUBSEQUENT
27. AMOUNT OF IMMEDIATE
ADVANCE
17. INTEREST CREDIT
I-YES (FRO SFH ONLY)
2-NO
19. DWELLING TYPE/USE OF FUNDS CODE
I (SeeFMI)
COMPLETE FOR OBLIGATION OF FUNDS
21. PURPOSE CODE
2
22. SOURCE OF FUNDS
2I
25. AMOUNT OF LOAN
$ 8,490,000
23. TYPE OF ACTION
1- OBLIGATION ONLY
12 - OBLIGATION/CHECK REQUEST
3 - CORRECTION OF OBLIGATION
26. AMOUNT OF GRANT
28. DATE OF
'APPROVAL
MO DA YR
7 1 2011
29. INTEREST RATE
3.3750%
30. REPAYMENT TERMS
40
31 INCOME CATEGORY CODES
I - VERY LOW
2 - LOW
34. R.E.INSURANCE
COMPLETE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING ONLY
3 -MODERATE
4 - ABOVE MODERATE
32. LOW INCOME
LIMIT -MAX.
33. ADJUSTED FAMILY INCOME
38. TYPE OF UNIT
1- FARM TRACT
2 - NON FARM TRACT
35. ILE.TAXES
1st year
36. R.E. TAXES
2nd year
37. NOTE INSTALLMENT INELIGIBLE
COMPLETE FOR COMMUNITY PROGRAM AND CERTAIN MULTIPLE -FAMILY HOUSING LOANS
39. PROFIT TYPE
I2 - LIMITED PROFIT •
1-FULL PROFIT 3 - NONPROFIT
COMPLETE FOR EM LOANS ONLY
40. DISASTER DESIGNATION NUMBER
I(SeeFM)
FINANCE OFFICE USE ONLY
42. OBLIGATION DATE
MO DA YR
I I --I I I --I .I I
COMPLETE FOR CREDIT SALE -ASSUMPTION •
41. TYPE OF SALE
I2 - ASSUMPTION ONLY 4 -ASSUMPTION WITH
1 - CREDIT SALE ONLY 3 - CREDIT SALE WITH SUB LOAI• SUBSEQUENT LOAN
COMPLETE FOR FP LOANS ONLY
43. BEGINNING FARMER/RANCHER •
Or FAQ
tithe decision contained above in this form results to dental, reduction or cancellation of USDA assistance, you may appeal this decision and have a hearing or
you may request a review in lieu of a Nearing Please use the form we have included for this purpose
Position 2
ORIGINAL - Borrower's Case Folder COPY 1- Finance Office COPY 2 - Applicant/Lender Copy 3 - State Office
79-z

