NC0025321_SOC Application_20190814

WAYNESVILLE
North(;nrc,linn
Gavin Brown, Mayor Robert W. Hites,Jr. Town Manager
Gary Caldwell, Mayor Pro Tern William Cannon,Town Attorney
Jon Feichter,Alderman
Julia Freeman,Alderman
LeRoy Roberson,Alderman
Date:August 14,2019
Mr.Charles Weaver
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting
NPDES Compliance and Enforcement MWR
1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh,
NC 27699-1617
Subject: The TowOnrder of Wa nesveby le's WWTPent (SOC) pplication � FfT� �w t on
Y
NPDESPermitNC0025321
Dear Mr.Weaver:
Attached is the Town of Waynesville's SOC Application for its NPDES Permitted WWTP. As you know,
• through discussions with you and DWR's Regional Office, Waynesville has been working closely with the
Division to develop this application. The Town is committed to a comprehensive plant upgrade project
to help assure consistent compliance with all permit requirements.
As outlined in the application, the Town has developed a schedule for this upgrade to be completed in
just over three years (provided an SOC can be.secured consistent with the steps outlined in this
package). This is an aggressive timeline and represents a huge allocation of financial resources for the
Town. The Town understands the importance of this project and is seeking an SOC that recognizes the
need to establish a timeline to make the planned improvements.
The chronic non-compliance issues at this facility are well documented by the Town and DWR. The
attached application includes an expansive data evaluation of plant performance over the last three
years and a detailed Preliminary Engineering Report. The Town has cooperated fully with DWR's
Regional Office to address all possible issues that contribute to the non-compliance and has undertaken
important interim actions and projects ahead of the comprehensive plant upgrade. Funding from NC
DWI has been confirmed (letter attached) and the Town is in the process of finalizing a US Department of
Agriculture, Rural Development application.
The attached application has been carefully developed using the information provided on DWR's SOC
web page, authorizing General Statute governing the development of this type of order(primarily NC GS
143-215.2 and 143-215.67) and NC Administrative Code that describes the procedures for securing an
SOC{15A NCAC 02H.1206 WATER QUALITY SPECIAL ORDERS BY CONSENT). DWR has a long history of
developing SOCs with local governments to lay out and complete a logical pathway to improving
wastewater treatment through the installation of equipment and improvement of facilities that will allow
full and consistent compliance with permit requirements. The Town of Waynesville seeks to reach
agreement on an SOC that will provide this pathway and establish reasonable operational provisions
during this process.

Page 2.
We are certainly available to respond to any questions and are prepared to meet with DWR to discuss
the development of a mutually agreeable SOC. We appreciate the Division's consideration of this
application and look forward to reviewing a draft SOC. Please contact Rob Hites if there is additional
information needed.
Sincerely:
Gavin A. Brown, Mayor
Cc: John Hennessy
Landon Davidson
Mikal Wilmer
Tim Heim
Jeff Poupart
Jim Gregson
Jay Zimmerman
Linda Culpepper
16 South Main Street •P.O. Box 100• Waynesville,NC 28786 Phone[phone] Fax[phone]
Web Address: www.wavnesvillenc.gov

RESOLUTION # R-17-19
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL
ORDER OF CONSENT THAT SETS INTERIM TREATMENT LIMITS AND PROJECT
SCHEDULE FOR REHABILITATING THE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
WHEREAS, The Board of Aldermen recognizes that the Town's waste water treatment
plant is in need of rehabilitation; and
WHEREAS, The Board of Aldermen has engaged McGill Engineers to prepare a Preliminary
Engineering Report that outlines alternative approaches to rehabilitating the plant; and
WHEREAS, The Board has applied for and received a State Revolving Loan offer of$17.4
million dollars for rehabilitation of the plant; and
WHEREAS, the Town's engineers recognize that during the rehabilitation of the plant
several of the components of the treatment process will be disturbed thereby reducing the
plant's ability to meet its treatment limits; and
WHEREAS,the Board believes it is prudent to negotiate a realistic set of interim treatment
limits in accordance with a time frame for improving the plant;
NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF
WAYNESVILLE THAT;
1. The Town,through its engineer, prepare and submit an application for a Special Order of
Consent (SOC)to the Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources
2. Negotiate a set of interim treatment limits to be utilized during the construction process.
3. Negotiate a project schedule that will insure the Town achieves set milestones that leads
to the successful rehabilitation of the plant.
Adopted this the 13th day of August 2019
Town of Waynesville
tom. 4--
Gavin A. Brown, Mayor
Attest:c /40a
Eddie Ward,Town Clerk

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL ORDER BY CONSENT (SOC)
I. PERMIT RELATED INFORMATION:
1. Applicant(corporation, individual, or other): The Town of Waynesville
2. Print or Type Owner's or Signing Official's Name and Title:
Gavin Brown, Mayor
3. Facility Name(as shown on Permit): Waynesville Wastewater Treatment Plant
4. Owner Phone: [phone] (or)
5. Owner Email: _rhites@a,waynesvillenc.gov, Rob Hites, Town Manager
4. Application Date:
5. NPDES Permit No. (if applicable): NC0025321
6. Name of the specific wastewater treatment facility(if different from L3. above):
same as above
II. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING:
Prior to submitting this completed application form, applicants must meet with the appropriate
regional office staff to discuss whether or not an SOC is appropriate for this situation. Please
note the date this meeting occurred and who represented the permittee:
Representatives: Gavin Brown,Mayor; Rob Hites,Town Manager_ Date: March 14,
2019
III. ADDITIONAL FLOW OR FLOW REALLOCATION:
In accordance with NCGS 143-215.67(b), only facilities owned by a unit of government may
request additional flow.
Additional flow may be allowed under an SOC only in specific circumstances. These
circumstances may include eliminating discharges that are not compliant with an NPDES or
Non-discharge permit. These circumstances do not include failure to perform proper
maintenance of treatment systems, collection systems or disposal systems. When requesting
additional flow,the facility must include its justification and supporting documentation.

If the requested additional flow is non-domestic, the facility must be able to demonstrate the
ability to effectively treat the waste and dispose of residuals. The applicant must provide a
detailed analysis of the constituents in the proposed non-domestic wastewater.
The total domestic additional flow requested: 200,135 gallons per day.
The total non-domestic additional flow requested: 0.0 gallons per day.
The total additional flow(sum of the above): 200,135 gallons per day.
Please attach a detailed description or project listing of the proposed allocation for additional
flow, with an explanation of how flow quantities were estimated. Further, any additional flow
requested must be justified by a complete analysis, by the permittee, that additional flow will not
adversely impact wastewater collection/treatment facilities or surface waters. (See attached
supplemental information)
IV. NECESSITY NARRATIVE:
Please attach a narrative providing a detailed explanation of the circumstances regarding the
necessity of the proposed SOC. Include the following issues: (See attached supplemental
information)
• Existing and/or unavoidable future violations(s)of permit conditions or limits(s),
• The existing treatment process and any process modifications that have been made to
date to ensure optimum performance of existing facilities,
• Collection system rehabilitation work completed or scheduled(including dates),
• Coordination with industrial users regarding their discharges or pretreatment facilities.
Identify any non-compliant significant industrial users and measure(s) proposed or
already taken to bring the pretreatment facilities back into compliance. If any industrial
facilities are currently under consent agreements, please attach these agreements,
• Date and outcome of last Industrial Waste Survey,
• Whether or not the facility is acting as a regional facility receiving wastewater from other
municipalities having independent pretreatment programs.
V. CERTIFICATION:
The applicant must submit a report prepared by an independent professional with expertise in
wastewater treatment. This report must address the following: (See attached supplemental
information)
• An evaluation of existing treatment units, operational procedures and recommendations
as to how the efficiencies of these facilities can be maximized. The person in charge of
such evaluation must sign this document.
2

• A certification that these facilities could not be operated in a manner that would achieve
compliance with final permit limits. The person making such determination must sign
this certification.
• The effluent limits that the facility could be expected to meet if operated at their
maximum efficiency during the term of the requested SOC (be sure to consider interim
construction phases).
• Any other actions taken to correct problems prior to requesting the SOC.
VI. PREDICTED COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE:
The applicant must submit a detailed listing of activities along with time frames that are
necessary to bring the facility into compliance. This schedule should include milestone dates for
beginning construction, ending construction, and achieving final compliance at a minimum. In
determining the milestone dates, the following should be considered:
(see attached Supplemental Information)
• Time for submitting plans, specifications and appropriate engineering reports to DWR for
review and approval.
• Occurrence of major construction activities that are likely to affect facility performance
(units out of service, diversion of flows, etc.)to include a plan of action to minimize
impacts to surface waters.
• Infiltration/Inflow work, if necessary.
• Industrial users achieving compliance with their pretreatment permits if applicable.
• Toxicity Reduction Evaluations(TRE), if necessary.
VII. FUNDING SOURCES IDENTIFICATION:
The applicant must list the sources of funds utilized to complete the work needed to bring the
facility into compliance. Possible funding sources include but are not limited to loan
commitments,bonds, letters of credit,block grants and cash reserves. The applicant must show
that the funds are available, or can be secured in time to meet the schedule outlined as part of this
application.
If funding is not available at the beginning of the SOC process,the permittee must submit a copy
of all funding applications to ensure that all efforts are being made to secure such funds.
Note: A copy of the application should be sufficient to demonstrate timeliness unless regional
office has reason to request all information associated with securing funding.
Response: Funding application has been submitted to DEQ-DWI (copy attached).
Funding application to USDA-Rural Development is in preparation.
THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS APPLICATION
PACKAGE UNLESS ALL OF THE APPLICABLE ITEMS ARE INCLUDED WITH THE
SUBMITTAL.
3
1

Required Items:
a. One original and two copies of the completed and appropriately executed application
form, along with all required attachments.
• If the SOC is for a City / Town, the person signing the SOC must be a ranking
elected official or other duly authorized employee.
• If the SOC is for a Corporation / Company/ Industry/ Other, the person signing
the SOC must be a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice-
president, or his duly authorized representative.
• If the SOC is for a School District, the person signing the SOC must be the
Superintendent of Schools or other duly authorized employee.
Note: Reference to signatory requirements in SOCs may be found in the North
Carolina Administrative Code [T15A NCAC 2H .1206(a)(3)].
b. The non-refundable Special Order by Consent (SOC) processing fee of$400.00. A
check must be made payable to The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
c. An evaluation report prepared by an independent consultant with expertise in
wastewater. (in triplicate)
APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION:
(NO MODIFICATION TO THIS CERTIFICATION IS ACCEPTABLE)
, attest this application for a Special Order by
Consent (SOC) has been reviewed by me and is accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge. I understand if all required parts of this application are not completed and if all
required supporting information and attachments are not included, this application package may
be returned as incomplete. (Please be advised that the return of this application does not prevent
DWR from collecting all outstanding penalties upon request). Furthermore, I attest by my
signature that I fully understand that an upfront penalty, which may satisfy as a full
settlement of outstanding violations, may be imposed. {Note: Reference to upfront penalties
in Special Orders by Consent may be found in the North Carolina Administrative Code [T15A
NCAC 2H .1206(c)(3)].}
2 w G%r Date /nyA'.
Signature of Signing Official li
6f-1/le tateid/
atoi,
Printed Name of Signing Official /
THE COMPLETED APPLICATION PACKAGE, INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL AND TWO
COPIES OF ALL SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND MATERIALS, SHOULD BE SENT
TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
4

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617
IF THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A NON-DISCHARGE SYSTEM,THEN SEND TO:
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION
1636 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1636
5

Supplemental Information for Waynesville WWTP SOC
Application, Section IV, NecessityNarrative
rrative
Under Section IV of the SOC Application, a "Necessity Narrative" is required to provide an
"explanation of the circumstances regarding the necessity of the proposed SOC." The
application identifies several specific topic areas that should be addressed. Those topics are
identified in the list below each topic heading followed by a narrative.
Existing and/or unavoidable future violations(s) of permit conditions or limits(s)
Response:
The chronic effluent limitations issues with the WWTP are well documented by NOVs and
penalty assessment actions taken by the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR). In September
2018, McGill Associates produced a "Wastewater Treatment Plan Evaluation" for the Town.
This report is attached for reference.
The evaluation report, in Section 3.0 provides a detailed evaluation of compliance issues at the
WWTP and discusses the issues related to current WWTP problems. The report provides a
definitive statement concerning equipment status, treatment unit problems, and an overall
assessment of the condition of the WWTP. The report identifies recommended actions to
upgrade the treatment process and allow the WWTP to achieve consistent compliance with its
NPDES Permit limits.
In addition to the NOVs listed in the report, the following WWTP NOVs (including those with
civil penalty assessments) were also issued:
• Case No. LV-2018-0126, NOV and Assessment of Civil Penalty, June 18, 2018—Payment
submitted by Town in letter dated July 9, 2018
• Case No. LV-2018-0138, NOV and Assessment of Civil Penalty,June 20, 2018—Payment
submitted by Town and acknowledged receipt by DWR in letter dated July 23, 2018
• NOV-2018-PC-0360, WWTP Inspection made on August 21, 2018, September 4, 2018,
Detailed response refencing work to develop information to support an SOC application
• NOV-2018-LV-0675, September 17, 2018
• NOV and Intent to Assess Civil Penalty, NOV-2018-LV-0862, December 27, 2018
• NOV and Intent to Assess Civil Penalty, NOV-2019-PC-0049—Response from Town,
dated February 8, 2019
• NOV and Notice of Intent to Assess Civil Penalty, NOV-2019-LV-0260, April 9, 2019
Problems with the WWTP's facilities and the need for a significant and extensive capital
improvements remains a priority and is the basis and need for the requested SOC.
Section IV, Necessity Narrative Page 1 of 3

The existing treatment process and any process modifications that have been made to date
to ensure optimum performance of existing facilities
The existing WWTP layout and condition is presented and reviewed in the referenced and
attached "Wastewater Treatment Plan Evaluation" report. While the major capital project
planned for completion under the requested SOC is the Town's goal, the Town has placed in its
budget funds to improve the aeration effectiveness in our biological reactor tanks and repair
some concrete deterioration issues. Additionally, due to problems with the headworks
screening that resulted in an overflow, the Town has rebuilt this screen and the refurbished
screen is in operation.
Collection system rehabilitation work completed or scheduled (including dates)
The Town continues to address maintenance, system improvements, and inspections of the
collection system as required under their collection system permit. However, the plant
experiences very high flows following heavy rainfall event and is taking more aggressive action
to address infiltration and inflow AI) into their collection system. The Town is undertaking a
"Sewer Collection System Evaluation" of their system and have finalized an agreement to do
this work with McGill Associates. It is anticipated that the effort will begin in May. The Town
will also be discussing l&I concerns with its two major bulk customers, the Town of Clyde and
Junaluska Sanitary District. The collection systems serving these customers are under the
responsibility of the system owner and Waynesville is looking for avenues to improve I&I
conditions in these service areas. Both system owners are covered by a collection system
permit issued by DWR.
Coordination with industrial users regarding their discharges or pretreatment facilities.
Identify any non-compliant significant industrial users and measure(s) proposed or already
taken to bring the pretreatment facilities back into compliance. If any industrial facilities are
currently under consent agreements, please attach these agreements.
Please see Section 3.4 of the attached WWTP Evaluation for information on the Town's
industrial wastewater contribution and information presented in Supplemental Information for
Section V of the application. As noted, the Town isn't required to have a formal pretreatment
program. Control of any potential interference in WWTP performance from collection system
users is managed through the adopted Sewer Use Ordinance. Waynesville has addressed
industrial user impacts on the plant and DWR has been engaged with the Town's efforts in its
interaction with its one industrial process discharger, Giles Chemical. The nature of the Giles
discharge has impacted the WWTP's ability to effectively comply with its NH3-N limit.The Town
and DWR discussed this situation and DWR participated in a meeting with the company. Giles
was required to discontinue internal recycling of a good portion of their water due to FDA
Section IV, Necessity Narrative Page 2 of 3

direction levels (the company falls under federal FDA requirements because of consumer use of
their product: Epson salts). Within the last year, Giles was able to secure the ability to resume
recycle. There have been significant improvements in the WWTP's ammonia effluent
performance since. During a period of time when Giles was required to discontinue internal
recycle, the discharge to the WWTP had a direct and detrimental impact on the plant's effluent,
specifically the ammonia levels. Frequent communication is maintained between the Town and
Giles. While improvements have been achieved and there is a good working relationship, the
Town must plan for any potential impacts to the WWTP from any process changes at Giles. No
other non-domestic wastewater impacts have been noted.
Date and outcome of last Industrial Waste Survey
As noted, the Town is not under a Pretreatment Program requirement.
Whether or not the facility is acting as a regional facility receiving wastewater from other
municipalities having independent pretreatment programs.
The Waynesville WWTP provides treatment services to the Town of Clyde and the Junaluska
Sanitary District. In addition, the Town works with Haywood County in providing sewer utility
services for projects within the Town's planning area in the County. The Town is a regional
water and sewer service provider.
Section IV, Necessity Narrative Page 3 of 3

