NC0020605_Historical_2003

FACILITY:
CITY:
COUNTY
PERMIT NUMBER
Permit Information that needs to be Incorporated into Future Permit Revisions:
DATE
COMMENTS
M 3/ /6
J-P-Q Kit ryi& ik7

of W A?Fq • 0 Michael F. Easley
Governor
10�G
William G. Ross, Jr-, Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
October 25, 2004 "'�r;? r
Mr. Samuel Noble, Town Manager
Town of Tarboro
P.O. Box 220
Tarboro, North Carolina 27886:hNR 11A1�
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit
Permit No. NCO020605
Tarboro WWTP
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Noble:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject
permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is
issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the
Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently amended).
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit
are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request
within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a
written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and
filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and
binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The
Division may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit
does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the
Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal
Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be
required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Teresa Rodriguez at
telephone number [phone], extension 553.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Mark McIntire
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Cc: NPDES Files
Central Files
US EPA Region 4
Raleigh Regional Office
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone]
Internet h2o.enr.state.nc.us 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX (919) 733,0719
An Equal OpportunitylA(firtrative Action Employer —50°.6 Recycledl10%Post Consumer Paper
1��f`ttiCarolina
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748

Oemut No. NCO020605
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
Town of Tarboro
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Tarboro WWTP
Hwy 64 & Service Road 268
Tarboro
Edgecombe County
to receiving waters designated as Tar River in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin in accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and
IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective December 1, 2004.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on September 30, 2009.
Signed this day October 25, 2004.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Mark McIntire
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1

a
• Pemrit No. NC0020605
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued pemrit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under
the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
Town of Tarboro
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 5.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility located at the
Junction of Service Road 268 and Hwy 64, Tarboro, Edgecombe County, and consisting
of:
• Automatic and manual bar screen
Influent lift station
• Aerated grit chamber
Three primary clarifiers
Two trickling filters
Two aeration basins
• Four secondary clarifiers
Anaerobic/Aerobic sludge digesters
• Aerated sludge holding basin
• Chlorination/dual contact basin
• Effluent flow measurement
Dechlormation
• Cascade Aerator
• Standby power
• Sandfilter drying beds; and
2. Discharge from said treatment works, through Outfail 001, into the Tar River, a Class C-
NSW water in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin, at the location specified on the attached map.
Page 2

Golf
Course
x
_-w 3 Eta �. r;lei
>
i✓ `r'�
VJ27
Town of Tarboro WWTP
State Grid/Ouad:
D28NEJTarburo Latitude:
35° 52' 59" N
Loneitude:
77" 32' 19" W
Receivine Stream:
Tar River Drainage Basin:
Tar -Pamlico
Stream Class:
C NSW Sub -Basin:
03-03-03
�Qo m Penn
` r
¢ �c+ O \ O 9N�
1 its ` - M`
t , •, v ti ;
nGt j
I� i I i
Ol v Y �,. t t� ,J "
f I Facility Location 400"
not [o scale
NPDES Permit No. NCO020605 North Edgecombe County

0 Permit No. NCO020605
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting permit expiration, the Pertnittee is
authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Pennittee as specified below:
PARAMETER
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
FrequencyLocation
Sample Type
Sample
1
Flow (MGD)
5.0
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD5 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
NH3 as N (Summer);
9.0 mg/L
27.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
NH3 as N (Winter)3
18.0 mg/L
35.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily average not less than 5.0 mg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Colif rmt
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlonne4
28 µg/L
3/Week
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen5
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Phosphoruss
Weekly
Composite
E
pH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 Standard Units
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nickel
261 µg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Mercury6
Monthly
Grab
(Method 1631)
E
Total Copper
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Zinc
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Silver
Monthly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicityt
Quarterly
Composite
E
Footnotes:
1. I: Influent. E: Effluent. See condition A. (2) of this permit for instream monitoring requirements.
2. The monthly average BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective
influent value (850/6 removal).
3. Summer shall be defined as April 1 — October 31 with winter defined as the balance of the year.
4. Effluent monitoring and limitation only apply if chlorine or a chlorine derivative is added to the waste stream
during treatment. The limit will take effect 18 months after the effective day of the final permit.
5. See condition A. (3) for nutrient special condition.
6. The quantitation limit for Mercury shall be 0.0005 µg/L (0.5 ng/n. Levels reported less than 0.0005 µg/L will be
considered zero for compliance purposes.
7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) Q 8 %, January, April, July and October; see special condition A. (4.) of this
permit.
THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE
AMOUNTS.
Page 4

Permit No. NC0020605
A. (2.) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Instream monitoring is required for the following parameters at the locations specified:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
Measurement Frequency
Sample Type
Sample
Location 1
Dissolved Oxygen
June -Sept
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
1/week
Temperature
June -Sept
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
1/week
Conductivity
June -Sept
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
1/week
Footnotes:
1. U - Upstream at Highway 44, D- Downstream at Highway 42.
Upon initiation of stream sampling by the Tat -Pamlico Basin Association, the instream
monitoring requirements as stated above are waived. Should your membership in the Association
be terminated, you shall notify the Division immediately and the instream monitoring
requirements specified in your permit shall be reinstated.
A. (3.) NUTRIENT SPECIAL CONDITION
Nutrient limits have not been included at this time because the facility is participating in the non -
point source trading option outlined in the Tar -Pamlico NSW Implementation Strategy: Phase II;
which was adopted December 8, 1994 or subsequent approved revisions of the strategy. If
compliance with any element of this strategy or approved revision is not maintained, the Division
reserves the tight to reopen this permit to include nutrient limits. If requirements other than those
listed in this permit are adopted as part of a revision of the strategy, the Division reserves the right
to reopen this permit to include these requirements.
Page 5

• • PernutNO.NC0020605
A. (4.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Cesiodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 8 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, ua artery monitoring using test procedures outlined
in the "North Carolina Ceriodapbnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February
1998, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test
Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the
months of January, April, July and October. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at
the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV
below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in
each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole
Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of
the highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the
lowest concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival The
definition of "detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further
statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity
Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally,
DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DENR / DWQ / Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no
later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and
all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved
designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and
reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity
monitoring is required, the pennittee will complete the information located at the top of the
aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county,
and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the
form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited
above.
Page 6

4permit No. NC0020605
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be
re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival, *nunimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate
environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up
testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial
monitoring.
Page 7

0
• Permit No. NCO020605
A. (5.) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The perm ttee shall perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the table below
(in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136). The annual effluent pollutant scan samples shall represent seasonal
(summer, winter, fall, spring) variations over the 5-year permit cycle. Unless otherwise indicated, metals
shall be analyzed as "total recoverable." Additionally, the method detection level and the minimum level
shall be the most sensitive as provided by the appropriate analytical procedure.
Ammonia (as N)
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
1,1-dichlormthytene
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Dissolved oxygen
1,2-dichloropmpane
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Nitrate/Nitrite
1,3-dichlompropylme
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Total Kieldah) nitrogen
Ethylbewene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Oil and grease
Methyl bromide
2-chloronaphthalene
Total Phosphorus
Methyl chloride
4chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids
Methylene chloride
Chrysene
Hardness
1,1,2,2-tetrachlormthane
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Antimony
Tetrachlomethylene
Di-noctyl phthalate
Arsenic
Toluene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Beryllium
1,1,1-trichlormthme
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Cadmium
1,1,2-trichlo thane
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromium
Trichloroethylene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Copper
Vinyl chloride
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Lead
Acid -extractable compounds:
Diethyl phthalate
Mercury
P-chlom-m-cresol
Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel
2ohlorophenol
2,4-dinitmtoluene
Selenium
2,4-dichlomphenol
2,6-dinitrotoluene
silver
2,4-dimethylpbenol
1,2dipheny1hydrazine
Thallium
4,6dinitroo-cresol
Fluoranthene
Zinc
2,4dinitrophenol
Fluorene
Cyanide
2-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds
4-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
Volatile organic compounds-
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Acrolein
Phenol
Hexachloroethane
Acrylonitrile
2,4,6-mchlorophenol
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Benzene
Base -neutral compounds:
Isophorone
Bromoform
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Acenaphthylene
Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Anthracene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodibromomethwe
Benzidine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Chlomethane
Benzo(a)anthracenc
N-nitrasodiphenylamine
2-chloroethyMnyl ether
Benzo(a)pyrme
Phenanthrene
Chloroform
3,4 benzolluoranthene
Pyrene
Dichlombromomethane
Bmzo(ghi)perylene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
I,I dich)ormthane
Benzo(k)Buoramhene
1,2-dichlormthane
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPA1 or in a form approved by the Director,
within 90 days of sampling. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Central Files to the following address:
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.
Page 8

• NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 1 of 16
PART II
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.
3/Week
Samples are collected three times per week on three separate calendar days.
Act or "the Act"
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, 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.
DR ass
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 Dav
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 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 nil 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 1/24 of the
expected total daily flow at the treatment system, or
(4) Constant time/constant volume: a series of grab samples of equal volume collected over a 24-hour period at
a constant time intervaL This method may only be used in situations where effluent How rates vary
less than 15 percent. The grab samples shall be taken at intervals of no greater than 20 minutes apart
during any 24-hour period and must be of equal size and of no less than 100 milliliters. Use of this method
requires prior approval by the Director.
Version &2012003

0
• NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 2 of 16
In accordance with (4) above, influent grab samples shall not be collected more than once per hour.
Effluent grab samples shall not be collected more than once per hour except at wastewater treatment systems
having a detention time of greater than 24 hours. In such cases, effluent grab samples may be collected at
intervals evenly spaced over the 24hour period that are equal in number of hours to the detention time of the
system in number of days. However, the interval between effluent grab samples may not exceed six hours nor
the number of samples less than four 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. The "daily discharge" concentration comprises the mean
concentration for a 24-hour sampling period as either a composite sample concentration or the arithmetic mean of all
grab samples collected during that period. (40 CFR 122.3)
Daily Maximum
The highest "daily discharge" during the calendar month.
Daily Sampling
Parameters requiring daily sampling shall be sampled 5 out of every 7 days per week unless otherwise specified in the
permit. The Division expects that 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).
DM or "the Division"
The Division of Water Quality, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
EMC
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission.
Facility Closure
The cessation of wastewater treatment at a permitted facility, or the cessation of all activities that require coverage
under the NPDES. 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 nil 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).
Hazardous Substance
Any substance designated under 40 CFR Part 116 pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
Instantaneous flow measurement
A measure of flow taken at the time of sampling, when both the sample and flow will be representative of the total
discharge.
Version 6/20/2003

NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 3 of 16
D£onthly Average (concentration limil)
The arithmetic mean of all "daily discharges" of a pollutant measured during the calendar month. In the case of fecal
coliform, the geometric mean of such discharges.
Permit Issuing Authority
The Director of the Division of Water Quality.
Quarterly Average (concentration limit)
The average 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 Clean Water Act.
Upset
An incident beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee 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, the geometric mean of such discharges.
Section B. General Conditions
1. Duty to Comply
The Permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation
of the Clean Water Act 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).
a. The Permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under section 307(a) of the
Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants and with standards for sewage sludge use or disposal established under
section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act 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 Clean Water Act provides that any person who violates section 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 $25,000 per day for each violation. [40 CFR 122.41 (a)
(2)]
c. The Clean Water Act 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
imprisonment of not more than 1 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. [40 CFR 122.41 (a) (2)]
Version &20/2003

• NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 4 of 16
d. Any person who knowingly violates such sections, or such conditions or limitations is subject to crinunal
penalties of $5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than 3 vears, 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.
[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)(11)(tii) 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. Administrable penalties for Class I violations are
not to exceed $10,000 per violation, with the maximum amount of any Class I penalty assessed not to exceed
$25,000. Penalties for Class II violations are not to exceed $10,000 per day for each day during which the
violation continues, with the maximum amount of any Class II penalty not to exceed $125,000. [40 CFR
122.41 (a) (3)]
2. Duty to Mitigate
The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in
violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment
[40 CFR 122.41 (d)].
3. Civil and Criminal Liabiltiry
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" (Part H. C. 4), "Upsets" (Part II. C. 5) 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 et 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 612012003

0
NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 5 of 16
7. Severability
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 15015-231.
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 determine 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. Du X to Reagpl
If the Permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration date of this permit, the
Permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit [40 CFR 122.41 (b)].
10. Expiration of Permit
The Permittee 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.
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:
(I) 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
tern 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 ifi
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 122.221
Vwsw B/2QM3

NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 6 of 16
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 122.221
d. Certification. Any person signing a document under paragraphs a. or b. of this section shall make the
following certification [40 CFR 122.221:
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.'
12. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing of a request by the
Pemrittee 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 (%
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 2H .0100; and North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 et. al.
14. Annual Administering and Compliance Monitoring Fee Requirements
The Permitter 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 2H.0105 (b) (4)
may cause this Division to initiate action to revoke the permit.
Section C. Operation and Maintenance of Pollution Controls
Certified Operator
Upon classification of the permitted facility by the Certification Commission, the Petmittee shall employ a
certified water pollution control treatment system operator in responsible charge (ORC) of the water pollution
control treatment system. Such operator must hold a certification of the grade equivalent to or greater than the
classification assigned to the water pollution control treatment system by the Certification Commission. The
Pemnittee must also employ one or more certified Back-up ORCs who possess a currently valid certificate of the
type of the system Back-up ORCs must possess a grade equal to (or no more than one grade less than) the grade
of the system [15A NCAC 8G.02011.
The ORC of each Class I facility must:
➢ Visit the facility at least weekly
➢ Comply with all other conditions of 15A NCAC 8G.0204.
The ORC of each Class II, III and IV facility must.
➢ Visit the facility at least daily, excluding weekends and holidays
➢ Properly manage and document daily operation and maintenance of the facility
➢ Comply with all other conditions of 15A NCAC 8G.0204.
Once the facility is classified, the Permittee shall submit a letter to the Certification Commission designating the
operator in responsible charge:
a. Within 60 calendar days prior to wastewater being introduced into a new system
Version 6120/2003

• NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 7 of 16
b. Within 120 calendar days of:
➢ Receiving notification of a change in the classification of the system requiting the designation of a
new ORC and back-up ORC
➢ A vacancy in the position of ORC or back-up ORC.
2. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The Permittee shall at all times provide the operation and maintenance resources necessary to operate the existing
facilities at optimum efficiency. The Permittee 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)].
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 are 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 Pertittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as required in Part
II. E. 6. (24-hour notice).
c. Prohibition of Bypass
(!) Bypass from the treatment facility is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority may take enforcement
action against a Permittee for bypass, unless:
(A) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage;
(B) There were no feasible alteratives 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 Permittee 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.
(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.
T of this section.
5. U se s
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
Version 620/2003

•
NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 8 of 16
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 A 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) (B) of this permit.
(4) The Permittee complied with any remedial measures required under Part 11. B. 2. of this permit.
d. 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.
6. 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. The Permittee
shall comply with all existing Federal regulations governing the disposal of sewage sludge. Upon promulgation of
40 CFR Part 503, any permit issued by the Permit Issuing Authority for the utilization/disposal of sludge may be
reopened and modified, or revoked and reissued, to incorporate applicable requirements at 40 CFR 503. The
Permittee shall comply with applicable 40 CFR 503 Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge (when
promulgated) within the time provided in the regulation, even if the permit is not modified to incorporate the
requirement. The Permittee shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority of any significant change in its sludge use
or disposal practices.
7. Power Failures
The Permittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards (as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0124 —
Reliability) 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 Samphug
Samples collected and measurements taken, as required herein, shall be characteristic of the volume and nature of
the permitted discharge. Samples collected at a frequency less than daily shall be taken on a day and time that is
characteristic of the discharge over the entire 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 he changed without
notification to and the approval of the Permit Issuing Authority [40 CFR 122.41 (j)].
2. RMomng
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, Ll, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the
Director, postmarked no later than the 28th day 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:
NC DENR / Division of Water Quality / Water Quality Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Version 612012003

• NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 9 of 16
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 109/6 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 pomp hour meters as specified in Part I
of this permit and based on the manufacturer's pump curves shall not be subject to this requirement.
4. Test Procedures
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 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (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.
5. Penalties for Tampering
The Clean Water Act 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 Permittee'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 Petmittee 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.
7. Recording Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the Pemtittee shall record
the following infomtation [40 CFR 122.41]:
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;
Veraw 62QM3

NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 10 of 16
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
8. Inspection and Entry
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 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 titres 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 Clean Water Act, any substances or parameters at any location [40 CFR 122.41011.
Section E Reporting Requirements
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 Chances
The Permittee shall give notice to the Director as
additions to the permitted facility 140 CFR 122.410)].
soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or
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 122.42 (a) &
c. The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the Permittee's sludge use or disposal practices,
and such alternation, 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 Permittee 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 except after notice to the Director. The Director may require
modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit to document the change of ownership. Any such action
may incorporate other requirements as may be necessary under the'Clean Water Act [40 CFR 122.410) (3)].
5. Monitoring 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 Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit, the results of such
monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted on the DMR.
Version 0012003

• NPDES Permit Requirements
Page I 1 of 16
6. Twenty-four Hour Reporting
a. The Permittee 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 Pertnittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under Part 11. E. 5 and 6. of this permit at
the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed in Part H. E. 6. of
this permit [40 CFR 122.410) (1)].
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 140 CFR 122.410) (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 directly to receiving
waters 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.
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 of Water Quality. 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.
11. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
The Clean Water Act 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
Versant 62&M3

0
NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 12 of 16
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 collect or treat municipal or domestic waste shall provide an annual
report to the Permit Issuing Authority and to the users/customers served by the Permittee (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.
PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Section A. Construction
The Permittee shall not commence construction of wastewater treatment facilities, nor add to the planes treatment
capacity, nor change the treatment process(es) utilized at the treatment plant unless the Division has issued an
Authorization to Construct (AtC) permit. 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 S. Groundwater Monitoring
The Permittee shall, upon written notice from the Director of the Division of Water Quality, 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";
(I) One hundred micrograms per liter 000 µg/L);
(2) Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 µg/L) for acrolem and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms
per liter (500 R/L) for 2.4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4.6-dinitrophenol; and one milligram per liter
P 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";
0) 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. Evaluation of Wastewater Discharge Alternatives
The Permittee shall evaluate all wastewater disposal alternatives and pursue the most environmentally sound
alternative of the reasonably cost effective alternatives. If the facility is in substantial non-compliance with the terms
and conditions of the NPDES permit or governing Hiles, regulations or laws, the Permittee shall submit a report in
such form and detail as required by the Division evaluating these alteratives and a plan of action within 60 days of
notification by the Division.
Section E. 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
Verson 621V2003