Date: 6-27-11
CERTIFICATION APPROVAL
For All Farmer Programs
EM, OL, FO, and SW Loans
This loan is approved subject to the availablity of funds. If this loan does not close for any reason within 90 days from
the date of approval on this document, the approval offical will request updated eligibility information. The
undersigned loan applicant agrees that the approval official will have 14 working days to review any updated
information prior to submitting this document for obligation of funds. If there have been significant changes that may
affect eligibility, a decision as to eligibility and feasibility will be made within 30 days from the time the applicant
provides the necessary information. •
If this is a loan aproval for which a lien and/or title search is necessary, the undersigned applicant agrees that the
. 15-working-day loan closing requirement may be exceeded for the purposes of the applicant's legal representatives
completing title work and completing loan closing.
44. COMMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS OF CERTIFYING OFFICAL
Approval of financial assistance is subJect to availability of funds and to the terms of the Letter
of Conditions dated 6-27-11. and any amendments thereto prior to closing.
Loan approval subject to meeting all conditions of the Letter of Conditions, Processing Checklist and Loan
Closing Instructions as issued by the Office of General Counsel.
45. I•HEREBY CERTIFY that I am unable to obtain sufficient credit elsewhere to finance my actual needs at reasonable
rates and terms, taking into consideration prevailing private and cooperative rates and terms in or near my community •
for loans for similar purposes and periods of time. I agree to use the sum specified herein, subject to and in
accordance with regulations applicable 'to the type of assistance indicated above, and requested payment of such sum.
I agree to report to USDA any material adverse changes, financial or otherwise, that occur prior to loan closing. I
certify that no part of the sum specified herein has been received. I have reviewed the loan approval requirements
and comments associated with this loan request and agree to comply with these provisions.
(For SFH & FP loans•at eligible terms only) If this Ioan is approved, I elect the interest rate to be charged on my loan
to be the lower of the interest rate in effect at the time of approval or loan closing. If I check "NO", the interest rate
charged on my loan will be the rate specified in Item 29 of this form.
Yes No
WARNING:
Attest:
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdication of any department or agency of the United
States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device
a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or
makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false,
fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this -title or imprisoned not
more Qve years, or both."
By:
Cathy Caihpbe , Deput r Clerk to
the Boar
City of Hav s•, k
immy Sa - ers
Mayor
46. I HEREBY CERTIFY that all of the committee and administrative determinations and certifications required by
regulations prerequisite to providing assistance of the type indicated above have been made and that evidence thereof
is in the docket, and that all requirements of pertinent regulations have been complied with. I hereby approve the
above -described assistance in the amount set forth above, and by this document, subject to the.availability of funds, the
Government agrees to advance such amount to the applicant for the purpose of and subject to the availability
prescribed by regulations applicable to this type of assistance.
Date Approved:
Maw
• / (Signature of Approving Official)
7-1-2011
Tits State Director
47. TO THE APPLICANT: As of this date ., this is notice that your application for financial assistance
from the USDA has been approved, as indicated above, subject to the availability of funds and other conditions required
by the USDA. If you have any questions contact the County Supervisor or District Director.

CITY OF HAVELOCK
Post Office Box 368
Havelock, N.C. 28532
February 15, 2011
Mr. Thomas J. Belnick, Supervisor
Complex Permitting Unit
Point Source Branch
Surface Water Protection Section
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: City of Havelock
Havelock WWTP
NPDES Permit Modification Permit No. NC0021253
Dear Mr. Belnick:
ffl©,ffimm
r--
FEB 1 8 2011
DENR-WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Enclosed is a NPDES permit modification package for the City of Havelock Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP). This application is for a proposed discharge relocation and
expansion of the Havelock WWTP from its current capacity of 1.9 mgd to an expanded
capacity of 3.5 mgd. The application package includes the following information:
• This cover letter
• A check for $1,030.00 for the application fee
• Completed NPDES Permit Application - Form 2A
• The results of the two latest priority pollutant scans
• The results of two 2nd-species toxicity tests
• Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
• Speculative Limits for WWTP Expansion to 3.5 mgd- Letter provided by
DWQ on April 8, 2009
The permit application includes two of the three required effluent pollutant scans. The City
plans to conduct the remaining pollutant scan in March of 2011. These results will be
submitted as soon as they are available or as directed otherwise based on review of this
application.
The permit application includes two of the required four toxicity tests for an organism other
Phone [phone]
www.HavelockNC.us Fax [phone]

