NC0025321_McGill PER_20181126 (2)

Keith Webb, PE

55 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801
PO Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802-2259
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

SEPTEMBER 2018
16.00367
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT 

Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation

TOWN OF WAYNESVILLE
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page ii
Table of Contents
List of Figures ..................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ....................................................................................................... v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 6
1.0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ASSESSMENT ....................................... 8
1.1 Headworks ........................................................................................................................ 8
1.2 Primary Clarifiers .............................................................................................................. 8
1.3 Aeration Basin Influent Pump Station .............................................................................. 9
1.4 Aeration Basins and Blower Building ............................................................................... 9
1.5 Secondary Clarifiers ........................................................................................................ 10
1.6 Chlorine Contact Basin ................................................................................................... 10
1.7 RAS/WAS Pump Station ................................................................................................. 10
1.8 Sludge Handling Facilities ............................................................................................... 11
1.9 Electrical System ............................................................................................................ 11
1.10 Control Systems .......................................................................................................... 11
2.0 Future WWTP Flow and Loading Projections ............................................ 12
3.0 PERMIT AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES ........................................................... 15
3.1 Current Discharge Permit ............................................................................................... 15
3.2 Compliance Issues .......................................................................................................... 16
3.2.1 Notices of Violation ................................................................................................. 17
3.2.2 Coliform................................................................................................................... 18
3.2.3 Nitrogen .................................................................................................................. 19
3.2.4 Total Suspended Solids ........................................................................................... 22
3.2.5 Biochemical Oxygen Demand ................................................................................. 24
3.3 Management of Compliance Issues ............................................................................... 26
3.4 Industrial Users .............................................................................................................. 27
3.5 Future Flows and Speculative Limits .............................................................................. 28
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page iii
4.0 TREATMENT PROCESS ALTERNATIVES ...................................................... 29
4.1 Current Process .............................................................................................................. 29
4.2 Treatment Alternatives .................................................................................................. 29
4.2.1 Project Goal ............................................................................................................. 29
4.2.2 Common Elements of Treatment Alternatives ....................................................... 31
4.3 Alternative 1: Rehabilitate Existing Treatment Process ................................................. 34
4.4 Alternative 2: Sequencing Batch Reactors ..................................................................... 35
4.5 Alternative 3: Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge Process ..................................... 36
4.6 Alternative 4: Construction of a New Wastewater Treatment Plant ............................ 37
5.0 OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COST ................................................................. 38
5.1 Rehabilitate Existing Treatment Process........................................................................ 38
5.2 Sequencing Batch Reactors ............................................................................................ 39
5.3 Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge Process ............................................................ 40
5.4 Construction of a New Wastewater Treatment Plant ................................................... 41
6.0 CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES .................................................................... 43
6.1 United States Department of Agriculture ...................................................................... 43
6.2 State Revolving Fund ...................................................................................................... 43
6.3 Revenue or General Obligation Bonds ........................................................................... 43
6.4 Private Placement Bank Loan ......................................................................................... 43
APPENDIX 1 FIGURES .................................................................................... 44
APPENDIX 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT .................................... 49

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page iv
List of Figures
Figure 1. Waynesville WWTP Influent Flow .................................................................................. 12
Figure 2. Waynesville and Connected WWTPs Average Annual Discharge .................................. 13
Figure 3. Waynesville Population and WWTP Flow Projections ................................................... 14
Figure 4. Effluent Coliform Counts ................................................................................................ 18
Figure 5. Effluent NH 3 -N Concentrations ..................................................................................... 19
Figure 6. Effluent NH 3 -N Variability .............................................................................................. 20
Figure 7. Total Suspended Solids Concentration .......................................................................... 22
Figure 8. Total Suspended Solids Removal ................................................................................... 23
Figure 9. Biochemical Oxygen Demand Concentration ................................................................ 24
Figure 10. Biochemical Oxygen Demand Removal ....................................................................... 25
Figure 11. WWTP Construction Cost Trendline ............................................................................ 42

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page v
List of Tables
Table 1. NPDES Discharge Limits and Monitoring Requirements ................................................. 15
Table 2. Notices of Violation ......................................................................................................... 17
Table 3. WWTP Construction Costs per GPD Treatment Capacity ............................................... 41
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The scope of this project includes six tasks:
1. Review Wastewater Treatment Plant Assessment completed by UTEC dated May 2017
2. Develop Future WWTP Flow and Loading Projections
a. Flow and loading projections will be based on a 20-year planning horizon and will draw
heavily from readily available data such as the Town’s most recent Local Water Supply
Plan and recent (3 years) of wastewater treatment plant flow data.
3. Review Discharge Permit and Compliance Issues
a. Review effluent data and compliance status with current NPDES Permit.
b. Identify approaches to effectively manage compliance issues.
c. Evaluate process performance concerns suspected due to the industrial discharge of
Giles Chemical.
d. Review NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)/Division of Water Resources
(DWR) procedures and timeline for establishing speculative limits for future flows.
e. As appropriate, meet with DEQ/DWR to discuss compliance steps and the development
of speculative limits. One meeting is included in this scope.
4. Evaluate Treatment Process Alternatives
a. Review the current activated sludge process and potential modifications to meet
current and future flows and limits.
b. Evaluate modifications of the current WWTP process for Biological Nutrient Removal
(BNR).
c. Evaluate other biological treatment alternatives including Sequencing Batch Reactors
(SBR), oxidation ditch, IFAS, membrane bioreactors.
d. Evaluation of the anaerobic digester for modifications and upgrades.
e. Review Combined Heat and Power (CHP) improvements.
5. Provide Opinions of Probable Project Cost at a planning level for viable alternatives.
6. Provide a Capital Funding Source Review, including but not limited to State Revolving
Fund (SRF) and USDA-Rural Development
The authors of this report do not take exception to the findings of the 2017 UTEC report. The
Waynesville WWTP has a number of difficulties stemming from aging structures and equipment
and a secondary clarifier design that does not meet current design standards.
The wastewater treatment plant averaged 4.13 MGD in 2017 with a peak day wet weather flow
of 6.11 MGD. The historical trend has been relatively flat, tending toward a reduction in per capita
wastewater flows even as the population of the town has increased. The wastewater treatment
plant’s average daily flow is not expected to reach 80% of capacity until 2040, implying that
expansion need not be considered at this time.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 7
In recent years the wastewater treatment plant has had difficulties staying in compliance with its
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which allows maximum effluent
concentrations of 30 mg/l of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS)
and seasonal limits of 9.0 mg/l of nitrogen as ammonia in the warmer seasons and 21.0 mg/l in
the cooler seasons. Specifically, the WWTP has had a number of violations due to excessive TSS
and ammonia nitrogen in its effluent, and fines have been paid with increasing frequency in the
last year. It is believed that the majority of the compliance issues are caused by undersized,
shallow, and underperforming secondary clarifiers, which permit suspended solids to pass
through into the disinfection system and ultimately the outfall, and the contribution of unusual
wastewater from a local industry which may be suppressing nitrification in the aeration basins,
reducing the amount of ammonia that can be removed from the wastewater.
The recommended approach for dealing with these compliance issues is for the Town to seek a
Special Order by Consent (SOC) from NCDEQ while a capital project is undertaken to solve the
underlying problems. Once the SOC is obtained from NCDEQ, the Town will be able to avoid the
imposition of further fines while the project is ongoing. A comprehensive WWTP improvement
project should be identified and presented to NCDEQ as part of the application for the SOC, and
the plant must be operated optimally while the improvements project is ongoing.
Four treatment alternatives for the current plant site are presented:
1. Rehabilitation of the existing suspended growth activated sludge process with
replacement of the headworks and secondary clarifiers,
2. Modification of the existing aeration basins to function as sequencing batch reactors with
construction of an additional flow equalization basin, and
3. Modification of the existing aeration basins to function as either integrated fixed-film
activated sludge reactors or moving bed bioreactors with replacement of the headworks
and secondary clarifiers.
4. Further discussion of a fourth alternative, the construction of a new wastewater
treatment plant at a new location, is included in this report, but a preliminary design and
detailed cost estimate are outside the scope of this evaluation.
The recommend alternative is rehabilitation of the existing suspended growth activated sludge
process. A preliminary opinion of probable cost for this alternative of $14,652,900 has been
presented in Section 5.0 below.