Ll
NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 13 of 16
adverse impacts to waters of the State. This permit cannot be rescinded while any activities requiring this permit
continue at the permitted facility.
PART IV
SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR MUNCIPAL FACILITIES
Section A. Publicly Owned Treatment Works_(POTWs)
All POTWs must provide adequate notice to the Director of the following:
1. Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger 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 of the change on the quantity or quality
of effluent to be discharged from the POTW.
Section B. Municipal Control of Pollutants from Industrial Users
1. Effluent limitations are listed in Part I of this permit. Other pollutants attributable to inputs from
industries using the municipal system may be present in the Permitter'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.
2. Under no circumstances shall the Pennittee allow introduction of the following wastes in the waste
treatment system:
a. 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;
b. Pollutants which will 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;
C. Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause obstruction to the flow in the POTW
resulting in Interference;
d. 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;
e. 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;
£ Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts that will
cause interference or pass through;
g. 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;
h. Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the POTW.
3. With regard to the effluent requirements listed in Part I of this permit, it may be necessary for the
Permittee to supplement the requirements of the Federal Pretreatment Standards (40 CM Part 403) to
ensure compliance by the Peruttee with all applicable effluent limitations. Such actions by the Permittee
may be necessary regarding some or all of the industries discharging to the municipal system.
4. The Permitter shall require any industrial discharges sending influent to the permitted system to meet
Federal Pretreatment Standards promulgated in response to Section 307(b) of the Act. Prior to accepting
wastewater from any significant industrial user, the Permittee shall either develop and submit to the
Version fr20/2003

• NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 14 of 16
Division a Pretreatment Program for approval per 15A NCAC 2H .0907(a) or modify an existing
Pretreatment Program per 15A NCAC 2H .0907(b).
5. This peanut 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 Clean Water Act and implementing
regulations or by the requirements of the approved State pretreatment program, as appropriate.
Section C. Pretreatment Programs
Under authority of sections 307(b) and (c) and 402(b)(8) of the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations 40
CFR Part 403, North Carolina General Statute 143-215.3 (14) and implementing regulations 15A NCAC 2H
.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.
The Permittee shall operate its approved pretreatment program in accordance with Section 402(b)(8) of the Clean
Water Act, the Federal Pretreatment Regulations 40 CFR Part 403, the State Pretreatment Regulations 15A
NCAC 2H .0900, and the legal authorities, policies, procedures, and financial provisions contained in its
pretreatment program submission and Division approved modifications there of. Such operation shall include
but is not limited to the implementation of the following conditions and requirements:
1. Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO)
The Permittee shall maintain adequate legal authority to implement its approved pretreatment program.
2. Industrial Waste Survg OM)
The Permittee shall update its Industrial Waste Survey (IWS) to include all users of the sewer collection
system at least once every five years.
3. NlonitoWig 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 Part II, Section D, and Section E.S.).
4. Headworks Analysis A) and Local Limits
The Permittee shall obtain Division approval of a Headworks Analysis (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 Perimittee shall submit to the Division a written technical evaluation
of the need to revise local limits (Le., an updated HWA or documentation of why one is not needed) [40
CFR 122.421. The Permittee shall develop, in accordance with 40 CFR 403.5(c) and 15A NCAC 2H .0909,
specific Local Limits to implement the prohibitions listed in 40 CFR 403.5(a) and (b) and 15A NCAC 2H
.0909.
5. Industrial User Pretreatment Permits (!UP) & Allocation Tables
In accordance with NCGS 143-215.1, the Permittee shall issue to all significant industrial users, permits for
operation of pretreatment equipment and discharge to the Permittee's 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 Permittee shall maintain a current Allocation Table (AT) which summaries the results
of the Headworks Analysis (HWA) and the limits from all Industrial User Pretreatment Permits (IUP).
Permitted IUP loadings for each parameter cannot exceed the treatment capacity of the POTW as
determined by the HWA.
Version 612012003

. NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 15 of 16
6. Authorization to Construct A to C)
The Permittee shall ensure that an Authorization to Construct permit (AtC) 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.
POTW Inspection & Monitoring of their STUB
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. The Permittee must:
a. Inspect all Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) at least once per calendar year; and
b. Sample all Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) at least twice per calendar year for all permit -
limited pollutants, once during the period from January 1 through June 30 and once during the
period from July I through December 31, except for organic compounds which shall be sampled
once per calendar year;
8. SIU Self Monitoring and Reporting
The Permittee 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 2H .0908.
9. Enforcement Response Plan _O) W
The Permittee shall enforce and obtain appropriate remedies for violations of all pretreatment standards
promulgated pursuant to section 307(b) and (c) of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 405 et. seq.), prohibitive
discharge standards as set forth in 40 CFR 403.5 and 15A NCAC 2H .0909, and specific local limitations.
All enforcement actions shall be consistent with the Enforcement Response.Plan (ERP) approved by the
Division.
10. Pretreatment Annual Reports (PAR)
The Permittee shall report to the Division in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0908. In lieu of submitting
annual reports, Modified Pretreatment Programs developed under 15A NCAC 2H .0904 (b) may be
required to meet with Division personnel periodically to discuss enforcement of pretreatment requirements
and other pretreatment implementation issues.
For all other active pretreatment programs, the Permittee shall submit two copies of a Pretreatment Annual
Report (PAR) describing its pretreatment activities over the previous twelve months to the Division at the
following address:
NC DENR / DWQ / Pretreatment Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
These reports shall be submitted according to a schedule established by the Director and shall contain the
following.
a.) Narrative
A brief discussion of reasons for, status of, and actions taken for all Significant Industrial
Users (SIUs) in Significant Non -Compliance (SNC);
b.) Pretreatment Program Summary (PPS)
A pretreatment program summary (PPS) on specific forms approved by the Division;
e.) Significant Non -Compliance Report (SNCR)
The nature of the violations and the actions taken or proposed to correct the violations on
specific forms approved by the Division;
d.) Industrial Data Summary Forms (IDS4
Version 6120/2003

NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 16 of 16
Monitoring data from samples collected by both the POTW and the Significant Industrial
User (SIU). These analytical results must be reported on Industrial Data Summary Forms
(IDSF) or other specific format approved by the Division;
e.) Other Information
Copies of the POTW's allocation table, new or modified enforcement compliance schedules,
public notice of SIUs in SNC, 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 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) that were in Significant
Non -Compliance (SNC) as defined in the Permittee'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.
12. Record Keening
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.
13. Funding and Financial Rgp
The Penmittee shall maintain adequate funding and staffing levels to accomplish the objectives of its
approved pretreatment program.
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 (SIUs), and Monitoring Plan
modifications, shall be considered a permit modification and shall be governed by 15 NCAC 2H .0114 and
15A NCAC 2H .0907.
Version 612012003

NC ERR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
October 22, 2009
CERTIFIED MAIL 7007 2680 0001 8685 7685
RETURNED RECEIPT REQUESTED
Samuel W. Noble Jr., Town Manager
Town of Tarboro
P.O. Box 220
Tarboro, North Carolina 27886-0220
Dear Mr. Noble:
L
�] C� Y
Natural Resources
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Tarboro Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit NCO020605
Stormwater Permit NCG110036
Edgecombe County
Dee Freeman
Secretary
On October 16, 2009, I, Mitch Hayes of the Raleigh Regional Office conducted an inspection of
the subject facility. The assistance of Hubert Whitehead, Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) WW-4
certified, with this inspection were appreciated. Below is a list of findings and recommendations
developed from the inspection.
The subject permit was reissued and became effective December 01, 2004 and expired
September 30, 2009. Please continue to operate under the last issued permit until a new
permit is issued.
The 5.0 MGD facility consists of the following units: auto and manual bar screens; aerated
grit chamber and auger for grit removal; influent flow meter (used for reporting); 3 primary
clarifiers; 2 trickling filters, 3 basins with 1 anoxic zone, 1 aerobic zone with diffused air, and
1 aerobic zone with mechanical air; 4 secondary clarifiers; dual chlorine contact tanks;
dechlorination; effluent flow meter; cascade aeration; 2 aerobic digesters for primary sludge;
1 aerobic digester for secondary sludge; a 1.65 MG sludge holding basin; 18 sludge drying
beds (not used); 1 on -site generator for back-up power generation.
3. At the time of inspection, the influent entering the plant was black in color and appeared to be
septic. This may be due to wastewater being held too long in pump station wet wells. There
was no build up of solids in the center well of the primary clarifiers. There were a few ports in
the trickling filters not having even water flow but the media supported a good zoogleal film.
No ponding was noted. The weirs in all four secondary clarifiers are covered to prevent algae
growth. Weirs are checked annually and cleaned if necessary. Sludge judge reading in the
ten foot sidewall depth clarifier was 2 feet. Sludge judge reading in the fourteen foot sidewall
depth clarifier was two feet. All four rotors were operational in the two activated sludge
aeration basins. One air diffuser manifold was out of service in the third activated sludge
aeration basin. Two out of four surface aerators in the aerated sludge holding lagoon were
not in service. This has been a continuing problem according to past inspection reports.
n
Internet www.ncwater uali o -'" " """ ^"`�011 rno
q b rg 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer -50% Recycleo/10% Post Consumer Paper
877-623-6748
None
rthCarolina
Naturally

Tarboro WWTP CEI
Page 2
Please state what steps the Town will take to eliminate surface aerator motors from burning
out. Sludge was settling in the aerobic digester allowing the supernatant to collect to be
drawn off at a later time. There was no sludge on the drying beds. Mr. Whitehead stated that
the drying have not been used in the last five years. Effluent appeared clear in the chlorine
contact tank and step aeration. Foam was dissipating in the Tar River within twenty feet.
4. Class B solids are land applied in accordance to Land Application Permit WQ0002047.
According to Aquifer Protection compliance evaluation inspection dated 06/0412009, 552.78
dry tons of sludge was land applied to 181.85 acres for the year 2008.
5. The laboratory was checked in a cursory manner. All instrument calibration logs are being
maintained. The BOD incubator temperature was 19.7 degrees C, fecal coliform water
incubator was 44.5 degrees C, the drying oven was 99 degrees C, and the sample
refrigerator was 3 degrees C. An operator's logbook was available and being maintained.
The influent flow sampler temperature was 0 degrees C without freezing. The effluent flow
and influent sampler temperature were 4 degrees C. The influent and effluent flow meters are
calibrated every 90 days by Chadwick Instruments.
6. Discharge Monitoring Reports for the period July 2008 to July 2009 were reviewed for
compliance with permit limits and monitoring requirements. Notice of Violation was issued for
December 2008 and January 2009 for effluent pH values not reaching minimum value of 6.0
standard units. Frequency violations for nickel were noted for 10/18/2008, 01/17/2009,
01/24/2009, and 01/3112009. Frequency violation for ammonia nitrogen was noted for
07/18/2009. The Division of Water Quality may consider taking enforcement action for
continued future frequency violations. There were no other violations for the review period.
7. 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 July 2009. No
discrepancies were noted.
The Tarboro WWTP laboratory is state certified for the following parameters: BOD, TSS,
NH3-N, Fecal coliform, DO, and pH. Environment 1 analyses TP, TN, and metals. Pace
Analytical performs toxicity.
Stormwater Permit NCG110036
9. Permit NCG110081 was reissued and became effective on June 01, 2008 and expires on
May 31, 2013. The reissued permit contains the following changes: The site plan must
include a general location map (or alternatively the site map) that identify whether each
receiving water is impaired (on the state's 303(d) list of impaired waters) or is located in a
watershed for which a TMDL has been established, and what the parameter(s) of concern
are. A list of North Carolina's 303(d) list can be found at the web site
hfti)://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdI/General 303d htm#Downloads North Carolina TMDL
documents can be found at the website
hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdlfrMDL list htm#Final TMDLs The definition for a rain event
has been modified. A schedule for qualitative monitoring is now implemented. Schedule for
the facility site inspection has been changed to once during January to June and once during
July to December with at least sixty days separating inspection dates unless performed more
frequently. There are no other significant changes made to the permit. A review of the permit
requirements was conducted after the CEI for NC0020605. A copy of the permit was on hand
and contained all permit requirements with the exception of the new requirements noted
above.
10. The current site plan does not list whether the Tar River is impaired or is located in a
watershed for which a TMDL has been established and what the parameters of concern are.
Please update the site plan to include this requirement.

Tarboro WWTP CEI
Page 3
11. There are twelve stormwater discharge outfalls (SDO's) listed on the stormwater map. Four
SDO's discharge to a drainage ditch behind the facility. The other eight SDO's discharge to
the Tar River. All outfalls are checked weekly. There was no discharge at the SDO's. Water
in the drainage ditch appeared clear with no sediment deposition.
12. Qualitative monitoring is completed as permitted. Training and safety meeting was completed
05/18/2009 and 10/16/2009.
Please respond within 20 days receipt of this letter about the concern of frequent surface rotor
burnout in the aerated sludge holding lagoon and continued frequency violations as noted in item 6.
Please have the facility site plan updated to meet the Stormwater permit requirement as noted in item
9.
I would like to thank Hubert Whitehead for his time and assistance with this inspection. If you
have any questions about this letter or the inspection, please contact me at 919.791.4261.
Sincerely,
llama -47
Mitch Hayes
Environmental Specialist
Cc: Central Files, SWP files
EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved
EPA Washington, D C 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Rewrit
Approval 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 I 2 1 51 31 NCO020605 111 12I 09/10/16 117 181 rl 191 SI 20U
J IJ lJ u
Remarks
21111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111116
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 CA ----- —------- ------------ Reserved ----------------------
71J72J 73LL74 75L_I I 80
67I 1 69 70�`
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
EntryTime/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Tarboro WWTP
10:45 AM 09/10/16
04/12/01
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
os Hwy 64 Bypass
Tarboro NC 27886
12:30 PM 09/10/16
09/09/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representafive(s)/Tides(s)/Phone and Fax Numbers)
Other Facility Data
Hubert Leon Whitehead//252-641-4253 /
Hubert Leon Whitehead/ORC/252-641-4253/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Samuel W tloble,PO Box 220 Tarboro NC 278860220//252-641-4200/2526 Contacted
vs.
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit E Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program 0 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)
2? �9
Name(s) and Signatures) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Mitchell S Hayes HBO WQ//919-791-4200/
na re of Mans A ewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
C Y y
EPA Form 40.3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page # 1

NPDES
NCO020605 I11
yr/mo/day
09/10/16 I17
Inspection Type
18tC
(Cont. )
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The subject expired September 30, 2009. The permit is still under review. The 5.0 MGD facility consists of
the following units: auto and manual bar screens; aerated grit chamber and auger for grit removal; influent
flow meter (used for reporting); 3 primary clarifiers; 2 trickling filters, 3 basins with 1 anoxic zone, 1 aerobic
zone with diffused air, and 1 aerobic zone with mechanical air; 4 secondary clarifiers; dual chlorine contact
tanks; dechlorination; effluent flow meter; cascade aeration; 2 aerobic digesters for primary sludge; 1
aerobic digester for secondary sludge; a 1.65 MG sludge holding basin; 18 sludge drying beds (not used); 1
on -site generator for back-up power generation.
At the time of inspection, the influent entering the plant was black in color and appeared to be septic. This
may be due to wastewater being held too long in pump station wet wells. There was no build up of solids in
the center well of the primary clarifiers. There were a few ports in the trickling filters not having even water
flow but the media supported a good zoogleal film. No ponding was noted. The weirs in all four secondary
clarifiers are covered to prevent algae growth. Weirs are checked annually and cleaned if necessary.
Sludge judge reading in the ten foot sidewall depth clarifier was 2 feet. Sludge judge reading in the fourteen
foot sidewall depth clarifier was two feet. All four rotors were operational in the two activated sludge aeration
basins. One air diffuser manifold was out of service in the third activated sludge aeration basin. Two out of
four surface aerators in the aerated sludge holding lagoon were not in service. This has been a continuing
problem according to past inspection reports. Sludge was settling in the aerobic digester allowing the
supernatant to collect to be drawn off at a later time.
Discharge Monitoring Reports for the period July 2008 to July 2009 were reviewed for compliance with
permit limits and monitoring requirements. Notice of Violation was issued for December 2008 and January
2009 for effluent pH values not reaching minimum value of 6.0 standard units. Frequency violations for
nickel were noted for 10/18/2008, 01/17/2009, 01/24/2009, and 01/31/2009. Frequency violation for
ammonia nitrogen was noted for 07/18/2009. 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 July
2009. No discrepancies were noted.
Class B solids are land applied in accordance to Land Application Permit WO0002047. According to Aquifer
Protection compliance evaluation inspection dated 06/04/2009, 552.78 dry tons of sludge was land applied
to 181.85 acres for the year 2008.
Page # 2

Permit: N00020605 Owner -Facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Date: 10/16/2009 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 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?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Permit expired September 30, 2009. Facility is operating under the last
issued permit.
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
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)?
■
❑
❑
❑
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
■
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 DWQ?
■
❑
❑
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 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?
❑
❑
❑
❑
Page # 3

Permit: NCO020605 Owner • Facility: Tarboro WwrP
Inspection Date: 10/16/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA NE
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
■
❑
0
❑
Facility has copy of previous years Annual Report on file for review?
Cl
O
fl
■
Comment: There were no inconsistencies noted for July 2009 data.
Effluent Pipe
Yes
No
NA NE
Is right of way to the cutfall property maintained?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
■
❑
❑
❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Effluent appeared clear on the cascade aerater with foam dissipating within
20 feet in the Tar River.
Flow Measurement - Influent
Yes
No
NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
■
n
rl
n
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
■
n
rl
n
Comment: Meter is calibrated every 90 days by Chadwick Instruments.
Aerobic Digests r
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the capacity adequate?
■
n
0
n
Is the mixing adequate?
■
n
0
n
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
■
n
n
n
# Is the odor acceptable?
■
n
n
n
# Is tankage available for property waste sludge?
■
❑
Cl
Q
Comment: Sludge was settling in the aerobic digester allowing the supernatant to
collect to be drawn off at a later time.
Anaerobic Digester
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of operation:
Fixed cover
Is the capacity adequate?
■
n
0
❑
# Is gas stored on site?
n
■
0
n
Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers?
■
n
r)
n
Is the gas burner operational?
O
■
0
n
Is the digester heated?
n
■
D
Q
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
❑
■
D
n
Page # 4

Permit: NC0020605
Inspection Date: 10/16/2009
Owner -Facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Type: compliance Evaluation
Anaerobic Digester
Yes
No
NA NE
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The unit is operated at ambient temperature. Gas was not being produced
at the time of inspection.
Solids Handling Equipment
Yes
No
NA NE
Is the equipment operational?
❑
❑
■
❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
❑
❑
■
❑
Is storage adequate?
❑
❑
■
❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
❑
❑
■
❑
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
❑
❑
■
❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
❑
❑
■
Cl
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
❑
❑
■
❑
Comment: There is no solids handling equipement on site.
Bar Screens
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
■
b.Mechanical
■
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
■
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
■
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Influent was most likely septic causing excessive odor.
Primary Clarifier
Yes No
NA
NE
Page # 5

