NC0023906-Historical-2016_08-25-2015

FACILITY: 4►7 COUNTY
CITY: I s d''' PERMIT NUMBER C- 56�
Permit Information that needs to be Incorporated into Future Permit Revisions

� � o

Pat McCrory
Governor
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
August 25, 2015
Mr. Jimmy Pridgen, Water Reclamation Manager
City of Wilson Hominy Creek Water Reclamation Facility
P.O. Box 10
Wilson, NC 27894--0010
Subject:
Dear Mr. Pridgen:
van der Vaart
L y
SEP - 2015
�9
NC DENR Raleigh Regional tMce
Issuance of NPDES Permit Renewal
Permit No. NCO023906
City of Wilson Hominy Creek WRF
Wilson County
Facility Class IV
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge pen -nit. This permit is issued pursuant to
the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and Memorandum of Agreement between
North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as
subsequently amended).
Comments were received from Hominy Creek WRF on duly 14, 2015. Through further review, the
following significant changes were made to the draft permit sent to you on June 3, 2015:
+ Components of Hominy Creek Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) in the Supplement to
Permit Cover Sheet have been updated as requested by the Permittee.
• The number used in the draft permit had a rounding error, the TN Load Limit in sections
A.(L) and A,(4.) was changed back to 157,8861b/year.
• The discharge latitude coordinate of 35040'37" and longitude coordinate of .'/7053'51" have
been updated on the map.
Detailed responses to all the City's comments contained in the letter dated July 8, 2015 can be
found in the Addendum to the Permit Fact Sheet included with the enclosed permit.
As identified previously, the renewal permit contains the following significant changes from
your current permit:
• The requirement to begin reporting discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's
Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application has been added to your NPDES
,permit. [See Special Condition A.(7.)]
For information on eDMR, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please visit
the following web page: htt :IIportal. nedenr.or web/w /admin/bo i u/edmr.
For information on EPA's proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, please visit the following
web site: hap://wwrw2.epa. og_v/compliancp/pro osed-n des clectronica`eportin -rule.
The Division recognizes that the City is currently submitting eDMRs. This requirement is being
inserted into all NPDES permits and should be considered a fonnality.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] Intemel: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Oppodurtity 1Affinna6ve Action Employer— Made in pad by recycled paper

0 1 0
• As requested, three years of effluent data was reviewed for BOD5, TSS, ammonia -nitrogen, and fecal
coliform to assess if monitoring frequencies could be reduced. Based on the data review, the Hominy
Creek WRF is eligible to have reduced monitoring for all four parameters. The monitoring frequency
for each was reduced to twice per week and shall be performed on any two non-consecutive days
during the calendar week.
+ Effluent sampling data for total copper showed reasonable potential to violate NC Water Quality
Standards (WQSs). However, copper is an action level parameter and limitations are applied in
conjunction with toxicity test results. Since this facility is passing its toxicity tests, limitations for
copper were not put in the permit. Monitoring was reduced to quarterly to coincide with toxicity
testing requirements.
• Effluent sampling data for total cadmium showed concentrations were all below detection limits. No
limitations and monitoring for cadmium are required. The cadmium limitations have been removed
from the permit renewal.
• Effluent sampling data for total zinc showed no reasonable potential to violate NC WQSs; however,
the maximum predicted value was greater than one half of the allowable allocation. Zinc monitoring
was removed from the permit but monitoring will continue as part of the facility's Pretreatment Long
Term Monitoring Program.
• Effluent sampling data for chloroform showed no potential to violate water quality standards and the
maximum predicted concentration was less than 50% of the allowable concentration. Monitoring for
chloroform has been removed from the permit.
• Selenium effluent data showed 14 samples <10 ug/L. The Hominy Creek WRF's chronic allowable
allocation for selenium is 5.3 ug/L. 7n accordance with NC Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC
02B .0500, all test procedures must produce detection and reporting levels that are below the permit
discharge requirements and all data generated must be reported to the approved detection level or
lower reporting level of the procedure. DWR's Water Sciences Section has determined that the
Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) for selenium is 5 ug/L. Please see that the certified laboratory
performing the Town's metals analysis can measure to the approved detection level or lower
reporting level. A list of PQL's determined by the Division can be found at the following website:
http://portal,ncdenr.or web/wq/lab/ops/inor.
• A new paragraph of permit language has been added in Special Condition A. (3), Annual Limits for
Total Nitrogen, please review paragraph (c) carefully.
• Special Condition A.(6.) has been modified to include the specific three years in which the Effluent
Pollutant Scans shall be performed (2016, 2017, and 2018). 7n addition, at the end of the Special
Condition, 2nd species Toxicity Testing Requirements for municipal permit renewals per Federal
Regulations [40 CFR 122.210)(5)j have been added.
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 tbirty (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.
PIease 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 Resources or any
other Federal, State, or Local government permits that may be required.
If you have questions concerning this permit, please contact Yang Song by e-mail
([e-mail]) or phone at [phone].
Sincerely,
-Jay Zimmerm , P.G.
Director, Division of Water Resources, NCDENR
Enclosure: NPDES Permit NC0023906
cc: NPDES Unit
Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office / Surface Water Protection Section
e-copy:
EPA Region IV
Susan Meadows, Aquatic Toxicity Branch
Steve Kroeger, WSS/ Ecosystems Branch
Carrie Ruhlman, WSS/ Ecosystems Branch

0 0

Permit No. NCO023906
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
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 Water Quality Commission, and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek Water Reclamation Facility
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Wilson -- Hominy Creek WRF
3100 Old Stantonsburg Road
Wilson
Wilson County
to receiving waters designated as Contentnea Creek in the Neuse River Basin
in accordance with the discharge limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, II1, and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective............................................................ October 1, 2015.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 2019.
Signed this day....................................................................................... August 25, 2015.
dy Zimmerm 'du
tor, Division of Water Quality
e Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1 of 10

Permit No. NCO023906
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge, are
hereby revoked. [The exclusive authority to operate this facility arises under this permit. The
authority to operate the facility under previously issued permits bearing this number is no
longer effective.] The conditions, requirements, terms and provisions of this permit
authorizing discharge under the NPDES govern discharges from this facility.
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek Water Reclamation Facility
is hereby authorized to:
Continue to operate an existing 14 MOD wastewater treatment facility consisting of:
• one (1) mechanical bar screen at influent pump station
• one (1) serpentine conveyor at influent pump station
• four (4) influent pumps with variable frequency drives
• two (2) service entrances to provide power redundancy to influent pump station
• two (2) mechanical bar screens
• manual bar screens
• screenings compactor
• automatic grit remover
• influent ultrasonic flow meter
• two (2) flow equalization basins
• three (3) primary clarifiers
• one (1) biological phosphorus removal tank
• seven (7) aeration basins for biological nutrient removal
• five (5) secondary clarifiers
• polishing ponds (out of service)
• five (5) tertiary filters
• methanol feed system
• chlorine contact/ post aeration tank
• chlorine feed system
• dechlorination feed system
• effluent ultrasonic flow meter
• anaerobic digesters
• digester methane generating unit
• a reclaimed water facility
• sludge thickening and dewatering facility
• alkaline sludge stabilization facility
• three (3) liquid sludge holding tanks and
• sludge drying beds
The facility is located at Hominy Creek Water Reclamation Facility, 3100 Old
Stantonsburg Road, Wilson, Wilson County, and
2. Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on the
attached map into Contentnea Creek which is classified C Sw-NSW waters in Neuse
River Basin.
3. Continue to operate a water reclamation and distribution system to provide beneficial
reuse for treated effluent from the treatment plant, as approved pursuant to Permit No.
WQ0018709
Page 2 of 10

Permit No. NCO023906
PART I
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
[1SA NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge up to 14 MGD of municipal wastewater from outfall 001.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Limits
Monitorinq Requirements
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Samle T
pype
Sample
Locatlon2
Flow
14 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or
Effluent
Total Monthly Flow (MG)
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Recorded or
Calculated
Influent or
Effluent
BOD, 5 day (20°C) 3
[April 1- October 311
5.0 mgll
7.5 mg/l
Twice /Week 4
Composite
Influent &
Effluent
BOD, 5 day (20°C) 3
[November 1-March 311
10.0 mgA
15.0 mg/l
Twice (Week 4
Composite
Influent &
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids 3
p
30.0 m /I
9
45.0 m ll
9
Twice (Week 4
Composite
p
Influent &
Effluent
NH3 as N [April 1- October 31 ]
1.0 mg/I
3.0 mgA
Twice /Week 4
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N [Nov.1- March 31]
2.0 mg/I
6.0 mg/I
Twice /Week 4
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen 5 m /L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
2
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Footnote 2
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Twioe /Week 4
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 2
Footnote 2
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Total Residual Chlorines
T
18 pgA
Daily
Grab
Effluent
TKN (mgA)
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NO2-N + NO3-N (mgfi)
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
TN (mgll) 7
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
TN Load 8
Monitor & Report
157,886 Iblyear (Annual Mass Loading) 9
Monthly
Annually
Calculated
Calculated
Effluent
Effluent
Total Phosphorus 10
2.0 mglL (Quarterly Average)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Temperature °C
Daily
Grab
Effluent
2
Temperature (C),
Footnote 2
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Conductivity Slcm
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity 2 (NS/cm)
Footnote 2
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Chronic Toxicil 11
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Copper /L
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Dichlorobromomethane 1L
Quarterly
Grab I
Effluent
H
;-> 6.0 ands 9.0 Standard Units
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Effluent Pollutant Scan
Monitor & Report
Footnote 12 1
Footnote 12 1
Effluent
All footnotes are listed on the following page.
Part I, Page 3 of 10

Lel
Footnotes:
Permit No. NCO023906
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (7.).
2. Sample locations: Upstream at Old Black Creek Road and downstream at NC Highway 222.
Stream samples shall be grab samples and shall be collected 3/Week during June - September
and 1/Week during the remaining months of the year. Instream monitoring requirements
are waived as long as Permittee maintains membership in the Lower Neuse Basin
Association. If Permittee ceases membership, then all instream monitoring
requirements specified in this permit are immediately reinstated.
3. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not
exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
4. Where monitoring is reduced to twice per week, it must occur on any two non-consecutive
days during the calendar week (Sunday through Saturday).
5. The daily average dissolved oxygen affluent concentration shall not be less than 7.0 mg/l.
6. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 ug/l to be in compliance
with the permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values
reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field certified), even if these values
fall below 50 ug/l.
7. For a given wastewater sample, TN = TKN + NO�­N + NOj-N, where TN is Total Nitrogen, TKN is Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen, and NOS N and NO:-N are Nitrate and Nitrite Nitrogen, respectively.
8. TN Load is the mass quantity of Total Nitrogen discharged in a given period of time. See
Special Condition A.(2.), Calculation of TN Loads.
9. Compliance with this limit shall be determined in accordance with Special Condition A.(3.) of this
permit, Annual Limits for Total Nitrogen.
10. The quarterly average for total phosphorus shall be the average of composite samples collected
weekly during each calendar quarter (January March, April -June, July -September, October -
December).
11. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphrua dubia) P/F at 90%: February, May, August, and November [see
Special Condition A.(5)]. Toxicity monitoring shall coincide with metals monitoring.
12. See Condition A. (6.) of this permit.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Part I, Page 4 of 10

Permit No. NCO023906
A. (2.) CALCULATION OF TOTAL NITROGEN LOADS
[G.S. 143 215.1(b)]
a. The Permittee shall calculate monthly and annual TN Loads as follows:
i. Monthly TN Load (1b/mo) = TN x TMF x 8.34
where:
TN - the average Total Nitrogen concentration (mg/L) of the
composite samples collected during the month
TMF the Total Monthly Flow of wastewater discharged during the
month (MG/mo)
8.34 = conversion factor, from (mg/ L x MG) to pounds
ii. Annual TN Load (lb/yr) - Sum of the 12 Monthly TN Loads for the calendar year
b. The Permittee shall report monthly Total Nitrogen results (mg/L and lb/mo) in the
appropriate discharge monitoring report for each month and shall report each year's results
(lb/yr) with the December report for that year.
A. (3.) ANNUAL LIMITS FOR TOTAL NITROGEN
[G.S. 143-215.1(b)]
a. Total Nitrogen (TN) allocations and TN Load limits for NPDES dischargers in the Neuse River
basin are annual limits and are applied for the calendar year.
b. For any given calendar year, the Permittee shall be in compliance with the annual TN Load
limit in this Permit if:
i. the Permittee's annual TN Load is less than or equal to said limit, or
ii. the Permittee is a co permittee member of a compliance association.
c. if the Permittee is not a co-permittee member of a compliance association and the Permittee's
cumulative annual TN discharge exceeds the effective TN Load limit in this permit at any
point during the calendar year, the Permittee is in violation of its TN Load limit, and each
day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation.
d. The TN Load limit in this Permit (if any) may be modified as the result of allowable changes
in the Permittee's TN allocation.
i. Allowable changes include those resulting from purchase of TN allocation from the
Wetlands Restoration Fund; purchase, sale, trade, or lease of allocation between the
Permittee and other dischargers; regionalization; and other transactions approved by the
Division.
ii. The Permittee may request a modification of the TN Load limit in this Permit to reflect
allowable changes in its TN allocation. Upon receipt of timely and proper application, the
Division will modify the permit as appropriate and in accordance with state and federal
program requirements.
iii. Changes in TN limits become effective on January 1 of the year following permit
modification. The Division must receive application no later than August 31 for changes
proposed for the following calendar year.
iv. Application shall be sent to:
NCDWR / NPDES Programs
Attn: Neuse River Basin Coordinator
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
If the Permittee is a member and co-permittee of an approved compliance association, its TN
discharge during that year is governed by that association's group NPDES permit and the TN
limits therein.
Part 1, Page 5 of 10

K
X
Permit No. NCO023906
A. (3.) ANNUAL LIMITS FOR TOTAL NITROGEN (continued)
i. The Permittee shall be considered a Co-Permittee Member for any given calendar year in
which it is identified as such in Appendix A of the association's group NPDES permit.
ii. Association roster(s) and members' TN allocations will be updated annually and in
accordance with state and federal program requirements.
iii. If the Permittee intends to join or leave a compliance association, the Division must be
notified of the proposed action in accordance with the procedures defined in the
association's NPDES permit.
(1) Upon receipt of timely and proper notification, the Division will modify the permit
as appropriate and in accordance with state and federal program requirements.
(2) Membership changes in a compliance association become effective on January 1
of the year following modification of the association's permit.
f. The TN monitoring and reporting requirements in this Permit remain in effect until
expiration of this Permit and are not affected by the Permittee's membership in a compliance
association.
A. (4.) TOTAL NITROGEN ALLOCATIONS
[G. S. 143-215.1(b) ]
a. The following table lists the Total Nitrogen (TN) allocation(s) assigned to, acquired by, or
transferred to the Permittee in accordance with the Neuse River nutrient management rule
(T15A NCAC 02B .0234) and the status of each as of permit issuance. For compliance purposes,
this table does not supersede any TN limit(s) established elsewhere in this permit or in the
NPDES permit of a compliance association of which the Permittee is a Co-Permittee Member.
ALLOCATION
ALLOCATION AMOUNT ")
TYPE
SOURCE
DATE
STATUS
Estuary (Iblyr) Discharge (Iblyr)
Base
Assigned by Rule
1217197; ,
78,842
157,684
Active
(Tl5A NCAC 02B .0234)
411103
Supplemental
Connection of Willow
7/31/1998
101
202
Active
Springs Country Club,
NG0031640
Total
78,943
157,886
Footnote:
(1) Transport Factor = 50%
b. Any addition, deletion, or modification of the listed allocation(s) (other than to correct
typographical errors) or any change to Active status of any of the listed allocations shall be
considered a major modification of this permit and shall be subject to the public review process
afforded such modifications under state and federal rules.
Part 1, Page 6 of 10

Permit No. NCO023906
A. (S.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT EQRTRLY)
[15A NCAC 02B .0200 et seq.]
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 90 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures
outlined in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised
December 2010, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent
Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised- December 2010) or subsequent versions. The tests will be
performed during the months of February, May, August and November. These months signify
the first month of each three-month toxicity testing quarter assigned to the facility. Effluent
sampling for this testing must be obtained during representative effluent discharge and 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 -December 2010) 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 TGP313 for the pass/ fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally,
DWR Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 1623
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than
30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
and all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or
approved designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be
measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring
is required, the permittee will complete the information Iocated 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 Water Scienca-s Section at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month. Assessment of toxicity compliance is
based on the toxicity testing quarter, which is the three month time interval that begins on the
first day of the month in which toxicity testing is required by this permit and continues until the
final day of the third month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources 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, shail constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow up
testing to be completed no later than thr last day of the month following the month of the initial
monitoring.
Part 1, Page 7 of 10

Permit No. NCO023906
A. (6.) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
[G.S. 1.43-215.1(b)]
The Permittee shall perform a total of three (3) Effluent Pollutant Scans for all parameters listed
below. One scan must be performed in each of the following years: 2016, 2017 and 2018. The
analytical methods shall be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 and shall be sufficiently sensitive
to determine whether parameters are present in concentrations greater than applicable standards
and criteria. Samples should be collected with one quarterly toxicity test each year, and must
represent seasonal variation [i.e., do not sample in the same quarter every year]. Unless otherwise
indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total recoverable."
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/ Nitrite
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury (EPA Method 1631E)
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile orcLanic compounds:
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2- dichloroethane
Trans-1,2 dichloroethylene
1, 1 -dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3 dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-ttrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1, 1, 1 -trichloroethane
1, 1, 2 -trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Acid -extractable compounds:
P-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4, 6-trichlorophenol
Base -neutral compounds:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2 chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2 chloronaphthalene
4 chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a, h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3 dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocycio -pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1, 2, 4-trichlorobenze ne
Reporting. Test results shall be reported on DWQ Form -A MR-PPA1 (or in a form approved by the
Director) by December 31st of each designated sampling year. The report skull be submitted to the
following address: NC DENR/DWR/Central Files, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1617.
Part 1, Page 8 of 10

r
Permit No. NCO023906
Additional Toxicity Testing Requirements for Municipal Permit Renewal. Please note that
Municipal facilities that are subject to the Effluent Pollutant Scan requirements listed above are
also subject to additional toxicity testing requirements specified in Federal Regulation 40 CFR
122.210)(5). The US EPA requires four (4) toxicity tests for a test organism other than the test
species currently required in this permit. The multiple species tests should be conducted either
quarterly for a 12-month period prior to submittal of the permit renewal application, or four tests
performed at least annually in the four and one half year period prior to the application. These
tests shall be performed for acute or chronic toxicity, whichever is specified in this permit. The
multiple species toxicity test results shall be filed with the Aquatic Toxicology Branch at the
following address:
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1623
Contact the Division's Aquatic Toxicology Branch at 919-743-8401 for guidance on conducting the
additional toxicity tests and reporting requirements. Results should also be summarized in Part E
(Toxicity Testing Data) of EPA Municipal Application Form 2A, when submitting the permit
renewal application to the NPDES Permitting Unit.
A. (7.) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS
[G.S. 143-215.1(b)]
Proposed federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports
(DMRs) and specify that, if a state does not establish a system to receive such submittals, then
permittees must submit DMRs electronically to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
Division anticipates that these regulations will be adopted and is beginning implementation in late
2013.
NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within Part II of
this permit (Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits):
• Section B. (11.) Signatory Requirements
• Section D. (2.) Reporting
• Section D. (6.) Records Retention
• Section E. (5.) Monitoring Reports
1. Reporting [Supersedes Section D. 12.)_and Section, E 15.1 fall
Beginning no later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall begin
reporting discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge
Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application.
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month
and submitted electronically using eDMR. The eDMR system allows permitted facilities to enter
monitoring data and submit DMRs electronically using the internet. Until such time that the
state's eDMR application is compliant with EPA's Cross -Media Electronic Reporting Regulation
(CROMERR), permittees will be required to submit all discharge monitoring data to the state
electronically using eDMR and will be required to complete the eDMR submission by printing,
signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy of the computer printed eDMR to the
following address:
NC DENR / DWR / Information Processing Unit
ATTENTION: Central Files / eDMR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Part I, Page 9 of 10

0 0
Permit No. NCO023906
If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or due to the
facility being physically located in an area where less than 10 percent of the households have
broadband access, then a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements
may be granted and discharge monitoring data may be submitted on paper DMR forms (MR 1, 1.1,
2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the Director. Duplicate signed copies shall be submitted to
the mailing address above.
Requests for temporary waivers from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements must be
submitted in writing to the Division for written approval at least sixty (60) days prior to the date
the facility would be required under this permit to begin using eDMR. Temporary waivers shall be
valid for twelve (12) months and shall thereupon expire. At such time, DMRs shall be submitted
electronically to the Division unless the permittee re -applies for and is granted a new temporary
waiver by the Division.
Information on eDMR and application for a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting
requirements is found on the following web page:
htty: j/ Aortal. ncdenr. org/ web/ wq/ admin / bog / ipu / edmr
Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is due on the last day of the month following
the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last day of the month following
the commencement of discharge.
2. Signatory Requirements [Supplements Section B. (11.) (b) and supersedes Section B.
-11 1.1 idll
All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person described in Part
II, Section B. (11.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that person as described in Part II,
Section B. (11.)(b). A person, and not a position, must be delegated signatory authority for eDMR
reporting purposes.
For eDMR submissions, the person signing and submitting the DMR must obtain an eDMR user
account and login credentials to access the eDMR system. For more information on North
Carolina's eDMR system, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please visit
the following web page:
http: I Iportal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/admin/boa/it)u /edmr
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system shall
make the following certification [40 CFR 122.221. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION
WILL BE ACCEPTED:
7 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 submitted 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 fines and imprisonment for knowing violations. "
3. Records Retention (Supplements Section D. I6.11
The permittee shall retain records of all Discharge Monitoring Reports, including eDMR
submissions. These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years from the
date of the report. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40 CFR
122.41].
Part T, Page 10 of 10

.1
LS6
ZI
4q 4 A
PI)w. A
Art
'Aria
Ad6 It"M Al k1l;
w
I

0 0

NPDr'crnit Standard Conditions
Page 1 of 18
PART 11
STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES PERMITS
Section A. Definitions
2/Month
Samples are collected twice per month with at least ten calendar days between sampling events. These samples shall be
representative of the wastewater discharged during the sample period.
3/Week
Samples arc collected three times per week on three separate calendar days. Thesc samples shall be representative of
the wastewater discharged during the sample period.
Act or "the Act"
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended, 33 USC 1251, et.
seq.
Annual Average
The arithmetic mean of all "daily discharges" of a pollutant measured during the calendar year. In the case of fecal
coliform, the geometric mean of such discharges.
Arithmetic Mean
The summation of the individual values divided by the number of individual values.
Bypass
The known diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility including the collection system, which is
not a designed or established or operating mode for the facility.
Calendar Day
The period from midnight of one day until midnight of the next day. However, for purposes of this permit, any
consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day may be used for sampling.
Calendar Week
The period from Sunday through the following Saturday.
Calendar Quarter
One of the following distinct periods: January through March, April through June, July through September, and
October through December.
Composite Sample
A sample collected over a 24-hour period by continuous sampling or combining grab samples of at least 100 mL in
such a manner as to result in a total sample representative of the wastewater discharge during the sample period. The
Director may designate the most appropriate method (specific number and size of aliquots necessary, the time interval
between grab samples, etc.) on a case by -case basis. Samples may be collected manually or automatically. Composite
samples may be obtained by the following methods:
(1) Continuous: a single, continuous sample collected over a 24-hour period proportional to the rate of flow.
(2) Constant time/variable volume: a series of grab samples collected at equal time intervals over a 24 hour period
of discharge and combined proportional to the rate of flow measured at the time of individual sample
collection, or
(3) Variable time/constant volume: a series of grab samples of equal volume collected over a 24 hour period with
the time intervals between samples determined by a preset number of gallons passing the sampling point. Flow
measurement between sample intervals shall be determined by use of a flow recorder and totalizer, and the
preset gallon interval between sample collection fixed at no greater than 1124 of the expected total daily flow at
the treatment system, or
Version 1110912011.1

