NCG110042_COMPLETE FILE - HISTORICAL_20130107

7bZ,o )A (A'1,-�-
STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
NCG PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
/V U o 7 °Z
DOC TYPE
64- HISTORICAL FILE
❑ MONITORING REPORTS
DOC DATE
❑ JD/3 0 / u
YYYYM M D D

14 MY IT"
- i
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild, P.E. Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
December 12, 2012
Mr. Thomas Warren
Assistant City Manager, City of Roxboro
PO Box 128
Roxboro, NC 27573-0128
Subject: NPDES Compliance Inspection Report
Roxboro WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0021024
NPDES Permit No. NCG110042
Person County
Dear Mr. Warren:
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality conducted an inspection of the Roxboro Wastewater
Treatment Plant on November 14, 2012. This inspection was conducted to verify that the facility is
operating in compliance with the conditions and limitations specified in NPDES Permits.
A summary of the findings and comments noted during this inspection is provided on the attached
copy of the complete inspection report entitled "Water Compliance Inspection Report". The ORC's
Derek Clayton and Willie Wrenn keep excellent records and the assistance of Mr. Wrenn to complete
the inspection was greatly appreciated.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at 919-791-4255 in the Raleigh
Regional Office.
Sincerely,
7
A tuh mn R///o���man���s��ki
Environmental Program Consultant
Attachments
Cc: Mr. Derek Clayton
PO Box 128
Roxboro, NC 27573-0128
Raleigh Regional Office — File
DWQ/Raleigh — Central Files
Page 2-1

Gimnliance Status:
® Compliant
Name and Signature of Inspectors:
Autufr s Romanski
Surface Water Protection Section
Raleigh Regional Office
❑ Xon-co»rpliant ❑ Neither
Date
Page 2-2

Questions for General Permit Inspections
Date: 11/14/2012 Permit No. NCG110042 Facility: Roxboro WWTP
Time In: 0900am Departure Time: 1200pm Inspector(s): A. Romanski
YES
NO
NA
NE
1.
Is there a Plan? Are copies of the Permit and Certificate of Coverage available?
®
❑
❑
❑
2.
Does the Plan include a General Location (USGS) map?
®
❑
❑
❑
3.
Does the Plan include a "Narrative Description of Practices"?
®
❑
❑
❑
4.
Does the Plan include a detailed site map including outfall locations?
®
❑
❑
❑
5.
Does the Plan include a list of significant spills in the past 3 years?
❑
❑
®
❑
6.
Has the facility evaluated all illicit (non stormwater) discharges to the storm sewer system?
®
❑
❑
❑
7.
Has the facility evaluated feasible alternatives to current practices?
®
❑
❑
❑
8.
Does the facility provide all necessary secondary containment?
®
❑
❑
❑
9.
Does the Plan include a BMP summary?
®
❑
❑
❑
10.
Does the Plan include a Spill Prevention and Response Plan (SPRP)?
®
❑
❑
❑
It.
Does the Plan include a Preventative Maintenance and Good Housekeeping Plan?
®
❑
❑
❑
12.
Does the facility provide and document Employee Training?
®
❑
❑
❑
13.
Does the Plan include a list of Responsible Party(s)?
®
❑
❑
❑
14.
, Is the Plan reviewed and/or updated annually?
®
❑
❑
❑
15.
Does the Plan include a Stormwater Facility Inspection Program?
®
❑
❑
❑
16.
Has the Plan been implemented?
®
❑
❑
❑
17.
Has the facility conducted its Qualitative Monitoring semi-annually?
®
❑
❑
❑
18.
Has the facility conducted its Quantitative (Analytical) monitoring?
❑
❑
®
❑
19.
Does the facility have Vehicle Maintenance activities on site (uses more than
55 gallons of new motor oil per month)?
❑
®
❑
❑
19a.
Has the facility conducted its Annual Quantitative (Analytical) monitoring at outfalls
receiving runoff from Vehicle Maintenance areas?
❑
❑
®
❑
20.
Were all outfalls observed during the inspection?
®
❑
❑
❑
21. If the facility has representative outfall status, is it properly documented by the Division? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Comments: The facility was compliant with the permit requirements and keeps excellent records.
Recommendations: None
Requirements: All were met the day of the inspection.