Permit: NCO020605 Owner -Facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Date: 10/16/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Primary Clarifler
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
Cl ❑
Are weirs level?
■
❑
0 ❑
Is the site free of weir bockage?
■
n
17 n
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
■
❑
fl ❑
is scum removal adequate?
■
n
D ❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
■
n
17 ❑
Is the drive unit operational?
■
0
F] ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
■
❑
❑ ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/. of the sidewall depth)
❑
Q
❑ ■
Comment: Influent was black with excessive odor, most likely septic.
Secondary Clarifler
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 clarifier?
■
n
❑ n
Are weirs level?
❑
❑
Cl ■
Is the site free of weir blockage?
❑
❑
0 ■
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
❑
0
11 ■
Is scum removal adequate?
■
❑
13 ❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
■
❑
Cl n
Is the drive unit operational?.
■
❑
0 0
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
■
1)
0 I]
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin Floc?
n
n
[I ■
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately Y. of the sidewall depth)
■
n
Cl n
Comment: Weirs are covered so the condition of the weirs could not be determined.
Effluent flowing off the weirs appeared clear with no solids.
Trickling Filter
Yes No
NA NE
Is the filter free of ponding?
❑ ❑ ❑
Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of filter's distribution arms?
■ n r n
Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms?
■ ❑ ❑ f1
Is the filter free of uneven or discolored growth?
■ ❑ r_, O
Page # 6

Permit: NCO020605
Owner -Facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Date: 10/16/2009
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Trickling Filter
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth?
■
Cl
❑
❑
Are the filters distribution arms orifices free of clogging?
❑
■
❑
❑
Is the filter free of excessive filter flies, worms or snails?
■
❑
Cl
❑
Comment: Some ports were clogged. Filter flies were evident but not excessive.
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Mode of operation Ext. Air
Type of aeration system
Surface
Is the basin free of dead spots?
❑
■
❑
❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are the diffusers operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
■
❑
❑
❑
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 mg/I)
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: One blower was not operational in the basin with diffused air. This was
Causing a dead zone however.
Nutrient Removal
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is total nitrogen removal required?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is total phosphorous removal required?
■
❑
❑
❑
Type
Biological
# Is chemical feed required to sustain process?
❑
■
❑
❑
Is nutrient removal process operating property?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Disinfection -Gas
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are cylinders secured adequately?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
■
❑
❑
❑
Page # 7

Permit: NCO020605 Owner - Facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Date: 10/16/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Disinfection -Gas Yes No NA NE
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No. 7782-50-5)? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000-_ _)
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment: 150 pound cylinders are kept on site.
Do -chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ? Liquid
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)? ■ n f] n
Is storage appropriate for cylinders? ■ ❑ fl n
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers? ■ n fl n
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
❑
❑
■
❑
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
n
n
■
n
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Lagoon s
Yes
No
KA NE
Type of lagoons?
,aerated
# Number of lagoons in operation at time of visit?
t
Are lagoons operated in?
Multiceil
# Is a re-circulafion line present?
■
❑
Cl
❑
Is lagoon free of excessive Floating materials?
■
❑
[1
n
# Are baffles between ponds or effluent baffles adjustable?
■
n
r)
n
Are dike slopes clear of woody vegetation?
■
n
n
❑
Are weeds controlled around the edge of the lagoon?
■
n
n
n
Are dikes free of seepage?
■
n
n
n
Are dikes free of erosion?
■
n
n
n
Are dikes free of burrowing animals?
■
n
ri
n
# Has the sludge blanket in the lagoon (s) been measured periodically in multiple locations?
■
❑
[I
❑
# If excessive algae is present, has barley straw been used to help control the growth?
■
❑
Cl
❑
Pege # 8

Permit: NC0020605
Inspection Date: 10/16/2009
Owner -Facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Lagoons
Is the lagoon surface free of weeds?
Is the lagoon free of short circuiting?
Comment: Aerated sludge holding lagoon is concrete lined.
Effluent Sampling
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
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 Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)?
Comment: Sampler is collected before cascade aeration.
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page # 9

AM
K�DENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
October 7, 2009
Mr. Hubert Whitehead
WWTP Supervisor
Town of Tarboro
PO Box 220
Tarboro, NC 27866-0220
Subject: Pretreatment Compliance Audit
Town of Tarboro
NPDES Permit No. NCO020605
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Whitehead:
Natural Resources
Dee Freeman
Secretary
On September 29, 2009, Sarah Morrison of the Pretreatment, Emergency Response, and Collection Systems
(PERCS) Unit and Cheng Zhang of the Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) conducted a Pretreatment Compliance
Audit of the Town of Tarboro's pretreatment program. Your assistance was greatly appreciated. The audit
report is attached. Findings during the inspection were as follows:
1. There are four Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), one of which is also a Categorical Industrial User
(CIU). It was noted that no SIUs were in Significant Non -Compliance (SNC) during the most recent
semi-annual period.
2. The pretreatment audit file review included Air System Components (ASC, Permit No. TOT006), Sara
Lee Kitchens (Permit No. TOT001), and Glenoit Mills (Permit No. TOT002). The files needed for
review were available for inspection, except for the industrial pretreatment permit review letters from
the Division and ASC's Toxic Organic Management Plan (TOMP), which were reviewed in the last
inspection.
3. The POTW completed monitoring as required by the Industrial User Pretreatment Permits (IUDs) during
the most recent semi-annual period. All three SIUs were in compliance. It was noted that the
frequency for flow measurement at ASC should be modified as "monthly" in lieu of "daily". Please
be reminded that IUP modification is subject to the review and approval by the PERCS Unit.
4. During the audit, Mr. Whitehead inspected one of the SIUs, Sara Lee Kitchens. The inspection was very
thorough. It was evident that Mr. Whitehead has an excellent relationship with the industry
representative, broad knowledge of pretreatment and great attention to details.
5. A review of the files containing the pretreatment program elements was conducted. These files were up
to date and very well organized. N�°o�e 1Carolina
r/ ura!!y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: v .ncmterquality.org Location: 3800 Barrett Drive Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycleo/10% Post Consumer Paper

Town of Tarboro
NPDES Permit No. NCO020605
P retreLftnn.w9oiupliaw* Audir—^'
6. The review of Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) data indicated that all locations were sampled with
required frequencies, and all samples were analyzed using correct detection limits specified in the
LTMP since the last inspection, except that the POTW's laboratory had been using higher than
required detection levels for ammonia and TSS. Please update the detection limits of these two
parameters in the LTMP. Please be reminded that LTMP modification is subject to the review and
approval by the PERCS Unit.
Town of Tarboro's pretreatment program is well managed. Thank you for your continued support of the
Pretreatment Program. If you have any questions or comments, please call Cheng Zhang at [phone] (or
email: [e-mail]).
Sincerely,
Cheng Zhang
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure: Town of Tarboro Audit Report
CC: Sarah Morrison, DWQ - PERCS Unit
Cheng Zhang - RRO
Central Files

©�� rNuRTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF'warER QUALITY
NCDENR PRETREATMENT AUDIT REPORT
Background Information [Complete prior to audit; review Program Info Database Sheet(s)]
1. Control Authority (POTW) Name: Town of Tarboro WWTP
2. Control Authority Representative(s): Hubert Whitehead
3. Title(s): WWTPSuoervisor
4. Address of POTW:
Mailing P.O. Boa 220
City Tarboro Zip Code 27886
Phone Number 252-6414251 Fax Number 2524414230 E-Mail totwwtn(a-hotmail.com
5. Audit Date 09/29/2009
6. Last Inspection Date: 08/11/2008 Inspection Type: ®PCI ❑ Audit
7. Has Program Completed All Requirements from the Previous Inspection and Program Info Sheet(s) ? ®Yes ❑ No
If No, Explain.
8. In the last year has the POTW experienced any NPDES or Sludge Permit compliance problems? ® Yes ❑ No
If Yes, Explain. 6 TRC (6/08, 2-8/08, 9/08, 3/09); 11 pH (3-12/09, 8-1/09) Low pH came into the Plant during the
holidays from an unknown source. Didn't have chemicals necessary onsite and therefore the pH adjustment took
longer than expected.
9. Is POTW under an Order That Includes Pretreatment Conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
Order Type and Number: _ Are Milestone Dates Being Met? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® NA
Parameters Covered Under Order_
PCS (WENDB)Codina
Trans.Code Main Program Permit Number MM/DD/YY Inspec.Type Inspector Fac. Type
N I C 10 10 1 2 10 1 6 I 0 1 5 09 129 109 I Lfij L_S_i w
(DTIA) (TYPI) (INSP) (FACC)
10. Current Number of Significant Industrial Users (STUB)?
_......_......... ..-_........................_......_.._....--- ._..................—_ _ _.�._.....
11. Current Number of Categorical Industial Users�CIUS)? -- — —
—_....__... ---- .....
4
1
SIUS
CIUS
— — .....
Number of SIUs Not Inspected by POTW in La . .......................—.- - ........-...._..__
..... ................
13. Number of SIUs Not Sampled by POTW in Last Calendar Year?
0
_ ..-
.._................... _.....
14. Enter Higher Number of 12 or 13
0
_
NOIN
15. Number of SIUs with No ]UP, or with an Expired IUP
_....._ — — ...----
0
NOCM
-...-.........._..---
16. Number of SIUs in SNC for Either Reporting or Limits Violations During Either of Last 2
Semi -Annual Periods_ Total Number of SIUs in SNC
— - ...................—_....................................._.—...._.—....._.)................._....._...__.......................................---..... ........
17. Number of SIUs. in SNC for Reporting During Either of Last 2 Bemi-Annual Periods
— ..-- ....................._......_...._........................._........_ .._.. ._-...-.__._.._.........
18. Number of SIUs in SNC for Limits Violations During Either of Last 2 Semi -Annual Periods
0
0
0
_....--.___. —
PSNC
............ ----.....
MSNC
_._ SNC
SNPS
19. Number of SIUs in SNC for Both Reporting and Limits Violations During Either of Last 2
Semi -Annual Periods
_ _ .—.--
0
........... __._... —-
20_ _ Number of SIUs in SNC for Self -Monitoring Ret�uirements that were Not Inspected or Sampled
0
SNIN
NC DWO Pretreatment Audit Form Revised: July 25, 2007 Page I

21. PRETREATMENT PROGRAM ELE iTS REVIEW- Review POTW files, veri OTW has copy of each Program
Element in their File, complete with all suDDorL— _ocuments and PERCS ADnroval Letter_ and ,w, ...,rnnaigttnt with Pmg m Infn-
Program Element
Last Submittal
Date In file?
Last Approval
Date In file
Date Next Due,
If Applicable
Headworks Analysis (HWA)
11/03/2008
1 N Yes ❑ No
02/05/2009
® Yes No
11/01/2013
Industrial Waste Survey (IWS)
09/24/2009
N Yes U No
11/22/2004
N Yes ❑ No
Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO)
06/01/2007
N Yes El No
06/06/2007
N Yes ❑ No
Enforcement Response Plan (EPP)
09/24/2008
®Yes No
11/24/2008
Yes ❑ No
Long Term Monitoring Plan (LIMP)
09/24/2008
Z YesEl No
OS/21/2009
S YesEl No
Legal Authority (Sewer Use Ordinance-SUO)
22. Do you have any towns and/or areas from which you receive wastewater which are not in your annexed jurisdiction?
❑ Yes E No If yes, Please list these towns and/or areas.
23. If yes to #22, Do you have current Interjurisdictional Agreements (IJAs) or other Contracts? ❑Yes ❑ No ENA
A copy, if not already submitted, should be sent to Division.
24. If yes to #22, Have you had any trouble working with these towns or districts? ❑Yes ❑ No NNA
If yes, Explain.
25. Date of Last SUO Adoption by Local Council 12/10/2007
26. Have you had any problems interpreting or enforcing any part of the SUO? ❑ Yes E No
If yes, Explain.
Enforcement (Enforcement Response Plan-ERP)
27. Did you send a copy of the ERP to your industries? N Yes ❑ No
If no; POTW most send copy within 30 days.
28. Have you had any problems interpreting or enforcing any part of the ERP (i.e. any adjudication, improper enforcement, etc?
❑ Yes E No If yes, Explain.
29. List Industries under a Schedule or Order and Type of Schedule or Order
Resources
30. Please Rate the Following: S=Satisfacto M=Mar inal U=Unsatisfactory
Ratin
Explanation. if Unsatisfactory
Personnel Available for Maintaining
POTW's Pretreatment Program
NS ❑M ❑U
Access to POTW Vehicles for
Sampling, Inspections, and
NS ❑M ❑U
Emergencies
Access to Operable Sampling
Equipment
NS ❑M ❑U
Availability of Funds if Needed for
Additional Sampling and/or Analysis
NS ❑M ❑U
Reference Materials
NS ❑M ❑U
Staff Training (i.e. Annual and
Regional Workshops, Etc.)
ES ❑M ❑U
Computer Equipment (Hardware and
Software)
ES ❑M ❑U
31. Does the POTW have an adequate data management system to run the pretreatment program? N Yes ❑ No
NC DWO Pretreatment Audit Fonn Revised: July 25, 2007 Page 2

Explain Yes or No. Coral s, Excel, email communication
32. How does the POTW recover the cost of the Pretreatment Program from their industries? Explain.
Surcharges for BOD, COD, etc. Industries are charged for all sampling performed as well as for outside metals testing.
Public Perception/ Participation
33. Are there any local issues affecting the pretreatment program (e.g.. odor, plant closing, new or proposed plants)?
® Yes ❑ No If yes, Explain. Slow production. Limited water use.
34. Has any one from the public ever requested to review pretreatment program files? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, Explain procedure. If no, How would the request be addressed?
Files are open to the public
35. Has any industry ever requested that certain information remain confidential from the public? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, Explain
procedure for determining whether information qualified for confidential status, as well as procedure for keeping files confidential
from public. If no. how would the request be addressed? Would have a separate locked file for confidential information.
36. In addition to annual inspection, does the POTW periodically meet with industries to discuss pretreatment? ®Yes ❑ No
37. Is the public notified about changes in the SUO or Local Limits? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Unknown
38. Were all industries in SNC published in the last notice? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
Permitting (Industrial Waste Survey-IWS)
39a... How does the POTW become aware of new or changed Users?
POTW is notified through water billing.
39b. Once the POTW becomes aware of new or changed Users, how does the POTW determine which industries have the
reasonable potential to adversely impact the W WTP and therefore require a new permit or a permit revision? (Who is an
Sim)
By sampling those with the potential to impact and reviewing the results.
40. Does the POTW receive waste from any groundwater remediation projects (petroleum, CERCLA) or landfill leachate?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, How many are there?
Please list each site and how it is pemritted, if applicable.
41. Does the POTW accept waste by (mark if applicable) ❑ Track ❑Dedicated Pipe ® NA
42. If the POTW accepts trucked waste, what controls are placed on this waste? (example. designated point, samples drawn,
manifests required) N/A
43. How does the POTW allocate its loading to industries? Mark all that apply
❑ Uniform Limits ® Historical Industry Need ® By Surcharge ® Categorical Limits ❑ Other
Explain Other:
44. Review POTW's copies of current allocation tables for each W WTP. Are there any over allocations? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, What parameters are over allocated?
45. If yes to #44, What is being done to address the over allocations? (short-term IUPs, HWA to be revised, pollutant study, etc.)
46. Does the POTW keep pollutant loading in reserve for future growth / safety? ® Yes ❑ No
If yes, what percentage of each parameter _°/n No specific percentage of each parameter
47. Has the POTW experienced any difficulty in allocation? (for example: adjudication by an industry) ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, Explain.
48. How does the POTW decide on which pollutants to limit in the permits? Monitor for? (for example: were only those pollutants
listed on the application limited; categorical parameters; NPDES Pollutants of Concern)
NC DWO Pretreatment Audit Form Revised: Julv 25. 2007 Page 3

Problem pollutants, categorical paramel NPDES limited parameters
49. How does the POTW decide what the monitoring frequency should be for the various pollutants in industry permits ? Explain.
POTW performs all sampling- Monthly for surcharge pollutants- BOD, TSS, NH3, pH and semi-annually for metals. Will
call industry and resample if out of compliance.
Permit Compliance
50. Does the POTW currently have or during the past yew had any permits under adjudication? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, which industries? What was (will be) the outcome of the adjudication?
51. Demonstrate how the POTW judges compliance. This should include compliance judgment on all violations of limits, reporting
requirements, and permit conditions, as well as for SNC.
Uses compliance judgment sheets provided by the Division.
52. Does the POTW use the Division's model inspection form or equivalent? ® Yes ❑ No
If no, does the POTW form include all DWQ data? ❑ Yes ❑ No
53. Were all SIUs evaluated for the need of a slug/spill control plan during their most recent inspections? ® Yes ❑ No
If no, Explain.
54. What criteria are used to determine if a slug/spill control plan is needed?
All permitted industries are required to have a slug/spill control plan
55. What criteria does the POTW use to determine if a submitted slug/spill control plan is adequate?
Have training. The manual/forms are evaluated during yearly inspection.
56. How does the POTW decide where the sample point for an SIU should be located?
At an accessible location to capture all effluent. Categorical process is sampled at a separate location so as to avoid
combining with dilution wastestreams.
57. Has the POTW established a procedure to ensure that representative samples will be taken by the POTW or SIU each time?
(example: correct location; proper programming of sampler; clean equipment; swirling the sample bucket uniformly)
POTW: ® Yes ❑ No SIU: ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A If yes, Explain.
POTW samples during peak production for representative sampling, as well as proper sampler programming, clean
equipment, and uniform swirling of the sample bucket.
58. Who performs sample analysis for the POTW for Metals Environment 1
Conventional Parameters POTW
Organics Pace Analytical -Toxicity
59. Explain the Chain of Custody Procedure used for both in house and commercial lab samples.
Chain of custody forms. POTW performs sampling. Samples are place on ice and delivered/released to the lab for analysis.
Long/Short Term Monitoring Plan (L/STMP) and Headworks Analysis (HWA)
60a. Is LTMP/STMP Monitoring Being Conducted at Appropriate Locations and Frequencies? ® YES ❑ NO
60b. Are Correct Detection Levels being used for all LTMP/STMP Monitoring? ❑ YES ® NO
60c. Is LTMP/STMP Data Maintained in Table or Equivalent? ® YES ❑ NO Is Table Adequate? ® YES ❑ NO
NC DWQ Pretreatment Audit Form Revised: July 25, 2007 Page 4

60d. All LTMP/STMP efl data on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMI ] YES ® NO DWQ Inspector, verify yourself.
60e. If NO to any above, 61 violations COD effluent data must be placeu on the DMRs. The POTW lab was using higher
detection levels for ammonia and TSS than those required in the LIMP.
60f. Should any Pollutants of Concern be Eliminated from or Added to LTMP/STMP? ❑ YES ® NO
If yes, which ones? Eliminated: Added:
61. Do you complete your own headworks analysis (HWA) ? ❑ Yes ® No
If no, Who completes your HWA? The Wooten Company Phone [phone]
62. Do you have plans to revise your HWA in the near future? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, What is the reason for the revision? (mark all that apply) []Increased average flow ❑NPDES limits change
[]More LTMP data available ❑Resolve over allocation ❑5 year expiration ❑Other
Explain.
63. In general, what is the most limiting criteria of your HWA? ®Inhibition ❑ Pass Through ❑Sludge Quality
64. Do you see any way to increase your loading in the future (Example: obtaining more land for sludge disposal)? ® Yes ❑ No
Explain. Granville Farms has 400 acres available for land application.
65. Do you plan any significant changes to the pretreatment program or changes to the W WTP that may affect pretreatment?
Not in the near future.
NC DWO Pretreatment Audit Form Revised: July 25, 2007 Page 5

