WQ0000520_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20160427

PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Water Resources Director
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 27, 2016
Mr. Harold T. Owen, City Manger
City of Burlington
P.O. Box 1358
Burlington,NC 27216
SUBJECT: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
City of Burlington, Residuals Land Application Program
Permit No. WQ0000520
Alamance County
Dear Mr. Owen:
An announced routine compliance evaluation inspection has been conducted of the subject
residuals land application program.North Carolina Division of Water Resources Winston-Salem
Regional Office(DWR)staff member Patrick Mitchell performed the inspection.This inspection
consisted of a review of one the residuals generating source facilities (East Burlington WWTP)
and a review of land application site activities. The inspection reflects compliance with Permit
No. WQ0000520.
Please refer to the enclosed compliance inspection report form for additional observations and
comments. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Patrick Mitchell or me
at the letterhead address or phone number, or by email at [e-mail] or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
yfh444.-
Sherri V. Knight, P. E.
Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources,NCDEQ—WSRO
enc.: Compliance Inspection Report
cc: Mr. Shane Fletcher,Residuals Coordinator—Cityof Burlington, P.O. Box 1358,Burlington,NC 272016
Mr.Brent Collins—EMA Resources, Inc., 755 Yadkinville Rd., Mocksville, NC 27028
Alamance County Environmental Health
DWR WQ Central Office—Permit File WQ0000520
1111111411
450 W.Hanes Mill Road,Suite 300,Winston-Salem,North Carolina 27105
Phone:[phone] FAX:[phone] Customer Service 1-877-623.6748
Internet www.ncdenr.gov-www.ncwater.org

Permit: WQ0000520 Owner-Facility:City of Burlington
Inspection Date: 04/18/2016 Inspection Type:Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
On April 18,2016 WSRO staff conducted a routine compliance inspection of the subject facility.This inspection consisted
of a review of the East Burlington WWTP residuals generating facility, review of records at the residuals coordinators office,
and a review of land application sites activities.Accompanying WSRO on the inspection was Mr. Shane Fletcher,with the
City of Burlington. The inspection reflects compliance with the permit. Below is a summary from the inspection.
East WWTP Residuals Generating Facility Review:
-Reviewed lime stabilization procedures utilized for meeting pathogen and vector attraction reduction requirements.
-Reviewed residuals sampling procedures.
-Reviewed residuals storage(two digesters).
-Residuals loading and transport were actively occurring at time of inspection. Reviewed transport vehicle#121:all required
records and spill plan present.
Onsite Records Review:
-All reviewed records were present and meet permit limits.
-Soils analyses for 2016 have been sampled, but results not back yet.*REVIEW IN 2016 ANNUAL REPORT*
-Reviewed March 2016 residuals analysis(nutrients&metals)for the East WWTP source only.
-Reviewed March 2016 pathogen/vector sampling sheets for the East VWVTP source only: Class B requirements were met.
-Hauling records and field inspection sheets were present.
Land Application Sites Review:
The following land application sites were visited:AM-35,AM-16, and AM-55.
Land application was actively occurring at AM-16 at the time of inspection.
-All observed activities were found to be compliant with the permit.
-The reported land application rate was-70 lbs PAN/acre(2.5 loads/acre @-28 lb PAN/load).The intended crop was
fescue pasture(149 lbs PAN/acre/year).
-Livestock were removed from pasture.
-Access restriction and signage was present.
-An updated site map was received for AM-16,showing a small area removed from application to buffer the 100-year
floodplain.The updated acreage is to be submitted to DWR.
Land application was finished on 4/16/2016 for site AM-35, Fields 2&3. No application taking place at time of inspection.
-Observed application areas reflect compliance with the permit.
-Buffer flags still present and evidence of residuals on the surface.
-Intended crop was fescue pasture.Application rate was-70 lbs PAN/acre,with an allowable PAN of 211 lbs
PAN/acre/year.
• -Access restriction and signage present.