Supplemental Information for Waynesville WWTP SOC Application,
Section V, Certification
Section V of the application requires that the applicant submit with its SOC application, "a report prepared by an
independent professional with expertise in wastewater treatment." The September 2018, McGill Associates
"Wastewater Treatment Plan Evaluation"for the Town referenced earlier and attached represents a detailed evaluation
of the plant and its deficiencies that address the ability of the Town to operate the facility and comply with its permit
limits. McGill Associates provide an engineering review of the treatment plant and the condition of its mechanical,
physical and operational units. Additionally, McGill used its extensive WWTP experience to assess the operational
decisions and efforts being applied by the Town's personnel. Both the engineering evaluation and the operational
review consistently demonstrated that with the current condition of the plant and the significant need for facility
update,the plant is incapable of consistent and long-term compliance with its NPDES Permit limits.
Section 3.0 of the Report includes 3.3 Management of Compliance Issues which provides specific applicability to the
SOC Application Section V. This portion of the report references the need for an SOC to allow the Town to develop a
project to make significant capital improvements to the facility. Included in this section is the following statements
(page 26):
"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
WWTP aresuch that stable, long-term compliance can onlybe
upgrade of the WWTP. The facility issues at the g p
Pg
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
P P
development and adoption of an appropriate SOC."
The referenced Report meets the intent and letter of a "Certification"as described in Section V of the Application. The
Report is signed and sealed by the responsible engineer, Keith Webb, PE.
With reference to the first two bullets listed in the Application under Section V and the above discussion,the Town
presents the Report to address:
• An evaluation of existing treatment units,operational procedures and recommendations as to how the
efficiencies of these facilities can be maximized. The person in charge of such evaluation must sign this
document.
• A certification that these facilities could not be operated in a manner that would achieve compliance with
final permit limits. The person making such determination must sign this certification.
Relative to the certification,the Report provides a detailed review of the condition of the plant and the inability to
operate the facility in a manner that will reliably and consistently comply with all permit limits. The certification bullet
requiring a statement that "these facilities could not be operated in a manner that would achieve compliance with final
permit limits" is not an appropriate assessment of the Town's compliance issues. Obviously,the plant is in compliance
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application,Section V, Certification, Page 1 of 23

at times, but this compliance cannot be maintained due to the physical condition of the plant and the limitations of its
mechanical facilities. The compliance issues are chronic and are due to plant limitations. Operational adjustments are
limited due to these issues and the performance of some of the units cannot be adjusted by any operational changes. In
addition to the Report statements,the following certification is provided:
Certification:
It is the considered opinion of McGill Associates that due to physical performance limitations and condition of
the Waynesville WWTP,that the facility cannot be operated in a manner that will consistently and reliably
produce compliance with all of its NPDES permit limits. It is our position that a comprehensive capital
improve r©)gct is needed to allow the facility to achieve consistent compliance with permit limits.
, ii A
SF_AL $ ( . !� i 3 1`zt
12809 :CO
Keith Webb, PE Date
'" 'V \\.ba
,�1j+eeeee }eet3*F'r�+
Section V of the Application also includes two additional bullets that must be addressed. Each of these bullets will be
discussed separately:
The effluent limits that the facility could be expected to meet if operated at their maximum efficiency during the term
of the requested SOC(be sure to consider interim construction phases).
The WWTP Evaluation Report attached includes an extensive evaluation of effluent and influent data on the Waynesville
WWTP. This information is provided in Section 3.0 of the Report. The data and analysis provided in this section of the
application reviews plant performance information on fecal coliform, NH3-N,TSS and BOD-5 (referred to as BOD). This
analysis looks at data up through December 2017. In preparation for this application, additional statistical evaluations
were performed on data available January 2016 through February 2019.
Summary of the Updated Data Analysis and Recommendations for Interim Effluent Limits
The following data analysis looks at WWTP performance over the last three years. Effluent data indicates periods of
variability that include exceedance of NPDES permit limits. While the effluent at times does meet permit limits,there
are significant instances where certain limits are not being met. Under normal flow conditions,the plant flow is well
below the permitted level of 6.0 MGD. However, high flow events have impacts on effluent quality due to the
limitations of the components of the WWTP. The characteristics of wastewater discharged from Giles Chemical is an
important factor in plant performance, particularly in regard to NH3-N. Beginning in September 2018, Giles was able to
return to significant recycle of process water. This has resulted in improved NH3-N levels but has some negative impacts
on other effluent parameters. Because of quality assurance demands on final product, it is important to reflect the
potential effect of this discharge during the SOC. The impacts of flow variation and the poor condition/performance of
the plant's treatment units, in particular,the secondary clarifiers,the plant is subject to variations in performance that
will continue to result in exceedances of NPDES permit limits. Interim limits for selected parameters, as reviewed below,
should be included in the SOC.
Based on the evaluation provided below the following interim limits are recommended (all other limitations would
remain as specified in the permit):
TSS monthly average interim limit 45 mg/I.
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application,Section V,Certification, Page 2 of 23

TSS weekly average interim limit 100 mg/I
NH3-N monthly average interim limit 15 mg/I
Fecal coliform weekly average(geometric mean) limit 800#/100 ml
Additional discussion of these recommendations is provided below.
Waynesville WWTP Performance Data Analysis, 1-1-2016 to 2-28-2019
Based on 38 months of effluent data, a statistical evaluation of the plant's performance was developed to guide
consideration of SOC interim limitations. Some important caveats need to be taken into consideration in reviewing this
evaluation:
• Considering performance information over this time reflects only the time variation in effluent quality for the
parameters under consideration. It is the "history" of effluent quality and cannot be considered a completely
accurate projection of effluent quality in the future.
• There are various interrelated factors that impact effluent performance and it is not possible to definitively
relate any specific factor to changes in performance.
• Where specific key factors could be identified and characterized, data analysis was targeted to reflect these
influences.
• Since the data reflects conditions in the past, it is difficult to predict what significant actions in the future may do
to impact performance,even when operational attention is appropriate and consistent (for example, impacts of
construction activities during the plant modifications/upgrades,change in sewer system user's wastewater
characteristics,additional deterioration/disruption of existing treatment processes or equipment, etc.).
• Statistical results need to be supplemented by informed professional judgement and experience in establishing
appropriate interim limits.
• Recommendations for interim limits represent the available data, knowledge of the system, expected plant
improvements construction sequence, and informed judgement. Revisions to interim limits may be necessary
during the SOC period based on actual conditions encountered and any changes in the integrity of the treatment
components.
Overall WWTP Performance
Table 1 provides the general statistical variation for the entire review period for monthly average values. Table 2 presents
the statistical information for weekly average values. The data used to generate these tables comes from the Town's
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), submitted to DWR. The overall summary demonstrates issues with monthly
average compliance issues for TSS and NH3-N. Fecal coliform issues are indicated in the weekly average statistics. NH3-
N issues are related to loading to the plant,variation in influent wastewater characteristics,the limitations of the biological
treatment component of the plant (not designed, sized or equipped for effective nitrification), and the condition and
limited capability of the secondary clarifiers. TSS issues are due primarily to the limited capability of the secondary
clarifiers. As the Evaluation Report documents,these units are too shallow and the sludge removal capability very limited.
The characteristics of the biological solids coming from the aeration basins are also a factor. The loss of solids from the
secondary clarifiers contribute to issues with disinfection of the secondary wastewater. The presence of solids in the
effluent reduces the effectiveness of chlorination.
In 2018 and early 2019, rainfall was much higher than normal (2018 was one of the highest levels of annual rainfall
recorded in the area and in many locations statewide). High flows to the WWTP placed significant pressure on the plant,
resulting in flow-through conditions that reduced the already limited capability of every treatment step in the process.
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application, Section V, Certification, Page 3 of 23

Considering the condition of the facility and the demands on the plant,effluent parameter levels remained in compliance
with the permit limits for most of the time period examined. This is attributed to the efforts of the operational staff.
However,operational attention alone cannot consistently or reliably produce effluent compliance to an acceptable level.
The plant's physical and mechanical condition does not allow for operational actions that can successfully respond to the
variation in flow and influent characteristics experienced at this facility. Significant capital improvements are needed to
address these issues.
Table 1. Monthly Effluent Concentrations, mg/1, 1/2016- 2/2019
Influent Influent Summer Winter
Month) flow, Influent Effluent Effluent Coliform,
y BOD BOD,mg/I TSS,mg/I Effluent Effluent
TSS,mg/I /100ml
MGD mg/Ig g NH3-N,mgn NH3-NH3N,mg/I
Average 4.24 156.9 233.7 15.4 21.4 6.72 6.09 20.2
Minimum 3.09 94.2 146.1 5.3 5.5 0.50 1.50 1.7
Maximum 5.58 245.1 453.8 26.0 46.3 13.27 11.87 136.7
Standard Deviation 0.67 32.9 65.3 5.8 10.1 4.01 3.39 23.4
1 99th percentile 5.49 238.3 423.9 25.3 45.0 13.19 11.53 103.4
95th percentile 5.32 217.9 347.1 23.7 39.8 12.86 10.20 43.2
months in violation 0 n/a n/a 0 6 6 0 0
percent in violation 0% n/a n/a 0% 17% 29% 0% 0%
For reference in reviewing the data in Table 2--Monthly Limits: Flow, 6.0 MGD; BOD, 30.0 mg/I; TSS, 30.0
mg/1,NH3-N, Summer, 9.0 mg/1, Winter, 21.0 mg/1, fecal coliform,200/100 ml.
Table 2. Weekly Effluent Concentrations, mg/1, 1/2016-2/2019
Weekly Overall Average(1/2016-2/2019)
Pollutant(limit, mg/I) BOD(45) TSS(45) Summer NH3-N (21) Winter NH3-N (35) Coliform(400/100mL)
Average 15.4 21.4 6.79 6.04 45.0
Minimum 1.0 4.2 0.20 0.90 0.5
Maximum 43.8 144.8 15.72 17.16 838.0
standard deviation 7.3 17.4 4.19 3.79 114.6
99th percentile 34.4 103.0 14.59 14.70 638.3
95th percentile 27.5 43.6 13.68 11.70 193.7
weeks over limit 0 8 0 0 4
%of weeks over limit 0.0% 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4%
Industrial Wastewater Impacts
As discussed in this application and in the attached Evaluation Report,the characteristics of Giles Chemical's discharge to
the collection system can have a significant impact on effluent quality, particularly NH3-N, depending on the status of
water recycling practices in use at Giles. Based on information available,Giles was providing a significant level of internal
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application,Section V, Certification, Page 4 of 23

recycle up until mid-July 2016. Following FDA action, Giles was required to reduce or eliminate its recycling program and
began to discharge additional process water to the Town's sewer that had previously been recycled. This action resulted
in instances of increases in effluent NH3-N and other impacts on effluent quality. In the tables below, recycle status is
noted. There are three periods that have been examined: the period prior to FDA's decision to limit recycle, 1-2016 to 7-
2016;the period following FDA's decision to stop recycle,8-2016 to 8-2018;and the most recent period when recycle was
resumed,9-2018 to 2/2019.
Tables 3 and 4 provide the statistics on the 6-month period of effluent results prior to Giles discontinuing their recycle
program. This period is relatively short, but it reflects compliant effluent values and overall reduced influent loading
impact during the time that the company was actively recycling its process water.
Table 3. Monthly Effluent Concentrations, ing/l, Before Recycle Stopped, 1/2016 to 7/2016
Before Recycle Stopped(1/2016-7/2016)
Pollutant(limit, mg/I) BOD(30) TSS(30) Summer NH3-N(9) Winter NH3-N(21) Coliform (200/100mL)
Average 9.2 11.3 2.37 3.55 40.5
Minimum 6.7 _ 5.5 0.50 3.20 8.1
Maximum 12.3 23.6 4.60 4.13 136.7
standard deviation 2.2 6.7 1.91 0.50 45.1
99th percentile 12.3 23.2 4.56 4.11 131.3
95th percentile 12.0 21.4 4.41 4.05 109.7
months over limit 0 0 0 0 0
% of months over limit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Table 4. Weekly Effluent uent Concentrations, m /1 Before Recycle Stopped, 1/2016 to 7/2016
g � f y pp
Before Recycle Stopped (1/2016-7/2016)
Pollutant(limit, mg/I) BOD(45) TSS(45) Summer NH3-N (21) Winter NH3-N (35) Coliform (400/100mL)
Average 9.3 11.3 2.41 3.52 86.5
Minimum 3.8 4.2 0.20 1.46 1.6
Maximum 16.0 30.2 8.24 6.43 838.0
standard deviation 3.3 6.9 2.18 1.56 171.8
99th percentile 15.8 29.1 7.80 6.37 706.9
95th percentile 15.0 24.8 6.03 6.11 343.0
weeks over limit 0 0 0 0 1
% of weeks over limit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3%
Tables 5 and 6 show monthly and weekly effluent statistics and variation after recycling was stopped in August 2016. The
period reviewed produced about two years of data when Giles not recycling its process wastewater. The information
demonstrates a marked increase in NH3-N levels in the effluent after recycling was stopped. Effects on other parameters
vary, improving effluent TSS levels but increasing effluent BOD levels (BOD remained in compliance). Discontinuation of
recycling impacts monthly values significantly more than weekly values.
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application, Section V, Certification, Page 5 of 23