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 8
1.0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ASSESSMENT
The original WWTP assessment performed by Utility Technology Engineers-Consultants (UTEC)
in May 2017 focused heavily on electrical and mechanical equipment and after discussion of the
condition of the plant equipment presented four suites of modifications to the existing plant and
two alternatives for replacement of the existing plant with a new Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)
plant. The UTEC assessment noted that the age of the plant and deterioration of equipment and
structures is beginning to affect treatment performance.
In addition to the UTEC assessment, engineers from McGill Associates have visited the plant and
spoken with Town staff about operations and maintenance concerns, and a structural
engineering firm, Medlock & Associates Engineering, P.A., visited the plant and assessed the
primary clarifiers, aeration basins, secondary clarifiers, digester, and sludge thickeners. The full
text of the structural engineering evaluation is included as an appendix to this report.
1.1 Headworks
The previous report stated that the headworks appeared to be functioning adequately, although
it was noted that the grit removal blowers were in need of replacement. Several electrical and
support components appeared to be deficient and in need of replacement including the Lake
Junaluska flow meter power supply, flow meter and logging computer shed, influent weir
magnetic flow meter sensor cables, and grit separator control panel and stand.
The current headworks layout features a Parkson self cleaning bar screen and a secondary
manually cleaned bar screen. Plant operators have pointed out that they are currently splitting
flow to both screens during peak flows and have stated a preference that both screens have
provisions for self cleaning in any future design. The grit removal system functions adequately,
but discharges extremely wet grit. Improved technology for grit removal exists and should be
incorporated in future upgrades.
The current headworks is also not connected to the plant’s emergency generator. In the event of
a power loss, the bar screen could only be cleaned manually and grit removal would be adversely
affected over time as grit continued to build up in the chamber with no means of removal.
1.2 Primary Clarifiers
The primary clarifiers were noted in the previous report to be performing satisfactorily, however
several components required either repair or replacement. The concrete walls and clarifier valves
require repairs, while it was suggested that the sludge removal pumps and pipes be replaced
since they were installed incorrectly. UTEC noted that metal railing around the clarifier and sludge
pits did not meet OSHA regulations, and that some metal grating was needed between the tanks.
An air compressor purchased in 2016 is functioning poorly and may also need replacement.
Electrical panels, stands, and conduits are severely rusted and require replacement.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 9
Town staff have pointed out that the weirs are in need of releveling and that the influent gate
valves are difficult to operate and may need replacement. The grease removal system and weir
clog frequently and must be cleaned manually. The access grating for the scum removal system
is unsafe and has no rail. There are also no working lights in the area. Night shift staff must use
flashlights to view the primary clarifiers.
The concrete of the primary clarifiers was noted by Medlock & Associates to be in generally good
condition. Vertical cracks in both clarifiers are likely due to shrinkage and not stress of the wall.
However it was noted that while the south clarifier’s cracks are typically dry and spaced
approximately 6 feet apart, the north clarifier shows indicators of minor leakage, spalling, and
delaminating concrete.
1.3 Aeration Basin Influent Pump Station
The three Gorman Rupp T10 pumps installed in 2000 and retrofitted in 2018 with variable
frequency drives (VFDs) replaced three original screw pumps designed to pump effluent from the
primary clarifiers to the aeration basins. Each pump is sized for 3 MGD, and space is set aside in
the pump station for a fourth pump.
Because the pump station was originally designed for a different type of pumping system, the
wetwell is undersized for the centrifugal pumps that currently withdraw wastewater from it. The
shallow, narrow layout of the pump station requires that wastewater levels be maintained within
an extremely narrow range. The discharge line set aside for the fourth pump leaks, and the piping
layout does not permit easy isolation and maintenance of the piping. The pump station also has
no alarms that can be observed from the outside, requiring frequent visits from operators to
check its condition. The building itself is poorly ventilated and the roof is in disrepair.
1.4 Aeration Basins and Blower Building
The aeration headers in the basins were observed by UTEC engineers to be leaking, and the
existing coarse air diffusers are less efficient than modern fine diffusers. The blower motors have
across-the-line starters instead of soft starts. Concrete structural failures are noted in the
summary of the report, but not the main body.
The four 4,000-SCFM (standard cubic feet per minute) blowers in the blower building are
currently operated between 2,000 and 3,000 SCFM. Fine adjustment of air flow is made through
butterfly valves in the aeration basins. Plant personnel have stated that the blowers themselves
have been fairly low maintenance, although the motors occasionally require replacement. The
building has no crane or hoist system for lifting the motors. A small wheel-mounted hoist is
available for lifting the blowers, but its capacity is not adequate to transport the much heavier
motors.
Of the four aeration basins at the plant, two are being used for biological wastewater treatment.
A third has been modified by plant operators to function as an aerobic digester, and a fourth
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 10
receives flows pumped out of the chlorine contact chamber. The aeration headers in the basins
leak. One air line fell into the basin where it could not be retrieved, and the butterfly valve used
to isolate the line leaks air audibly.
The end wall of the basin overhanging the secondary clarifiers appears to have shifted or moved
in the past, and a supplemental wall was constructed against the inside face of the existing wall.
The structural engineers’ evaluation noted that the concrete of the aeration basin is in generally
good condition, but exhibits greater deterioration than the concrete of the primary clarifiers. The
basins exhibit some leakage at joints and inlet pipes. It was noted that deterioration of the
concrete basins appears to be mostly due to the corrosive environment and freeze-thaw cycles,
but that the basin is generally structurally sound, and that the interior walls have sufficient
structural capacity to safely support hydraulic loads due to water level imbalances.
1.5 Secondary Clarifiers
The two vacuum type sludge removal systems that collect settled solids from the bottom of the
clarifiers were observed to be leaking and are inefficient. The scum bridge is extremely
deteriorated.
The structural engineers’ evaluation noted that the concrete of the secondary clarifier is in
generally good condition and typically sound, but shows regular vertical cracks similar to those
observed on the primary clarifiers with areas of spalling and delamination. Seepage was observed
at several locations.
1.6 Chlorine Contact Basin
The concrete of the chlorine contact basins has cracks, and the chlorine room ventilation does
not work, but the chlorine basin functions well. Additional catwalk installation was recommended.
The chlorine contact basin is divided into two sections that can be operated independently. A
baffle wall ensures that treated effluent is discharged from the bottom of the chamber, which
allows floating solids to be retained in the chlorine contact basin. To control the buildup of
floating solids, one section of the chlorine contact basin is isolated and pumped into the nearest
section of the aeration basin.
1.7 RAS/WAS Pump Station
The return/waste activated sludge pump station was noted to be in good condition. UTEC
engineers recommended new pump motors with VFDs to allow for better return sludge flow
control. Since then, one pump and motor and both check valves have been replaced. The new
pump is operated by a new VFD.

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 11
1.8 Sludge Handling Facilities
In the UTEC report the heading of sludge handling facilities encompassed a variety of equipment
that holds and treats wastewater treatment byproducts, including the primary and secondary
sludge thickeners, anaerobic digester, belt press, and lime stabilization system.
Several components of the sludge handling portion of the plant were noted in the previous report
to be non-functioning, including the polymer feed system for the belt press and the recycle feed
hopper and dust collection system for the lime pasteurization equipment. Electrical panels and
conduits were observed to be severely deteriorated due to rust. Replacement of the trough and
heater for the thermo-blender was recommended. It was recommended that the lime silo filter
house be moved to ground level for safer maintenance and that the anaerobic digester be
drained, inspected, and repaired as needed.
The sludge thickeners are typically structurally sound, but do have some leaks. The anaerobic
digester is in generally good condition with minor seepage and cracks. Operations staff have
noted that the location of the mechanical equipment on the roof of the digester makes
maintenance difficult due to the lack of accessibility and the potential danger of operating
welding equipment in close proximity to digester gas.
1.9 Electrical System
Overall, the electrical system was noted to be antiquated and in need of upgrades. The power
service to the plant is 480 volt ungrounded delta. It was recommended that the plant either be
converted to a more modern grounded wye system or that fault detectors be added to the
existing power service.
Several plant-wide issues were identified, including deterioration of many of the electrical
conduits and control panels as noted above and similar deterioration of most of the outdoor
power distribution panels. Most of the electrical power panels in the plant were also noted to be
sufficiently old that replacement breakers and other components are no longer in production,
making repairs difficult. The area lighting at the plant is mostly non-functional.
1.10 Control Systems
The UTEC plant assessment finished by noting that the control panels and information recording
systems for the various process components of the plant are not interconnected, so that there is
no central location in the plant office where an operator would be able to observe process
operations or be alerted to alarms remotely, as would be expected at a newer WWTP.

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 12
2.0 Future WWTP Flow and Loading Projections
Our analysis of the plant’s historic flows drew from two sources: Daily Monitoring Report (DMR)
data from the plant for 2015-2017, and Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) data for 2007-2017.
While LWSP data are available for 1997 and 2002, LWSPs were only prepared every five years
and the data are old enough to be of limited utility in predicting current trends.

