NC0023337_Permit (Issuance)_20040927

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNINO COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0023337
Scotland Neck WWTP
Document Type:
Oermit Issuance,
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Return
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
September 27, 2004
This document is printed on reuse paper - igmtore any
content on the resreriae side

t
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
September 27, 2004
Ms. Nancy Jackson, Town Administrator
Town of Scotland Neck
P.O. Box 357
Scotland Neck, North Carolina 27874
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0023337
Scotland Neck WWTP
Halifax County
Dear Ms. Jackson:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North
Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently amended).
This final permit includes no major changes from the draft permit sent to you on August 4, 2004.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable
to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt
of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements
to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the
Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit
that may be required. If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Dawn Jeffries at telephone
number [phone], extension 595.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Mark McIntire
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office/Water Quality Section
NPDES Unit
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Nor hCarolina
atura!/j
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Permit NC0023337
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other
lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended,
Town of Scotland Neck
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Scotland Neck WWTP
US Highway 258, South of Scotland Neck
Halifax County
to receiving waters designated as Canal Creek in the Tar Pamlico River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective November 1, 2004.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on October 31, 2009.
Signed this day September 27, 2004.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Mark McIntire
Alan W. Klimek P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC002333 4 r
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under
the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
Town of Scotland Neck is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.675 MGD wastewater treatment plant
consisting of the following:
• Two manual bar screens
• Grit auger
• Parshall flume
• Dual oxidation ditches
• Dual clarifiers
• Aerobic sludge digester
• Dual tertiary filters
• Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection
• Post aeration
This facility is located at Scotland Neck WWTP, US Highway 258, South of Scotland
Neck in Halifax County.
2. _Operate facilities for land application disposal of up to 0.048 MGD in accordance
with Non -Discharge Permit WQ0022697.
3. Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on the
attached map into Canal Creek, classified C NSW waters in the Tar Pamlico River
Basin.

USGS Quad Name: Hobgood, C29SW
Receiving Stream: Canal Creek
Stream Class: C-NSW
Subbasin: Tar -Pamlico — 030304
Lat.: 36°07'10"
Long.: 77°26'02"

Permit NC002333 rt
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited
and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample Location1
Flow
0.675 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5-day, 20° C2
(April 1-October 31)
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
E,I
BOD, 5-day, 20° C2
(November 1-March 31)
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
3lWeek
Composite
E,I
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
31Week
Composite
E,I
NH3 as N
(April 1— October 31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
E
NH3 as N
(November 1— March 31)
4.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
31Week
Composite
E
Dissolved 0xygen3
3IWeek
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable?
Grab
U, D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100mI
3/Week
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorines
17 pglL
3/Week
Grab
E
Temperature (°C)
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature (°C)
Variable?
Grab
U, D
Total Nitrogens
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Phosphoruss
Weekly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Copper
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Zinc
Quarterly
Composite
E
pH
6.0 —9.0 standard units
3/Week
Grab
E
Footnotes:
1. Sample locations: E-Effluent, I -Influent, U-Upstream at least 50 feet, D-Downstream at
least 900 feet.
2. The monthly average effluent BODs and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall
not exceed 15 percent of the respective monthly average influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen concentration in the effluent shall not fall below 6.0
mg/L.
4. TRC monitoring and effluent limitations apply only if chlorine is used as a disinfectant
or elsewhere in the process.
5. See Special Condition A. (3.) regarding nutrients.
6. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia dubia) P/F at 90%: February, May, August, and
November (see Special condition A. (2.)).
7. Stream samples shall be collected 3/Week during June -September and 1/Week during
the remaining months of the year. Upon initiation of instream sampling by the Tar
Pamlico River Basin Association, instream monitoring required by this permit is
provisionally waived in light of the permittee's participation in the Association.
Instream monitoring will be immediately reinstated should the permittee end its
participation in the Association.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0023337
A. (2.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 90%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterlu monitoring using test procedures outlined in the
"North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or
subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of February, May,
August, and November. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted
final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV
below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in
each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent
Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the
highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest
concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of
"detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are
specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no later
than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate
signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if
chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test
form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report
with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the
Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring
will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls,
shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than
the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.

i
Permit NC0023337
A. (3.) NUTRIENT SPECIAL CONDITION
Limits on total phosphorus and total nitrogen have not been included at this time because the facility is
participating in the nonpoint source trading option outlined in the Tar Pamlico NSW Implementation
Strategy Phase II, which was adopted December 8, 1994. If compliance with any element of this strategy,
or subsequent approved revisions to the strategy is not maintained, the Division reserves the right to
reopen this permit to include nutrient limits. If requirements other than those listed in this permit are
adopted as part of a future revision to the strategy, the Division reserves the right to reopen this permit to
include these requirements.
The town of Scotland Neck was accepted into the Tar Pamlico Basin Association on April 12, 2002.

Augg 06 04 08:53a DRILY HERALD
PUBLIC NOTICE
2525375411
p. 1
STATE Qtr NORTH
' CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION!NPDE
S UNIT 1617 MAIL
SERVICE CENTER
. RALEIGH, NC
27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF
INTENT TO ISSUE A
NPDES WASTE
WATER PERMIT
On the basis of thor-
ough staff review and
application of NC
General Statute
143.21, Public law 92-
500 and other lawful
standards and regula-
tions, the North Caroli-
na Environmental
Management Com-
mission proposes to
issue a National Pollu-
tant Discharge Elimi-
nation System
(NPDES) wastewater
discharge permit to
the person(s) listed
below effective 45
days from the publish
date of this notice.
Halifax County
Schools has applied
for renewal of its
NPDES permit
NC0038580 for East-
man Middle School
WWTP, 20212 Hwy
48, Enfield, North Car-
olina. This permitted
facility discharges
treated wastewater to
an unnamed tributary
to Little Fishing Creek
in the Tar -Pamlico
River Basin. Current-
ly, CBOD and ammo-
nia nitrogen are water
quality limited. This
discharge may affect
future allocations in
this portion of the wa-
tershed.
Halifax County
Schools has applied
for renewal of its
NPDES permit
NC003B610 for Pitt-
man Elementary
School WWTP, 25041
NC Hwy 561, Enfield,
North Carolina. This
permitted facility dis-
charges treated
wastewater to an un-
named tributary to
Bumt Coal Swamp in
the Tar -Pamlico River
Basin. Currently,
CBOD and ammonia
nitrogen are water
quality limited. This
discharge may affect
future allocations in
this portion of the wa-
tershed.
.)-cD CS(A.
\4e•t-r--eJ.cL
-ass
cc.33 8

HUg Ub U4 Ut3:5Ja Lt11LT tltKtiLU
Hallrax UOUnty
Schools has applied
for renewal of its
NPDES permit
NC0038644 for Daw-
son Elementary
School WWTP, 6878
Old 125 Road, NCSR
1103, Scotland Neck,
North Carolina. This
permitted facility dis-
charges treated
wastewater to an un-
named tributary to
Deep Creek in the
Tar -Pamlico River Ba-
sin. Currently, CBOD
and ammonia nitrogen
are water quality limit-
ed. This discharge
may affect future allo-
cations in this portion
of the watershed.
The Town of Scotland
Neck, P.O. Box 357,
Scotland Neck, NC
27874 has applied for
renewal of NPDES
permit NC0023337 for
its Scotland Neck
WWTP in Halifax
county. This permitted
facility discharges
treated wastewater to
Canal Creek in the
Tar Pamlico River Ba-
sin. Currently, BCD,
ammonia, and total re-
sidual chlorine are wa-
ter qualify limited. This
discharge may affect
future allocations in
this portion of the wa-
tershed.
Written comments re-
garding the proposed
permit will be accept-
ed until 30 days after
the publish date of
this notice. All com-
ments received prior
to that date are con-
sidered in the final de-
terminations regarding
the proposed permit.
The Director of the
NC Division of Water
Quality may decide to
hold a public meeting
for the proposed per-
mit should the Divi-
sion receive a signifi-
cant degree of public
interest.
Copies of the draft
permit and other sup-
porting information on
file used to determine
conditions present in
the draft permit are
available upon re-
quest and payment of
the costs of reproduc-
tion. Mail comments
and/or requires for in-
formation to the NC
Division of Water
Quality at the above
address or call Ms.
Carolyn Bryant at
CJCJJ r.7Y1 1

Draft Permit reviews (3)
i
Subject: Draft Permit reviews (3)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:14:38 -0400
From: John Giorgino <[e-mail]>
To: Dawn Jeffries <[e-mail]>
Hi Dawn, I have reviewed the following Draft Permits:
NC0023337 (Scotland Neck WWTP)- no comments.
NC0020231 (Louisburg WWTP)- no comments
NC0049514 (Pilkington) - no comments.
Thank you for forwarding them to me.
-John
John Giorgino
Environmental Biologist
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Mailing Address:
1621 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Office: 919 733-2136
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Web Page: http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us
1 of 1 8/30/2004 2:20 PM

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0023337
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Scotland Neck/ Scotland Neck WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 537; Scotland Neck, North Carolina 27874
Facility Address:
NC Highway 258 South; Scotland Neck, North Carolina 27874
Permitted Flow
0.675 MGD
Type of Waste:
100% Domestic
Facility/Permit Status:
Class III /Active; Renewal
County:
Halifax County
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Canal Creek
C NSW
Regional Office:
State Grid / USGS Quad:
Raleigh (RRO)
C29SW/Hobgood
303(d) Listed?
No
Permit Writer:
Dawn Jeffries
Subbasin:
03-03-04
Date:
July 1, 2004
Drainage Area (mi2):
2.17
7Q10 s/w(cfs)
0/0
30Q2 (cfs)
0
Average Flow (cfs):
2.36
IWC (%):
100%
Lat. 36° 07' 10" N Long. 77° 26' 02" W
BACKGROUND
The Scotland Neck WWTP (Class III) has a permitted flow of 0.675 MGD. It is 100% domestic
with no pretreatment program. It is currently operating under SOC S01-008, signed 1-29-04 and
expiring 11-30-05, while upgrades, including the addition of some spray irrigation, are being
made to the plant and collection system. The facility has not requested any changes to the
permit. It is a member of the Tar -Pamlico Basin Association.
This facility discharges to subbasin 03-03-04 into Canal Creek, which converges with Deep
Creek downstream. Receiving waters are classified C NSW and are not listed as impaired on the
303(d) list.
DMR Data Review and Instream Monitoring
DMR data (monthly averages) from May 2002 through May 2004 were reviewed and are
summarized in Table 1.
Max
Min
Flow Temp DO BOD TSS Fecal
(MGD) (°C) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (#/100 mL)
0.62
0.23
27.4
9.5
13.7
6.4
20.0
2.9
13.8
2.4
5382.9
3.3
NH; N TN TP TRC
(mg/L) (mom) (mg/L) (µme-)
22.6
0.05
28.3
2.0
2.90
0.36
113.5
2.75
Table 1. NC0023337 Conventional Data (May 2002-May 2004)
A review of copper and zinc was also performed and is discussed in the Reasonable Potential
Analysis section.
The facility is required to conduct instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen, temperature, and
fecal coliform. Stream temperatures were unremarkable. Instream values (summer) for
dissolved oxygen were examined and are attached. These values are atypical and warrant
continued attention. In most instances in 2003, downstream oxygen levels are at least 50%
lower than upstream levels. Downstream levels are often below 1.0 mg/1. Values in 2002 show
some downstream levels lower and others the same or higher than upstream levels. Upstream
levels for fecal coliform were also much higher than downstream. Stream monitoring for fecal
NPI)fs \A Ai