-Livestock were removed from pasture.
Site AM-55 had not received prior residuals application, and no residuals application was occuring at the time of inspection.
The buffer flags were not in place yet. It was reported that this site will be flagged and operations will begin once Site AM-16
is completed.
Page: 2

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: WQ0000520 Effective: 08/13/14 Expiration: 07/31/17 Owner: City of Burlington
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: City of Burlington Residuals Land Application Progra
County:Alamance PO Box 1358
Region: Winston-Salem
Burlington NC 272161358
Contact Person: Everett Shane Fletcher Title: Phone: [phone]
Directions to Facility:
System Classifications: LA,
Primary ORC: Everett Shane Fletcher Certification: 988745 Phone: [phone]
Secondary ORC(s):
On-Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
NC0083828 City of Burlington-J.D.Mackintosh,Jr.WTP
NC0023876 City of Burlington-Southside VVVVTP
NC0023868 City of Burlington-Eastside VVVVTP
Inspection Date: 04/18/2016 Entry Time: 01:OOPM Exit Time: 05:OOPM
Primary Inspector: Patrick Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s):
Jeffrey A Robinson
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit Inspection Type: Land Application of Residual Solids(503)
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
II Miscellaneous Questions III Record Keeping • Treatment
▪ Sampling II Land Application Site Pathogen and Vector Attraction
▪ Storage Transport
(See attachment summary)
Page: 1

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Section
NON—DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT
CLASS B RESIDUALS LAND APPLICATION
General Information n
Facility Name: 13,1 r);4r Cii.?'1.5 tn cl A rr. f -y, County: A 14 Mk n ce,
Permit No.: W000052-C Permit Issuance Date: 1/al 7-4.12
Owner: C%47 v( 1 ;t Permit Expiration Date: 7r 7i /2 e 1 '7
Plant ORC Name: 51i,-.tic T=14 Telephone No.: 736 - 6:75--PI Z7
LA ORC I Contract Company: :T ri 131 4 .en (DWa) Telephone No.:
Other Contact(s): Telephone No.: p
Facility Location(address, gps or directions): .-- /C LC. , Cx• /&I 7 IT0 0, l4..,4y grj S, , L s v,pS c,,,)1/L re j
c? 1.=&0 L '` cr. T r-1'){-
ason for Inspection e n
ROUTINE ❑ FOLLOW-UP ❑ COMPLAINT ❑ PERMITTING ❑ Other:
Comments (attach additional pages as necessary)
- AM- He 4- sc
-61+ - ZS1
*.01\-1 eux1 (.f (t aTrf-L)?)
— E64- f'b„a-
Is a follow-up inspection necessary? ❑ Yes No
Primary Inspector: T. M'��I I Secondary Inspector: o-o✓\
Date of Inspection: 11/1612-C1 L Entry Time: (D 1 pfh Exit Time: %.r

Non-Discharge Compliance Inspection Report
Ne-
Residuals Generating Facility
E4. WWTP
Was the residuals generating facility inspected? XYes ❑No
Residuals Storage: ..----
Describe storage: / i_J a
Number of days/weeks/months of s orai ge: = 3 n,6*Ai
Residuals Sampling: N NA NE
Is sampling adequate and represeptative? ❑ ❑ El
Describe Sampling: (J f 'L. s,-gyp te i n J t y.A._, � from"
Transport Vehicle: r Y N NA NE
Is transport occurring at time of inspection? U ❑ ❑ ❑