Figure 1. Waynesville WWTP Influent Flow

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
Jan-15Feb-15Mar-15Apr-15May-15Jun-15Jul-15Aug-15Sep-15Oct-15Nov-15Dec-15Jan-16Feb-16Mar-16Apr-16May-16Jun-16Jul-16Aug-16Sep-16Oct-16Nov-16Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17MGDInfluent Flow 2015-2017
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 13

Figure 2. Waynesville and Connected WWTPs Average Annual Discharge
Average flows have trended upwards over the past ten years, while maximum day flows have
remained relatively flat, barely exceeding the plant’s permitted capacity of 6.0 MGD. These flows
have not correlated strongly with Town population, which has been determined from US Census
and North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management data.
y = 0.1514x -301.36
R² = 0.8065
y = 0.0053x -4.5078
R² = 0.1974
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017MGDAverage Annual Discharge, MGD
average max Junaluska SD & Clyde
Lake Junaluska Assembly Maggie Valley Linear (average)
Linear (max)
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 14

Figure 3. Waynesville Population and WWTP Flow Projections
The Town of Waynesville is projected to increase in population at a modest pace, while
wastewater treatment plant flows have increased more sharply over the past ten years. Historic
flows however were much higher in 1997 and 2002 when the Town’s population was lower. This
increase from 261 gpd per Waynesville resident in 2007 to 414 gallons per Waynesville resident
per day in 2017 suggests that the primary driver of wastewater flows in the area is industrial
rather than residential. The population of the town is projected to increase by approximately
1,730 residents to 11,675 by 2040 following the current trend. If flows increased in a linear
fashion following their current ten-year trend, average daily flow in 2040 would be 7.4 MGD,
corresponding to 635 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). If instead flows began to correlate more
closely to population, average daily flow in 2040 would be 4.8 MGD, or 80% of permitted flow,
even at the current high flow of 414 gpcd.

y = 0.161x + 3250.9
R² = 0.9501
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Estimated Population of WaynesvilleWWTP Flow, MGDWaynesville, NC Population and WWTP Flow
aggressive projection pre-2007 Flows
2007-2017 Flows steady gpcd
Estimated Waynesville Population Linear (Estimated Waynesville Population)
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 15
3.0 PERMIT AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES
3.1 Current Discharge Permit
The current discharge permit, renewed for five years on January 26, 2017, contains limits and
monitoring requirements for several criteria.
Table 1. NPDES Discharge Limits and Monitoring Requirements
Effluent
Characteristics
Limits Monitoring Requirements
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location
Flow 6.0 MGD continuous recording influent or
effluent
BOD, 5-day,
20°C
30.0 mg/L
or 15% of
influent
45.0
mg/L daily composite influent and
effluent
TSS
30.0 mg/L
or 15% of
influent
45.0
mg/L daily composite influent and
effluent
NH3-N (April 1 -
October 31) 9.0 mg/L 27.0
mg/L daily composite effluent
NH3-N
(November 1 -
March 31)
21.0 mg/L 35.0
mg/L daily composite effluent
Dissolved
Oxygen variable grab
upstream
and
downstream
Dissolved
Oxygen 6.0 mg/L
(min) daily grab Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric
mean
200/100 mL 400/100
mL daily grab Effluent
Temperature variable grab
upstream
and
downstream
Temperature daily grab effluent
Total Residual
Chlorine 28 µg/L daily grab effluent
Total Nitrogen quarterly composite effluent
Total
Phosphorus quarterly composite effluent
Chronic Toxicity 9% P/F quarterly composite effluent
Cyanide quarterly grab effluent
pH 6.0 (min) /
9.0 (max) daily grab effluent
Mercury
Minimization
Plan

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 16
3.2 Compliance Issues
The evaluation provided in this report addresses the current state of equipment and support
facilities for the Waynesville WWTP. It includes a review of the UTEC Wastewater Treatment
Plant Assessment. That assessment looked primarily at alternative energy opportunities, electrical
systems and condition of treatment units and mechanical support system components. While the
WWTP has significant issues related to pieces of mechanical equipment nearing the end of their
operational lives, the UTEC assessment did not reference the Town’s NPDES (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System) Permit or the current compliance status of the Town relative to
that permit and its regulatory relationship with the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality, Division of Water Resources (DWR).
This regulatory relationship is extremely important and the ability of the WWTP to consistently
comply with the limits in the permit not only represents a potential financial obligation (for
recorded violations and assessment of civil penalties by DWR), but also jeopardizes the ability of
the Town to extend wastewater services with its service area, particularly for new or potential
developments, commercial operations and new or expanded manufacturing operations. Because
NC law requires that WWTPs must be able to properly treat wastewater before new or expanded
service can be added to a wastewater system, Waynesville currently runs the risk of being placed
on wastewater “moratorium” under this legal provision. Because of violations and assessments of
penalties within the last year, this chronic non-compliance may have laid the foundation for the
agency to issue a moratorium.
McGill Associates’ evaluation of the recent compliance history and the monitoring information
from the Town shows a recent trend toward effluent issues with several parameters, particularly
ammonia nitrogen. Notice of Violations (NOVs), (and in most cases, including an assessment of
civil penalties) since the fall of 2016 through the end of 2017, were issued for fecal coliform, TSS,
and ammonia. During the last half of 2017, several NOVs and assessments were made for ammonia.
Looking at influent and effluent data from the Town’s monitoring 2016-2017, there is a consistent
trend toward increasing influent levels for BOD-5 and NH3-N (ammonia). The included graphs of
daily values for influent and effluent illustrate this trend. For TSS, influent levels seem to be
relatively stable, while effluent levels show an upward trend.
These data likely illustrate a combination of increased influent loading to the WWTP and the
ongoing deterioration of the treatment system. The ability to make adjustments in operational
practice is limited. The overall facility is in marginal operational condition. The facility’s ability
to remove and manage solids is greatly impaired and the secondary clarifiers perform poorly, and
multiple mechanical components are non-functional. While the data show some “ups and downs”
relative to changing influent and effluent conditions, it is expected that chronic violations will
continue, placing the Town in a precarious compliance status with the regulatory agency, likely
resulting in the inability of the Town to extend new service.
As our evaluation concludes, the overall condition of the treatment facility requires a
comprehensive WWTP improvements plan. Because such a plan will require significant funding,
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 17
it will be necessary to lay out a careful schedule for preliminary engineering, develop a viable
funding approach, design the improvements needed (including an expansion component if
appropriate), receive agency approval of the plans, bid the project, identify the contractor,
construct the upgrade, and place the improved facility into operation.
3.2.1 Notices of Violation
Notices of Violation (NOVs) are issued for time periods in which the wastewater treatment plant
reports effluent values exceeding the limits noted above. NCDEQ records are available for NOVs
that have been received by the Town of Waynesville:
Table 2. Notices of Violation
Date of Notice Parameter Time of
Occurrence
Effluent
Value
Limit Fine
October 17, 2016 Fecal Coliform week of June 13-17,
2016 838 400 $500
June 23, 2017 Total Suspended Solids week of January 17-
20, 2017 66 45 $500
June 23, 2017
Total Suspended Solids week of February
20-24, 2017 102.6 45 $500
Total Suspended Solids month of February
2017 42.9 30 $1,500
August 23, 2017 Ammonia month of June 2017 12.44 9 none
November 1, 2017 bypass of primary
effluent
October 22, 2017 620,000 gal n/a none
November 8, 2017 Ammonia month of July 2017 12.86 9 $1,500
November 14, 2017 Ammonia month of September
2017 11.21 9 $1,500
December 8, 2017 Ammonia month of August
2017 13.27 9 $3,000
December 12, 2017
Total Suspended Solids week of October 23-
27, 2017 103.8 45 none
Total Suspended Solids month of October
2017 38.4 30 $3,000
April 12, 2018
Total Suspended Solids week of February
17, 2018 47 45
Total Suspended Solids month of February
2018 39.2 20
May 23, 2018
Total Suspended Solids week of March 3,
2018 59 45
$3,000 Total Suspended Solids month of March
2018 35.05 30
July 3, 2018 Total Suspended Solids month of May 2018 30.5 30

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 18
3.2.2 Coliform
Individual daily fecal coliform counts exceeded the 200/100 ml monthly average discharge limit
on 10.3% of the days on which effluent values were measured, and exceeded the 400/100 ml
weekly geometric mean discharge limit on 6.8% of days.
Effluent fecal coliform count varies greatly, ranging from a maximum of 9,400/100 ml in
November of 2016 to a minimum below the detection limit.

Figure 4. Effluent Coliform Counts
The single coliform violation, which occurred in one week of June 2016, was for a weekly
geometric mean coliform count of 838/100 ml, over two times the weekly limit of 400/100 ml.
The Town’s investigations of its larger customers and industrial users led Town staff to conclude
that the event was likely due to end of year cleaning at local schools, where unknown cleaning
chemicals were discharged to the collection system.

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1/20162/20163/20164/20165/20166/20167/20168/20169/201610/201611/201612/20161/20172/20173/20174/20175/20176/20177/20178/20179/201710/201711/201712/2017per 100 ml2016-2017 Effluent Coliform
Monthly Geometric Average Daily Effluent Coliform Monthly Geometric Mean Limit
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 19
3.2.3 Nitrogen
The WWTP’s ammonia limit is seasonal, with much higher permitted effluent values in cooler
months.