C�oa OK
®
October 20, 2008
Mr. Johnathan R. Barlow, City Manager
City of Roxboro
P.O. Box 128
Roxboro, NC 27573
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
City of Roxboro Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
NPDES Permit Number NCO021024
Stormwater Permit Number NCG110042
Person County
Dear Mr. Barlow:
Coleco H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
On September 12, 2008, Ms. Vicki Webb of the Raleigh Regional Office conducted a compliance evaluation
inspection of the City of Roxboro WWTP. The assistance of Tommy Satterfield, operator in responsible charge
(ORC), was appreciated as it facilitated the inspection process.
The following observations were made:
The City of Roxboro WWTP is permitted to discharge at a rate of 5 MGD and consists of: two
mechanical bar screens, two grit collection units, two aeration basins, three secondary clarifiers, two
aerobic digesters, a disinfection system (sodium hypochlorite) with two contact chambers, and three
sludge drying beds. The facility discharges to the receiving waters designated as Marlowe Creek, which
is classified as Class C waters in the Roanoke River Basin.
2. A review of the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data for the 12-month period from May 2007
through June 2008 was performed prior to this inspection.
3. DMRs for January 2008 and June 2008 were reviewed and compared to lab reports. No mistakes or
inconsistencies were noted. Chains of custody were complete and kept on file as required.
4. The plant and laboratory was very clean and well maintained. No operational or maintenance issues
were noted. Visitation and operations logs were reviewed and found to be complete and satisfactory.
The plant effluent was free and clear of solids or any other pollutant indicators. The receiving stream
looked healthy and showed no adverse conditions.
A compliance evaluation inspection was also conducted of the facility's Stormwater permit NCG110042
during the September 12th visit. All of the facility's stormwater outfalls were observed during the
inspection. The ROW to the outfalls was well maintained.
N"o[`1,Caroina
Nalurq%/y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection
IntemeC h2o.enr.state.ne.us 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Phone [phone] Customer service
17AX [phone] 1-877-623-6748

F
1 ,
City of Roxboro W WTP Compliance Evaluation Inspection
NPDES NC0021024 & NCG110042
Person County
6. The stormwater pollution prevention plan (SP3) was reviewed. It contained all the required components
and met all requirements. Qualitative and quantitative inspection records were available for review and
found to be complete and acceptable.
The overall conditions of the City of Roxboro W WTP are compliant with Division standards. If you have
questions regarding the attached report or any of my findings, please contact Vicki Webb at: [phone] (or
email: vicki.webb cr)ncmail.net).
Sincerely,
Vicki Webb
Environmental Specialist
Cc: RRO-SWP files
Central Files

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: NCG110042 Effective:06/01/08 Expiration: 05/31/13
SOC: Effective: Expiration:
County: Person
Region: Raleigh
Contact Person: Johnathan R Barlow
Directions to Facility:
System Classifications:
Primary ORC:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Title: City Manager
Certification:
Owner: City of Roxboro
Facility: Roxboro WWTP
902 Cavel-Chub Lake Rd
Roxboro INC 27573
Phone:[phone]
Phone:
Inspection Date: 09/1212008 Entry Time: 08:00 AM Exit Time: 12:00 PM
Primary Inspector: Vicki Webb ea om/ ^a' Phone:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit Inspection Type: Municipal WWTP > 1 MGD, Stormwater Discharge, COC
Facility Status: ■ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
Storm Water
(See attachment summary)
Page: 1

Permit: NCG110042 Owner- Facility: City of Roxboro
Inspection Date: 09/12/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Page: 2