Are necessary records(i.e.permit&spill plan)present in vehicle?ID of observed vehicle(s):°12 I r1 ❑ ❑ ❑
Record Keeping and Reporting Information: Y N NA NE
Is current permit and prior annual reports available upon request? ❑ ❑ ❑
Has the facility been free of public complaints for the last 12 ths? u ❑ ❑ ❑
TCLP analysis conducted and results available? Frequency? 1/yr or ❑ 1/permit cycle �a. ❑ ❑ ❑
Residuals metals and nutrient analysis conducted?Frequency? 1 i (See permit for frequency) 2 ❑ ❑ ❑
Nutrient and metals loading calculations?(to determine most li iting parameter) ►* ❑ ❑ ❑
Do lab sheets support data reported on Residuals Analysis Summary? �w 1n ❑ ❑ ❑
A.,. .;oso
Are PAN balance records available and within permit limits? .Tk� 26tbo i.5. ❑ ❑ ❑
Are there nutrient(crop)removal practices in place? �.�os 2_ / ►I; ❑ ❑ ❑
Are hauling records available?(gal and/or tons hauled during calendar year to datp) :1 ❑ ❑ ❑ Nvvt6,k
Are field loading records available? itOukl7 4+ l.,. . ❑ ❑ ❑ L
Are field inspections conducted and are records available? 4 ❑ ❑ CC."' Mf
Are soil sample results available? ❑ ❑ ❑ � Y e4
Did soil results call for lime amendment?If so,are there records of application? ❑ ❑ ❑
Soil results indicate that Cu&Zn indices are<3,000 (ideally<2,000)? ❑ ❑ ❑
Soil results indicate Na<0.5 meq/100 cm3,and Exchangeable Sodium Percentage(ESP)<15%? ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the permit require groundwater monitoring? ❑
Are groundwater lab results present? ❑ ❑ ►! El
There are no 2L GW standard violations indicated in the lab results? ❑ El ►:1 ❑
Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction Records
Pathogen Reduction:
Which Alternative was used to demonstr. - compliance?
Alternative 1 Fecal Coliform Den •
El • temative 2 Process to Signifi . tly Reduce Pathogens (5 options)
❑Alt: ative 3 Use of Equival- t to RSRP(Not commonly used-See White House Manual)
IfAlternat e 2 was used, sele• which Option was utilized and complete the section below.
❑Option 1 •erobic Dig-.tion Y N NA NE
Are to .resen howing time and temperature? Q ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the t 1 e • temp.between 40 days at 68°F(20°C)and 60 days at 59°F(15°C)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ Option 2 -Air
❑ Option 3 - •. aerobic Di:-stion
Are .gs present shows : time and temperature? ❑ ❑ ❑
W. the time&temp.betw - 15 days at 95°F— 131°F(35°-55°C)and
days at>68°F(20°C)? ❑ El ❑
❑ 0, ion 4—Composting(Not commonly used-See White House Manual)
Option 5 -Lime Stabilization n
Are logs present showing time and temperature? ►, ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the pH raised to>12 after two hrs of contact? r ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the temperature corrected to 25°C(77°F)(by calculation,NOT auto correct)? 74 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page 2 of 4

Von-Discharge Compliance Inspection Report
tor Attraction Reduction:
Select which Option was used to demonstrate compliance and comp te answer associated questions.