4
than Ceriodaphnia dubia. The City is not required as a condition of its existing NPDES
permit to conduct 2nd-species toxicity tests and did not realize that it needed to conduct
these test in advance of submitting the application. The City plans to conduct the remaining
2"d-species toxicity tests in April and July of 2011. These results will be submitted as soon
as they are available or as directed otherwise based on review of this application.
For additional information on past effluent testing results, please reference the effluent
pollutant scans and toxicity tests that were submitted to your office December 10, 2007, as
part of the permit renewal for the existing NPDES permit. The effluent scans were collected
July 17, 2007, August, 8, 2007, September 12, 2007, and September 24, 2007. Toxicity
tests were conducted on July 15, 2007, August 5, 2007, September 9, 2007, and
September 30, 2007.
A Notice of FONSI was issued on October 18, 2010, by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development State Office as a part of its review of the
Environmental Assessment. The Notice of FONSI was published the week of December 6,
2010, in the Sun Journal of New Bern N.C. (Please see attached for Notice of FONSI and
proof of publication).
The City of Havelock plans to expand the WWTP in three phases. Therefore, the City is
requesting that DWQ provide effluent limits for each of the three phases of expansion.
Flows associated with each phase of expansion are as follows:
• Phase 1: Expand WWTP to 2.25 mgd
• Phase 2: Expand WWTP to 2.80 mgd
• Phase 3: Expand WWTP to 3.50 mgd
The main focus of Phase 1 of the WWTP expansion is to relocate the discharge from the
East Prong of Slocum Creek (Outfall No. 001) to the Neuse River (Outfall No. 002). Minor
hydraulic improvements at the WWTP will allow the plant to meet Phase 1 flow and
treatment requirements.
If after your review you have any questions or comments conceming this permit modification
package, please do not hesitate to contact us.
mes W. Freeman
City Manager
Enclosures:
Please see above list
cc: Mr. H. Thomas Tant, P.E., Hazen and Sawyer
Ms. Connie Miller, USDA, Rural Development

t
a
City of Havelock WWTP
Permit No. NC0021253
Outfall 002
Additional Information
B.1 Inflow and Infiltration (Continued)
During 2003, when excessive precipitation was experienced in eastern North
Carolina, the City of Havelock observed monthly flows in excess of its NPDES
permitted limit of 1.9 mgd, with an annual average flow approaching the
permitted discharge capacity. The wastewater flows emphasized the need to
implement efforts to reduce I/1 to prolong the adequacy of the existing
discharge permit. In response to the unprecedented rainfall in 2003, the City
of Havelock entered into a Special Order by Consent (SOC) with the
Environmental Management commission in July 2004. Prior to and since
execution of the SOC, the City has aggressively pursued the reduction of
extraneous flows in its wastewater collection system. The efforts have
included:
• Extensive collection system cleaning and CCTV inspection has been
performed.
• Repairing and lining deficient portions of the gravity system using
cured in place piping (CIPP) has rehabilitated approximately 50,000
linear feet of gravity collection lines (approximately 18% of collection
system).
• Smoke testing of areas within the City suspected of contributing
inflow.
• Installation of "rain -stoppers" in hundreds of manholes suspected of
contributing inflow.
• Repair of clean -outs and sewer services found to be contributing
inflow and/or infiltration.
• Inspection of manholes to locate sources of infiltration.
• Correction of deficiencies in manholes that are observed to be
contributing infiltration and/or inflow.
• Lined manholes and sewer services.
• Continuing maintenance of the existing stormwater systems within
the City to minimize the potential for flooding, thus inflow and
infiltration.
0:130906130906-0121eng1NPDES PermitTorm 2A- Additional Intormation.doc 1

r
City of Havelock WWTP
Permit No. NC0021253
Ouffall 002
The efforts identified above illustrate the City's comprehensive approach for
elimination of Ill. The City has completed the CIPP rehabilitation contract and
scope required by the SOC. The wastewater flow reductions due to
improvements to the system from April 2005 through March 2006 are
estimated to be 308,000 gpd. The portions of the collection system where the
majority of the Ill reduction effort was placed was successful in reducing Ill
and returning effluent discharge flows to within permit limitations.
City of Havelock staff continues to complete additional CCTV inspection of
gravity sewers and visual inspections of manholes in an effort to identify other
sources of infiltration and inflow. Broken sewer service cleanouts, deficient or
low manholes, and illicit connections to the sanitary sewer system are
examples of items that continue to be discovered and corrected as part of the
City's aggressive strategy to reduce infiltration and inflow. This strategy will
improve treatment plant performance by reducing peak flows and
accommodate growth until the outfall can be relocated and the plant permitted
flow increased.
B.2 Topographic Map
See Figure 1 for topographic map and Figure 2 for plant site map.
B.3. Process Flow Description
The Havelock WWTP provides advanced wastewater treatment, including
nitrogen removal, to meet effluent limits for discharge to the Neuse River.
The major processes at the WWTP include screening, grit removal, a two -
stage nitrification activated sludge process, denitrification filters, ultraviolet
disinfection, re -aeration, gravity belt thickening, and stabilized solids storage.
As part of the Phase 1 WWTP expansion, an effluent pump station, an outfall
pipeline, a cascade aerator, and a diffuser in the Neuse River will be
constructed.
Screening
Influent wastewater is conveyed to the Havelock WWTP by a combination of
gravity interceptors and force mains. The influent flow is combined into a 24-
inch pipeline at the screening facility that passes through a bar screen
designed to remove large solids and debris from the influent wastewater to
prevent clogging and interference with operation of downstream pumps and
other process equipment.
0:130906130906-0121eng1NPDES Permit\Form 2A- Additional Information.doc 2