Permit: NCG110042 Owner - Facility: City of Roxboro
Inspection Date: 09/12/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit: Routine
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Yes
No
NA NE
Does the site have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a General Location (USGS) map?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a "Narrative Description of Practices"?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a detailed site map including outfall locations and drainage areas?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a list of significant spills occurring during the past 3 years?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Has the facility evaluated feasible alternatives to current practices?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the facility provide all necessary secondary containment?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a BMP summary?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a Spill Prevention and Response Plan (SPRP)?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a Preventative Maintenance and Good Housekeeping Plan?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the facility provide and document Employee Training?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a list of Responsible Party(s)?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is the Plan reviewed and updated annually?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a Stormwater Facility Inspection Program?
■
❑
❑
❑
Has the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan been implemented?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Qualitative Monitoring
Yes
No
NA
NE
Has the facility conducted its Qualitative Monitoring semi-annually?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Analytical Monitoring
Yes
No
NA
NE
Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring from Vehicle Maintenance areas?
❑
❑
■
❑
Comment:
Permit and Outfalls
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is a copy of the Permit and the Certificate of Coverage available at the site?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Were all outfalls observed during the inspection?
■
❑
❑
❑
# If the facility has representative outfall status, is it properly documented by the Division?
❑
❑
■
❑
# Has the facility evaluated all illicit (non stormwater) discharges?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment
Page: 3

Michael 17. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
December 21, 2005
Thomas Warren,
Assistant City Manager
City of Roxboro
PO Box 128
Roxboro, NC 27573-0128
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
City of Roxboro Wastewater Treatment Plant (W WTP)
NPDES Permits NCG 110042 and NCO021024
Person County
Dear Mr. Warren:
On December 13, 2005, 1 conducted a compliance evaluation inspection of the City of Roxboro W WTP. Tommy
Satterfield, Derek Clayton, and Crystal Shotwell represented the facility during the inspection. Their aid was greatly
appreciated.
NCG 110042
The City of Roxboro WWTP is located at 902 Cavel-Chub Lake Road in Roxboro, NC. The site has 10 stormwater drains
within the facility and five stormwater outfalls which discharge into an unnamed tributary of Marlowe Creek (a Class C
water) within the Roanoke River Basin. The Certificate of Coverage expires on April 30, 2008.
Facility records were reviewed during the inspection. The site plan, the stormwater management plan, and the spill
prevention and response plan were present and complete. According to documentation, the plans were last reviewed in
2004. According to the permit, these plans should be reviewed at least annually. Documentation of this review is to be
included in the facility's records.
Inspection records were available for review and appeared complete. Qualitative inspections have been conducted semi-
annually as required by the permit.
Employee training was last conducted in November 2004 according to the available documentation. The permit requires
that employees undergo training in spill prevention and response annually. According to Mr. Clayton, the training for
2005 is scheduled for later in December.
A visual review was made of the site and of the stormwater drains and outfalls. Debris was noticed on several stormwater
drains. The drains should be kept clean to prevent debris from entering the receiving stream. A buildup of dirt was
observed within Outfall 015 which could hinder the flow of stormwater. Mr. Satterfield stated the facility would attend to
this outfall as soon as possible.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection
Internet: h2o.encstale.nc.us 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
An Equal Opportunity/Affrmatve Action Employer— 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper
N�onpohCarolina
�vah arol in
Phone [phone] Customer Service
FAX [phone]-623,6748