Figure 5. Effluent NH 3 -N Concentrations
Individual daily effluent ammonia values exceeded the discharge limit on 23.9% of the days for
which effluent values were measured, which roughly corresponds to the monthly permit
violations shown, where the monthly average exceeded the permit limit 5 out of 24 months, or
21% of the time.
Effluent ammonia concentration varies greatly within individual months, ranging from a
maximum of 28.2 mg/L in August 2016 to a minimum of 0.15 mg/L observed in several months,
including August 2016.
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
22.00
24.00
Jan-16Feb-16Mar-16Apr-16May-16Jun-16Jul-16Aug-16Sep-16Oct-16Nov-16Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17mg/l2016-2017 Effluent NH3-N
Monthly Average Effluent NH3 Concentration Permit Limit
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 20

Figure 6. Effluent NH 3 -N Variability
Influent ammonia is not measured daily. Only three readings are available from the past three
years, collected on February 7, May 2, and August 1 of 2017. Influent and Effluent Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN), Nitrate + Nitrite, and Total Nitrogen (TN) were also measured on those dates, as
well as on November 7, 2017.
The nitrogen balance of the system doesn’t appear to be consistent for February 7, 2017. Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen is equal to ammonia plus organic nitrogen, but the reported February effluent
TKN is less than ammonia nitrogen for effluent. Similarly, TN should be equal to TKN plus nitrate
and nitrite nitrogen, but is also less than ammonia nitrogen for that day’s effluent.
Since no influent ammonia nitrogen concentration was recorded for November, and the February
data are inconsistent, there are only two days of influent and effluent nitrogen data available for
2017, and none for the previous year. No conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of such
sparse data. More influent data should be collected before conclusions can be drawn. It has been
suggested by Town staff that industrial users in the Town may be contributing high influent
ammonia spikes to the plant.
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
Jan-16Feb-16Mar-16Apr-16May-16Jun-16Jul-16Aug-16Sep-16Oct-16Nov-16Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17mg/lEffluent Ammonia as Nitrogen
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 21
Ammonia is removed from wastewater by nitrification, a biological process wherein bacteria
convert ammonia to nitrate. This process is aerobic since it involves the addition of oxygen to
ammonia nitrogen. Consequently it takes place in the aeration basins. Once nitrate has been
produced by the nitrifying bacteria, denitrifying bacteria can strip the oxygen from the nitrates,
leaving nitrogen gas, which floats to the top of the wastewater and diffuses into the atmosphere.
This process is anaerobic, and is hindered by the presence of free oxygen or if the carbon source
is inadequate. Denitrification takes place in the unaerated secondary clarifiers at this WWTP.
Since the nitrogenous waste in the WWTP’s effluent is still in the form of ammonia, it can be
concluded that nitrification is deficient. While there may also be denitrification deficiencies, this
cannot be concluded from the few nitrogen measurements available.
Various influent characteristics may inhibit nitrification, including toxicity, temperature, alkalinity,
pH, and carbon-based BOD. More influent and process control data are needed before specific
recommendations can be made regarding the design of biological treatment improvements
needed.

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 22
3.2.4 Total Suspended Solids
Individual daily effluent TSS values exceeded the 30 mg/l monthly average discharge limit on
8.2% of the days on which effluent values were measured, and exceeded the 45 mg/l weekly
average discharge limit on 3.2% of days. The plant has had ten effluent TSS concentration
violations in the last two years.
Effluent TSS concentration varies greatly over the period of record, ranging from a maximum of
424 mg/l in October 2017 to a minimum below the detection limit.

Figure 7. Total Suspended Solids Concentration
In addition to the TSS concentration limit, the WWTP’s NPDES permit states that the monthly
average effluent TSS concentration may not exceed 15% of the influent value, i.e., the treatment
process must remove 85% of influent TSS. TSS removal at the plant averages almost 90%, with
removal dropping below 85% on 15.7% of days during the period of analysis. There are no
documented violations for TSS removal in the past two years.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Jan-16Feb-16Mar-16Apr-16May-16Jun-16Jul-16Aug-16Sep-16Oct-16Nov-16Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Concentration, mg/l2016-2017 TSS
Monthly Average Influent Monthly Average Effluent Influent TSS Concentration
Effluent TSS Concentration Monthly Average Limit
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 23

Figure 8. Total Suspended Solids Removal
Previous studies have identified effluent TSS concentrations as problem for the WWTP, and have
attributed this problem to design deficiencies in the secondary clarifiers. The secondary clarifiers
are only 8 feet deep when design guidelines from various sources suggest that minimum
secondary clarifier depth should be 12 feet regardless of flow. The secondary clarifiers also have
effluent weirs that are shorter than recommended to handle peak hourly flows. The 2007 McGill
Associates report also noted that while effluent from the secondary clarifiers was not tested, the
presence of settled sludge in the chlorine contact basin downstream of the secondary clarifiers
provided another data point in favor of inadequate performance in the secondary clarifiers.
A further difficulty in the treatment process may be the lack of a dedicated anoxic zone for
denitrification. Without such a space for the removal of oxygen from nitrates and the discharge
of nitrogen to the atmosphere, denitrification will take place primarily in the secondary clarifiers,
where nitrogen bubbles produced in the bottom of the clarifiers can float the sludge blanket to
the top of the basin, allowing the sludge to be carried over the weirs. The plant’s difficulties with
managing filamentous bacteria can also contribute to TSS violations. Operators currently hold
floating filamentous bacteria back from discharge by careful operation of the disinfection basins.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1/2016 3/2016 4/2016 6/2016 8/2016 10/2016 12/2016 2/2017 4/2017 6/2017 8/2017 10/2017 12/2017
2016-2017 TSS Removal
TSS Removal Permit Limit
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 24
3.2.5 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Individual daily effluent BOD values exceeded the 30 mg/l monthly average discharge limit on
5.4% of the days it was measured.

Figure 9. Biochemical Oxygen Demand Concentration
Daily BOD removal values were less than the 85% removal target on 15.7% of days. Insufficient
BOD removal was discussed in the previous 2007 McGill Associates report as a subject of concern,
and it was suggested that the difficulty may be due to low influent values, and may be
ameliorated with a reduction in I/I, which would result in wastewater with higher BOD
concentrations. During the assessment period from 2016-2017 this does not appear to have been
the case. Influent BOD concentrations on days when the plant achieved at least 85% BOD removal
averaged 164 mg/l, while concentrations on days the plant could not achieve 85% removal
averaged 123 mg/l. Under both conditions it would be possible for the plant to meet its effluent
concentration limit of 30 mg/l while still removing less than 85% of influent BOD.
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
Jan-16Feb-16Mar-16Apr-16May-16Jun-16Jul-16Aug-16Sep-16Oct-16Nov-16Dec-16Jan-17Feb-17Mar-17Apr-17May-17Jun-17Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17Oct-17Nov-17Dec-17Concentration, mg/l2016-2017 BOD
Monthly Average Influent Monthly Average Effluent Influent BOD Concentration
Effluent BOD Concentration Permit Limit
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 25

Figure 10. Biochemical Oxygen Demand Removal
Despite this occasional difficulty in meeting treatment goals, the plant did not exceed its permit
limits during the two year period for which data were obtained.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1/2016 3/2016 4/2016 6/2016 8/2016 10/2016 12/2016 2/2017 4/2017 6/2017 8/2017 10/2017 12/2017
2016-2017 BOD Removal
BOD Removal Permit Limit
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 26
3.3 Management of Compliance Issues
Relative to the current compliance situation, the Town will need to develop an approach that will
be acceptable to the regulatory agency and allow for the plant to achieve consistent compliance.
The management of this process with minimized regulatory impact is best served by the use of a
Special Order by Consent (SOC). This requires the cooperation of the regulatory agency and the
development of a plan that establishes a schedule to provide for a capital project to upgrade or
replace the existing facility. This approach also requires the establishment of an appropriate
funding process to achieve the plant upgrade process. Preliminary discussions with DWR staff
indicates that they are open to discussing a compliance plan that would include the issuance of an
SOC.
Generally, short-term steps to achieve consistent compliance are effective where basic WWTP
conditions are such that only relatively minor capital projects are needed. While it is possible that
some improvement in effluent quality may be achieved by short-term actions, long-term
compliance is not achievable without a major upgrade of the WWTP The facility issues at the
WWTP are such that stable, long-term compliance can only be achieved through a major capital
project to upgrade this facility.
The development of a comprehensive facilities upgrade project requires a clear picture of funding
and the development of a plan for design, permitting, and construction of the project. Once these
steps can be developed and approved by the Town, it will be possible to establish a clear path
forward that will satisfy the regulatory agency and provide Waynesville with a facility capable of
effectively managing its wastewater well into the future. As a result, we believe it is appropriate
that the Town move forward with developing a comprehensive capital project to address problems
with the current WWTP and engage DWR on the development and adoption of an appropriate
SOC.
If an SOC for a comprehensive plant upgrade is the path chosen, we anticipate it will be necessary
to assure the regulatory agency that every step is being taken to secure the best performance of
the existing facility pending the completion of the improvements project. This will include the
following:
• A systematic and documented plan and actions to identify and correct, if possible, the
source of recent increased loading to the plant.
• Establishment of an aggressive operational parameter monitoring program that will assist
with establishing the current internal performance of each treatment step (full nitrogen
series data, TSS series and BOD-5 at a minimum).
• Development of a detailed operational assessment of the existing facilities based on the
data noted above to determine what, if any, actions are possible to improve effluent
quality pending completion of the WWTP improvements.
• Establishment of an operational program that can be used throughout the timeline for
completing the comprehensive capital project.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 27
These actions will likely be a component of the SOC and DWR will require reports to document
this effort. The Town will have to develop a schedule for the WWTP capital project that can be
approved by DWR and will need to work with the agency to develop interim limits that allow
compliance during the SOC period and that are acceptable to the agency.
Because the statutory provision for an SOC for publicly owned wastewater treatment systems
allows for additional flow during the period of the SOC, the Town will need to evaluate its
expected sewer service demand during the project period, so this amount of flow can be included
in the SOC. This provision allows Waynesville to meet sewer extension and service demands while
the SOC stays in place.
Steps to secure an SOC can be initiated before all of the details of the improvements project are
developed, but it cannot be finalized without a schedule for completion of the project. Once an
SOC has been drafted and is acceptable to DWR, a formal notice by the agency will be issued for
public comment.
3.4 Industrial Users
According to the plant’s most recent NPDES permit renewal application, the treatment works
does not receive any discharges from either Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs) or non-categorical
Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). There is consequently no pretreatment program and the
Town’s industries do not have any specific pretreatment standards to meet. All users are required
to comply with the Town’s Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO). Town staff have informed McGill
Associates that a previous pretreatment program was discontinued. Even without a
pretreatment program, the provisions of the SUO contain both general and specific prohibitions
against contributing pollutants that may interfere with the treatment process to the treatment
plant. The Town may also require an industrial user to monitor its flows by notification without
reinstating a formal pretreatment program.
The Town of Waynesville has one industrial user discharging process wastewater flows to its
collection system: Giles Chemical, a manufacturer of magnesium sulfate (Epsom Salt). Until 2017,
Giles Chemical was permitted to recycle a portion of its process water, but current United States
Food and Drug Administration standards for Good Manufacturing Practices no longer permit the
reuse of process water. As a consequence of this change, process water must be discharged to
the wastewater collection system. The manufacture of magnesium sulfate does not directly
involve nitrogen or any nitrogen-containing compounds, so it is unlikely that ammonia violations
at the plant can be directly attributed to high influent ammonia quantities stemming from
industrial operations. However, the removal of ammonia is a biological process, and the
possibility remains that influent wastewater being discharged to the treatment plant from its
industrial user could adversely affect nitrifying bacteria populations in the plant, specifically if
wastewater from the plant is removing alkalinity from the collection system. It is recommended
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 28
that further data regarding the nature of the wastewater discharged to the plant by this industrial
user be collected, including alkalinity and dissolved solids content.
3.5 Future Flows and Speculative Limits
McGill Associates has corresponded with NCDEQ regarding potential changes to the WWTP’s
effluent limits, and has been informed that the current limits for ammonia nitrogen are
consistent with the Division of Water Resources’ ammonia toxicity policy, and are unlikely to
change. BOD and TSS limits are also expected to stay the same over the next 10-15 years. New
nutrient limits for nitrogen and/or phosphorus are not expected. However, we do recommend
that in the development of the design of the WWTP improvements that the potential for
additional treatment be considered in the layout of units and equipment.