INDUSTRIAL USER PERMIT (IUP) FILE 71EW (3 IUP FILE REVIEWS AND 1 IU L
?CTIONI
66.
User Name
I 1. Air Systems uponents
12. Sara Lee
67.
IUP Number
ILTOT006
68.
Does File Contain Current Permit?
N Yes ❑ No
69.
Permit Expiration Date
r 06/24/2013
70.
Categorical Standard Applied I.E. 40 Cm Etc. Or N/A
433
71.
Does File Contain Permit Application Completed Within One Year Prior
to Permit Issue Date?
N Yes ❑ No
72.
Does File Contain Inspection Completed Within Last Calendar Year?
FN Yes ❑ No
73.
a. Does File Contain Slug/Spill Control Plan?
b. If No, is One Needed? (See Inspection Form from POTW)
a. ®Yes ❑No
b. ❑Yes ❑No
74.
For 40 CFR 413 and 433 TTO Certification, Does File Contain a Toxic
Organic Management Plan TOMP ?
❑Yes®No❑N A
75.
a. Does File Contain Original Permit Review Letter from Division?
b. All Issues Resolved?
a. ❑Yes ®No
0Yes0\o0N/A
76.
During Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did POTW Complete its
Sampling as Required by IUP, including Flow?
N Yes ❑ No
77.
Does File Contain POTW Sampling Chain -Of -Custody Forms?
N Yes ❑ No
78.
During Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did SIU Complete its
Sampling as Required by IUP, including Flow?
❑Yes❑No®N/A
79. During Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did SIU submit all reports on ❑Yes❑N'o®N/A
80a. For categorical IUs with Combined Wastestream Formula (CWF), does
❑Yes❑NoON;A
file includeprocess/dilution flows as Required by IUP?
80b. For categorical IUs with Production based limits, does file include
❑Yes❑No®N/A
production rates and/or flows as Required by IUP?
81. During Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did POTW Identify All
❑Yes❑NoON/A
Limits Non -Compliance from Both POTW and SIU Sampling?
82. During Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did POTW Identify All
❑Yes❑NoON/A
Reporting -Non -Compliance from SIU Sampling?
83. a. Was POTW Notified by SIU (Within 24 Hours) of All Self-
a.OYe EMMN/A
Monitoring Violations?
b. Did Industry Resample and submit results to POTW within 30 Days?
b.OYe ONo®N/A
c. If applicable, did POTW resample and obtain results within 30 days of
becoming aware of SIU limit violations in the POTW's satnnlina of SiI1?
c.OYesONoON/A
85. During Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Was Enforcement Taken as ❑YesONoON/A
Specified in POTW's ERP OVs, Penalties, timing, etc.)?
86. Does File Contain Penalty Assessment Notices? ❑YesONoON/A
87. Does File Contain Proof Of Penalty Collection? ❑Yes0No®N/A
88. a. Does File Contain Any Current Enforcement Orders? a.OvesONo®N,'A
b. Is SIU in Compliance with Order? b.OYesONo®N;A
89. Did POTW Representative Have Difficulty in Obtaining Any Requested N Yes ❑ No
Information For You?
FILE REVIEW COMMENTS:
3. Glenoit Mills
TOT001
TOT002
® Yes ❑ No
11 N Yes ❑ No
12/31/2011
12/31/2011
N Yes ❑ No
N Yes ❑ No
N Yes ❑ No
N Yes ❑ No
a. ®Yes ❑No
b. ❑Yes ❑No
a. ®Yes ❑No
b. ❑Yes [:]No
❑Yes❑NoON/A
❑Yes❑NoON/A
a. ❑Yes ®No
❑Ycs❑NopN/A
a. ❑Yes ®No
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
®Yes ❑ No
N Yes ❑ No
N Yes ❑ No
N Yes ❑ No
❑Yes❑No®N/A
0Yes0No®N/A
❑Yes❑NoON/.A
❑Yes❑NoON/A
1 ❑Yes❑No®N/A
Jl
❑Yes❑No®N/A
❑Yes❑NoON/A
J
❑Yes❑NoON/A
OYes❑NoON/A
❑Yes❑NoON/A
13Yes0No0N/A
❑YesONoON/A
a.[]YmONoON/A
b.OYmONo®N/A
c.OYesONoON/A
a.OYmMo®N/A
b.OYesONo®N/A
c.OYesOMON/A
❑ Yes No
El Yes Z No
1 ❑YesONoON/A
❑Yes❑No®N/A
❑YesDMON/A
❑Yes❑NoON/A
❑Yes❑NOON/A
❑Yes❑NoON/A
1 a.OYesONo®N/A
b.OYesONo®N/A
a.OYesONoN/A
b.OY. N.:N/A
N Yes ❑ No
N Yes ❑ No
74. TOM? for ASC was found in the POTW files during the previous inspection in 2008.
75. Permit approval letters were found during the previous inspection in 2008. Scanned copies for all permits will be emailed to the POTW.
89. The POTW representative could not locate TOMP for ASC and IUP approval letters.
NC DWO Pretreatment Audit Form Revised: July 25, 2007
Page 6

INDUSTRY INSPECTION PCS CODING:
Trans.Code Main Program Permit Number MM/DD/YY Inspec.Type
LNJ I N I C I 0 1 0 12 10 16 10 I S 1 109 129 109 I l u I
(DTIA) (TYPI)
I. Industry Inspected: Sara Lee Kitchens
2. Industry Address: 110 Sara Lee Road; Tarboro, NC
3. Type of Industry/Product: Bakery
4. Industry Contact: John Chapman Title: Environmental Coordinator Phone: [phone]
5. Does the POTW Use the Division Model Inspection Form 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 Separate facility
C. Pretreatment Tour
® Yes
❑ No
D. Sampling Review
® Yes
❑ No
E. Exit Interview
® Yes
❑ No
Industrial Inspection Comments:
Inspector Fac. Type
LS-j L2J
(INSP) (FACC)
Fax:[phone]
The POTW has a good working relationship with the Industry Contact, and there is good communication with the
POTW/Public Works of any changes at the Industry.
Audit SUMMARY AND COMMENTS:
Audit Comments:
Requirements: Effluent COD must be added to the DMRs; Modify LTMP to include detection levels for NH3 and TSS
approved during your last Laboratory Audit; Modify the ASC permit to reduce the flow monitoring frequency to monthly
(what is currently performed).
Recommendations: Effluent sampling for those parameters not limited by NPDES is performed monthly, while only quarterly is
required in the LTMP. Please evaluate the possibility of reducing sampling for these parameters in order to preserve POTW
resources. As certain Pretreatment files were not found during this inspection, the Division recommends putting a filing system
into place which would keep all aspects of the 1UPs together (ex.1UP, inspection, application, DWQ Approval letter, etc.)
NOD: ❑ Yes
NOV: ❑ Yes
QNCR: ❑ Yes
POTW Ratine:
Satisfactory ® Marginal ❑ Unsatisfactory ❑
Audit COMPLETED BY: Sarah Morrison and Chenn Zhang DATE: September 29.2009
NC DWQ Pretreatment Audit Form Revised: July 25, 2007 Page 7

��
i �DENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue CDleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
July 12, 2009
To: Ron Berry
From: Dave Parnell
Subject: Tarboro Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit: NCO020605
Permittee Contact: Samuel W. Noble, Jr. Town Manager
Town of Tarboro
P. O. Box 220
Tarboro, NC 27886
I have reviewed the file concerning the above referenced facility. The facility was last
inspected by Ron Boone, on January 10, 2008. Please be advised of the following comments
based on findings during the inspection:
1. The 5.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant is as described in the permit: automatic and
manual bar screen, influent lift station, aerated grit chamber, 3 primary clarifiers, 2
trickling filters, 2 aeration basins, 4 secondary clarifiers, anaerobic/aerobic sludge
digesters, aerated sludge holding basin, chlorination/dual contact basin, effluent flow
measurement, dechlorination, cascade aerator, standby power and sandfilter drying
beds.
2. Prior to the inspection, Ron Boone agreed that the effluent sampler was to be set up to
sample post dechlorination, but before final aeration, due to the layout of the plant.
A Notice of Violation was issued on May 12, 2009, for exceedences of pH reported on DMRs
for January and February 2009.
Please be advised of these comments from the Raleigh Regional Office during future permit
review processes.
Signature Report Prep
Signature of Regional
Cc: RRO files
7, /Z c
y v`
No thCarclina
Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: w .ncwaterquality.org 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

M ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
May 12, 2009
CERTIFIED MAIL 7008 1300 00001133 4335
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Samuel W. Noble, Jr.
Town of Tarboro
P. O. Box 220
Tarboro NC 27886-0220
Subject: NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Permit No. NCO020605
Tarboro WWTP
Case No. NOV-2009-LV-0091
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Noble:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed the Town of Tarboro's monitoring report for December,
2008 and January, 2009. We noted the following violafionk) had been t• nrrPd-
Parameter
Date
Limit Value
Reported Value
Limit Type
pH
12/29/08
6 su
5.2 su
Daily Minimum
Not Reached
pH
12/30/08
6 su
5.2 su
Daily Minimum
Not Reached
pH
12/31/08
6 su
5.2 su
Daily Minimum
Not Reached
pH
01/01/09
6 su
5.2 su
Daily Minimum
Not Reached
pH
01/02/09
6 su
5.6 su
Daily Minimum
Not Reached
pH
01/03/09
6 su
5.4 su
Daily Minimum
Not Reached
pH
01/04/09
6 su
4.9 su
Daily Minimum
Not Reached
pH
01/05/09
6 su
5.2 su
Daily Minimum
Not Reached
pH
01/06/09
6 su
5.3 su
Daily Minimum
Not Reache ne
h arolina
lilllCQ��I�
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org 1628 Mail service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer —50% Recydeo/10% Post Consumer Paper

Town of Tarboro W WTP Notice of Violation
Page 2
Parameter
Date
Limit Value
Reported Value
Limit Type
pH
O1/07/09
6 su
5.7 su
Daily Minimum
Not Reached
pH
O1/08/09
6 su
5.8 su
Daily Minimum
Not Reached
Remedial actions should be taken to correct this problem. It is the duty of every permitted facility to
meet specified permit limits. We urge you to avoid future occurrences. By doing so, you will prevent
further action by the State regarding the problems this month while protecting our lakes, rivers and
streams.
If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact Mandy Hall or Dave Parnell at 919-791-
4200.
incer y,
9 i7�✓ 11Y
Danny Smi
Surface Water Protection Supervisor
Raleigh Regional Office
xc: Central Files
RRO SAT files
wm ' YY

A rF9 State of North Carolina
OG Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1
,c Flow Tracking/Acceptance for Sewer Extension Per ahons
Project Applicant Name: 7
Project Name for which flow is being requested:
More than one FISE-10107 may be required for a single project ifthe owner of the W*TP is not responsible !I
pump stations along the route of the proposed wastewater flow.
I. Complete this section only if you are the owner of the wastewater treatment plant.
a. WWTP Facility Name: &, b o i V, , 1( V4 1 *r /mace 1Me"-f
b. WWTP Facility Permit #: A/ L 00.2d tS0 5
c. WWTP facility's permitted flow
d. Estimated obligated flow not yet tributary to the
e. WWTP facility's actual avg. flow
f. Total flow for this specific request
g. Total actual and obligated flows to the facility
h. Percent of permitted flow used
All flows ar in MGD
WWTP I
Las _
II. Complete this section for each pump station you are responsible for along the route of this
proposed wastewater flow.
List pump stations located between the project connection point and the WWTP
Pump Station Name Approx. Capacity, MGD Approx. Current Avg.
(Firm/Design) Daily Flow, MGD
III. Certification Statement:
I, ri- A L GA , � r. t I ( , certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the addition of the
volume of wastewater to be permitted in this project has been evaluated along the route to the receiving
wastewater treatment facility and that the flow from this project is not anticipated to cause any capacity
related sanitary sewer overflows or overburden any downstream pump station en route to the receiving
treatment plant under normal circumstances. This analysis has been performed in accordance with local
established policies and procedures using the best available data. This certification applies to those items
lie; ad above in Sections I and II for which I am the responsible party. Signature of this form indicates
�j�o
Signing Official Signature
Date

Instructions for: Flow Tracking/Acceptance for Sewer Extension Pennit
Applications (FTSE—10/07)
Section I
a. W WTI ity Name: Enter the name of the W WTP that will receive the wastewater flow.
b. wWTP Facility W W
Permit #: Enter the NPDES or Non -Discharge number for the TP receiving the
wakewater flow.
C. W WTP facility's permitted flow. MGD: From W WTP owner's NPDES or Non -Discharge permit.
d. Estimated obligated flow not yet tributary to the W WTP. MGD: This includes flows allocated to
other construction projects not yet contributing flow to the collection system. Flows allocated through
interlocai agreements or other contracts not yet contributing flow to the collection system are also
included. For POTWs that implement a pretreatment program, include flows allocated to industrial
users who may not be using all of their flow allocation. Please contact your Pretreatment Coordinator
for information on industrial flow tributary to your W WTP.
As of January 15, 2008 the POTW should have reviewed flow allocations made over the last two
years and reconciled their flow records, to the best of their ability, so it is known how much flow has
been obligated and is not yet been made tributary to the W WTP, in accordance with local policies and
procedures employed by the reporting entity.
The obligated flow not yet tributary plus actual flow will be reconciled annually for systems at less
than 60% of permitted flow used. Annual updates shall be submitted to the appropriate Regional
Office by January 15 of each year and cover the previous calendar year.
Semi -Annual updates shall be required when the percent of permitted flow used reaches 60%. Semi-
annual time period are defined as January 1 through June 30 and July 1 through December 31. Semi-
annual updates shall be submitted to the appropriate Regional Office by July 15 and January 15 of
each year.
Quarterly updates shall be required when the percent of permitted flow used reaches 80%. Quarters
are defined as Qtrl (Jan -Feb -Mar); Qtr2 (Apr -May -Jun); Qtr3 (Jul -Aug -Sep); Qtr4 (Oct -Nov -Dec).
Quarterly updates shall be submitted to the appropriate Regional Office by April 15, July 15, October
15 and January 15 of each year.
e. WWTP facility's actual avg. flow. MGD: Previous 12 month average.
f. Total flow for this specific request. MGD: Enter the requested flow volume.
g. Total actual and obligated flows to the facility MGD Equals [d + e + fI
h. Percent of permitted flow used: Equals [(g / c)' 100]

ALT4 •
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
February 29, 2008
Samuel W. Noble, Jr.
Town of Tarboro
P.O. Box 220
Tarboro, NC 27886-0220
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
SUBJECT: Advance Notice of Renewal Application Requirements
Permit NC0020605
Tarboro WWTP
Dear Permittee:
Your NPDES permit for a municipally owned/operated W WTP expires on September 30, 2009. This notice
is being sent to explain the requirements for your permit renewal application.
You are receiving this advance notice because your facility has a permitted flow at or above 1
MGD, or the facility receives industrial [pretreatment] wastewater. If either of these criteria no
longer applies, contact the NPDES Unit before submitting a renewal application.
Federal (40 CFR 122) and state (15A NCAC 2H.0105(e)) regulations require that permit renewal
applications be filed at least 180 days prior to expiration of the current permit. Your renewal application is
due to the Division postmarked no later than April 3. 2009. Failure to apply for renewal by the appropriate
deadline may result in a civil penalty assessment or other enforcement activity at the discretion of the
Director.
The U.S. EPA revised and expanded the application requirements for municipal permits, effective August 1,
2001. EPA form 2A is attached to this Notice, and must be used for your permit renewal application. The
new application requirements mandate additional effluent testing:
1. Conduct three Priority Pollutant Analyses (PPAs) and submit results with your renewal
application. Collect samples for the PPAs in conjunction with sampling for your current
quarterly toxicity test. The new PPA requirements differ from previous versions. Each PPA
must include:
➢ Analyses for all total recoverable metals listed in Part D of form 2A. This includes metals
that are not normally monitored through your NPDES permit.
➢ Analyses for total phenolic compounds and hardness.
➢ Analyses for all of the volatile organic compounds listed in Part D.
➢ Analyses for all of the acid -extractable compounds listed in Part D.
D Analyses for all base -neutral compounds listed in Part D.
D Analyses for Total Mercury must be performed using EPA Method 1631.
2. Conduct four toxicity tests for an organism other than Ceriodaphnia and submit results with
your renewal application. The tests should be conducted quarterly, with samples collected on the
same day as your current toxicity test. Call the Aquatic Toxicology Unit at [phone] for
guidance in conducting the additional tests.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 1�7One
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 1 V & Carolina
Phone: [phone], extension 511 / FAX [phone] / charles.weaver®ncmail.net (({/// ►►► ` `q//ff
An Equal Opportunity/AffinnativeAction Employer —50%Recycled/1 0% Post Consumer Paper %pK[`

&nL Notice for Permit NCO020605
Edgecombe County
Page 2
The pollutant and toxicity analyses described above must accompany your permit renewal
application, or any major permit modification request. The Division cannot draft your permit without the
additional data. Any data submitted cannot be over 4 ifs years old, and must account for seasonal
variation (samples cannot be collected during the same season each year if collected over multiple years).
PLEASE NOTE: If your existing permit contains a requirement for annual PPAs, additional PPAs
are not required [provided you have conducted at least 3 scans prior to submitting your application].
If any wastewater discharge will occur after the current permit expires, this NPDES permit must be
renewed. Discharge of wastewater without a valid permit would violate Federal and North Carolina law.
Unpermitted discharges of wastewater could result in assessment of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day.
Use the checklist below to complete your renewal package. The checklist identifies the items you
must submit with the permit renewal application. If all wastewater discharge has ceased at this facility and
you wish to rescind this permit, please contact me. My telephone number, fax number and e-mail address
are listed at the bottom of the previous page.
Sincerely,
Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NPDES Unit
cc: Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Section
NPDES File
The following items are REQUIRED for all renewal packages:
o A cover letter requesting renewal of the permit and documenting any changes at the facility since
issuance of the last permit. Submit one signed original and two copies.
o The completed EPA Form 2A application (copy attached), signed by the permittee or an Authorized
Representative. Submit one signed original and two copies.
o If an Authorized Representative (such as a consulting engineer or environmental consultant) prepares
the renewal package, written documentation must be provided showing the authority delegated to the
Authorized Representative (see Part II.B.11.b of the existing NPDES permit).
o A narrative description of the sludge management plan for the facility. Describe how sludge (or other
solids) generated during wastewater treatment are handled and disposed. If your facility has no such
plan (or the permitted facility does not generate any solids), explain this in writing. Submit one signed
original and two copies. This information can be included in the cover letter.
Send the completed renewal package to:
Mrs. Dina Sprinkle
NC DENR / DWQ / Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