NCG110042 and NC0021024
Roxboro WWTP CEI
NC0021024
The City of Roxboro W WTP is a Class IV facility consisting of a septic tank unloading area, bar screens, grit removal
systems, aeration basins, secondary clarifiers, a sodium hypochlorite disinfection system with contact chambers, aerobic
digesters, and sludge drying beds. Effluent discharges into Marlowe Creek (a Class C water). Foam was observed in the
creek at the discharge point and several feet downstream. The permit expires on May 31, 2007.
Records were available for review as required by permit. September 2005 DMR was compared to laboratory and operator
bench data. No discrepancies were noted. A review of DMRs from October 2004 to September 2005 revealed that the
facility has had no limit violations within those twelve months. RRO records indicates that no bypasses or spills occurred
at the site within this time period.
Analysis is performed by Roxboro laboratory personnel, Tritest, and Meritech (toxicity testing). DO, TRC, and pH are
measured by plant operators. The pH 10 buffer used for calibrating the pH meters expired November 2005. Mr. Clayton
replaced it during the inspection. The pH 4 and 7 buffers were in date at the time of the inspection.
Influent flow is measured. According to Mr. Satterfield, the flow meter is calibrated twice a year. Documentation
indicates that the meter was last calibrated on November 16, 2005.
The facility contains three secondary clarifiers. Sludge blankets within the clarifiers are measured by sonar. At the time
of the inspection, the blankets on two of the clarifiers were approximately three feet or one-fourth of the sidewall depth.
The blanket on the middle clarifier was approximately four feet or one-third of the sidewall depth. Mr. Clayton attributed
the increase in blanket depth in the middle clarifier to the uneven distribution of sludge due to raking. Solids were visible
on the weirs of the clarifiers. According to Mr. Satterfield, the weirs had not been cleaned the week of the inspection
because of sampling for toxicity testing.
Disinfection is achieved with sodium hypochlorite. At this time the facility does not dechlorinate the effluent prior to
discharge. While the permit at this time does not contain a total residual chlorine limit, one will be added at the next
permit cycle.
Please review the enclosed inspection checklist. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me either
by phone at [phone] or by email [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jennie R. Atkins, Ph.D.
Environmental Chemist
cc: Person County Health Department
Central Files