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 29
4.0 TREATMENT PROCESS ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Current Process
The WWTP currently treats wastewater through a conventional activated sludge process,
consisting of influent screening to remove coarse inorganic material, grit removal, primary
clarification, biological treatment using a conventional activated sludge process (with a hydraulic
detention time of less than 10 hours), secondary clarification, and disinfection using chlorine gas
prior to discharge of the treated effluent. Biosolids produced b the treatment process receive
primary treatment including thickening using gravity thickeners prior to anaerobic digestion for
stabilization. Anaerobically digested biosolids are processed by an alkaline stabilization process
where lime, cement kiln dust and heat are used to produce a product which meets 503 standards
for Class A biosolids. This Class A product is distributed to local farmers as a soil amendment.
In the primary treatment train, wastewater enters the treatment plant through a two bar screens,
one automatic and one manually raked, that remove large solids before entering a grit chamber
where smaller solids are removed by inertia and extracted by an airlift pump. From the grit
chamber, wastewater flows by gravity to a pair of primary clarifiers where heavier-than-water
solids settle out by gravity.
In the secondary treatment train, wastewater from the primary clarifiers is pumped by three
centrifugal pumps to the four-chambered aeration basin where aerobic bacteria consume BOD
and nitrify ammonia. Only two of the aeration basins are currently used for this purpose, with
the other two being used for aerobic digestion and to receive flow returned from one of the two
chlorine contact basins. Wastewater from the aeration basins flows to two secondary clarifiers
where solids and aerobic bacteria settle out by gravity. Since the clarifiers are not aerated, the
opportunity for denitrification of the nitrate produced in the previous basin is present. From the
secondary clarifiers, wastewater flows to two chlorine contact basins for disinfection by chlorine,
followed by dechlorination with sulfur dioxide. In order to reduce the potential for discharge of
floating filamentous bacteria scum on in the chlorine contact basins, the two basins are used
alternately, with the contents of each pumped back into a chamber of the aeration basin once
every two weeks. Treated effluent flows underneath a baffle on the end of each chlorine contact
basin and is discharged into the Pigeon River by gravity.
4.2 Treatment Alternatives
4.2.1 Project Goal
The project goal is to identify the necessary improvements to bring the wastewater treatment
plant into full and stable compliance with its NPDES discharge permit so that it can reliably meet
its permit limits at flows up to its design capacity.

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 30
4.2.1.1 Disinfection
Since only one violation of the Town’s discharge permit was related to disinfection processes, it
appears reasonable to conclude that the Town’s chlorination process and equipment are
functioning adequately. At 6.0 MGD, the existing chlorination basin gives a contact time of 31.9
minutes, over twice the Ten States Standard of 15 minutes at peak flow. The plant could
accommodate a peaking factor of 2.12 at design capacity and still meet chlorine contact time
standards.
The 2017 UTEC report identified disinfection by chlorination as a candidate for modification,
citing the public safety benefits of abandoning chemical disinfection in favor of ultraviolet
disinfection. However, substitution of UV for chlorine cannot be recommended until the WWTP
first makes modifications to better control its total suspended solids and the use of final filters is
included. Filtration is not otherwise expected to be necessary to comply with the WWTP’s
effluent limits. High TSS can reduce the efficacy of UV disinfection because the suspended
particles can shield microorganisms from the ultraviolet light. Instead, we recommend that the
Town continue to use chemical disinfection, but in order to address safety concerns, switch from
the current chlorination system to a sodium hypochlorite (bleach) based liquid feed system.
4.2.1.2 Nitrogen and Total Suspended Solids Removal
Due to the sparsity of process data regarding influent nitrogen and the efficacy of nitrogen
removal in the aeration basins, it is difficult to make specific recommendations regarding
nitrogen removal alternatives.
Suspended solids are removed by gravity settling at this plant in two rectangular secondary
clarifiers. The 8’ deep clarifiers, which were the subject of a 2007 McGill Associates report, are
shallower than the 12’ recommended by most design standards, and their effluent weirs are too
short for peak flows. While they function adequately at average flows, higher flow rates can cause
high proportions of suspended solids to be carried out of the basins due to the combination of
shallow depth and high-velocity flow over the effluent weirs. There is no structure or equipment
downstream of the secondary clarifiers that is capable of removing a significant amount of
suspended solids prior to effluent discharge.
Any suspended solids removal alternative must rely upon at least one of three tactics: giving the
solids more time to fall below a depth from which they will not be carried over the weirs,
promoting enhanced flocculation and faster settling of the solids, or installing filtration
equipment to catch solids either within the existing basins or after they are carried over the weirs.
The previous report by McGill Associates discussed several process modifications to address the
shortcomings of the existing secondary clarifiers:
1. Modification of the secondary clarifiers, raising the walls by approximately four feet and
replacing the sludge collection equipment.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 31
2. Installation of tertiary filtration equipment downstream of the existing clarifiers.
3. Modification of the secondary clarifier influent piping to reduce flow velocity and the
introduction of a polymer injection system to enable flocculation and faster settling of the
suspended solids.
4. Conversion of the existing aeration basin to a membrane bioreactor, an alternative whose
consideration was delayed due to high capital cost.
The 2017 UTEC report also identified the secondary clarifiers as the primary contributor to
discharge limit violations and recommended a few other alternatives:
5. Replacement of the sludge removal system in the clarifiers with a hoseless cable vacuum
system.
6. Replacement of the clarifiers with new, 90’ diameter, 15’ deep circular clarifiers.
None of the previous studies addressed ammonia removal, which has been noted as a recent
problem. More data must be collected during the design process to determine what is currently
inhibiting nitrification in the aeration basins. For the sake of this report, it is assumed that any
plant replacement or upgrade will be designed for adequate ammonia removal.
4.2.1.3 Combined Heat and Power Improvements
The 2017 UTEC report included an assessment of the potential for the anaerobic digesters’ gas
production to generate power for the WWTP. At the WWTP’s full 6.0 MGD design capacity, UTEC
estimated that biogas production would be approximately 2,772 ft3/hr. Currently, a portion of
this biogas is used to provide heat to the anaerobic digesters themselves, but the majority of it is
wasted to atmosphere.
The UTEC report stated that the WWTP could generate as much as 150 kW from its biogas
production, compared to an average of 323.5 kW used at the plant from 2014-2016. The
relatively small potential for power generation for biogas relative to the plant’s demands mean
that the WWTP cannot become a net energy producer. The energy available from this biogas
could be used to operate a small generator or single piece of mechanical equipment, but is not
sufficient to power the entire plant or an entire treatment train. Alternatively, it could be burned
and used to generate heat directly for sludge treatment.
4.2.2 Common Elements of Treatment Alternatives
Generally speaking, many of the plant’s current deficiencies must be addressed regardless of the
specific treatment alternative chosen. The three rehabilitation or conversion alternatives
discussed below encompass the following recommended improvements:
1. Replacement of the existing headworks with a new headworks to be housed in an
adjacent structure, consisting of two self-moving bar screens, vortex grit removal, a grit
classifier, and a grease receiving station. The Town should also consider the possibility of
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 32
constructing a grease receiving station at the headworks in order to more efficiently
process the contents of grease traps and direct fats, oils, and grease directly to the
anaerobic digester.
2. Rehabilitation of the primary clarifiers, consisting of concrete rehabilitation, additional
railing and footboards for safety, replacement of influent gate valves, releveling of the
existing weirs, and replacement of diaphragm pumps and piping.
3. Expansion and rehabilitation of the intermediate pump station, including the addition of
a fourth pump, piping improvements, and roof repair.
4. Rehabilitation of the existing aeration basins, including concrete rehabilitation, and
replacement of leaking air headers. Further modifications of the aeration basins will
depend on the project alternative selected.
5. Modification of the blower building, including motor upgrades, the addition of a crane
system capable of moving the blowers and their motors, and installation of new control
panels capable of processing dissolved oxygen data from the aeration basin and operating
the blowers using variable frequency drives.
6. Disinfection system improvements, including the installation of hypochlorite tanks,
dosing pumps, piping improvements, and dechlorination equipment.
7. Construction of a non-potable effluent water reuse booster station.
8. Rehabilitation of the primary and secondary sludge thickener tanks including concrete
rehabilitation and replacement of mechanical equipment.
9. Rehabilitation of the anaerobic digester, including roof and mixing equipment
replacement, concrete rehabilitation, and piping improvements.
10. Rehabilitation of the belt filter press, including replacement of the polymer feed system
belts, and conveyors, and repair of the control panel.
11. Rehabilitation of the lime pasteurization system, including replacement of the thermo-
blender trough and heater, recycle feed hopper, and lime silo dust collection system, and
modification of the baghouse to improve maintenance access.
Note that these alternatives depend on reuse of some existing concrete structures in addition to
the construction of new structures. As discussed in Section 1.0 of this report and in the appendix,
these existing structures appear to be suitable for rehabilitation and continued use based upon
available information. The structural assessment contains two caveats. The first is that further
evaluation of the drained structures is a component of concrete rehabilitation. In the course of
that evaluation, evidence may be found that indicates that the concrete is not suitable for reuse.
The second is that the useful life of concrete structures is finite, and while the ultimate lifespan
of the structures of this facility is not known, these basins will eventually require complete
replacement.
In order to address the WWTP’s compliance issues, a phased approach is recommended:
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 33
1. Apply for the SOC. Begin collecting influent and process control data. Apply for funding
for other compliance measures.
2. Construct new treatment trains while the existing WWTP is operating under the SOC.
3. Transfer operations to new treatment trains.
Since the only variation between the alternatives is in phase 2 of this process, we will spend the
bulk of this section discussing four alternatives:
1. Rehabilitate and replace existing equipment as necessary and continue operating the
plant using the existing suspended growth activated sludge process.
2. Replace the existing activated sludge process with a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)
process using either the existing aeration basins, if possible, or construct new basins to
serve as reactors and using existing basins for post-equalization.
3. Construct new secondary clarifiers and retrofit the existing aeration basins to employ the
Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge process, a more efficient variation of the activated
sludge process currently in place.
4. Construct a replacement wastewater treatment plant at a new location.