■ Option 1 -38%Volatile Solids Reduction Y N NA
Are lab results and calculations present? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
Was the reduction on volatile solids(not total solids)? LI ❑ ❑ ■
Were samples collected at correct locations? [] ❑ ❑ ❑
(beginning of digestion process& before land appli-ation)
Was there a>38%reduction? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑Option -40-Day Bench Scale Test Y N NA NE
W: e residuals from anaerobic digestion? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are ab results and calculations present? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Was e test anaerobically digested in lab,a I• test run for 40 days? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Was th- test done between 30°C(86°F)ant 37°C(99°F)? ❑ I II ❑
Was the eduction of on volatile solids(n,,t total solids)? ❑ \1 I• ❑
Was the -duction less than 17%? ❑ ■ I ❑
❑ Option 3 -30-D. Bench Scale Test Y N NA NE
Were residua s from aerobic digestio ? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are lab resul • and calculations present? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Were residuals'%or less total so ds? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
If not 2%total s►lids,was the te ran on a sample diluted to 2%
with unchlorinateo effluent? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Was the test run fo, 30 days? ❑ ❑ • ❑
Was the test done at 0°C(.:°F)? ❑ ■ a1 ❑
Was the reduction of in v. atile solids(not total solids)? ❑ II • ❑
Was the reduction less h I 15%? ❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ Option 4-Specific Oxygen I stake Rate(SOUR Test) Y N NA NE
Were residuals form .-ro,is digestion? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Were residuals<2% otal •olids(dry weight basis)(not diluted)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the test done ietween 0°C(50°F)and 30°C(86°F)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the tempera. e correc -d to 20°C(68°F)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the sampl' g holding ti e<2 hours? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the test s . ed within 15 , inutes of sampling or aeration maintained? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the SO 4R equal to or less an 1.5 mg of oxygen per hour per gram of
total resid II solids(dry weight ,asis)? t ❑ ❑ ■
LI Option 5 - 14 say Aerobic Process N NA E
Were e residuals from aerobic digestion? ■ ❑ ❑ \1
Was 4 e average residuals tempera , e higher than 45°C(113°F)? ❑ ❑ ❑ t
W- e the residuals treated for 14 days and temperature maintained higher
40°C(104°F)for the 14-day perio,? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Option 6-Alkaline Stabilization Y N NA NE
Was the pH of the residuals raised to>12 and maintained for two hours
without addition of more alkali? i I ❑ ❑ ❑
Did the pH of residuals remain at>11.5 an additional twenty-two hours
without the addition of more alkali? Al ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the pH corrected to 25°C(77°F)(by calculation,NOT auto correct)? ❑ ❑ ❑
❑O . n 7-Drying of Stabilized Resi Is Y N NA NE
The 'duals do not conta' stabilized residuals? ❑ ❑
Were the re . is mix ith any other materials? ❑ ❑
Were the residuals >75%total solids? ❑ ❑
❑Option 8-Dryin f Unstabilized Resi Y NA
Were esiduals mixed with any other erials? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
We the residuals dried>90%total solids? ❑ ❑ ❑
❑O • n 9/10—Injection/Incorporation of Residuals(Not commonly used-See White House Manual)
Page 3 of 4

yion-Discharge Compliance Inspection Report
Land Application Site(s)
Were application site(s)inspected? If so,please ist Site ID(s) below. Yes ❑No 3S
Application Site ID(s): Ail `3 lf'z¢3 :AA '(£ Ay)