coliform for 100% domestic dischargers is no longer required, so it will be removed in this
renewal.
Correspondence/Compliance
The Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) conducted a site visit in June 2003. It was noted in the
inspection that the facility's UV system is not functional so chlorination/dechlorination is being
used for disinfection temporarily. The Scotland Neck WWTP has received a number of Notices
of Violation (NOVs) over the course of this permit term. In the last two years, they have
exceeded permit limits 44 times for BOD, 23 times for TRC (none since August 2002), 26 times
for fecal coliform, 7 times for low effluent DO (none since August 2002), 10 times for ammonia
nitrogen, and 8 times for pH. In addition, they have failed chronic toxicity testing 3 times over
the same timeframe. In January 2004, the Town went under an SOC. They agreed to an up -front
penalty of $31,262.81, and have begun upgrading the plant and collection system to meet limits.
The SOC expires in November 2005, and until then the permit holder has relaxed limits for BOD
(30/45 mg/1 year-round), TSS (60/90 mg/1), NH3-N (6 mg/1 summer and 9 mg/1 winter), Fecal
Coliform (400/800 col/100 ml), TRC (monitor only), and chronic toxicity (monitor only).
PERMITTING STRATEGY
Waste Load Allocation (WLA)
The Division prepared the last WLA in 1994. The previous and current effluent limits were based
on guidelines and water quality standards. The Division has judged previous parameters and
limits to be appropriate for renewal with some exceptions. Changes to toxicant monitoring are
discussed in the Reasonable Potential Analysis section. Weekly average ammonia limits based
on a 3:1 ratio with the monthly average will be implemented in this permit. This is a new
statewide policy that resulted from EPA requirements. The resulting summer weekly average
limit will be 6.0 mg/L and the winter limit will be 12.0 mg/L.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The Division conducted EPA -recommended analyses to determine the reasonable potential for
toxicants to be discharged by this facility, based on DMR data from January 2002-June 2004.
Calculations included copper and zinc. Results suggest reasonable potential for the facility to
discharge these parameters at levels toxic to aquatic life; however, they are action level
parameters and limits are not put into permits for AL parameters unless a TIE indicates that they
are causative of toxicity problems at the facility. Although this facility has had some toxicity
problems, they have not reached the point where a TIE has been required. Therefore, no
copper/zinc limits have been added at this renewal.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES
In keeping with Division policies, the following will be incorporated into the permit:
• Weekly average ammonia limits (both summer and winter) will be added
• Instream fecal coliform monitoring will be removed
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice: August 4, 2004
Permit Scheduled to Issue: September 27, 2004
1
NI'I)F,S \( )O , ; I;,.

NPDES DIVISION CONTACT
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact
Dawn Jeffries at [phone] ext. 595.
NAME: DATE: al V °/‘
d/N�
REGIONAL OFFICE COMME S
NAME: DATE:
SUPERVISOR: DATE:
:ict SheCl
\t'O023; 7 Renewal

NPDES DIVISION CONTACT
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact
Dawn Jeffries at [phone] ext. 595.
NAME: DATE:
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENTS
nliAN
- 4/27
F/27
NAME: DATE:
SUPERVISOR:
DATE:
?///orq-

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Scotland Neck WWTP
NC0023337
Time Period 0
Qw (MGD) 0.675
7Q10S (cfs) 0
7Q10W (cfs) 0
30Q2 (cfs) 0
Avg. Stream Flow, CIA (cfs) 2.36
Rec'ving Stream Canal Creek
WWTP Class III
IWC (%) @ 7Q10S 100
@ 7010W 100
@30Q2 100
@ QA 30.716
Stream Class C NSW
Outfall 001
Qw = 0.675 MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
POL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WQS /
Chronic
s4 FAtI /
Acute
a # Det Max Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Copper
NC
7
AL
7.3
ug/L
10 7
Note: n<12
Limited data
8863.1 !
set
Acute:
_
Chronic:
7
7
Zinc
NC
50
AL
67
ug/L
10 10
Note: n<12----------•---------------------
Limited data
617.5
set
Acute:
67
'Legend:
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
Freshwater Discharge
rpa 2004031.xls. rpa
7/28/2004

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Copper
Zinc
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Feb '04 20 20.0 Std Dev. 162.8865
2 Nov '03 5 5.0 Mean 64.0000
3 Sep '03 14 14.0 C.V. 2.5451
4 Jun '03 526 526.0 n 10
5 Feb'03 6 6.0
6 Feb '03 6 6.0 Mult Factor = 16.8500
7 Nov '02 48 48.0 Max. Value 526.0 ug/L
8 Sep '02 < 10 5.0 Max. Pred Cw 8863 1 ug/L
9 Jun'02 < 10 5.0
10 Apr'02 < 10 5.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
199
200
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 Feb '04 90 90.0 Std Dev. 51.9064
2 Nov '03 80 80.0 Mean 108.5000
3 Sep '03 70 70.0 C.V. 0.4784
4 Jun'03 100 100.0 n 10
5 Feb '03 117 117 0
6 Feb '03 101 101 0 Mult Factor = 2.4700
7 Nov '02 250 250.0 Max. Value 250.0 ug/L
8 Sep'02 112 112,0 Max. Pred Cw 617.5 ug/L
9 Jun'02 86 86.0
10 Apr'02 79 79.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
199
200
-2-
rpa 2004031.xis, data
7/28/2004

Scotland Neck - NC0023337 Scotland Neck - NC0023337
Instream DO Levels Instream DO Levels
Date Up Down Date Up Down
Apr '04 10.5 7.3 Sep '02 2.2 2.8
7.8 3.3 - 4 3.4
13.8 7.4 2.6 2.8
7.6 1.4 - 2.2 1
Oct '03 5.6 1.3 . 4.2 2.2
5.5 0.7 ` 6.2 5.8
4.9 0.5 - 5.6 4.4
6.5 1.1 1.2 2
9.4 6.5 2.2 3.6
Sep '03 2.1 0.6 1.9 2
1.4 0.6- 2.1 1.6
1.8 0.9 - 2.3 1.3
2.3 0.6 -. 2.5 1.8
3.8 0.7 - Aug '02 2.2 1.7
3.1 0.8 - 6.4 6.6
3.3 0.8 - 3.2 0.6
3.4 0.9 . 2.3 1.6
5.2 2 - 2.2 2.4
4.6 0.6 - 1 2.1
4.5 0.6 1.2 1.2
4.5 0.7 - 2 1.6
5.5 0.7 - 2.8 1.8
5 1.1 - 1 1.3
Aug '03 1.9 0.8 1.6 0.8
1.7 1 - 2.6 5.2
1.3 1.1 Jul '02 2.1 3.4
2.1 0.9 - 1.7 5.6
2.1 0.4 2 1.2
1.6 0.4 - 2 1.2
3.3 1.4 _ 2.2 1
3.7 0.3 - 2.2 1.7
3 0.6 1 0.9
3.7 1.1 - 1 1
3.6 0.7 - 1.2 1.3
3.4 0.3 - 1.6 2.7
Jul '03 5.4 1.7 - 1.6 0.4
5.2 2 - 3.8 3
5.2 2.6 - Jun '02 3 8
5.7 6.4 3 4.2
5.5 0.8 3.6 3.6
5.4 0.8 3.8 3.8
4.7 1.1 2.6 3
3.8 0.5 - 3 4.2
2.6 0.6 2 1.6
2.2 0.4 - 3.2 4.6
Jun '03 6.4 3.2 - 3 1
5.2 2.8 , 3.2 1
6.2 1.2 , 26 3.6
5.2 1.3 , 10 9.8
May '03 5.2 2 , 4.4 5
7.5 1.7 - May '02 3.2 5
6.1 2.6 - 5.2 5
5.7 4.2 5.2 2.8
Apr '03 11.2 9.4 3 4
18.3 15.4 5.2 5
13.2 7.6 5 4.2
15.7 9.1 5.8 5.8
6.7 2.5 - 5 5.6
6.2 6.2
4.2 4.2
3 4.2
3 4.2

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Self -Monitoring Summary June 15, 2004
FACILITY REQUIREMENT YEAR .)AN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Roxboro WWTP chr lim: 901,,
NC0021024,11111 Begin 1/32(1113 Frequency: Q Mar Jun Sep Dec NonComp:Single
Colony: Person Region: RRO Subbasin: ROA05
PF: 5.0 Special
70111: 0,0 IWC04•1 11111 Order:
y 2000 --
2001 --
2002 -
2003 Pass
2004 -
-
Pass Pass - Fat >100 >100 Pass
Pass - - Pass Pass -- -• Pass
- Pass Pass -- Pass >100 Late
- Pass Pass --- Pass Pass
- Pass
Rulherfnrdton W WTP chr lim: 711L
NC0025909/001 Bcgin:4/14/2004 Frcqucncy: Q Jan Apr Jul Oct
Comity: Rutherford Region: ARO Subbasin: BRD02
PF: 3.0 special
7Q10: 1.7 IWC(%) 71 Order:
+ NonComp:Single
2000 Pass - - Fait Lale 35.4 84.9,Late Invalid - Pass
2001 Fail 425 NR Pass -- - Fad 460 <60.460 Pass -•
2002 Pass - - Fall 92.2 >100 Fria 25.3 >100 Late Pass -
2003 Fail 502 50.2 >100 - - Pass - - Pass -- -•
2004 Fail 93.8 >100 Fail
S.S. Mobile Home Park chr lint: 90% 200o - Fail Fail
NC0038300/001 Begin: I/1/2002 Frequency. Q Feb May Aug Nov + NonComp:Single 2001 -- Pass -
County: Chatham Region: RRO Subbasin: CPF09 2002 - Pass -
PF: 0,01 Special 2003 - Late Pass
7Q10: 0.0 1WC(%) 100 Order: 2004 -- Pass -
Pass
Fail Pass - Late Pass Pass
Pass - - Pass - - Pass
Pass - - Fai >100 Late >100,Pass
Pass - Pass - - Pass
Saint-Gobain Containers 24hr LC50 ac monit cpis Rhd (Grab)
NC0083038/001 Bcgin 7/1/2000 Frcqucncy. A
County: Vance Region: RRO Subbasin: TAR02
PF: VAR Sp"aI
7Q10: 0 1WC(s.1 100.0 ranter
-
NonComp:
2000 - - - - H - - - - - -
2001 - - - -. H ._ -_ - -.
2002 •_ ... H - - Invalid -
2003 ._ - --- •- - - NR
2004 -- -- H
Salisbury -Rowan Regional WWTP chr hm: 6.6%: asp 20 MGD chr Iin110.5%
NC0023884/001 Bcgin 7:1/2002 Frequency: Q Marlon Sep Dcc * NonCotnp:Single
County: Rowan Region: MRO Subbasin: YADO4
PF: 12.5 Sprsaal
7QI(1: 263.5 IWC("%) 7.0 Once
y 2000 -
2001 •-
2002 -
2003 ...
2004 >26.4
>26.4
Pass Pass -- Pass --- Pass
Pass Pass Pass Pass
Pass Pass Pass Pass
Pass -- Pass •- Pass - Pass.>26.4
Pau>26.4
Sanford-BIg Bufale WWTP chr lim: 39%
NC0024147/001 Begin 7/1/2003 Frcqucncy. Q Mar Jun Sep Dec
County: Lee Region: RRO Subbasin: CPFI I
PF: 6.8 spaial
7Q I0: 16.8 IWC(%) 39 Order:
* NonComp:Singlc
2000 - - Pass Pass Fail
2001 - Pass - Pass - Pass
2002 - - Pass - -- Pass - - Pass
2003 - - Pass Fail 47.8 47.8 Fail
2044 - Pau
>75
47.8
>75 Pass
-• Pass
Pass
47.8(s) Pass
Scarlet! Acres chr lim: 90% 2000 -- Pass - - Pass - - Pass - - Pass
NC0061204/001 Bcgin:8/1/1999 Frcqucncy. Q P/F + Feb May Aug Nov + NonComp:Singlc 2001 -- Fad 52 >100 >100 - Pass,Fail -- 82.2 Poss
County: Forsyth Region: WSRO Subbasin: YADO4 2002 -- Fail NR/82.2 NR/82.2 Pass - - Pass - -- Pass
PF: 0.02 Special 2003 __ Pau - - Pass -- - Pass - - Pass
7Q10: 0.0 IWC(•.:) 100.0 Oder: 2004 -- Pass - -
Schneider Mills, Inc: 001 chr lim: 46 %
NC0034060/001 Bcgin I I/1/2(102 Frequency. Q Mar Jun Sep Dcc
Caunly: Alcxantkr Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB32
PF: 0.711 Special
70)0: 1,40 IWC(%) 46 Onw:
* NonComp:Single
2000 28.2 NR/<23 Fail 58.34 >90 Pass - - Pass - Pass
2001 -- - Pass -- -- Pass Pass Pass
2002 -- - Pass - Pass Pass Pass - Pass
2003 .- .- Pass Pass •- Pass •-- Pass
2004 -- - Pass -
Scotland Neck WWTP chr lim: 90% 2000 Fail >100 Late Pass Pass - - Pass ••-
NC0023337/001 Bcgm 6/1/2001 Frcqucncy: Q Feb May Aug Nov + NonComp:Single 2001 - Pass - - Pass - - Fad 445 ->100. Pass --
County: Halifax Region: RRO Subbasin:TAR04 2002 -- Fail 52 >100>100f Pnss --- -- Pass - -- Late Pass
PF: 0.675 Special 2003 ._ Pass - - Fail >100 >100 Fad >100 >100 Fail >100
7Q10: 0.0 IWC(%) 100 Omer: 2004 >100 Pass - -
SGL Carbon, LLC chr lim: 1394 2000 Pau - Pass - Pau NR Pass - NR Pass Pass
NCUU05258/001 Begin:2/1/2001 Frcqucncy: Q Marian Sep Dec + NonComp:Singlc 2001 - - Pass - -- Pass - - Pass - Pass
County: Burke Region: ARO Subbasin: CT1331 2002 - - Pass - - Pass - NR/Pass - Pass
PF: 1.5 Special 2003 - - Pass - NR/Pass - - Pass - Pass
7010: 211.9 IWC(%) 10 Order: 2004 -- Pass -
Shelby WVTP chr lim: 17%
NC0024538/((0I Bcgin 2/1/1999 Frequency. Q P/F + Fcb May Aug Nov + NonComp:Single
County: Cleveland Region: MRO Subbasin: BRD04
PF': 6.11 Special
7011k 44.3 IWC(%1•) 17.0 (hdcr:
2000 - Pass
2001 - Pass
2002 - pass
2003 .- Late
2004 .- Pass
Pass
Pass - - Pass - - Pass
Pau - Pass - Pass
Pass Pass - Pass
Pau Pass Pass
Shnrenstein Realty Investors/Carillon Chi' Lone 905.
NC0085731/11111 Bcgm4/1/2003 Frequency:Q Mar Jun Sep Doc
County: Mccklenburg Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB34
PP: (1.0316 Special
7Q10: (1 IWC(%) 11111 ceder
+ NonComp:
2000 -.. _. - - ...
2001 --- -
2002 -.. - - - - -_ - -- -- -.-
2003 __ - Fad <45 <45 Fail >100 97.5 Pau
2004 Pass - Pass
Y I'rc 2000 Data Available
LEGEND:
PERM = Permit Requirement LET= Administrative Letter - Target Frcqucncy = Monitoring frequency: Q• Quarterly; M- Monthly; BM- Bimonthly: SA- Semiannually; A- Annually; OWD- Only when discharging: 0- Discontinued monitoring requirement
Begin = Firs month rcquircd 7010 = Receiving stream low Bow criterion (cfs) + - quarterly monitoring increases to monthly upon failure or NR Months that testing must occur - ex. Jan, Apr, Jul. Oct NonComp = Current Compliance Requircntenl
PF = Pcnnined Bow (MGD) IWC% Insiteam waste concentration P/F = Pass (Fail test AC = Acute CHR = Chronic
Data Notation: f - Fathead Minnow: • - Ceriodaphnia sp.: my - Mysid shrimp; ChV • Chronic value; P • Mortality of slated percentage at highest concentration; at • Performed by DWQ Aquatic Tox Unit: bt - Bad lest
Reporting Notation: --- = Data not required; NR - Not reported Facility Activity Status: I - Inactive, N • Ncwly Issued(To construct): H - Active but not discharging; t-More data available for month in question: = ORC signature needed
35