NPDES Permit Standard Conditiong0 '
Page 2 of 18
(4) Constant time/constant volume: a series of grab samples of equal volume collected over a 24-hour period at a
constant time interval. Use of this method requires prior approval by the Director. This method may only be
used in situations where effluent flow rates vary less than 15 percent. The following restrictions also apply:
➢ Influent and effluent grab samples shall be of equal size and of no less than 100 milliliters
➢ Influent samples shall not be collected more than once per hour.
➢ Permittees with wastewater treatment systems whose detention time { 24 hours shall collect effluent grab
samples at intervals of no greater than 20 minutes apart during any 24-hour period.
➢ Permittecs with wastewater treatment systems whose detention time exceeds 24 hours shall collect effluent
grab samples at least every six hours; there must be a minimum of four samples during a 24-hour sampling
period.
Continuous flow measurement
Flow monitoring that occurs without interruption throughout the operating hours of the facility. Flow shall be
monitored continually except for the infrequent times when there may be no flow or for infrequent maintenance
activities on the flow device.
Daily Discharge
The discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the
calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants measured in units of mass, the "daily discharge" is calculated as
the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day. For pollutants expressed in other units of measurement, the
"daily discharge" is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day. (40 CFR 122.2; see also
"Composite Sample," above.)
Daily Maximum
The highest "daily discharge" during the calendar month.
Daily Sampliniz
Parameters requiring daily sampling shall be sampled 5 out of every 7 days per week unless otherwise specified in the
permit. Sampling shall be conducted on weekdays except where holidays or other disruptions of normal operations
prevent weekday sampling. If sampling is required for all seven days of the week for any permit parameter(s), that
requirement will be so noted on the Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Page(s).
DWR or "the Division"
The Division of Water Resources, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Effluent
Wastewater discharged following all treatment processes from a water pollution control facility or other point source
whether treated or untreated.
EMC
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
EPA
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
Facility Closure
Cessation of all activities that require coverage under this NPDES permit. Completion of facility closure will allow this
permit to be rescinded.
Geometric Mean
The Nth root of the product of the individual values where N = the number of individual values. For purposes of
calculating the geometric mean, values of "0" (or "< [detection level]") shall be considered = 1.
Grab Sample
Individual samples of at least 100 mL collected over a period of time not exceeding 15 minutes. Grab samples can be
collected manually. Grab samples must be representative of the discharge (or the receiving stream, for instream
samples).
Version 1110912011.1

r
NPD ermit Standard Conditions
Page 3 of 18
Hazardous Substance
Any substance designated under 40 CFR Part 116 pursuant to Section 311 of the CWA.
Instantaneous flow measurement
The flow measured during the minimum time required for the flow measuring device or method to produce a result in
that instance. To the extent practical, instantaneous flow measurements coincide with the collection of any grab
samples required for the same sampling period so that together the samples and flow arc representative of the discharge
during that sampling period.
Monthly Average (concentration limit)
The arithmetic mean of all "daily discharges" of a pollutant measured during the calendar month. In the case of fecal
coliform or other bacterial parameters or indicators, the geometric mean of such discharges.
Permit Issuing Authority
The Director of the Division of Water Resources.
Quarterly Average concentration limit
The arithmetic mean of all samples taken over a calendar quarter.
Severe property damage
Substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or
substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a
bypass. Severe property damage excludes economic loss caused by delays in production.
Toxic Pollutant:
Any pollutant listed as toxic under Section 307(a)(1) of the CWA.
Upset
An incident beyond the reasonable control of the Permittec causing unintentional and temporary noncompliance with
permit effluent limitations and/or monitoring requirements. An upset does not include noncompliance caused by
operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
Weekly Average (concentration limit)
The arithmetic mean of all "daily discharges" of a pollutant measured during the calendar week. In the case of fecal
coliform or other bacterial parameters or indicators, the geometric mean of such discharges.
Section B. General Conditions
I. Duty to Comply
The Permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of
the CWA and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or
modification; or denial of a permit renewal application [40 CFR 122.41 J.
a. The Permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under section 307(a) of the
CWA for toxic pollutants and with standards for sewage sludge use or disposal established under section
405(d) of the CWA within the time provided in the regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions or
standards for sewage sludge use or disposal, even if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the
requirement.
b. The CWA provides that any person who violates section[s] 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act, or
any permit condition or limitation implementing any such sections in a permit issued under section 402, or any
requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under sections 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of the Act, is
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $37,500 per day for each violation. [33 USC 1319(d) and 40 CFR
122.4 f (a)(2)]
c. The CWA provides that any person who negligently violates sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of
the Act, or any condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402
of the Act, or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under section 402(a)(3) or
402(b)(8) of the Act, is subject to criminal penalties of $2,500 to $25,000 per day of violation, or
Version 11/09/2011,1

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions'
0 Page 4 of 18
imprisonment of not more than I year, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a negligent
violation, a person shall be subject to criminal penalties of not more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment of not more than 2 years, or both. [33 USC 1319(c)(1) and 40 CFR 122.41(a)(2)]
d. Any person who knowingly violates such sections, or such conditions or limitations is subject to criminal
penalties of $5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. In the
case of a second or subsequent conviction for a knowing violation, a person shall be subject to criminal
penalties of not more than $100,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more than 6 years, or both.
[33 USC 1319(c)(2) and 40 CFR 122.41(a)(2)]
e. Any person who knowingly violates section 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act, or any permit
condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of the Act, and
who knows at that time that he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily
injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment of not more than
15 years, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a knowing endangerment violation, a
person shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500,000 or by imprisonment of not more than 30 years, or
both. An organization, as defined in section 309(c)(3)(B)(iii) of the CWA, shall, upon conviction of violating
the imminent danger provision, be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 and can be fined up to
$2,000,000 for second or subsequent convictions. [40 CFR 122.41(a)(2)]
f. Under state law, a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 per violation may be assessed against any person
who violates or fails to act in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of a permit. [North
Carolina General Statutes § 143-215.6A]
g. Any person may be assessed an administrative penalty by the Administrator for violating section 301, 302,
306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of this Act, or any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such sections
in a permit issued under section 402 of this Act. Administrative penalties for Class I violations are not to
exceed $16,000 per violation, with the maximum amount of any Class I penalty assessed not to exceed
$37,500. Penalties for Class 11 violations are not to exceed $16,000 per day for each day during which the
violation continues, with the maximum amount of any Class 11 penalty not to exceed $177,500. [33 USC
13 l9(g)(2) and 40 CFR 122.41(a)(3)]
2. Duty to Miti ate
The Permittec shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in
violation of this permit with a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment [40
CFR 122.41(d)].
3. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" (Part II.CA), "Upsets" (Part II.C.S) and "Power Failures"
(Part II.C.7), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the Permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities,
or penalties for noncompliance pursuant to NCGS 143-215.3, 143-215.6 or Section 309 of the Federal Act, 33 USC
1319. Furthermore, the Permittee is responsible for consequential damages, such as fish kills, even though the
responsibility for effective compliance may be temporarily suspended.
4. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the Permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the Permittee is or may be subject to under NCGS 143-
215.75 ct seq. or Section 311 of the Federal Act, 33 USG 1321. Furthermore, the Permittee is responsible for
consequential damages, such as fish kills, even though the responsibility for effective compliance may be
temporarily suspended.
5. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive
privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any
infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations [40 CFR 122.41(g)].
6. Onshore or Offshore Construction
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any onshore or offshore physical structures or
facilities or the undertaking of any work in any navigable waters.
Version 1110912011.1

r
NPDr'crmit Standard Conditions
Page 5 of 18
7. Scverability
The provisions of this permit are severable. If any provision of this permit, or the application of any provision of
this permit to any circumstances, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the
remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby [NCGS 15013-23).
8. Duty to Provide Information
The Permittee shall furnish to the Permit Issuing Authority, within a reasonable time, any information which the
Permit issuing Authority may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or
terminating this permit or to detenninc compliance with this permit. The Permittee shall also furnish to the Permit
Issuing Authority upon request, copies of records required by this permit [40 CFR 122.41(h)].
9. Duty to Reapply
If the Permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration date of this permit, the
Permittce must apply for and obtain a new permit [40 CFR 122.41(b)].
10. Expiration of Permit
The Pennittec is not authorized to discharge after the expiration date. In order to receive automatic authorization to
discharge beyond the expiration date, the Permittee shall submit such information, forms, and fees as are required
by the agency authorized to issue permits no later than 180 days prior to the expiration date unless permission for a
later date has been granted by the Director. (The Director shall not grant permission for applications to be
submitted later than the expiration date of the existing pen -nit.) [40 CFR 122.21(d)] Any Permittee that has not
requested renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration, or any Permittee that does not have a permit after the
expiration and has not requested renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration, will subject the Permittee to
enforcement procedures as provided in NCGS 143-215.6 and 33 USC 1251 et. seq.
11. Signatory Requirements
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority shall be signed and certified [40
CFR 122.41(k)].
a. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
(1) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this Section, a responsible
corporate officer means: (a) a president, secretary, treasurer or vice president of the corporation in charge
of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision making
functions for the corporation, or (b) the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating
facilities, provided, the manager is authorized to make management decisions which govern the operation
of the regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major capital investment
recommendations, and initiating and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long term
environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations; the manager can ensure that the
necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for permit
application requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the
manager in accordance with corporate procedures .
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively; or
(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by either a principal executive officer or
ranking elected official [40 CFR 122.221.
b. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by the Permit Issuing Authority shall be
signed by a person described in paragraph a. above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A
person is a duly authorized representative only if:
(1) The authorization is made in writing by a person described above;
(2) The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or well field,
superintendent, a position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall
responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be
either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.); and
(3) The written authorization is submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority [40 CFR 122.22]
Version 1110912011.1

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
0 Page 6 of 18
c. Changes to authorization: If an authorization under paragraph (b) of this section is no longer accurate because
a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new authorization
satisfying the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section must be submitted to the Director prior to or
together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative [40 CFR
122.22]
d. Certification. Any person signing a document under paragraphs a. or b. of this section shall make the following
certification [40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION WILL BE ACCEPTED:
"1 certijy, 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 submitted 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 fines and imprisonment for knowing violations. "
12. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing of a request by the
Permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned changes
or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition [40 CFR 122.41(f)].
13. Permit Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination
The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the permit issuing authority from reopening and modifying the permit,
revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit as allowed by the laws, rules, and regulations
contained in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 122 and 123; Title 15A of the North Carolina
Administrative Code, Subchapter 02H .0100; and North Carolina General Statute 143.215.1 et. al.
14. Annual Administering and Compliance Monitoring Fee Requirements
The Permittee must pay the annual administering and compliance monitoring fee within thirty days after being
billed by the Division. Failure to pay the fee in a timely manner in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0105(b)(2)
may cause this Division to initiate action to revoke the permit.
Section C. Operation and Maintenance of Pollution Controls
1. Certified Operator
Owners of classified water pollution control systems must designate operators, certified by the Water Pollution
Control System Operators Certification Commission (WPCSOCC), of the appropriate type and grade for the
system, and, for each classification must [T15A NCAC 08G .0201]:
a. designate one Operator In Responsible Charge (ORC) who possesses a valid certificate of the type and grade at
least equivalent to the type and grade of the system;
b. designate one or more Back-up Operator(s) in Responsible Charge (Back-up ORCs) who possesses a valid
certificate of the type of the system and no more than one grade less than the grade of the system, with the
exception of no backup operator in responsible charge is required for systems whose minimum visitation
requirements are twice per year; and
c. submit a signed completed "Water Pollution Control System Operator Designation Form" to the Commission
(or to the local health department for owners of subsurface systems) countersigned by the designated certified
operators, designating the Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) and the Back-up Operator in Responsible
Charge (Back-up ORC):
(1) 60 calendar days prior to wastewater or residuals being introduced into a new system; or
(2) within 120 calendar days following:
➢ receiving notification of a change in the classification of the system requiring the designation of a new
Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) and Back-up Operator in Responsible Charge (Back-up ORC)
of the proper type and grade; or
➢ a vacancy in the position of Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) or Back-up Operator in
Responsible Charge (Back-up ORC).
Version 1110912011.1

r�
NPDC'ermit Standard Conditions
Page 7 of 18
(3) within seven calendar days of vacancies in both ORC and Back-up ORC positions replacing or designating
at ]cast one of the responsibilities.
The ORC of each Class I facility (or the Back-up ORC, when acting as surrogate for the ORC) must:
➢ Visit the facility as often as is necessary to insure proper operation of the treatment system; the treatment
facility must be visited at least weekly
➢ Comply with all other conditions of 15A NCAC 08G .0204.
The ORC of each Class 11, 1II and IV facility (or the Back-up ORC, when acting as surrogate for the ORC) must:
➢ Visit the facility as often as is necessary to insure proper operation of the treatment system; the treatment
facility must be visited at least five days per week, excluding holidays
➢ Properly manage and document daily operation and maintenance of the facility
➢ Comply with all other conditions of 15A NCAC 08G .0204.
2. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The Permitter shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control
(and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the Permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions
of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality
assurance procedures. This provision requires the Permittee to install and operate backup or auxiliary facilities only
when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit [40 CFR 122.41(e)].
NOTE: Properly and officially designated operators are fully responsible for all proper operation and maintenance
of the facility, and all documentation required thereof, whether acting as a contract operator [subcontractor] or a
member of the Permittee's staff.
3. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a Permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the condition of this permit [40 CFR 122.41(c)].
4. Bypassing of Treatment Facilities
a. Bypass not exceeding limitations [40 CFR 122.41(m)(2)]
The Permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but
only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. These bypasses arc not subject to the
provisions of Paragraphs b. and c, of this section.
b. Notice [40 CFR 122.41(m)(3)]
(1) Anticipated bypass. If the Permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice,
if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass; including an evaluation of the anticipated quality
and effect of the bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass. The Permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as required in Part
II.E.6. (24-hour notice).
c. Prohibition of Bypass
(1) Bypass from the treatment facility is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority may take enforcement
action against a Pcrmittee for bypass, unless:
(A) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage;
(B) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities,
retention of untreated wastes or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This
condition is not satisfied if adequate backup equipment should have been installed in the exercise of
reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and
(C) The Permitter submitted notices as required under Paragraph b. of this section.
(2) Bypass from the collection system is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority may take enforcement
action against a Permittee for a bypass as provided in any current or future system -wide collection system
permit associated with the treatment facility.
Version 1110912011.1

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions`
0 Page 8 of 18
(3) The Permit Issuing Authority may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if
the Permit Issuing Authority determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above in Paragraph c.
(1) of this section.
5. Upsets
a. Effect of an upset [40 CFR 122.41(n)(2)1: An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for
noncompliance with such technology based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph b. of
this condition are met. No determination made during administrative review of claims that noncompliance was
caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to judicial
review.
b. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset: Any Permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative
defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant
evidence that:
(1) An upset occurred and that the Permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset;
(2) The Permittee facility was at the time being properly operated; and
(3) The Permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in Part II.E.6.(b) of this pen -nit.
(4) The Permittee complied with any remedial measures required under Part II.B.2. of this permit.
c. Burden of proof [40 CFR 122.41(n)(4)1: The Permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has
the burden of proof in any enforcement proceeding.
fi. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters
shall be utilized/disposed of in accordance with NCGS 143-215.1 and in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant
from such materials from entering waters of the State or navigable waters of the United States except as permitted
by the Commission. The Permittee shall comply with all applicable state and Federal regulations governing the
disposal of sewage sludge, including 40 CFR 503, Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge; 40 CFR
Part 258, Criteria For Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; and 15A NCAC Subchapter 2T, Waste Not Discharged To
Surface Waters. The Permittec shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority of any significant change in its sludge use
or disposal practices.
7. Power Failures
The Permittec is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards (as required by 15A NCAC 02H .0124) to
prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes during electrical power failures either by means
of alternate power sources, standby generators or retention of inadequately treated effluent.
Section D. Monitoring and Records
Representative Sampling
Samples collected and measurements taken, as required herein, shall be representative of the permitted discharge.
Samples collected at a frequency less than daily shall be taken on a day and time that is representative of the
discharge for the period the sample represents. All samples shall be taken at the monitoring points specified in this
permit and, unless otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or is diluted by any other wastestream, body of
water, or substance. Monitoring points shall not be changed without notification to and the approval of the Permit
Issuing Authority [40 CFR 122.41(j)].
2. Reporting
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month and reported on a
monthly Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form (MR 1, 1. 1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the
Director, postmarked no later than the last calendar day of the month following the completed reporting period.
The first DMR is due on the last day of the month following the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new
facility, on the last day of the month following the commencement of discharge. Duplicate signed copies of these,
and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the following address:
Version 1110912011.1

r
NPDr'crmit Standard Conditions
Page 9 of 18
NC DENR ! Division of Water Resources I Water Quality Permitting Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
3. Flow Measurements
Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with accepted scientific practices shall be selected
and used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of measurements of the volume of monitored discharges. The
devices shall be installed, calibrated and maintained to ensure that the accuracy of the measurements is consistent
with the accepted capability of that type of device. Devices selected shall be capable of measuring flows with a
maximum deviation of less than 10% from the true discharge rates throughout the range of expected discharge
volumes. Flow measurement devices shall be accurately calibrated at a minimum of once per year and maintained
to ensure that the accuracy of the measurements is consistent with the accepted capability of that type of device.
The Director shall approve the flow measurement device and monitoring location prior to installation.
Once -through condenser cooling water flow monitored by pump logs, or pump hour meters as specified in Part 1 of
this permit and based on the manufacturer's pump curves shall not be subject to this requirement.
4. Test Procedures
Laboratories used for sample analysis must be certified by the Division. Permittees should contact the Division's
Laboratory Certification Section (919 733-3908 or http:/,'portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/labiccrt) for information
regarding laboratory certifications.
Facilities whose personnel are conducting testing of field -certified parameters only must hold the appropriate field
parameter laboratory certifications.
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to the EMC regulations (published pursuant to NCGS
143-215.63 et. seq.), the Water and Air Quality Reporting Acts, and to regulations published pursuant to Section
304(g), 33 USC 1314, of the CWA (as amended), and 40 CFR 136; or in the case of sludge use or disposal,
approved under 40 CFR 136, unless otherwise specified in 40 CFR 503, unless other test procedures have been
specified in this permit [40 CFR 122.411.
To meet the intent of the monitoring required by this permit, all test procedures must produce minimum detection
and reporting levels that are below the permit discharge requirements and all data generated must be reported down
to the minimum detection or lower reporting level of the procedure. if no approved methods are determined
capable of achieving minimum detection and reporting levels below permit discharge requirements, then the most
sensitive (method with the lowest possible detection and reporting level) approved method must be used.
Penalties for Tampering
The CWA provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate, any monitoring
device or method required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not
more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both. if a
conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person under this paragraph,
punishment is a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 4 years,
or both [40 CFR 122.411.
6. Records Retention
Except for records of monitoring information required by this permit related to the Permittec's sewage sludge use
and disposal activities, which shall be retained for a period of at least five years (or longer as required by 40 CFR
503), the Permtttcc shall retain records of all monitoring information, including:
➢ all calibration and maintenance records
➢ all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation
➢ copies of all reports required by this permit
➢ copies of all data used to complete the application for this permit
These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the sample,
measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40 CFR
122.411.
Version 1110912011.1

WE
NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
0 Page 10 of 18
7. Recording Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the Permittcc shall record the
following information [40 CFR 122.411:
a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
c. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
8. Inspection and Entey
The Permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative (including an authorized contractor acting as
a representative of the Director), upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by
law, to;
a. Enter, at reasonable times, upon the Permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or
conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices,
or operations regulated or required under this permit; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise
authorized by the CWA, any substances or parameters at any location [40 CFR 122.41(i)].
Section E Reuortiny Rectuirements
1. Change in Discharge
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of
any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or at a level in excess of that authorized shall constitute
a violation of the permit.
2. Planned Chan es
The Pcrmittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions
to the permitted facility [40 CFR 122.41(1)]. Notice is required only when:
a. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for new sources at 40 CFR
122.29(b); or
b. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification applies to pollutants subject neither to effluent limitations in the permit, nor to
notification requirements under 40 CFR t 22.42(a)(1); or
c. The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the Permittee's sludge use or disposal practices, and
such alteration, addition or change may justify the application of permit conditions that are different from or
absent in the existing permit, including notification of additional use or disposal sites not reported during the
permit application process or not reported pursuant to an approved land application plan.
3. Anticipated Noncompliance
The Permittcc shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes to the permitted facility or other
activities that might result in noncompliance with the permit [40 CFR 122.41(1)(2)].
4. Transfers
This permit is not transferable to any person without prior written notice to and approval from the Director in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.61. The Director may condition approval in accordance with NCGS 143-215.1, in
particular NCGS 143-215.1(b)(4)b.2., and may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit, or
a minor modification, to identify the new permittee and incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary
under the CWA [40 CFR 122.41(1)(3), 122.611 or state statute.
Version 1110912011.1

r
NPDC'ermit Standard Conditions
Page 11 of 18
5. Monitoriniz Reports
Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified elsewhere in this permit [40 CFR 122.41(1)(4)].
a. Monitoring results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) (See Part II.D.2) or forms
provided by the Director for reporting results of monitoring of sludge use or disposal practices.
b, If the Pennittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit using test procedures
approved under 40 CFR Part 136 and at a sampling location specified in this permit or other appropriate
instrument governing the discharge, the results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and
reporting of the data submitted on the DMR.
6, Twenty-four Hour Reporting
a. The Penmittee shall report to the Director or the appropriate Regional Office any noncompliance that
potentially threatens public health or the environment. Any information shall be provided orally within 24
hours from the time the Permittee became aware of the circumstances. A written submission shall also be
provided within 5 days of the time the Permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission
shall contain a description of the noncompliance, and its cause; the period of noncompliance, including exact
dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to
continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance [40
CFR 122.41(1)(6)].
b. The Director may waive the written report on a case -by -case basis for reports under this section if the oral
report has been received within 24 hours.
c. Occurrences outside normal business hours may also be reported to the Division's Emergency Response
personnel at [phone], [phone] or [phone].
7. Other Noncompliance
The Permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under Part I1.E.5 and 6. of this permit at the
time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed in Part II.E.6. of this permit
[40 CFR 122.41(1)(7)].
8. Other Information
Where the Permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted
incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to the Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or
information [40 CFR 122.41(1)(8)].
9. Noncompliance Notification
The Permittee shall report by telephone to either the central office or the appropriate regional office of the Division
as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24 hours or on the next working day following the occurrence or first
knowledge of the occurrence of any of the following:
a. Any occurrence at the water pollution control facility which results in the discharge of significant amounts of
wastes which are abnormal in quantity or characteristic, such as the dumping of the contents of a sludge
digester; the known passage of a slug of hazardous substance through the facility; or any other unusual
circumstances.
b. Any process unit failure, due to known or unknown reasons, that render the facility incapable of adequate
wastewater treatment such as mechanical or electrical failures of pumps, aerators, compressors, etc.
c. Any failure of a pumping station, sewer line, or treatment facility resulting in a by-pass without treatment of all
or any portion of the influent to such station or facility.
Persons reporting such occurrences by telephone shall also file a written report within 5 days following first
knowledge of the occurrence. Also see reporting requirements for municipalities in Part IV.C.2.c. of this permit.
10. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under NCGS 143-215.3 (a)(2) or Section 308 of the Federal Act, 33
USC 1318, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms shall be available for public inspection at the offices
of the Division. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidential. Knowingly making any
false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties as provided for in NCGS 143-
215.1(b)(2) or in Section 309 of the Federal Act.
Version 1110912011.1