Table 5. Monthly Effluent Concentrations, mg/1, Without Recycle, 8/2016 to 8/2018
Without Recycle, 8/2016-8/2018
Pollutant(limit, mg/I) BOD (30) T55 (30) Summer NH3-N(9) Winter NH3-N(21) Coliform (200/100mL)
Average 16.3 23.1 8.67 8.63 13.7
Minimum 5.3 9.0 5.31 6.69 1.7
Maximum 26.0 42.9 13.27 11.87 42.6
standard deviation 5.6 9.0 2.81 1.51 12.5
99th percentile 25.5 42.0 13.21 11.68 41.5
95th percentile 24.0 39.0 12.98 10.93 37.7
months over limit 0 5 6 0 0
% of months over limit 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Table 6. Weekly Effluent Concentrations, mg/1, Without Recycle, 8/2016 to 8/2018
Without Recycle,8/2016-8/2018
Pollutant(limit, mg/I) BOD (45) TSS(45) Summer NH3-N (21) Winter NH3-N (35) Coliform (400/100mL)
Average 16.4 23.0 8.
74 8.49 25.0
Minimum 1.0 5.1 3.21 3.00 0.5
Maximum 35.7 103.8 15.72 17.16 625.1
standard deviation 7.2 15.8 3.16 2.75 69.1
99th percentile 33.4 100.6 14.93 15.71 307.0
95th percentile 27.5 46.0 14.17 12.41 66.8
weeks over limit 0 6 0 0 1
% of weeks over limit 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%
Tables 7 and 8 provide statistical information on the period following FDA decision to allow recycle again. Recycle
resumed in September 2018 and continues, including the time up to the drafting of this application. Table 7 and Table 8
show compliance with monthly NH3-N when recycle was resumed in September 2018. However, in looking at
information over the entire review period makes it important to consider the potential impacts that could be
experienced during the SOC timeframe.
Table 7. Monthly Effluent Concentrations, mg/1, After Recycle Resumed, 9/2018 to 2/2019
After Recycle Resumed,9/2018-2/2019
Pollutant(limit, mg/I) BOD (30) TSS (30) Summer NH3-N(9) Winter NH3-N(21) Coliform (200/100mL)
Average 18.7 26.0 0.86 1.64 23.8
Minimum 14.7 18.9 0.75 1.50 9.9
Maximum 23.1 46.3 0.97 1.82 30.2
standard deviation 4.0 11.0 0.15 0.14 7.2
99th percentile 23.0 45.5 0.97 1.81 30.1
95th percentile 23.0 42.6 0.96 1.80 29.4
months over limit 0 2 0 0 0
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application, Section V, Certification, Page 6 of 23

% of months over limit 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% I 0.0% 0.0%
Table 8. Weekly Effluent Concentrations, mg/1, After Recycle Resumed, 9/2018 to 2/2019
After Recycle Resumed,9/2018-2/2019
Pollutant(limit, mg/I) BOD (45) TSS (45) Summer NH3-N (21) Winter NH3-N (35) Coliform (400/100mL)
Average 18.6 26.4 1.40 1.61 80.2
Minimum 8.4 10.9 0.50 0.90 2.9
Maximum 43.8 144.8 5.62 2.66 660.8
standard deviation 7.6 26.1 1.62 0.58 160.9
99th percentile 40.7 121.9 5.29 2.66 629.4
95th percentile 30.9 49.1 4.00 2.65 451.1
weeks over limit 0 2 0 0 2
% of weeks over limit 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7%
The information presented in Tables 9, 10, 11 and 12 shows the result of analyzing the data from the entire review period
relative to recycle status. Data from the two "with" periods were combined for comparison to the one "without" period.
Clearly, NH3-N effluent levels for both monthly and weekly comparisons are consistently and significantly lower when
recycling is being practiced at Giles. The trend for monthly concentrations of BOD and TSS is generally in line with that
observed for NH3-N. Fecal coliform data in Table 9 consistently shows higher values when recycle is occurring.
Looking at weekly values in Table 10, NH3-N numbers generally follow the same trend as the monthly numbers: values
are lower when recycle is taking place. Monthly BOD and TSS numbers show the opposite trend: levels are generally
higher when recycle is occurring. Fecal coliform numbers show higher values with recycle occurring. Even though values
during recycle periods were higher for BOD, there were no weekly average BOD limit exceedances. The fecal coliform
pattern observed in looking at the monthly values is repeated in the weekly average data:values are generally higher with
recycle occurring. The reasons for generally higher BOD, TSS and fecal coliform weekly values during recycle aren't
apparent and likely involve the interactions between deteriorating WWTP systems and complex physical, chemical, and
biological changes experienced during recycle periods.
Overall and with particular focus on nitrification and NH3-N effluent quality, recycle at Giles is positive factor. Table 11
provides important information relative to the dramatic impact of recycle on effluent monthly average NH3-N levels. It is
important that recycle continue since that activity has a significant impact on keeping NH3-N as low as possible during the
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application, Section V, Certification, Page 7 of 23

time that the SOC is in place. However, since this practice is subject to production change decisions, interim limits should
be based periods when NH3-N is elevated.
BOD compliance was not an issue regardless of recycle status. However,the increase in BOD during times of recycle is of
concern, particularly since recycle continues to be something the Town would like to see continued.
TSS compliance is problematic regardless of recycle status. The limited performance of the secondary clarifiers is not
something that can be remedied in the short-term. The long-term solution will be the installation of secondary clarification
units that are much more effective.
Table 9. Monthly Effluent Concentrations, mg/1, Entire Period, Showing Results Comparing
"without" Recycle periods to "with"Recycle (red font highlighted numbers show highest value
for each comparison statistic)
Summary: Monthly Statistic Values for the Two Periods"Without"Compared to"With" Recycling
Pollutant(limit,mg/I) BOD TSS Summer NH3-N Winter NH3-N Coliform
Giles Chemical recycling without with without with without with without with without with
Average 13.6 23.1 1.9 8.6 2.5 13.7 32.8
Minimum 5.3 6.7 5.5 5.3 6.7 1.5 1.7 8.1
Maximum 26.0 23.1 42.9 46.3 13.3 4.6 11.9 4.1 42.6 136.7
standard deviation 5.6 5.7 9.0 11.5 2.8 1.7 1.5 1.1 12.5 33.4
99th percentile 25.5 23.0 42.0 44.5 13.2 4.5 11.7 4.1 41.5 125.9
95th percentile 22.9 39.0 37.5 13.0 4.3 10.9 3.9 37.7 82.7
months over limit 0 0 5 2 6 0 0 0 0 0
%of months over limit 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 15.4% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Table 10. Weekly Effluent Concentrations, mg/1, Entire Period, Showing Results Comparing
"without"Recycle periods to "with" Recycle (red font highlighted numbers show highest value
for each comparison statistic)
Summary:Weekly Statistic Values for the Two Periods"Without"Compared to"With" Recycling
Pollutant(limit,mg/I) _ BOD TSS Summer NH3-N Winter NH3-N Fecal Coliform
Giles Chemical recycling without with without with without with without with without with
Average .4 13.6 23.0 18.3 8.7 2.1 8.5 2.4 25.0 83.6
Minimum 1.0 3.8 4.2 3.2 3.0 0.9 0.5 1.6
Maximum 35.7 43.8 103.8 144.8 15.7 8.2 17.2 6.4 838.0
standard deviation 7.2 7.3 15.8 19.8 3.2 2.0 2.7 1.4 69.1 165.3
99th percentile 33.4 37.0 100.6 94.4 14.9 7.6 15.7 6.3 307.0 740.5
95th percentile 27.5 24.6 46.0 34.7 14.2 5.6 12.4 5.5 66.8 423.3
weeks over limit 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 1 3
%of weeks over limit 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 5.4%
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application, Section V, Certification, Page 8 of 23

Table 11. Factor of Effluent Ammonia Concentration Monthly Concentration of"Without"
Recycle Divided by Concentration "With"Recycle
Industrial Factor
Summer Winter
Average 4.6 3.5
Minimum 10.7 4.4
Maximum 2.9 2.9
99th percentile 2.9 2.9
95th percentile 3.0 2.8
Table 12. Factor of Effluent Ammonia Concentration—Weekly Concentration of"Without"
Recycle Divided by Concentration "With"Recycle
Industrial Factor
Summer Winter
Average 4.2 3.5
Minimum 16.2 3.3
Maximum 1.9 2.7
99th percentile 2.0 2.5
95th percentile 2.5 2.3
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application, Section V, Certification, Page 9 of 23

Data Plots and Statistical Summary Information
Table 13 provides,for reference, a summary of monthly average influent and effluent data available for the period of
review.
Table 13. Overall Monthly Average Influent and Effluent Concentrations
Influent Influent Influent Effluent Effluent Summer Winter Coliform,
Month flow,MGD BOD,mg/I TSS,mg/I BOD,mg/I TSS,mg/I Effluent NH3- Effluent NH3- #/10om1
N,mg/I N,mg/I
January 2016 5.10 94.2 150.8 6.8 6.4 3.33 12.4
February 2016 5.28 124.6 185.6 10.7 7.7 3.20 36.4
March 2016 4.44 133.2 218.3 9.0 7.0 4.13 8.1
April 2016 3.92 128.5 157.3 7.9 5.5 3.29 8.2
May 2016 3.78 142.2 226.8 12.3 12.4 1.10 35.2
June 2016 3.57 144.6 224.7 11.1 16.2 0.50 136.7
July 2016 3.54 146.7 238.2 6.7 23.6 4.60 46.7
August 2016 3.55 145.0 217.9 5.3 23.0 8.33 6.8
September 2016 3.09 149.8 220.8 10.5 11.6 5.31 32.1
October 2016 3.36 158.2 373.0 6.7 19.6 9.71 36.0
November 2016 3.22 157.2 295.7 6.6 19.1 8.91 38.2
December 2016 3.80 142.9 272.2 12.6 19.9 7.87 4.9
January 2017 4.21 123.5 208.2 15.5 27.6 9.44 15.3
February 2017 3.74 155.0 191.0 17.7 42.9 11.87 42.6
March 2017 4.25 138.3 193.4 9.5 14.4 9.78 1.7
April 2017 4.94 140.6 151.6 10.8 9.0 6.10 1.9
May 2017 4.55 152.7 179.7 17.5 12.7 5.98 10.7
June 2017 3.78 226.8 312.7 20.0 15.3 12.44 5.5
July 2017 3.51 203.5 243.3 23.3 18.1 12.86 7.6
August 2017 3.71 245.1 453.8 17.7 17.7 13.27 10.2
September 2017 4.24 175.6 257.7 17.2 26.4 11.21 17.5
October 2017 4.30 155.7 242.2 16.7 38.4 6.87 32.8
November 2017 4.17 203.1 279.7 18.0 17.7 7.98 3.7
December 2017 4.25 189.9 217.1 18.3 20.4 6.69 2.6
' January 2018 4.11 170.2 191.4 14.1 27.8 8.93 2.4
February 2018 5.31 117.0 146.1 19.1 39.2 7.11 14.0
March 2018 4.33 135.1 217.8 21.4 35.0 7.71 13.0
April 2018 4.65 118.9 156.7 24.1 29.3 5.68 7.8
May 2018 4.99 124.0 171.3 26.0 30.5 6.24 16.5
June 2018 4.70 126.3 184.0 19.4 22.5 7.06 9.3
July 2018 3.50 181.3 257.5 16.8 14.6 10.63 5.3
August 2018 3.77 170.3 279.0 23.6 24.3 8.29 4.3
September 2018 4.28 193.4 342.6 15.1 19.9 0.75 26.7
October 2018 3.86 187.2 257.3 14.7 18.9 0.97 9.9
November 2018 4.92 153.0 241.9 22.8 46.3 1.50 30.2
December 2018 5.28 152.1 260.4 23.1 19.7 1.69 26.7
January 2019 5.58 139.4 167.5 15.6 20.0 1.82 25.4
February 2019 5.34 216.4 294.1 20.8 31.6 1.55 23.6
2 Average 4.24 156.9 233.7 15.4 21.4 6.72 6.09 20.2
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application,Section V, Certification, Page 10 of 23

Influent Influent Influent Effluent Effluent Summer Winter Coliform,
Month flow,MGD BOD,mg/I TSS,mg/I BOD,mg/I TSS,mg/I Effluent NH3- Effluent NH3- #/100m1
N,mg/I N,mg/I
Minimum 3.09 94.2 146.1 5.3 5.5 0.50 1.50 1.7
Maximum 5.58 245.1 453.8 26.0 46.3 13.27 11.87 136.7
Standard Deviation 0.67 32.9 65.3 5.8 10.1 4.01 3.39 23.4
99th percentile _ 5.49 238.3 423.9 25.3 45.0 13.19 11.53 103.4
95th percentile 5.32 217.9 347.1 23.7 39.8 _ 12.86 10.20 43.2
months in violation 0 n/a n/a 0 6 6 0 0
percent in violation 0% n/a n/a 0% 17% 29% 0% 0%
Figures 1 through 11 provides an overall view of the data considered from the review period. The trends and
characteristics of the data distribution for the parameters evaluated provides a basis for some general conclusions about
how the loading and performance this WWTP varies over the reviewed time period.
BOD
Effluent and influent BOD quality indicates a general trend of increasing values over time. During 2018 when rainfall
levels were very high, influent BOD decreased somewhat. Overall trend was still showing an increase. Effluent BOD
during this time showed some moderate stabilization, but still generally on the increase over time. This trend is of
concern since the plant's condition will not significantly improve until the facility is upgraded. BOD data distribution for
influent can be considered relatively"normal," but both influent and effluent BOD distributions are slightly bimodal.
Effluent data distribution has some scatter toward the higher concentration levels which raises concerns about the
potential occurrence of high values that could result in non-compliance.
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application, Section V, Certification, Page 11 of 23

?7
CQ Concentration,mg/I
Io o
,r o
Jan-16 1 I
Feb-16 I
g Mar-16 1 I
s Apr-16
c0 1
S D May-16 I I
°'" Jun-16
CO m Jul-16
m Aug-16 I
ro b Sep-16 � I I
vi Oct-16 I
�' S Nov-16 1 I
N
Dec-16 I 1 N
Z oo Jan-17
�. A- Feb-17 1 I N
N a < Mar-17 �— I I
m Apr-17 1
rn0 O " May-17 H
I \
y fD Jun-17 ao
N13 Jul-17Aug-17Sep-17I m
p Oct-17o Nov-17 Ivi =
"CS'
s Dec-17 T— I CD
'^+ ti '� Jan-18 I I r+
o N m Feb-18 1 1 CO
Co 3 Mar-18 1 Q
b Apr-18 p
Cl CD1
3 May-18
Jun-18 �- 1
�: I Jul-18 1 I
CU I Aug-18 I I
,-. I Sep-18 �t I
* Oct-18 1 I
< Nov-18
ra) Dec-18 �
m Jan-19
N 3 Feb-19 I I
p A.. Mar-19
NJ r
NJ3
U.)
rr

no.of days Concentration,mg/I
N A al co O NJ A (D 1—+ 1-J NJ NJ W W
O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0
ti
0 ti Jan-16
20 Feb-16
40 ■ N Mar-16
FS Apr-16
60 ^+ May-16
80 IIIIIIIIIII CO Jun-16 —
100 �� b Jul-16 ��
CD 120 Aug-16 -�
<_ 140 Sep 16
fD 160 Oct-16
tO
Nov-16
180 mimmommiiimummummomi Dec-16
200 Jan-17 N
(01 220 mmumminum Feb-17
240 =mum -s, o Mar-17 0
F-1
73 260 mum '. Apr-17 .ink 01
= \ < May-17 17 1
280 .-r ti D
,- 300 O Jun-17 ro Mr" NJ
0 p7 320 I 0 0\ as Jul-17 O
p �, re Aug-17 �a
0 340 II O Sep-17 _ ry— _�
- 360 I to rl ti Oct-17 F
380 I I Nov-17
400 1 b rD Dec-17 rD
C- 420 — Jan-18to r
+
P.
440 I < Feb-18 + co~' a) Mar-18 O
460 a Apr-18
480 ro
May-18
- 500 Jun48
CD
CAI 540 Jul-18
CD 540 Aug-18
f+
W 560 Sep-18
o
-14 580 Oct-18
---Z...."'-
NJ
w 600 Nov-18
Dec-18
620 I Jan-19
Feb-19
Mar-19