Re: pretrelitment status
Subject: Re: pretreatment status
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:35:09 -0400
From: Deborah Gore <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
To: Dawn Jeffries <[e-mail]>
Dawn,
Scotland Neck does not have a pretreatment program and it looks like
they never have.
Deborah
Dawn Jeffries wrote:
>Deborah,
>Just looking at this renewal...
>Thanks,
>Dawn Jeffries
1 of 1
7/1/2004 2:54 PM

4.5.3 Deep Creek [AU# 28-79-32-(0.5)]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Deep Creek (19.8 miles) is currently Supporting in the aquatic life category from the source to
NC 97 because of a Moderate Stress bioclassification at site B-5 in 2002. There was no flow in
Deep Creek above Scotland Neck and the stream channel is braided. There are also indicators of
stress in Deep Creek. DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in Deep Creek to assess
future upgrades at the Scotland Neck WWTP (see below).
4.5.4 Canal Creek [AU# 28-79-32-1]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Scotland Neck WWTP discharges into Canal Creek just upstream of Deep Creek. Scotland Neck
WWTP failed four whole effluent toxicity tests in the last two years of the assessment period and
exceeded permit limits for both chlorine and ammonia on occasions in 2002. DWQ will
continue to evaluate the Scotland Neck discharge. Scotland Neck will receive $3,000,000
through DWQ Construction, Grants and Loans Program for collection system rehabilitation and
for spray irrigation of some of the effluent. Scotland WWTP will also start treating wastewater
from individual onsite wastewater treatment systems in Hobgood. A Special Order by Consent
between Scotland Neck and DWQ is being finalized. It requires upgrades on specific equipment
at their WWTP, as well as collection system rehabilitation that will reduce inflow and
infiltration.
Section B: Chapter 4 - Tar -Pamlico River Subbasin 03-03-04 I 77

At
+
CAD.,? 3 3 3 7- _cc t/Q-e /v»ck
- 64,eck vo C 1-7 ; )
- r -ec 1,3 4fd 1 c 1 /55e...
si5Ci
(, , ;;
615 r}4-0a4)C--x 71ec e- - f` 6 7 fr e - Q t
\----Iir a--x-4--V_ r e c ems. __ CoY15 16o.-.._ r e vYr d v T v1 Tel__
d4-1 e)(
- 6-s c-0 c.4/6,--;,(z
Mi,Ahr
1_r7-7 ; f 1 (s bc V /' s ,'��(;�-ircD -A , ,,
. CGL 3 tide c A.ts, uV etiss- ,��-t-i0�a-Q - `c.�i 'or/q' cA fur usos
(00% do r? Ps-/IG l 43t 4s s (4'om 7,064))
dkecti"
eeiL_
✓i o -p r - �ii ax el
— ?re 4croA-741-e�.�1- S S - i a " r' P�In nr " 4 -261- "C'
Veri-kistoCe - t-Debidr 4 - Gore - I, -L4-ost,
(' g
' -10 %) ✓1 CeI' (a s C b 154r'4 eh-L5-41 - W Ac J< ; ? al_ 7 )
1 pog igit.e� 1- 9-
NP �� `�D ' _ / ('Q r/jc '2.�Z 1 res I 1 - 3o-o
!�1 �J
J
- 0 (v re (woe -tv 30-0 /1-15 r o (y r - r ► e()
- Nf-13- (o 5Kmmer-
F- G U , , y°%ao (A,r/f- 4- Ss°x);0064J/f)
,v/J-r r0n /LI
Cilr (ox rY►0)1iir OA Ai
, eL - Su x)E 2063

•
e P 0
'Pa
t
5& oa
.7.
a
=� � L. oZ
2- z
l . 7
(4,0
3.q
/,U
0.9
a •6,
a. 6
1.0
/. 0
2 R
/,6
/,z
1, 3
4a
/,6
z.'7
6.. a
�, r
/‘ Go,
0,y
6
44 ‘i
SuN 'vim
3.0
/.7
Z.G
a
E.v
Z, z
3Co
3,0
411
/.9
. ,v
3,(v
3.(
. .3
/,3
Cp
3.o
A- �1G- 0
07. .5
/• g
3. 0
Li. a
-
6,z/
6,
3,a
46,
-5..2
CU . (a
3. 6
(. 0
. .3
/ , 6
3_a
/-o
31,
".c/
�(o_C)
3.�
/, 0
�?. /
/o. U
c?,
/ z
r,z
i14/'0
44
5,0
2, 0
I,
3, z
50
.�
I,(-
5a
5.0
1. O
1(.3
,5,
�. $
1,(0
0.g
3.0
4,a
J Yi - 1 `)
7 (0
5.
5 a
5.Q
.. (
JT
5.0
V,a.
5,0
s.�
z.v
_0
(. z
l•Z
(P, z-
6,•z.
4Z
2. Z
/. 0
q,2
3, 0
cl, z..

.-P 00 3 7 - ! <7sZr. "Do lPoe is
9 4 ,27-c-
-7•3 /.3(_c .73.0
7, 3,3 //oo. 0 �5.0
13, TS 7. 7 /,o. 0 550. o
%(p 1 • 7 3(40.0 a6,. 6
o !03
5. /- 3 / "2DO. 0 ga, G
5. 6 0.7 3a). 0 /6 3, o
g D. 5 6 COG. 0 (OGO. O
6, 5' /. l /606. 0 /oo.o
q.6.5 ( . a •0
s&P 'o3 I
-/ c9-� (O. o ate. o
/-4/ o.(r /goo.0 7).d
1g 0.9 /duo i g6,6
3 0. (c 3 30, o ti:Y, G
3.g 0.7 /900,6 �.6
3 I 0.B` 3a0, o 1 lg ,d
....3 Q. 4 {/o, o OK. d
S,/ 0.9 //00,0 /ig,O
5_ �.6 500, o �560. o
27 G 6, % 6700.0 a c,/o , v
4!5 0.6, 3aCi,o 3Jo.o
. S 0.7 //oo,o ._- o. G
..5" 0.- 7 5:)o.a /�6. a
5,0 1./ �7oc),6 3. C3,6
A-0G 03
I•q o.g 9OD, CU .0
I- � l.0 Vaoo. v St0.0
l,3 (, ( >cocOD.o goo.6
.( D.q z-{Da, 6 oo.o
2, 1 0. LI /30. b 4.500.0

..
f
.
L
/. (0
v,
zo . o
3ao, d
3 3
/. 4/
6-06. v
/G 00,0
3. -2
a. 3
36,o, 0
z sz), 0
3 O
o,Co
yiov, v
(00o, n
.2.i
I•/
.5-4D,D
46)46
,3. 6
0.7
goa, a
(9 0, 6
3. ti
o-3
g8a , C
Go, d
3UL`/
03
. .5.V
1d7
/aCO, O
�io,o
5.g
20
(r000,0
//o,o
5 a
&
ow, a
/6o, o
55
0.`K
3.wx0, 0
150,0
.5, V
0, $
G do. o
�<./o, o
4-7
/./
1300,O
/50,0
,_ 3.$
0.5
o7G00, 0
450,0
,2.la
o. 6
9m)0, v
/ go, o
,..,
O- y
Roo, 0
90.0
.SUN
'03
&. L!
3.„
�0?0O,6
..,0
6..
2. 3
a 300, o
4a, 000 .
0
�.a
1,
.7a0o.0
cP id. o
5,a
1,3
5too. o
'7a.0
01/1Y
03
5.
07,0
/095.D
,;7,0
7, 5
/. 7
>(cx) o
56.0
6./
2.6
>62000,0
3ov,o
5, 7
44,_
3e7/00, 0
76 ya, o
/Ilk_
o3
/i,Z
q,4
75,o
a-7.0
l , 3
! 5•4
6,000. v
5'10, 0
/3.Z
/5- 7
'7. Go
9. /
8
163-70,0Z.(,,a
c 4 6
Ie.'7
a• 5
&OW,a
3 .v0,6

NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(This form is best filled out on computer, rather than hard copy)
Date: 6/17/2004
To: NPDES Discharge Permitting Unit
Attn. NPDES Reviewer: Dawn Jeffries
County: Halifax
Permitee: Scotland Neck
Application/ Permit No.: NC0023337
Staff Report Prepared By: Myrl Nisely
Project Name:
SOC Priority Project? (Y/N) Y If Yes, SOC No. EMC SOC WO S01-008
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. This application is (check all that apply): ❑ New ® Renewal
❑ Modification
2. Was a site visit conducted in order to prepare this report? ® Yes or 0 I
a. Date of site visit: 6/15/04 j
b. Person contacted and telephone number: Tony Gorham 252-826-55 0
c. Site visit conducted by: Myrl Nisely
d. Inspection Report Attached: ® Yes or ❑ No.
J U L 2 3 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
' .. .i -•-•i --- - •"7n�^�...�a'., ...r.• tip.. ,�'..;Jy_;�,
3. Keeping BIMS Accurate: Is the following BIMS information (a. through e ieiow) correcir—"."''`'"6" "14" 24 "
® Yes or ❑ No. If No, please either indicate that it is correct on the current application or the
existing permit or provide the details. If none can be supplied, please explain:
Discharge Point: (Fill this section only if BIMS or Application Info is incorrect or missing)
(If there is more than one discharge pipe, put the others on the last page of this form.)
a. Location OK on Applicationla
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Location:
b. Driving Directions OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Driving Directions (please be accurate):
c. USGS Quadrangle Map name and number OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide USGS Quadrangle Map name and number:
d. Latitude/Longitude OK on Application ❑, (check at http://topozone.com These are often
inaccurate) OK on Existing Permit El, or provide Latitude: Longitude:
e. Receiving Stream OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Receiving Stream or affected waters:
a. Stream Classification:
b. River Basin and Sub basin No.:
c. Describe receiving stream features and downstream uses:
For NEW FACILITIES Proceed to Section C, Evaluation and Recommendations
(For renewals or modifications continue to section B)

B. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND WASTE(S) (renewals and modifications only) Weo
1. Describe the existing treatment facility: In transition - major modifications under SOC. Will be adding
a Non -Discharge Spray Irrigation component to the plant, as well. Willa separate Non -discharge
permit ands ray certified operators needed for that component?
2. Are there appropriately certified ORCs for the facilities? ® Yes or ❑ No.
Operator in Charge: James Pittman Certificate # 26503 (Available in BIMS or Certification
Website)
Back- Operator in Charge: Tony Gorham Certificate # 22289
3. Does the facility have operational or compliance problems? Please comment: Need digester capacity,
to be added in the upgrade. Compliance problems should go away after the rebuild.
Summarize your BIMS review of monitoring data (Notice(s) of violation within the last permit cycle;
Current enforcement action(s)):
Are they currently under SOC, ® Currently under JOC, ❑ Currently under moratorium ®? Have
all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit, SOC, JOC, etc. been complied with? ® Yes
or ❑ No. If no, please explain:
4. Residuals Treatment: PSRP CO (Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens, Class B) or
PFRP ❑ (Process to Further Reduce Pathogens, Class A)?
Are they liquid or dewatered to a cake? Liquid
Land Applied? Yes ® No ❑ If so, list Non -Discharge Permit No. WQ0022697
Contractor Used: None
NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS o
t(Pc V
Landfilled? Yes ❑ No❑ If yes, where?
Other'?
Adequate Digester Capacity? Yes ❑ No ® Sludge Storage Capacity? Yes ❑ No
Please comment on current operational practices: Using outer ring of 2nd Oxidation ditch as digester
5. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this
permit? ® Yes or ❑ No. If yes, please explain: Are situated in low area abutted by 100 year
floodplain. May need to take measures to keep stormwater from entering influent structure. Project
engineer has been made aware of the updated flood plain maps.
C. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: has the facility evaluated the non -discharge options available? Give
regional perspective for each option evaluated:
Spray Irrigation: Yes, plan to append a system to the treatment plant. Presume you have details.
Connect to Regional Sewer System: N/A
FORM: NPDES-RRO 06/03, 9/03 2

NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Subsurface: N/A
Other Disposal Options: N/A
2. Provide any additional narrative regarding your review of the application: Concurrent to the treatment
plant upgrade is a sewer rehab project that will significantly reduce I&I. RRO will be interested in
the construction of the auxilliary spray system and its startup because a similar system is planned for
Rich Square.
3. List any items that you would like NPDES Unit to obtain through an additional information
request. Make sure that you provide a reason for each item:
Recommended Additional Information
Reason
4. List specific Permit requirements that you recommend to be removed from the permit when
issued. Make sure that you provide a reason for each condition:
Recommended Removal
Reason
5. List specific special requirements or compliance schedules that you recommend to be included in
the permit-w en issued. a e sure.tiat you provide a reason for each special condition:
Recommended Addition
Reason
Consider changing monitoring to 5x/week? .
,c,, r
.. - 2 • s.rt0p) "��
GLASS 4 `s ,fa, 176t.:1 y
1
Once Hobgood ties into this plant, will
changes be enough to warrant increased
frequency? y Jv
6. Recommendation: ❑ Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office;
❑ Hold, pending review and approval of required additional information by NPDES permitting
office; ® Issue; ❑ Deny. If deny, please state reasons:
FORM: NPDES-RRO 06/03, 9/03 3

NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Reminder: attach inspection report if Yes was checked for 2 d.
7. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of WQS regional supervisor:
Date:
D. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
If next page is not used, PLEASE set printer for pages 1 through 3 to avoid wasting paper.
Use this page for facilities with more than one Discharge Pipe
Discharge Point: (Fill this section only if BIMS or Application Info is incorrect or missing)
a. Location OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Location:
b. Driving Directions OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Driving Directions (please be accurate):
c. USGS Quadrangle Map name and number OK on Application El,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide USGS Quadrangle Map name and number:
d. Latitude/Longitude O K o n A pplication ❑, ( check at http://topozone.com These are often
inaccurate) OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Latitude: Longitude:
e. Receiving Stream OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Receiving Stream or affected waters:
a. Stream Classification:
b. River Basin and Sub basin No.:
c. Describe receiving stream features and downstream uses:
Discharge Point: (Fill this section only if BIMS or Application Info is incorrect or missing)
a. Location OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Location:
b. Driving Directions OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Driving Directions (please be accurate):
c. USGS Quadrangle Map name and number OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide USGS Quadrangle Map name and number:
d. Latitude/Longitude OK on A pplication ❑, ( check at http://topozone.com These are often
inaccurate) OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Latitude: Longitude:
FORM: NPDES-RRO 06/03, 9/03 4

June 17, 2004
Memo
To: File
From: Myrl Nisely Ng
Subject: Scotland Neck Recon on 6/15/04
NPDES Permit No. NC0023337
Halifax County
Myrl Nisely visited the Scotland Neck WWTP on 6/15/04 and was given information by
Operator Melvin Andrews and Backup ORC Tony Gorham. A unit by unit tour was made
without the operators present. Later telephone conversation is in italics. Observations were:
• Remodeling of the plant continues. Footings were being dug for the new tertiary filter
building. Lines have been laid in the spray field. Interestingly, there did not appear to be
any pipes extending from the disturbed soil for the spray heads. There exists dissention
between the farmer next to the WWTP and the treatment plant, such that right now one must
enter the field from a street in town. Once operation is ready, a road to it will be established,
apparently.
• The influent grit auger was working. No drain has been installed in the receiving pad.
Installation of the mechanical bar screen has not begun. The two manual screens allow a lot
of paper and plastic to pass into the plant. Trash of this kind was visible in virtually every
unit throughout the plant.
• The two oxidation ditches each had one aerator running, and looked normal. The smaller
ditch is slated to become an aerated digester in the fmal configuration. The outer ring is now
used for sludge processing. Hauling and land app were going on, and the ring had been
lowered by about two feet.
• The newly refurbished secondary clarifier had dirty weirs, with some notches blocked. Scum
removal was poor — the pusher paddle moved left and right so that at times the rubber blades
hit each side of the channel and at other times a 2 —3" gap occurred on the outside wall. This
allowed grease to escape, so that collection was minimal. The built up scum at the release
point had dried out and mounded, with a plant growing out of it. In other words, no scum
was exiting the trough. Spoke with Melvin Andrews 6/17/04, he reported that the scum pump
was out of service. Is under warranty to be repaired soon. He will bring the skimmer
movement to the attention of the engineers and have them call me with their thoughts about
it. The unit needed housekeeping attention. Can only clean on the off days when sampling is
not taking place, per Melvin. Clarifier effluent was slightly murky. The smaller secondary
clarifier was clean with sparkling clear effluent.
• Chlorination occurs in the old tertiary filter boxes, with sodium bisulfite dripped into the
effluent just before post aeration. Final effluent through the Parshall flume was slightly hazy.
• UV lamps are in place in the water flow, but are not in use yet.

'to
MAYOR:
ROBERT B. PARTIN
COMMISSIONERS:
KENNETH BRANCH
LEONARD BUNTING
BRYAN DOBSON
CHARLIE SHIELDS
RAYMOND WATSON
April 29, 2004
Mr. Ken Schuster, Supervisor
NCDENR, Raleigh Regional Office
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Dear Mr. Schuster:
it
rt\cie-L
catinb At
P. O. BOX 537
SCOTLAND NECK, NC 27874
i,
APR 3 0 2004
NANCY JACKSON
• TOWN CLERK
I am submitting a quarterly progress report detailing the Town of Scotland Neck
WWTP/Collection System construction activities, including I&I rehabilitation during the calendar
quarter of January 1, 2004 through March 31, 2004. This report corresponds with the
requirements of Section 2 (b).8 of our Special Order by Consent (EMC SOC WQ 501-008).
During the past quarter, construction upgrade activities have included the following:
1. Start up of the new Grit Removal System at the Influent Structure.
2. Completion of the rehabilitation of the larger secondary clarifier. Start up of this unit process
also occurred during this period. As of January 14, 2004, all WWTP upgrades included in
Phase I are complete. This project is closed out.
3. Collection System upgrades, including significant sewage pump station improvements were
also made during this period. This project was also completed in January with the exception
of a few punch list items. The last of these items which included replacing a pump at lift
station #1 are complete as of today's date.
Phase II is currently underway. The new spray field irrigation project has been started. Manhole
rehab has begun.
A review of these efforts in relation to reduction of Inflow/Infiltration was made through
evaluation of wastewater treatment plant flow and associated rainfall events.
Please note that the Scotland Neck WWTP only records effluent flow, which presents a delayed
effect to corresponding rainfall.
Table I provides a chronological comparison of daily WWTP effluent flow verses daily rainfall
from January 1, 2003 through March 31, 2004. As you will note during this period there is a

noticeable trend in flow reduction. This general comparison is greatly affected by the excessive
rainfall experience during 2003.
Selected data of comparable rainfall events provided the following:
Date Rainfall(inches) Flow(MGD)
04/07/03 1.2 0.730
04/09/03 1.3 0.846
08/18/03 1.2 0.532
03/16/04 1.4 0.636
As you will note, a 1.4 inch rain event on 3/16/04 produced less total flow than a 1.2 inch or 1.3
inch event on 4/7/03 and 4/9/03 respectively.
"Dry Weather" WWTP flows during this review period averaged approximately 0.389 MGD.
This data suggest a possible average reduction of 30% comparing the current quarter to the
remaining flow values. Maximum reduction rates were in the range of 50%.
The variability and accuracy of this evaluation is related to actual rainfall rates (period) verses
total amounts (inches) over time as well as rainfall following periods of existing ground
saturation from previous events.
Table II presents the same period of data as Monthly Average Flow verses Total Monthly
Rainfall. This graph also shows a decreasing flow trend from January, 2003 through March 2004.
One notable period (7/03 — 10/03) in Table II shows total rainfall amounts increasing significantly
and WWTP flow continuing a steady trend following reduction.
An overall downward trend in facility flow has been noticed at the WWTP. We will continue to
evaluate these reductions as more data becomes available.
I hope this information is helpful in documenting the Town's progress. Should you have any
questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Nancy Jackson
Town Administrator/Clerk
Lier__\s,,,
cc: Point Source Compliance Enforcement Unit

u.
c
re
8.0
TABLE II
Town of Scotland Neck WWTP
Monthly Avg Flow vs. Total Monthly Rainfall
A
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.4000
CD
3
0.300
7.0
6.0
IllirillLMIIIIIIIPIIIIF. A
if - - .-...11 RI In r
NA mui FA imi .
4.0
. 1111WIMIliw—
3.0
L2.0
.
0.200
0.100
0.000
AV
VAIIIIIIMII
1.0
FIN
MIME
0.0
I
o`� ((o`� p`� p`„
P 1 QQ�
03 ,4`5 o`b 0CP
o`� ,J�
\,0 ' 0b coe9 OG. �OJ c f,c
Date
/ ? fr 4,,C
—f-- Rain Fall, Inches Flow, MGD Flow Trendline