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions'
0 Page 12 of 18
11. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
The CWA provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in
any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit, including monitoring
reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than
$25,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both [40 CFR 122.41).
12. Annual Performance Reports
Permittees who own or operate facilities that primarily collect or treat municipal or domestic wastewater and have
an average annual flow greater than 200,000 gallons per day shall provide an annual report to the Permit Issuing
Authority and to the users/customers served by the Pennittee (NCGS 143-215.1C). The report shall summarize the
performance of the collection or treatment system, as well as the extent to which the facility was compliant with
applicable Federal or State laws, regulations and rules pertaining to water quality. The report shall be provided no
later than sixty days after the end of the calendar or fiscal year, depending upon which annual period is used for
evaluation.
The report shall be sent to:
NC DENR / Division of Water Resources Water Quality Permitting Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail -Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Version 1110912011.1

NPDr-`ermit Standard Conditions
Page 13 of 18
PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Section A. Construction
a. The Permittee shall not commence construction of wastewater treatment facilities, nor add to the plant's treatment
capacity, nor change the treatment process(es) utilized at the treatment plant unless (1) the Division has issued an
Authorization to Construct (AtC) permit or (2) the Permittee is exempted from such AtC permit requirements
under Item b. of this Section.
b. In accordance with NCGS 143-215.1(a5) [SL 2011-3941, no permit shall be required to enter into a contract for the
construction, installation, or alteration of any treatment work or disposal system or to construct, install, or alter any
treatment works or disposal system within the State when the system's or work's principle function is to conduct,
treat, equalize, neutralize, stabilize, recycle, or dispose of industrial waste or sewage from an industrial facility and
the discharge of the industrial waste or sewage is authorized under a permit issued for the discharge of the
industrial waste or sewage into the waters of the State. Notwithstanding the above, the permit issued for the
discharge may be modified if required by federal regulation.
c. Issuance of an AtC will not occur until Final Plans and Specifications for the proposed construction have been
submitted by the Permittee and approved by the Division.
Section B. Groundwater Monitoring
The Permittee shall, upon written notice from the Director, conduct groundwater monitoring as may be required to
determine the compliance of this NPDES permitted facility with the current groundwater standards.
Section C. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances
The Permittee shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority as soon as it knows or has reason to believe (40 CFR 122.42):
a. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of
any toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following
"notification levels";
(1) One hundred micrograms per liter (100 µg/L);
(2) Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 µg/L) for acrolein and acrylonitrilc; five hundred micrograms per liter
(500 µg/L) for 2,4-dinitrophcnol and for 2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol; and one milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for
antimony;
(3) Five times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application.
b. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, on a non -routine or infrequent
basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the
following "notification levels";
(1) Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 µg/L);
(2) One milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for antimony;
(3) Ten times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application.
Section D. Facility Closure Requirements
The Permittee must notify the Division at least 90 days prior to the closure of any wastewater treatment system covered
by this permit. The Division may require specific measures during deactivation of the system to prevent adverse
impacts to waters of the State. This permit cannot be rescinded while any activities requiring this permit continue at the
permitted facility.
version 11/09/2011.1

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
0 Page 14 of 18
PART IV
SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR MUNICIPAL FACILITIES
Section A. Definitions
In addition to the definitions in Part II of this permit, the following definitions apply to municipal facilities:
Indirect Discharge or Industrial User
Any non -domestic source that discharges wastewater containing pollutants into a POTW regulated under section
307(b), (c) or (d) of the CWA. [40 CFR 403.3 (i) and 0) and 15A NCAC 02H .0903(b)(I 1)]
Interference
Inhibition or disruption of the POTW treatment processes; operations; or its sludge process, use, or disposal which
causes or contributes to a violation of any requirement of the Permittec's (or any satellite POTW's if different from the
Permittee) NPDES, collection system, or non -discharge permit or prevents sewage sludge use or disposal in
compliance with specified applicable State and Federal statutes, regulations, or permits. [15A NCAC 02H
.0903(b)(14)]
Pass Throujzh
A discharge which exits the POTW into waters of the State in quantities or concentrations which, alone or with
discharges from other sources, causes a violation, including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation, of
the Permittee's (or any satellite POTW's, if different from the Permittee) NPDES, collection system, or non -discharge
permit. [15A NCAC 02H .0903(b)(23)]
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
A treatment works as defined by Section 212 of the CWA, which is owned by a State or local government organization.
This definition includes any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling and reclamation of municipal
sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It also includes the collection system, as defined in 15A NCAC 2T
.0402, only if it conveys wastewater to a POTW treatment plant. The term also means the local government
organization, or municipality, as defined in section 502(4) of the CWA, which has jurisdiction over indirect discharges
to and the discharges from such a treatment works. In this context, the organization may be the owner of the POTW
treatment plant or the owner of the collection system into which an indirect discharger discharges. This second type of
POTW may be referred to as a "satellite POTW organization." [15A NCAC 02H .0903(b)(26)]
"Significant Industrial User" or "SIU"
An Industrial User that discharges wastewater into a publicly owned treatment works and that [ 15A NCAC 02H
.0903(b)(33)]:
I . Discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the POTW (excluding sanitary,
noncontact cooling and boiler blowdown wastewaters); or
2. Contributes process wastewater which makes up five percent or more of the NPDES or non -discharge permitted
flow limit or organic capacity of the POTW treatment plant. In this context, organic capacity refers to BOD, TSS
and ammonia; or
3. Is subject to categorical standards under 40 CFR Part 403.6 and 40 CFR Parts 405-471; or
4. Is designated as such by the Permittee on the basis that the Industrial User has a reasonable potential for adversely
affecting the POTW's operation or for violating any pretreatment standard or requirement, or the POTW's effluent
limitations and conditions in its NPDES or non -discharge permit, or to limit the POTW's sludge disposal options;
5. Subject to approval under I5A NCAC 02H .0907(b), the Permittee may determine that an Industrial User meeting
the criteria in paragraphs I or 2 of this definition above has no reasonable potential for adversely affecting the
POTW's operation or for violating any pretreatment standard or requirement, the POTW's effluent limitations and
conditions in its NPDES or non -discharge permit, or to limit the POTW's sludge disposal options, and thus is not a
Significant Industrial User (SIU); or
6. Subject to approval under 15A NCAC 02H .0907(b), the Permittee may determine that an Industrial User meeting
the criteria in paragraph 3 of this definition above meets the requirements of 40 CFR Part 403.3(v)(2) and thus is a
non -significant categorical Industrial User.
Section B. Publicly Owned Treatment Works POTWs
Version 1110912011.1

A
NPDr'cnnit Standard Conditions
Page 15 of 18
All POTWs must provide adequate notice to the Director of the following [40 CFR 122.42(b)]:
1. Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger, regardless of the means of
transport, which would be subject to section 301 or 306 of CWA if it were directly discharging those pollutants;
and
2. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced by an indirect discharger as
influent to that POTW at the time of issuance of the permit.
3. For purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on (1) the quality and quantity of effluent
introduced into the POTW, and (2) any anticipated impact that may result from the change of the quantity or
quality of effluent to be discharged from the POTW.
Section C. Municipal Control of Pollutants from Industrial Users.
Effluent limitations are listed in Part I of this permit. Other pollutants attributable to inputs from Industrial Users
discharging to the POTW may be present in the Pennittee's discharge. At such time as sufficient information
becomes available to establish limitations for such pollutants, this permit may be revised to specify effluent
limitations for any or all of such other pollutants in accordance with best practicable technology or water quality
standards.
Prohibited Discharges
a. The Permittec shall develop and enforce their Pretreatment Program to implement the prohibition against the
introduction of pollutants or discharges into the waste treatment system or waste collection system which
cause or contribute to Pass Through or Interference as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .0900 and 40 CFR 403. [40
CFR 403.5(a)(1)]
b. The Pennittee shall develop and enforce their Pretreatment Program to implement the prohibitions against the
introduction of the following wastes in the waste treatment or waste collection system [40 CFR 403.5(b)]:
(1) Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW, including, but not limited to,
wastestreams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade
using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21;
(2) Pollutants which cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, but in no case discharges with pH lower
than 5.0, unless the works is specifically designed to accommodate such discharges;
(3) Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which cause obstruction to the flow in the POTW resulting in
Interference;
(4) Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.) released in a Discharge at a flow rate
and/or pollutant concentration which will cause Interference with the POTW;
(5) Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in Interference, but in no
case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the POTW Treatment Plant exceeds 40°C (104°F)
unless the Division, upon request of the POTW, approves alternate temperature limits;
(6) Petroleum oil, non -biodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts that will cause
Interference or Pass Through;
(7) Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a quantity that
may cause acute worker health and safety problems; or
(8) Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the POTW.
c. The Permittee shall investigate the source of all discharges into the POTW, including slug loads and other
unusual discharges, which have the potential to adversely impact the Permittee's Pretreatment Program and/or
the operation of the POTW.
The Permittee shall report such discharges into the POTW to the Director or the appropriate Regional Office.
Any information shall be provided orally within 24 hours from the time the Permittee became aware of the
circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time the Permittee becomes
aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall contain a description of the discharge; the
investigation into possible sources; the period of the discharge, including exact dates and times; if the
discharge has not ceased, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce,
eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance,
Version 1110912011.1

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions`
0 Page 16 of 18
3. With regard to the effluent requirements listed in Part I of this permit, it may be necessary for the Pcrmittee to
supplement the requiremcnts of the Federal Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR, Part 403) to ensure compliance by
the Permittee with all applicable effluent limitations. Such actions by the Pcrmittee may be necessary regarding
some or all of the industries discharging to the municipal system.
4. The Permittee shall require any Industrial User (IU) discharging to the POTW to meet Federal Pretreatment
Standards developed under Section 307(b) of the Act as amended (which includes categorical standards and
specific local limits, best management practices and narrative requirements). Prior to accepting wastewater from
any Significant Industrial User (SIU), the Permittec shall either develop and submit to the Division a new
Pretreatment Program or, as necessary, a modification of an existing Pretreatment Program, for approval as
required under section D below as well as 15A NCAC 02H .0907(a) and (b). [40 CFR 122.440)(2)]
5. This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to incorporate or modify an approved POTW
Pretreatment Program or to include a compliance schedule for the development of a POTW Pretreatment Program
as required under Section 402 (b)(8) of the CWA and implementing regulations or by the requirements of the
approved State pretreatment program, as appropriate.
Section D. Pretreatment Proprams
Under authority of sections 307 (b) and (c) and 402(b)(8) of the CWA and implementing regulations 40 CFR 403,
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.3(14) and implementing regulations 15A NCAC 02H .0900, and in accordance
with the approved pretreatment program, all provisions and regulations contained and referenced in the pretreatment
program submittal are an enforceable part of this permit. [40 CFR 122.440)(2)]
The Pennittee shall operate its approved pretreatment program in accordance with Section 402(b)(8) of the CWA, 40
CFR 403, 15A NCAC 02H .0900, and the legal authorities, policies, procedures, and financial provisions contained in
its pretreatment program submission and Division approved modifications thereof. Such operation shall include but is
not limited to the implementation of the following conditions and requirements. Terms not defined in Part If or Part IV
of this permit are as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .0903 and 40 CFR 403.3.
1. Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO)
The Permittcc shall maintain adequate legal authority to implement its approved pretreatment program. [15A
NCAC 02H .0903(b)(32), .0905 and .0906(b)(1); 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1) and 403.9(b)(1) and (2)]
2. Industrial Waste Survey (IWS
The Permittee shall implement an IWS consisting of the survey of users of the POTW collection system or
treatment plant, as required by 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(i-iii) and 15A NCAC 02H .0905 [also 40 CFR 122.440)(1)],
including identification of all Industrial Users that may have an impact on the POTW and the character and amount
of pollutants contributed to the POTW by these Industrial Users and identification of those Industrial Users
meeting the definition of SIU. Where the Permittce accepts wastewater from one or more satellite POTWs, the
IWS for the Pcrmittee shall address all satellite POTW services areas, unless the pretreatment program in those
satellite service areas is administered by a separate Permittee with an approved Pretreatment Program. The
Permittee shall submit a summary of its IWS activities to the Division at least once every five years, and as
required by the Division. The IWS submission shall include a summary of any investigations conducted under
paragraph C.2.c. of this Part. [15A NCAC 02H .0903(b)(I 3),.0905 and .0906(b)(2); 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2) and 403.9]
3. Monitoring Plan
The Permittee shall implement a Division -approved Monitoring Plan for the collection of facility specific data to
be used in a wastewater treatment plant Headworks Analysis (HWA) for the development of specific pretreatment
local limits. Effluent data from the Plan shall be reported on the DMRs (as required by Parts I1.13 and II.E.5.). [15A
NCAC 02H .0903(b)(16), .0906(b)(3) and .0905]
4. Hcadworks Analysis (HWA) and Local Limits
The Permittee shall obtain Division approval of a HWA at least once every five years, and as required by the
Division. Within 180 days of the effective date of this permit (or any subsequent permit modification) the
Permittee shall submit to the Division a written technical evaluation of the need to revise local limits (i.e., an
updated HWA or documentation of why one is not needed) [40 CFR 122.44]. The Permittee shall develop, in
accordance with 40 CFR 403.5(c) and 15A NCAC 02H .0909, specific Local Limits to implement the prohibitions
listed in 40 CFR 403.5(a) and (b) and 15A NCAC 02H .0909. Pursuant to 40 CFR 403.5, local limits are
Version 1110912011.1

NPD 'en -nit Standard Conditions
Page 17 of 18
enforceable Pretreatment Standards as defined by 40 CFR 403.3(I). [15A NCAC 02H .0903(b)(l0), .0905, and
.0906(b)(4)]
Industrial User Pretreatment Permits ([UP) & Allocation Tables
In accordance with NCGS 143-215. I, the Pcrmittee shall issue to all Significant Industrial Users, permits for
operation of pretreatment equipment and discharge to the Permittee's collection system or treatment works. These
permits shall contain limitations, sampling protocols, reporting requirements, appropriate standard and special
conditions, and compliance schedules as necessary for the installation of treatment and control technologies to
assure that their wastewater discharge will meet all applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. The
Permitter shall maintain a current Allocation Table (AT) which summarizes the results of the HWA and the limits
from all IUPs. Permitted [UP loadings for each parameter cannot exceed the treatment capacity of the POTW as
determined by the HWA. [15A NCAC 02H .0906(b)(6), .0909, ,0916, and .0917; 40 CFR 403.5, 403.8(f)(1)(iii);
NCGS 143-215.67(a)]
6. Authorization to Construct (AtC
The Permittee shall ensure that an Authorization to Construct permit (AtQ is issued to all applicable Industrial
Users for the construction or modification of any pretreatment facility. Prior to the issuance of an AtC, the
proposed pretreatment facility and treatment process must be evaluated for its capacity to comply with all
Industrial User Pretreatment Permit (IUP) limitations. [ I SA NCAC 02H .0906(b)(7) and .0905; NCGS 143-
215.1(a)(8)]
7. P_OTW Inspection & Monitoring of their lUs
The Permittee shall conduct inspection, surveillance, and monitoring activities as described in its Division
approved pretreatment program in order to determine, independent of information supplied by Industrial Users,
compliance with applicable pretreatment standards. [I5A NCAC 02H .0908(e); 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v)] The
Permitter must:
a. Inspect all Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) at least once per calendar year;
b. Sample all Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) at least once per calendar year for all SIU permit -limited
parameters including flow except as allowed under 15A NCAC .0908(c); and
c. At ]cast once per year, document an evaluation of any non -significant categorical industrial User for
compliance with the requirements in 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2), and either continue or revoke the designation as non-
significant.
8. IU Self Monitoring and Reporting
The Pc"cc shall require all Industrial Users to comply with the applicable monitoring and reporting
requirements outlined in the Division -approved pretreatment program, the industry's pretreatment permit, or in 15A
NCAC 02H .0908. [15A NCAC 02H .0906(b)(5) and .0905; 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(v) and (2)(iii); 40 CFR
122.446)(2) and 40 CFR 403.121
9. Enforcement Response Plan f ERP)
The Permitter shall enforce and obtain appropriate remedies for violations of all pretreatment standards
promulgated pursuant to section 307(b) and (c) of the CWA (40 CFR 405 ct. scq.), prohibitive discharge standards
as set forth in 40 CFR 403.5 and 15A NCAC 02H .0909, specific local limitations, and other pretreatment
requirements. All remedies, enforcement actions and other, shall be consistent with the Enforcement Response
Plan (ERP) approved by the Division. [15A NCAC 0214.0903(b)(7), .0906(b)(8) and .0905; 40 CFR 403.8(0(5)]
10. Pretreatment Annual Reports (PAR)
The Permittee shall report to the Division in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0908. In lieu of submitting annual
reports, Modified Pretreatment Programs developed under 15A NCAC 02H .0904 (b) may be required to submit a
partial annual report or to meet with Division personnel periodically to discuss enforcement of pretreatment
requirements and other pretreatment implementation issues.
For all other active pretreatment programs, the Permitter shall submit two copies of a Pretreatment Annual Report
(PAR) describing its pretreatment activities over the previous calendar year to the Division at the following
address:
Version 1110912011.1

LON
NPDES Permit Standard Conditions'
Page 18 of 18
NC DENR ;' Division of Water Resources!' Water Quality Permitting Section
Pretreatment, Emergency Response, and Collection Systems (PERCS) Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
These reports shall be submitted by March I of each year and shall contain the following:
a. Narrative
A narrative summary detailing actions taken, or proposed, by the Permittee to correct significant non-
compliance and to ensure compliance with pretreatment requirements;
b. Pretreatment Program Summary (PPS)
A pretreatment program summary (PPS) on forms or in a format provided by the Division;
c. Significant Non -Compliance Report fSNCR
A list of Industrial Users (lUs) in significant noncompliance (SNC) with pretreatment requirements, and the
nature of the violations on forms or in a format provided by the Division;
d. Industrial Data Summary Forms (1DSF)
Monitoring data from samples collected by both the POTW and the Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). These
analytical results must be reported on industrial Data Summary Forms (1DSF) or on other forms or in a format
provided by the Division;
e. Other Information
Copies of the POTW's allocation table, new or modified enforcement compliance schedules, public notice of
IUs in SNC, a summary of data or other information related to significant noncompliance determinations for
IUs that are not considered SIUs, and any other information, upon request, which in the opinion of the Director
is needed to determine compliance with the pretreatment implementation requirements of this permit;
11. Public Notice
The Permittee shall publish annually a list of Industrial Users (]Us) that were in significant noncompliance (SNC)
as defined in the Permittcc's Division -approved Sewer Use Ordinance with applicable pretreatment requirements
and standards during the previous twelve month period. This list shall be published within four months of the
applicable twelve month period. [15A NCAC 02H .0903(b)(34), .0908(b)(5) and .0905 and 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(viii)]
12. Record Kecpiinn
The Permittee shall retain for a minimum of three years records of monitoring activities and results, along with
support information including general records, water quality records, and records of industrial impact on the
POTW and shall retain all other Pretreatment Program records as required by 15A NCAC 02H .0908(f). [15A
NCAC 02H .0908(f); 40 CFR 403.12(o)I
13. Pretreatment Program Resources
The Permittee shall maintain adequate funding and qualified personnel to accomplish the objectives of its approved
pretreatment program. and retain a written description of those current levels of inspection. [15A NCAC 02H
.0906(b)(9) and (10) and .0905; 40 CFR 403.8(f)(3), 403.9(b)(3)]
14_ Modification to Pretreatment Programs
Modifications to the approved pretreatment program including but not limited to local limits modifications, POTW
monitoring of their Significant Industrial Users (S1Us), and Monitoring Plan modifications, shall be considered a
permit modification and shall be governed by 40 CFR 403.18, 15 NCAC 02H .0114 and 15A NCAC 02H .0907.
Version 1110912011.1

DENR/DWR
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0023906, Wilson/ Hominy Creek WRF
Facility Information--
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Wilson/ Hominy Creek Water Reclamation Facility
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 10, Wilson, NC 27894
Facility Address:
3100 Old Stantonsburg Road Wilson, NC 27893
Permitted Flow
14 MGD
Type of Waste:
Domestic and Industrial
Facility/Permit Status:
Class IV/Renewal
County:
Wilson
Miscellaneous
Receivin Stream:
Contentnea Creek
Regional Office:
RRO
Stream Classification /
Stream Index (SI).
C-Swamp, NSW
SI: 27-86- 7
8-digit HUC:
03020203
303(d) Listed?:
No
Permit Writer:
Yang Son
Subbasin:
030407
Date:
August 6, 2015
Added Addendum:
Au . 20, 2015
Drainage Area mil :
240
AAMP
Lat. 350 41' 14" N Long. 77° 53' 45" W
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
1.3 (regulated,
conservative est.
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
-
Average Flow (cfs):
-
IWC (%):
94.4% @ 14 MGD
Primary SIC Code:
4952
BACKGROUND
The City of Wilson operates a 14 MGD Hominy Creek Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) that
discharges treated municipal wastewater (domestic and industrial) into Contentnea Creek (a tributary to
the Neuse River). The plant serves approximately 51,449 people in the City of Wilson, Town of Lucama,
Town of Black Creek, and Town of Sims. The City's current NPDES permit expired on May 31, 2013
and has been administratively continued. The Permittee submitted the renewal application on December
4, 2012. The facility requested NH3-N, TSS, BOD5, and fecal coliform monitoring frequency reductions
during this renewal based on consistent, long-term treatment performance at levels far below effluent
limitations. The City of Wilson has fourteen (14) significant industrial users (SIUs) and a full
pretreatment program through the Division of Water Resource's PERCS Unit. The Hominy Creek WRF
also has non -discharge permits WQ0001896 and WQ0023177, for stabilized biosolids land application.
Granville Farms, Inc operates the land application program for the City of Wilson. The City is reusing a
portion of its wastewater under Non -discharge permit WQ0018709.
The Hominy Creek WRF utilizes activated sludge to treat municipal wastewater and provides tertiary
treatment, including nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Raw wastewater from the off -site and on -site
pump stations receives preliminary treatment by screening and grit removal before being conveyed to the
primary clarifiers. From the primary clarifiers, flow is distributed to the biological nutrient removal
(BNR) activated sludge stage. Major process units of the BNR activated sludge stage consist of a
biological phosphorus removal (BPR) tank, seven (7) aeration tanks, five (5) secondary clarifiers and
three (3) return activated sludge (RAS) pumping stations. Secondary clarifier effluent receives tertiary
treatment in five (5) effluent filters and is then aerated and disinfected in two (2) post aeration/chlorine
contact tanks. The effluent is discharged to Contentnea Creek through a 48-inch outfall. Biosolids
generated at the Hominy Creek WRF are stabilized to a Class B residual by anaerobic digestion or further
to a Class A residual by an alkaline sludge stabilization process prior to disposal by land application or
disposal to a regional compost facility.
Wilson/ Hominy Creek WRF
NPDES Renewal
paoP 1