Figure 3. Influent BOD Distribution, 1/2016 to 2/2019
Effluent BOD
18
16
14
Y 12
3 10
0 8
cc 6
4
2 II I I I I I I ■ ■ ■
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
mg/I BOD
Figure 4. Effluent BOD Distribution, 1/2016— 2-2019
•
TSS
Effluent TSS has trended upwards over time with increasingly severe fluctuations. This is in contrast to a relatively stable
trend for influent TSS. This effluent trend likely reflects the high flow during 2018 and the poor performance of the
secondary clarifiers. The Distribution plot for effluent TSS demonstrates a long tail toward higher values. This
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application,Section V, Certification, Page 14 of 23

represents the ongoing inability of the secondary clarifiers to reduce TSS, particularly at higher flows. This factor needs
to be taken into consideration in setting an appropriate interim TSS limitation for the SOC.
1/2016 - 2/2019 Effluent TSS
150
100
E
c
0
0
50
Af
Tf
vD UD W LO V)LO LO U)U) VD VD U) N N N n N r- N N N r- r- N co 0o co CO 0o co co 0o 0o co co co a, m rn
6 T C OD O.t' > V 6_6 ,L ? C L 00 0. > u c Q , T C- 80 Q > U C 9
u_ 2E ¢ � QinOz0 toLL � Q2 7 � Qv°1iOz0 �LL � Q� 7 � QinOz0 -, Li2E
Monthly Average Weekly Average — — —Monthly Permit Limit — — — Weekly Permit Limit
Figure 5. Effluent TSS Concentration, 1/2016 to 2/2019
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application,Section V,Certification, Page 15 of 23

no.of days d4 Concentration,mg/I
Z' F-• N W A U'i Ol V CO W Z" �--'
(p � F-
O 0 O O 0 O 0 O O O ( ,1--+ ,NJ W WA A U1 U1 CT O J V CO CO 1O LD0
U1 0 Ui 0 Ur O Vi O Ui O U'O U'O to O Ui 0U'0
V O 000000000000000000000
Q Is, Jan-16
0 Feb-16
Mar-16
r`p 80 ip Apr-16 —
12o M May-16
1 Jun-16
I so Jul-16
Cij C/) Aug-16 2
00 fp Sep-16
b �Qo p Oct-16 -44111
--,, S I Nov-16
co -)8p Dec-16 — �—
Q ., S Jan-17 ' j
o Feb-17 0
—I p ,i Mar-17 �'
v7 Z 60 .. Apr-17 Q1
O sr0o May-17 NJ
1, a' Jun-17 ��
-p tiO % C a°10 Jul-17 N
- fD ti m Aug-17 0
Q� oho Q�0 rt Sep-17
o S p� Oct-17 "�— O U �o V) Nov-17 y
t ' ' (!)
,
N * Dec-17
C
ro ti
ti a) Jan-18 fD
60 Feb-18 =
o b 6 0 . O n Mar-18
�O . m Apr-18 N
610 • a May-18 1 V)
rp
m Jun-18
.>,o Jul-18 -_
Aug-18
w �
CO
• Sep-18
Oct-18
s �00 Nov-18 —_
- d,. • Dec-18 --...
Jan-19ma
-
6'�0 Feb-19
o-i 9
O Mar-19
\-O
N-J 960
10
00 .

Effluent TSS
45
40
35
30
N
a�i 25
3
46 20
15
10
5
0 ' III . le .
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100105110115120125130135140145
mg/I TSS
Figure 8. Effluent TSS Distribution, 1/2016 to 2/2019 (Influent TSS Distribution is extended
and there are ten more readings between 1,000 and 3,000 mg/1 that are not shown in this
Figure).
N H 3-N
The following figures illustrating the variation in NH3-N levels demonstrate that summer period levels over the last three
years have resulted in several results exceeding the permit limit. As discussed previously in this section of the
application's supplemental information,effluent concentration rose significantly when Giles Chemical stopped recycling
process water in 2016. Concentrations dropped when Giles Chemical resumed recycling process water in late August of
2018. However, it would not be prudent to set interim limits based on results from the last several months. Interim
limits should reflect the potential elevated levels experienced under conditions that could recur. In addition,
construction activities for needed upgrades could detrimentally affect effluent quality.
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application,Section V, Certification, Page 17 of 23

1/1/2016 - 2/28/2019 Effluent NH3-N
40.00
38.00
36.00 _ _ _ _
r —
34.00 I I I I I I
32.00 I I I I I I
30.00 I I I 1 I
28.00 I I I I I I
26.00 I I I I II
24.00 I 1 I 1 I
22.00 — —I I I 1
m20.o0 — I I I i- - - - r I -
18.00 I E
I I I I 1
16.00 I I I I I I
I I I I I 1
14.00 I I I ��� I I
12.00 I I ' I I
10.00 I — — — j , I - - ' I V ,I , A ,♦ t4vif, T \ — I
4.00 i ' /
2.00 '1 ( / ..0 -- .
0.00
t0 Ur)LID LID tD t0 t0 lD t0 t0 t0 t0 N r,r\r,n-n,r,r,r,f`N r,co co co co co co co co co co co co Ol Ol Dl
c_O ' -C ' 406.4' > u c.6 >c = ooa+- > u c_d) >c ooaZ. > L c4;
,u_2a2 —< OZo LL' 2Q2 �QvnOZo 'LL2a2 4<v)OZo 'LL2
Monthly Average Weekly Average — — —Weekly Permit Limit — — —Monthly Permit Limit
Figure 9. Effluent NH3-N Concentration, 1/2016 to 2/2019
Summer Effluent NH3-N
12
10
., a
v
6
0
0
c 4
2
0
' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' '
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
mg/I NH3-N
Figure 10. Summer Effluent NH3-N Distribution
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application,Section V, Certification, Page 18 of 23

Winter Effluent NH3
10
9
8
7
a 6
v
3 5
0 4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
mg/I NH3
Figure 11. Winter Effluent Ammonia Distribution
Fecal Coliform
The plot below of fecal coliform effluent measurements over the last three years provides a clear picture of the
variability of disinfection effectiveness. The poor performance and physical limitations of the secondary clarifiers is
closely linked to disinfection issues. It is important to develop interim limits that reflect the limited ability of the current
facility to meet its permit limits.
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application, Section V, Certification, Page 19 of 23

1/2016-2/2019 Effluent Coliform
900
850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
0
o� 450
400
350
300
250
200 — — —
150
100 I
50
l', , .rsl _A 1
0
to to io io io io t io t to to to N r` N N I N n N N N N N oo 0o co 00 0o co co co co oo oo 0o m m m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000 000
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N Cr) Cr Ill to N CO m 0 .--I N �-1 N CO �7 Ill to r` CO m 0 N m V L/1 lD N CO m 0 .--I N r--1 N
-Monthly Geometric Mean — — — Weekly Permit Limit 1-1
-Weekly Geometric Mean — — —Monthly Permit Limit
Figure 12. Effluent Coliform Count, 1/2016 to 2/2019
Discussion of Statistical Information on WWTP Effluent Performance and Recommended Interim Limitations
The analysis provided as part of this supplemental information to support the Town's SOC reflects the serious limitations
of the WWTP. The variation in effluent performance for several of the permitted parameters is such that that the
statistical results need to be considered with caution in projecting future performance. The condition of the individual
treatment units and equipment in the plant makes it impossible to establish consistent performance through normal
operational practices. Appropriate interim limitations for inclusion in the SOC should still consider the effluent data and
the statistical evaluation provided, but a final decision should be based on sound understanding of the potential for
variations in effluent quality in the future. The SOC schedule required to allow the Town to fund, design, construct and
put into service an upgraded plant that can consistently provide an effluent that meets all of the applicable permit
limitations will require a significant amount of time. During this time period the SOC should reflect the limitations of this
facility while requiring the continuation of the operational attention needed to produce the best effluent possible.
Taking into consideration all of the factors noted here, it is appropriate to return to Table 1 and 2 as presented in the
section that discusses overall performance over the review period. These tables are reproduced below.
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application, Section V, Certification, Page 20 of 23

Table 2. Monthly Effluent Concentrations, nig/I, 1/2016- 2/2019
Influent Influent Summer Winter
Influent Effluent Effluent Coliform,
Monthly flow, BOD, TSS,m /I BOD, m /I TSS,m /I Effluent Effluent #/100ml
MGD mg/I g g g NH3-N,mg/I NH3-N,mg/I
Average 4.24 156.9 233.7 15.4 21.4 6.72 6.09 20.2
Minimum 3.09 94.2 146.1 5.3 5.5 0.50 1.50 1.7
Maximum 5.58 245.1 453.8 26.0 46.3 13.27 11.87 136.7
Standard Deviation 0.67 32.9 65.3 5.8 10.1 4.01 3.39 23.4
99th percentile 5.49 238.3 423.9 25.3 45.0 13.19 11.53 103.4
95th percentile 5.32 217.9 347.1 23.7 39.8 12.86 10.20 43.2
months in violation 0 n/a n/a 0 6 6 0 0
percent in violation 0% n/a n/a 0% 17% 29% 0% 0%
For reference in reviewing the data in Table 2--Monthly Limits: Flow, 6.0 MGD; BOD, 30.0 mg/1: TSS, 30.0
mg/1,NH3-N, Summer, 9.0 mg/I, Winter, 21.0 mg/1, fecal coliform, 200/100 ml.
Tablet. Weekly Effluent Concentrations, mg/l, 1/2016- 2/2019
Weekly
Pollutant(limit,
mg/I or counts per BOD TSS Summer Winter Coliform
100 ml ) (45) (45) NH3-N(27) NH3-N(35) (400/100mL)
Average 15.4 21.4 6.8 6.0 45.0
Minimum 1.0 4.2 0.2 0.9 0.5
Maximum 43.8 144.8 15.7 17.2 838.0
standard deviation 7.3 17.4 4.2 3.8 114.6
99th percentile 34.4 103.0 14.6 14.7 638.3
95th percentile 27.5 43.6 13.7 11.7 193.7
weeks over limit 0 8 0 0 4
% of weeks over
limit 0% 5% 0% 0% 2%
The suggested approach for developing the recommended interim limits is to start at the 99th percentile level developed
using the data over the entire period and then to temper those values taking into consideration the maximum monthly
average and weekly average results recorded over that time along with the knowledge of the most important treatment
plant and influent factors affecting the parameter under consideration. The objective of establishing SOC interim limits
is aimed at ensuring effective operational attention while provide enough flexibility to accommodate expected variation
in the limited performance capability of the WWTP during the SOC. Since interim limits exceedances are subject to the
application of stipulated penalties,this factor should also be considered.
The interim limits recommended here only reflect the historic information from the review period. Therefore, potential
elevated levels during plant upgrade construction have not been projected. While there has been considerable
discussion about potential impact, a final WWTP improvements plan and the construction sequence has not been
established at the time of this application. The objective of the construction sequence will to be to have the least impact
possible on the plant effluent during the construction period. However, it is certainly possible that the construction
sequence may negatively plant effluent quality. If this should occur, it will be necessary to request revision to the SOC
interim limits, including parameters not identified here as needing interim limits.
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application, Section V, Certification, Page 21 of 23

BOD interim limits for monthly average and weekly average are not being requested at this point since there were no
violations of the permit limits over the review period. This will require close operational attention. The information
presented here noted that influent BOD is trending upward,and BOD performance seems to be somewhat negatively
impacted by the continuation of Giles' recycling efforts. The conclusion that interim limits are not necessary may need
to be revised later.
TSS interim limits are certainly needed considering the level of demonstrated exceedances over the review period. The
physical limitations of the secondary clarifiers are the primary reason for this problem. This issue will not be addressed
until modifications to the secondary solids removal process have been completed.The statistical scatter of TSS data
toward the high end of the distribution is of concern. The 99th percentile monthly average for TSS is 45 mg/I. The
maximum monthly average over the review period is 46.3 mg/I. For reference,the 95th percentile level is 39.8 mg/I.
Because the maximum and 99th percentile levels are very close, it is recommended that the interim TSS monthly
average limitation be set at 45 mg/I.
There is much greater variation in weekly average TSS numbers. The 99th percentile for TSS weekly average is 103.0
mg/I. The 95th percentile level is 43.6 mg/I. The maximum weekly average for TSS over the review period is 144.8 mg/I.
The data distribution plot for TSS shows a very long"tail"toward the high end and that is what contributes to the large
variation over the statistical percentile and maximum weekly average numbers. Because of the sensitivity of solids
loading to the secondary clarifier, high flows generally reflect very high TSS effluent values. This drives up the weekly
average numbers. The highest weekly average number occurred within the last six months. Exceptionally high rainfall
events during this period are the likely reason for this value (elevated groundwater table from successive high rainfall
events followed by a storm event). Due to this wide deviation in the effluent statistics, it isn't possible to set a
reasonable level that will capture the highest recorded levels. The 99th percentile level represents the point where there
were still several results that exceed this number. However,to reflect a reasonable approach to setting an interim limit,
it is recommended that the weekly average interim TSS limit be set at 100 mg/I. The maximum weekly average TSS
events seem to be isolated and have not occurred within the same calendar month. With an interim monthly limit of 45
mg/I,the occurrence of consecutive weekly levels at or near the recommended weekly interim level would result in a
monthly average interim limit violation. High weekly average results are typically proceeded by much lower TSS weekly
average levels and those following a high week are typically much lower.
NH3-N performance is greatly impacted by influent characteristics. The WWTP has limited nitrification ability that is
adversely impacted by increased loading. There is little ability to adjust biological treatment performance in the
aeration basins and changes to the influent can result due to external actions related to the operation of Giles Chemical.
The 99th percentile for summer monthly average NH3-N is 13.19 mg/I. The 95th percentile number is 12.86 mg/I. The
maximum monthly average recorded over the period is 15.7 mg/I. On the basis of the proximity of these three levels, it
is recommended that the summer monthly average NH3-N limit be set at 15 mg/I. This provides a reasonable level of
flexibility considering the close proximity between the 95th percentile and the maximum level recorded. The permit limit
is 9 mg/I. Based on the statistical information within the review period, no interim limit is being requested for the
summer weekly average,the winter monthly average or the winter weekly average for NH3-N.
Fecal coliform levels in the discharge have been elevated due mainly to TSS discharges from the secondary clarifiers. As
noted,the weekly average levels for effluent TSS exhibits a high degree of variability. Fecal coliform is directly impacted
by TSS concentrations. Because fecal coliform is a measure of bacterial potential in the wastewater and not a
concentration, it is difficult to use statistical evaluations for the purpose of recommending interim limits. However,
these statistical results were developed. Since there have been no monthly limit violations for fecal coliform,an
interim limit is not being requested. The weekly average levels have exceeded the permit limit on several occasions.
These are sporadic but operational adjustments to respond to these events is not easily predicted. Elevation of chlorine
levels to address the limited number of exceedances is not an appropriate operational action and actually could result in
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application,Section V, Certification, Page 22 of 23

toxic effects in the receiving waters. The fecal coliform levels documented over the review period shows a maximum
value of 838#/100 ml, a 99th percentile level of 638#/100 ml and a 95th percentile level of 193.7#/100 ml. The
variations across these numbers are due in large part to the fact that these averages are geometric means. Bacterial
density due to TSS issues is not something that can be dealt with effectively. As a result, it is recommended that the
weekly average fecal coliform limitation be set at 800#/100 ml.
The final bullet in Section V of the SOC Application:
Any other actions taken to correct problems prior to requesting the SOC
Response:As noted in this application,the Town has worked closely with the Asheville Regional Office of DWR and Giles
Chemical to make the company aware of the potential impacts to the WWTP due to their discharge. Based on FDA
revision of an earlier position, Giles began to recycle more aggressively in September of 2018, resulting in improvement
in effluent NH3-N levels. The Town maintains communication with Giles so that any process change that may affect
their discharge to the collection system can be assessed and managed to the extent possible. The Town replaced
screening in the headworks to prevent issues with the previous screen. The Town has completed a project to refurbish
portions of the aeration system in the biological treatment units. This effort made repairs to the distribution of air and
the diffusers. The Town has contracted with McGill Associates to perform a targeted infiltration/inflow evaluation of
the collection system. This work should begin shortly. Replacement of a recirculation pump in the plant is planned to be
completed soon. McGill Associates have provided the Town with extensive review and evaluation of the plant and
operational practices. The Town consistently provides funding for maintenance projects and needed plant repairs.
Waynesville WWTP SOC Application,Section V, Certification, Page 23 of 23