City of Havelock WWTP
Permit No. NC0021253
Outfall 002
Grit Removal
After passing through the bar screen, the influent wastewater flows to a vortex
(Pista) grit collector through a 24" pipe. After the grit is removed, the grit
collector effluent flows to the influent pump stations.
Influent Pump Stations
The Havelock WWTP is equipped with two influent pump stations. Effluent
from the grit removal facility flows through an 18-inch pipe to a tee with a 20-
inch pipe. The 20-inch pipe interconnects two wet wells, which are used in
combination with pumps to convey the influent wastewater to the first -stage
aeration basins. Each influent pump station is comprised of a wet well and
three influent pumps. One influent pump station contains three submersible
pumps; the second influent pump station is a dry pit/ wet pit configuration with
three pumps. All pumps are controlled via float switches in the wet well to
keep pace with the plant influent flow rate. In addition to raw wastewater,
return activated sludge (RAS) from the secondary treatment stage is returned
to the influent pump station for conveyance to the first -stage aeration basin
distribution box. Flow from the influent pump stations are conveyed through
10-inch and 12-inch pipes to the first -stage aeration basin distribution box.
Activated Sludge System
The purpose of the activated sludge system is to achieve the BOD removal,
phosphorus removal, and nitrification necessary to comply with the stringent
effluent requirements in the permit. The activated sludge system is comprised
of first -stage aeration, second -stage aeration, final clarifier (intermediate)
pump station, final clarifier distribution box, final clarifiers, and RAS and waste
activated sludge (WAS) conveyance.
First -Stage Aeration
Wastewater that has gone through preliminary treatment enters the first -stage
aeration basin along with RAS through the First -Stage Aeration Basin
distribution box. Two sharp -crested weirs split the flow equally between the
two aeration basins. The two circular tanks are equipped with a fine bubble
aeration system with ceramic disc diffusers. The diffusers provide the
dissolved oxygen and mixing necessary for operation of the activated sludge
process.
0:130906130906-0121eng1NPDES PermitlForm 2A- Additional tnformation.doc 3

City of Havelock WWTP
Permit No. NC0021253
Outfall 002
Second -Stage Aeration
The mixed liquor from each of the First -Stage Aeration Basins flows through
16-inch pipes to the second -stage aeration basins for additional BOD removal
and/or nitrification. The three Second -Stage Aeration Basins are operated in
series in normal operation and are equipped with a coarse bubble aeration
system.
Final Clarifier Pump Station
Effluent from the second -stage aeration basin flows by gravity to the final
clarifier pump station wet well via 16-inch piping. The Final Clarifier Pump
Station lifts the mixed liquor to a high enough elevation that the wastewater
can flow by gravity through the rest of the treatment plant. A 20-inch pipe
conveys the pumped flow from the final clarifier pump station to the final
clarifier distribution box. A polyaluminum chloride (PACI) storage and feed
system is provided to feed PACI to the Final Clarifier Pump Station discharge
to enhance suspended solids removal and provide phosphorus removal in the
final clarifiers via precipitation.
Final Clarifiers
Two 65-foot diameter clarifiers are provided to settle out solids from the mixed
liquor. The final clarifiers provide quiescent flow conditions to allow the mixed
liquor solids to settle to the bottom of the clarifiers. The settled solids are
either returned to the first -stage aeration basins as RAS or wasted to the
Waste Solids Holding Tank as WAS. The clarified effluent flows over the final
clarifier effluent V-notch weirs to the denitrification filters, where the
wastewater undergoes further treatment.
RAS and WAS Conveyance
The RAS and WAS Control Stations control the flow rate of settled activated
sludge from the final clarifiers to the influent pump stations and the Waste
Solids Holding Tank, respectively. WAS flows to the Waste Solids Holding
Tank, and from there is periodically pumped to the gravity belt thickeners for
thickening prior to stabilization and ultimate disposal. The RAS and WAS
flows are measured by four strap -on ultrasonic flow meters, with one RAS flow
meter and one WAS flow meter for each clarifier. RAS and WAS are conveyed
by gravity and manually -operated pinch valves downstream of the flow meters
are used to control the flow rates.
0:130906130906-0121engWPDES PermitWorm 2A- Additional Information.doc 4