This facility is located in Subbasin 03 04-07 and discharges to Contentnea Creek, classified C-Swamp
and NSW waters in the Neuse River Basin. The flow in Contentnea Creek is regulated by release from
the upstream Wiggins Mill Reservoir. The minimum release is 1.3 cfs and DWR has used this value as a
7Q10 flow. The segment of Contentnea Creek where the Hominy Creek WRF discharges is not listed on
North Carolina's final 2014 303(d) list. However, approximately nine (9) miles downstream of the
discharge, that segment of Contentnea Creek is impaired for aquatic life based on the exceedance of
biological criteria. Parameter of interest is benthos.
WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS
Contentnea Creek is a tributary to the Neuse River. According to the 2009 Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan for the Neuse, the primary water quality considerations for point sources in the Basin
are discharges of (1) oxygen -demanding substances and (2) nutrients.
Oxygen Demand
As stated in the 2003 fact sheet, due to the swamp -like nature of Contentnea Creek, a steady state one
dimensional model could not be used to determine limits for oxygen consuming parameters. The BOD5
limits at 14 MGD are based on BPJ (tertiary treatment levels). The Hominy Creek plant is designed for
tertiary treatment and biological nutrient removal.
Nitrogen
The Environmental Management Commission adopted Nutrient Management Strategy rules in December
1997, classifying the entire Neuse River Basin as Nutrient Sensitive Waters. The point source rule (T15A
NCAC 2B .0234) sets Total Nitrogen (TN) discharge limits for all point source dischargers larger than
0.5 MGD.
The rule also allows dischargers to form a group compliance association and work together to reduce
nitrogen; this option allows the association members added flexibility in controlling nitrogen discharges.
At the same time, the association is subject to a group NPDES permit ensuring that the association and its
individual members are accountable if they exceed the applicable nitrogen limits.
Under the rule, there are three types of TN limit in the Neuse:
1. the individual limits in the dischargers' individual permits,
2. the aggregate limit in an association's group NPDES permit, and
3. the individual allocations/limits for each Association member, also in that association permit.
A discharger may be subject to the first type of limit, or to the second and third, but never to all three at
the same time. The discharger is first subject to the TN limit (if any) in its individual NPDES permit. If it
becomes a co-penmittee to a compliance association's group NPDES permit, it is then governed by the
TN limits in that permit. If the association complies with its group TN limit in a given year, all members
are deemed to be in compliance with their individual allocations' limits in the group permit. If the
association exceeds its limit, the members then become subject to their individual allocations/ limits as
well.
Regardless of which permit governs a TN discharge, allocations!' limits will likely change over time as
the dischargers purchase, sell, trade, lease, or otherwise transfer nitrogen allocations. The Division will
modify the affected permits as necessary to ensure that the limits are kept up to date and reflect any such
transactions.
CURRENT EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
The Hominy Creek WRF's average flow was 9.83 MGD during the calendar year of 2014, which
represents 70.2% of the permitted flow. Monthly average flows ranged from 7.2 to 12.5 MGD.
Table 1. Lists average and maximum effluent data collected from 1/2012 throuffh 12/2014
Parameter
Flow
BOD5
Total Suspended
Solids
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
MGD
m 1)
m
m
lb/ ear
m
Average
8.85
2.08 8/2.17 W
2.65
0.21 S/ 0.21 W
57,290.5
0.36
maximum
27.75
7.6 S/I3.9 W
35
1.02 S/ 1.09 W
68,697.5
1.96
Limit A
14
5 S/ 10 W
30
1 S/ 2 W
157,886 YL
2 A
Wilson/ Hominy Creek WRF
NPDES Renewal
Pane 1

Table 1. (continued)
Parameter
Total
Copper
Total Zinc
Total
Cadmium
Total Residual
Chlorine
Fecal Coliform
DO
(µg/L)
W/O
W/O
WIL)
(#/100m1)
(mg/L)
Average
2.22
15.25
<0.2
<10
15.87
9.28
maximum
8
28
0.2
t0
629
7.69 (min)
Limit
2 (WA)
18 (DM)
204/1p0 ml (MA)
Note: MA - Monthly Average; WA - Weekly Average; DM - Daily Maximum; QA - Quarterly Average; YL -
A Calendar Year Limit
EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE DATA
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) have been reviewed for the period of January 2010 through
January 2015. In January 2015, the facility had one weekly average exceedance and one monthly average
exceedance for BOD5, as well as one weekly average exceedance and one monthly average exceedance
for TSS. This was reported to be caused by solids being washed out in the secondary clarifier during an
extreme rain event. Apart from those exceedances, there have been no other limit violations.
A recent staff report done by Mitch Hayes of the RRO was received on January 22, 2015. No significant
issues or findings were noted. The Region pointed out that the Fecal Coliform Compliance Condition A.
(6.) was no longer needed. RRO conducted four (4) routine compliance inspections with two (2)
pretreatment audits since the existing permit was issued on December 1, 2008. These inspections found
the facility to be very reliable.
Toxicity Testing: Since January 2010 the facility has passed 20 of 20 chronic toxicity tests and 4 fathead
minnow second species tests.
INS_TREAM MONITORING
Wilson is part of the Lower Neuse Basin Association (LNBA) and is not required to perform the instream
monitoring listed in this permit.
The LNBA monitors upstream and downstream sites on Contentnea Creek [J6764000, upstream at Hwy.
301, above the Hominy Creek WRF; J6890000, downstream at NCSR 1622]. Monitoring data, obtained
through EPA STORET database, from January 2010 through December 2013 was reviewed. It showed no
violations for temperature, pH and downstream DO. Only one upstream DO sample concentration was
lower than the minimum instantaneous value of 4 mg/L. For fecal coliform, upstream samples reported 3
instances over 4001100 ml and downstream fecal coliform samples reported 8 over 400/100 mI. Since the
facility had no violations of BODj and fecal coliform from 2010 through 2013 in the effluent samples, it
is not likely that the effluent caused the higher fecal coliform concentrations downstream. Concerning the
conductivity, 12 instances were observed that downstream conductivities were over 200% of upstream
conductivities. And 1 l out of 12 of those instances were reported in the summer period (April - October).
Among those 12 instances, the corresponding effluent conductivities, if recorded, showed an average of
7.9 times of the upstream conductivity. Since the facility is passing their toxicity tests, no further action
will be taken.
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSES -(RPA) RESULTS
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 2012 through December 2014.
Effluent samples for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, lead, and silver showed parameters were less
than detection levels.
Reasonable potential analyses were conducted for copper, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, zinc,
chloroform, and dichlorobromomethane. See attached RPA results and data.
Copper - the maximum predicted value for total copper demonstrated a reasonable potential to
exceed both the chronic and acute allowable concentrations (permit limit). However, copper has
Wilson/ Hominy Creek WU
NPDES Renewal
Page 3

an action level standard and is reviewed in conjunction with toxicity testing results. The facility
has passed all toxicity tests since January 2010; therefore, no limit for copper was added but
monitoring was maintained in the permit with the monitoring frequency reduced to quarterly.
• Molybdenum, Nickel and Chloroform effluent data for all three parameters showed no
potential to violate water quality standards and the maximum predicted concentrations were all
less than 50% of the allowable allocations. Chloroform monitoring was removed from the permit.
• Zinc effluent data showed no reasonable potential to exceed state water quality standards;
however, the maximum predicted concentration was greater than 50% of the allowable
allocation. Zinc monitoring was removed from the permit but will continue as part of the City's
Pretreatment LTMP.
• Dichlorobromomethane - effluent data showed no reasonable potential to exceed state water
quality standards; however, the maximum predicted concentration was greater than 50% of the
allowable allocation. Dichlorobromomethane monitoring remains in the permit with a monitoring
frequency of quarterly.
• Selenium - effluent samples were all < 10 ug/L. The chronic allowable allocation for selenium is
5.3 ug/L. The Permittee will be notified that in accordance with NC Administrative Code Section
15A NCAC 02B .0500, all test procedures must produce detection and reporting levels that are
below the permit discharge requirements and all data generated must be reported to the approved
detection Ievel or lower reporting level of the procedure. DWR's Water Sciences Section has
determined that the Practical Quantitation Limit for selenium is 5 ug/L.
Quarterly monitoring for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, molybdenum,
nickel, silver, selenium, and zinc will continue as part of the City's Pretreatment LTMP.
EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCANS
Effluent pollutant scans were performed in the I" quarter of 2012, 2nd quarter of 2013, and P quarter of
2014. Data from these annual effluent pollutant scans was evaluated and total phenolic compounds were
detected in addition to chloroform, dichlorobromomethane, and some of the metals. However, none of
the reported samples for chloroform, dichlorobromomethane, and metals were greater than the
concentrations analyzed in the RPA discussed above. Total phenolic compounds were detected at levels
less than the NC Aesthetic WQS.
MERCURY TMDL EVALUATION
Low level effluent mercury data was reviewed from January 2010 to December 2014. In accordance with
the 2012 Mercury TMDL NPDES Guidance the permittee needs to show annual mean effluent
concentrations below both the Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation (WQBEL) of 12.7 ng/L and the
Technology Based Effluent Limitation (TBEL) of 47 ng/L. A review of the data showed that the annual
averages were below both the WQBEL and the TBEL, therefore, no mercury limitation is required. The
permittee will be required to continue monitoring mercury as part of its effluent pollutant scans using
EPA test method 1631 E.
According to the statewide mercury TMDL NPDES implementation plan, if a facility greater than 2
MGD reports effluent samples greater than 1 ng/L the Permittee shall implement a Mercury
Minimization Plan (MMP). During 2010 and 2011 only one sample for each of the two years was over I
ng/L (<:10% of the samples). The blank for the 2010 sample which was greater than I ng/L was 0.248
ng/L. If the blank value was subtracted, the real effluent mercury concentration would be Iess than 1
ng/L. In the year of 2011, the blank was 20 ng/L and the effluent mercury concentration was 1.11 ng/L.
Obviously there was a testing error with the blank. As a consequence, these two test results have a
limited significance in deciding whether the City should perform a Mercury Minimization Plan. All
effluent mercury samples from 2012 through Feb. 2015 were reported to be less than 1 ng/L. Therefore,
no Mercury Minimization Plan will be required for the Hominy Creek WRF at this time.
Wilson/ Hominy Creek WRF
NPDES Renewal
Page 4

r r
NUTRIENTS
This permit includes nutrient limits consistent with the Nutrient Management Strategy rule (T15A NCAC
2B .0234).
Nitrogen. Under this rule, the Hominy Creek VW received a base TN Load allocation of 157,684 Ib/yr,
a calendar year limit.
The City of Wilson is a member of the Neuse River Compliance Association at this time. As long as it
remains a co-Permittee member, it is deemed to be in compliance with the TN limit in this permit, and its
TN discharge is governed instead by the Association's group NPDES permit, modified December 29,
2014.
Phosphorus. The City's 2.0 mg/L Total Phosphorus limit is carried forward in the permit renewal as a
quarterly average limit to conform to the rule.
FECAL COLIFORM SPECIAL CONDITION
The fecal coliform compliance special conditio
violations from 2010 through 2014. In addition,
coliform special condition in the permit renewal.
BASIS FOR PERMIT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
n
was removed based on no effluent fecal coliform
the RRO staff report requested removal of the fecal
Effluent Characteristics
Limits
Rationale or Limitation
Monthly Weekly Daily
Avera aI Average Maximum
Flow
14 MGD
15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seg., 026.0500 et seg.
Total Monthly Flow (MG)
Monitor & Report
G. S. 143-215.1 (b)
BOD, 5 day (20°C)
[[April 1- October 311
5.0 mgil
7.5 mg/l
BPJ for tertiar treatment
Y
BOD, 5 day (20°C)
[November 1-March 31]
10.0 mgll
15.0 mg/1
BPJ for tertia treatment
ry
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mg/l 45.0 mg11
Administrative 15A NCAC. 02B .0406 for
cip
Municipal Wastewaters
NH3 as N Aril 1- October 311
1.0 m li 3.0 m /l
2001 Resolution of the Permit Adjudication
NH3 as N Nov.1- March 31
2.0 m II 6.0 m 11
2001 Resolution of the Permit Adjudication
Dissolved Ox en m 1L
Administrative Code 15A NCAC 028.0211
Fecal Coliform(geometric mean
200/100 ml 4001100 ml T
Administrative Code 15A NCAC 0213.0211
Total Residual Chlorine
18 Pg4
Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B .0211 with an
allowance for dilution
TKN (mg/1)
Monitor & Report
2013 NPDES Neuse River Permitting Strategy
NO2-N + NO3-N (mg/1)
Monitor & Report
2013 NPDES Neuse River Permitting Strategy
TN (mgll)
Monitor &Report
15A NCAC 02B .0500 et sell2013 Neuse River
Total Nitrogen Allocations
TN Load
Monitor & Report
G.S. 143-215.1 (b); 2013 Neuse River Total
157,886 lb/year (Annual Mass Loading)
Nitrogen Allocations
Total Phosphorus
2.0 mglL (Quarterly Average)
15A NCAC 0213,0234; 15A NCAC 02B .0500 et seq.
Temperature °C
Administrative Code 15A NCAC 028.0211
Conductivity Slcm)
15A NCAC 028.0500 et seg.
Temperature, Conductivity,
Dissolved Oxygen, and Fecal
Upstream and Downstream Monitoring
15A NCAC 028.0500 el seq.
Coliform
Chronic Toxicity
15A NCAC 02B .0200 et seg.
Total Copper IL
Administrative Code 15A NCAC 0213.0211, RPA
Dichlorobromomethane IL
EPA Criteria ;RPA
H
>_ 6.0 and:5 9.0 Standard Units
Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B .0211
Effluent Pollutant Scan
Monitor & Report
G. S. 143-215.1 b
Wilson/ Hominy Creek WRF
NPDES Renewal
Page 5

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES
The following permit changes are proposed for this permit renewal:
1. Addition of electronic DMR requirement.
2. Removal of total cadmium limitations and monitoring requirement.
3. Reduced monitoring frequency requirements for BOD5, ammonia. -nitrogen, TSS, and
fecal coliform to twice per week.
4. Reduced monitoring frequency requirement for copper to quarterly.
5. Removal of zinc and chloroform monitoring in the current permit.
6. Addition of new paragraph (c) of the "Annual Limits for Total Nitrogen" condition.
7. Addition of revised Effluent Pollutant scan condition specifying the three years of
sampling and 2°1 species testing requirements.
8. Addition of revised Toxicity testing language.
9. Removal of special conditions A. (6) Fecal Coliform Compliance Condition.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice: June 10, 2015 (estimate)
Permit Scheduled to Issue: August 10, 2015 (estimate)
STATE CONTACT
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact Yang
Song at [phone].
NAME: 'DATE:
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT
NAME: DA
ADDENDUM To FACT SHEET AUGUST 20, 2015)
No comments were received from Region N EPA or the RRO Water Quality Program. Comments were
received from Hominy Creek WRF on July 14, 2015. The comments are summarized below along with Division
responses and any changes made to the permit as a result of these comments.
Comments on draft permit page 2:
1. The Permittee requested corrections to the components list.
Corrections to the components list were made as requested.
Comments on draft permit page 3:
1. The Permittee requested that the monitoring frequency for DO, total residual chlorine, temperature,
conductivity, and pH be reduced to "Twice/Week".
According to DWR Guidance Regarding the Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES
Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities, facilities demonstrating consistent, long-term
treatment performance at levels far below effluent limitations (< 50%) may be considered for a
reduction in monitoring from existing permit frequencies to a 2lweek minimum frequency for the
parameters: BODS, CBODS, TSS, NH3-N, and fecal coliform/enterococci (the "target
parameters'). Based on the data review, the Hominy Creek WRF is eligible to have reduced
monitoring for BOD5, TSS, NH3-N, and fecal coliform. Other parameters: DO, total residual
chlorine, temperature, conductivity, and pH are not applicable for reduced monitoring and their
monitoring requirements are based on 15A NCAC 2B . 050&
Wi=son/ hominy Creek WRF
NPDES Renewal
Page 6

The Permittee requested the addition of a superscript 2 to fecal coliform instream monitoring.
To be consistent with other instream parameters, a superscript 2 was put next to "Fecal
Coliform" instream monitoring in section A.(1.).
3. The Permittee requested verification of the TN Load Limit of "157,887 lb/year" since their current permit
shows a TN Load Limit of"157,886 lb/year".
The number used in the draft permit had a rounding error, the TN Load Limit in section A. (1)
was changed back to "157, 8861blyear ".
4. The Permittee requested that the monitoring frequency citations for temperature and conductivity instream
monitoring be changed to "Footnote 2".
To be consistent with other NPDES permits, "Footnote 2 " was put under the Monitoring
Frequency columns for temperature and conductivity instream monitoring.
5. The Permittee requested that monitoring for total copper be removed from the permit.
The Reasonable Potential Analysis was performed in accordance with the EPA's Permit
Writers' Technical Support Document. The analysis determined that the maximum predicted
effluent concentration for total copper showed a reasonable potential to exceed both the chronic
and acute allowable concentrations. The Division understands that the Permittee will continue
to monitor copper as part of its Pretreatment LTMP; however, parameters showing reasonable
potential to exceed limitations shall be maintained in the permittee's "Effluent Limitations and
Monitoring Requirements. "
6. The Permittee requested that monitoring for dichlorobromomethane be removed from the permit.
The Reasonable Potential Analysis showed that the maximum predicted effluent concentration
for dichlorobromomethane was over half of the allowable concentration so quarterly
monitoring will be maintained in the permit. If the next 12 effluent samples for
dichlorobromomethane are all less than detention (<5 ug/L) than the Permittee can request that
the permit be modified and the parameter be removed from the Effluent Limitations and
Monitoring Requirements sheet.
7. The Permittee requested that the phrase "Monitor and Report" by the parameters conductivity, total copper,
dichlorobromomethane, and the Effluent Pollutant Scan be removed since the term is redundant.
The phrase "Monitor and Report" by the parameters conductivity, total copper, and
dichlorobromomethane was removed from the effluent limits table. The phrase "Monitor and
Report "for the, Effluent Pollutant Scan was maintained in the permit for consistency with other
NPDES permits.
Comments on draft permit page 4:
1. The Permittee requested removal of instream monitoring requirements in footnote 2, especially since they
are <50% of their allowable load.
Actual instream data is useful in confirming that Water Quality Standards are being protected,
especially since not all site specific factors can be considered when developing permit
limitations..lnstream monitoring requirements are waived only as long as the Permittee is a
member of the Lower Neuse Basin Association. This is because the Association collects data
throughout the Basin to help in the overall assessment of water quality in the watershed. The
instream monitoring requirements were maintained in the permit. Should the Permittee
terminate their membership with the Association then the Permittee is required to perform
instream sampling as described in footnote 2.
2. The Permittee requested that the TRC footnote require the Permitee to report all data below 50 µg/L as ".`50
ram"•
This request was formally presented by NCWQA to the Division of Water Resources. The DWR
laboratory staff is currently evaluating this request. When the evaluation is completed, and if
Wilson/ Hominy Creek WRF
NPDES Renewal
Page 7

K
X
the outcome affects the wording in this permit, the Permittee can request a permit modification,
if desired.
3. The Pennittee requested removal of the statement "There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible
foam in other than trace amounts".
The statement is based on narrative standards in 15A NCAC 02B .021 and is a uniform
statement put in NPDES permits. It was maintained in this permit.
Comments on draft permit page 6:
1. The Permittee requested verification of TN Load Limit.
The TN Load Limit in section A.(4.) was changed back to 157,8861b/year.
Comments on draft permit page 8:
1. The Permittee requested that "Acid -Extractable" shall be underlined and italicized.
To be consistent with the other fraction headings the correction in special condition A. (6) was
made as requested
2. The Permittee requested that the due dates for Effluent Pollutant Scan reports be changed from "December
31' of each designated sampling year" to "December 3151 of each designated sampling year, or within 90
days of sampling, whichever is latest". Since the Permittee usually performs effluent pollutant scan sampling
in conjunction with toxicity testing and the 4"' quarter sampling is performed in November, the December
3 1 " deadline could present some difficulty.
Through discussions with Mr. Jimmy Pridgen, Water Reclamation Manager, the Permittee was
informed that there is no requirement for effluent pollutant scans to be performed in conjunction
with toxicity tests. If the Permittee wants to perform both samples at the same time, the Aquatic
Toxicity Branch agreed that the toxicity test could be performed earlier in the 4`h quarter, i.e.
October, so results could be received by December 3151. The Permittee should inform DWR's
Central Office, Raleigh Regional Office, and Aquatic Toxicology Branch in writing if they move
toxicity testing to October in order to avoid any notice of violation.
DWR RRO Address:
Water Quality Program Supervisor
DWR /Raleigh Regional Office
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1268
DWR Central Office:
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section/Compliance and Expedited Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
DWR Aquatic Toxicology Branch:
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1623
Comments on draft permit page 10:
1. The Permittee requested removal of statement "Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is due
on the last day of the month following the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last
day of the month following the commencement of the discharge" due to the fact that standard conditions
contain the same statement.
Wilson/ Hominy Creek WRT
NPDES Renewal
Page 8

r
We understand this statem(,nt is a duplicate of the one in the standard conditions. However,
since special condition A. 17.), Electronic Reporting of Discharge Monitoring Reports, is
uniformly put in each permit, for consistency no changes were made to the condition.
Comments on draft „permit page 11:
1. The Permittee requested that the discharge coordinates for latitude and longitude be updated as follows:
35°41' 14" and-77053'45".
The discharge coordinates were corrected on the map as requested.
Wilson/ Hominy Creek WRF
NPDES Renewal
Page 9

0 0

NOR11i CAROIINA
August 16, 2023
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
System Performance Annual Report
NCDEQ - DWR - Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
COPY
NC Dept of Environmental Quality
AUG 21 2023
Raleigh Regional Office
Subject: 2023 Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Report
City of Wilson
NPDES Permit: NCO023906
Reclaimed Water Utilization Permit: WQ0018709
Wastewater Collection System Permit: WQCS00021
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed are six copies of the City of Wilson's 2023 Wastewater Collection and Treatment System
Report. The reports will be mailed to customers during August 2023. This report is also posted on-line at
the City of Wilson's official website and can be found at: www.wilsonnc.orelwwannualreport or
www. wilsonnc.orjzN astewaterannualreport.
The report is based on fiscal year July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023. The report is submitted as required by the
N.C. Clean Water Act of 1999.
Please contact q(252)-2491 or via email [e-mail] wilsonnc.org if you need additional
information.
cere y,
Sc- A'L �
Water R�clam*ion Manager
cc: Bill Bass, Director of Public Works - City of Wilson
Kyle Manning, Assistant Director of Public Works 1 City Engineer City of Wilson
Scott Hedgepeth, Assistant Director of Public Works - City of Wilson
Noah Parsons, Water Infrastructure Manager- City of Wilson
Regional Supervisor, DWR Raleigh Regional Office - Surface Water Protection
CITY OF WILSON
INCORPORMED 1649
%%AIEk F.ECIAMA110N DIVISION I PO 60X W I WIL50N NOCH CAROIINA 271394.ODIO 1 (2521 3so.2491 1 1252� 399 220c
EQUAL OFfOF1UN11Y Fi,0L(3YLP. I AFI IkMAlM ACTION EMPLOYER

r
NORTH CAROLINA
August 25, 2022
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
System Performance Annual Report
NCDEQ - DWR Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
]q befit of 19nvProamental Quality
Subject: 2022 Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Report
City of Wilson
NPDES Permit: NCO023906
Reclaimed Water Utilization Permit: WQ0018709
Wastewater Collection System Permit: WQCS00021
Dear Sir or Madam:
AUG 2 9 2022
Raleigh Regional Office
Enclosed are six copies of the City of Wilson's 2022 Wastewater Collection and Treatment System
Report. The reports will be mailed to customers during August 2022. This report is also posted on-line at
the City of Wilson's official website and can be found at: 'innv. wilso7mc.org-liv+ymm)uah•enort or
1+'ll'IL'.lvilsoll)1C.vr/11'ClSlel!'alL']'C17111i1C1�J'4'.)0!'l.
The report is based on fiscal year July 1, 2021 June 30, 2022. The report is submitted as required by the
N.C. Clean Water Act of 1999.
Please contact me at [phone] or via email at jpridgen wilsonnc-org if you need additional
information.
Sincerely,
Jimmy Pri,
Water Rec
cil1"ass, Director of Public Works City of Wilson
Kyle Manning, Assistant Director of Public Works / City Engineer City of Wilson
Scott Hedgepeth, Assistant Director of Public Works - City of Wilson
Noah Parsons, Water Infrastructure Manager - City of Wilson
Regional Supervisor, DWR Raleigh Regional Office - Surface Water Protection
CITY Of WILSON
INCORPORATED 1849
WATER RECLAMATION DIVISION I PO BOX 10 1 WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA 27894.0010 1 [phone] 1 [phone]
EQUAL OPPORiUN+TY EMPLOYER I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

o P

r
ROy COOPER
Cavemor
DIONNE DELL[ GATT[
Secrotary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
Certified Mail # 7017 2680 0000 2219 4858
Return Receipt Requested
Grant W Goings, City Manager
City of Wilson
PO Box10
Wilson, NC 27894-0010
1
NORTH CA C:_ NA
Environmental Quality
April 5, 2021
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION & INTENT TO ASSESS CIVIL PENALTY
Tracking Number: NOV-2021-LV-0226
Permit No. NCO023906
Wilson WWTP
Wilson County
Dear Goings:
A review of the February 2021 Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) for the subject facility revealed the
violation indicated below:
Limit Exceedance Violation;
Sample
Location
001 Effluent
Limit Reported
Parameter Date Value Value Type of Violation
Flow, in conduit or thru 2/28/2021 14 17.92 Monthly Average Exceeded
treatment plant (50050)
A Notice of Violation/Intent to Issue Civil Penalty is being issued for the noted violation of North Carolina General
Statute (G.S.) 143-215.1 and the facility's NPDES WW Permit. Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.6A, a civil penalty of
not more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) may be assessed against any person who violates or
fails to act in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of any permit issued pursuant to G.S.
143-215.1.
Carolina Dtaatnrcnt at Em rot mental Qual t; I OivfCon nt'.reter Resa::rcn
Ralriq� Req!onal 079co lSQO 13-rett Qr�r 2n°r'.pit. Njnrit C.3r,fina 27601t
\Vr 9!tt T^L}IUo