Supplemental information: Predicted Compliance Schedule,
Section VI, Waynesville SOC Application
Section VI of the SOC application requires the development of a compliance schedule. The Town of
Waynesville has contracted with McGill Associates and WR Martin to develop a detailed plan for
completion of a capital improvements project for the WWTP that will result in facilities capable of
providing consistent and reliable compliance with the NPDES Permit limits. It must be noted that there
are a significant number of tasks necessary before the construction plans and specifications are
completed. A funding requests has been submitted to the NC Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Water Infrastructure. A funding request is scheduled for submittal to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture(USDA), Rural Development by May 30, 2019. The Town plans to submit its SOC Application
in May 2019. McGill Associates is preparing an updated plant evaluation and Preliminary Engineering
Report (PER)that can be used to support the Town's funding requests. This effort is scheduled to be
completed by the end of May. Funding decisions are projected to be in hand by May 2020. Based on
these critical processes,we have developed the following proposed SOC schedule:
WWTP Upgrade Design Plans and Specification Submitted for Approval May 1, 2020
(Authorization to Construct,AtoC)
Proceed to Bid for Construction of Plant Improvements 60 days following issuance of the AtoC
Begin Construction 60 days following Bid Acceptance and Award of Contract
Complete Construction 550 days following Notice to Proceed to the Contractor
Achieve Compliance with NPDES Permit limits 90 days following Construction Completion
Because plans review and issuance of AtoC is through DWR,the Town doesn't control this process. As a
result,the schedule begins with date for submittal of the AtoC and then develops a schedule based on
the time period needed to complete the identified steps/milestones. Because of the AtoC review
period, a specific final compliance date is not provided.
The SOC application identifies the following points. Comments are provided to address these bullets:
• Time for submitting plans,specifications and appropriate engineering reports to DWR for review
and approval.
Response: Covered in predicted schedule
• Occurrence of major construction activities that are likely to affect facility performance (units
out of service, diversion of flows,etc.)to include a plan of action to minimize impacts to surface
waters.
Response: This issue is discussed in the Town's response to Section V of the application. The
construction sequence cannot be finalized until the detailed PER. However,as noted,the
Waynesville SOC Application, Predicted Compliance Schedule,Section VI, Page 1 of 2

improvements steps need to occur in a way that allows the WWTP to conti
nue to function and
comply with the interim limits.
• Infiltration/Inflow work, if necessary.
Response: Discussed in Sections IV and V,Supplemental Information.
• Industrial users achieving compliance with their pretreatment permits if applicable.
Response: The Town doesn't have a formal pretreatment program. The evaluation of
industrial discharges to the collection system is provided in responses to Sections IV and V.
• Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TRE), if necessary.
Response: Not applicable to this SOC Application.
Waynesville SOC Application, Predicted Compliance Schedule, Section VI, Page 2 of 2

d4y I\ a
ROY COOPER NORTH CAROLINA
Governor Environmental Quality
MICHAEL S.REGAN
Secretory
Kim H.Colson July 19, 2019
Director
Mr. Rob Hites, Town Manager
Town of Waynesville
PO Box 100
Waynesville,NC 28786
Subject: Letter of Intent to Fund
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Improvements Phase I
April 2019 Application Cycle
Project No.: CS370930-01
Dear Mr. Hites:
The Division of Water Infrastructure has reviewed your application,and the State Water
Infrastructure Authority has approved your project as eligible to receive a Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan of$17,400,000. Twenty-five percent of the loan (up to a
maximum of$500,000)will be forgiven, and the remainder will be repayable at zero interest. A
loan fee of 2%will be invoiced after bids have been received.
Please note that this intent to fund is contingent on approval of the loan through the Local
Government Commission and on meeting all of the following milestones:
Milestone Date
Engineering Report Submittal December 2, 2019
Engineering Report Approval May 1, 2020
Bid and Design Package Submittal November 2, 2020
Bid and Design Package Approval March 1,2021
Advertise Project, Receive Bids, Submit Bid Information, July 1, 2021
and Receive Authority To Award
Execute Construction Contract(s) August 2, 2021
The first milestone is the submittal of an Engineering Report by close of business on
December 2,2019. The Engineering Report must be developed using the guidance found on our
website (https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-infrastructure/i-have-funding/engineering-
reportenvironmental-information). Failure to meet any milestone may result in the forfeiture
of funding for the proposed project.
DE Q
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Infrastructure
512 N.Salisbury Street 1633 Mail Service Center I Raleigh.North Carolina 27699-1633
919.707.9160

Mr. Rob Hites, Town Manager
July 19, 2019
Page 2 of 2
Upon detailed review of the project during the funding process, it may be determined that
portions of your project are not eligible for funding and the total funding amount may be
reduced. Additionally, changes in the scope or priority points awarded—based on additional
information that becomes apparent during project review—may also result in changes to the total
funding amount and loan terms.
Davis-Bacon Requirements and American Iron and Steel Provisions
Projects funded through the State Revolving Fund (SRF)program must comply with Davis-
Bacon wage requirements and American Iron and Steel provisions. You can find standard
specifications covering these requirements on our website.
Joint Legislative Committee on Local Government Notification Requirements
In accordance with G.S. 120-157.2,local government units with projects that require debt to be
issued greater than $1,000,000 must submit a letter to Committee Chairs, Committee Assistant,
and the Fiscal Research Division of the General Assembly at least 45 days prior to presentation
before the Local Government Commission. You are responsible for submitting that letter and
providing a copy to the Division.
Brooks Act Compliance
Projects funded through the CWSRF program must comply with the federal Brooks Act for the
selection of architectural and engineering services. SRF projects cannot be exempted from
qualification-based selection of these services under N.C.G.S. 143-64.32. Any services provided
that were not selected in compliance with federal requirements will be ineligible for
reimbursement.
If you have questions,please contact Anita E. Robertson, PE, Wastewater Projects Unit
Supervisor, at 919-707-9174.
S„!nyterely,
Vincent de Tomaino, PE, Acting Chief
State Revolving Fund Section
CC: Alice Briggs, WithersRavenel, Asheville
Anita E. Robertson, PE
Mark Hubbard, PE
Project File (COM_LOIF)

1 C PRELIMI
NARY ENGINEERING REPORT
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
TOWN OF WAYNESVILLE
HAYWOOD COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA
1
RECEIVED/NCDEQ/DWR
AUG 1. 62019
Water Quality
Permitting Section
,, I3 rf'Fi�~
f,{, �
Keith Webb, PE , 't ,�� ra,t
4. (A 'J4
\ r . 09
0 McGfflG, .
ASSOCIATES • i g
55 Broad Street,Asheville,NC 28801 '��NNNw
PO Box 2259,Asheville,NC 28802-2259 9 15 j IS
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
SEPTEMBER 2018
16.00367

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 McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report :‘ ti s o C 1 1 l 1. s
September 2018 Page ii

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 M cG i l l
Preliminary Engineering Report :‘ S S O( I :► 1 I:S
September 2018 Page iii

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 NH3-N Concentrations 19
Figure 6. Effluent NH3-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 M c G i 1 l
Preliminary Engineering Report ;‘ s s O( I :► T I.s
September 2018 Page iv

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 0.Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report :‘ S s o( I 7 t.S
September 2018 Page v

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 tir2.Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation McG ill
Preliminary Engineering Report ‘ s s U c i Al I:s
September 2018 Page 6

1
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/I of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids(TSS)
and seasonal limits of 9.0 mg/I of nitrogen as ammonia in the warmer seasons and 21.0 mg/I 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 McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report .‘ s s 0( I :% 1 I.s
September 2018 Page 7

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 • 1
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation 111 c 1 i 1 l
Preliminary Engineering p En ineerin Report ,‘ ti S O t I I
September 2018 Page 8

h weirs are in need of relevelingand that the influent gate
Town staff have pointed out that the
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 O.Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report :‘ s S 0( I I I.S
September 2018 Page 9

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 0.Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report :1 S S O(
September 2018 Page 10

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 McGill
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report A S s Q u I :A'I I s
September 2018 Page 11

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.
Influent Flow 2015-2017
7.0
6.5
6.0 • $ • •
$ ! •
• • • ••••••� •4% •
5.5 • • •• I. • • . . 1 •
• ••
ti
If •
4.5 •• •• • 4 . • b ! •� S •• •
3.5 r ftp.1 s . i . A • t
3.0 • •
V •. i�
2.5 •
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
v) (n In (n ul in in (n v1 1.11 (n Ill to to to to io WWWWWW to N N N N n 1, N N
c > c oo a > c ao a , >
N to O. m 7 Ul V O N ^ N m Q (O 7 •, V O N N n (p a) O N
u 4 < LOOZo LLgag av ozo LLgag a (nozo
Figure 1. Waynesville WWTP Influent Flow
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation 0 McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report s S O(' 11, I k:S
September 2018 Page 12

Average Annual Discharge, MGD
7.000
4 • • • 4 0.0053x•4.5078 •
6.000 • R2=0.1974
5.000
y=0.1514x-301.36
R2=0.8065
4.000 rt..........
3.000 • ••...........�................................. •
•
2.000
1.000
• •
0.000 ^ t
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
• average • max • Junaluska SD&Clyde
Lake Junaluska Assembly • Maggie Valley Linear(average)
Linear(max)
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.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report ‘ s s o( 1 % 1 11 5
September 2018 Page 13

Waynesville, NC Population and WWTP Flow
Y
8.000 14,000
7.000 y=0.161x+3250.9 12,000 a
122=0.9501 • ••••'•��
6.000
cu
5.000
• 8,000
3 0
0 4.000 }
L.L.
a • 6,000 f
3.000
Ni41111\1( 4,000
2.000
2,000
1.000
0.000 0
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
aggressive projection • pre-2007 Flows
-0—2007-2017 Flows steady gpcd
• Estimated Waynesville Population Linear(Estimated Waynesville Population)
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.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation O McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report 1 x S O( I I F S
September 2018 Page 14

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
Limits Monitoring Requirements
Effluent
Characteristics Monthly Weekly Daily Measurement Sample Sample
Average Average Maximum Frequency Type Location
Flow 6.0 MGD continuous recording influent or
effluent
30.0 mg/L
BOD, 5-day, 0 45.0 influent and
20°C or 15% of mg/L daily composite effluent
influent
30.0 mg/L 45.0 influent and
TSS or 15% of daily composite
influent mg/L effluent
NH3-N (April 1 - 27.0
October 31)
9.0 mg/L
mg/L daily composite effluent
NH3-N 35.0
(November 1 - 21.0 mg/L mg/L daily composite effluent
March 31)
upstream
Dissolved
Oxygen variable grab and
downstream
Dissolved 6.0 mg/L daily grab Effluent
Oxygen (min)
Fecal Coliform 400/100
(geometric 200/100 mL mL daily grab Effluent
mean
upstream
Temperature variable grab and
downstream
Temperature daily grab effluent
Total Residual 28 pg/L daily grab effluent
Chlorine
Total Nitrogen quarterly composite effluent
Total quarterly composite effluent
Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicity 9% P/F quarterly composite effluent
Cyanide quarterly grab effluent
pH 6.0(min)/ daily grab effluent
9.0 (max)
Mercury
Minimization
Plan
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County •
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation 0McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report t s ti c)("I :1 l I.S
September 2018 Page 15

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 McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report ‘ N,,cI( I . T 1.s
September 2018 Page 16

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 Effluent Limit Fine
Occurrence Value
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
Total Suspended Solids week of February 20-24, 2017 102.E 45 $500
June 23, 2017 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 October 22, 2017 620,000 gal n/a none
effluent
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 13.27 9 $3,000
2017
Total Suspended Solids week of October 23-
27, 2017 103.8 45 none
December 12, 2017
Total Suspended Solids month of October 38.4 30 $3,000
2017
Total Suspended Solids week of February 47 45
17, 2018
April 12, 2018 Total Suspended Solids month of February
2018 39.2 20
Total Suspended Solids week of March 3, 59 45
May 23, 2018 2018 $3,000
Total Suspended Solids month of March 35.05 30
2018
July 3, 2018 Total Suspended Solids month of May 2018 30.5 30
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County •
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation ONIcGill
Preliminary Engineering Report :'► s ti O( 1 \l 1:ti
September 2018 Page 17

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.
2016-2017 Effluent Coliform
500 •
•
450 • 0
•
400 •
• 0
350
•
•
•
300 0
• • • • G
250 •
0
a 200 • _ • • ® •
150 • • O
t• •
•
100 • • •• • S.
•
l t A, • • fie.• •
0 44, 1
ri ri ri 1 H
H
riri ri ri rIWV
O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N L\n t\O I- N .\-� N M V\ t/\1 LOO IH ri
-Monthly Geometric Average • Daily Effluent Coliform Monthly Geometric Mean 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.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation OIVICGill
Preliminary Engineering Report .‘ s S O( 1 ‘ I t s
September 2018 Page 18

3.2.3 Nitrogen
The WWTP's ammonia limit is seasonal, with much higher permitted effluent values in cooler
months.
2016-2017 Effluent NH3-N
24.00 •
22.00
20.00 •
• • •
18.00 • • •
16.00 • • • • • •• •
• •
14.00 • • :• fM •. ••
e.• •• .
E 12.00 • • •• ~• . 1Allak.
••
10.00
• • se • •• • • •
•
•
r i
8.00 • M •• •
• •
•
•
6.00 & • • t • j +•
4.00 ?•_ • • •j •• • • • •} ti
2.00 �� •
- • gib
0 •• ..• • • •
0.00 ••• S• •
up lD tO l0 l0 tO tD lD to \o LC) t0 N. r` n n n n n n n r\ r r\
C > C Op d 41, > V C L >. C OD a +' > u
—, LL 2 CL Q ro � Q Le) O z o — u- 2 Q 2 co CL MI � Q in 0 z o
Monthly Average • Effluent NH3 Concentration Permit Limit
Figure 5. Effluent NH3-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.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County is3Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report 1 s s 0 U I A 1 F S.
September 2018 Page 19

Effluent Ammonia as Nitrogen
20.00
18.00
16.00 -
14.00 _
]2.00
bro 10.00 - - -
E -
8.00 - - - _
■
6. 11 - _ - [_ii
00 `- - '
4.00 - , - ' - - T _
2.00 - , - III0.00 T
lD lD lD lD LID lD LID lD lD LID lD lD n r� r r r, h r r,. r-- r� n I"-
_6 T C — L d 41, > V C 9 i > C ao 6_ V > V
u- 2 a 2 - — D a)a Ln 0 z a m . g 4 2 - a 0 z a
Figure 6. Effluent NH3-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.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report ‘S S O( M I N
September 2018 Page 20