,, K .
Town of Tarboro
P.O. Box 220 - 500 Main Street
Tarboro, NC 27886-0220
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.tarboro-nc.com
January 25, 2008
Is) WAVIVIADID uh7N
Ronald C. Boone
Surface Water Protection Section
Environmental Specialist
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Re: Compliance Evaluation Inspections of
NPDES Wastewater Permit NC0020605 &
NPDES Stormwater Permit NCG110036
Dear Mr. Boone:
301JJO IYN01938 HD131Y8 NN30
F
800Z 6 Z V
This letter is in response to your compliance evaluation inspection of the Town of
Tarboro's Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Item 3. The catwalk will be repaired as soon as possible.
Item 5. The bar screen was checked prior to this inspection and has been repaired.
Item 6. The basin will be drained and cleaned and curtain reattached or removed
as feasible. The permit does not require nitrogen or phosphorus removal.
Item 8. The aerators are under warranty and the Town is reluctant to modify the
units as this will void the warranty. The Town has several spares.
Item 9. Mr. Whitehead has began keeping logbooks for visitation and operations
and maintenance.
Item 10. An amended DMR will be sent and efforts will be made to prevent further
errors.
Item 11. Mr. Whitehead has now read the permit and understands his
responsibilities. Signature page has been signed by Mr. Whitehead.
Permit will be reviewed annually. There have been no changes to
operations or chemical uses. The Town keeps minimal amounts of
chemicals on site to prevent the possibility of large spills. The Town
continues to seek ways to reduce or eliminate the use of hazardous
chemicals. No spills have occurred in the previous 12 months and this
will be annotated.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions please
contact Hubert Whitehead at [phone].
Sincerely,
4 cvvv)'.� W. P., � �
Samuel W. Noble, Jr.
Town Manager
cc: Hubert Whitehead

o�[JE W ATt;9oG
vj 9
y
O Y
Samuel W. Noble, Jr.
Town Manager
Town of Tarboro
P.O. Box 220
Tarboro, NC 27886-0220
_0
16 January 2008
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspections of
NPDES Wastewater Permit NCO020605 &
NPDES Stormwater Permit NCG110036
Town of Tarboro Wastewater Treatment Plant
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Noble:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
MAILED
1. I, Ron Boone, of the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ), Raleigh Regional Office (RRO), Surface
Water Protection (SWP) section, conducted wastewater and stormwater compliance evaluation inspections
(CEI) of the subject facility on 10 January 2008. The cooperation and assistance of the Operator in
Responsible Charge (ORC), Hubert Whitehead, was greatly appreciated. The results of the CEI are
summarized below and in the attached inspection reports.
2. This is a Grade IV facility and it is located off of US Hwy 64 Bypass, behind the Walmart Super Center in
Tarboro, Edgecombe County, NC. The NCO020605 permit allows the discharge of treated wastewater
into the Tar River from the Tarboro wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and the NCG110036
permit/Certificate of Coverage (COC) allows the discharge of stormwater to the Tar River from
stormwater point source discharges associated with activities classified as treatment works treating
primarily domestic sewage. This section of the Tar River is currently classified as a Class C, nutrient
sensitive water.
3. The plant is as described in the permit. The plant is well operated and maintained and for the most part in
good condition. The grounds were well kept and all equipment was in good condition. Some minor
maintenance work should be done on the catwalk over the grit -separating chamber, as corrosion on the
walk was quite heavy.
4. The flow meters are calibrated annually and they were last calibrated in 10/2007. The composite samplers
are set up to draw flow proportional samples over a 24-hour period and the sample coolers were both
between 1 and 4.4 degrees Celsius. It is noted that the effluent sampler has been moved to a different
location than during the last inspection. During the last inspection the sampler was set up to take samples
before dechlorination and final aeration. This was found to be inadequate because samples must be taken
after all treatment processes. However, because of the layout of the plant near the outfall, it would have
been very difficult to set it up to sample after post aeration. It was therefore agreed to allow the town to
move the sampler so it sampled post dechlorination, but before final aeration.
n �;�a
✓V�a/!
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet h2o.enrstate.nc.us 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Town of Tarboro Wastewater Treatme"
Compliance Evaluation Inspection
. NCO020605 & NCG110036
16 January 2008, Page 2 of 3,
5. The primary clarifiers, trickling filters, and secondary clarifiers all appeared to be in good repair and
operating properly. There were some floating rags that did get trapped at the weirs of the primaries. It
may be better to remove the rags more often and you may want to check the operation of the bar screen to
ensure it is screening sufficiently and being cleaned often enough.
6. The anoxic/reaeration basin still has two issues that were noted during the previous inspection. Firstly,
there is a large clump of cattails growing in the middle of the reaeration zone. These weeds and the sludge
they're growing in should be removed and efforts made to prevent weed growth in the future. Secondly,
the f#fit,.� s thgt., eparate the anoxic and reaeration zone are not sufficiently weighted down as
the �t qat and not effectively serving their intended purpose. The curtains should be weighted
dow�fGl ate the anoxic/reaeration zones in order to help maximize plant efficiency.
7. The chlorination, dechlorination and final aeration systems were all operating normally. No discrepancies
were noted. The effluent looked clear and free of solids, sheen, etc. The effluent appeared to have no
adverse effect on the Tar River.
8. The anaerobic and aerobic digesters, as well as the aerated sludge storage basin, appeared to have no
problems were operating normally. It was noted that the town replaces motors on the storage basin
aerators frequently. It appears that one of the primary reasons for this is the splash of sludge up onto the
motors when the aerators are running. A motor guard of some kind may help reduce the frequency with
which these motors must be replaced.
9. There was no operator's visitation or operations and maintenance logbook at the time of the inspection. It
is noted that Mr. Whitehead just started as the ORC on 1 January 2008, however Mr. Whitehead must still
implement these logbooks as soon as possible.
10. Laboratory records were reviewed and found to be complete. A review of discharge monitoring reports
for the months of April and August 2007 yielded one error: The Fecal Coliform value reported on the
DMR on 14 August 2007 was 14. The actual value on the lab bench sheet was 12. Mr. Whitehead was
asked to correct this mistake and send an amended DMR form to the Division. The lab is state certified
and performs the majority of the permit -required parameters.
11. The stormwater pollution prevention plan required by the NCG110030 permit was reviewed and found to
meet minimum requirements. Qualitative monitoring is being done as required and operators actually
check all the outfalls weekly. It was suggested to Mr. Whitehead that he read the stormwater permit as he
was not familiar with it and was not aware that he was delegated as responsible party. The certification
page had his signature block on it but he had not yet signed it. Furthermore, there were no inspection
records of the secondary containment(s) on the site and no certification that the stormwater discharge
outfalls had been evaluated for the presence on non-stormwater discharges. Finally, there were no annual
reviews of the plan noted. It was also suggested that he review and sign the plan annually and annotate
whether any spills had occurred in the previous twelve months when he performs the annual review.
Please review the permit in detail with Mr. Whitehead to ensure both he and the town fully understand the
requirements of the permit.

Town of Tarboro Wastewater Tn ant NCO020605 & NCG110036
Corqpliance Evaluation Inspectio..,w • 16 January 2008, Page 3 of 3
12. Please reply to this letter in writing within 30 days of receiving it. Your reply should include detailed
corrective actions and implementation schedules for those discrepancies identified in paragraphs 3, 5, 6,
and 8 through 11 above. Should you or your staff have any questions regarding the inspection or this
letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-791-4200.
Sincerely,
--—
Ron none
Environmental Specialist
Surface Water Protection Section
Raleigh Regional Office
Attachments:
1. Inspection Checklist NC0020605
2. Inspection Checklist NCG110036
CC: Central Files w/ atchs
NPDES West Permitting Unit w/ atchs
RRO/SWP Files w/ atchs
Attn: Hubert Whitehead, Operator in Responsible Charge
Town of Tarboro Wastewater Treatment Plant
P.O. Box 220
Rocky Mount, NC 27886-0220
w/Atchs

-9 0
United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Washington, D C 20460
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Com liance inspectionn Re Ort
Approval 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 I ql 2 I Ci 31 N00020605 111 121 08/01/10 117 18i c 191 s1 201 IJ 1=1 L
U U l_J
Remarks
2t111111111111111111III
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1116
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating 131 CIA ----Reserved— _
67I 169 701 IJ I 711 I 721 al 731 11 74 75l I I I I I I I gp
IJ L.1J
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Entry Time/Dats
Permit Effective Date
Tarboro WWTP
01:00 PM 08/01/10
04/12/01
US Hwy 64 Bypass
Exit Tme/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Tarboro NC 27886
04:30 PM 08/01/10
09/09/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Hubert Leon Whitehead//252-641-4253 /
Hubert Leon Whitehead/ORC/252-641-4253/
Name, Address of Responsible OfficiaUTitle/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Samuel W Noble,PO Box 220 Tarboro NC 278860220//252-641-4200/2526 414286
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit N 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)
Names) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Ron Boone RRO WQ//919-791-4200/
GPI//'i/�OO�r
Signaatre Management O A r Date
and6F� xl
�AJge/n�cyy/7Offific/a//,Phhoonnee yNumbers /
r 1 /J
EPA Farm 3560-34ev 9.94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page # 1

0 e
NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type 1
3I N00020605 Itt 12l na 01/10 �17 ta'_'
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additionalsheetsof narrative and checklists as necessary)
See attached letter.
Page # 2

-9
Permit: NC0020605 Owner - Facility: Tarboro W WTP
Inspection Date: 01/10/2008 Inspection Type: compliance Evaluation
Pump Station - Influent
Yes
No
NA
NE
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: Pump station is actually inspected during the collection system inspection.
Bar Screens
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
■
b.Mechanical
❑
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: There did seem to be excessive screenings on the weirs of the primaries
but Mr. Whitehead stated that the bar screen is performing sufficiently.
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?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: There was heavy corrosion on the catwalk over the grit separator chamber
that should be repaired.
Flow Measurement - Influent
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
■
❑
❑
❑
Page # 3

Permit: NCO020605 Owner -Facility: Tarboro WNlfP
Inspection Date: 01/10/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Flow Measurement - Influent
Yes
No
NA NE
Is the flow meter operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
■
0
[I
❑
Comment: Meter last calibrated 10/07.
Influent Sampling
Yes
No
NA NE
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
■
Cl
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
■
Cl
❑
❑
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
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 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?
■
n
❑
❑
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)
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: There did seem to be excessive screenings on the weirs of the primaries
but Mr. Whitehead stated that the bar screen is performing sufficiently.
Trickling Filter
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the filter free of ponding?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of filter's distribution arms?
■
n
❑
❑
Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms?
■
❑
❑
n
Is the filter free of uneven or discolored growth?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth?
■
n
❑
n
Page # 4

-0 •
Permit: NCO020605 Owner -Facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Date: 01i1012008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Trickling Finer Yes No NA HE
Are the filter's distribution arms orifices free of clogging? ■ ❑ Cl ❑
Is the filter free of excessive filter flies, worms or snails? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Aeration Basins
Yes
No
NA
NE
Mode of operation
Ext Air
Type of aeration system
Surface
Is the basin free of dead spots?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
■
❑
n
❑
Are the diffusers operational?
❑
❑
■
❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
■
❑
❑
❑
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 mg/1)
❑
❑
❑
■
Comment:
Nutrient Removal
Yee
No
NA
NE
# Is total nitrogen removal required?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is total phosphorous removal required?
■
❑
❑
❑
Type
8:010glcel
# Is chemical feed required to sustain process?
❑
■
❑
❑
Is nutrient removal process operating property?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: No chemicals used. As in last inspection, the fabric curtain that separate
the anoxic and reaeration zone were not weighted down properly and were partially
afloat. Although this may not effect operation of the unit, the curtains should be
weighted down properly or replaced with concrete walls. Also, there is a large mass of
cattails growing on the surface of the anoxic zone that should be removed. This is also a
repeat finding from the last inspection. Again, although this may not effect operation of
the unit, the weeds should be removed and better controlled in the future.
Secondary Clarifier
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
■
❑
❑
Cl
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?
■
❑
n
❑
Page # 5

G-
Permit: NCO020605
Inspection Date: 01/10/2008
SecondaryClarifier
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?
Owner-Facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/ of the sidewall depth)
Comment:
Disinfection -Gas
Are cylinders secured adequately?
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No. 7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1 oo0 _)
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment: 2,400 Ibs of chlorine is on hand.
De -chlorination
Type of system ?
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
Number of tubes in use?
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
BOOO
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
In ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
Liquid
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Page # 6

0
ft
00
Permit: NCO020605 Owner -Facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Date: 01/10/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
De -chlorination
Yes
No
NA NE
Comment:
Effluent Pipe
Yes
No
NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
■
❑
❑
❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
❑
❑
■
❑
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
❑
■
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Flow meter last calibrated 10/07.
Effluent Sampling
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)?
■
❑
❑
Cl
Comment: Composite sample actually collected before final aeration but DWQ agreed
to allow this as a result of the last inspection, when the sampler was placed before
dechlorination. It has since been moved to collect the sample after dechlorination and
before final aeration.
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and sampling location)? O ❑ ■ ❑
Comment: Facility does not have to conduct stream sampling at this time because of
the Tar Pam Basin Association agreement.
Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE
Are pumps in place? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are pumps operational?
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment:
■❑❑❑
Page # 7

N so
Perrnit: NCO020605 Owner • Facility: TarborowwTP
Inspection Date: 01110/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Aerobic Digester
Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate?
■ Cl 0 0
Is the mixing adequate?
■ ❑ [I n
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
■ n n n
# Is the odor acceptable?
■ ❑ [I n
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
■ ❑ C n
Comment:
Anaerobic Digester
Yes No NA NE
Type of operation:
Fixed cover
Is the capacity adequate?
■ n D n
# Is gas stored on site?
nl ■ n 11
Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers?
■ 0 n ❑
Is the gas burner operational?
n 0 n ■
Is the digester heated?
n O n ■
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
■ Q (1
Comment:
Drying Beds
Yes No NA NE
Is there adequate drying bed space?
0 0 ■ n
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
n n ■ n
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
n ■ n ❑
# Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
■ 0 n n
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
■ 0 n n
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
■ n n n
# is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
n ■ ❑
# Is the sludge land applied?
■ 0 n 0
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
❑ n n ❑
Comment: Drying beds no longer in use except in emergencies and to receive and
drain solids captured by the town's vacuum truck,
Standby Power
Yes No NA NE
Is automatically activated standby power available?
■ ❑ 0 0
Page # 8

n
90
Perrni: N00020605 Owner -Facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Date: 01/10/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested under load?
■
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑
■
❑
❑
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?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Generator controlled by the town's electrical department and runs at a
minimum, once per week.
Laboratory
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
■
❑
❑
❑
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/_ 0.2 degrees?
■
❑
❑
❑
Incubator (DOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
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 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?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment: No special permit conditions.
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
❑
IN
❑
❑
Page # 9

N
so
Permit: NCO020605 Owner -Facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Date: 01/10/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping
Yes No NA NE
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
■
Name of individual perforri Tg the sampling
■
r
Results of analysis and calibration
■
Dates of analysis
■
Name oirperson 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?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 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?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
■ ❑ Cl ❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Mr. Whitehead, who just took the ORC position on 1/1/08, has not yet
implemented an operator's operation and maintenance log or a visitation log. Facility
needs to develop and sumbit this year's annual compliance report. DMRs for April and
August 2007 were reviewed and one discrepancy was noted for Fecal Coliform on the
effluent on 14 Aug 07. The DMR value was 14 and the corresponding value on the
bench sheet was 12. Requested that he submit a corrected DMR.
Page # 10

• Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
rNorth
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
—I
-�
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
August 31, 2007
125
Ms. Angela Boswell
Tar River Regional WWTP Lab
P.O. Box 1180
Rocky Mount, NC 27802-1180
SUBJECT: Additional Parameter Certification
FLUORIDE Std Method 4500 B
FLUORIDE Std Method 4500 D
AMMONIA Std Method 4500NH3 D
TKN Std Method 4500 NH3 B
TKN Std Method 4500 NH3 D
NO2 + NO3 NITROGEN Std Method 4500 NO3 F
RESIDUE TOTAL Std Method 2540 B
RESIDUE SUSPENDED Std Method 2540 D
TEMPERATURE Std Method 2550 B
DISSOLVED OXYGEN Slid Method 4500 O G
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS Std Method P B5
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS Std Method P F
Dear Ms. Boswell,
Deleting Parameters from Certificate
DISSOLVED OXYGEN EPA Method 360.1
FLUORIDE EPA Method 340.1
FLUORIDE EPA Method 340.2
AMMONIA NITROGEN EPA Method 350.3
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN EPA Method 351.3
NO2 + NO3 NITROGEN EPA Method 353.2
NO2 + NO3 NITROGEN EPA Method 353.3
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS EPA Method 365.1
RESIDUE TOTAL EPA Method 160.3
RESIDUE SUSPENDED EPA Method 160.2
TEMPERATURE EPA Method 170.1
Per your request we are deleting the above referenced parameters from your certificate. In addition and in
accordance with the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H .0800, we are pleased to certify your laboratory to perform
additional analytical parameters. These changes to your certification are effective August 30, 2007.
Enclosed is an amended certificate that includes the new parameters. However, the addition of TKN by Std
Method 4500 NH3 D does not appear on your attachment. This is due to it being newly approved and not yet in
our database. As soon as our database is updated, we will issue a new attachment showing this method. The
same requirements applying to your present certification are applicable to the new parameter additions. Please
review this certificate to ensure that your laboratory is certified for all parameters required to properly meet your
certification needs.
Contact us at [phone] if you have questions or need additional information.
Pat Donnelly
Certification Branch Manager
Enclosure
cc Dana Satterwhite Doi
Todd Crawford No"�hCarolina
RRO Natmra/!y
Laboratory Section 1623 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1623 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.dwolab.org Location: 4405 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, NC 27607 Fax [phone]
An Equal OpportunitylAtfirmative Action Employer - 50% Reeyded/10% Post Consumer Paper

Attachment
•
North Carolina Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification
Certified Parameters Listing
Lab Name: Tar River Regional W WTP Lab Certificate Number:
125
Address: P.O. Box 1180 Effective Date:
01/01/2007
Rocky Mount, NC 27802-1180 Expiration Date:
12/31/2007
Date of Last Amendment:
08/30/2007
The above named laboratory, having duty met the requirements of 1 SA NCAC 21-1.0800, is hereby certified for the measurement of the parameters listed below.
CERTIFIED PARAMETERS
INORGANICS
BOD
CBOD Std Method 5210E
COD
Sid Method 5220C
Sid Method 5220D
CHLORIDE
Sid Method 4500 Cl C
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
Sid Method 4500 Cl G
COLIFORM FECAL
Sid Method 9222D (MF)
CONDUCTIVITY
Sid Method 2510E
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Std Method 4500 O G
FLUORIDE
Sid Method 4500 F B
Sid Method 4500 F D
AMMONIA NITROGEN
Sid Method 4500 NH3 D
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
Std Method 4500 NH3 B
NO2 + NO3 NITROGEN
Sid Method 4500 NO3 F
TOTALPHOSPHORUS
Sid Method 4500 P B5
Std Method 4500 P F
pH
Sid Method 4500 H B
RESIDUE SETTLEABLE
Sid Method 2540F
RESIDUE TOTAL
Std Method 2540B
RESIDUE SUSPENDED
Sid Method 2540D
TEMPERATURE
Sid Method 2550B
TURBIDITY
EPA Method 180.1
VECTOR ATTRACTION REDUCTION
Option 1: Reduction in Volatile Solids
METALS
ALUMINUM
EPA Method 200.7
ARSENIC
EPA Method 200.7
CADMIUM
EPA Method 200.7
CALCIUM
EPA Method 200.7
CHROMIUM TOTAL
EPA Method 200.7
COPPER
EPA Method 200.7
IRON
EPA Method 200.7
LEAD
EPA Method 200.7
MAGNESIUM
EPA Method 200.7
MANGANESE
EPA Method 200.7
MOLYBDENUM
EPA Method 200.7
NICKEL
EPA Method 200.7
SELENIUM
EPA Method 200.7
SILVER
EPA Method 200.7
ZINC
EPA Method 200.7
POTASSIUM
EPA Method 200.7
SODIUM
EPA Method 200.7
This certifiw6on requims maintance of an acceptable quality assurance program, use of approved methodology, and satisfactory performance on evaluation samples. Laboratories are
subject to civil penalfies and/or decerbficabon for infractions as set forth in 1 SA NCAC 21-1.0807.