If you wish to UQW"dditional information regarding the noted violation, request technical assistance, or
iscuss overail compliance please respond in writing within ten (10) business days after receipt of this Notice. A
review of your response will be considered along with any information provided on the submitted Monitoring
Report(s). You will then be notified of any civil penalties that may be assessed regarding the violations. If no
response is received in this Office within the 10-day period, a civil penalty assessment may be
prepared.
Remedial actions should have already been taken to correct this problem and prevent further occurrences in the
future. The Division of Water Resources may pursue enforcement action for this and any additional violations of
State law. If the violations are of a continuing nature, not related to operation and/or maintenance problems,
and you anticipate remedial construction activities, then you may wish to consider applying for a Special Order by
Consent.
Reminder: Pursuant to Permit Condition 6 in Section E, the Permittee is required to verbally notify the Regional
Office as soon as possible, not to exceed 24 hours, from first knowledge of any non-compliance at
the facility including limit violations, bypasses of, or failure of a treatment unit. A written report may
be required within 5 days if directed by Division staff. Prior notice should be given for anticipated or
potential problems due to planned maintenance activities, taking units off-line, etc.
If you have any questions concerning this matter or to apply for an SOC, please contact Mitchell Hayes of the
Raleigh Regional Office at 919-791-4200.
Sincerely,
YX Scott Vinson, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Raleigh Regional Office
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
Cc: WQS Raleigh Regional Office - Enforcement File
Laserfiche
�, ,wh Care lna[:vpar;m,nr of Cnm on,,mal Qa,,l t-- OMS.an-S Aate-ZeSo:r. -c
�� R3kig'i Rcg em.d Ud re liC.0 Ba rot Dricc 4a:rq;i. Vain Ca mnu

r
r
m
tD N
N N
o S
U N n
"o '0'in
Z 00
c+
_Z~z
o z �
l7 Q Vr O
�xz c
�
gwwwww
z
9
z u
a 0
N
$
cc
FDoti
-
r}3�n
(°Lid O
•'
'aa
O z -
l7 E;z 4 z c
.l'
c N
i
Cl
95W'
6T22 0000 0992
M�.
mm
lD N
0
0
C1 V
_
U N r
o o 0
$ a
mad
O u y
Z Z Q1
zru..ti
rn�o
CJ Cc)
a N
fC " 11 U
'GGG � 0
o C r L7 0
x Z 5 p
C-j
r �4"7' Ot40
z
0
�p7y Y �
N 0- -oh-
V�SO':
EN r V U p
Ccp
M 2 O ✓J_ 5 N
0 � � m
50 >
j�3L«
j
} O }
3_WF M r.
E c w m o
O
UIL
Z a a o lJ
G z w
0
��za z oc
€i s i i F
IdDm
I G
E amp[t Q lmC .0.0i ¢
❑❑❑ ❑ ❑n
`n VIC388
L ,
CO
O 0r
CO r-I
—M =,ru
- r Q f u
—� Yo
Lo
mmm C) f
� (0 0
0
o F
r ED
ru
Q�1
c E�
i � i
c
c
c
c
V.
n
n
Lr
n
oc
Cr
Li
V
a

m
0
Kl1 f
C
a
m 0 r7 m
�
CD_
Z ;U C
Ol
d 76 J"
O
m Al
rC
� �
Q �
d
Z 1
n �
O
m
a
CL
�
a
N
a
.�U iuuot�a��ta
kn
N
'/}r� // �•; p)y Lj,
7
jo I*
tejuajuuoitnua
f
w
0
r
�
Q
RJ
C
C3
LL]
Q'
oLn
G
LL,
,
C3
v
■ ■ ■ ■ 3 ■ ■ ■ ■
cr,��
33n
�� �'8 33a.nny ocn�'52'�l
O A �
a
k �u'� n as
3�
{j1
fin` „ �' Q- o c
�1
m =
�w�■�rw��
�■■
��"
� c 3 9. m y a g � � c f �R v =
-• � m j f n �y = ey 3• y � c
e�-i
�d;na
EF
MC �'q=n�=7Tae
m�
M CD
Z�1C 51
a3 mgac�gqcm �2 naez�
POSO
m dam
Q.
�
B." '� � � a§ � � � � y a fig• �
FT

ROY COOPER
G:r. f.'y v
hiICH,kEI. S. REGAN
,;i.' Plot_,?;
S. D-1NIFL WITH
Gant W Goings, City Manager
City of Wilson
P0Box 10
Wilson, NC 27894-0010
rinkiIiCAR1,4r,A
Environmental Qua$uy
February 22, 2021
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF DIEFICIENCY
Tracking Number: NOD-2021-LV-0024
Permit No. NCO023906
Wilson WWTP
Wilson County
Dear Mr. Goings:
A review of the January 2021 Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) for the subject facility revealed the
deficiency indicated below:
Limit Exceedance Deficiency:
Sample
Location Parameter
001 Effluent Flow, in conduit or thru
treatment plant (50050)
Limit Reported
Date Value Value Type of Deficiency
1/31/2021 14 15.15 Monthly Average Exceeded
Please be aware that non-compliance with your permit could result in enforcement action by the Division of
Water Resources for these and any additional violations of State law. The Raleigh Regional Office encourages
you to take all necessary actions to bring your facility into compliance.

If you should need any assistance or would like to discuss this non-compliance situation, please contact Mitchell
Hayes of the Raleigh Regional Office at 919-791-4200.
Sincerely,
��1r2 Scott Vinson, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Raleigh Regional Office
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
Cc: WQS Raleigh Regional Office - Enforcement File
Laserfiche

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
Mr. Jimmy Pridgen
Water Reclamation Manager
City of Wilson
P.Q. Box 10
Wilson, NC 27894-0010
Dear Mr. Pridgen:
t
�r
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
March 26, 2020
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
City of Wilson -Hominy Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO023906
Wilson County
On March 19, 2020, Josh Brigham of the Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) conducted an inspection at the
subject facility. The cooperation of Nick Eatmon, Andrew Mlot, and yourself was greatly appreciated.
Findings during the inspection were as follows:
I. The current NPDES permit was issued effective October 1, 2015 and expired May 31, 2019. The
division received your Permit Renewal Request December, 3' 2018 and it is currently under
review. Please continue to operate under the last issued permit.
2. The 14 MGD WRF plant consists of the following units: Influent pump station with four (4) VFD
pumps; three (3) mechanical bar screens; one (1) manual bar screen; two (2) vortex grit
collectors; two (2) grit classifiers; screenings compactor; influent ultrasonic flow meter; two (2)
equalization basins; one (1) biological phosphorus removal tank; three (3) primary clarifiers;
seven (7) aeration basins; five (5) secondary clarifiers; methanol feed facility; five (5) deep bed
denitrification filters; sodium hypochlorite disinfection tank; reaeration basin with sodium
bisulfate dechlorination; effluent ultrasonic flow meter; one (1) reuse water basin; a reclaim water
facility; one (1) plastic lined reclaimed water pond; four (4) anaerobic digesters heated by natural
gas or methane generated from digesters; a sludge thickening and dewatering building with two
(2) gravity belt thickeners (GBT), two (2) belt filter presses (BFP), three (3) return waste
activated sludge pump stations; a ten -ton per day alkaline sludge stabilization facility capable of
producing Class A and Class B dewatered sludge; three (3) liquid sludge holding tanks; sludge
drying beds; and a septage receiving station.
A review of discharge monitoring report (DMR) data for the period of March 2018 through
March 2020 showed one monitoring report violation for March 2018, however this has since been
resolved. All other required monitoring was performed and the facility complied with all permit
limits.
4. A cursory review of laboratory and DMR data for November 2019 showed consistent reporting of
results.
RE��� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
Raleigh Regional Office 13800 Barrett Drive I Raleigh. North Carolina 27609
TM °"'^*°"'" w0"1"\ "00' 919J91.4200

K
5. A cursory review of calibration logs and lab instrumentation showed acceptable calibration for
the on -site parameters. Calibration standards and reagents were all within expiration dates.
6. Mr. Pridgen stated their sludge is Class B. It is stored under a shelter and was taking up
approximately 50% of the floor during the inspection. Granville Farms hauls their Class B sludge
as needed and it is either composted or land applied.
7. Solids handling equipment was observed and found to be operating normally.
8. The influent headworks was found to be operating normally.
9. Both equalization basins were nearly empty at the time of the inspection.
10. The influent ultrasonic flow meter was calibrated on October 24, 2019.
11. The influent composite sampler is programmed flow proportionally to collect 140 ml every 30
pulses. The refrigerated units were maintained at the proper temperature, < 6 degrees C.
12. All primary clarifiers were inspected and the weirs were level. A sludge judge showed clarifier
one to have a sludge depth of 5.5 feet, and clarifier two to ha;:-e a sludge depth of 4 feet. Clarifier
three was not in use at the time of inspection
13. The seven aeration basins appeared to be operating satisfactorily. There was foam on
approximately 30% of the surface of each basin. This did not appear to be affecting the treatment
efficiency of the units and Mr. Pridgen stated the amount of foam is typical for the plant.
14. The five secondary clarifier weirs are covered. Clarifier one had a sludge depth of 7.5 feet,
clarifier two 4 feet, clarifier three 4 feet, clarifier four 4.5 feet, and clarifier five 2.5 feet. Sludge
was collecting in the center well of the clarifiers, however a sprayer is used to resolve this.
I5. The tertiary sand filters appeared to be operating satisfactorily. The filtered effluent appeared
clear and free of solids.
16. The secondary effluent composite sampler is programmed flow proportionally to collect 200 ml
every 48 pulses. The refrigerated units were maintained at the proper temperature, < 6 degrees C.
17. The effluent ultrasonic flow meter was calibrated on October 24, 2019. The effluent was clear
and free of solids.
18. Examination of chemical storage for disinfection and dechlorination liquids showed no problems.
19. The influent pump station had one pump out, but was running satisfactorily with the other pumps.
20. Mr. Pridgen stated the onsite generator is tested daily and can power the entire treatment plant.
The generator is also tested right before a storm and under load twice a year.
21. The operators log was found to be up to date with satisfactory documentation.
22. The effluent discharge appeared free of excess solids and foam. No detrimental impacts to
Contentnea Creels were observed.

If you have questions concerning this report please contact 919-791-4251 or
joshua.bripham a ncdenr.gou.
Sincerely,
Scott Vinson, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Raleigh Regional Office, Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
ATTACHMENTS
EPA Water Compliance Inspection Report
Cc: RRO Files
Laserfiche -- 434.22)

0 0

r r
United States Enwronmenial Protect an Agency
Form Approved,
EPA Washington. o C. 20460
OMB No, 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-3 1 -98
Section A. National Data System Cod ng (i.e., PC$)
Transaction Code NPDES yrlmolday Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 to 1 2 1.5 1 3 NCO023906 Ill 12 20103-19 17 18L 19I G I 201 I
�1 �l LJ
21 g
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA---- ------- ---Reserved-----
67 70 U 71 tyI I 72 I �, I L 731 E 1 I 174 7 80
t" I
Section B- Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW also include
Entry Time/Dale
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
09:OOAM 2010119
15/10/01
Wilson WWfP
Exit Time -'Date
Permil Expiration Date
3100 Stantonsburg Rd
Wilson NC 27893
01:OOPM 20/03119
19+05131
Name(s) of Onsite Representalive(s)rFitles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
M
Name, Address of Responsible OfficiallTtle/Phone and Fax Number
Russell P Brice,PO Box 10 Wilson NC 278940410lPlanl Manager1252-399-2491I Contacted
No
Section C Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement 0 Operations & Maintenar 0 Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Progran N Sludge Handling Dispos 0 Fac'lity Site Review 0 Effluent/Receiving Wate
Laboratory
Section D Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency+Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Joshua S Brigham DWR/RRO WQ!919-791-42001
�/26I262o
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Of icelPhone and Fax Numbers Date
3%41,Z0 '?")
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete
Page#

X
NPDES yrlmolday 3nspettionType (Cont.)
31 NC002392fi I11 1 20/03/19 j 17 181 C
Section D- Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
1. The current NPDES permit was issued effective October 1, 2015 and expired May 31, 2019. The
division received your Permit Renewal Request December, 3rd 2018 and it is currently under review.
Please continue to operate under the last issued permit.
2. The 14 MGD WRF plant consists of the following units: Influent pump station with four (4) VFD
pumps; three (3) mechanical bar screens: one (1) manual bar screen; two (2) vortex grit collectors;
two (2) grit classifiers; screenings compactor; influent ultrasonic flow meter; two (2) equalization
basins; one (1) biological phosphorus removal tank; three (3) primary clarifiers; seven (7) aeration
basins; five (5) secondary clarifiers; methanol feed facility; five (5) deep bed denitriflcation filters;
sodium hypochlorite disinfection tank; reaeration basin with sodium bisulfite dechlorination; effluent
ultrasonic flow meter; one (1) reuse water basin; a reclaim water facility; one (1) plastic lined reclaimed
water pond; four (4) anaerobic digesters heated by natural gas or methane generated from digesters; a
sludge thickening and dewatering building with two (2) gravity belt thickeners (GBT), two (2) belt filter
presses (BFP), three (3) return waste activated sludge pump stations; a ten -ton per day alkaline sludge
stabilization facility capable of producing Class A and Class B dewatered sludge, three (3) liquid sludge
holding tanks; sludge drying beds; and a septage receiving station.
3. A review of discharge monitoring report (DMR) data for the period of March 2018 through March
2020 showed one monitoring report violation for March 2018, however this has since been resolved. Al
other required monitoring was performed and the facility complied with all permit limits.
4. A cursory review of laboratory and DMR data for November 2019 showed consistent reporting of
results.
5. A cursory review of calibration logs and lab instrumentation showed acceptable calibration for the
on -site parameters. Calibration standards and reagents were all within expiration dates.
6. Mr. Pridgen stated their sludge is Class B. It is stored under a shelter and was taking up
approximately 50% of the floor during the inspection. Granville Farms hauls their Class B sludge as
needed and it is either composted or land applied.
7. Solids handling equipment was observed and found to be operating normally.
8. The influent headworks was found to be operating normally.
9. Both equalization basins were nearly empty at the time of the inspection.
10. The influent ultrasonic flow meter was calibrated on October 24, 2019.
11. The influent composite sampler is programmed flow proportionally to collect 140 ml every 30
pulses. The refrigerated units were maintained at the proper temperature, < 6 degrees C.
12. All primary clarifiers were inspected and the weirs were level. A sludge judge showed clarifier one
to have a sludge depth of 5.5 feet, and clarifier two to have a sludge depth of 4 feet. Clarifier three was
not in use at the time of inspection
13. The seven aeration basins appeared to be operating satisfactorily. There was foam on
approximately 30% of the surface of each basin. This did not appear to be affecting the treatment
efficiency of the units and Mr. Pridgen stated the amount of foam is typical for the plant.
Page#

r
Permit: NCO023906 Owner- Facility: Wilson VANTP
Inspection Date: 03119/2020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
14. The five secondary clarifier weirs are covered. Clarifier one had a sludge depth of 7.5 feet, clarifier
two 4 feet, clarifier three 4 feet, clarifier four 4.5 feet, and clarifier five 2.5 feet. Sludge was collecting in
the center well of the clarifiers, however a sprayer is used to resolve this.
15. The tertiary sand filters appeared to be operating satisfactorily_ The filtered effluent appeared clear
and free of solids.
16. The secondary effluent composite sampler is programmed flow proportionally to collect 200 ml
every 48 pulses. The refrigerated units were maintained at the proper temperature, < 6 degrees C.
17. The effluent ultrasonic flow meter was calibrated on October 24, 2019. The effluent was clear and
free of solids.
18. Examination of chemical storage for disinfection and dechlorination liquids showed no problems.
19. The influent pump station had one pump out. but was running satisfactorily with the other pumps.
20. Mr. Pridgen stated the onsite generator is tested daily and can power the entire treatment plant. Th
generator is also tested right before a storm and under load twice a year_
21. The operators log was found to be up to date with satisfactory documentation.
22. The effluent discharge appeared free of excess solids and foam. No detrimental impacts to
Contentnea Creek were observed.
Page#

Es
Permit: NCO023906 Owner -Facility: Wilson WWTP
Inspection Date: 0311912020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
operations & Maintenance
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ M ❑
* ❑ ❑ ❑
M ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The division received your Permit Renewal Request December, 3rd 2018 and it is currents
under review.
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
M
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
M
Name of individual performing the sampling
M
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
❑ ❑ ❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWO?
❑ ❑ ❑
(If the facility is = or a 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operato
M ❑ ❑ ❑
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
0
❑
❑
❑
is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification'
M
❑
❑
❑
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page#
4

r C
Permit: NCO023906 Owner -Facility: Wilson VA NTP
Inspection Date: 03/19/2020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping Yes No NA NE
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for rev ew? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? Cl ❑ M ❑
Comment: The effluent discharge aQgeared free of excess solids and foam. No detrimental impacts to
Contentnea Creek were observed.
Flow Measurement - Influent
Yes
No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting
❑N
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment: Flow meter was calibrated on 10.24,19, Linked to Scada
Flow Measurement - Effluent
Yes
No
NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Flow meter was calibrated 10.24.19
Anaerobic Digester-
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of operation:
Floating
cover
Is the capacity adequate?
MEI
❑
❑
# Is gas stored on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the gas burner operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the digester heated?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 5

Permit: NCO023906 Owner -Facility: Nilson VVWrP
Inspection Date: 03119/2020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Anaerobic Digester Yes No NA NE
Comment: All digesters were operational at time of inspection.
Drying Beds
Is there adequate drying bed space?
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
# Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
# Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
# Is the sludge land applied?
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
Yes No NA NE
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
M
❑
❑
❑
Cl
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
❑
N
❑
Comment: 16 total drying beds 11 in use. Sludge goes to Sampson Co. Not land applied
Solids Handling E ui meat
Yes No NA NE
Is the equipment operational?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
0
❑
❑
❑
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Two GBT and 2 BFP were in operation. Class B biosolids took up approximately 50% of the
floor which are stored under shelter.
Chemical Feed
Yes
No
NA NE
Is containment adequate?
N
❑
❑ ❑
Is storage adequate?
0
❑
Cl ❑
Are backup pumps available?
0
❑
❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
M
❑
❑ ❑
Comment: MicroC 3000 is used in the aeration basins.
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

r
r
Permit: NCO023906 Owner - Facility: Wilson vwlrrP
Inspection Date: 03119/2020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps present?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps operable?
❑
0
❑
❑
Are float controls operable?
❑
❑
❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Pump one was out of service during inspection.
Bar Screens
Yes
No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b_Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
i1
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: One mechanical bar screen was being operated.
Grit Removal
Yes
No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
0
D
❑
❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: One vortex grit collector and one grit classifier were being operated.
Equalization Basins
Yes
No NA NE
Is the basin aerated?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the basin free of bypass lines or structures to the natural environment?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the basin free of excessive grease?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps present?
M
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps operable?
N
❑
❑
❑
Page# 7

N
Permit: NCO023906
owner - Facility: Wilson YAWP
Inspection Date: 03119/2020
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Equalization Basins
Yes No
NA NE
Are Float controls operable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are audible and visual alarms operable?
❑
❑
M
❑
# Is basin size/volume adequate?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Both EQ basins were nearly empty.
Primary Clarifier
Yes No NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
i
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
is the drive unit operational?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately % of the sidewall depth)
❑
0
❑
❑
Comment: Two rims clarifiers were currently in use. A sludge 'ud a showed clarifier one to have a
sludge de th of 5.5 feet and clarifier two to have a sludge depth of 4 feet. Both had a side
wall depth of 10.5ft
Secondary_ Clarifier
Yes
No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
M
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
❑
❑
❑
0
Is the site free of weir blockage?
❑
❑
❑
0
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
M
Cl
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
0
❑
❑
❑
1s the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately % of the sidewall depth)
❑
0
❑
❑
Comment: Weirs are covered preventing inspection. Clarifier one had a sludge depth of 7.5 feet 16ft
wall clarifier two 4 feet 1 Oft wall clarifier three 4 feet 00ft wall clarifier four 4.5 feet 12ft
wall and clarifier five 2.5 feet 12ft wall).
Page# 8

Permit: NCO023906 Owner - Facility: Wilson VVWTP
Inspection Date: 03119/2020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Aeration Basins
Yes
No
NA NE
Mode of operation
Ext. Air
Type of aeration system
Diffused
Is the basin free of dead spots?
0
❑
❑
0
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the diffusers operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
0
❑
[]
❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin s surface?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(t.0 to 3.0 mgel)
N
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Foam covered 30-40% of the surface which is normal for this plant.
Nutrient Removal
Yes
No NA NE
# Is total nitrogen removal required?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is total phosphorous removal required?
N
❑
❑
❑
Type
Biological
# Is chemical feed required to sustain process?
❑
❑
❑
Is nutrient removal process operating properly?
E
❑
❑
❑
Comment: MicroC 3000 is used to reduce phosohorus and nitrogen levels.
Filtration (High Rate Tertiaryl
Yes No NA NE
Type of operation:
Down
flow
Is the filter media present?
moo
❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of growth?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the air scour operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the scouring acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Effluent appeared clear in wet well.
De -chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ? Liquid
Page# 9

Ee
M
Permit. NCO023906 Owner -Facility:
\Anson VAWP
Inspection Date: 03/19/2020 Inspection Type:
Compliance Evaluation
De -chlorination
Yes No NA NE
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
❑
❑
0
❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Standby Power
Yes
No NA
NE
Is automatically activated standby power available?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested under load?
0
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑
0
❑
❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Tested under load two times a year.
Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are pumps operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Labo� ratory
Yes No NA
NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
0
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Conform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+1- 0.2 degrees?
0
❑
❑
❑
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +1- 1.0 degrees?
0
❑
❑
❑
Page# 10

r
Permit: NCO023906 Owner - Facility: Wilson wWTP
Inspection Date: 03/19/2020 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Laboratory
Yes
No
NA NE
Comment: ETS is used for toxicity. pace is used for metals Cn oil and grease. Pace
in Charlotte
is
used for low level Hp. and PPS.
Disinfection-Liciluid
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
0
❑
❑
❑
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leakslopen drains)
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth or sludge buildup?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Influent Sampling
Yes
No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
0
❑
0
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
0
❑
❑
[]
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
M
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Sampler temperature was 0.5 degrees C.
Effluent Sampling
Yes
No
NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
0
❑
❑
❑
representative)?
Comment: Samplier temperature was 4 degrees C.
pa�rM 11

r
Hayes, Mitch
From:
Jimmy Pridgen <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Wednesday, December 19, 2018 11:48 AM
To:
Hayes, Mitch
Cc:
Andrew J. Mlot; Laura Pruitt; Nicholas Eatmon
Subject:
[External] City of Wilson - Christmas Holiday Sampling
Mitch,
Merry Christmas!
This is just to follow-up our conversation a few minutes ago to make sure we properly comply with our NPDES Sampling
schedule next week during the Holidays. The City of Wilson will be recognizing December 24-26 as City Holidays (Mon -
Wed). Our NPDES permit requires 2x/week sampling with a minimum of one day in between for BOD, TSS, Ammonia,
and Fecal Coliform. With our holiday schedule, and due to the one day in between requirement, we will only be able to
collect these samples one day for the week of 12/24—12/28/18. You have confirmed this is acceptable. Also, for the
parameters that require daily monitoring, we will only collect on Thursday and Friday. Any weekly required parameters
will be collected on either Thursday or Friday. If you later determine we should do otherwise, please let us know as
soon as you can. As always, we greatly appreciate your guidance and assistance and hope you have a very Merry
Christmas and the Happiest of Holidays!
Jimmy
$&�" Pw�oft
Water Reclamation Manager
City of Wilson
Water Reclamation Facility
P.O. Box 10
3100 5tantonsburg Road
Wilson, NC 27894-0010
Office: 252-399-2491
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: Inrid aen 6D wilsonnc. or
Website: www.wilsonnc.org
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 132,et.seq., this electronic mail message and any attachment
hereto, as well as any electronic mail message(s) that may be sent in response to it may be considered public record
and as such are subject to requests for review.