Rain Fall, Inches
7.0 -
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
TABLE I
Town of Scotland Neck WWTP
Daily Flow vs Daily Rainfall
- 1.200
♦
i
P
°°°73 °b.°°°°°°°°rb °° °° °° °° °° °° °° °° °° °°° °°°°°°°°°°°°°°fb °° rbr°°rb °°\ °°P °°P °°� ° °°D‘
�\tip N, ���� '`� ��o ki\ 0, Q) ��� °7 0, `) \NV A°b \`co \)° \S �1 �`° ��°` 9°- (17 °h N71 3 '1 r�j` '`°` �� N �`' 1%. °`
0 0 0 09) 09) o5 o`b C o°` o`' o' o° 0° 0' 0' o o° 0° o 0° 1•° P•° <1 '\( 1.`. o� o� 09 0`l Off\ 04
Date
f Rain Fall, Inches —♦— Flow, MGD Flow Trendline
1.000
0.800
C7
0.600
0
LL
0.400
0.200
0.000

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Scotland Neck WWTP, NC0023337
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Tar Pamlico
FORM
2A
NPDES
NPDES FORM 2A APP .0 TION OVERVIEW
APPLICATION OVERVIEW
Form 2A has been developed in a modular format and consists of a "Basic Application Information" packet
and a "Supplemental Application Information" packet. The Basic Application Information packet is divided
into two parts. All applicants must complete Parts A and C. Applicants with a design flow greater than or
equal to 0.1 mgd must also complete Part B. Some applicants must also complete the Supplemental
Application Information packet. The following items explain which parts of Form 2A you must complete.
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION:
A. Basic Application Information for all Applicants. All applicants must complete questions A.1 through A.8. A treatment works
that discharges effluent to surface waters of the United States must also answer questions A.9 through A.12.
B. Additional Application Information for Applicants with a Design Flow >_ 0.1 mgd. All treatment works that have design flows
greater than or equal to 0.1 million gallons per day must complete questions B.1 through 8.6.
C. Certification. All applicants must complete Part C (Certification).
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION:
D Expanded Effluent Testing Data. A treatment works that discharges effluent to surface waters of the United States and meets
one or more of the following criteria must complete Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data):
1. Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1 mgd,
2. Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place), or
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to provide the information.
Toxicity Testing Data. A treatment works that meets one or more of the following criteria must complete Part E (Toxicity Testing
Data):
1. Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1 mgd,
2. Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place), or
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to submit results of toxicity testing.
Industrial User Discharges and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes. A treatment works that accepts process wastewater from any
significant industrial users (Sills) or receives RCRA or CERCLA wastes must complete Part F (Industrial User Discharges
and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes). Sills are defined as:
1. All industrial users subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 403.6 and
40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N (see instructions); and
2. Any other industrial user that:
a. Discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the treatment works (with certain
exclusions); or
b. Contributes a process wastestream that makes up 5 percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic
capacity of the treatment plant; or
c. Is designated as an SIU by the control authority.
. Combined Sewer Systems. A treatment works that has a combined sewer system must complete Part G (Combined Sewer
Systems).
ALL APPLICANTS MUST COMPLETE PART C (CERTIFICATION)
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 1 of 1

FACIUTY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Scotland Neck WWTP, NC0023337
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Tar Pamlico
��� ! ''.Y1 F �' 1: 'fF IR4''l'. �x{ A i. t %,i`>�'tl. d i�r-t i+h.) r l a
.<.. t+�y�yff� n[ ■/' la ' :.�-.e',.,Je!' C: •ry.reih§iX am. } 1l•1►t, i ��R 'ba ..v: a rF ' « lt
J C .. �."s T fS. If'� `F T.._�+.5 L� :�.t
''�>C.9�T,h'+�JT.?.iklritt� T4.l.u:l(,� Fec._f.. ��.. �e� .� .Y_..1':l ti)v:(�, frr..Y'.1.:>AW..i.u,.R:.i, s]`y i! •� :.ti..lS&.. � +in: - .e
ay.� . yam. �,� z t C� . .t7. ,. ..Y"<e. j. F '.. � 5 f .. :NG. t � 1
t�,w;h.:aa�:F:� .-+:,k���d�r'�.4�ti'ti :.,'.e :`ai t:.''w+n`sc'...<Fii+. ,x4*o+..._+iL+ )�".,rtii}'i<�J.a,S .�4:� .�s�'%r:J:.F.A:.(a;a�'
nT.=s:. :.-'�'.*�+-'s�,y?.ft, is +: =4+1 ''--"'�.,- — y - t,$n: '� Iffkr t +'-' .* `7e.+ - .` .-4 _-..r..", s 'R- ,,,,, › . w 1=` :.,✓S.< "�"K"' "x �y-r�s�l..r- , z _
R: 3 i , • : . 4 t .' r I[r31 ".�. L'; ' 1 A , L:�1 17 1 T r Lj r f t7 [5.! i C1 T '' u •
` `I+ � Z'i T "","'r� "�' -: .,* , t'' �1 1 o'i "--t sT�c4' VY '... ttS' ,S l ..... �i' e �..?t R 71: ',. Y'2 gyp'-.A.•.�
.�'..5 J � krala. /'r ✓v f:^w.. �i�. ill � }.l a 1'„ .i�,sE�<.t yg,[fi�.�:k41..:�"a�....�l. �. KJaw�.. �. i�' iY. `L�..a.�;M 6���a i'Y/,J'KeI.
All treatment works must complete questions A.1 through A.8 of this Basic Application Information Packet.
A.1. Facility Information.
Facility Name Scotland Neck WWTP
TP
Mailing Address PO Box 537
Scotland Neck, NC 27874
Contact Person Nancy Jackson
Title Town Administrator
Telephone Number [phone]
Facility Address US Highway 258 south of Scotland Neck
(not P.O. Box) Scotland Neck, NC 27874
A.2. Applicant Information. If the applicant is different from the above, provide the following:
Applicant Name Town of Scotland Neck
Mailing Address PO Box 537
Scotland Neck, NC 27874
Contact Person Nancy Jackson
Title Town Administrator
Telephone Number [phone]
Is the applicant the owner or operator (or both) of the treatment works?
to the facility or the applicant.
existing environmental permits that have been issued to the treatment works
PSD
® owner • operator
Indicate whether correspondence regarding this permit should be directed
0 facility applicant
A.3. Existing Environmental Permits. Provide the permit number of any
(include state -issued permits).
NPDES NC002337
UIC Other W00001600
RCRA Other
A.4. Collection System Information. Provide information on municipalities and areas served by the facility. Provide the name and population of each
entity and, if known, provide information on the type of collection system (combined vs. separate) and its ownership (municipal, private, etc.).
Name Population Served Type of Collection System Ownership
Scotland Neck WWTP 2364 Sanitary Town of Scotland Neck
Total population served 2364
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550.E & 7550-22.
Page 2 of 2

FACIUTY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Scotland Neck WWTP, NC0023337
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Tar Pamlico
A.S. Indian Country.
a. Is the treatment works located in Indian Country?
❑ Yes ® No
b. Does the treatment works discharge to a receiving water that is either in Indian Country or that is upstream from (and eventually flows
through) Indian Country?
❑ Yes ® No
A.6. Flow. Indicate the design flow rate of the treatment plant (i.e., the wastewater flow rate that the plant was built to handle). Also provide the
average daily flow rate and maximum daily flow rate for each of the last three years. Each year's data must be based on a 12-month time period
with the 12th month of "this year" occurring no more than three months prior to this application submittal.
a. Design flow rate0.675 mgd
Two Years Ago
Last Year This Year
b. Annual average daily flow rate 0.293 0.453 0.396
c. Maximum daily flow rate 0.673 0.989 0.692
A.7. Collection System. Indicate the type(s) of collection system(s) used by the treatment plant. Check all that apply. Also estimate the percent
contribution (by miles) of each.
® Separate sanitary sewer 100 �6
❑ Combined storm and sanitary sewer
A.8. Discharges and Other Disposal Methods.
a. Does the treatment works discharge effluent to waters of the U.S.? ® Yes ❑ No
If yes, list how many of each of the following types of discharge points the treatment works uses:
i. Discharges of treated effluent 1
II. Discharges of untreated or partially treated effluent
M. Combined sewer overflow points
iv. Constructed emergency overflows (prior to the headworks)
v. Other
b. Does the treatment works discharge effluent to basins, ponds, or other surface impoundments
that do not have outlets for discharge to waters of the U.S.? ❑ Yes
If yes, provide the following for each surface impoundment:
Location:
® No
Annual average daily volume discharge to surface impoundment(s) mgd
Is discharge 0 continuous or ❑ intermittent?
c. Does the treatment works land -apply treated wastewater? 0 Yes ® No
If yes. provide the following for each land application site:
Location:
Number of acres:
Annual average daily volume applied to site: mgd
Is land application ❑ continuous or 0 intermittent?
d. Does the treatment works discharge or transport treated or untreated wastewater to another
treatment works? ❑ Yes ® No
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Page 3 of 3

FACIUTY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Scotland Neck WWTP, NC0023337
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Tar Pamlico
If yes. describe the mean(s) by which the wastewater from the treatment works is discharged or transported to the other treatment works
(e.g., tank truck, pipe).
N/A
If transport is by a party other than the applicant, provide:
Transporter Name
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Title
Telephone Number ( )
For each treatment works that receives this discharge, provide the following:
Name
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Title
Telephone Number ( )
If known, provide the NPDES permit number of the treatment works that receives this discharge
Provide the average daily flow rate from the treatment works into the receiving facility. mgd
e. Does the treatment works discharge or dispose of its wastewater in a manner not included
in A.8. through A.8.d above (e.g., underground percolation, well injection): 0 Yes ® No
If yes, provide the following for each disposal method:
Description of method (including location and size of site(s) if applicable):
Annual daily volume disposed by this method:
Is disposal through this method 0 continuous or 0 intermittent?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Page 4 of 4

c
FACIUTY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Scotland Neck WWTP, NC0023337
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Tar Pamlico
WASTEWATER DISCHARGES:
If you answered "Yes" to question A.8.a, complete questions A.9 through A.12once for each outfall (including bypass points) through
which effluent is discharged. Do not include Information on combined sewer overflows in this section. If you answered "No" to question
A.8.a, go to Part B, "Additional Application Information for Applicants with a Design Flow Greater than or Equal to 0.1 mgd."
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 5 of 5

A.9. Description of Outfall.
a. Outfall number 001
b. Location Scotland Neck 27874
(City or town. if applicable)
Halifax
(Zip Code)
North Carolina
(County) (State)
36°07'10" 77°26'02"
(Latitude)
c. Distance from shore (if applicable)
d. Depth below surface (if applicable)
e. Average daily flow rate
N/A
N/A
(Longitude)
ft.
ft.
0.396 mgd
f. Does this outfall have either an intermittent or a periodic discharge? ❑ Yes ® No (go to A.9.g.)
If yes, provide the following information:
Number f times per year discharge occurs:
Average duration of each discharge:
Average flow per discharge: mgd
Months in which discharge occurs:
g. Is outfall equipped with a diffuser? ❑ Yes ® No
A.10. Description of Receiving Waters.
a. Name of receiving water Canal Creek
b. Name of watershed (if known) N/A
United States Soil Conservation Service 14-digit watershed code (if known):
c. Name of State Management/River Basin (if known):Tar Pamlico
United States Geological Survey 8-digit hydrologic cataloging unit code (if known):
d. Critical low flow of receiving stream (if applicable)
acute N/A
cfs
chronicN/A cfs
e. Total hardness of receiving stream at critical low flow (if applicable):WA mg/l of CaCO3
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Page 6 of 6