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,
nitrogen as which floats to the topof the wastewater and diffuses into the atmosphere.
leaving
g
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 M Cill�
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report ‘ S ti O( 1 :\ 1 I s
September 2018 Page 21

3.2.4 Total Suspended Solids
Individual daily effluent TSS values exceeded the 30 mg/I monthly average discharge limit on
8.2% of the days on which effluent values were measured, and exceeded the 45 mg/I 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/I in October 2017 to a minimum below the detection limit.
2016-2017 TSS
600 • • •
s • • •
550 • •
11
500 •
• s• • + •
• • • •
450 • • •
• • • • •••
on
400 • • • • •
E • • • • •• • • • • ••• • •
350 •
• if
• •` I 400 s • •
•
.Y
•
r� 300 • •. • • • • • •
c • • • • • . ` •
•
A.
u250 • f • '� • • S :•" • • ••1•• • •
•
200 • • ••• �•i •� '=i•• •• • • r"' #r0 O
• •• .150 i � �• N •• ' •# •
•c: , s et
so • • • • ♦ • •
0
lD l0 lD l0 .D LID l0 1D '.D t0 tO l0 n n n n n n n n n n n n
C a > c m a > L C _6 '- > C 3 on a 6 > b
y �o n m 2, - a, " o a, go , '� n m � w o a,
LT ¢ Q �n O Z p LL Q Q �n O Z O
Monthly Average Influent Monthly Average Effluent • Influent TSS Concentration
• Effluent TSS Concentration Monthly Average 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.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation gMcGill
Preliminary Engineering Report 1 s S O( 11 I t:5
September 2018 Page 22

2016-2017 TSS Removal
100%
90% I. I I l I I. ill
80%
70%
60%
50% 1
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
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
TSS Removal -Permit Limit
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.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation 0 McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report ‘S S O( I \ i I
September 2018 Page 23

3.2.5 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
1 Individual daily effluent BOD values exceeded the 30 mg/I monthly average discharge limit on
5.4%of the days it was measured.
2016-2017 BOD
300 ♦ •
•
275 • t • • • •
Ola •
250 .. • • •• •• •• •
•
•••
•
•
225 • • • $ • • • • ••5•• • •
•
1.0 175 • • '4•• • • = •:• 'as •
+ •••• • •• •
:- • • •• • •• •A• •• •• • •
•
150 •
•ti • •i
• ••f~ ♦• • • • ~
125 • •?.•i•ft r: i •� • f,~ • 10 • • •• •
c •• •• •• • • •• •
0 100 • •• M I/• • • •• • • • ••
75ea
�f•1 • • • : •• � • •
1
50 • • •.• •j • • • • •
•
25 • • • • ' • •
0
l0 l0 LID 10 l0 l0 l0 1D l0 l0 l0 l0 r, n I n n I r, N I N n r
r-1 '-I e-1 r-I e-I r-1 ei e1 e1 1-1 '-I '-I ‘-I e-1 .--I 1-1 e-I ri ,-1 ei r-I r-I 1-1 ri
rya v m n > c 8. 6 1n ,, a", m v m n Co c i .10 6 o w
U i Q , — Q O Z 0 I1 2 < , — Q 3, 0 Z 0
—Monthly Average Influent —Monthly Average Effluent • Influent BOD Concentration
0 Effluent BOD Concentration Permit Limit
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/I, while concentrations on days the plant could not achieve 85% removal
averaged 123 mg/I. Under both conditions it would be possible for the plant to meet its effluent
concentration limit of 30 mg/I while still removing less than 85%of influent BOD.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation 0'McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report 1 S S O U I % I t.S
September 2018 Page 24
L

2016-2017 BOD Removal
100%
90% II 1 di kill La
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
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
BOD Removal -Permit Limit
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.
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation L2. McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report i S S O t I '1 11 ti
September 2018 Page 25

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 McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report t s s 0( I ‘ 1 1 s
September 2018 Page 26

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.
of theimprovements project are
Steps to secure an SOC can be initiated before all of the details
pp
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(ClUs)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 McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report AsSOCIA"I t:s
September 2018 Page 27

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 F.3.Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report .‘ S S U( I \ 1 I ',
September 2018 Page 28
I __

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 M c I i11
Preliminary Engineering Report a S S iD( I ,1 1 I.s
September 2018 Page 29

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
to effluent discharge.
suspended solids prior
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 1 cI i jI
Preliminary Engineering Report 1 , 0 t I :1 1 I
September 2018 Page 30

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 0.Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report a S S O t 1 a '1 (: S
September 2018 Page 31

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 to3Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report ‘ s ti O t 1 \ 1 1.
September 2018 Page 32

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 FA Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation McGill
ill
Preliminary Engineering Report s O( I I.s
September 2018 Page 33

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 f,A.Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report :1 ti s o t I % 'I 1.s
September 2018 Page 34

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 •i
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation M C€i i i
Preliminary Engineering Report ineerin Re ort s s O C I t 1
September 2018 Page 35

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 0. McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report A s S O( I % 1 11 s
September 2018 Page 36

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 F43.Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation McGill
Preliminary Engineering P En ineerin Report _‘ S S O( I
September 2018 Page 37

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 TOTAL
PRICE
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 1 LS $125,000 $125,000
Rehabilitation
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 1 LS $584,000 $584,000
Rehabilitation
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 7� ��
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation 1\'1
Preliminary Engineering Report ASSOC!
September 2018 Page 38

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 TOTAL
PRICE
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 1 LS $125,000 $125,000
Rehabilitation
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 1 LS $584,000 $584,000
Rehabilitation
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 A S S O U I \ I I s
September 2018 Page 39

r
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 TOTAL
PRICE
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
Secondary Sludge Thickener
13 1 LS $125,000 $125,000
Rehabilitation
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 1 LS $584,000 $584,000
Rehabilitation
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 McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report A S S o( I l I
September 2018 Page 40

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 ki3. McGill
�/�k ill
Preliminary Engineering Report A s S t)( I ^► "I I.S
September 2018 Page 41

2018 Localized Construction Cost per GPD
$14.00
$12.00
$10.00
$4.68
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00 R2=0.9793
$2.00
r $0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7 0 8.0
WWTP Capacity, MGD
Figure 11. WWTP Construction Cost Trendline
From the above figure, the cost of constructing a 6.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant in
isestimated to be approximately $4.68 in 2018 dollars.
Waynesville, North Carolina pp y
Y
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
Town of Waynesville,Haywood County McGill
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report A S SO C I :t I F s
September 2018 Page 42

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 3McGill
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Preliminary Engineering Report % s s a t 1 1 1: ti
September 2018 Page 43

APPENDIX 1 FIGURES
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County •
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation CI i 11
Preliminary Engineering Report A S S O( I I I.
September 2018 Page 44

PLAN -.
• ioo 0 50 100 200 -
M
S'. GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH = 100 FEET > ft -•
7 y• a
,..
/ It . . ,.,,... ..
` INTERMEDIATES
PUM
P STATION ,
PRIMARY
CLARIFIERS
OUTFACE / •TO PIGEON RIVER a -.rx k, olt
+,4
BLOWER N`\4c$ '\ R
BUILDING / '
/ `41 ` f'I WASTEWATER LINE(TYP)
/ CHLORINE \`�._�- / --' `
CONTACT
BASINS HEADWORKS
ram____ k...
:a
•
e/ PRIMARY SLUDGE
1 1C,•'' THICKENER
, _ „
WATER LINE(TYP)
\ ,
1 • .1 ':
�t.
Ja i . �i
cyr, tiiih, :,,,;,<;,„:4� L�':. 1. ‘'' r ' SECONDARY SLUDGE
Ie°+' THICKENER
g • ..-A i i ., •_,,,,„....„..:,_,,,,,,,,,,.. _. ..,_._ ., #„, ...- ':r .
4-7
\ .� 6
TREATMENT BUILDING
\ .::,-f ice. IGESTER � ,�e soy,µ
•
\ AERATION :�— SLUDGE
BASINS •.m PUMP STATION `ali�` x .-_ f
1 ,k. ' • CHLORINE la`-,, .� c. F
' SECONDARY Ts. STORAGE
z CLARIFIERS \ v$ a r.•r:.
g ; '1
CHLORINE LINE(TYP)
'-'-:, / ' -i/. :a f
.�.
r
Z
N FLOODWAY
I
o - x
;y
E. • WASTEWATER TREATMENT JOB NO.: 16.00367
DATE: SEPTEMBER 2018 FIGURE
Gill PLANT EVALUATION DESIGNED BY:MJW EXISTING
`r° CADD BY: MJW
0 MC
DESIGN REVIEW: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT A A
ASSOCIATES TOWN OF WAYNESVILLE C
ILE ONSTNAME:REVI A
EW:_ LAYOUT _1
F
ENGINEERING-PLANNIG•FINANCE 15.00367 Report F:gures.dwg
N{^ ....;'Sr'.u54 HAYWOOD COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA

., -•--Ti .....f; .:. i.,..4,--% -, • .:11111y.
<; PLAN
too 0 50 I(X) zoo -
l
NMI Nit
GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH = 100 FEET ,
r t
UPGRADE EXISTING REHABILITATE � "
INTERMEDIATE PUMP STATION PRIMARY CLARIFIERS . .
�� REPLACE
HEAD WORKS / -
UPGRADE EXISTING I '�
BLOWER BUILDING L------...— r ,-4, ,." �, ! r
\ t CONSTRUCT NEW ,
M " FLOW EQUALIZATION BASIN'4
Nx:\\ 0. A
CONSTRUCT NEW _ �
EFFLUENT REUSE --' . ' - ') Iti,.'
•
BOOSTER STATION 'umi°'1 / `��
ti,,y 1..4-°
•
7 ., ..................L.
//
`�
,.-,,"-,. , \ill,"
r ram `` _
4,yI► -REHABILITATE EXISTING
`' -- 1 r-- BIOSOLIDS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
v '
yy
. , i i ,t i ,. , ili
\ f 1i,a, I --. ,t - / .'f?:1 ' g .,,- ',1 '. r*-. tire ' r " . t 4
Imo` n q �' - _ `�,_----
W \ '�- •- r - tr - _. t .i1 ' REHABILITATE EXISTING
cd `7q�•.-
R -Y- ANAEROBIC DIGESTER AND }
•-'- �'`' - .. SI l DGE THICKENERS -
a -4
x \ • fis;_:.
U .
aCONvEkI EXISTING ry
CHLORINATION EQUIPMENT
REHABILITATE . -
" }'.' s . D HYPOCHLORITE
AERATION BASINS r
'152-
\ CONSTRUCT NEW .-
ABANDON EXISTING SECONDARY CLARIFIERS -.
6.
/ `' SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS 1 ''
t6
i
' 4
FLOOD WAY
N /i
FT. : ,.
r
• WASTEWATER TREATMENT JOB NO. 16.00367
Mc Gl 1 ` DATE SEPTEMBER 2018 FIGURE
■■■1 PLANT EVALUATION DESIGNED BY: MJW ALTERNATIVE 1:
= CADD BY: MJW
R DESIGN REVIEW
REHABILITATION OF EXISTING
a s s o c 1 a T E s TOWN OF WAYNESVILLE CONST.REVIEW: PROCESS A-2
, ENGINEERI\G NL:NNNINC, I IN qN( N FILE NA E Figures.Qwg
6 "nu r-T .�'� . ,. ,-- ,'k ','"'-" HAYWOOD COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA

r ,
PLAN i.
100 0 50 100 200 +`-
GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH = 100 FEET 4,•
UPGRADE EXISTING REHABILITATE V ^
INTERMEDIATE PUMP STATION PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
. '� v REPLACE A
. HEADINORKS =t'
UPGRADE EXISTING a -
BLOWER BUILDING \
lei
, . NN,.
�t t., CONSTRUCT NEW
` FLOW EQUALIZATION BASIN
1
CONSTRUCT NEW "'^JJJI
it • -
EFFLUENT REUSE /^i /
BOOSTER STATION n\ ` / �—
i
- 6„_
:41%14:\sti --. —__
y 1, __
.., ::,,,,.
. ,, .
_ . �`
_: . .. , .,- . ......
rA. ,,,
, , .
'‘....
it ...,... , --..„ .111,. _ .
,. ...., .... .. ,
...
. , REHABILITATE EXISTING
4I, ..,,. BIOSOLIDS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
F
i. . . if '
\ . -IP ..-r" .4111V OP /J _
t
- ' 4111111t4416: lik v ;
V
ii'
$ i_
�" - r a
re
z \ =W-, � .-- - � n _:. 6 -c. * REHABILITATE EXISTING
w n' M ;w,,.�1
� j _: ANAEROBIC DIGESTER AND
i °;� 1 SLUDGE THICKENERS
CONVERT EXISTING
Q CHLORINATION EQUIPMENT
REHABILITATE TO HYPOCHLORITE
AERATION BASINS AND t - `
CONVERT TO SBR • -.
CONVERT EXISTING r
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS TO -fir•` '
:26 POST EQUALIZATION BASIN x
- ____ CONSTRUCT NEW SBR
BASINS AND BLOWER
BUILDING
o`
FLOODWAY
\ ... . _•
0
• WASTEWATER TREATMENT JOBNO. 16.00367
DATE: SEPTEMBER2018 FIGURE
! C�T�11 PLANT EVALUATION CADDBY: BY MJW
v 1 1 DESI BY: MJW ALTERNATIVE 2:
ASSOCIATES TOWN OF WAYNESVILLE DESIGN REVIEW' SEQUENCING BATCH REACTORS
CONST.REVIEW:_1 ENGINEERING•PLANNING•F1NANCE FILENAME: �.3
o` �,aw�.ps,AE�, ,s...F.,.- , ,t,.—.,.,,^ ...-tr.- HAYWOOD COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA 15.00367 Report Figures.Ewg

� �
PLAN ,
100 0 50 IUO �� •
GRAPHIC SCALE I INCI'
k
/ lt, . ,
UPGRADE EXISTING
REHABILITATE ��
' --
INTERMEDIATE PUMP STATION PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
• ,,� REPLACE
. _/ HEADWORK` d
+aplt:Sa
r.
UPGRADE EXISTING
BLOWER BUILDING
/
,, CONSTRUCT NEW
, y FLOW EQUALIZATION BASIN
Ill / \.
CONSTRUCT NEW ! ;'
EFFLUENT REUSE ••i.
BOOSTER STATION '
. N\N,..___ /
/
,/
_ _ ,tN
a " .. •-4
•K
Nt
t !'' REHABILITATE EXISTING
Ati$` BIOSOLIDS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
d ' (1:''' 4 - • SF _._..
, # #400. 4,,,,,,
ill1110 ______:4r:;e: 4,±10,-
i \ \ Vt,
\ LJL r • II'-\
'4 • _ REHABILITATE EXISTING 1
a �' - %^ ' ANAEROBIC DIGESTER AND ,
\ ��}y-�� "- ': _ SLUDGE THICKENERS ,.
\ -it------�t�' - ,*.y ""-`:
p .O 3 =.a ..
- 4' CONVERT EXISTING
1 �� �,, "_ CHLORINATION EQUIPMENT
.- -C d I ,F" TO HYPOCHLORITE �—
REHABILITATE + _
AERATION BASINS AND +` er * t'_ t.'e " ''i
rc CONVERT TO IFAS 4 •
ra
e o_ CONSTRUCT NEW fir' 1
ABANDON EXISTING ,
/
..`i / \ SECONDARY SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
/ CLARIFIERS tt
8
,
a FLOODWAY
• WASTEWATER TREATMENT JOB NO. PTEMB16 7
DATE: SEPTEMBER 2018 FIGURE
MC Gill PLANT EVALUATION DESIGNED BY MJW ALTERNATIVE 3
v CADD BY: MAN
DESIGN REVIEW: INTEGRATED FIXED FILM ACTIVATED
ASSOCIATES TOWN OF WAYNESVILLE CONST.REVIEW:_ SLUDGE PROCESS A_4
I. c I n E e R I n c P L NNIN INC, FINANCE
HAYWOOD COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA 16 00367 Report Figures.awe