� " b
Is application occurring at the time of inspection? If no,note the date of the last event:h": IL e GI No Q M_��-
W.ather Conditions: -
r
XSunny 0 Partly Cloudy ❑ Cloudy ❑Overcast ❑ Stormy
❑ Windy (wind direction: ) ❑ Breeze ❑ Calm
No Precipitation ❑ Drizzle ❑ Rain ❑ Cloudburst (If applicable,precipitation measurement: )
Is there a rain gauge onsite? ❑Yes ❑No
Weather Notes(i.e. Significant Changes,Forecasts,etc):
Temp.(°F): ❑ <32 ❑32—40 ❑40—60 ❑ 60—80 X>80
Was the Division notified of the application even (s ? XYes ❑No I I"l_/6
Permit and Spill Plan onsite during application? Yes ❑No W(1y ((,'�d 7t f
Application Observations: [Type of application: Liquid ❑ Cake ❑ Other k ,
Application Site—Field ID(s): ANN 3S T'it{dt 2.4-3, Application Site—Field ID(ID(5, M —/( I re II
Intended Crop:Vie-oat-I45 PAN Requirement: 211 lbs/ac Intended Crop: R)e-o C/ - PAN Requirement: I it 9 lbs/ac
Application Rate(gallons/acre): 2,S /o41 cA- (ZS 14.f i tonal) Application Rate(gallons/acre): Z ,5— I of di/Re -
Nutrient Content: 2—f lb f kN r (ca4dI , Nutrient Content: ZS' I,h/I Oq d
Application occurring at time of visit: El Yes No Application occurring at 'me of visit:EYes
rp/I El No
Application Method: Surface❑Incorp/Injectian Application Method:. Surface ElInccojection
Incorporation/Injection uring visit:❑Yes El No N/A Incorporation/Injection during visit:❑Yes No N/A
e etative Buffer description:['None kGrass ❑Crop X Shrub etative Buffer description:❑None Grass Crop L�Shrub
Current Field Conditions:
ID Bare El Stubble 0 Planted (crop) Pasture ❑Bare ❑Stubble ❑Planted (crop) P ''asture
Soi Condition: of ondition:
Dry ❑Moist ❑Wet ❑Saturated ry ❑Moist ❑Wet 0 Saturated
11 at-Frozen ❑Frost Frozen 0 Snow-Covered ot-Frozen ❑Frost ❑F ozen ❑Snow-Covered
Slope:El -3% El3-6% 6-10% ❑ 10-18% ❑>18% Slope: ❑0-3% ❑3-6% 6-I0% ❑ 10-18% ❑>18%
Odor: None ild ❑Moderate ❑Strong Odor: ❑None i1d ❑Moderate ❑Strong
Vectors: one Few ❑Many El Excessive Vectors: f�None,Few ❑Many ❑Excessive
Application De ils: Y N NA NE Application Details: N NA NE
Application areas clearly marked? 4 t1 ❑ ❑ ❑ Application areas clearly marked? Lii, ❑ ❑ ❑
Application within authorized area? n ❑ ❑ ❑ Application within authorized area? r ❑ ❑ ❑
4.7
Application method appropriate? A ❑ ❑ ❑ Application method appropriate? ► ❑ ❑ ❑
Application is even(no ponding)? G ❑ ❑ ❑ Application is even(no ponding)? ❑ ❑ ❑
Sufficient setbacks from wells/residences? Fi ❑ ❑ ❑ Sufficient setbacks from wells/residences? z ❑ ❑ ❑
Sufficient setbacks from surface waters? ❑ ❑ ❑ Sufficient setbacks from surface waters? 2 El El 0
Slopes>10%avoided(Surface App.)? N ❑ ❑ Slopes>10%avoided(Surface App.)? ❑ CI CI
Slopes>18%avoided(Incorp/Inject)? III
❑ Slopes>18%avoided(Incorp/Inject)? ❑ ❑ ! ❑
Incorp./Injection within time-frame? ❑ ❑ Incorp./Injection within time-frame? ❑ ❑ n ❑
Biosolids visible on surface? ❑ 0 Biosolids visible on surface? ❑ ❑ ❑
Site Restrictions Y N NA NE Site Restrictions Y N NA NE
Public access is restricted/Signage present? J. ❑ ❑ ❑ Public access is restricted/Signage present? #❑ ❑ ❑
Grazing restrictions are met? !4 ❑ ❑ 0 Grazing restrictions are met? ❑ ❑ ❑
Transfer of biosolids is in permitted area? ' N ❑ ❑ ❑ Transfer of biosolids is in permitted area? ❑ ❑ ❑
No evidence of shallow GW? ► ❑ ❑ ❑ No evidence of shallow GW? ❑ 0 ❑
Sufficient timing for harvest restrictions? A ❑ ❑ ❑ Sufficient timing for harvest restrictions? ❑ 0 ❑
Off Site Transport Y N NA NE Off Site Transport Y N NA NE
Tracking is prevented? / Cl ❑ ❑ Tracking is prevented? ❑ ❑ ❑
Biosolids run-off is prevented? CI
CIBiosolids run-off is prevented? IR ❑ ❑
Windblown biosolids prevented? n 0 ❑ ❑ Windblown biosolids prevented? 0 ❑ ❑
Vegetative buffers exist? % ❑ ❑ ❑ Vegetative buffers exist? ❑ ❑ ❑
Page 4 of 4