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Scotland Neck WWTP, NC0023337
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Tar Pamlico
A.11. Description of Treatment
a. What level of treatment are provided? Check all that apply.
❑ Primary ® Secondary
❑ Advanced ❑ Other. Describe:
b. Indicate the following removal rates (as applicable):
Design BOD5 removal or Design CBOD5 removal 97
Design SS removal 92
Design P removal
Design N removal `/o
Other
c. What type of disinfection is used for the effluent from this outfall? If disinfection varies by season, please describe:
Liquid Chlorine
If disinfection is by chlorination is dechlorination used for this outfall? ® Yes 0 No
Does the treatment plant have post aeration? ® Yes 0 No
A.12. Effluent Testing Information. All Applicants that discharge to waters of the US must provide effluent testing data for the following
parameters. Provide the Indicated effluent testing required by the permitting authority for each outfall through which effluent is
discharged. Do not include Information on combined sewer overflows In this section. All information reported must be based on data
collected through analysis conducted using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with QA/QC requirements of
40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate QA/QC requirements for standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. At a
minimum, effluent testing data must be based on at least three samples and must be no more than four and one-half years apart.
Outfall number: 001 Based on 2003 Data
PARAMETER
MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
AVERAGE DAILY VALUE
Value
Units
Value
Units
Number of Samples
pH (Minimum)
6.2
s.u.
�` ti y
pH (Maximum)
7.5
s.u.',
t ! t R
''`
Flow Rate
0.989
MGD
0.453
MGD
365
Temperature (Winter)
28.8
Degrees
14.6
Degrees
125
Temperature (Summer)
29.1
Degrees
23.3
Degrees
127
For pH please report a minimum and a maximum daily value
POLLUTANT
MAXIMUM DAILY
DISCHARGE
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
ML/MDL
Conc.
Units
Conc.
Units
Number of
Samples
CONVENTIONAL AND NON CONVENTIONAL COMPOUNDS
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN
DEMAND (Report one)
BOD5
48.0
Mg/I
12.6
Mg/I
157
SM5210B
2.0 mg/I
CBOD5
FECAL COLIFORM
6000.0
#/100m1
73.1
#/100m1
157
SM922D
1.0 CFU/100
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS)
37.0
Mg/I
7.6
Mg/I
157
SM2540D
1.0 mg/I
END OF PART A.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550.6 & 7550-22.
Page 8 of 8

FACIUTY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Scotland Neck WWTP, NC0023337
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Tar Pamlico
�` 19N �I C= ', Oil•
1 J it' i _ , i+- 4
:: i^6 M ..i.., - w�'s �'-:1";,'.'-,14 ',:�. Li-JAB-_`5: 274: —
�
R (��y
AR , dk ITt.© w �OR� Q[ #�N1S' G .` � , R
.,. �. , 1tiv.. -�-'a�.^"�-i...T.. ` e7' �� .-. �^. ;1 ,R �sr, 7, 31<. i .":
= i1»}:-r '.." — - -.c<. Ms ...v+• s_. ..s...,.` r.} "'=.7a.is3r710,l ,..a
All applicants with a design flow rate z 0.1 mgd must answer questions B.1 through 8.6. All others go to Part C (Certification).
B.1. Inflow and Infiltration. Estimate the average number of gallons per day that flow into the treatment works from inflow and/or infiltration.
NIA gpd
Briefly explain any steps underway or planned to minimize inflow and
infiltration.
B.2. Topographic Map. Attach to this application a topographic map of the area extending at least one mile beyond facility property boundaries. This
map must show the outline of the facility and the following information. (You may submit more than one map If one map does not show the entire
area.) See Attached
a. The area surrounding the treatment plant, including all unit processes.
b. The major pipes or other structures through which wastewater enters the treatment works and the pipes or other structures through which
treated wastewater is discharged from the treatment plant. Include outfalls from bypass piping. If applicable.
c. Each well where wastewater from the treatment plant is injected underground.
d. Wells, springs, other surface water bodies, and drinking water wells that are: 1) within % mite of the property boundaries of the treatment
works, and 2) listed in public record or otherwise known to the applicant.
e. Any areas where the sewage sludge produced by the treatment works is stored, treated, or disposed. See Attached
f. If the treatment works receives waste that is classified as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by truck. rail
or special pipe, show on the map where the hazardous waste enters the treatment works and where it is treated, stored, and/or disposed.
B.3. Process Flow Diagram or Schematic. Provide a diagram showing the processes of the treatment plant, including all bypass piping and all
backup power sources or redunancy in the system. Also provide a water balance showing all treatment units, including disinfection (e.g..
chlorination and dechlorination). The water balance must show daily average flow rates at influent and discharge points and approximate daily flow
rates between treatment units. include a brief narrative description of the diagram. See Attached.
B.4. Operation/Maintenance Performed by Contractor(s).
Are any operational or maintenance aspects (related to wastewater treatment
and effluent quality) of the treatment works the responsibility of a
contractor? _4 Yes to No
If yes, list the name, address, telephone number, and status of each contractor and describe the contractor's responsibilities (attach additional
pages if necessary).
Name: Hydro Management Services
Mailing Address: PO Box 1279
Clemmons, NC 27012
Telephone Number. [phone]
Responsibilities of Contractor. Operation and Maintenance Management of WWTP
8.5. Scheduled improvements and Schedules of Implementation. Provide information on any uncompleted implementation schedule or
uncompleted plans for improvements that will affect the wastewater treatment, effluent quality, or design capacity of the treatment works. If the
treatment works has several different implementation schedules or is planning several improvements, submit separate responses to question 8.5
for each. (If none, go to question B.6.)
a. List the outfall number (assigned in question A.9) for each outfall that is covered by this implementation schedule.
001
b. Indicate whether the planned improvements or implementation
schedule are required by local, State, or Federal agencies.
■ Yes ®No
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-8 & 7550-22.
Page 9 of 9

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Scotland Neck WWTP, NC0023337
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Tar Pamlico
c. If the answer to B.5.b is 'Yes," briefly describe, including new maximum daily inflow rate (if applicable .
d. Provide dates imposed
applicable. For improvements
applicable. Indicate
Implementation Stage
- Begin Construction
- End Construction
- Begin Discharge
- Attain Operational
e. Have appropriate
Describe briefly:
by any compliance schedule
planned independently
dates as accurately as possible.
Level
permits/clearances concerning
or any actual dates of completion for the implementation steps listed
of local, State, or Federal agencies, indicate planned or actual completion
Schedule Actual Completion
MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY
below, as
dates, as
Yes ❑ No
1 / 30 / 2 OD 3 / /
7 / 1 / 2005 / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
other Federal/State requirements been obtained? 0
B.6. EFFLUENT TESTING DATA (GREATER THAN 0.1 MGD
Applicants that discharge to waters of the US must
effluent testing required by the permitting authority
on combine sewer overflows in this section. All information
using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data
QA/QC requirements for standard methods for analytes
based on at least three pollutant scans and must be
Outfall Number: 001 Based on 2003 Data
ONLY).
provide effluent testing data for the following parameters. Provide
for each outfall through which effluent is discharged. Do not include
the indicated
information
conducted
other appropriate
data must be
reported
must comply
not addressed
no more than
must be based on data collected through analysis
with QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR Part 136 and
by 40 CFR Part 136. At a minimum effluent testing
four and on -half years old.
POLLUTANT
MAXIMUM DAILY
DISCHARGE
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
MUMDL
Conc.
Units
Conc.
Units
Number of
Samples
CONVENTIONAL AND NON CONVENTIONAL COMPOUNDS
AMMONIA (as N)
30.0
Mg/I
5.8
Mg/l
161
SM4500WH3F
0.1 mg/I
CHLORINE (TOTAL
RESIDUAL, TRC)
17.0
Ugll
11.5
Ug/I
219
SM2540F
2.0 ugll
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
17.9
Mg/I
9.5
Mgll
255
SM4500G
0 mg/I
TOTAL KJELDAHL
NITROGEN (TKN)
16.9
Mg/I
4.7
Mg/I
55
SM4500WORGL
1.0 mg/1
NITRATE PLUS NITRITE
NITROGEN
OIL and GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (Total)
3.0
Mg/I
0.8
Mg/I
55
SM4500PE
0.01 mgll
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
(IDS)
OTHER
END OF PART B.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Page 10 of 10

FACIUTY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Scotland Neck WWTP, NC0023337
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Renewal
RIVER BASIN:
Tar Pamlico
•s" •1E'•s„' 'b- s^ r.-.-s s,..-�' ,. 4 r z::' h , 3 __' £ p _ t . t sy�z f^r ° r'
Yp, 7IcVi- �^ O •1•S -4 L rS;. r' �. A �N #K �.Fl$ C:' i� `. s� 6Sft ; a,
« rT ,Ss' h� ,, �;s �.« t c - i F c •r pca� r
c1F 11 ,:ir., a , .. Li}e'k ,t. _ ...' y.. x '�..,.--';' x: ,r„ � wrk31r�.. ..;.. ..5. .S`.,. � s_... . 1 5 rff ✓ !•..f.� .a..,,
���#� �..,.r'i.d�.�:F+�a..-.tvr�-��•3.i+..k#'sb.a���fiC �.F4. fit. s:ev ..;.�.-?,�.�a:e1.t-,ten •... r• ^w`+��s.x.'.-. ..° nr.., ,...a _.s ✓,�,-.5 <:•s. .�...5-. .. �.:�. o.c��.):P;.' ,-iF .fis`!..x.. .� a<2'C+' ��n.5nt x4�A�e �h.,4 7�i_n.'A�1Re
w.: uww..:i'urr ,i' ;tii:.. ._. -,,,'S v"4,,.8Y�i } S ,.v Ri .: "?.- �...-�.i.� 'O { .-' , ,, i-, ,. t .. f . . >:' }st-ear i.
. C 'fi �IO�• �T,( # J h ° a..i.0 s.lY.1' s Y,T X• si Y r
�$J _ .7.
.....,;A�S.1 i. �.i.'7 Tzs.. w.... v.,:ILA..� .,.�,.... .-...._.. .. _... r -".•.. ..1 .' ..:.d t , .- .:«: .. r_ ..z ........>_.,.. �..........A.. ._ea-... ..I. .. . ..i'.4', y.,=J.t ...�i4i+:,: l'LS.I�%. «. :'-L...: _a,:_..«r t ..
All applicants must complete the Certification Section. Refer to instructions to determine who is an officer for the purposes of this
certification. All applicants must complete all applicable sections of Form 2A, as explained in the Application Overview. Indicate below which
parts of Form 2A you have completed and are submitting. By signing this certification statement, applicants confirm that they have reviewed
Form 2A and have completed ail sections that apply to the facility for which this application is submitted.
Indicate which parts of Form 2A you have completed and
are submitting:
Application Information packet:
D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data)
E (Toxicity Testing: Biomonitoring Data)
F (Industrial User Discharges and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes)
G (Combined Sewer Systems)
►_ Basic Application Information packet Supplemental
❑ Part
• Part
❑ Part
❑ Part
.-
m"«7_.,-+sr»�w'�°�r-w,St..raa? {-r,S.., ..�s.V'..-tr--;S�71.,v,ry!�gy:i..;.a
x?i.., ^-,-r s-a. ..1s-. ,f.,, 'rF.. t _ '.-*-' h
t1�CNT . 2 EFO'�CE��AI<,. l .i�--.ihr. Sr '-'4: �•
..
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the Information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information. the information is. to the best of my knowledge and belief, true.
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information. Including the possibility of fine and imprisonment
for knowing violations.
Name and official title Nancy Jackson, Town Administrator
Signature
Telephone number [phone]
��
Date signed S • . - c ``'—
Upon request of the permitting authority, you must submit any other information necessary to assure wastewater treatment practices at the treatment
works or identify appropriate permitting requirements.
SEND COMPLETED FORMS TO:
NCDENR! DWQ
Attn: NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 11 of 11

TOWN OF SCOTLAND NECK WWTP
Post
Aeration
1
Flow
easureme
eceiving
Sg ream
Dechlorination
nt
Filter
D isinfection
Chlorine
1
Waste
Sludge
yir
♦- Return
Sludge
Splitter
Box
Return
Sludge
Influent
Pump
Station
4
Grit
`Rem ova
Screening

SLUDGE REMOVAL PROCESS
The Town of Scotland Neck has 27.46 acres of land to apply aerobically digested
sludge on in Halifax County. The sludge is sampled and analyzed by a certified
laboratory as required by the State. The sludge is hauled to the land application
site by a tractor pulling a 2,100 gallon tanker.