0 0

r r
Hayes, Mitch
From: Jimmy Pridgen <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 5:15 PM
To: Hayes, Mitch
Cc: Barry Parks; Laura Pruitt; Ostendorff, Anna C
Subject: [External] FW: LL Hg NC Certification Follow-up (City of Wilson WRF)
Attachments: City of Wilson_LLHg_NC Certification.pdf; City of
Wilson_LLHG Results.xls; NPDES Permit - NCO023906 - Effective
20151001.pdf; NPDES Permit - NCO023906 - Effective 20081201.pdf
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment t0
'ff •r
Mitch,
I was great talking with you earlier today. As always, thank you for your assistance and guidance when I run into unusual
technical issues. As follow-up to our conversation, I have included below the email correspondence between Anna
Ostendorff of the NCDEQ Laboratory Certification Branch and representatives of Pace Laboratories. As we discussed
earlier, I was notified by Pace Laboratories last week that the Low Level Mercury samples we had been sending to their
Green Bay, Wisconsin location for the past several years had not been analyzed by a North Carolina Certified Laboratory
(see attached letter and Excel document from Pace). They were certified when we began sending samples in 2008 and
maintained their NC certification thru 2012. They discontinued their NC certification in 2013 and failed to notify us as
required. Therefore, all Low Level Mercury analysis results we submitted on our monthly DMRs, from 2013 thru
present, for our Influent and Effluent monitoring locations were not performed by a NC certified laboratory.
We are not required to monitor for Mercury by our NPDES permit nor do we have a discharge limit (see attached
permits). However, we do analyze our Influent and Effluent quarterly per our Long Term Monitoring Plan. We also
analyze for Mercury at our Effluent when performing our Annual Priority Pollutant Analysis. The mercury results from
these monitoring events are reported on the applicable monthly discharge monitoring reports as required. While Pace
Laboratories of Wisconsin may not have been certified by the State of NC, they were NELAP certified. NELAP stands for
National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program and is a national accreditation program developed by the
NELAC institute. NELAC standards for laboratories are modeled after similar ISO standards. This accreditation is for
environmental laboratories. As part of their NELAP certification, they are required to perform annual proficiently
testing. They have provided this information and their annual NELAP certificates to me, and I can forward to you if you
would like.
While Pace -Wisconsin may not have been NC certified, we are confident in the integrity of their data and do not feel
that it should be discarded. Please let me know if we should take any additional action in this matter beyond this
notification. We have already notified the NCDEQ-PERCS unit since they oversee the requirement of our Long Term
Monitoring Plan. We regret this oversight, but rest assured that all future sampling events for Mercury will be
performed by a NC certified laboratory. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Jimmy
$6111" Xw4ft
Water Reclamation Manager
City of Wilson
t

X
X
Water Reclamation Facility
P.O. Box 10
3100 Stantonsburg Road
Wilson, NC 27894-0010
Office: 252-399-2491
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: www.wilsonnc.org
■rraaararaaaaraaaaaraaaaaaraararaaraaaaaaaararaaraaraaaaaaaaaaraaaaaaraaaaaraaaarrararaar■
From: Ostendorff, Anna C [mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 2:27 PM
To: Jimmy Pridgen <[e-mail]>
Cc: Satterwhite, Dana <[e-mail]>; Swanson, Beth <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] 130 - FW: LL Hg NC Certification Follow-up
Hi Jimmy,
Thank you for forwarding the documentation and for the email summary of our conversation this morning. After
discussing with Dana and Beth, we suggest contacting Pace for copies of their NELAC certificates for each year since and
including 2013, a copy of their scope for each year since and including 2013 that clearly says they are certified for low
level Mercury, and copies of the low level Mercury PT results each year since and including 2013. At a minimum, keep
copies of this information, as well as the letter they sent notifying you of the error, on file for your laboratory.
Additionally, you will need to contact the data receivers for the APPA and LTMP sample results to determine whether
they can use the data. Relay what you told me, and ask how they prefer to proceed. They may want to see the
documentation and letter from Pace before making a decision. Let them know Pace was certified from 2008 to 2013,
and through an oversight, they did.not subcontract samples out to a NC accredited lab nor notify you of the change in
their certification status.
I hope that helps. Don't hesitate to contact me if you'd like to discuss further.
Sincerely,
Anna
Anna Ostendorff
Laboratory Certification Auditor
WW/GW Laboratory Certification Branch
Department of Environmental Quality/Division of Water Resources
919 733 3908 ext. 249 office
anna.ostendorff ncdenr. ov
Water Sciences Section
1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1623
From: Jimmy Pridgen
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 10:29 AM
To: Anna C. Ostendorff (NCDEQ) <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Amanda Payne' <[e-mail]>;'Judy Morgan' <Judy.Morgan@ pacelabs.com>;'Kirstin Daigle'
<[e-mail]>;'Nils Melberg' <[e-mail]>; Laura Pruitt (City of Wilson)
2

l
<[e-mail]>; Barry Parks (City of Wilson) <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: LL Hg NC Certification Follow-up
Good morning Anna,
Per our phone conversation this morning, please find forwarded the email below that I received from Pace Analytical of
Green Bay, Wisconsin as well as their attached letter and spreadsheet summarizing the issue and the data that is
impacted. Pace provided this information following our conference call from last Friday. I have also attached a copy of
our current NPDES permit (effective 10/01/2015). Additionally, I have attached our previous NPDES permit (effective
12/01/2008). As per our discussion, you will see that we are not required to analyze mercury as a routine monitoring
requirement, nor do we have a limit. However, we do monitor for it during our Annual Priority Pollutant Analysis and
quarterly as part of our Long Term Monitoring Plan for our Pretreatment Program. All of the data obtained from our
APPA and LTMP is reported on our monthly DMRs per permit requirements. Amanda Payne of the Pace-Huntersville
location is working as primary contact/coordinator and will be the first point of contact if you wish to contact Pace
directly regarding this matter. I have included Amanda's contact info below. Please contact me if you have any
questions that I can help answer beyond what we have already discussed this morning. As always, thank you for your
assistance and guidance in this matter. I look forward to hearing back from you once you've had a chance to look
further into this matter.
Amanda Payne
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
Project Coordinator
[phone]Work
[phone]Primary
[e-mail]
9800 Kincey Avenue
Huntersville, NC 28078
www.pacelabs.com
Sincerely,
Jimmy
$6" P940"
Water Reclamation Manager
City of Wilson
Water Reclamation Facility
P.O. Box 10
3100 Stan tonsburg Road
Wilson, NC 27894-0010
office: 252-399-2491
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: www.wilsonnc.org
From: Kate Verbeten[mailto:[e-mail])
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 3:59 PM
To: Jimmy Pridgen <ipridgen@?WILSONNC.ORG>
Cc: Amanda Payne <[e-mail]>; Judy Morgan <[e-mail]>; Kirstin Daigle

O 0
<[e-mail]>; Nils Melberg <Nils.Melberp,[e-mail]>
Subject: LL Hg NC Certification Follow-up
Dear Mr. Pridgen,
Please find attached the notification letter and listing of samples which was discussed during the conference call today.
Sincerely,
Kate E. Verbeten (Grams)
Quality & Safety Manager
Pace Analytical Services, LLC - Green Bay
1241 Bellevue St, Suite 9 1 Green Bay, WI 54302
(Main Line) 920-469-2436 1 (Direct) 920-321-9426
(Web) www.oacelabs.com
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 132,et.seq., this electronic mail message and any attachment
hereto, as well as any electronic mail message(s) that may be sent in response to it may be considered public record
and as such are subject to requests for review.

r
eAnalytical
October 12, 2018
Mr. Jimmy Pridgen
Water Reclamation Manager
City of Wilson
PO Box 10
3100 Statonsburg Road
Wilson, NC 27894-0010
Dear Mr. Pridgen:
Pace Analytica vices, LLC — Green Bay, WI
1241 Bellevue Street, Suite 9
Green Bay, WI 54302
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. As explained during our phone call,
the Pace laboratory located in Green Bay, Wisconsin has been analyzing compliance
samples from the City of Wilson for low level mercury by EPA Method 1631 E from May
2008 to September 2018. Up until January 2013, Green Bay held certification for this
method in the State of North Carolina and then the certification was voluntarily
relinquished. After the change in certification, the project file for the City of Wilson was
not updated to alert the Project Manager that the laboratory was no longer certified for
this method in North Carolina and that an alternate Pace laboratory, such as Asheville,
should be proposed to you as the replacement laboratory for this analytical work.
Consequently, when the City of Wilson continued to send samples for this test method to
Green Bay, the work continued to be performed by Green Bay until September 28, 2018,
when the gap in certification was realized. A complete list of samples that were analyzed
by Green Bay for this method during the time -period after certification was dropped is
attached for your reference.
Pace Analytical Services, LLC is committed to providing high quality results and
exemplary customer service to our clients and we apologize for any inconvenience this
situation may cause you. We do not believe this situation affects the quality or integrity
of the analytical results reported to you during this time -frame. Although the laboratory
was not certified by North Carolina at the time of analysis, the laboratory did maintain
NELAC accreditation for this method through our primary accrediting body, State of
Florida Department of Health, as well as certification with other state programs. Green
Bay also has had successful performance in proficiency testing and has maintained all
other aspects of the quality system that would be necessary for certification by North
Carolina if certification had been requested. We are prepared to provide you with any
necessary supporting documentation to support these claims and any assistance needed to
minimize impact this situation lnay have with the on -going acceptance of these analytical
results by the regulatory agency.
In order to prevent future occurrences of this nature, the laboratory has updated the
laboratory information management system to alert project management staff to
subcontract samples to an analytical laboratory currently certified within North Carolina
for these analysis. We also recommend that the City of Wilson consider submitting
samples directly to the Pace laboratory located in Asheville, North Carolina for all future
quarterly sampling events.

IOn
eAnalytical 0
Pace Analytical SerLLC — Green Bay, WI
Q1 �ellevue Street, Suite 9
Green Bay, Wl 54302
Phone: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
In closing, Pace Analytical Services, LLC is committed to identifying and correcting non -
conformances, perfonrring internal critical reviews. and providing accurately reported
results. We apologize for any inconvenience or interruptions caused by this data
oversight and appreciate the opportunity to support your analytical needs.. If you have
any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone] or via
E-mail at Kate.Verbetenpacelabs.com.
Sincerely,
0, � , � �' yj"4 � ek�
Kate E. Verbeten
Quality Manager
PACE - Green Bay Laboratory
CC: Laura Pruitt

Hayes, Mitch
From: Jimmy Pridgen <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 11:56 AM
To: Hayes, Mitch
Cc: Barry Parks; Debra Batten; Laura Pruitt
Subject: [External] City of Wilson - Missed conductivity sampling event for March
2018
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
am -
Mitch,
This email serves as follow-up to our phone conversation earlier this morning regarding a missed conductivity sampling
event during March 2018. As we were reviewing data this week preparing to submit our March 2018 DMR, it was
discovered that samples collected March 20-23, 2018 for conductivity had not yet been analyzed due to a laboratory
oversight. We promptly analyzed the samples that were available on April 24th, but that was outside the required 28-
day hold time for conductivity analysis (4-7 days beyond required hold time). These values will be reported with a
qualifying statement on the March 2018 DMR. Unfortunately, we were unable to locate the sample collected on March
22, 2018 for conductivity. Our records indicate it was collected, but we can only assume it was discarded due to a
laboratory accident. The City of Wilson will only be able to report four of the five required daily samples of conductivity
for the week of March 18-24, 2018.
Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Jimmy
fi6" A40"
Water Reclamation Manager
City of Wilson
Water Reclamation Facility
P.O. Box 10
3100 Stantonsburg Road
Wilson, NC 27894-0010
Office: 252-399-2491
Mobile: [phone]
Fax. [phone]
Email: jeELdgeg.@_wilsonnc.org
Website: www.wilsonnc.ora
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 132,et.seq., this electronic mail message and any attachment
hereto, as well as any electronic mail message(s) that may be sent in response to it may be considered public record
and as such are subject to requests for review.

k

Water Resource,
Fnvtmtlnucntnl Ouabt.y
March 23, 2018
Jimmy Pridgen, Water Reclamation Manager
City of Wilson Hominy Creek Water Reclamation Facility
P.O. Box 10
Wilson, NC 27894-0010
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Hominy Creek WRF
NPDES Permit NCO023906
Wilson County
Dear Mr. Pridgen:
ROY C00I1117It
C rt Il' T)JeW
IVIIC'IIA[;I. S IZI UAN
LINDA CLII, EI'll, R
huenm D11 e rnr
On March 21, 2018, Mitch Hayes of the Raleigh Regional Office conducted an inspection at the
subject facility. The assistance of Laura Pruitt, Debra Collins and yourself with this inspection was
greatly appreciated. Below is a list of findings developed from the inspection and review of the
permit:
1. The permit became effective October 1, 2015 and will expire May 31, 2019. Permit renewal
is required within 180 days of permit expiration date.
2. The 14 MGD WRF plant consists of the following units; Influent pump station with four (4)
VFD pumps; three (3) mechanical bar screens; one (1) manual bar screen; two (2) vortex
grit collectors; two (2) grit classifiers; screenings compactor; influent ultrasonic flow meter;
two (2) equalization basins; one (1) biological phosphorus removal tank; three (3) primary
clarifiers; seven (7) aeration basins; five (5) secondary clarifiers; methanol feed facility;
five (5) deep bed denitrification filters; sodium hypochlorite disinfection tank; reareation
basin with sodium bisulfite dechlorination; effluent ultrasonic flow meter; one (1) reuse
water basin; a reclaim water facility; one (1) plastic lined reclaimed water pond; four (4)
anaerobic digesters heated by natural gas or methane generated from digesters; a sludge
thickening and dewatering building with two (2) gravity belt thickeners (GBT), two (2) belt
filter presses (BFP), three (3) return waste activated sludge pump stations; a ten -ton per
day alkaline sludge stabilization facility capable of producing Class A dewatered sludge;
three (3) liquid sludge holding tanks; sludge drying beds; and a septage receiving station.
3. At the time of inspection, the following was observed: all 4 influent pumps are operational
and used concurrently; the 2 mechanical screens, 2 vortex grit collectors, and the 2 grit
classifiers were operational and used concurrently but only one of each were in service;
the 2 EQ basins were empty; all 3 primary clarifiers are operational and used concurrently
however, 1 and 3 were in service; all air diffusers in the aeration basins 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7
appeared to be operating normally; aeration basins 5 and 6 were not in service; the color
of the influent was a medium chocolate brown with foam covering over 75% of the service;
all secondary clarifiers were in service; weirs are covered to prevent algae growth; one
tertiary sandfilter was not in service, all other filters were operating normally; the effluent
--Noticing Compare,.
Division or Water Resources, Raleigh Regional ofticc, Water Quality Operations Section III q,: 'lwrttl.nulcnr,org: acb u,J a,„
1625 1iai1 Set -vice Center, Raleigh, IIC 27099-1628 Phone: [phone]
Location: 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC' 27609 Fax: (919) 7,"-71 ;9

appeared clear in the reareation / dechlorination tank; the reuse water pond was not in
service; 1 GBT and 1 BFP were in operation, Class B biosolids took up approximately
78% of the floor which are stored under shelter; anaerobic digester methane units 2,3,
and 4 were operating normally; the number 1 digester methane unit was out of service;
excess methane was being ignited; six sludge drying beds were in use.
4. Granville Farms operates the Land Application Program under permit WQ0001896. Class
B solids are land applied on private farms or transported to Eastern Composting in
Battleboro, NC.
5, Discharge Monitoring Reports for the period October 2016 through December 2017 were
reviewed for compliance with permit limits and monitoring requirements. There were no
violations for the review period.
6. Commercial lab results, chain of custody records, and bench sheets were compared with
data submitted on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) for the month of December
2017. No discrepancies were noted.
I would to thank you, Debra Collins, and Laura Pruitt for you time and assistance with this
inspection. If you have any questions about this letter or the inspection please contact Mitch
Hayes at [e-mail] or at 919.791.4261.
Sincerely,
Danny Smith, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Operations Section
Raleigh Regional Office
Division of Water Resources, NC DEQ
cc: permit files, central files

United States Environmental Protection Agency r
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.0 2046n
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e- PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yrlmolday Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 Is f 3 I NCO023906 � 11 121 18r03r21 IIJ L17 18 � S j 19 L G J j 201
LJ LJ J L
21 6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluati;m Rating 131 CA ------------ ----- —Reserved-------------
67
70 a 71 J72 Lti I 73I 74 751 I I I 1 I
80
Section 8: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
10:OOAM 18/03/21
15/10/01
Wilson WVVfP
5918 NC Hwy 222 E
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Wilson NC 27893
12:30PM 18/03/21
19/05/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)lritles(s)1Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
111
James W Pridgenl1252-399-2491 12523992209
James William PridgenlORC/252-399-24921
Nicholas Vann EatmonlORC/252-296-33831
Name, Address of Responsible OfiicialfTitle/Phone and Fax Number
RMC5 W Prreh)e 11 Contacted
_Russell-R-8fiee,P0 Box 10 Wilson NC 2789400101P1ant Managerl252-399-24911
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance RecordslReports
Self -Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Waters
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspectors) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Mitchell S Hayes RRO WO11919-791-42001
//Vt G�P-S- f qq
Si nalu a of Manage tQA-R6 wer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
J � �
EPA For 960-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPOES
yrlmolday
31 N00023906 111 121 18/03/21 17
Inspectron Types
18u
(font)
Section U Summary or FindinglComments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The 14 MGD WRF plant consists of the following units: Influent pump station with four (4) VFD pumps;
three (3) mechanical bar screens; one (1) manual bar screen; two (2) vortex grit collectors; two (2) grit
classifiers; screenings compactor; influent ultrasonic flow meter; two (2) equalization basins; one {1)
biological phosphorus removal tank; three (3) primary clarifiers; seven (7) aeration basins; five (5)
secondary clarifiers; methanol feed facility; five (5) deep bed denitrification filters, sodium hypochlorite
disinfection tank; reareation basin with sodium blsulfite dechlorination; effluent ultrasonic flow meter;
one (1) reuse water basin; a reclaim water facility, one (1) plastic lined reclaimed water pond, four (4)
anaerobic digesters heated by natural gas or methane generated from digesters; a sludge thickening
and dewatering building with two (2) gravity belt thickeners (GBT), two (2) belt filter presses (BFP)
three (3) return waste activated sludge pump stations; a ten -ton per day alkaline sludge stabilization
facility capable of producing Class A dewatered sludge; three (3) liquid sludge holding tanks; sludge
drying beds; and a septage receiving station.
At the time of inspection, the following were observed: all 4 influent pumps are operational and used
concurrently; the 2 mechanical screens, 2 vortex grit collectors, and the 2 grit classifiers were
operational and used concurrently but only one of each were in service; the 2 EQ basins were empty;
all 3 primary clarifiers are operational and used concurrently however, 1 and 3 were in service; all air
diffusers in the aeration basins 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 appeared to be operating normally; aeration basins 5
and 6 were not in service; the color of the influent was a medium chocolate brown with foam covering
over 75% of the service; all secondary clarifiers were in service; weirs are covered to prevent algae
growth; one tertiary sandfilter was not in service, all other filters were operating normally, the effluent
appeared clear in the reareation 1 dechlorination tank; the reuse water pond was not in service; 1 GBT
and 1 BFP were in operation; Class B biosolids took up approximately 78% of the floor which are
stored under shelter; anaerobic digester methane units 2,3, and 4 were operating normally; the number
1 digester methane unit was out of service; excess methane was being ignited; six sludge drying beds
were in use.
Granville Farms operates the Land Application Program under permit WQ0001896. Class B solids are
land applied on private farms or transported to Eastern Composting in Battleboro, NC.
Discharge Monitoring Reports for the period October 2016 through December 2017 were reviewed for
compliance with permit limits and monitoring requirements. There were no violations for the review
period.
Commercial lab results, chain of custody records, and bench sheets were compared with data
submitted on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) for the month of December 2017. No
discrepancies were noted.
Page#

Permit: NC0023906r Owner - Faclir Wilson vvVr
Inspection Date: 03/21/2018 Inspection Type: Compliance evaluation
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Permit
Yes
No NA
NE
(if the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
❑
❑
0
❑
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
❑
❑
❑
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Permit will expire May 31, 2019
RecordKeeping
Yes No NA NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
❑
❑
❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dales of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
*
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
0
❑
❑
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator
a
❑
❑
❑
on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
®
❑
❑
❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
N
❑
❑
❑
Page#

Permit: NCO023906 owner - Facility: Wilson UWVfP
inspection Date: 03/2112018 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Keepingg Yes No NA NE
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Effluent Pike Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? M ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? IN ❑ ❑ ❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Comment: Effluent appeared clear mixing Into Contentnea Creek_
Flow Measurement - Influent
Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
M
❑
❑
❑
1s the flow meter operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
❑
0
Comment: Flow meter was calibrated 10.27.2017.
Flow Measurement - Effluent
Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
❑
M
Comment: Flow meter was calibrated 10.27.2017.
Anaerobic Digester
Yes No NA NE
Type of operation:
Fixed cover
Is the capacity adequate?
❑
❑
❑
# Is gas stored on site?
❑
❑
❑
Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers?
9
❑
❑
❑
Is the gas burner operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the digester heated?
12
❑
❑
❑
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
12
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Digester #1 was not in service. Ali other digesters were operating normally.
Page# 4