s� � \O�OFWArF9�G
t:
O Y
February 14, 2005
Mr. Lindsay Mize, Director of Public Services
City of Roxboro
PO Box 128
Roxboro, NC 27573
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Roxboro Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
NPDES Permit No. NCO021024 and Stormwater NPDES Permit No. NCG110042
Person County
Dear Mr. Mize,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
This writer, of the NCDENR, conducted an inspection of the Roxboro WWTP (NPDES Permit No. NCO021024
and Stormwater NPDES Permit No. NCG110042) on February 10, 2005. Mr. Tommy Satterfield (ORC), Mr. Derick
Clayton (Backup ORC) and Ms. Crystal Shotwell (Laboratory Supervisor) represented the WWTP during the inspection.
The assistance of the aforementioned was greatly appreciated. Findings during the inspection are as follows:
1) This Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control Treatment System consists of a septic tank unloading facility, two
automatic screening devices, two grit removal devices, two aeration basins (one in service at any time), three secondary
clarifiers, a sodium hypochlorite disinfection system, two aerobic digesters and three sludge drying beds. One of the
screening devices was not in operation at the time of inspection. It was reported that while the device can be
used in an emergency, it is in need of repair.
2) Bypasses at the WWTP have occurred due to Infiltration/Inflow related problems. To help avoid bypasses within the
plant, WWTP personnel have developed a plan whereby, during high flow conditions, the in-service aeration basin
aerators are turned off, and the resulting supernatant is pumped to the unused aeration basin. 1/1 problems and collection
system improvements were addressed in a meeting between you and your staff and NCDENR personnel on November 3,
2004.
3) An emergency generator was installed in 2004. The generator, which is automatically activated during a power outage,
can power the entire WWTP. The generator is tested under load bi-weekly.
4) One of three sludge -drying beds began receiving sludge in November 2004. It was reported that prior to this, the base
of this drying bed was graded to allow better flow of liquid to the adjacent drainage channel. Another of the three beds is
completely full of drying sludge. Mr. Satterfield stated that he hoped to have the sludge removed from this bed by the end
of Summer 2005. A fairly heavy growth of dead or dormant weeds was noted on this bed. Some stockpiled sludge and
weed growth was noted in the third of the three drying beds. Mr. Satterfield said that this bed is scheduled to be emptied
by late in 2005 and that as the latter two beds are emptied they will be graded in the same manner as the first. Mr.
Satterfield indicated that if this schedule is met, there should be no disruption in sludge operations. The
modifications being made to the drying beds will hopefully aid with combating weed growth and reduce the need to
stockpile sludge.
5) The effluent was free of visible solids. Some foam was noted in the effluent but disappeared in the creek within view.
6) Laboratory and Operator bench note data, along with Contract Laboratory data, was randomly compared with the
Discharge Monitoring Report for November 2004. No discrepancies were noted.
N�X`hCarolma
iturn!!Y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.encstate.nc.us 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Mize
Page 2 V it
7) The ORC log sheets were found to be up to date. Mr. Satterfield and Mr. Clayton are both Grade IV Biological Water
Pollution Control Treatment System certified Operators.
8) A review of the DMR data for the 12-month period from December 2003 through November 2004 was performed prior
to this inspection. The DMR's indicated compliance with permit limitations. Ms. Shotwell explained that a problem
causing BOD qualifiers to be noted on DMR's for several months during the period appears to have been
corrected with the changing of the DI system water in October 2004.
9) The W WTP's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan was reviewed during this inspection. Records of periodic
inspections and training performed by WWTP personnel as part of the Plan were up to date. All five of the WWTP's
stormwater discharge points were viewed during this inspection. There was no evidence of spills, overflows or similar
incidents. WWTP debris dumped years ago at stormwater outfall 013 should be cleaned up. This for housekeeping
purposes as well as to allow for the observation of the termination of the stormwater discharge pipe. WWTP
management should investigate the installation of appropriate vents on the diesel fuel tank located near the
digesters. Under certain conditions, a lack of vents can lead to a tank rupture.
10) Attached are the checklists generated as a result of the inspections.
If you have any questions concerning the inspections, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
, """
Michael Dare
Environmental Technician
Cc: EPA
Person County Health Dept.
Central Files

United States Environmental Protection Agency
rm Approved.
Fopproval
EPA Washington, D C 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspectmon RQpQ[t
Aexpires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding i.e., PCS
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 U 2 ICJ 31 NC0021024 j 11 121 05/02/10 17 18u 19u 20U
Remarks
211 1 161
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating 61 OA�,------------Reserved-------
67 I 169 70 U 71 U 72 U 73 W 74 75I I I I I I 180
Section B: 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)
City of Roxboro 4!'ATP
09:00 AM 05/02/10
03/01/01
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
902 Cavel-Chub Lk Rd
Roxboro NC 27573
12:00 PM 05/02/10
07/05/31
Name(s) of Onsile Representative(s)riides(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Owight Thomas Lancaster,PO Box 128 Roxboro NC Contacted
275730128//336-599-8232/3365030568 No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection Check onl those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement ® Operations & Maintenance ® Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal ® Facility Site Review ® Effluent/Receiving Waters
Laboratory Storm Water
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
Mike Dare RRO WQ///
Z-10-oy
Signature of Management�Q AA R�eyieewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO021024 I11 12I 05/02/10 I17 18 U
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)