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 34
4.3 Alternative 1: Rehabilitate Existing Treatment Process
This alternative would consist of the rehabilitation of the existing basins and replacement of
many of the components recommended for replacement by the previous reports. Since the
secondary clarifiers cannot effectively be reused, new secondary clarifiers must be constructed
on an adjacent parcel of land while keeping the existing secondary clarifiers in operation until
they are complete. The plant would then be operated as a conventional activated sludge process
wastewater treatment plant with primary clarification, aeration, secondary clarification, and
disinfection.
This alternative may not provide adequate peaking capacity for the plant, so an aerated flow
equalization basin would have to be constructed near the headworks of the plant. This flow
equalization basin would permit peak flows to be diverted from a point upstream of the
headworks to the basin and then pumped into the headworks once the peak has subsided.
The construction of this alternative would consist of the common elements listed in section 4.2.2
above with the addition of the the construction of two replacement secondary clarifiers and a
flow equalization basin. This alternative provides the lowest operations and maintenance costs
and the lowest operational complexity of the alternatives considered. It also carries a lower level
of commitment than the other two rehabilitation or conversion alternatives since it requires the
least specialized equipment. This alternative also does not preclude future conversion to another
process such as IFAS or the addition of tertiary filtration if required.

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 35
4.4 Alternative 2: Sequencing Batch Reactors
Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBRs) operate as both aeration basins and secondary clarifiers by
separating these functions over time into four stages. In the fill stage, influent wastewater enters
the reactor until a predetermined volume is reached. In the react stage, the reactor is operated
as an aeration basin to promote biological treatment. In the settle stage, aeration is stopped and
the reactor functions as a secondary clarifier, with solids settling to the bottom. In the decant
stage, clarified treated effluent is withdrawn from the top of the reactor by floating decanters
and flows to a post-equalization basin. Multiple SBRs can be operated in a staggered fashion so
that two reactors are not discharging flows to the post-equalization basin at one time.
As a rule of thumb the total volume of sequencing batch reactor basins needed to treat a given
flow of wastewater to a given standard is equal to the total volume of the aeration basins and
secondary clarifiers needed to treat that same wastewater by a conventional activated sludge
process. The existing aeration basins are adequately sized to be operated as a set of four SBRs at
a design capacity of 4.0 MGD, with each basin serving as a reactor. In order to retain the WWTP’s
current treatment capacity, a separate bank of three 79’ square SBR basins and additional blower
building must be constructed on the plant site, and additional modifications to the intermediate
pump station will be required to split flows between the two sets of treatment trains. The existing
secondary clarifiers can be repurposed as post-equalization basins.
This alternative may not provide adequate peaking capacity for the plant, so an aerated flow
equalization basin would have to be constructed near the headworks of the plant. This flow
equalization basin would permit peak flows to be diverted from a point upstream of the
headworks to the basin and then pumped into the headworks once the peak has subsided.
The construction of this alternative would consist of the common elements listed in section 4.2.2
above in addition to the aeration basin and secondary clarifier modifications and construction of
the flow equalization basin, additional SBR basins, and SBR blower building described in this
section. This alternative is not recommended due to its operational complexity.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 36
4.5 Alternative 3: Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge Process
Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) is a biological wastewater treatment technology
originally developed in Canada in the mid-1990s as a means of upgrading wastewater treatment
plants to treat greater wastewater flows within the same footprint. By adding engineered media
with a high surface area to volume ratio to the aeration basin, a plant can create a more
hospitable environment for nitrifying bacteria within the basin. It is possible to double the
nitrification capacity of a given aerated volume using this system.
The modifications necessary to install an IFAS system in the existing aeration basins include, in
addition to any rehabilitation on the aeration basins themselves, replacement of the existing
coarse air diffusers with fine bubble diffusers, possible upgrades to the blowers to meet
increased oxygen requirements, installation of either fixed or free floating media, and effluent
screening on the aeration basins to retain free floating media. Depending on the specific
equipment selected, it may be necessary to incorporate a band screen with 6mm or smaller
maximum opening width into the headworks design. As in the rehabilitation alternative,
replacement secondary clarifiers will be required for this alternative.
While influent wastewater characteristics are available for the headworks of the plant, only
quarterly data on the primary clarifiers have been collected. We have based our opinion of the
feasibility of this alternative on the aeration basin dimensions and an assumed 20% removal of
BOD and 50% removal of TSS in the primary clarifiers.
This alternative may not provide adequate peaking capacity for the plant, so an aerated flow
equalization basin would have to be constructed near the headworks of the plant. This flow
equalization basin would permit peak flows to be diverted from a point upstream of the
headworks to the basin and then pumped into the headworks once the peak has subsided.
The construction of this alternative would consist of the common elements listed in section 4.2.2
above with the addition of the aeration basin modifications and construction of the two
replacement secondary clarifiers and new flow equalization basin described in this section. This
alternative is more costly than the rehabilitation alternative, but may provide the wastewater
treatment plant the clearest path to future expansion as well as the option of meeting any
nutrient limits that may be imposed in the future.