Permit: NC0023906r Owner - Facilr Wilson IM r
Inspection pate: 03/21/2018 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Drying Beds
Yes No NA
NE
Is there adequate drying bed space?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
W
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
M
❑
❑
❑
# Is the sludge land applied?
0
❑
❑
❑
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Six sludge drying beds were in use.
Solids Handling Equipment
Yes No NA NE
Is the equipment operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of sludge buildup on bells and/or rollers of filter press?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
■
❑
❑
❑
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: One GBT and one BFP were in operation. Class B biosolids took up approximately 78% of
the floor which are stored under shelter
Chemical Feed
Is containment adequate?
Is storage adequate?
Are backup pumps available?
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
Comment: Microseed is used in the aeration basins.
Pump Station - Influent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
Are all pumps present?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
0 ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA
NE
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
Page# �,

W1%or5VwVTP O
Permit NC0023906
owner_ Facility:
Inspection Date: 03/21/2018
Inspection Type: Comphanw Evaluation
Pump Station - Influent
Yes No NA NE
Are all pumps operable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are float controls operable?
❑
❑
❑
0
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
❑
❑
❑
N
Comment: Pumps one and three were being operated with hump 2 being the lag pump.
Bar Screens
Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: One mechanical bar screen was being operated
Grit Removal
Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
❑
❑
❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
M
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
i
❑
❑
❑
Comment: One vortex cirit collector and one grit classifier were being operated.
Equalization Basins
Yes No NA NE
Is the basin aerated?
❑
❑
❑
Is the basin free of bypass lines or structures to the natural environment?
❑
❑
❑
Is the basin free of excessive grease?
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps present?
m
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps operable?
❑
❑
®
❑
Are float controls operable?
®
❑
❑
❑
Are audible and visual alarms operable?
❑
❑
❑
M
Page# 6

Permit: NC0023906r Owner - Facilr Nilson vwr
Inspection Date: 03/21/2018 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Equalization Basins Yes No NA NE
# Is basin size/volume adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Both EQ basins were empty.
Primary Clarifier
Yes No NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
S
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately '/4 of the sidewall depth)
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Sludge blanket was 6 feet with a side wall depth of 10 feet.
Secondary Clarifier
Yes No NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
E
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately % of the sidewall depth)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Weirs are covered preventing inspection. Sludge blanket was 4 feet with a side wall depth of
10 feet.
Aeration Basins
Mode of operation
Type of aeration system
Yes No NA NE
Ext, Air
Diffused
Page# 7

0 a Wilson WVVT'P 0
Permit: NCO023906 Owner -Facility:
Inspection Date: 03/21/2018 inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Aeration Basins
Yes No NA NE
Is the basin free of dead spots?
❑
❑
❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
M
❑
❑
❑
Are the diffusers operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
0
❑
❑
❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mgll)
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The color of the influent was a medium chocolate brown with foam covering over 75% of the
service which is normal for this WRF.
Nutrient Removal
Yes No NA NE
# Is total nitrogen removal required?
0 ❑
❑
❑
# Is total phosphorous removal required?
M ❑
❑
❑
Type
Biological
# Is chemical feed required to sustain process?
❑ 0
❑
❑
Is nutrient removal process operating properly?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Microseed is used in the process to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen levels.
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Yes
No NA NE
Type of operation:
Down flow
Is the filter media present?
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of growth?
❑
❑
❑
Is the air scour operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the scouring acceptable?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
1
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Effluent appeared clear in the wet well.
De -chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ? Liquid
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine alriount (1 to 1)? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders? ❑ ❑ ❑
# is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers? M ❑ . ❑ ❑
Page# 8

Permit: NC0023906(pb%'�' Owner - FacilrAllson WI
Inspection Date: 0312112018 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
De -chlorination Yes No NA NE
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type? Cl ❑ 0 ❑
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Standby Power
Yes No NA
NE
Is automatically activated standby power available?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source'?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested under load?
M
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑
0
❑
❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Generator is operated once a week.
Pumps-RASMAS Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place? E ❑ ❑ ❑
Are pumps operational? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Laboratory
Yes No NA
NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
M
❑
❑
❑
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified tab?
M
❑
❑
❑
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
❑
❑
❑
M
Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
❑
❑
❑
M
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees?
❑
❑
❑
■
Comment: ETS is used for toxicity. Pace is used for metals, Cn, oil and grease. -Pace in Wisconsin is
used for low level for low level Hgand PPS.
PPS.
P;,,1k!q 9

0 0 VUlson VWVrP 0
Permit: NCO023906 Owner - Facility:
Inspection Date: 03121/2018 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Disinfection -Liquid
Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
■
❑
❑
❑
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Influent Sampling
Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
in
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
0
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
d
❑
❑
❑
Comment: sampler temperature was 0 degrees C
Effluent Sampling
Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
M
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
E
❑
❑
❑
representative)?
Comment: sampler temperature was at 0 degrees C
Pager 10

A
(D
Ir
O
U
Z
Z
0a 0
0
L
c 0 X
'p N W
a(
V N LL
c
U O
>' U^` Co W O
E
IL = U
N
c
a�
u
0
u
O
0
a
a
A
m
;t
a
V
c
O
"
a
o n •�
?
c
C
�
h
c
b
^
N 3
V
N
�aci
� 3
3
w
V
V
C
N N M p
Y
�
`►� �
� v1 fi
of � N � h
M 3
0 w 3
a

Ee
c
�v
m
0
LL
c
47
,c
>
m
3
4-J,
o
N
+J
=
t
N
m
�
a
00
N
>
+_
°
+'
a
o
�-
a
N
°
L
O
ry
Q
.n
z
L
a
V
is
c
co
=
s
+r
c
'U
Q
m
a
@
t
L
O
O
N
a
m
U
>%
N
M
�
a
"
•L
o
N
c
1�0
=
m
L
a
0
O
m
o
s
4-
a
L
L
tLD
-I-
a
d
U
C
c
V
~
a
a
M
O
X
0
�
C D
rl
4'
L
E
O
a
•c
t
v
:3
O
c
t
m
p
CL
L.Lc
U
O�
+�
L
m
LL
�D
Lu
t
O
a
G
7
O
N
Cf
m
N
+'
or
•�
��
a
CLQ)
m
0
vi
a
a),�
cu
N
a.-+
O
c
E
4-1
Q
O
o
w
v
•-
N
4-0
i
`0
M
1
N
Q
yr
L
a
A arc
Q
�
a
O
m
�
a
u
op
0
O
L
O
O
GG
L
O
U
a
4-0
g�Z
O
Z
`z
c
ate:-.
N
Q
.a
-O
cO
N
OC
o
m76
rq
00
Ua
o�
cu
i
a
•O
m
p
•L
a
'�
N
M
W
c
0
0 41
:3
a
N=
ma
a
N
N
m
m
L
e
L
a
u
N
E t 0
Q7
w
?
—
�
N=
N
+-+
a
—
7
N
.S�
Z
kD
N
._
E Q=
E
E
a
�-
m
c
N
N
}.r
LJ
a
O v
to
N
a
t
m
ON
�
O
a
N
N
i1
m
to x
o 2 !!
3
E=
a
�
.c
ro
7
f- L
a W
•a
E
c
O
L
�'
a
�_
�A
?
a
V
L
4
•1L.3
a
�
L
•�
ttt.
}�'+
O G�1
L
Q�J
a
L
O
O
Z �+ E
n;
O
m
-0
-a
C.
42
Q
a
O
Ln
�a
4-
r�a

r
C
w
f0
m
IJI
0
U
[d
a�
t�
O
a
a-
N
0
O
N
p
N
v
ro
C
C U t
(o
0) uw =
w�;
c�
o
o ELL
Eo_ `
liV1F�-VUfm
a
O
i 0)
C �
C N
O N
�1
N �
C ck N
a-
m N
N a
v LL
m

a
cu
CL
a
.�
L
�
O
`J
O
3
.�
0
c
m
?- c
F,
vi "'
o ¢
m C
Cr
� °
3
c v
a «.
va0�
L N
n
v
c
E v a
mho
ac
'^ E a
Y
a
a U r-
4- a
c�
C Er
m
L
O 5
Y o
y
ra
o
L 4- Q
a
a O_
0
m
E
a o
t m
0 0 !'
o m
a roC
L '
CD
+.:
G
5
A
p m
0 m
c cz
a 3
o " v
o
y c_
�a to
E
c TZ
m
� v a
.O
o O
w
(U 3
= 4 O
d 0
a a
O O
} N
� L
4--
M
0 L
a
a .`-+
t r
3 L
o
0 *'
Y Q Ln
O
C
O m
�
o 67
C
v ,
E O
C
O 'a
CL (U
— C
v�
v°
Ua
a.s
oa
O Ln
t 6
O CL
CL to
Q w
u a vn
a
O O
T
o N
OO
m O
c m E
y +=
w 3
0 a
a c
L
a ar
Q
E 0
O C
c
gv)
a s
~m�;�
O
a
Am
W
a
G ++ m
vi
7
rL-I
a
O
L
O O .G
C GJ
++
0 ',..,
v E
L
"4 -o
-a
p C�y
H v!
a
a L u
a
m
to m
�i to
.°
°
Ui
N
L
b
� �
w
O
N
p
�
U �
�
W �
t� O
y
O
h
O L
R
Q)
'uj H
b
y C
o
ma
Er
Lo
u
2
00.2
C
b b
fC1 C
9
U r
O
O
0a'
O�
O
oa,
L
icyLu
w E Q
O N O
a
0
c a co
O CAa
0-0
_
c
L
�OZ
�� c
O
t�
vs •�
N
LL� 0
a O
' O
COO
C C
O O
0 0
1 L
tC U
ti E
03 Cc r
u U
O M It
o
_ ti
I
Z
O
���
ujz
v

r,
59
a s o
�
-a d s �,
a� s
� o Q C �
O
z °c m E
° o o v 1
a 0 R m
� CI
c }L L ,C a
cu
a 0 0 T
CL R C
L L c
Y w
3-0�� v
s 3 c o
3 'o
v1 w
C �! O V R
'6 •'" O C
o R -0 C QJ
O 0 E
0 N C
dD
L 0
.a CDcr
O
a
c a m
L
c 0 0
U N Q i
L
R
7 a,,
O O
C C
m C) N -p
O
L Qi `
Q C'
O t tom•
ro
O C) 00
O
v L Ql
U
a� C a
R
0 0 c a 10
`�- E 0
E
0
Y
an
0 O p R
to
3 a 3
a
L y
m
L L
U O
r Q
Q
C
- vl (U }J
0
N N 4� 41 0
'w
'aN
O
a
L 7 O C W
>
y
o c c s
)
=
u a Q7 C 7
O
-P 4- 0 R O
C cM C w
V
T
R 7 E
�R+
3 0 -0 0
O
t +J 0
a
cc: a' O R
R
O C' r N
L
41
0 °
a
E In
C) � L- 0
O 4 c j 3
�
vy
a
L
c E o
c
Li-
0 O i
ao E �+ o
O
E
CM CD
C'
v
L
C
Y C L
0
CL N w
C: N
O
N
0 L
V O
_
L a 0" =
Q
O i u
i
a�
(J u u
nt
0
u
=
�
O
C
,y
�
� M
!
C
N
D
m N
N
.� ,
R
!21
N
'.
O
N LL
E
4
t
a
m
T
C
m
IA
R
V4

0 0

K.-ry monvi win
—00
Water Resources
707U.-j-
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
September 15, 2017
Mr. Jimmy Pridgen
Water Reclamation Manager
City of Wilson
P.O. Box 10
Wilson, NC 27894-0010
Subject: Pretreatment Compliance Inspection
City of Wilson - Horniny Creek Wastewater Management Facility
NPDES Permit No. NCO023906
Wilson County
Dear Mr. Pridgen:
ROY COOPER
cmcrnc
MICHAEL S. REGAN
A-rrrraty
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
On August 16, 2017, Cheng Zhang of the Raleigh Regional Office conducted a Pretreatment
Compliance Inspection of City of Wilson's pretreatment program. The assistance given by Ms. Laura
Pruitt, the Water Reclamation Compliance Coordinator, was greatly appreciated. The inspection report
is attached. findings during the inspection were as follows:
1. There are 13 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) discharging, 9 of which are also Categorical
Industrial Users (CIUs). It was noted that no SIUs were in Significant Non -Compliance (SNC)
during the last two semi-annual period-
2. The pretreatment inspection file review included Evans- Mactavish- Agri craft (Permit No. 2000-
015), Fresenius Kabi (Pen -nit No. 2009-013) and Tabaco Rag Processors (Permit No. 2014-018).
The files needed for review were available for inspection, contained all the required elements
and were in excellent condition. Fresenius Kabi was compliant during the most recent 6-month
period. Evans- Mactavi sh-Agri craft had two cyanide violations and Tabaco Rag Processors had
one oil & grease violation. The POTW took enforcement against these violations as required by
the Enforcement Response Plan.
3. A review of the files containing the pretreatment program elements was conducted. All files
were available and well organized. Please be reminded that update of Headwork Analysis is due
April 1, 2018.
4. Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) data were reviewed, it was noted that all parameters were
sampled at required locations and analyzed with required detection levels. LTMP data was well
organized and maintained.
Division of water Resource~, Raleigh Regional Office, NVater QL1d1it\' Operation Section water -resource,
1628 Mud SerN ice Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Phone: [phone]
Location: 3800 Barrett Drive, Rateigh, NC 2'609 Fax: [phone]

Ee

Thank you for your continued support of the Pretreatment Program. If you have any questions or
comments, please tali Cheng Zhang at [phone] (or email: cheng.zhang a nedenrggv).
jIjSincerel ,
V �
Danny Smit
Surface Water Protection Supervisor
Raleigh Regional Office
Enclosure: 2017 City of Wilson PC[ Inspection Fonn
CC: ]Monti Hassan, DWR - PLRCS Unit
Central Files
Cheng Zhang, RRO
Laura Pruitt, City of Wilson

0 0

NORTr�AROLINA DIVISION OF WATER iKESOURCES
PRETREATMENT COMPLIANCE INSPECTION (PCI) REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Complete Prior To PC1, Review Program Info Database Sheet s
Control Authority (POTW) Name: City of Wilson
Control Authority Representative(s): Laura Pruit
3. Title(s): Water Reclamation Compliance Coordinator
4. Last Inspection Date: 9"2/2015 Inspection Type (Check One). ® PCI ❑ Audit
5. Has Program Completed All Requirements from the Previous Inspection and Program Info Sheet(s)? ® YES ❑ NO
6. Is POTW under an Order That Includes Pretreatment Conditiuns'? ❑ YES ® NO
Order Type, Number, Parameters: _ Are Milestone Dates Being Met? ❑ YES ❑ NO
ICIS CODING
Main Program Pen -nit Number MM DD YY
NI-C10 10 1.213191Ili 1 OS 1 16 1 17
7. Current Number Of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)?
13
S. Number of SIUs With No IUP, or With an Expired [UP?
0
9. Number of SIUs Not Inspected By POTW in the Last Calendar Year?
0
10. Number of SIUs Not Sampled By POTW in the Last Calendar Year?
0
11. Number of SIUs In SNC For Limits Violations During Either of the Last 2 Semi -Annual Periods?
0
12. Number of SIUs in SNC For Reporting During Either of the Last 2 Semi -Annual Periods?
L 0
13. Number of SIUs in SNC with Pretreatment Schedule'? J0
14. Number of SIUs on Schedules?
0
15. Current Number Of Categorical Industrial Users (CiUs)?
9
16. Number of CIUs in SNC?
0
POTW INTERVIEW
17. Since the Last PCI, has the POTW had any NPDES Limits Violations'?
If Yes, What are the Parameters and How are these Problems Being Addressed?
18. Since the Last PCI, has the POTW had any Problems Related to an Industrial
Discharge (Interference, Pass -Through, Blockage, Citizens' Complaints, Increased
Sludge Production, Etc.)?
If Yes, How are these Problems Being Addressed?
19. Which Industries have been in SNC for Limits or Reporting during SNC for
either of the Last 2 Semi -Annual Periods? Not Been Published for SNC for
Public Notice?(May refer to PAR if Excessive SIUs in SNC) Not Pu
20, Which Industries are on Compliance Schedules or Orders? For all SIUs on an
Order, Has a Signed Copy of the Order been sent to the Division'?
21. Are Any Permits or Civil Penalties Currently Under Adjudication'? If Yes, Which
Ones?
❑ YES ®NO
[:]YES ®NO
Limits: ;`lone
Reporting: None
blished: None
NA
❑ YES ® NO
LTMPISTMP FILE REVIEW:
22. Is LTMP;'STMP Monitoring Being Conducted at Appropriate Locations and Frequencies? ® YES ❑ NO
23. Are Correct Detection Levels being used for all LTMP:-STMP Monitoring'? ® YES ❑ NO
24. Is LTMP.:STMP Data Maintained in a Table or Equivalent? ® YES ❑ NO Is Table Adequate? ® YES ❑ NO
25. All LTMP;:STMP effluent data reported on Discharge Monitoring Report? ® YES ❑ NO Division Inspector, please verify yourself?
26. If NO to 23 - 26, list violations
27. Should any Pollutants of Concern be Eliminated from or Added to LTMPISTMP? ❑ YES ® NO
If yes, which ones'? Eliminated: Added:
NC DWR Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) Forni Updated December 2016 Page I

O O

28. PRETREATMENT PROGRANICZNIENTS REVIEW - Please review POTW it ."a, verify POTW has copy of Program Element in
their files, complete with supportint~ documents and cony of PERCS Approval I etter and rdatPc rnncietant with Prnar5krn Inn .
Program Element
Last Submittal
Date In file?
Last Approval
Date In rile
Date Next Due,
If Applicable
Headworks Analysis (HWA)
4/2/2013
® Yes ❑ No
6/24/2013
® Yes ❑ No
4/1/2018
Industrial Waste Survey (IWS)
4/24/2014
® Yes ❑ No
5/5/2014
® Yes ❑ No
6/1/2019
Sewer Use Ordinance SUO)
2/12/2012
® Yes ❑ No
3/12/2012
®Yes ❑ No
Enforcement Response Plan (ERP)
Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTivIP)
5/16/2012
8/5/2015
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
6/19/2012
10/16/2015
® Yes ❑ No
1 ® Yes ❑ No
INDUSTRIAL USER PERMIT (IUP) FILE REVIEW (3 [UP FILE REVIEWS OR'1 FILE RFVIFW AND t III INSPFC'TMNI
29. User Name IF
t. Evans-Mactavish-Agricraft
2. Fresenius Kabi
3. Tabaco Rag Processors
30. IUP Number
2000-01
1 2009-013
2014-018
31. Does File Contain Current Permit?
32. Permit Expiration Date
33. Categorical Standard Applied (I.E. 40 CFR, Etc.) Or N 'A
®Yes ❑ No 11
® Yes ❑ NoI
® Yes ❑ No
1213 V2021 11
12/31/2019
6/30/2018
433
439
NIA
34. Does File Contain Permit Application Completed Within One Year Prior
to Permit Issue Date?
® Yes El
No
7�0
® Yes ❑ No
35. Does File Contain an Inspection Completed Within Last Calendar Year?
36. a. Does the File Contain a Slug/Spill Control Plan'?
b. If No, is One Needed? (See Inspection Form from POTW)
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
a. ❑Yes NNo
b. ❑Yes NNo
a. ®Yes []No
b. ❑Yes ❑No
a. ❑Yes NNo
b. ❑Yes ®No
37. For 40 CFR 413 and 433 TTO Certification, Does File Contain a Toxic
Organic Management Plan (TOMP)?
®Yes❑No❑N-A
Yes❑NoON.A
P
❑Yes❑NaN1 A
38. a. Does File Contain Original Permit Review Letter from the Division?
b. All Issues Resolved'?
a. ®Yes ❑No
b-❑Yes❑,\;ot7N A
a. ®Yes ❑No
1b.0YesEjNnr1N.'A
a. NYes ❑No
b.❑Yes❑No❑N.A
39. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did the POTW Complete
its Sampling as Required b IUP, including flow?
® Yes ❑ NoF
® Yes ❑ nj
® Yes ❑ f
40. Does File Contain POTW Sampling Chain -Of -Custody Forms'?
®Yes ❑ No
®Yes ❑ No
®Yes ❑ No
41. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did the SIU Complete its
Sam tin as Required b IUP, includin flow?
®Yes❑No❑N A
®Yes❑No❑NIA ir
es❑No❑NSA
41.b. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did SIU submit all reports
on time?
®Yes❑No❑N A
®Yes❑No❑NIA
®Yes❑No❑N A
42a. For categorical IUs with Combined Wastestream Formula (CWF), does
file include rocessAilution flows as Required b IUP?
❑Yes❑No®N:A
❑Ycs❑NoGI A
❑Yes❑No®711
42b. For categorical IUs with Production based limits, does file include
production rates and/or flows as Required b [UP'?
❑Yes❑No®N A
❑Ycs❑No®NIA
❑Ycs❑No®N A
43a. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did the POTW Identify
® Yes ❑ No
❑Yes❑No®NIA
® Yes ❑ No
All Limits Non -Compliance from Both POTW and SIU Sampling'?
43b. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did the POTW Identify
All Re ortin Non -Compliance from SIU Sampling'?
❑Yes❑No®N A
❑Ycs❑No®NIA
❑Yes❑NoON A
44. a. Was the POTW Notified by SIU (Within 24 Hours) of All Self-
Monitoring Violations?
a.®Yes❑No❑N A
a.❑Yes❑NoON/A
a.❑Ycs❑NoMN A
b. Did Industry Resample and submit results to POTW Within 30 Days?
c. If applicable, Did POTW resample within 30 days of becoming aware
of SIU limit violations in the POTW's sampling of the SIU?
b ®Ycs❑\o❑N A
c ❑Ycs❑NoON A
b.❑Yes0No®N1A
c-pYcs❑No®\!A
b.MYes❑No❑N A
c. ❑Ycs®No❑N A
46. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Was the SIU in SNC?
❑ Yes ®
No
❑ Yes ® No 11
❑
Yes ® No
47. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Was Enforcement Taken
as Specified in the POTW's ERP (NOVs, Penalties, timing, etc.)?
®Ycs❑No❑N-A
i
rElYesONoONq1A
®Ycs❑No❑N?A
48. Does the File Contain Penalty Assessment Notices?
®Yes❑No❑N-A 11
❑Yes❑No®NIA
❑Ycs❑No®N:-A
49. Does The File Contain Proof Of Penalty Collection?
❑Yes❑No®N-A
pYcs❑No®NIA
❑Yes❑No®N: A
50. a. Does the File Contain Any Current Enforcement Orders?
b. Is SIU in Compliance with Order?
a.0Yes0No0N:A
b.❑Ycs❑NOON.:A
a.❑YesONo®N/A
b.❑Yes❑No®NIA
a.❑Yes❑No®N:A
b.❑Ycs❑No®N A
51. Did the POTW Representative Have Difficulty in Obtaining Any of This
Requested Information For You?
❑ Yes ® No
Yes ® No
U
[-IYes ® No
NC DWR Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) Font Updated December 2016 Page 2