APPENDIX 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Town of Waynesville, Haywood County 0.Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation McGill
Preliminary Engineering Report A S S O C I \ l I. S
September 2018 Page 49

ME ;s_ a5L' ... : TES E NG NE , fir:
Mr. Keith Webb, PE August 31, 2018
McGill Associates
55 Broad Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Final Structural Condition Assessment
Waynesville Wastewater Treatment Plant
566 Walnut Trail Road, Waynesville, NC
Project Number: 573218
Dear Mr. Webb:
At the request of McGill Associates (McGill), Medlock&Associates Engineering, PA(MAE) has evaluated
the condition of concrete structures at the Waynesville Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP)at 566
Walnut Trail Road. As part of the evaluation, MAE has undertaken to document the general condition of
the concrete structures; note the nature and extent of any cracking, spalling,and any other deterioration;
and develop repair recommendations intended to address structural deficiencies, mitigate sources of
deterioration. We understand that MAE's work is to assist the town of Waynesville in completing its due
diligence in assessing the cost of extending the useful life of the facility.
On July 19, Mr. Frank Ungert, PE, visited the WWTP to perform the site evaluation. MAE's evaluation of
the structures is based on a limited visual assessment of visible or otherwise accessible concrete and
other structural elements; no invasive observations or testing were completed for the preparation of this
report.The site evaluation comprised a visual examination of concrete conditions coupled with non-
destructive testing. Mr. Ungert also used a handheld radar scanning devices to document the location and
depth of steel reinforcing bars. In addition to the visual assessment, MAE reviewed a partial set of
original structural drawings. Two drawing sheets were provided by McGill, and others were reviewed on
site.
Note that the evaluation of submerged or otherwise inaccessible structural elements is beyond the scope
of MAE's investigation. Likewise, the condition and functionality of wastewater treatment equipment are
beyond the scope of the investigation, except to the extent that corrosion, leakage, or other damage
impacts the condition of the structure.
STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS&CONDITION ASSESSMENT
The WWTP was constructed in the late 1960s expanded in the mid-1970s.The facility comprises several
concrete structures used in the wastewater treatment process. The concrete structures evaluated by MAE
include two primary clarifiers, one secondary clarifier, one aeration basin, one digester tank, and two
thickener basins (Figure 1). The following is a general description of the structural elements that for each
concrete structure, a summary of general conditions, and a description of structural deficiencies that may
require repair of remediation.
Primary Clarifiers
The two primary clarifiers are essentially identical; they are both open structures that are circular in plan,
with an overall diameter of 87 feet(Figure 2). Each clarifier comprises an interior basin with an annular
drainage trough at the basin perimeter. Drawings indicate that the basin has in inside diameter of 80 feet
with 8-foot tall reinforced concrete walls 9 inches thick. Integral with the basin wall, the drainage trough
that is 2 feet wide x 4 feet deep.The exterior wall of the trough was measured to be about 8 inches
Bosch Wallscanner D-tect 150 Professional ultra-wide band(UWB)radar scanner/detector
I
Address: 53 Asheland Avenue,Suite 101 • Asheville, NC 28801 Phone: [phone]•Fax:[phone] Web:www.medlockengr.com

thick.The top of the exterior wall of the trough is located above the interior wall, allowing clear water to
flow out of the basin and into the trough, where it is directed to an 18-inch outlet pipe(Figure 3). The
bottom of the basin is a slab-on-grade that slopes towards the center of the basin; structural drawings
indicate that the slab in approximately 8 inches thick.
The grade at the clarifiers slopes generally west to east. At its highest elevation, the grade is within 12
Inches of the top of the exterior wall of the trough; at its lowest, the grade exposes the bottom surface of
the trough. At steel guardrail is anchored to the top of the exterior wall of each clarifier. Each guardrail
extends along the periphery of the clarifier only where the top of the wall Is within approximately 4 feet
of the adjacent grade.
Visual Assessment Summary—Primary Clarifiers
Where accessible or otherwise visible(i.e., at the exterior of the structure), the concrete at each of the
clarifiers is in generally good condition.The concrete is stained but is typically sound, with isolated areas
of spalling, delamination, or other areas of deterioration. MAE observed vertical cracks spaced at regular
intervals around the entire periphery of each clarifier.The cracks typically extend along the full height of
the exterior trough wall, diminishing in size towards the base of the wall. The cracks are typically narrow,
but at several locations, are up to 60 mils in width (approximately 1/16 inch).The cracks are spaced at
approximately 6 feet on center at the south darifier and 4 feet on center at the north clarifier. MAE noted
metal form ties embedded in the wall at several cracks (Figure 4).The consistent spacing of the cracks
and the presence of the form ties tend to indicate that the cracks are not likely due to over-stress of the
trough wall. Rather, the cracks were likely due to concrete shrinkage shortly after construction.
At the south clarifier,the cracks are typically dry. At several locations at the north clarifier, however,
there is efflorescence, dampness, or other indicators of leakage. In most cases, the degree of leakage
appears to be minor(Figure 5). At one location at the north clarifier,the leaking crack is coupled with
spalling and delaminating concrete at the base of the trough wall (Figure 6). At a second location
between vertical cracks, MAE noted an area at the base of the trough wall, approximately 18 inches wide,
that is severely delaminated and on the verge of spalling (Figure 7).
MAE scanned the surface of the trough wall to locate steel reinforcing bars.The vertical reinforcing bars
were found to be spaced at an average of approximately 12 inches on center; horizontal bars were
spaced at 6 inches on center.The structural drawings MAE reviewed did not Include the reinforcing
details for the clarifier. However, analysis indicates that the amount of reinforcing in the clarifier wall,
assuming typically-sized bars, is sufficient for the loads imposed by expected hydraulic loads.
Aeration Basin
The aeration basin is an open structure that is rectangular in plan, with a footprint of approximately 190
feet x 128 feet, with the long axis oriented east-west(Figure 8).The structure comprises 10-inch thick
reinforced concrete perimeter walls that are topped with a 28-inch wide x 12-inch deep flange. At the
east elevation, the flange is used as a walkway with a steel guardrails anchored to the top face.
Structural drawings indicate the wall is 15 feet, 6 inches above the interior slab-on-grade.The top of the
perimeter wall varies between approximately 4 and 9 feet above adjacent grade.
The aeration basin is divided into four chambers that run the length of the structure.The chambers are
separated by three full-height walls that are 10 inches thick.The north-and south-most interior walls are
topped with 4-foot wide x 12-inch deep flanges that serve as walkways with steel guardrails anchored to
the top face of each.The middle interior wall lacks a walkway. Structural drawings indicate that air
headers are contained within chambers that run the length of the basin beneath the interior walkways.
Horizontal braces spaced at 23 feet on center extend north-south between the interior walls.The 2-foot
2

wide x 12-inch deep concrete braces are integral with the walkways at the top of each wall, and provide
lateral stability for the interior and perimeter walls.
A 3 foot, 6 inch wide x 6-foot deep drainage trough runs the length of the aeration basin (Figure 9). As
with the primary clarifier,the top of the exterior wall of the trough is located above the interior wall at
the west elevation, allowing clear water to flow out of the basin and into the trough. Steel guardrails are
anchored to the top of the exterior trough wall and to the top flange of steel beams that extend across
the width of the basin. Structural drawings indicate that originally, a steel grate walkway spanned
between the steel beam and the exterior wall of the trough, and extending along the length of the
trough.
At some point previous, the west wall of the aeration basin must have exhibited some degree of
excessive lateral movement (Figure 10). Drawings indicate that a supplemental reinforced concrete wall
was constructed against the inside face of the existing wall. Anchors that secure the existing wall to the
new wall are visible above the water line of the adjacent secondary clarifier.The supplemental wall is
entirely beneath the waterline in the aeration basin and as such, its condition is unknown to MAE.
Visual Assessment Summary—Aeration Basin
As with the primary clarifiers, the concrete observed at the aeration basin, where accessible or otherwise
visible, is in generally good condition. The concrete is typically sound, with isolated areas of spelling,
delamination, or other areas of deterioration (Figure 11). However, the extent and degree of
deterioration is greater than that observed at the primary clarifiers.The aeration basin does not exhibit a
regular pattern of deterioration, such as the cracks observed at the primary clarifier; rather,the
deterioration observed is localized and not systemic. Like the clarifier, however, the deterioration does
not tend to indicate over-stress of the structural components. It is more likely due to exposure to a
corrosive environment coupled with shrinkage and expansion of the concrete over time.
Cracking is commonly observed throughout the structure. Typically, the cracks are relatively narrow and
dry. However, efflorescence is typical, which indicates leaching of moisture through the concrete. MAE
observed vertical and horizontal cracks at the face of walls and at the underside of the flanges at the top
of the wall (Figure 12). No expansion joists were noted along the 190 foot length of the aeration basin. It
is reasonable to conclude that shrinkage of the constrained concrete contributed to a portion of the
cracks at the perimeter walls.
MAE also observed extensive cracking with significant efflorescence along the length of the drainage
trough (Figure 13).These cracks tend to be narrow and run in a nearly continuous horizontal line near
the bottom of the trough. They appear to coincide with a cold joint in the concrete between the base of
the trough and the outside wall. As such, it is likely that these cracks are not due to over-stress, but
rather indicate seepage of moisture through the cold joint.
At the east elevation, below one of the 24-inch inlet pipes, MAE observed an 18-inch long horizontal
crack(Figure 14).This crack is wider than those typically observed at the north elevation. The damp
surface and biological growth around the crack indicate active leakage.
At several locations, MAE observed narrow flexural cracks at the top of the concrete brace where it joins
the walkway(Figure 15).These cracks are atypical in that they are likely due to over-stress of the
structural member, rather than to concrete shrinkage and/or exposure to corrosive environment.
Cracks were also commonly observed radiating from guardrail post penetrations at walkways (Figure 16).
These are cracks are likely due to freeze-thaw damage caused by water penetrating the annular space
between the guardrail collar and the concrete. MAE observed concrete patches at several locations,
3

indicating prior repair to similar deterioration. The guardrails themselves appear relatively new, and are in
good condition, with no evidence of corrosion or other damage.
Spalied, delaminated, and otherwise deteriorated concrete is more extensive at the aeration basin than at
the primary clarifier. Considerable spalling was noted on the top surface of the walkways, with up to
approximately 1/4 inch of section loss (Figures 17, 18). The deterioration in this area is likely due to
exposure to corrosive environment. Likewise, relatively minor spalled and delaminated concrete at the
south end of the drainage trough is likely due environmental exposure and/or freeze-thaw effects.
In addition to the concrete deterioration noted above, MAE also noted deterioration at non-structural
elements. The steel beam that supports the guardrail at the drain trough exhibits varying degrees of
corrosion. The degree of corrosion is most severe along the bottom flange(where it is subjected to
greatest exposure to corrosive liquids) and at the embedded plate connection at its south end (Figure
19). The embedded angle opposite the beam that is intended to support the steel grate walkway above
the trough exhibits a similar degree of corrosion. The corrosion is typically minor, and does not
substantially affect the structural capacity of the steel elements.
At several locations throughout the aeration basin structure, vegetative matter and other organic
materials are growing (Figure 9). Left unabated, their continued growth could potentially damage the
concrete elements as roots penetrate and crack the concrete.
MAE scanned the surface of the aeration basing near the northwest corner to locate steel reinforcing
bars. Our field measurements indicate that the reinforcing was placed as specified in the structural
drawings, at least for the accessible exterior walls that were scanned. The vertical reinforcing bars were
found to be spaced at an average of approximately 12 inches on center; horizontal bars were spaced at 6
inches on center.The structural drawings indicate that the walls are reinforced with two mats each of
vertical #8 bars spaced at 12 inches on center, and horizontal #4 bars at 12 inches on center. The
differential in the horizontal bar spacing is likely due to the scanner detecting bars on the opposite face of
the wall.
Our analysis indicates that the interior walls of the aeration basin have sufficient structural capacity to
safely support the hydraulic load imposed by a water level imbalance of 16 feet resulting from the full
drainage a single chamber. At that level of imbalance, the interior wall will be at approximately 95% of its
structural capacity. The capacity of the walls would be diminished if the submerged concrete has
deteriorated to the point that the reinforcing has been at least partially exposed. We suspect that this
level of deterioration is not present, but recommend that the condition of the concrete be monitored
during the drainage process. Moreover, it may necessary to install temporary horizontal bracing between
the walls of the drained chamber.
Secondary Clarifier
The secondary clarifier is an open structure that is rectangular in plan, with a footprint of approximately
153 feet x 112 feet, with the long axis oriented north-south (Figure 20). It is immediately adjacent to the
aeration basin; their east and west perimeter walls are coincident. The reinforced concrete perimeter
walls are 12 inches thick, and drawings indicate that they form a basin 9 feet deep. The grade adjacent
to the secondary clarifier varies. At the north and wests elevation, the top of the perimeter wall is
approximately 4 feet above grade; at the east elevation, it is less than 12 inches above grade. A steel
guardrail is anchored to the top of the
A raised concrete trough bisects the structure, running north-south (Figure 21). The trough comprises 8-
inch concrete walls and base with two parallel, 2-foot 6-inch wide x 3-foot 6-inch deep chambers. We
understand that the trough serves as the interior bearing line for two, linearly-traversing skimmer arms.
ii
4