e
F
:E
r
City of Havelock WWTP
Permit No. NC0021253
Outfall 002
Denitrification Filters
The denitrification filters remove additional suspended solids from the final
clarifier effluent and remove nitrogen through denitrification to comply with the
total nitrogen limit. Final clarifier effluent flows by gravity to three denitrification
filters. An underdrain system collects the filtered wastewater and directs it to a
20-inch pipe that flows by gravity to the disinfection facilities. The Havelock
WWTP uses methanol as its carbon source, and typically adds between 40
and 80 gallons per day to the filters. Backwash water is drained to the Filter
Backwash Waste Detention Basin, and from there is returned to the influent
pump stations.
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Disinfection is accomplished using ultraviolet (UV) disinfection technology.
Filtered wastewater effluent enters the UV disinfection facilities through a 16-
inch and 20-inch parallel pipeline. The old chlorine contact tank was
retrofitted to accommodate the UV modules and now serves as the
disinfection channel.
Re -aeration
The re -aeration facilities are located at the Re -aeration Basin and can be
used to provide additional dissolved oxygen in the UV disinfection effluent.
Two platform -mounted mechanical surface aerators are provided in the Re -
aeration Basin. The backwash supply pumps for the denitrification filters are
also located in the Re -aeration Basin.
Effluent Pump Station
An effluent pump station will be constructed as part of the Phase 1
improvements. The pump station will convey flow through approximately
30,000 linear feet of 24" piping to the Neuse River.
Cascade Aerator
Prior to discharging into the Neuse River, the effluent will pass through a
cascade aerator, which will be constructed as part of Phase 1 improvements.
The cascade aerator will be located near the bank of the Neuse River and will
increase the effluent's dissolved oxygen levels to meet permit requirements.
0:130906130906-0121engINPDES PermitWorm 2A- Additional information.doc 5

a
t
City of Havelock WWTP
Permit No. NC0021253
Outfall 002
Diffuser in the Neuse River
After passing through the cascade aerator, the effluent will discharge into the
Neuse River through a multi port diffuser located approximately 2,040 feet
from shore.
Solids Treatment
Solids in the form of WAS from the Havelock WWTP currently undergo further
treatment for eventual disposal as a land application product. The existing
solids processing facilities include thickening, WAS holding tank, one 1-meter
gravity belt thickener (GBT), polymer feed system, GBT feed pumps,
thickened WAS (TWAS) feed pumps, and a stabilized solids holding basin.
The solids thickening process is designed to reduce the volume of WAS from
the activated sludge process. WAS is removed from the final clarifiers and
drained by gravity to the Waste Solids Holding Tank for short-term storage
prior to thickening. Each clarifier has a separate wasting line and pinch valve
in the WAS Control Station for controlling WAS flow to the Waste Solids
Holding Tank. Flow meters in the WAS Control Station indicate WAS flow
rate for each final clarifier. Submersible pumps are provided in the Waste
Solids Holding Tank for pumping WAS to the gravity belt thickeners in the
Solids Handling Building. Chemical conditioning of the solids with polymer is
provided to separate the flocculated solids from the free water. The thickened
waste activated sludge (TWAS) from the GBT is collected in a thickened
solids hopper, from which it is pumped to the Solids Stabilization Tank by two
TWAS pumps. Free water is drained back to the Influent Pump Station.
The stabilized solids holding basin is used to store thickened stabilized solids
prior to liquid land application on permitted privately -owned farmland. Piping
is provided for withdrawal of solids from the holding basin and to load the
solids into a truck. Decanting of supernatant to the influent pump stations is
also possible using a portable pump.
Please reference Figure 3 for the process flow diagram.
0:130906130906-0121eng\NPDES PermitlForm 2A- Additional Information.doc 6