‘70,
co-
4A42 /Veq<.
%`f`t-/Ajjeo
A )
tt J
igobvziAr 44c_cc77at 74
Goy d � /, Jv D,
f (. 'fi Aileri
/ /ilkSHT.
r _
— '�L% r `l (iif i7( 4
4 Adi .q -2 CFA- j sDI
67- /0/&77 frz-oAri
1wcd 5o G
atANr-r---9 /t c /Go_w (404
)
•
s4-to
?jo Mom 3 Z-0O fP�
!}oo., — K tow O} 000 41la
�l /� �i7 - ,?ramO , O c,_pow
/�4 N'o v t j
•
7 kM ;) J 0,4 7-7/-- /S 6- /k& Ac5 tiJ
AM 6. —7 _rs Pool' y doef•ca/2 A ` CPC19-T/t./1/
0. C. /MV941.r tel _P 'S 04 00a k1 o n/ / Cp AJAJ
1191/1--- 5 -)C '*e/g-10
/� SoG Pe- tk 4- 11�nrJTfl �;0
:or7orer Ti*RN
,Nd e..440,1 c ON jT s 9 �ti 5

tiP
g ZZ triv4411.119-5 T Li Aticir CacaD,v,1
(4,6 .A.„,(7
.
7:5,WN ,A_,,J,--L� ??0 0 Fep
/- 2Oo Crtai2
_ ,
D:3.37
..
1247 - AlA 5 i-Zti fo wt,2 //.off iso,:)_ <A5 f
..--- fib rferv, eon ftr r 7 , S c,w 2 ZZT
u N'-r' tr-Yry ; - riOdv© ca
9'61 — ' RAA, TowN gtArAT suMr. 7 f3cf it
c.
'_' -0."-f (N_e /1 /Z- Gu/ [,L(,1- y Gt If �PEevt.1 ceAtt L`�.d„' %�a
L
��
(our
/-a/1s-off ��-AP__ onr5741-cam . t rs
V' L C.B -
\
0.
i

• ,EHNR - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT T15A: 02H .1200
SECTION .1200 - SPECIAL ORDERS
. 1201 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to implement the provisions of G.S. 143-215.2 and G.S. 143-215.110
pertaining to the issuance of surface water, ground water and air quality Special Orders by the Environmental
Management Commission.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.2; 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.110;
Ef. October 1, 1990.
. 1202 DEFINITIONS
The terms used herein shall be as defined in G.S. 143-212 and G.S. 143-213. Other terms used in this
Section are defined as follows:
(1) "Special Order" means a directive of the Commission to any person whom it finds responsible for
causing or contributing to any pollution of the air or waters of the State. The term includes all
orders or instruments issued by the Commission pursuant to G.S. 143-215.2 or G.S. 143-215.110.
(2) "Consent Order" or "Special Order by Consent" means a type of Special Order where the
Commission enters into an agreement with the person responsible for water or air pollution to
achieve some stipulated actions designed to reduce, eliminate, or prevent air or water quality
degradation.
(3) "Director" means the Director of the Division of Environmental Management.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-212; 143-213; 143-215.2; 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.110;
Ef. October 1, 1990.
.1203 PUBLIC NOTICE
(a) Notice of proposed Consent Order:
(1) The Director is delegated the authority to prepare the notice of the proposed Consent Order and
shall advertise it as specified in G.S. 143-215.2(al)(1) at least 45 days prior to any final action by
the Commission or the Director.
(2) The Notice shall include at least the following:
(A) name, address, and phone number of the agency issuing the public notice;
(B) name and address of the person to whom the order is directed;
(C) a brief summary of the proposed conditions of the agreement including a disclosure of the final
compliance date and the major permit conditions which the permittee will be allowed to exceed;
(D) a brief description of the procedures to be followed by the Commission or Director in reaching
a final determination on the proposed agreement. This shall include explanations of the comment
period and how interested persons may influence or comment on the proposal along with
procedures to request a public meeting. The description shall specify that requests for a public
meeting and comments are to be received by the Division within 30 days following the newspaper
publication of the public notice;
(E) a description of the information available for public review, where it can be found, and
procedures for obtaining copies of pertinent documents.
(b) Notice of public meetings for proposed Consent Order:
(1) The Director shall consider all requests for a public meeting and if he determines that there is
significant public interest, then he will cause such a meeting to be held.
(2) Public meetings shall be noticed by the Director at least 30 days prior to the meeting.
(3) The Notice shall be advertised in a local newspaper and provided to those persons specified in G.S.
143-215.2(al)(2) for water quality special orders and G.S. 143-215.110(al)(2) for air quality
special orders.
(4) The Notice shall include the information specified in (a)(2)(A), (B), (C) and (E) of this Rule
relative to the identification of the parties involved, the conditions of the proposal, how to obtain
additional information and the procedures to be followed by the Commission in reaching a final
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 10/21/92 Page 1

EHNR - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT T15A.• 02H .1200
determination. It should also provide full information regarding the time and location for the
meeting along with procedures for the various methods of providing comment.
(c) Any person may request to receive copies of all notices required by this Rule, and the Director shall
mail copies of notices to those who have submitted a request.
(d) The Director may combine the requirements in Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Rule with a combination
comment period and public meeting notice.
(e) Any Special Order by Consent may be amended by the Director to incorporate minor modifications,
such as reallocations of allowable flows, modification of standard conditions to reflect updated versions,
correct typographical errors and interim date extensions, in a consent order without public notice provided
that the said modifications may not extend final compliance date by more than four months.
(f) The requirements of this Rule for public notice and public meeting were developed to apply to Special
Orders by Consent. The Commission may specify other conditions for Special Orders issued without consent.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.2; 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.3(a)(3);
143-215.30) (4); 143-215.110;
Ef. November 1, 1990;
Amended Eff. August 3, 1992.
.1204 FINAL ACTION ON SPECIAL ORDERS BY CONSENT
The Director is authorized to take final action for the Commission on Special Orders by Consent except in
those cases where a public meeting is held as provided in 15A NCAC 2H .1203. The final action on the
proposed order shall be taken no later than 60 days following publication of the notice or, if a public meeting
is held, within 90 days following the meeting.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.2; 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.3(a)(4); 143-215.110;
Ef. October 1, 1990.
.1205 ACTION ON SPECIAL ORDERS ISSUED WITHOUT CONSENT
The Commission may issue a proposed Special Order without the consent of the person affected. The
Commission shall notify the affected person of the procedure set out in G.S. 150B-23 to contest the proposed
Special Order.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.2(b); 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.110(b);
Ef. October 1, 1990;
Amended Ef. August 3, 1992.
.1206 WATER QUALITY SPECIAL ORDERS BY CONSENT
(a) Requests for Water Quality Special Orders by Consent:
(1) Requests by permittees must be made in triplicate on forms supplied by the Division of
Environmental Management along with a nonrefundable four hundred dollars ($400.00) fee and all
other required information.
(2) Requests found to be incomplete will be returned to the permittee with an explanation of
deficiencies.
(3) Requests must be signed as follows:
(A) in the case of corporations, by a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice-president,
or his duly authorized representative, if such representative is responsible for the overall
operation of the facility for which the Order is being requested;
(B) in the case of a partnership, by a general partner and in the case of a limited partnership, by a
general partner;
(C) in the case of a sole proprietorship, by the proprietor;
(D) in the case of a municipal, state, or other public entity by either a principal executive officer,
ranking elected official or other duly authorized employee.
(b) Evaluation of the requests:
(1) Requests will not be evaluated unless it is demonstrated by the permittee to the satisfaction of the
Director that noncompliance is not due to failure by the permittee to properly operate, manage and
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 10/21/92 Page 2

_ .EHNR - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT T15A: 02H .1200
maintain the wastewater treatment system and that the existing wastewater treatment system is being
operated in such a way as to attain the highest degree of treatment possible under the existing
conditions. The demonstration must also evaluate all reasonably available low -capital -cost interim
improvements, even though they may not be directly related to the final treatment option. This
demonstration must be made in the form of a report prepared by an independent consultant (a
professional with expertise in wastewater treatment).
(2) Requests will not be evaluated unless the permittee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Director that:
(A) funds needed to meet the requirements of the proposed order are available or will be available
to meet the compliance schedule and any interim effluent limitations; or
(B) that the permittee can adopt specific alternative steps to achievq compliance where the permittee
cannot assure total financing of needed facilities.
(c) Development of the Special Order:
(1) The compliance schedule in the order must be sufficiently detailed to insure that the permittee is
constantly progressing toward final compliance. This schedule will normally include, but not be
limited to, activities such as submission of plans and specifications, starting of construction,
completion of construction and achievement of final compliance.
(2) The interim effluent limitations must be based on the optimum expected efficiency of the existing
treatment system. In cases of phased construction or expected interim treatment facility
improvements, the interim limitations shall reflect these expected improvements. Likewise, if
treatment units must be taken off line due to construction, the interim limitations may be modified
during the period of actual outage.
(3) To insure compliance with all schedules dates and interim effluent limitations, all orders must
contain stipulated penalties for violations of specified requirements. Also a monetary settlement
will normally be included in the order to settle previous violations.
(4) The order must contain a condition that advises the permittee that it is responsible for funding the
treatment system improvements and that lack of funds will not be a defense in contesting stipulated
penalties.
(d) Acceptance of additional wastewater into a wastewater treatment system owned or operated by a unit
of government, in accordance with G.S. 143-215.67(b). •
(1) Additional flows will only be allowed as part of a consent Order when the following demonstrations
can be made:
(A) New or improved wastewater treatment facilities will be constructed in the near future that will
adequately treat the existing and additional waste or the permittee can adopt specific alternative
steps to offset the adverse effects of the additional waste.
(B) The flows are needed to provide minimum reasonable service to identified new residential,
commercial and industrial sources or equivalent substitutions for those sources as approved by
the Director.
(C) The nature of the additional flows is such that the waste characteristics do not exceed those
generally associated with domestic waste or are pretreated to domestic strengths. Waste of
greater than normal domestic strength may be accepted if the parameter(s) are not those for which
interim limitations have been developed and it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Director that the additional waste will not adversely affect the treatment efficiency of the
treatment system for any modified parameter or result in the violation of any other permit
limitation.
(D) All new and proposed industrial waste tributary to the system must be controlled using all needed
mechanisms including but not limited to adoption and implementation of industrial waste control
and pretreatment ordinances.
(E) The cumulative impacts of wastewater allowed under the order will not result in any significant
degradation in the quality of the waters ultimately receiving the wastewater during flow conditions
between and including the 7-day, 10-year minimum flow (7Q10) and the average flow. The
division must consider any special or protected waters such as but not limited to, High Quality
Waters, Water Supply Waters, Trout Waters and Shellfish Waters in conducting this evaluation.
Significant degradation shall be defined to include but not be limited to the following:
(i) A predictive decrease in dissolved oxygen of 0.5 mg/1 or greater at the point of maximum
NORTH. CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 10/21/92 Page 3