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 37
4.6 Alternative 4: Construction of a New Wastewater Treatment Plant
Rather than retrofit the existing wastewater treatment plant with new technology or rehabilitate
its current process, the option of building a new wastewater treatment plant nearby has also
been considered. Potential locations include land adjacent to the existing WWTP on the south
side of Richland Creek, land immediately across the creek from the existing WWTP, or a site on
the Pigeon River near the outfall. In this alternative, it is likely that some portion of the existing
WWTP would remain in service since its current location is still the destination of the existing
wastewater collection system. Existing structures could be used as a pump station to relay flows
from the existing WWTP site to the new site. Screening could also be performed at a headworks
at the existing WWTP site, with other treatment processes taking place at the new site.
Construction costs for this alternative would be much higher than for the other alternatives. In
addition to mechanical and electrical equipment costs being similar to the costs for the retrofit
or rehabilitation alternatives, sitework, yard piping, and the construction of new basins and
buildings would also be necessary, as well as any additional collection system piping that might
be needed to convey flows to the new site.
There are also non-monetary disincentives to constructing a new WWTP that are not shared by
the other alternatives. The selection of a new site would require environmental assessments and
potentially an alternatives analysis comparing multiple potential sites. In addition to natural
environmental obstacles, the concerns of local landowners and their setback requirements must
be considered. If the owners of the land desired are not willing to sell the land to the Town, a
politically contentious condemnation process may be necessary.
Independent of the land being selected and acquired, the Department of Environmental Quality
and other natural resources agencies may require an environmental assessment of a new facility
and discharge point. This review process has many potential regulatory impacts as well as
resulting in a much longer approval process. If the outfall location changes significantly as a result
of the project, the existing NPDES permit may need to be modified or a new NPDES permit may
be necessary, which could subject the project to the delays associated with the development of
the permit and the public notice and comment period.
This alternative would provide more operational flexibility and certainly any operator would
welcome the opportunity to manage wastewater with a new facility. However, this flexibility
comes at a high cost and would not provide any additional wastewater treatment capacity.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 38
5.0 OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COST
5.1 Rehabilitate Existing Treatment Process
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EVALUATION
TOWN OF WAYNESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
ALTERNATIVE 1: REHABILITATE EXISTING TREATMENT PROCESS
AUGUST 2018
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUAN. UNIT UNIT
PRICE TOTAL
1 Mobilization (3%) 1 LS $316,100 $316,100
2 Flow Equalization Basin 1 LS $2,050,700 $2,050,700
3 Headworks 1 LS $1,192,600 $1,192,600
4 Primary Clarifiers 1 LS $545,000 $545,000
5 Intermediate Pump Station 1 LS $52,000 $52,000
6 Aeration Basin Rehabilitation 1 LS $856,000 $856,000
7 Blower Building 1 LS $146,000 $146,000
8 Secondary Clarifiers 1 LS $1,846,500 $1,846,500
9 Disinfection System Improvements 1 LS $160,000 $160,000
10 Outfall Improvements 1 LS $250,000 $250,000
11 Primary Sludge Thickener Rehabilitation 1 LS $125,000 $125,000
12 Secondary Sludge Thickener
Rehabilitation 1 LS $125,000 $125,000
13 Anaerobic Digester Rehabilitation 1 LS $980,000 $980,000
14 Belt Filter Press Rehabilitation 1 LS $65,000 $65,000
15 Lime Pasteurization System
Rehabilitation 1 LS $584,000 $584,000
16 Plant-Wide Improvements 1 LS $1,560,000 $1,560,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $10,853,900
Technical Services $2,171,000
Contingency (15%) $1,628,000
TOTAL PROJECT $14,652,900

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 39
5.2 Sequencing Batch Reactors
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EVALUATION
TOWN OF WAYNESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
ALTERNATIVE 2: SEQUENCING BATCH REACTORS
AUGUST 2018
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUAN. UNIT UNIT
PRICE TOTAL
1 Mobilization (3%) 1 LS $364,900 $364,900
2 Flow Equalization Basin 1 LS $2,050,700 $2,050,700
3 Headworks 1 LS $1,192,600 $1,192,600
4 Primary Clarifiers 1 LS $545,000 $545,000
5 Intermediate Pump Station 1 LS $402,000 $402,000
6 Aeration Basin Rehabilitation 1 LS $856,000 $856,000
7 SBRs in New Basins 1 LS $5,294,800 $5,294,800
8 Blower Building 1 LS $23,000 $23,000
9 Disinfection System Improvements 1 LS $160,000 $160,000
10 Outfall Improvements 1 LS $250,000 $250,000
11 Primary Sludge Thickener Rehabilitation 1 LS $125,000 $125,000
12 Secondary Sludge Thickener
Rehabilitation 1 LS $125,000 $125,000
13 Anaerobic Digester Rehabilitation 1 LS $980,000 $980,000
14 Belt Filter Press Rehabilitation 1 LS $65,000 $65,000
15 Lime Pasteurization System
Rehabilitation 1 LS $584,000 $584,000
16 Plant-Wide Improvements 1 LS $1,560,000 $1,560,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $14,578,000
Technical Services $2,916,000
Contingency (15%) $2,187,000
TOTAL PROJECT $19,681,000

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 40
5.3 Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge Process
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EVALUATION
TOWN OF WAYNESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
ALTERNATIVE 3: CONVERSION OF EXISTING AERATION BASINS TO IFAS
AUGUST 2018
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUAN. UNIT UNIT
PRICE TOTAL
1 Mobilization (3%) 1 LS $374,800 $374,800
2 Flow Equalization Basin 1 LS $2,051,000 $2,051,000
3 Headworks 1 LS $1,192,600 $1,192,600
4 Primary Clarifiers 1 LS $545,000 $545,000
5 Intermediate Pump Station 1 LS $52,000 $52,000
6 Aeration Basin Rehabilitation 1 LS $856,000 $856,000
7 IFAS Retrofit 1 LS $4,130,000 $4,130,000
8 Blower Building 1 LS $23,000 $23,000
9 Secondary Clarifiers 1 LS $1,846,500 $1,846,500
10 Disinfection System Improvements 1 LS $160,000 $160,000
11 Outfall Improvements 1 LS $250,000 $250,000
12 Primary Sludge Thickener Rehabilitation 1 LS $125,000 $125,000
13 Secondary Sludge Thickener
Rehabilitation 1 LS $125,000 $125,000
14 Anaerobic Digester Rehabilitation 1 LS $980,000 $980,000
15 Belt Filter Press Rehabilitation 1 LS $65,000 $65,000
16 Lime Pasteurization System
Rehabilitation 1 LS $584,000 $584,000
17 Plant-Wide Improvements 1 LS $1,560,000 $1,560,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $14,919,900
Technical Services $2,984,000
Contingency (15%) $2,238,000
TOTAL PROJECT $20,141,900

Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 41
5.4 Construction of a New Wastewater Treatment Plant
The 2017 UTEC report suggested that the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant on
an adjacent property could be achieved for $18,432,000. McGill Associates does not concur with
this opinion. The “New Plant” item featured in that cost opinion was only $15,000,000, or $2.50
per gpd of treatment capacity.
RSMeans Facilities Construction Costs (RSMeans), published by Gordian, serves as a reference for
construction costs for commercial, industrial, municipal, and institutional facilities, including
municipal wastewater treatment facilities. The 2014 RSMeans provided nationwide average
construction costs, including overhead and profit, for WWTPs ranging in capacity from 1.0 to 5.0
MGD, as well as City Cost Index figures allowing these nationwide average construction costs to
be localized to many municipalities. While Waynesville, North Carolina was not directly
referenced in the book, City Cost Indices were provided for both Asheville and Murphy. The
average of those two figures was 77.6, meaning construction costs for Waynesville were
estimated to be approximately 77.6% those of the nationwide average.
Table 3. WWTP Construction Costs per GPD Treatment Capacity
construction cost per gpd
2014 2014 2018*
Capacity (MGD) Nationwide Waynesville
1.0 $12.10 $9.39 $10.00
1.5 $11.65 $9.04 $9.62
2.0 $11.00 $8.54 $9.09
3.0 $8.60 $6.67 $7.10
5.0 $6.70 $5.20 $5.54
*adjusted for inflation using www.usinflationcalculator.com
The trendline for these figures can be extended to 6.0 MGD to provide an approximate cost of
construction for a 6.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant in Waynesville.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 42