City of Havelock WWTP
Permit No. NC0021253
Outfall 002
B.5. Scheduled improvements and Schedules of Implementation. (Continued)
Provide information on any uncompleted implementation schedule or uncompleted plans for
improvements that will affect the wastewater treatment, effluent quality, or design capacity of the
treatment works. If the treatment works has several different implementation schedules or is
planning several improvements, submit separate responses to question B.5 for each. (If none,
go to question B.6.)
a. List the outfall number (assigned in question A.9) for each outfall that is covered by this
implementation schedule.
002
b. Indicate whether the planned improvements or implementation schedule are required by
local, State, or Federal agencies.
❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If the answer to B.5.b is "Yes," briefly describe, including new maximum daily inflow
rate (if applicable).
N/A
d. Provide dates imposed by any compliance schedule or any actual dates of completion
for the implementation steps listed below, as applicable. For improvements planned
independently of local, State, or Federal agencies, indicate planned or actual
completion dates, as applicable. Indicate dates as accurately as possible.
Phase 2 WWTP Expansion
Schedule Actual Completion
Implementation Stage MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY
- Begin Construction 01/01/2015 N/A
- End Construction 12/24/2015 N/A
- Begin Discharge 12/24/2015 N/A
- Attain Operational Level 12/24/2015 N/A
e. Have appropriate permits/clearances concerning other Federal/State requirements
been obtained? ❑ Yes ® No
Describe briefly: An evaluation of the required permits will be completed closer to
the time of the Phase 2 plant expansion.
0:130906130906-0121eng1NPDES Permit\Eorm 2A- Additional Intormation.doc 7

h
City of Havelock WWTP
Permit No. NC0021253
Outfall 002
B.5. Scheduled improvements and Schedules of Implementation. (Continued) Provide
information on any uncompleted implementation schedule or uncompleted plans for
improvements that will affect the wastewater treatment, effluent quality, or design capacity
of the treatment works. If the treatment works has several different implementation
schedules or is planning several improvements, submit separate responses to question B.5
for each. (If none, go to question B.6.)
a. List the outfall number (assigned in question A.9) for each outfall that is covered by
this implementation schedule.
002
b. Indicate whether the planned improvements or implementation schedule are required
by local, State, or Federal agencies.
❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If the answer to B.5.b is "Yes," briefly describe, including new maximum daily inflow
rate (if applicable).
N/A
d. Provide dates imposed by any compliance schedule or any actual dates of completion
for the implementation steps listed below, as applicable. For improvements planned
independently of local, State, or Federal agencies, indicate planned or actual
completion dates, as applicable. Indicate dates as accurately as possible.
Phase 3 WWTP Expansion
Schedule Actual Completion
Implementation Stage MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY
- Begin Construction 01/01/2022 N/A
- End Construction 12/24/2022 N/A
- Begin Discharge 12/24/2022 N/A
- Attain Operational Level 12/24/2022 N/A
e. Have appropriate permits/clearances concerning other Federal/State requirements
been obtained? ❑ Yes ® No
Describe briefly: An evaluation of the required permits will be completed closer to
the time of the Phase 3 plant expansion.
0:130906130906-012\eng1NPDES PermitTorm 2A- Additional Information.doc 8