EHNR - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MA: 02H .1200
dissolved oxygen sag. In cases where existing (prior to adding the requested wastewater)
dissolved oxygen conditions are above 3.0 mg/1 at or above 7Q10 conditions, the amount of
wastewater added will not be allowed to depress oxygen levels below 3.0 mg/1 at the
corresponding stream flow levels. No additional wastewater will be allowed if measured or
predicted dissolved oxygen levels at any stream flow at or above 7Q10 are less than 3.0 mg/1
unless specific approval is granted by the Environmental Management Commission. In
making this decision, the Commission will consider criteria such as but not limited to
naturally occurring background dissolved oxygen levels, projected duration of impacts and
stream miles impacted. In cases when adequate models do not exist to allow the prediction
of instream dissolved oxygen impacts, no additional wastewater will be allowed into the
system; or
(ii) A predictive increase in the length of the affected segment (that segment in which the
predicted dissolved oxygen is less than dissolved oxygen standards) of 0.5 miles or greater;
or
(iii) An increase in coliform bacteria density predicted to exceed applicable water quality
standards; or
(iv) Increases in the coliform density, decreases in dissolved oxygen, or changes in any other
water quality parameters which are predicted to result in mortality of fish or other aquatic
life, closing of swimming areas or significant impact on other water uses, regardless of
compliance with conditions Subparts (d)(1)(E)(i)-(iii) of this Rule;
(v) The proposed addition of toxic pollutants in quantities not generally associated with domestic
wastewater characteristics, unless the acceptance of the additional wastewater can be
supported through appropriate analyses acceptable to the Director.
(2) Approvals of additional wastewater flows may be immediately rescinded by the Director for any
schedule or condition violation, or limit violations in two consecutive months, or any other
violation he considers sufficiently severe to warrant such action. In determining violations to be
sufficiently severe, the Director will consider factors such as but not limited to the parameter(s)
being violated, the magnitude of the violation(s), the projected duration of the violation(s), the
waters being impacted or projected to be impacted and the reasons for the violation(s). In the
notification to the permittee that the flow has been rescinded, the Director will identify the factor(s)
that made the decision necessary.
History Note: Statutory Authority G. S. 143-215.2; 143-215.3(a)(1);
Ef. August 3, 1992.
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 10/21/92 Page 4

• t e
4.5.3 Deep Creek [AU# 28-79-32-(0.5)]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Deep Creek (19.8 miles) is currently Supporting in the aquatic life category from source to NC
97 because of a Moderate Stress bioclassification at site B-5 in 2002. There was no flow in Deep
Creek above Scotland Neck and the stream channel is braided. There are also indicators of
severe stress in Deep Creek. Scotland Neck WWTP failed four whole effluent toxicity tests in
the last two years of the assessment period and exceeded permit limits for both chlorine and
ammonia on occasions in 2002.
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in Deep Creek to assess future removal of the
Scotland Neck discharge. Scotland Neck will receive $3,000,000 through DWQ Construction,
Grants and Loans Program for rehabilitation and to move to spray irrigation.
C»t- �, D' -�
Section B: Chapter 4 - Tar -Pamlico Subbasin 03-03-04

Re: Scotland Neck
0 ) e
Nc 2,33 31
Subject: Re: Scotland Neck
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 08:14:29 -0400
From: Kirk Stafford <[e-mail]>
To: Susan A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Hey Susan,
Thanks for all you help and input. We have pretty much ruled out
the additional 30,000 gpd for Hobgood. The Town will know next week if
the 30 room hotel will become a reality. That flow would be around 3,600
gpd at full occupancy. I don't see that 3,600 could make much difference
in the long run since the I&I work is very extensive. A relaxed limit of
30 for BOD might not be required. That is CD Malone's estimate. I will
have to look at 2002 DMRs to see actually how well the plant is doing
with HydroManagement as contract operator. Ultimately, someone higher up
the ladder than me will have to make the call on additional flow. Thanks
again.
Susan A Wilson wrote:
>Kirk -
>I typed some stuff up for this based on your questions this morning
>(mostly to remind myself what I did if you have more questions). The
>write-up is attached.
>If we want to keep them at constant load at a reduced flow - it does not
>provide them much lee -way with regard to relaxed limits. I tried to
>look at it with a constant load and the addition of flow (0.03 MGD) .
>This probably justifies even more why they should have no additional
>flow.
>The reality is that they need an SOC to get the plant to an optimal
>level - and that will likely have an impact into the zero flow stream.
>You may want to look harder at what BOD5 they could live with in the
>interim (if they can meet a 6 mg/1 NH3-N, they should be able to meet a
>lower BOD5 level than 30 mg/1). But even at that - they would have to
>meet some really low levels of BOD5 and NH3-N to maintain constant
>loading, so that may not be feasible anyway.
>I know this is confusing - let me know if you have questions.
>Susan
1 of 1 7/8/03 9:04 AM

Scotland Neck
7/7/03
Ultimate load
Current conditions:
PF = 0.675 MGD
BOD5 = 5 mg/1 (sum) ; 10 mg/1 (win)
NH3-N = 2 mg/1 (sum) ; 4 mg/1 (win)
- current avg. flow: (1 ilks Putt -
Jan - Dec 2001 = 0.33 MGD
Jan - Dec 2002 = 0.29 MGD
Jan - May 2003 = 0.54 MGD
Likely - 0.33 MGD is an appropriate average since 2002 was a drought year.
Current mass load
BOD5 (summer) - 0.675 * 8.34 * 5 = 28.1 lbs/day
NH3-N (summer) - 0.675 * 8.34 * 2 = 11.3 lbs/day
There are a few options you could try -
1) Keep them at constant mass load for BOD5 and NH3-N
2) Keep them at constant BOD ultimate load
Option 1):
Assume a tolerable impact (and this is questionable) at the permitted flow and limits.
(28.1 lbs/day)/(0.33 MGD * 8.34) = conc. BOD5
=10mg/1
Say you want to allow them 0.03 MGD extra flow (on top of the avg. 0.33 MGD) -
28.1 / (0.36 * 8.34) = 9.4 mg/1
(so, if they can meet 9.4 mg/1 BOD5 in summer - this is a possibility)
Same with NH3-N - assume a tolerable impact at current permitted load:
11.3 / (0.33 * 8.34) = conc. NH3-N
= 4.1 mg/1 NH3-N
Allowing them an extra 0.03 MGD extra flow -
11.3/ (0.36 * 8.34) = 3.8 mg/1
(Not much lee -way with constant loading)

w
t
Option 2)
BOD ultimate at permitted conditions:
5 mg/1 BOD5 * 1.5 + 2 mg/1 NH3-N * 4.6 = 16.7 mg/1
BOD ultimate mass load -
16.7 mg/1 * 0.675 * 8.34 = 94 lbs/day
Theoretically - we need to maintain this mass load for ultimate BOD (which is the
ultimate oxygen consumption) to protect the stream.
Using this value and average flow (0.33 MGD) the load will be -
94 / (0.33 * 8.34) = conc. BOD ult
=34mg/1
If you leave the SOC NH3-N limit at 6 mg/1-
(BOD5 * 1.5) + (6 * 4.6) = 34
BOD5 conc. = 6.4 mg/1 (so - no real advantage)
(This option doesn't provide much lee -way with regard to relaxing limits).

Re: [Fweit scotland neck]
6
Subject: Re: [Fwd: scotland neck]
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:52:10 -0400
From: Susan A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
To: Kirk Stafford <[e-mail]>
CC: Ken Schuster <[e-mail]>,
Vanessa Manuel <[e-mail]>,
Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
I'm just telling you what the SOC rules state. They will have an impact with the BODS relaxed from 5 to
30 mg/1 into a zero flow stream (total load at 5 mg/1 and .675 = 28 lb/day; at 30 mg/1 and 0.29 MGD = 73
lbs/day).
Kirk Stafford wrote:
No thought about relocating has been mentioned and no plant expansion is being considered currently.
Considering that the town is so far below their permitted flow, are conducting extensive I&I rehab and
replacement right now, and no additional flow will be allowed until the I&I is done, the RRO is in favor
of granting the flow allocation and moving the draft SOC along.
Susan A Wilson wrote:
I looked at the rules for SOCs again to jog my memory. 2H .1200 Unfortunately, Scotland Neck is at
0 cfs, 7Q10s, 0 cfs 30Q2 - so no model is available (limits set at 5/2). Additionally, my fact sheet for
the last permit renewal indicates that DO's were consistently below 5 mg/1 both upstream and
downstream and in some cases below 3 mg/1. So, based on the SOC rules - it doesn't seem likely that
they could get a flow allocation under the order. Are they thinking about relocating? (any permitted
flow expansion and they'd have to relocate). It might be a good idea (haven't looked at it enough to
determine where a good possibility would be).
Kirk Stafford wrote:
Hey Susan,
I sent this to Dave but have not heard from him. Can you answer the question for me? I would like
to get this SOC to signature asap. Thanks for you help.
-Kirk
Original Message
Subject: scotland neck
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:01:28 -0400
From: Kirk Stafford <[e-mail]>
To: DAVE GOODRICH <[e-mail]>
CC: Vanessa Manuel <[e-mail]>
Dave,
1 of 2 6/26/03 10:05 AM

Re: [Fwd: scotland neck]
I am working on an SOC for Scotland Neck in Halifax County. We plan
to relax BOD, TSS, and Ammonia. Attached is the draft SOC with proposed
relaxed limits. Vanessa Manuel informed me that an instream waste
assessment may need to be done since the facility is requesting 30,000
gallons of flow in the SOC. I checked BIMS for 2002 and the average
monthly flow is 0.29 MGD. The permit limit is 0.675 MGD. The town is
well below the permitted flow limit and the draft SOC will not relax the
flow limit. Do we need an instream waste assessment and if so does your
group conduct that assessment? I realize your units work load is great.
Can I do the assessment from my computer with a model? I have been
working on this SOC for a couple of years now and would greatly
appreciate any input you can provide. If you need any additional info
please let me know. Thanks.
-Kirk
2 of 2 6/26/03 10:05 AM

c) Complete construction on or before April 30, 2005.
7) Achieve compliance with all final effluent limitations contained in NPDES Permit
Number NC0023337 on or before June 30, 2005. After this date, the Town returns to
final effluent limits, and the Town is subject to civil penalties for all violations of
NPDES Permit Number NC0023337.
8) Submit quarterly progress reports detailing the work and activities undertaken and
completed on the WWTP upgrades and I&I rehabilitation during the calendar quarter.
Also include an estimated amount of I&I eliminated during the calendar quarter. The
reports are to be submitted as follows: one copy must be mailed to the Raleigh Regional
Water Quality Supervisor, Division of Water Quality, 1628 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628, and one copy must be mailed to the Point Source Compliance
Enforcement Unit, Division of Water Quality, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1617. The copies of the reports are due in each respective office no later than the
thirtieth (30th) day of January, April, July, and October for the duration of this Order.
(c) Comply with all terms and conditions of the permit except those effluent limitations identified in
paragraph 1(a) above. See Attachments A and B for all current monitoring requirements and
effluent limitations. The permittee may also be required to monitor for other parameters, as
deemed necessary by the Director, in future permits or administrative letters.
(d) During the time in which this Special Order by Consent is effective, the Town shall comply with
interim effluent limitations as contained in Attachments A and B. Note it is reflected on
Attachment A that the Town is still responsible for the monitoring requirements for Total .
Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous. The permittee may also be required to monitor for other
parameters as deemed necessary by the Director in future permits or administrative letters.
Under this Special Order by Consent, ONLY the parameters listed below have been modified
from the most current NPDES Permit in effect for outfall 001.
Permit Limits
Modified Limits (SOC)
Parameter
Unit
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
BOD5
(April 1 — October 31)
mg/L
5.0
7.5
30.0
45.0
BOD5
(Nov. 1 — March 31)
mg/L
10.0
15.0
30.0
45.0
Total Suspended Residue
mg/L
30.0
45.0
60.0
90.0
NH3 as N
(April 1 — October 31)
mg/L
2.0
6.0
NH3 as N
(Nov. 1 — March 31)
mg/L
4.0
9.0
Fecal Coliform
#colonies/100 ml
200
400
400
800
Total Residue Chlorine
ug/L
17.0 (Daily Maximum)
Monitor Only
Chronic Toxicity
P/F at 90%
Monitor Only
(e) No later than thirty (30) calendar days after any date identified for accomplishment of any
activity listed in paragraph 2(b) above, submit to the Director of DWQ written notice of
3