Figure 11. WWTP Construction Cost Trendline
From the above figure, the cost of constructing a 6.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant in
Waynesville, North Carolina is estimated to be approximately $4.68 in 2018 dollars.
Other capital costs in addition to construction include land acquisition, technical services, and
contingency. Nearby potential WWTP locations range in tax value from $173,200 to $607,800.
The total capital cost for a new wastewater treatment plant is estimated to be between
$34,000,00 and $38,000,000.
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EVALUATION
TOWN OF WAYNESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
ALTERNATIVE 4: NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
AUGUST 2018
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUAN. UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 1 GPD of Treatment Capacity 6,000,000 LS $4.68 $28,080,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $28,080,000
Land Acquisition $608,000
Technical Services $3,370,000
Contingency (10%) $2,808,000
TOTAL PROJECT $34,866,000
$4.68
R² = 0.9793
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
$14.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
WWTP Capacity, MGD
2018 Localized Construction Cost per GPD
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 43
6.0 CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES
Grant and loan funding is available for wastewater treatment plant improvements.
6.1 United States Department of Agriculture
The United States Department of Agriculture – Rural Development Agency (USDA-RD)
administers a Water & Waste Disposal loan & grant program that provides long-term, low
interest loans to rural areas and towns with populations of 10,000 or fewer residents. Grants may
also be provided if loan repayment would cause an unacceptable increase in user rates. USDA
staff have stated that the Town of Waynesville would be eligible for an intermediate rate 40-year
loan at 3.125%, and that if the Town is operating on an SOC, the project would automatically
qualify for the “poverty rate” of 2.375%. Without an SOC it would still be possible to qualify for
the poverty rate if the Town could document sufficient permit violations in the preliminary
engineering report and prove that the project will improve health and sanitary conditions.
6.2 State Revolving Fund
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) is administered by the NCDEQ Division of Water
Infrastructure, and provides loans of up to $30 million for wastewater treatment and collection
system projects, as well as projects that improve energy efficiency at treatment works. There are
some funds available for principal forgiveness, and some 0% interest loans are available for green
projects. The typical interest rate for SRF loans is one half the general obligation bond interest
rate on the date loan applications are due. The rate is currently 1.97% for a 20 year loan.
6.3 Revenue or General Obligation Bonds
The Town could raise funds by issuing either revenue bonds, which would be repaid through
utility rates from the new facility, or general obligation bonds, which could be repaid through any
available resource, including tax revenue.
6.4 Private Placement Bank Loan
Private Placement Bank loans are available to municipalities for infrastructure projects similar to
the WWTP upgrade. However, these loans typically result in a higher interest rate, but with
similar 20-year terms. The project is secured by assets of the town and the facility itself along
with revenue generated by the utility users. The advantage of the private placement loan is
reduced upfront cost as the need for some of the items like Preliminary Engineering Reports,
Environmental Assessments, and other studies required by the various funding agencies is not
required.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 44
APPENDIX 1 FIGURES
I:\Drawings\2016\16.00367\Design\Sewer\Drawings\16.00367 Report Figures.dwg 9/5/2018 10:45 AM MICHAEL WHITTENBURGFIGURE
DESIGN REVIEW: ____
DESIGNED BY:
JOB NO.:
DATE:
CADD BY:
CONST. REVIEW: ____
FILE NAME:
16.00367 Report Figures.dwg A-1HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
TOWN OF WAYNESVILLE
MJW
16.00367
SEPTEMBER 2018
MJW
PLANT EVALUATION EXISTING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
LAYOUTE N G I N E E R I N G · P L A N N I N G · F I N A N C E
A S S O C I A T E SMcGlil
55 BROAD STREET PH. [phone]ASHEVILLE, NC 28801 FIRM LICENSE # C-0459
PLAN
100 0 50 100 200
1001 INCH = FEETGRAPHIC SCALE
HEADWORKS
PRIMARY
CLARIFIERS
INTERMEDIATE
PUMP STATION
SECONDARY SLUDGE
THICKENER
PRIMARY SLUDGE
THICKENER
DIGESTER
CHLORINE
CONTACT
BASINS
AERATION
BASINS
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
SLUDGE
PUMP STATION
CHLORINE
STORAGE
SOLIDS
TREATMENT BUILDING
OUTFALL
TO PIGEON RIVER
BLOWER
BUILDING
SLUDGE LINE (TYP)
WATER LINE (TYP)
WASTEWATER LINE (TYP)
CHLORINE LINE (TYP)
A-2HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
TOWN OF WAYNESVILLE
MJW
16.00367
SEPTEMBER 2018
MJW
PLANT EVALUATION ALTERNATIVE 1:
REHABILITATION OF EXISTING
PROCESSE N G I N E E R I N G · P L A N N I N G · F I N A N C E
A S S O C I A T E SMcGlil
55 BROAD STREET PH. [phone]ASHEVILLE, NC 28801 FIRM LICENSE # C-0459
PLAN
I:\Drawings\2016\16.00367\Design\Sewer\Drawings\16.00367 Report Figures.dwg 9/5/2018 10:45 AM MICHAEL WHITTENBURGFIGURE
DESIGN REVIEW: ____
DESIGNED BY:
JOB NO.:
DATE:
CADD BY:
CONST. REVIEW: ____
FILE NAME:
16.00367 Report Figures.dwg
CONSTRUCT NEW
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
REPLACE
HEADWORKS
CONSTRUCT NEW
FLOW EQUALIZATION BASIN
REHABILITATE
PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
UPGRADE EXISTING
INTERMEDIATE PUMP STATION
UPGRADE EXISTING
BLOWER BUILDING
REHABILITATE
AERATION BASINS
ABANDON EXISTING
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
CONVERT EXISTING
CHLORINATION EQUIPMENT
TO HYPOCHLORITE
REHABILITATE EXISTING
ANAEROBIC DIGESTER AND
SLUDGE THICKENERS
REHABILITATE EXISTING
BIOSOLIDS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
CONSTRUCT NEW
EFFLUENT REUSE
BOOSTER STATION
100 0 50 100 200
1001 INCH = FEETGRAPHIC SCALE
A-3HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
TOWN OF WAYNESVILLE
MJW
16.00367
SEPTEMBER 2018
MJW
PLANT EVALUATION
ALTERNATIVE 2:
SEQUENCING BATCH REACTORS
E N G I N E E R I N G · P L A N N I N G · F I N A N C E
A S S O C I A T E SMcGlil
55 BROAD STREET PH. [phone]ASHEVILLE, NC 28801 FIRM LICENSE # C-0459
PLAN
I:\Drawings\2016\16.00367\Design\Sewer\Drawings\16.00367 Report Figures.dwg 9/5/2018 10:45 AM MICHAEL WHITTENBURGFIGURE
DESIGN REVIEW: ____
DESIGNED BY:
JOB NO.:
DATE:
CADD BY:
CONST. REVIEW: ____
FILE NAME:
16.00367 Report Figures.dwg
CONSTRUCT NEW SBR
BASINS AND BLOWER
BUILDING
REPLACE
HEADWORKS
CONSTRUCT NEW
FLOW EQUALIZATION BASIN
REHABILITATE
PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
UPGRADE EXISTING
INTERMEDIATE PUMP STATION
UPGRADE EXISTING
BLOWER BUILDING
REHABILITATE
AERATION BASINS AND
CONVERT TO SBR
CONVERT EXISTING
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS TO
POST EQUALIZATION BASIN
CONVERT EXISTING
CHLORINATION EQUIPMENT
TO HYPOCHLORITE
REHABILITATE EXISTING
ANAEROBIC DIGESTER AND
SLUDGE THICKENERS
REHABILITATE EXISTING
BIOSOLIDS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
CONSTRUCT NEW
EFFLUENT REUSE
BOOSTER STATION
100 0 50 100 200
1001 INCH = FEETGRAPHIC SCALE
A-4HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
TOWN OF WAYNESVILLE
MJW
16.00367
SEPTEMBER 2018
MJW
PLANT EVALUATION ALTERNATIVE 3:
INTEGRATED FIXED FILM ACTIVATED
SLUDGE PROCESSE N G I N E E R I N G · P L A N N I N G · F I N A N C E
A S S O C I A T E SMcGlil
55 BROAD STREET PH. [phone]ASHEVILLE, NC 28801 FIRM LICENSE # C-0459
PLAN
I:\Drawings\2016\16.00367\Design\Sewer\Drawings\16.00367 Report Figures.dwg 9/5/2018 10:45 AM MICHAEL WHITTENBURGFIGURE
DESIGN REVIEW: ____
DESIGNED BY:
JOB NO.:
DATE:
CADD BY:
CONST. REVIEW: ____
FILE NAME:
16.00367 Report Figures.dwg
100 0 50 100 200
1001 INCH = FEETGRAPHIC SCALE
CONSTRUCT NEW
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
REPLACE
HEADWORKS
CONSTRUCT NEW
FLOW EQUALIZATION BASIN
REHABILITATE
PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
UPGRADE EXISTING
INTERMEDIATE PUMP STATION
UPGRADE EXISTING
BLOWER BUILDING
REHABILITATE
AERATION BASINS AND
CONVERT TO IFAS
ABANDON EXISTING
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
CONVERT EXISTING
CHLORINATION EQUIPMENT
TO HYPOCHLORITE
REHABILITATE EXISTING
ANAEROBIC DIGESTER AND
SLUDGE THICKENERS
REHABILITATE EXISTING
BIOSOLIDS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
CONSTRUCT NEW
EFFLUENT REUSE
BOOSTER STATION
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report
September 2018 Page 49
APPENDIX 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT

FIGURES

Figure 1. Waynesville wastewater treatment plant.

Figure 2. Concrete at primary clarifier is stained but in generally good condition.

Figure 3. Annular drainage trough at primary clarifier.

Figure 4. Typical crack at primary clarifier. Red arrow
indicates metal form tie.

Figure 6. Spalled concrete coincident with leaking crack at primary clarifier.

Figure 5. Crack at primary clarifier with minor leakage.

Figure 7. Severely delaminated concrete at base of primary clarifier.

Figure 8. Aeration basin. Walkway (red arrow) tops interior wall that separates
chambers. Horizontal braces (yellow arrow) provide lateral stability to walls.

Figure 9. Drainage trough at west end of aeration basin.
Original steel grate used for walking surface has been
removed. Note substantial vegetative growth.

Figure 10. Anchor rods (red arrows) installed as retrofit presumably intended to
arrest excessive lateral movement of west perimeter wall of aeration basin.

Figure 11. Concrete at aeration basin is in generally good condition.

Figure 12. Typical cracks with efflorescence at north
perimeter wall of aeration basin

Figure 13. Continuous horizontal crack and efflorescence (red arrow) indicate
seepage through cold joist at drainage trough wall.

Figure 14. Crack with substantial leakage at east perimeter wall of aeration
basin.

Figure 15. Minor flexural crack and delaminating concrete at horizontal brace.

Figure 16. Freeze-thaw cracking at guardrail post penetration.

Figure 17. Localized delaminations and spalling at aeration basin walkway.

Figure 18. Widespread spalling and raveling of concrete at aeration basin
walkway.

Figure 19. Corrosion at steel beam at embedded plate
connection.

Figure 20. Concrete at secondary clarifier is in generally good condition.

Figure 21. Central rough at secondary clarifier.

Figure 22. Sludge diversion channel at west end of secondary clarifier. Note
vegetative growth.

Figure 23. Typical crack at secondary clarifier.

Figure 24. Spalling concrete at guardrail anchorage at
secondary clarifier.

Figure 25. Abraded concrete along path of skimmer arm guide wheel.

Figure 26. Exterior concrete wall and steel-clad roof of
digester.

Figure 27. Cracks with efflorescence and corrosion staining
at digester.

Figure 28. Sludge thickener structures. Concrete is in generally good condition.

Figure 29. Leaking pipe at north-most sludge thickener.