a
00 00
Town of Tarboro
UT�
I17 60
P.O. Box 220 - 500 Main Street
�7h
Tarboro, NC 27886-0220
ce
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.tarboro-nc.com
January 22, 2007
CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Charles Wakild, P.E.
Surface Water Protection Section
Raleigh Regional Supervisor
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Re: NOV-2007-PC-0011
Dear Mr. Wakild:
�f
b
In response to the Notice of Violation dated 9 January 2007, the Town will take
action to correct the deficiencies as follows:
3a. Trickling filter nozzles have been cleaned and regular maintenance will be
performed.
3b. The fabric curtain will be reattached to weights by February 28, 2007. It should
be noted that this is a pilot basin and the Town is not required to have nutrient
removal.
3c. 1) The sampler tube has been cleaned and will be cleaned on a regular basis.
3c. 2) The sampler tube and sampler will be moved to the top of the cascade aerator.
The platform and conduit have been installed and wiring should be completed
shortly. The sampler will be in place by January 31, 2007.
7a. Location map will be added. I
I r� (( II k` J.
7b. No action required. 0",.k1vQ M" rf�',ni5 a�ryerwrQ PFA4ri VUe(6 min^
7c. There have been no significant spills. A log will be maintained.
7d. Regular weekly inspections will now be logged. - Lam (. v �s
7e. All chemicals are currently stored in minimal amounts. No reduction is possible
at this time. All chemicals are stored in areas that drain to the sanitary sewer. A
secondary containment/i\sp/ro/vided. , tj L, 0
w3
4�,�L

N
N
7ff,
7g.
7h.
7i.
7j.
7k.
Will provide inspection logs for secondary containment. A lock has been
installed on diesel tank. UeL
No action required.
No action required. sPRP
No action required.)PN t vN
Will begin refresher training every six months and provide log.
There have been no amendments. The SP3 has functioned well for the Town.
We have had no significant spills at the plant. The plan will incorporate the
changes indicated in this letter. Nu 15 L. b¢ ,,.,,4
71. The plant is inspected daily by the operators. p,., , 4.. 6
7m. The Town will provide the inspections and documentations noted. The SP3 has
been aunroved by the State. All previous inspections have found the nlan
that the vrorzrarn was
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions please
contact Lynwood Sessoms at [phone].
war T. AMT
cc: Lynwood Sessoms
0.hnML.l.{,y
Sincerely,
W /,Vl b.,
amuel W. ble,.lr.
Town Manager
te0
`;1 n 2/8/07
41
Ids` 1L.=

N N

�pF W ATFgQ Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> 1
O `C Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
January 12, 2007
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED `700la 17(oo oop 1 q 282- 6)9 f L
Mr. Samuel W. Noble
Town Manager
Town of Tarboro
P.O. Box 220
Tarboro, NC, North Carolina 27886-0220
Subject: NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Effluent Toxicity Testing
NPDES Permit No. NCO020605
Tarboro WWI?
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Noble:
This is to inform you that a review of your toxicity self -monitoring report form for the month of October 2006
indicates a violation of the toxicity limitation specified in your NPDES Permit.
You should take whatever remedial actions are necessary to eliminate the conditions causing the effluent toxicity
violation(s). Your efforts may include conducting a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE), a site -specific study designed
to identify the causative agents of effluent toxicity, isolate the sources of toxicity, evaluate the effectiveness of toxicity
control options, and confirm reductions in effluent toxicity. Please be aware that North Carolina General Statutes provide
for assessment of civil penalties for violations of NPDES permit limitations and requirements.
The reverse side of this Notice contains important information concerning your Whole Effluent Toxicity
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. Please note appropriate mailing addresses for submitting your Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs) and Aquatic Toxicity (AT) Test Forms. We encourage you to review this information; if it
would be helpful to discuss this situation or possible solutions to resolve effluent toxicity noncompliance, please contact
Mr. John Giorgino with this office at [phone].
Sincerely,
IC
verton
Chief, Environmental Sciences Section
cc: Chuck Wakild/Raleigh Regional Office
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Central Files
N OR
nhCarolina
fra!!y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet aww.esb.encstate.nc.us 4401 Reedy Creek Rd. Raleigh, NC 27607 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Past Consumer Paper

WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY MONITORING AND REPORTING INFORMATION
➢ The following items are provided in an effort to assist you with identifying critical and sometimes overlooked toxicity testing and
reporting information. Please take time to review this information. The items below do not address or include all the toxicity testing
and reporting requirements contained in Your NPDES permit. If you should have any questions about your toxicity testing
requirement, please contact Mr. Kevin Bowden with the Aquatic Toxicology Unit at [phone] or another Unit representative at the
same number.
➢ The permittee is responsible for ensuring that toxicity testing is conducted according to the permit requirement and that toxicity report
forms are appropriately filed.
➢ The reporting of whole effluent toxicity testing data is a dual requirement. All toxicity test results must be entered (with the appropriate
parameter code) on your monthly Discharge Monitoring Report which is submitted to:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
IN ADDITION
Toxicity test data (original "AT' form) must be submitted to the following address:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
➢ Toxicity test results shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting
ep riod (eg, January test result is due by the end of February).
➢ Toxicity test condition language contained in your NPDES permit may require use of multiple concentration toxicity testing upon failure
of any single quarterly toxicity test. If the initial pass/fail test fails or if the chronic value is lower than the permit limit, then at least two
multiple concentration toxicity tests (one per month) will be conducted over the following two months. As many analyses as can be
completed will be accepted. If your NPDES permit does not require use of multiple concentration toxicity testing upon failure of any
single quarterly test, you may choose to conduct either single concentration toxicity testing or multiple concentration toxicity testing per
the Division's WET enforcement initiatives effective July 1, 1999. Follow-up multiple concentration toxicity testing will influence the
Division's enforcement response.
➢ Toxicity testing months are specified by the NPDES Permit, except for NPDES Permits which contain episodic toxicity monitoring
requirements (eg, if the testing months specified in your NPDES permit are March, June, September, and December, then toxicity testing
must be conducted during these months).
➢ If your NPDES Permit specifies episodic monitoring and your facility does not have a discharge from January I -June 30, then you must
provide written notification to the Environmental Sciences Section by June 30 that a discharge did not occur during the first six months
of the calendar year.
➢ If you receive notification from yourcontract laboratory that a test was invalidated, you should immediately notify the Environmental
Sciences Section at [phone] and provide written documentation indicating why the test was invalidated and the date when
follow-up testing will occur.
➢ If your facility is required to conduct toxicity testing during a month in which no discharge occurs, you should complete the information
block located at the top of the AT form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county and the month/year of the
subject report. You should also write "No Flow" on the AT form, sign the form and submit following normal procedures.
➢ The Aquatic Toxicity Test forms shall be signed by the facility's Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) except for facilities which have
not received a facility classification. In these cases, a duly authorized facility representative must sign the AT form. The AT form must
also be signed by the performing lab supervisor.
➢ To determine if your AT test fours were received on time by the Division of Water Quality, you may consider submitting your toxicity
test results certified mail return receipt requested to the Environmental Sciences Section.

W ArF9
0
fMichael F. Easley, Governor
9 January 2007
Mr. Samuel W. Noble, Jr., Town Manager
Town of Tarboro
P.O. Box 220
Tarboro, NC 27886-0220
Dear Mr. Noble:
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
7006-0810-0002-6048-1405
Subject: Notice of Violation (NOV), NOV-2007-PC-0011,
Resulting from Compliance Evaluation Inspections
at the Tarboro Wastewater Treatment Plant for
NPDES Wastewater Permit NCO020605 and
NPDES Stormwater Permit NCG1 10036,
Edgecombe County
On 22 December 2006, Ron Boone, of the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ), Raleigh
Regional Office (RRO), conducted an annual compliance evaluation inspection (CEI) at the
Tarboro Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) for both of the subject permits. The assistance
and cooperation of Mr. Julius Sessoms, plant Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC), was
helpful and appreciated. Inspection reports are attached for your records. Inspection findings are
listed below.
2. This plant discharges to the Tar River, this segment of which is classified as a class C, nutrient
sensitive water (NSW) in the Tar Pamlico river basin. The plant is as described in the permit.
3. All plant components were inspected. In general the plant was clean and well maintained. There
were some issues of concern however, as noted below:
a. About 15 of the trickling filter's nozzles were clogged. Mr. Sessoms stated that the nozzles
are cleaned once per week and he is well aware of the importance of keeping the nozzles
cleared and operational. This should not become a problem as long as this maintenance
regime is sustained.
b. The fabric curtains that separate the anoxic zone from the reaeration zone in the first aeration
basin need to be weighted down because they were partially afloat at the time of the CEI.
You may consider installing permanent concrete walls in this tank to replace the fabric
curtains and avoid the maintenance headaches that they can create.
c. The influent and effluent samplers were inspected. Both were within the required
temperature range however there were a few issues with the effluent sampler as listed below:
No°° Caro i
�t lMr
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone [phone] Customer Service
Intemet h2o.enr.state.nc.us 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycledl10% Post Consumer Paper

Tarboro Wastewater Treatment Plant, Comp luation Inspections 01/09/2007, Page 2 of 3
NCO020605 & NCG110036 go I
1. The sample tube on the effluent sampler appeared quite dirty. You should decrease the
interval at which the sample tube is maintained to ensure you continue to receive good
representative samples.
2. It was noted that the effluent sampler actually takes samples at the discharge end of the
southern most chlorine contact chamber, before dechlorination and the cascade aerator.
However, your permit, as well as 15A NCAC 02B.0503(12), requires effluent samples to
be taken "...following all treatment processes from a water pollution control facility...".
This is a serious concern for DWQ as dechlorination chemicals have a significant oxygen
demand and thus raise the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in the dechlorinated water.
The effluent sampler must be relocated in order to take samples after dechlorination.
4. The discharge from the plant was observed. No excessive foam, solids or other pollutant
indicators were noted. The right-of-way to the outfall is well maintained.
5. All plant records were reviewed including the operator's visitation log, operations and
maintenance log, laboratory calibration records, and chains of custody, etc. All were up to date
and compliant.
6. January and June 2006 DMRs were reviewed and compared to laboratory bench sheets and
reports. No inconsistencies were noted.
7. The stormwater program was also reviewed. There was a stormwater pollution prevention plan
(SP3) on site but the following discrepancies were noted:
a. Both the site map and the general location map need to be refined to better meet the
requirements of the permit.
b. Narrative descriptions of storage practices, loading/unloading activities, etc., were minimal.
c. There was no list of significant spills over the past three years.
d. There was no certification that stormwater outfalls have been evaluated for the presence of
non-stormwater discharges.
e. There was no feasibility study.
f. There were no secondary containment inspection records and the one secondary containment
on site (diesel tank for generator) had a drain valve that was not properly secured with a
locking mechanism.
g. The best management practices (BMP) summary was minimal.
h. The spill prevention and response plan (SPRP) was minimal.
i. The preventative maintenance and good housekeeping program was minimal.
j. There was essentially no employee training program and no records of employee training.
k. There were no amendments to, or annual reviews of the SP3.
1. There was no facility inspection program and no records of facility inspections.
in. The SP3 had not been fully developed and implemented.
We would like to note that Mr. Hubert Whitehead (backup ORC) has been conducting qualitative
monitoring as required by the permit. All records of qualitative monitoring that were reviewed
during the CEI were up to date and satisfactory. Most of the 12 stormwater discharge outfalls

Tarboro Wastewater Treatment Plan ce Evaluation Inspections 01/09/2007, Page 3 of 3
NC0020695 & NCG 110036 own ft
(SDO) were identified and inspected. All that were inspected were clean with no indication of
non-stormwater discharges and/or pollutants. Please bear in mind the importance of the
stormwater permit. The plant easily becomes a serious pollution threat in the unfortunate event
of spills and/or mishaps. The SP3, as required by the permit, is intended to curb that threat to a
tolerable level.
8. Please bear in mind that the findings outlined above constitute violations of North Carolina
General Statute (NCGS) 143-215.1 et seq. and could result in the assessment of civil penalties in
an amount of up to $25,000 per day per violation. Please provide a response to all findings
outlined above. Your response should include narratives for each item as well as a tentative
schedule for you to achieve full compliance.
9. If you or your staff has any questions regarding the inspection or this letter, please feel free to
call Mr. Boone for assistance at 919-791-4200.
cc: Central Files
RRO/SWP Files
Julius Sessoms
Town of Tarboro
P.O. Box 220
Tarboro, NC 27886-0220
Attachments:
1. Final Inspection Checklist
Sincerely,
Nl�kl(u4w
Charles Wakild, P.E.
Surface Water Protection Section
Raleigh Regional Supervisor

M
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.0 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection ReDort
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCs)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/molday Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 N 2 I .I 31 NCO020605 111 121gl 201
06/12/22 117 181c 191 �I
LJ lJ l.J
Remarks
21111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111116
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating 81 OP, ---Reserved-- —
67 169 70I I 711 ty I 721 al 73� 74 75I I I I I I I 180
t— —J ` LJ
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)
09:30 AM 06/12/22
04/12/01
Tarboro WWTP
Exk Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
US Hwy 64 Bypass
Tarboro NC 27886
12:00 PM 06/12/22
09/09/30
Name(s) of Onsite Repressntative(syTitles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Samuel W NOble,PO Box 220 Tarboro NC 278860220//252-641-4200/2526414n290 tetl
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 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 Find in/Comments Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Names) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Ron Bolarlpl., RRO WO//919-791-4200/
6 f/cy'sb
Signature of went O A Reviewer - i Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
/ S o7
Z
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9.94) Previous edition are obsolete.
Page # 1

I
NPDES yr/mo(day
NCO020605 I11 121
06/12/22 117
Inspection Type
18' C
ft
(Cont.)
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The facility did well except for the placement of the effluent sampler and the stormwater program. The
effluent sampler MUST be moved to collect composite samples after dechlorination. Technically, it should
also be moved to collect after final aeration, but because of the difficulty involved in doing so and because it
only adds more DO (increasing water quality) and there is very little chance of water degradation during final
aeration, this shortcoming is being excused.
The stormwater program has not been fully developed and implemented. Refer to the inspection summary
letter (NOV) for more details.
Page # 2

❑
❑
❑
■
Lei!s uo algel!ene i!wjad S30dN luanno a4110 Adoo a sl
❑
❑
❑
■
4wileog!ssep Al!Roe1 e41 ue4l jeleaA jo ssel apej6 ouo is popiao jolejado dnm3eq eql sl
❑
CJ
❑
■
i uogeogmselo Agjoel eql ue41 ja4614 io of lenbe epej6 Is pa9pao ONO e43 si
❑
��
❑
■
Lluewno pue algel!ene Bol uogel!sm ONO e41 91
❑
tJ
❑
■
68!4s pea uo jolejedo pegliyeo a 4l!m L/qZ elejedo Aogl oO (moll peu!wied (]Ow B < jo = si Ai!I!oe; 9411)
❑
Cl
❑
■
LONIO pue siesn of liodej eoueildwoo lenuue sl! peu!wgns AVI!oel a41 seH
❑
❑
❑
■
4sialoweied 1!uued lie apnloui Aeql op :eleldwoo sayy(] 9jV
■
s000 pauodsuejl
■
sasAleue Buiwoyad uosied 10 aweN
■
sisAleue 10 sale(]
■
uo!lejq!leo pue sisAleue 10 sllnse8
■
6ui!dwes a4l 6uiuuoped lenp!AIpu110 eweN
■
Bui!dwes 10 uo!leool pue sewil 'sole(]
❑
❑
❑
■
Leleldwoo Apolsno-10-uie4o e4i sl
❑
❑
❑
■
4s2dW(] uo poliodej elep 411m luals!suoo slinsei leoilA!eue ejV
❑
❑
❑
■
L(sieeA 9 paimbai Bei -qel) sjeeA ¢ jol pouieluiew spmej Ile 9jV
❑
❑
❑
■
quaim pue eleldwoo'a!gepene AI!peaJ uoilewjolui paimbei Ile s!
0
❑
❑
■
61!uuad aql Aq peiinbei se peuieluiew pue ldaN spjoow aJV
3N
VN
ON
„A
Ul som pJO:lev
'suolllpuoo 11wjad leloads oN :IUBW WOO
❑
Cl
❑
■
Lumpadsui jot seaie lie 01 sseooe polumb joloedsui e4i sl
❑
CI
❑
■
Loilqnd IweueB e41 of palouisei ails lueld e4l of ssaooe sl
❑
CI
■
❑
apied eql jot suoplpuoo lepeds Aue eje47 eiv #
Cl
❑
❑
■
Luo l!uwed eqj ui peqsep se All!!oel e4i sl
❑
■
❑
❑ Luogeoildde meu a peu!wgns oeu!uned e4) seH •(ssel jo s4luow 9 ui sendxo 1!wjed lueseid 94111)
314
teA 4lLUJed
VIM
ON
:1ueW woo
Lopeoildde eje legl Je410 pue 196pnp
0
❑
❑
■ a6pnlS'O(]'Hd 'sp!IoS elgeelueS'1i10W 'SSIW :xe jo1'sioloweied loiluoo sseowd ezAleue A!1!oe1 eyl seo(]
111111
■ L6uidee>lesno4 slgeldaooe 41!m ueelo AllejauaB lueld aqi sl
314
VN
oN
saA BJUBU84ulo !1 +8 SUol3BJe Q
uollenleA3 eouelldwoo :edAl uoiioadsuj
d1MM owgiel :A1!IPEe - iaumo
9o0UZZ2l :ale(] 1
909OZOODN :i!wJad
09 N

90 00
Permit: NC0020605 Owner -Facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Date: 12/22/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Kee ft
Yes No NA NE
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Effluent Pipe
Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall property maintained?
0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Influent
Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
M ❑ ❑ ❑
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 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?
❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Influent meter used for reporting.
Aerobic Digester
Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate?
M ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the mixing adequate?
M ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
M ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is the odor acceptable?
M ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Anaerobic Digester
Yes No NA NE
Type of operation:
Fixed cover
Is the capacity adequate?
M ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is gas stored on site?
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
Page # 4