Proposed Effluent Discharge Location 002
Constructed as Part of Phase 1 of VWVTP Expansion
Lat 34° 57' 11 "
Long 76° 52' 37"
I O r A 1.
Influent Force Main
r
Legend
Influent Force Mains
Gravity Interceptors
Proposed 24-inch Effluent Pipe
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
0:\30906\30906-012\eng1GISWmrP Location map- Figure 1.mxd
XV
Proposed Cascade Aerator
Proposed Effluent Outfall Pipeline
Ex.sting Effluent Discharge Location 001
Lat 34° 53' 20"
Long 76° 54' 30"
City of Havelock WWTP Site
Parallel Interceptors
r
. HIf0 A' S M'D ROADS
• I J° r •s'
lotitt_
OW
,#>7 'rFr 12111 4 k'•
r ! 'F
ENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
Figure 1
WWTP Location Map
City of Havelock, NC
NC0021253
B.2 of Form 2A
February 14, 2011

l
30908412 Figure 2.cdr
L
DENITRIFICATION
FILTERS
FINAL CLARIFIER
FLOW DISTRIBUTION
STRUCTURE
MAINTENANCE
BUILDING
BLOWER
BUILDING
NO.2
CHEMICAL STORAGE
AND FEED FACILITY
FINAL CLARIFIER
NO.2
IICA
FINAL CLARIFIER
N0.1
RAS CONTROL
STATION
TRANSFORMER
FINAL CLARIFIER
PUMPING STATION
SECOND STAGE
AERATION BASIN
140. 3
SECOND STAGE
AERATION BASINS
NO.1E2
FILTER BACKWASH
WASTE DETENTION BASIN
WASTE SOLIDS HOLDING TANK
WAS CONTROL STATION
-1 1
CONTROL BUILDING
FIRST STAGE
AERATION BASIN
DISTRIBUTION BOX
13
ENGINE -
GENERATOR
BUILDING
0
BAR SCREEN
AND GRIT
REMOVAL
(BYPASS UNIT)
Li
BAR
SCREEN
STABILIZED SOUDS
HOLDING BASIN
FIRST STAGE
AERATION BASIN N0.2
FIRST STAGE
AERATION BASIN N0.1
LJ INFLUENT
PUMPING STATIONS
_ GR0EMOVAL
CEIT11
SOUDS
HANDLING
BUILDING
SLUDGE
UV PUMPING
1 DISINFECTION STATION
1 BASIN -41
REAERATION
BASIN
EFFLUENT
PUMPING STATION
Figure 2
WWTP Site Map
City of Havelock, NC
NC0021253
B.2 of Form 2A

Plant Influent �/Screens
Q=1.mgd Bar Screens
Q=1.4 mgd
Cascade
Aerator
Diffuser in
Neuse River
30906-012 Figure 3.cdr
Grit
Removal
Grit
Q=1.4 mgd
Effluent Pump
Station
Influent Pump
Stations
FBWR
First Stage
Aeration Basin
—► Distribution —0-
Box
Legend
FBW = Filter Backwash
FBWR = Filter Backwash Return
RAS = Return Activated Sludge
WAS = Waste Activated Sludge
TWAS = Thickened Waste Activated
Sludge
= Flow Meter
Second -Stage
Aeration Basins Aeration Basins
First -Stage
RAS Q=1.4 mdd
Final Clarifier
Pump Station
Q=0.09 mgd
Reaeration
Tank
FBW Waste
Detention Basin
UV Disinfection
FBW Q=0.09 rngd
Methanol
Q=1.4 mgd
A Denitrification
Filters
Polymer
Stabilized TWAS Pumps Gravity Belt
Solids Holding Thickener
Basin Q=0.007 mgd Q=0.019 mgd
Truck Hauling
to Land Application
GBT Feed Pump
Polyaluminum
Chloride
Final
Clarifiers
41
Q=2.8 mgd
F— Distribution .
Box
- Q=1.4 mgd
Waste Solids WAS Control RAS Control
Holding Tank Station Station
Figure 3
WWTP Process Flow Diagram
City of Havelock, NC
NC0021253
B.3 of Form 2A