The other end of each skimmer arm bears at the east and west perimeter walls, with guide roller
contacting the perimeter walls above the waterline. At the north and south ends of the structure, 12-
concrete walls define additional channels and chambers for re-directed water and sludge (Figure 22).
Visual Assessment Summary—Secondary Clarifier
Where accessible or otherwise visible, the concrete at secondary clarifier is In generally good condition.
The concrete is typically sound, with isolated areas of spalling, delamination, or other areas of
deterioration. MAE observed vertical cracks spaced at regular intervals along the north and west
elevations of the clarifier(Figure 23).The cracks are typically narrow and extend along the full height of
the wall. The cracks are spaced at approximately 8 feet on center.The consistent spacing of the cracks
tend to indicate that the cracks are not likely due to over-stress, but rather to concrete shrinkage.The
cracks are typically dry. At several locations, however, efflorescence that indicates seepage.
The 12-inch wall that forms the separation chamber at the south end of the structure exhibit considerable
spalling and delaminations at the guardrail anchorages (Figure 24).The deterioration is exacerbated by
vegetative growth.
The concrete at the inside face of the perimeter walls has abraded over time due to the skimmer arms'
guide rollers (Figure 25).The abrasion is minor, having exposed aggregate beneath the otherwise
smooth surface of the concrete.
Due to the limited above-grade height of the concrete walls,the reinforcing at the secondary clarifier was
not assessed.
Digester
The digester structure an enclosed structure that is circular in plan, with an overall diameter of 60 feet
(Figure 26). Drawings indicate that the reinforced concrete exterior wall is 12 inches thick.The digester is
enclosed by a sloped roof clad with steel panels. Drawings indicate that the roof is framed with radial
steel trusses.The joint between the roof panels and the concrete wall is sealed with asphaltic material.
Visual Assessment Summary—Digester
Where accessible or otherwise visible, the concrete at the digester is in generally good condition.The
concrete is typically sound, with isolated cracking. MAE observed vertical and horizontal cracks around
the entire periphery of the structure.The cracks are typically narrow and dry. Efflorescence Is commonly
observed, which indicates seepage through the concrete. At several locations, there is also evidence of
corrosion staining emanating from the cracks (Figure 27).
MAE scanned the surface of the digester wall to locate steel reinforcing bars.The vertical reinforcing bars
were found to be spaced at an average of approximately 12 inches on center; horizontal bars were
spaced at 5 inches on center.The structural drawings MAE reviewed did not include the reinforcing
details for the clarifier. However, analysis indicates that the amount of reinforcing in the digester wall,
assuming typically-sized bars, is sufficient for the loads imposed by expected hydraulic loads.
Sludge Thickeners
The two sludge thickeners are essentially identical, but with different dimensions; they are both open
structures that are circular in plan (Figure 28).The original structure has a diameter of 22 feet, while the
newer structure has a diameter of 28 feet. At the top of each wall, a 30-inch deep flange projects 18
5

inches beyond the surface of the wall. Steel-framed catwalks that spans the width of each structure are
accessed by steel stairs.The dimensions of the reinforced concrete exterior wall is not known to MAE;
structural drawings reviewed by MAE did not have wall sections or reinforcing details for the sludge
thickeners.
Visual Assessment Summary—Sludge Thickeners
The condition of the thickeners is similar to that of the digester. Where accessible or otherwise visible,
the concrete in generally good condition.The concrete is typically sound, with isolated cracking. MAE
observed vertical and horizontal cracks around the periphery of the structure, and on the underside of
the concrete flange. The cracks are typically narrow and dry. Minor efflorescence is commonly observed,
which indicates seepage through the concrete.
At the north-most thickener, there is considerable leakage where the influent pipe penetrates the
concrete wall (Figure 29). The concrete in this area exhibits minor surface deterioration in this area. Due
to limited access, it is not clear to MAE whether the leakage is due to deteriorated concrete, sealant
failure, or damage to the pipe itself.
The reinforcing at the sludge thickener structures was not assessed.
Repair Recommendations
Overview:
To the extent that structural elements are accessible, the seven concrete structures evaluated by MAE
that comprise the WWTP facility are in generally good condition. They exhibit varying types and degrees
of isolated deterioration. With few exceptions, the deterioration is not due to over-stress of the structural
components, but rather due mainly to environmental conditions -- exposure to corrosive elements,
freeze-thaw damage, and concrete expansion and contraction. The extent and degree of observed
deterioration does not substantially affect the structures'capacity to safely support the hydrostatic loads
they are were designed for. However, due to the limited scope of MAE's investigation, we cannot opine of
the full extent of the facility's condition.
Due to the age of the structures and the corrosive nature of their contents, it is likely that the interior or
submerged surfaces of the concrete are deteriorated to a greater extent than what has been noted in this
report. The degree of deterioration is unknown, but it may be that after 40 years of exposure to a
corrosive environment, the concrete may have deteriorated to an extent that affects its structural
capacity. A comprehensive evaluation of the condition of the concrete structures would require draining
each structure and performing a similar visual condition assessment. Prior to the visual assessment, the
structures should be thoroughly power-washed or otherwise cleaned to expose the concrete.To
supplement the visual assessment, it may be necessary to take a sampling of concrete cores and have
them analyzed by a materials testing laboratory to determine the depth of deterioration. Repairs similar
to those summarized below may be required at the interior of the concrete structures.
To maintain the structural capacity of the concrete structures, we have developed general repair
procedures that are intended to extend the expected useful life of the fadlity. The repairs address the
commonly-observed types of deterioration, including spalled and/or delaminated concrete and significant
cracks, We anticipate that they could be applied not only to the deteriorated concrete documented in this
report, but also to the type of deterioration expected to be found on the submerged surfaces of the
structures. Wastewater facilities of this type and vintage are have been found to have a useful life of
6

approximately 50 years2'3. Despite approaching the end of its expected useful life, implementing these
repairs will likely extend the useful life of the facility for another 10 years, thereby allowing time to plan
for its replacement.
In addition to the structural repair procedures outlined below, MAE also recommends the following
miscellaneous repairs and maintenance items:
• Removal vegetative matter from concrete structural elements
• Removal of corrosion from steel elements, particularly where embedded in concrete
• Implementation of maintenance plan that includes periodic inspection of structure
Repair Type 1 -- Spall/Delamination Repairs:
Where the concrete is spalled, delaminated,or otherwise deteriorated, we recommend installing the
repair as follows.
• Hammer sound along concrete to determine extent of deterioration. Mark 3 inches beyond extent
of deterioration to designate perimeter of repair area. To extent practical, mark perimeter so as
to maximize length of continuous, straight lines with minimal number of corners.
• Sawcut 3/4 inch into concrete at perimeter of repair area.
• Chip away concrete to sound substrate, minimum depth of 2 inches. Do not penetrate further
than half of wall thickness. Remove 3/4 inch radially around exposed reinforcing.
• Use wire brush to remove corrosion from reinforcing.
• Prepare substrate for application of repair mortar. Remove all deteriorated concrete, dirt, oil,
grease, and all bond-inhibiting materials from surface. Provide exposed aggregate surface with
the minimum surface profile recommended by the manufacturer. Saturate surface with clean
water and provide saturated surface dry(SSD) surface with no standing water during application.
• Hand apply epoxy bonding agent and anti-corrosion coating to exposed and cleaned reinforcing.
Take care to avoid coating concrete substrate.
• Install repair mortar per manufacturer's written instructions.
Repair Type 2 -- Crack Repairs:
Where the width of the cracks exceed the specified threshold (typically 20 mils) or where there is
efflorescence or other evidence of leakage, we recommend installing the repair as follows:
• Grind off efflorescence along length of crack to reveal concrete substrate.
• Seal surface of crack with epoxy paste per manufacturer's written instructions.
• Drill 5/8-inch diameter holes alongside of crack at 45 degree angle. Space holes at approximately
12 inches. Flush drilled holes with water to remove debris and drill dust. Install injection ports.
• Inject port at lowest hole (for vertical cracks) or first flushed hole(for horizontal cracks). Inject
epoxy repair grout per manufacturer's written instructions. Continue injecting until grout appears
at adjacent hole. After completing injections at 4 holes, return to first hole and repeat process.
• Cut injection ports flush with concrete and grind off epoxy paste.
z ASCE(2011),"Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Water and Wastewater
Treatment Infrastructure",<https://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Issues_and_Advocacy/Our_Initiatives/
Infrastructure/Content_Pieces/failure-to-act-water-wastewater-report.pdf>(July 30,2018).
3 Environmental Finance Center,New Mexico Tech(2006),"Asset Management:A Guide for Water and
Wastewater Systems",<https://www.env.nm.gov/dwb/assistance/documents/AssetManagementGuide.pdf>(July
30,2018).
7

R_pair Type 3—Combined Spall/Delamination/Crack Repairs:
Where cracks meet the threshold for repair are coincident with spalled or delaminated concrete, we
recommend installing the repair as follows:
• Remove deteriorated concrete and prepare substrate and exposed reinforcing in a similar manner
to steps described in repair type 1.
• Where full-depth crack or cold joint is encountered within repair area, prepare and repair crack in
similar manner to stepsdescribed in repair type
2.
• Install Pa type repair mortar in a similar manner to steps described in repair1.
This report shall not supersede the State Code or local building codes as they apply. All construction
shall proceed in accordance with requirements of the current edition of the North Carolina Commercial
Building Code.
The scope of this report is limited to matters discussed herein and is based solely on visual observation.
Site observations are limited to visibly observable areas; we offer no opinion regarding structural
conditions behind finishes or inaccessible areas. No opinion is offered, and none should be inferred,
regarding other aspects of this structure or the structure taken as a whole. MAE makes no daims
pertaining to the subsurface conditions or their ability to support required loads. For further information
regarding subsurface conditions we recommend contacting a geotechnical engineer.This report is based
on presently known and available facts, data, and information.To the extent that additional or different
facts,data, or information is developed or discovered after the issuance of this report, MAE reserves the
right to amend, alter, or change the report as needed to reflect consideration of the additional or
different facts, data, or information.
We are pleased to be of service. If you have any questions regarding this report or require further
assistance, please call.
Sincerely, eC4 pi CAR().... . ,'
Medlock&Associates Engineering, P.A. `�Z04 F ssroi•.
(Cert.# C- 3133) 1 _ r
•
SEAL
39155
fie-si-18 F
•
4•
Ben W iese, PE Frank Ungert, PE /� 11 .0
Project Engineer Project Manager
8

FIGURES
,,✓ ;
' Semnaary clarifier r '+
,. II-- ___. 1111111iligigi .
- ;- ,t�'�® 1 Prvnary
Dgeater
i
-.
M.
♦� .5hh ial ut ire R`ed { •
r • Sludge thickener •;.:, t T
Sludge thiCke _ ,.
Ib
a
Figure 1. Waynesville wastewater treatment plant.
_ _ n
i'.: ice, t
Figure 2. Concrete at primary clarifier is stained but in generally good condition.

t /
/ it
r _ a i
s_.% + -
of `'
.y' s '
7
c,O 1K
Figure 3.Annular drainage trough at primary clarifier.
•
+t. .,r. i.• ,.' K'' ^yam .. 'IF- ,. ze i,-. „ Ii.#4°
+:_r' `` -1,:. '!.', ..
• -' ;P"Y+.Trt ilt r, ems..,
Figure 4. Typical crack at primary clarifier. Red arrow
indicates metal form tie.

Figure 5.Crack at primary clarifier with minor leakage.
Figure 6.Spalled concrete coincident with leaking crack at primary clarifier.

VVY-� 4 (( +g�i,.
` "'III
^ "�►;:� �` ` is �: t -:�.
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.
L

it
atl
.;eta r its,i‘: '."7":"--7'"
` I "..
A.
4..„,A„ .. ,, ,_ ,
- . 7 . ,,,\,, ,,,, ,
.t .: , ... , ,
V ,. .
c x
'-'' / ,
•
�gg `
Pa ::_. 7,-{ 3,
1 F:
Figure 9. Drainage trough at west end of aeration basin.
Original steel grate used for walking surface has been
removed.Note substantial vegetative growth.
1 t ty5`
I
7:::,:..• ,„, . ,-,
k.„.„
_ _____ _„........_
..
.. . , v „
„., ..
Figure 10.Anchor rods(red arrows)installed as retrofit presumably intended to
arrest excessive lateral movement of west perimeter wall of aeration basin.

— _ •-� IV
ww■
in
Y„ :-vj■'�� 7 ������� � '
•
•
•
Figure 11. Concrete at aeration basin is in generally good condition.
8 ilk
Figure 12. Typical cracks with efflorescence at north
perimeter wall of aeration basin

i"I
,
1 : ri �' •
_
f r ip f _. F ) :
r ; ter r
Figure 13.Continuous horizontal crack and efflorescence(red arrow)indicate
seepage through cold joist at drainage trough wall.
40•
*4721
•
41;A`,y ;
*41
•
•
Figure 14. Crack with substantial leakage at east perimeter wall of aeration
basin.

Y} .fia�'r `
{
Figure 15. Minor flexural crack and delaminating concrete at horizontal brace.
l
r
yww +II
ra
•
y a Sgc; 'k; R �7
+f i,, -r .try
y 4r .,
n
v.3 r,f+u •r?- w h
�y 1 4ttT _ y rr ^�,:
„ .,.�K l t�b Y fT 4y Yo (I
R y1.. 4c'Cxn. 1
sr s SF , e�yr a .: f
�. P µ
Figure 16. Freeze-thaw tracking at guardrail post penetration.

,.af. ,� • t s • w+a.t
+c+ n•M l C ▪ ay.
•
i.
r°Mf '�''Z s?i`�'.'4',t...% ,e.{^T9 { • 'f <.ft'e,t•. t s. + i
pp�,,,�.,,'.o- ti ; ,'.r' �y.t 0r \ y Y• At ;�• '.
,„tom ;. -4k �di '-� • AN-14,�r", ° •,. `:, �-y; •ei -ye. L-,
'� � ,0, t ., 4>
u •
M0 zA..jaI",
f..'-` 1 ',. 1' t '' ''u' ';N 44• Orr` ,�
it''..-
a r .
Figure 17. Localized delaminations and spoiling at aeration basin walkway.
— ,4 PIW----I 11!—Ifi
ys
F gel,
-ram' x,. f^f
•
ta.y0y
Figure 18. Widespread spalling and raveling of concrete at aeration basin
walkway.

PIMya ewprr
.,7:-1.sz;"4774; . • _
:.:.4
e . _
•
. oy
Figure 19.Corrosion at steel beam at embedded plate
connection.
h rFIP:4 1
ornm-
Figure 20. Concrete at secondary clarifier is in generally good condition.
1 _

"""� If
f �r--/ t
�$f
r
�---._
Kd
�,s.-- -.'.
* O. V. ;�.
t.P r¢ G K
A.
Figure 21. Central rough at secondary clarifier.
t 4i y „ , w 0.,,tS 9` • . .
, dX-
r.
' tea .�
431.
44 'uy_ 17 �ti�k (IYSk''aiw
9
1
Figure 22. Sludge diversion channel at west end of secondary clarifier. Note
vegetative growth.
L4

• • .
. . ..,..7.,
_ i., .:... ,,,,..,i
4
.....,,, , , , 0 ,...._ ...
e
�..--tez - -.• 3 k k t.-' Y !;,-' Ali
,,,,..7.1,K.4 e ,, • j y.,.. r .f J.f Sri f ,r
t 3�Yd} -' 'Cr; r ; °a rY i
yµ�Y21
tl
Q yli ' �
i^ � It. � 1'4
t q g
/ M 4 f
y.�' yb 4"ice '' e %3� .ry�ey.�Ne,+,,
x
tf.,
Figure 23. Typical crack at secondary clarifier.
• R
`:
1 kid ', RI
I
y f
F' •'
_.,
, ., , -# ,, ,. _' ' Mri•*;. _
ti
ye Y�g}14� ( V4�
Figure 24.Spoiling concrete at guardrail anchorage at
secondary clarifier.
i

.„yak
f
''..71:..1:=...: _.: ....e.A.'"x'.f
1 �
C -jam- -' .r1.2:4J6T 2.r.:r:.,
' `, -
J �f
„ ' ....."‘42,,,fah r ....4„.„4,....e......„_„,
.. ‘.. ............__ ,,... _,,,._
: .._....... -,,, .........,„11, ,_ _ _..7-
_A.
.,„,,...... .....v._ ...-- _ _,..,..„,
_ .. ...... _. _ . .. .._ ... . , ._..
Figure 25.Abraded concrete along path of skimmer arm guide wheel.
or .
. . .
f c
a
_ ____
is
i'
. ..___ rok---'
! i
r 1
f
Figure 26. Exterior concrete wall and steel-clad roof of
digester.

i.:
pli
..._ -
AlfM. , ,
•
Figure 27. Cracks with efflorescence and corrosion staining
at digester.
'"Or 7 -..'1.NiEr. F
it
f at --
Figure 28.Sludge thickener structures. Concrete is in generally good condition.

z
;.r
•
•
4
r
Figure 29.Leaking pipe at north-most sludge thickener.