N
60
Permlt: NCO020605
Inspection Date: 12rM20M
Anaerobic Digester
Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers?
Is the gas burner operational?
Is the digester heated?
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
Owner - Facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
Comment: Digester is not heated.
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?
Comment: Drying beds no longer used except under special or emergency conditions.
Filtrate is directed to the head of the plant. Contractors periodically remove sludge.
Bar Screens
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
Comment:
Grit Removal
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
Yes No NA NE
O ❑ ❑ ■
❑ ❑ O ■
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
■ Cl ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
■❑❑O
Cl Cl ■ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
■❑❑❑
O O ■ ❑
Yes No NA NE
v� u� u♦ u� .
721
Page # 5

L'I
ft
Permit: NC0020605 Owner -Facility: Tarboro VJWTP
Inspection Date: 12/222006 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Grit Removal Yes No NA NE
IbMechanical ■
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
■ 0 ❑ ❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
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 clarifier?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are weirs level?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
■ ❑ 0 ❑
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?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
■ Cl ❑ ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/. of the sidewall depth)
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Secondary 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 clarifier?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are weirs level?
■ ❑ ❑ Cl
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)?
■ ❑ Cl ❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
■ Cl ❑ ❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately''/. of the sidewall depth)
■ ❑ Cl ❑
Page # 6

N 60
0
Permit: NCO020605 Owner - Facility: Tarboro W WTP
Inspection Date: 12/22/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier
Yes
No
NA
NE
Comment:
Trickling Filter
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the filter free of ponding?
■
D
❑
❑
Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of filter's distribution arms?
■
D
❑
❑
Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms?
■
D
❑
❑
Is the filter free of uneven or discolored growth?
■
0
❑
D
Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth?
■
0
❑
D
Are the filter's distribution arms orifices free of clogging?
D
■
❑
D
Is the filter free of excessive filter flies, worms or snails?
■
0
❑
D
Comment: About 15 nozzles were clogged. Mr. Sessoms stated that nozzles are
cleaned weekly. Maintenance regime seems to be enough to keep the filters effective.
Aeration Basins
Yes
No
NA
NE
Mode of operation
Ext. Air
Type of aeration system
Diffused
Is the basin free of dead spots?
■
D
Cl
D
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
■
0
0
D
Are the diffusers operational?
■
0
D
0
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
■
0
I.]
D
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
■
D
0
0
Is the DO level acceptable?
■
Cl
❑
D
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
■
0
D
D
Comment:
Nutrient Removal
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is total nitrogen removal required?
■
❑
❑
❑
# Is total phosphorous removal required?
■
❑
❑
❑
Type
Biological
# Is chemical feed required to sustain process?
❑
■
❑
❑
Is nutrient removal process operating properly?
000
❑
Comment: Curtains in first aeration tank that separate the anoxic zone from the
reaeration zone need to be reset. They were partially afloat at the time of the inspection.
Disinfection -Gas
Yes
No
NA
NE
Page # 7

00
Permit: NCO020605
Inspection Date: 12/22/2006
Disinfection -Gas
Are cylinders secured adequately?
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
Is there chlorine residual plior to de -chlorination?
Owner - facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No. 7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000 _)
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment: Only about 900 Ibs on site at time of CEI.
Dechlorination
Type of system ?
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
Comment: Dechlorination system uses liquid Sodium Metabisulfite. There are no
cylinders.
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
Number of tubes in use?
Comment: Dechlorination system uses liquid Sodium Metabisulfite. There are no
tablets or tube dechlorinators.
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
Is the generator tested under load?
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
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?
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
MOOO
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ 0
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Yes No NA NE
Liquid
Yes No NA NE
■❑❑❑
■❑❑❑
■❑❑❑
Page u 8

N 40
Permit: NCO020605 owner - Facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Date: 12/22/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
M
0
0
0
Comment: Generator is maintained by the city's electrical department. They were not
available during the inspection to run the generator.
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are pumps in place?
■
Cl
0
0
Are pumps operational?
■
0
17
0
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
0
■
��
0
Comment: There are limited spare parts/supplies on site. There are three pumps,
lead -lag -lag, to provide redundancy. According to ORC, a broken pump can be repaired
within 24 hours, regardless of the malfunction.
Lagoons
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of lagoons?
Aerated
# Number of lagoons in operation at time of visit?
Are lagoons operated in?
# Is a re -circulation line present?
0
0
IN
0
Is lagoon free of excessive floating materials?
■
0
0
0
# Are baffles between ponds or effluent baffles adjustable?
0
0
in
0
Are dike slopes clear of woody vegetation?
■
0
0
0
Are weeds controlled around the edge of the lagoon?
■
0
❑
0
Are dikes free of seepage?
■
0
0
0
Are dikes free of erosion?
■
0
0
0
Are dikes free of burrowing animals?
■
0
0
0
# Has the sludge blanket in the lagoon (s) been measured periodically in multiple locations?
0
0
in
0
# If excessive algae is present, has barley straw been used to help control the growth?
0
0
IN
0
Is the lagoon surface free of weeds?
■
0
C]
0
Is the lagoon free of short circuiting?
■
0
0
0
Comment: It is a sludge holding lagoon, not a wastewater lagoon.
Laboratory
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
■
0
0
0
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
■
0
0]
0
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
■
0
Cl
0
Page # 9

00
ft
Permit: NCO020605
Inspection Date: 1222/2006
Owner -Facility: Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Laboratory
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/_ 0.2 degrees?
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/_ 1.0 degrees?
Comment:
Influent Sampling
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected above side streams?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
Comment:
Effluent Sampling
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Is proper volume collected?
Is the tubing clean?
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)?
Comment: Sample tubing was quite dirty. Need to decrease intervals between
cleanings. The sampler is sampling at the effluent end of the chlorine contact chamber,
before dechlorination and final aeration. The permit requires sampling to be performed
after all treatment units. Facility does take effluent grab samples at bottom of the
cascade aerator (i.e. after all treatment processes), however the composite sampler
does not. The Sodium Metabisulfite used for dechlorination has an oxygen demand by
itself. Therefore the facility is not getting a representative sample. It is noted that effluent
D.O.s are historically above the permit limit of 5.0 mg/I, usually in the 7 to 11 mg/I range.
But the dechlorination process is introducing an oxygen demand which should be
reflected in the facilities BOD testing. We do NOT require the sampler to be moved to
post -final aeration, but it must be placed so as to collect samples post-dechlorination.
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■❑❑❑
■❑❑❑
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■❑❑❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■❑❑❑
■❑❑❑
■❑❑❑
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■❑❑❑
■❑❑❑
❑■❑❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Upstream / Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and sampling location)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Page # 10

• Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
April 21, 2006
Mr. Lynwood Sessoms
WWTP Supervisor
Town of Tarboro
P.O. Box 220
Tarboro, NC 27886-0220
Subject: Pretreatment Compliance Inspection and PAR Review
Program: Town of Tarboro
Edgecombe County
NPDES Number NCO020605
Dear Mr. Sessoms:
On April 18, 2006 Christopher Wu of the Raleigh Regional Office performed a pretreatment
compliance inspection at the Town of Tarboro's Wastewater Treatment Plant with your
assistance. The inspection report is attached. Your help was greatly appreciated as it facilitated
the inspection process. The significant findings were as follows:
There are currently 4 Significant Industrial Users (SIU) discharging to the POTW, 1 of
which is a Categorical Industrial User (CM. In 2005, 1 SIU, Mayo Knitting Mill, was
found to be in Significant Non -Compliance (SNC) for TSS violations for both semi-
annual monitoring periods of last year. Due to personnel and operational changes, the
industry was experiencing problems with elevated solids. Mayo Knitting Mill, however,
was not placed under a consent order as it now circulates its EQ basin more frequently to
prevent the excess build-up of solids. Mayo's ]UP is also due for a renewal (expires
December 31, 2006).
2. Glenoit, a textile SIU, has been experiencing a reduction in production as most of its
work is outsourced. At one point in 2005, the industry was partially shut down. It is
possible that the SIU will cease operations completely.
3. The Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) data are hand-written on a spreadsheet. It was
suggested that the data be entered into a simple database so that information could be
viewed, queried, and analyzed on a computer.
4. The Town of Tarboro completes all of the sampling for its SIU's. The SIU's, therefore,
do not notify the POTW under violation conditions. Mr. Sessoms informs the SIU's of
any violations in a monthly letter of which he keeps a copy himself for documentation.
5. The Town of Tarboro contracts Environment One to conduct its metals analyses.
✓VIJ2*0 !
NC DWQ/PERCS Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Intamet h2o.enrstate.naus�Pmtreat/index.html 3800 Barret Drive Raleigh, NC 27609
An Equal Opporhrnity/Atfimwtive Action Employer— 50% Recycledll0%Post Consumer Paper
Phone (919) 57I-4700 Customer Service
FAX [phone]

Mr. Lynwood Sessor. •
Page 2 of 2
04/21 /06
6. Mr. Sessoms is keeping all of the files and data in a well organized fashioned. Such
order eased the file review process.
An industry inspection of Sara Lee was conducted with the assistance of Mr. John
Chapman, Environmental Coordinator/Pretreatment Supervisor of the industry.
8. The Central and Regional Offices have reviewed the Pretreatment Annual Report (PAR)
covering January through December 2005. This PAR was received on March 2, 2006.
The initial PAR was missing its program information, but during the inspection, however,
you provided documentation of its existence. The PAR, therefore, is considered
complete and satisfies the requirements of 15A NCAC 2H .0908(b) and the
Comprehensive Guidance for North Carolina Pretreatment Programs.
You are doing an excellent job of meeting the pretreatment program goals for the Town of
Tarboro.
Thank you for your continued support of the Pretreatment Program. If you have any questions or
comments, please contact Christopher Wu at [phone] [email: Chris.Wu(a)ncmaiLnetl.
Sincerely,
Christoph& Wu v\
Environmental Specialist
Cc: Deborah Gore, DWQ — PERCS Unit
Chris Wu — RRO
Central Files

r NO I ( OLINA DIVISION OF WA' ( LITY
PRETREATMENT COMPLIANCE INSPECTION (PCI) REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION [Complete Prior To PCI• Review Program Info Database Sheet(s)l
1. Control Authority (POTW) Name: Town of Tarboro
2. Control Authority Representative(s): Lynwood Sessoms
3. Title(s): WWTP Supervisor
4. Last Inspection Date: 4/28/2005 Inspection Type (Circle One): M PCI ❑ Audit
5. Has Program Completed All Requirements from the Previous Inspection or Program Info Sheet(s)? M Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
6. Is POTW under an Order That Includes Pretreatment Conditions? ❑ Yes M No
Order Type and Number: Are Milestone Dates Being Met? ❑ Yes ❑ No M N/A
PCS CODING
Trans.Code Main Program Permit Number MM/DD/YY Inspec.Type Inspector
I N I INIr.Io to 12 I 16 1n 15 I 1041IS I061 LPL Ls-i
Fac. Type
(FA�)
(DTIA) (1YPl)
(!,,;JP)
7. Current Number Of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)?
0 SILTS
8. Current Number Of Categorical Industrial Users CIUs ?
0
CIUS
9. Number of SNs Not Inspected B POTW in the Last Calendar Year?
0
10. Number of SIUs Not Sampled B POTW in the Last Calendar Year?
0
11. Enter the Hi Number of 9 or 10
�0
NOIN
12. Number of SNs With No RIP, or With an Expired IUP
0
NOCM
13. Number of SIUs in SNC for Either Reporting or Limits Violations During Either of the Last 2
Semi -Annual Periods Total Number of SNs in SNC
IF 1
PSNC
14. Number of SIUs in SNC For Reporting DuringEither of the Last 2 Semi -Annual Periods
�0
MSNC
15. Number of SNs In SNC For Limits Violations DuringEither of the Last 2 Semi -Annual Periods
1
SNPS
16. Number of SNs In SNC For Both Reporting and Limits Violations During Either of the Last 2
Semi-annual Periods
POTW INTERVIEW
17. Since the Last PCI, has the POTW had any POTW Permit Limits Violations? M Yes ❑ No
If Yes, What are the Parameters and How are these Problems Being Addressed? DO - October 2005: calibration
error
18. Since the Last PCI, has the POTW had any Problems Related to an Industrial ❑ Yes M No
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 during either of the Last 2 Semi- [SNC
NC for Limits: Mayo Knitting Mill, TSS
Annual Periods? Have any Industries in SNC (During Either of the Last for Reporting: None
2 Semi -Annual Periods) Not Been Published for Public Notice? ot Published: None
(May refer to PAR if Excessive SNs in SNC)
20. Which Industries are on Compliance Schedules or Orders? For all SNs on7Which
Order, Has a Signed Copy of the Order been sent to the Division? None
21. Are Any Permits Or Civil Penalties Currently Under Adjudication? If Yes, ❑ Yes M No
Ones?
Filename: Tarboro PCI
Revised: 6/30198
Page I

PRETREATMENT PRnC.RAM ......:M ___ _ _ S REVIEW - Please review POTW files at... _,,.tmlete the followina: ` 4
Program Element
Date of Last Approval
Date Neat Due, If Applicable
Headworks Analysis (IIWA)
12/11/2003
11/01/2008
Industrial Waste Survey (IWS)
11/22/2004
12/01/2003
Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO)
06/24/2003
Enforcement Response Plan (ERP)
05/23/1994
Long Term Monitoring Plan (LIMP)
03/05/1998
LTMP FILE REVIEW:
22. Is the LTMP Monitoring Being Conducted at Appropriate Locations and Frequencies? ® Yes ❑ No
23. Should any Pollutants of Concern be Eliminated from or Added to the LTMP? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, which ones? Eliminated: Added:
24. Are Correct Detection Levels being used for all LTMP Monitoring? ® Yes ❑ No
25. Is the LTMP Data Maintained in a Table or Equivalent? ® Yes ❑ No Is the Table Adequate? ® Yes ❑ No
T TTQT TAT ITCVO PV ONATT ITT TPI PIT V 12VVTVW(I II'P FIT F RFVIFWC OR 1 FIT F RFVTFW ANT) 1 TIT TNSPFCTTON)
26. User Name
1. Mayo Knitting Mill
2.
3.
27. IUP Number
MOT003
111
28. Does File Contain Current Permit?
®Yes ❑ No ]F[:]
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
29. Permit Expiration Date
12 / 31 ' 06
30. Categorical Standard Applied I.E. 40 CFR, Etc. Or N/A
31. Does File Contain Permit Application Completed Within One Year Prior
to Permit Issue Date?
®Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Does File Contain an Inspection Completed Within Last Calendar Year?
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
33. a. Does the File Contain a Slug Control Plan?
b. If No, is One Needed? See Inspection Form from POTW
a. ®Yes ❑No
b. ❑❑ Yes No
a. ❑Yes []No
b. ❑Yes ❑No
a. ❑Yes ❑No
b. ❑Yes ❑No
34. For 40 CFR 413 and 433 TTO Certifiers, Does File Contain a Toxic
Organic Management Plan TOMP ?
❑Yes❑No®N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
35. a. Does File Contain Original Permit Review Letter from the Division?
b. All Issues Resolved?
a. ®Yes ❑No
b.❑YesONO®N/A I
a. ❑Yes ❑No
b.0YesONo0N/A
a. []Yes []No
b.DYes[3No0N/A
36. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did the POTW Complete
its Sampling as Required by IUP?
®Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑ No
37. Does File Contain POTW Sampling Chain -Of -Custodies?
®Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑ No
38. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did the SIU Complete its
Sampling as Required by rUP?
❑Yes❑No®N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
39. Does Sampling Indicate Flow or Production?
I ❑Yes❑No®N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
40. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period,, Did the POTW Identify
All Non -Compliance from Both POTW and SIU Sampling?
®Yes No
❑Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑ No
41. a. Was the POTW Notified by SIU (Within 24 Hours) of All Self-
Monitoring Violations?
b. Did Industry Resaniple Within 30 Days?
a.DYesONo®N/A
b.OYesONoON/A
a.OYesONo0N/A
b.OYes0NOON/A
a.DYesONoON/A
b.OYes0No0N/A
42. Was the SIU Promptly Notified of Any Violations Per ERP)?
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
43. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Was the SIU in SNC?
® Yes ❑
No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No '
44. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Was Enforcement Taken
as Specified in the POTWs ERP?
❑Yes®No❑N'.A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
45. Does the File Contain Penalty Assessment Notices?
❑Yes❑No®N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
46. Dces The File Contain Proof Of Penalty Collection?
❑Yes❑No®N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N.'A
47. a. Does the File Contain Any Current Enforcement Orders?
b. Is SIU in Compliance with Order9
a.OvespNo®NiA
b.OYesONo®NiA
a.DYes0No0N/A
b.0YesON00N'A
a.0YesONo0N/A
b.pYesONoON/A
48. Did the POTW Representative Have Difficulty in Obtaining Any of This
Requested Information For You?
❑Yes ®No
❑Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑ No
Filename: Tarboro PCI Page 2
Revised: 6/30198

' FILE REVIEW COMMENTS:
The files were well organized.
•
PCI SUMMARY AND COMMENTS:
PCI Comments: Long Tenn Monitoring Plan data are written down on paper - for efficiency purposes, the data could be entered into a
database.
Requirements:
Recommendations:
NOD: ❑ Yes M No
NOV: ❑ Yes M No
QNCR: ❑ Yes M No
POTW Ratine:
Satisfactory M Marginal ❑ UnSatisfactory ❑
PCI COMPLETED BY: Christopher Wu DATE: 04/18/2006
INDUSTRY INSPECTION PCS CODING:
Trans.Code - Main Program Pemut Number MM/DD/YY Inspec.Type Inspector Fac. Type
LNJI N I( I O I O 12 10 16 10 15 I 04 118 1 06I L_P _f LSJ L-LJ
(DTIA) (TYPI) (INSP) FACC)
1. Industry Inspected: Sara Lee
2. Industry Address: 110 Sara Lee Road Tarboro, NC 27886
3. Type of Industry/Product: Bakery
4. Industry Contact: John Chapman Title: Environmental Coordinator/Pretreatment Supervisor
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
5. Does the POTW Use the Division Model Inspection Form or Equivalent? M Yes ❑ No
6. Did the POTW Contact Conduct the Following Parts of the Industrial Inspection Thoroughly?
Comments:
A. Initial Interview M Yes ❑ No
B. Plant Tour M Yes ❑ No
C. Pretreatment Tour M Yes ❑ No
D. Sampling Review M Yes ❑ No
E. Exit Interview M Yes ❑ No
Industrial Inspection Comments:
Filename: Tarboro PCI Page 3
Revised: 6/30/98

o�OF W ATF9OG so
� 1
� Y
July 19, 2005
Mr. Samuel Noble, Jr., Town Manager
Town of Tarboro
PO Box 220
Rocky Mount, NC 27886
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Tarboro WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0020605, Stormwater Permit No. NCG110036
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Noble,
LA.A
Michael R 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
'IJL 1 n Ln�J
----------- --
T � ,
This writer, of the DWQ, conducted a Compliance Evaluation Inspection of the Tarboro WWTP, for the subject
Permits, on July 15, 2005. Mr. David Cashwell, Director of Public Works, and Mr. Lynwood Sessoms, ORC, represented
the Plant during the Inspection. Findings are as follows:
1) This 5 MGD wastewater treatment plant consists of a manual bar screen, mechanical grit chamber, three primary
clarifiers, two trickling filters (one in use, one standby), three aeration zones (in series), four secondary clarifiers, chlorine
contact chamber, dechlorination by sodium bisulfate, two anaerobic digesters for primary sludge, three aerobic digesters
for secondary sludge and a sludge holding lagoon. A contractor removes liquid sludge periodically. Drying beds are no
longer used for sludge dewatering. A diesel generator is used to provide backup power during emergencies and during
daily peak load shaving.
2) An ORC log was available and up to date.
3) A comparison of bench note data with the Discharge Monitoring Report for the month of March 2005 was made. No
discrepancies were noted. A review of the DMR data for the 12-month period from June 2004 through May 2005 was
performed subsequent to this Inspection. The DMR's indicated compliance with final effluent limitations. The BIMS
system noted missing data as follows: effluent ammonia (reported daily) for 6/9/04, 10/20/04 and 4/7/05 and effluent
nickel (reported weekly) for 12/04 and the first three weeks of 1/05. Mr. Sessoms reported on July 19, 2005 that the first
two ammonia tests were run but inadvertently not reported (both results were <0.1 mg/L). It could not be determined if the
third ammonia test was run. With regard to the nickel, Mr. Sessions reported that it took until February 2005 to get the tab
on a weekly nickel analysis schedule as required by the new permit that went into effect on December 1, 2004.
(Previously, nickel analysis was performed once a month.)
4) The permit for the Plant indicates that a total residual chlorine limit will become effective June 1, 2006. The Plant
currently meets the future chlorine limit most of the time using a flow -paced chlorination system. The Plant
representatives stated that a demand -type system is being investigated that should allow the Plant to meet the chlorine
limit consistently.
5) The effluent meter was calibrated the date of this Inspection. The effluent sampler reportedly collects flow proportional
samples. The temperature of the sampler storage compartment was 4 degrees C.
6) The Plant's effluent was viewed where it enters the Tar River. No solids or excessive foam was noted.
N�ol�`ItCaront�ta
,Naturar
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet h20.enr.statenc.us 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/l0% Post Consumer Paper