I
mj[
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new application?
Yes
❑
No
NA
N
❑
0
❑
Is the facility as described in the permit?
s
❑
Cl
❑
Are there any special conditions for the permit?
❑
®
❑
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
®
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
& Mai
!rations ntanance
Does the plant have general safety structures in place such as rails around or covers over tanks, pits, or wells?
Vas
®
No
❑
NA
❑
NI
❑
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
o
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
0
0011
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: One of two barscreens is not in use. Screen can be used in an emergency but is in need of repair.
Grit Ramnval
Vps
No
NA
NF
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
0
Is the site free of excessive organic content in the grit chamber?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive odor?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of grit in compliance?
E
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Secondary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Ves
0
No
❑
NA
❑
NIP
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
®
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
E
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
E
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive Floating sludge?
S
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
®
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin Floc?
a
❑
Cl
❑
Is the surface free of bulking ?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Sludge blanket is reportedly at 4'. Total depth of basin is 12' to 14'.
Pumns-RAS-WAR
Are pumps in place?
Ye,
No
No
NA
❑
NIP
❑
Are pumps operational?
0
0
0
0

r
Pnnlns-RAS-WAS Yes
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
moo
No
NA
NF
0
Comment:
Yee
No
NA
NE
Aeration Rosins
Mode of operation
Ext. Air
Type of aeration system
Surface
Is the basin free of dead spots?
®
0
0
0
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
0
0
Cl
0
Are the diffusers operational?
0
0
0
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
0
0
0
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
0
0
0
Is the DO level acceptable?
®
0
0
0
Are settleemeter results acceptable?
0
0
0
Comment: One of two aeration basins used for treatment. The second basin is used as relief during high flow conditions.
Yes
No
NA
NE
Disinfection
Type of system ?
Liquid
Are cylinders secured adequately?
0
0
0
0
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
0
0
0
0
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
0
0
.
0
Is ventilation equipment operational?
0
0
0
0
Is ventilation equipment properly located?
0
0
0
0
Is SCBA equipment available on site?
0
0
0
0
Is SCBA equipment operational?
0
0
0
0
Is staff trained is operating SCBA equipment?
0
0
0
0
Is staff trained in emergency procedures?
0
0
0
0
Is an evacuation plan in place?
0
0
0
0
Are tablet chlorinators operational?
0
0
N
0
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
0
0
0
0
Number of tubes in use?
(Sodium Nypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
0
0
0
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
0
0
0
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
0
0
0
Is there adequate detention time
S
0
0
0
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
0
0
0
Comment: Tablet chlorinators available as backup.
Da-chlnrination Ye<
No
NA
NF
Type of system ?
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (i to 1)?
0
0
E
0
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
0
0
®
0
Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
0
0
e
0
Is ventilation operational?
0
0
e
0
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
0
0
0
0
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
0
0
N
0
Number of tubes in use?

Dp-chlorination
Comment:
Yes
Yes
No
No
NA
NA
NF
NF
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
!
❑
❑
❑
Is generator tested weekly by interrupting primary power source?
❑
❑
❑
Is generator tested under load at least quarterly?
■
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑
❑
❑
0
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
E
❑
❑
❑
Does generator have adequate fuel?
®
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Yes
No
NA
NF
Flow Mpasurpmpnt- Influent
Is flow meter used for reporting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter operating properly?
❑
❑
❑
E
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Last calibrated 12/2/04.
Yoe
No
NA
NF
Record Keeping
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
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 DMRs?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are sampling and analysis data adequate and include:
0
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
i
Name of individual performing the sampling
0
Results of analysis and calibration
i
Dates of analysis
0
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Plant records are adequate, available and include
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
O&M Manual
❑
As built Engineering drawings
❑
Schedules and dates of equipment maintenance and repairs
❑
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
0
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users?
E
❑
❑
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator on each shift?
E
❑
❑
❑
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?
!
❑
❑
❑
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
❑
❑
❑
E
Is the facility description verified as contained in the NPDES permit?
E
❑
❑
❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for example: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable Solids, DO, Sludge
❑
❑
❑
Judge, pH, and others that are applicable?
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Influent Samol, ina
Yes
No
NA
NF