0 0

FILE REVIEW CONUNIENTS:
43a -, Eva ns-INI acta vish-Agricraft had two CN violations from self -monitoring; Tabaco Rag Processors had one oil & grease violation,
44 - SIUs resampled within 30 days as requested by the POTNIV.
47 POTW issued notices of non-compliance to SIUs for limit violations as required by the ERP.
48 POTW assessed a civil penalty to Evans--NIactivish-Agricraft for repeated CN violations, penalty will be collected in September.
INDUSTRY INSPECTION ICIS CODING:
Main Program Permit Number 2I.'VI DD YY
1. Industry Inspected:
2. Industry Address:
3. Type of Industry.:Product:
4. Industry Contact:
Title:
Phone: _ _ _ Fax:
S. Does the POTW Use the Division Model Inspection Forth or Equivalent? ❑ YES ❑ NO
6, Did the POTW Contact Conduct the Following Parts of the Industrial Inspection Thoroughly?
Comments:
A. Initial Interview ❑ YES ❑ NO
B. Plant Tour ❑ YES ❑ NO
C. Pretreatment Tour ❑ YES [—]NO
D. Sampling Review ❑ YES ❑ NO
E. Exit Interview ❑ YES ❑ NO
Industrial Inspection Comments:
OVERALL SUMMARY AND CONIiyIENTS:
Comments: The program is well implemented and managed.
Requirements:
Recommendations:
NOD: ❑ YES ®NO
NOV: []YES ® NO
QNCR: ❑ YES ®NO
POTW Rating:
Satisfactory X Alarginal UnSatisfactory
PCI C0IIPLETED BY: Cheng.Zhang, Raleigh Reeional Office DATE: August 16, 2017
NC DWR Pretreatment Compliar.ce Inspection {PCI} Form t'Ix!utcd December 2016 Page 3

w

r
NORTH CAROLINA NC Dept of Environmental Quality
August 30, 2017
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
System Performance Annual Report
NC DEQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
SEP -1 2017
Raleigh Regional Office
Subject: 2017 Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Report
City of Wilson — Hominy Creek Water Reclamation Facility
NPDES Permit No. NCO023906
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed are three copies of the City of Wilson's 2017 Wastewater Collection and Treatment
System Report. The reports were mailed to customers during August 2017.
The report is based on fiscal year July 1, 2016 -- June 30, 2017. The report is submitted as
required by the N.C. Clean Water Act of 1999.
Please contact me at [phone] or via email [e-mail] if you need
additional information.
cc: Barry Parks, Director of Water Resources
Regional Supervisor, DWR Raleigh Regional Office - Surface Water Protection
CITY OF WILSON
INCORPORATED 1849
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY I PO BOX 10 1 WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA 27894.0010 1 [phone] 1 [phone]
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. Jimmy Pridgen
Water Reclamation Manager
City of Wilson
Q.O. Box 10
Wilson, NC 27894-0010
Dear Mr. Pridgen:
ROY COOPER
(r�xen�fr
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
January 12, 2017
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
City of Wilson -Hominy Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO023906
Wilson County
Jiff cwv
On December 16, 2016, Stephanie Goss and Vanessa Manual of the Raleigh Regional Office (RRO)
conducted an inspection at the subject facility. The cooperation of Laura Pruitt and yourself was greatly
appreciated. Findings during the inspection were as follows:
1. The current NPDES permit was issued effective October 1, 2105 and will expire May 31, 2019.
You are reminded to submit a renewal application no later than 180 days prior to the expiration
date as required by Part II, Section B.10. of your NPDES permit.
2. The 14 MGD treatment plant consists of a three mechanical bar screens, serpentine conveyor at
influent pump station, four influent pumps, manual bar screens, screenings compactor, automatic
grit removal, influent ultrasonic flow meter, two equalization basins, three primary clarifiers, one
biological phosphorus removal tank, seven aeration basins, five secondary clarifiers, five tertiary
filters, a methanol feed system, chlorine contact/post aeration tank, chlorine and dechlorination
feed systems, effluent ultrasonic flow meter, anaerobic digesters, methane generating unit, sludge
thickening and dewatering facility, alkaline sludge stabilization facility and three liquid sludge
holding tanks. The plant discharges to Contentnea Creek, which is classified C-SW NSW waters
in the Neuse River basin.
3. The pre -aeration basins are now being used as equalization basins. The equalization basins are
capable of storing approximately 220,000 gallons a piece. Both equalization tanks were empty at
the time of the inspection.
4. The influent ultrasonic flow meter was calibrated on October 24, 2016.
5. The influent composite sampler is programmed flow proportionally to collect 140 ml every 21
pulses. The refrigerated units were maintained at the proper temperature, < 6 degrees C.
6, One primary clarifier was inspected and the weirs were level with some alga present on the weirs.
A sludge judge showed 7.5 feet of sludge and 10.5 feet liquid.
Division of Water Resources, Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Operations Section http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq;'aps
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Phone: [phone]
Location: 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax: [phone]

7. The biological phosphorus tank is estimated between 10-12 feet deep and contained 40% foam on
the surface.
8. The seven aeration basins appeared to be operating satisfactorily and according to Mr. Pridgen
they are 16 feet deep. There was foam on approximately 90% of the surface of each basin. This
did not appear to be affecting the treatment efficiency of the units and Mr. Pridgen stated the
amount of foam is typical for the plant.
9. The secondary clarifier weirs are covered. A sludge judge on one of the clarifiers showed the
sludge depths to be approximately 4.5 feet deep with the liquid at 10 feet.
10. The four tertiary sand filters appeared to be operating satisfactorily. One sand filter was out of
service at the time of the inspection. The filtered effluent appeared clear and free of solids.
11. The secondary effluent composite sampler is programmed flow proportionally to collect 200 ml
every 36 pulses. The refrigerated units were maintained at the proper temperature, < 6 degrees C.
12. The effluent ultrasonic flow meter was calibrated on October 24, 2016. The effluent was clear
and free of solids.
13. Mr. Pridgen stated their sludge is Class B and they have not made any Class A since 2009.
Granville Farms hauls their Class B sludge as needed and it is either composted or land applied.
14. Mr. Pridgen stated the onsite generator is tested daily and can power the entire treatment plant.
The generator is also tested right before a storm.
15. A review of discharge monitoring report (DMR) data for the period May 2016 through September
2016 showed all required monitoring was performed and that the facility complied with all permit
limits.
16. A cursory review of laboratory and DMR data for June 2016 showed consistent reporting of
results.
17. A cursory review of calibration logs showed acceptable calibration for the on -site parameters.
18. A twenty minute settleometer test result was 930 ml.
19. Ms. Pruitt stated there are 15 industries in the City: Ardagh Glass, Alliance One, Bridgestone,
Cott Beverages, Evans-Mactavish-Agricraft, Fresenius Kabi, Linamar Forging, Purdue
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Sandoz, Smithfield, Sun River Series, Tobacco Rag, UTCIKidde
Aerospace, Voith Fabrics and Wilson Medical Center.
20. The effluent discharge appeared free of excess solids. No detrimental impacts to Contentnea
Creek were observed.
If you have questions concerning this report please contact 919-791-4256 or Stei hanie,doss.., ncdenr.gov.

If you have questions concerning this report please contact 919-791-4256
SinceDan
S. Daniel Smith, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
cc:
RRO, SWP
Central Files

o a

r
United States Environments] Protec90n Agency Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 204W OMB No, 2040.0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31 -98
Section N. National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
yrlmolday Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
Transaction Code NPDES 12 I 17 19 20I I
1 I I 2 I 3 NC0023908 11 18112/18 1 g u u L.�
inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 GIP`
671 70 f 4 71 u 72 (N j
L.J Section B: Facility Data LJ
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also Include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Wilson WWfP
Old Stentonsburg Rd
Wilson NC 27893
Name(s) of Onsits Representative(s)rmes(s)fPhone and Fax Numbers)
N
James Wiliam PridgenlORCI252-399-24911
Name, Address of Responsible OfNclalfridelPhone and Fax Number
ReserAKI
73I I I74 75I + I I I I
Entry TImelDate Permit Effective Date
09:00AM 18112MG 1 15I10I01
Exit TimelDate Permit Expiration Date
12:30PM 16AW'18 1 19/05/31
Other Facility Data
Contacted
Russell P Bdce,PO Box 10 Wilson NC 2789400101PIsrd Manager1252-399-2491! to
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit E Flow Measurement 0 Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
n Self -Monitoring Program M Sludge Handling Disposal 0 Facility Site Review EfituentlReceiving waters
Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signatures) of Inspectors)
AgencylOHicelPhons and Fax Numbers
Date
E
RRO Wt]l1918-807-8392!
Goss
Stephanie Goss
Stephan
RRO yyQ/lg19.791-42001
S na re of Management A Rev' er
envy oelPhone end Numbers
Dale
JA /%
EPA Form 35696 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page# 1
l

NPDES yrlmolday Inspection Type
31 NCO023906 I 1 12 16/12116 17 181 E
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Page#

Permit: NC0023908
Owner - Facility: Vtttson VViNTP
Inspection Hate: 1211612018
Inspection Type: Compllance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA N
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MISS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Yes NoN N
Permit
❑
❑
❑
(If the present permit expires in B months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
❑
❑
El
Is the facility as described in the permit?
El
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
❑
Comment:
Record Keel2ling
Yes No NA Ng
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
❑
❑ ❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
❑ ❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
0
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DM Rs?
0
❑
❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑ •
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
❑
❑
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
11
Transported COCs
❑ ❑
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
❑
Cl
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted Flow) Do they operate 2417 with a certified operator
❑
❑ ❑
on each shift?
❑
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
❑
❑ ❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification?
❑
❑
❑ 0
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
❑
❑ ❑
Page# 3

Permit: NC0023906 Owner - Facility: Wilson WVVTP
Inspection Data; 1211812018 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Keepina Yes No NA NE
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
Comment:
Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? 0 ❑ 1111
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? N ❑ ❑ ❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? ❑ ❑ E ❑
Comment:
Flow Measurement - influent
Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for ren
N
❑
❑
❑
Is fir ..Y?
N
❑
❑
❑
r now rr;.:ter
0
❑
❑
❑
(ff :snits ' iparated) Dc corder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
M
❑
Gnnnmen.
Flow Measurement- Effluent
Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
N
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
N
❑
Comment:
Solids Handlina Eaulpment
Yes No NA NE
Is the equipment operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
❑
Cl
❑
Is storage adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
Cl
❑
❑
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt fitter press sludge cake?
❑
❑
❑
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Page# 4

Owner • FacllRY: vylg°n V WiP
perms Nc00 $906
inspection type: Compliance Evaluation
Inspeotlon Date: 12/1612016
Yes No NA N
Chemical Feed
■
C1❑
❑
Is containment adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are backup pumps available?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
Comment:
Yes N9 NA N
pump Station - Effluent
moo[]
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps present?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps operable?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are float controls operable?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
pum Station - Influent
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps present?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are all pumps operable?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are float controls operable?
■
❑
❑
❑
is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Comment:
Yes No NAN
Bar Screens
Type of bar screen
.
a.Manual
.
b.Mechanical
.
❑ Cl ❑
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
■
❑ ❑ ❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
❑
❑ ❑ ■
is disposal of screening in compliance?
■
11011
Is the unit in good condition?
Page# 5

K
Permit- NC00239oe Owner • Facilityr: Wilson WWTP
Inspection Date: 12118120e Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Comment:
Grit Removal
Yes No NA NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
N 11 11❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Equalization Basins
Yes No NA NE
Is the basin aerated?
.
Is the basin free of bypass lines or structures to the natural environment?
Is the basin free of excessive grease?
Are all pumps present?
■
Are all pumps operable?
13
❑
Are float controls operable?
❑
❑
11
■
Are audible and visual alarms operable?
N
# Is basin sizelvolume adequate?
11❑
❑
Comment: E uilazation basin was empty on the day of inspection
Primary Clarifier
Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular cladfier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
0
C1❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0❑
D
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately % of the sidewall depth)
Page# 6

Owner - Facility: Wilson VMTP
Permit: NC0023908
inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Inspection Data; 12H8I2018
Yes No NA NE
PrimarV Clarifier
Comment: One rim la 'fie wa 'ns cte and ieb we were le I ith ome al a i3resent on th
weirs. A sludge iud a showed 7.5 feet of 51 d e an i 0.5 feet li ui .
Yes No NA N-
Secondary Clarifier
E ❑ ❑ ❑
is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
E ❑ ❑ ❑
N ❑ ❑ ❑
Are weirs level?
IN ❑ ❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
❑ ❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0 ❑ n
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the drive unit operational?
El ❑ ❑
is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
El 0
Is the overflow dear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately % of the sidewall depth)
❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The seconda clarifler wei are covered. The overflow weir a eared to be level and
a on one of the clarifiers showed the slydge de the to be
clear of algae. A stud a ud
aaoroximatel 4.5 fee d e wi th li id at 0 feet.
Yes No A N
Aeration Basins
Ext. Air
Mode of operation
Diffused
Type of aeration system
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the basin free of dead spots?
❑ ❑ ❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
0
❑ ElAre
the diffusers operational?
❑ El
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Cl 0 ❑ ❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Is the DO level acceptable?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mgll)
Comment: Foam covered approximately 90% of the surface of each basin.
Nutrient Removal
Yes N9 NA NIE
# is total nitrogen removal required? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
# Is total phosphorous removal required? ❑ ❑
Biological
Type Page# 7

0
PemW NCO023906 owner-FacIIRy: Wilaon WWTP
Inspection dale: 1211612016 Inspecdon Type: Compliance Evalueuon
Nutrient Removal Yes No NA NE
# Is chemical feed required to sustain process? ❑ ❑ ❑
Is nutrient removal process operating properly? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Yel No, HA Ng
Type of operation:
Down flow
Is the filter media present?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of growth?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the air scour operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is the scouring acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Comment:
De -chlorination
Yes No NA NE
Type of system ?
Liquid
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
❑
❑
❑
M
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
M
❑
❑
❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
M
❑
❑
❑
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Sodium bisulfite is used for dechlorination.
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
❑
❑
❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Standby Power
Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested under load?
0
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑
❑
❑
M
Do the generator(a) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
❑
❑
❑
Page# 8

Permit' NC0023808
Owner - Feclllty: vWson wvVTP
Inspection Data: 72lis120ts
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power Yes No NA N�
Comment:
Pum s-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are pumps operational? 0 ❑ ❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site? 0 ❑
Comment:
Sand Filters Low La_tel
Yes No NA N
(If pumps are used) Is an audible and visible alarm Present and operational?
❑
❑
M
❑
Is the distribution box level and watertight?
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
Is sand filter free of ponding?
Is the sand filter effluent re -circulated at a valid ratio?
❑
❑
0
❑
# Is the sand filter surface free of algae or excessive vegetation?
❑
❑
■
❑
# Is the sand filter effluent re -circulated at a valid ratio? (Approximately 3 to 1)
❑
❑
N
❑
Comment:
Laborato
Ye N NA N
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
0
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
0
❑
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
0
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
❑
❑
13
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +1-1.0 degrees?
11
❑
Comment:
Disinfection -Li uid
Y s No
NA NE
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
❑
s
❑
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
❑
❑
N
❑
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
❑
❑
M
❑
is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
❑
❑
M
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
0
❑
M
❑
Page# 9

Penft, NCO023905 Owner - Facility: Wilson VVWTP
Inspection Date: 121161201e Inspection Typo: Compllance Evaluation
Disinfection -Liquid, Yes No NA NE
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination? ❑ ❑ N ❑
Comment:
Influent Sampling
Yes No NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
N
01111
Is sample collected above side streams?
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
0
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
N
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Effluent Samplina
Yes No NA NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
❑
❑
❑
# Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees
M
❑
❑
❑
Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type
❑
❑
❑
representative)?
Comment:
Upstream 1 Downstream Samolina Yes No NA N
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
sampling location)?
Comment:
Dryina Beds
Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate drying bed space?
❑
❑
N
❑
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
❑
❑
0
❑
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
❑
❑
M
❑
# Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
❑
❑
M
❑
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
N
❑
❑
❑
Page# 10

t
pannit: NC0023908
Owner • Facility: Wilson WWTO
inspection Data: 12116120e
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Dry g Beds Yes N9 NA NE
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
# is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
# Is the sludge land applied?
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
Comment:
Page# 11

0 0

r5 '6 " a'
00
o .� m m C C) O M
6 CD
ro °c -0 °�' m EEL
0 a)0 a °' �; o m o � � � CD � ..
rn mo `�° u mc- `°3a- oa
m 'r " n 3 ID a W M °' 3 m
m 3 0 t0 c N o m �+ ° �
.0 m B m � N, C G Q y
,C —, O � w p '+ Oa ' ► w n pi Q
O
� O Q. _l ram`•' r{ O '_h 0,— � N rr p 04
O S H OR to w m W m nco_--I
m O t CD
C m - r. O �' v� :
C 01 O.S. ;�+ ,d N y m fD 3 O iD N 3
rD O C A
a.
O rOM ZW C? 3 CL O3CN O O
N
m m cmi Cr '* m `" M 3 cb 3
O O '* r�r 0 y � (p m V' Oti, rmD 0 (n � �•
M or
CD
3 t) o.
o r* o o. a O 3 rM m H �; N a:)
C N rfl n O ID or O p CD
l�J
o c, o0
CD O r: =� � w O y o o ro m a s r
N m e e. O 3 �� W (A
ro and a x om Cr � o m _ AO
"m oc°ioo°'�sac CD CU
ri °= �Z
5- r+ ° 1w
41 O
� v
N or m N W
o O �m CDC M 3 �-,
o
o ° O O rD S n
m
:3 3 Q m `" O
rt m
X °- M. : m O x
a` O Q O F+ = Q m C M
r+ �• r�r pNJ C Q g p O
O F;
O' O M 3 d O� C '� O
a C c m, -° m M O 3 m 3 0
ms m �, CL n o „ o 0
�' rM 7 O N° m tin '� m
-0 tA--I O' -I y '�► rn
S C O h m IA H N n .0 M
v
a c a 3 3 c a m Er3 3
O'
m m 2 o CL a m M m m o0
m ° �mEr - 2.� °m
m
m m m om m N
C�
1+ m S. C Yp m- ' X 7m�
rt '► m
aG Q' o M m -i rGD n `c o
3 m o Q� mM 0( o
? ? o m m p O
m r*"-� a a m 3 co
m r► = �, -a_ O
m m ws m
r*

m
$ 7 f o 2
7 k / 7
®
c
�
2. 6- A'
S � @ @
o.
$ �
■ � �
�
m &
k§
ck�' "So
tn
&
2
� � &
■
70
�
q
§
o cl
9
[
�
�

r
Hayes, Mitch
From: Barry Parks <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 5:04 PM
To: Jimmy Pridgen; Hayes, Mitch
Subject: RE: City of Wilson - February Flow
Mitch,
To follow up on Jimmy's points. The average flow for National Weather Service Station Wilson 3SW is 3.15 inches. The
6.94 inches of rain is 220% of the normal average rainfall. December 2015 rainfall was 7.01 inches, with 75% of that
falling from the 2211-31' . This is 212% of average. January was slightly less than average, but all of this occurred in the
Winter when almost no evaporation or evapotranspiration takes place. At the same time, nutrient discharges were
extremely low. Jimmy will provide all the numbers soon, and we believe that when you see the very low discharges
compared to the permit limits, the state will agree that the excess water should not be of any concern. We also do not
believe the Effluent flow channel is providing an accurate flow reading when the discharge stream is flooded and the
water backs up into the flume. Contentnea Creek had historic for the date flows based on 51 years of record on February
4-7 with flows over 2000 US 12 miles upstream on Contentnea Creek at USGS Station 02090380. These are the same
dates that the plant saw 25.4, 29.4, 27.2, and 23.1 MGD flows due to back-up in the flume. Contentnea again saw high
flows of over 1200 CFS again during the 25-26" period when Wilson indicated flows of 18.2 and 16.15 MGD. Everyone
agrees that the flows were higher than normal, we just believe that the flow recordings are inaccurate under these flow
conditions in the discharge stream.
It is extremely wet across all of NO
All of these are again exceptional events for North Carolina in 'typical' Winters, which unfortunately are occurring on a
much more frequent basis. However, cities cannot economically design for such atypical flows. The typical answer is
"address your 1/1", but after spending millions of $ on 1/1 these events continue to occur at plants. We believe that all of
these events when combined are the equivalent of tropical systems, even when they do not have the same level of press
coverage, and the state should consider rainfall over 200% of average an 'unusual event'. Just wanted to add my input
for consideration.
Barry G. Parks
Director of Water Resources
City of Wilson
PO Box 10
3110 Forest Hills Road
Wilson, N.C. 27894
[phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
From: Jimmy Pridgen
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 2:26 PM
To: Mitch Hayes ([e-mail])
Cc: Barry Parks
Subject: City of Wilson - February Flow
1 1, 3�o over

K
Mitch,
This email serves to follow-up my phone conversation with you this morning around 10:45 AM. I called you (NCDEQ-
DWR-RRO) to provide notice that for the month of February 2016, the City of Wilson Hominy Creek Water Reclamation
Facility had an average flow of 15.66 MGD. Our average monthly flow limit is 14 MGD. Flows were elevated due to
excessive rain and its impact on our collection system. For the month of February, Wilson received 6.94 inches of rain (as
measured at Wiggins Mill WTP weather station). Historically, Wilson averages about 3.3 inches of total rainfall during
the month of February. Prior to February, it had already been an unusually wet winter and the ground was saturated prom
previous rain events.
Please also note that during a major rain event that occurred the first week of February, Contentnea Creek, which is the
receiving stream for the City of Wilson Hominy Creek Water Reclamation Facility, had risen significantly and this caused
the flow of our discharge pipe to back up. The flow in our effluent flume was elevated well beyond the maximum reading
level of the ultrasonic flow meter This resulted in erroneous high flow readings from our flow meter that lasted for quite
some time and that impacts our overall monthly average calculation. Therefore, the final average value of 15.66 MGD
that we are reporting is biased high.
While we did process a significant amount of flow during February, all flow was processed through the treatment system,
and we never exceeded any of our other permit limits.
Please contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Jimmy Pridgen
0"�" A&�"
Water Reclamation Manager
City of Wilson
Water Reclamation Facility
A.O. Box 10
3100 Stantonsburg Road
Wilson, NC 27894-0010
Office: 252-399-2492
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: www.wilsonnnor
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 132,et.seq., this electronic mail message and any
attachment hereto, as well as any electronic mail message(s) that may be sent in response to it may be
considered public record and as such are subject to requests for review.

Hayes, Mitch
From: Jimmy Pridgen <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 2:26 PM
To: Hayes, Mitch
Cc: Barry Parks
Subject: City of Wilson - February Flow
Mitch,
This email serves to follow-up my phone conversation with you this morning around 10:45 AM. I called you (NCDEQ-
DWR-RRO) to provide notice that for the month of February 2016, the City of Wilson Hominy Creek Water Reclamation
Facility had an average flow of 15.66 MGD. Our average monthly flow limit is 14 MGD. Flows were elevated due to
excessive rain and its impact on our collection system. For the month of February, Wilson received 6.94 inches of rain (as
measured at Wiggins Mill WTP weather station). Historically, Wilson averages about 3.3 inches of total rainfall during
the month of February. Prior to February, it had already been an unusually wet winter and the ground was saturated prom
previous rain events.
Please also note that during a major rain event that occurred the first week of February, Contentnea Creek, which is the
receiving stream for the City of Wilson Hominy Creek Water Reclamation Facility, had risen significantly and this caused
the flow of our discharge pipe to back up. The flow in our effluent flume was elevated well beyond the maximum reading
level of the ultrasonic flow meter This resulted in erroneous high flow readings from our flow meter that lasted for quite
some time and that impacts our overall monthly average calculation. Therefore, the final average value of 15.66 MGD
that we are reporting is biased high.
While we did process a significant amount of flow during February, all flow was processed through the treatment system,
and we never exceeded any of our other permit limits.
Please contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Jimmy Pridgen
Water Reclamation Manager
City of Wilson
Water Reclamation Facility
P.O. Box 10
3100 Stantonsburg Road
Wilson, NC 27894-0010
Office: 252-399-2491
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: iaridaenRwilsannc.or
Website: www.wilsonnc.oro
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 132,et.seq., this electronic mail message and any