Influent Samnlino
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Ves
0
No
❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
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 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Composite sample collected hourly and stored in Operator Lab refridgerator. Temperature 2.0 degrees C.
Fffluent Samnlinn
Ves
No
NA
NF
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
®
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
®
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Composite sample collected hourly and stored in Operator Lab refridgerator. Temperature 2 degrees C.
t tream / DpwriM Sampling_
Vps
No
NA
NF
pD earn
^ Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and sampling location)?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Vas
No
NA
NF
Aprohlc Digester
Is the capacity adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the odor acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Vas
No
NA
NF
Dcyinq plpds
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?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the sludge land applied?
0
❑
❑
❑
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment: Stockpiled sludge and weed growth noted. Filtrate returned to head of aeration basin.
Vas
No
NA
NF
Chemical Feed
Is containment adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are backup pumps available?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Sodium Hypo -Chlorite for disinfection.
Vps
No
NA
NF
Effluent Pine?
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are receiving water free of solids and floatable wastewater materials?
®
0
0
0

Are the receiving waters free of solids / debris?
Are the receiving waters free of foam other than a trace?
Are the receiving waters free of sludge worms?
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
Comment:

United States Environmental Protection Agency
m Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
]
B No. 2040-0057
:Approval
Water Compl'ance Inspection EQPQ[t
expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 U 2 u 31 NCc110042 111 121 05/02/10 117 18 U 19 U 20 u
Remarks
2,1lll111111111111111111111111111111111111111111l66
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating Elf OA ------------- ------- - Reserved------------------
67 I 169 70 71 U 72 U 73 W 74 75I I I I I I I 180
L'J
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POND, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
09: a0 AM OS /02/10
03 /06/13
Roxboro WWTP
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Dale
902 Cave1-Chub Lk Rd
Roxboro NC 27573
12:00 PM 05/02/10
08/04/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Dwight Thomas Lancaster,PO Box 128 Roxboro NC Contacted
275730128//336-599-8232/3365030588 No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection Check only those areas evaluated)
storm Water
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
Mike Dare RRO WQ///
—10-05
Signature of Management O A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCG110042 11 12, 05/02/10 I17 78 1Cl
Section D• Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)

1
of d', IV*Al of SCJ
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, Director
June 13, 2003
Lindsay Mize
Citv of Roxboro
POB 128
Roxboro, North Carolina 27573
Subject:
Dear Mr. Mize:
General Permit No. P
City of Roxboro WNA
COC NCG110042
Person County
In accordance with your application for discharge permit received on March 17, 2003, we are
forwarding herewith the subject certificate of coverage to discharge under the subject state - NPDES
general permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute
143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the US Environmental
Protection agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently amended).
If any parts, measurement frequencies, or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to request an individual permit by submitting an individual
permit application. Unless such demand is made, this certificate of coverage shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this certificate of coverage is not transferable except after notice to the
Division of Water Quality. The Division of Water Quality may require modification or revocation and
reissuance of the certificate of coverage.
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required
by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area
Management Act, or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning [his permit, please contact Ken Pickle at telephone number
[phone] ext. 584.
9WOMAL SIGNED BY
WILLIAM C. MILLS
Alan W. Klimek, P. E.
cc: Raleigh Regional Office
Central Files
Stormwater and General Permits Unit Files
WEIRA amron
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50 % recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
GENERAL PERMIT NO. NCG1I0000
CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE No. NCGI10042
STORMWATER DISCHARGES
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and
regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
City of Roxboro
is hereby authorized to discharge stormwater from a facility located at
City of Roxboro Wastewater Treatment Plant
902 Cavel-Chub Lake Road
Roxboro, North Carolina
Person County
to receiving waters designated as unnamed truburary to Marlowe Creek, a class C water in the Roanoke River Basin
in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III,
IV, V, and VI of General Permit No. NCGI 10000 as attached.
This certificate of coverage shall become effective June 13, 2003.
This Certificate of Coverage shall remain in effect for the duration of the General Permit.
Signed this day June 13, 2003- ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
INI!_LIAM C. MILLS
Alan W. Klimek, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

v
9° W