M N -�

Mr. Noble
Page 2'
7) The Plant's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Qualitative Monitoring reports were reviewed. The first round of
qualitative monitoring for 2005 had been performed and the results were available. Annual employee training is indicated
as being performed each April. Please note that training event attendance should be documented. All 12 of the
Plant's stormwater outfalls were viewed during this Inspection. The outfalls were free of debris and there was no
evidence of spills, overflows or similar incidents. The aboveground emergency generator tank is equipped with secondary
containment. This writer noted diesel stained soil adjacent to the tank. Mr. Cashwell reported that the Contractor
responsible for filling the tank apparently caused this condition. (Mr. Cashwell reported by phone on July18, 2005 that the
soil had been removed and placed on plastic and will be taken to a facility equipped to handle contaminated soil.)
8) Attached is the checklist generated as a result of the Inspection. If you have any questions concerning the inspection,
please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Michael Dare
Environmental Technician
Cc: Edgecombe County Health Dept.
Central Files

M
GC9Qpao�o 6vi�P
S r-os
Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new application?
Yee
❑
No
❑
NA NE
M ❑
Is the facility as described in the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
Cl
Comment:
Vee
No
NA
NF
Dreratinns A Maintenaam
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
s ❑
❑
❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters. for exMLSS, MCRT, Settleable Solids, pH. DO, Sludge Judge.
❑
❑
❑
and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Yes
No
NA
NE
Rar Screens
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanicel
❑
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
(,fit Removal
Yes
Nn
NA
NF
Type of grit removal
a -Manual
Cl
b.Mechanical
0
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of grit in compliance?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Yes
No
NA
NE
Primary Clarifier
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?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately''/. of the sidewall depth)
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Vec
No
NA
NE
Seynnda[y Clarifier
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?
N
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
0
0
0
0

M
C�
ondaU Clarifier
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?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solidstpin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately Y. of the sidewall depth)
Comment:
Is the fitter free of ponding?
Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of filter's distribution arms?
Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms?
Is the filter free of uneven or discolored growth?
Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth?
Are the filter's distribution arms orifices free of clogging?
Is the filter free or excessive filter flies, worms or snails?
Comment: One in use, one standby.
Mode of operation
Type of aeration system
Is the basin free of dead spots?
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
Are the diffusers operational?
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover less than 25 h of the basin's surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/I)
Comment: Three units in series; 1 - diffused aeration, 2 - mechanical aeration
n(ectinn-Gas
Are cylinders secured adequately?
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
Comment:
Type of system ?
Is the feed rafio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)?
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
Comment: Sodium bisulfite system.
Are tablet tle-chlorinators operational?
Yes Nn NA NF
■❑❑❑
■❑❑❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■❑❑❑
E ❑ ❑ ❑

rhlorinatinn
Number of tubes in use?
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine appropriate? (Approximately ratio 1:1)
❑ ❑
Cl
❑
Comment:
Ves No
NA
NF
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
❑ ❑
❑
Is the generator tested under load?
❑ ❑
❑
0
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑ ❑
❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
❑ ❑
❑
0
Is the generator fuel level monitored?
❑ ❑
❑
Comment: Generators run daily for load shedding.
I annnm5
Yec No
NA
NF
Type of lagoons?
Aerated
Number of lagoons in operation at time of visit?
1
Are lagoons operated in?
Is a re -circulation line present?
❑ ❑
0
❑
Is lagoon free of excessive floating materials?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Are baffles between ponds or effluent baffles adjustable?
❑ ❑
0
❑
Are dike slopes clear of woody vegetation?
M ❑
❑
❑
Are weeds controlled around the edge of the lagoon?
M ❑
❑
❑
Are dikes free of seepage?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Are dikes free of erosion?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Are dikes free of burrowing animals?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Has the sludge blanket in the lagoon (s) been measured periodically in multiple locations?
❑ ❑
0
❑
If excessive algae is present, has barley straw been used to help control the growth?
❑ ❑
0
❑
Is the lagoon surface free of weeds?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the lagoon free of short circuiting?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Sludge holding lagoon.
Ves No
NA
NF
Ffnuent Samnlinn
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
❑ ❑
❑
E
Is the tubing clean?
❑ ❑
❑
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.O to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Aerobic ❑iQeRter
Is the capacity adequate?
Vec No
0 ❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the odor acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:

N
Anaerobic ❑Igestar
Type of operation:
Yes No
NA NF
Is the capacity adequate?
0 ❑
❑ ❑
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?
❑ ❑
E ❑
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
0 ❑
❑ ❑
Comment: The units are operated at ambient temperature.
Yes No
NA NF
n" no Beds
Is there adequate drying bed space?
E ❑
❑ ❑
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
❑ ❑
N ❑
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
❑ N
❑ ❑
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?
❑ ❑
E ❑
Is the sludge land applied?
❑ ❑
0 ❑
(Vacuum fitters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
❑ ❑
0 ❑
Comment: Most drying bed space is no longer used. Some space used to dewater collection system debris.

Michael F. Easky, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Namml Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
November 22, 2004
DAVID L CASHWELL
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
PO BOX 220 — 500 MAIN STREET
TARBORO NC 27886-0220
Subject: Pretreatment Review of Industrial Waste Survey
Town of Tarboro
Edgecomb County
NPDES Number: NCO020605
Dear Mr. Cashwell:
/
The PERCS Unit of the Division of Water Quality has reviewed the Industrial Waste Survey
(IWS) submitted by the Town of Tarboro. This IWS was received by the Division on October
29, 2004.
The review indicates that the IWS is adequate and meets the minimum requirements of 40 CFR
403.8 (f)(2). Proper completion of an Industrial Waste Survey is also required by Part III (B), of
your NPDES permit. Please refer to the Comprehensive Guidance for North Carolina
Pretreatment Programs (Comprehensive Guide) for additional information and examples. The
next IWS will be due November 1, 2009.
Please note that the Division has recently reorganized. We are now part of the Pretreatment,
Emergency Response and Collection Systems (PERCS) Unit under the Point Source Branch.
The Unit is located on the 13`s floor of the Archdale building in downtown Raleigh. Our new fax
number is 919-733-0059.
Thank you for your continued cooperation with the Pretreatment Program. If you have any
questions or comments, please contact Deborah Gore at 919-733-5083, ext. 593 [email:
[e-mail] or Jeff Poupart, Unit Supervisor at ext. 527
(emai]:Jeff.Poupart @ncmail.netl.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, PE
F�
dg/tarborolwS.01
cc: Central Files
Deborah Gore, Pretreatment Unit
Jerry Rimmer, RRO
Lynwood Sessoms, Town of Tarboro Na�n�`l,Carolina
�vatura!!y
NC DWQ/PERCS 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.encstate.nc.us/PreMt/index.html 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10%Post Consumer Paper

Tarboro WWTP 0
Subject: Tarboro WWTP
From: Barry Herzberg <ba rry.herzberg@ ncmail. net>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:13:04 -0400
To: 'Rodriguez, Teresa" <[e-mail]>
Teresa:
We have reviewed the draft permit (NC0020605) for Tarboro WWTP. Our only comment
refers to Page 2 of your letter - - we believe "Chowan County" in the third line is
in error.
Barry
9/27/2004 3:13 PM

r
Mr. Samuel Noble,
Town of Tarboro
P.O. Box 220
Town Manager
Tarboro, North Carolina 27886
Dear Mr. Noble:
Michael F. Easley
Governor
:Qss, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department
Alan - Klim�c,,l� ° or
l;)iyision of f
r u
September 1, 2004
Pow `
r
Subject: NPDES Draft Permit
Permit No. NCO020605
Tarboro WWTP
Edgecombe County
Please find enclosed the DRAFT permit for the subject wastewater treatment plant
for your review and comment. The draft permit includes the following changes from the
current permit:
• Weekly average limits for ammonia of 27.0 mg/l for the summer months and 35.0
mg/1 for the winter months were added to the permit. Since December 2002, the
Division has been adding weekly average limits for ammonia to permits with monthly
average limits in order to conform to federal NPDES regulations.
• A special condition was added to the permit requiring annual pollutant scan
monitoring of the effluent. The Division is implementing the annual monitoring
requirement for all POTW with effluent flows greater than 1.0 MGD or with a pre-
treatment program. The total set of samples collected during the permit cycle must
represent seasonal variations. The requirement to monitor for these pollutants is
part of the information required by the federal regulations for municipal dischargers.
• A total residual chlorine (TRC) limit of 28 pg/L has been added to this permit. The
limit will take effect 18 months after the effective date of the final permit. See the
attached TRC policy memo for details.
• Monthly monitoring for Total Silver was added to the permit. Silver was detected at
110 pg/L in the Priority Pollutant Scan. This value is above silver's acute water
quality critertion of 1.23 pg/L.
• A daily maximum limit of 261 p1g/L was implemented for Total Nickel. Nickel showed
reasonable potential to exceed the acute criteria.
• Instream monitoring for conductivity was included in the permit. According to the
Division's guidelines, facilities that receive industrial wastewaters must sample for
conductivity.
Noo�"��nitCarolina
ivatura!!y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet h2o.enr.state.m.us 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh. NC 27604 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opponuniy/Athrmauve Acton Employer— 50% Recycled10% Post Consumer Paper

Permit No. NC0020605
Town of Tarboro
Page 2
Z
Please provide any comments you have regavillng the draft permit to this office
by October 8, 2004. At this time, is also publishing a notice In the
newspapers of general circulation < howan oun inviting public comment on the
draft permit. Following the 30-day how
en period, we will review all pertinent
comments received and take appropriate action on the permit renewal.
If you have any questions concerning the draft permit or the other requirements for
your facility, please call me at [phone], extension 553.
Sincerely,
Lam— d�—
Teresa Rodriguez
NPDES Unit
Cc: NPDES Files
U.S. EPA Region 4
Raleigh Regional Office
Aquatic Toxicology Unit

Permit No. NCO020605
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
Town of Tarboro
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Tarboro WWTP
Hwy 64 & Service Road 268
Tarboro
Edgecombe County
to receiving waters designated as Tar River in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin in accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and
IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on September 9, 2009.
Signed this day.
DRAFT
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1

Permit No. NC0020605
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under
the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
Town of Tarboro
is hereby authorized to:
Continue to operate an existing 5.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility located at the
Junction of Service Road 268 and Hwy 64, Tarboro, Edgecombe County, and consisting
of:
• Automatic and manual bar screen
• Influent lift station
• Aerated grit chamber
• Three primary clarifiers
• Two trickling filters
• Two aeration basins
• Four secondary clarifiers
• Anaerobic/Aerobic sludge digesters
Aerated sludge holding basin
• Chlorination/dual contact basin
• Effluent flow measurement
• Dechlorination
• Cascade Aerator
Standby power
• Sandfilter drying beds; and
2. Discharge from said treatment works, through Outfall 001, into the Tar River, a Class C-
Swamp NSW water in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin, at the location specified on the
attached map.
Page 2

Gat
Course
- ?"c
11
Outfall 001
lei
1299) sel
27-9
Town of Tarboro WVn?
State Grid/-QLmKL D28NEtrarbo Latkallc 35* 5259"N
Lm 77'32'19"W
Rccekwg Tar River DvWnaft Tar -Pamlico
sta Clams: csw Bob-BmhL, 03-03-03
&MOSS.'Few"Mml
0
Facfty lacefim
not to scale
NPDES Permit No. NC0020605
North Edgecornbe County

Permit No. NCO020605
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting permit expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
PARAMETER
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample Type
Sample
Location I
Flow (M(:D)
5.0
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD5 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Sohds2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
NH3 as N (Summer)3
9.0 mg/L
27.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
NHs as N (Winter)3
18.0 mg/L
35.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily average not less than 5.0 mg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine4
28.0 µg/L
3/Week
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen'
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus5
Weekly
Composite
E
pH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 Standard Units
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nickel
261 µg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Mercuryb
Monthly
(MetGrab 1)
E
Total Copper
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Zinc
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Silver
Monthly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity'
Quarterly
Composite
E
Footnotes:
1. I: Influent. E: Effluent. See condition A. (2) of this permit for instream monitoring requirements.
2. The monthly average BODs and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective
influent value (85% removal).
3. Summer shall be defined as April 1 — October 31 with winter defined as the balance of the year.
4. Effluent monitoring and limitation only apply if chlorine or a chlorine derivative is added to the waste stream
during treatment. The limit will take effect 18 months after the effective day of the final permit.
5. See condition A. (3.) for nutrient special condition.
6. The quantitation limit for Mercury shall be 0.0005 µg/L (0.5 ng/1). Levels reported less than 0.0005 µg/L will be
considered zero for compliance purposes.
7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) Q 8 %, January, April, July and October, see special condition A. (4) of this
permit.
THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE
AMOUNTS.
Page 4

n
U
Permit No. NCO020605
A. (2.) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Instream monitoring is required for the following parameters at the locations specified:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTMeasurement
Measurement Frequency
Sample Type
Sample
Location 1
Dissolved Oxygen
June -Sept
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
1/week
Temperature
June -Sept
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
1 /week
Conductivity
June -Sept
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
1/week
Footnotes:
1. U - Upstream at Highway 44, D- Downstream at Highway 42.
Upon initiation of stream sampling by the Tar -Pamlico Basin Association, the instreatn
monitoring requirements as stated above are waived. Should your membership in the Association
be terminated, you shall notify the Division immediately and the instream monitoring
requirements specified in your permit shall be reinstated.
A. (3.) NUTRIENT SPECIAL CONDITION
Nutrient limits have not been included at this time because the facility is participating in the non -
point source trading option outlined in the Tar -Pamlico NSW Implementation Strategy: Phase II;
which was adopted December 8, 1994 or subsequent approved revisions of the strategy. If
compliance with any element of this strategy or approved revision is not maintained, the Division
reserves the right to reopen this permit to include nutrient limits. If requirements other than those
listed in this permit are adopted as part of a revision of the strategy, the Division reserves the right
to reopen this permit to include these requirements.
Page 5

Permit No. NC0020605
A. (4.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 8 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, carter monitoring using test procedures outlined
in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February
1998, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test
Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the
months of January, April, July and October. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at
the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV
below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in
each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole
Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of
the highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the
lowest concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The
definition of "detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further
statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity
Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP313 for the Chronic Value. Additionally,
DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DENR / DWQ / Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no
later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and
all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved
designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and
reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity
monitoring is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the
aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county,
and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the
form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited
above.
Page 6

Permit No. NC0020605
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be
re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate
environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up
testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial
monitoring.
Page 7

Permit No. NCO020605
A. (5.) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The permittee shall perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the table below
(in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136). The annual effluent pollutant scan samples shall represent seasonal
(summer, winter, fall, spring) variations over the 5-year permit cycle. Unless otherwise indicated, metals
shall be analyzed as "total recoverable." Additionally, the method detection level and the minimum level
shall be the most sensitive as provided by the appropriate analytical procedure.
Ammonia (as N)
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
I,1-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chlomisopropy0 ether
Dissolved oxygen
1,2-dichloropmpane
Bis (2-ethylbexyl) phthalate
Nitrme/Nitrite
1,3dichlompropylene
4-bmmophenyl phenyl ether
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ethylbenzene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Oil and grease
Methyl bromide
2-chlomnaphthalene
Total Phosphorus
Methyl chloride
4-chlomphenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids
Methylene chloride
Chrysene
Hardness
1,1 2 2-tetrachlorcethane
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Antimony
Tetrachloroethylene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic
Toluene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthmcene
Beryllium
1,IA-Irichlorcethane
1.2dichlorobenune
Cadmium
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,34chlorobenzem:
Chromium
Trichloroethylene
1,4-dichlombemmne
Copper
Vinyl chloride
3,34chlorobenzidine
Lead
Acid -extractable comMunds:
Diethyl phthalate
Mercury
P-chlom-m-cresol
Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Selenium
2,4-dichlomphenol
2,6dinitrotoluene
Silver
2,4-dimethylphenol
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Thallium
4,6-dimmo-o-cresol
Fluoranthene
Zinc
2,4-dinitmphenol
Fluorene
Cyanide
2-nitrophenol
Hexachlombenzene
Total phenolic compounds
4-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
Volatile organic compounds:
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlomcyclo-pentadiene
Acrolein
Phenol
Hexachlomethane
Acrylonitrile
2,4,6-trichlomphenol
Indeno(1.2,3cd)pyrene
Benzene
Base -neutral compounds:
Isophorone
Bromofoma
Acenaphlhene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Acenaphthylene
Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenwne
Anthmcene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodibromomethane
Benzidine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Chloroethame
Benzo(a)anthracene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-chlomethylvinyl ether
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Chloroform
3A benzonuoranthene
Pyrene
Dichlombromomethane
Benzo(ghi)perylene
1,2,4-lrichlombenzene
1.1-dichloroethane
Benzo(k)Buoranthene
12-dichlormthane
Bis (2-chlorcethoxy) methane
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPAI or in a form approved by the Director,
within 90 days of sampling. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Central Files to the following address:
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.
Page 8

1J
DENR/DWg
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NCO020605
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Tarboro / Tarboro W WTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 220, Tarboro, NC 27886
Facility Address:
Hwy 64 & Service Road 268
Permitted Flow (MGD):
5.0
Type of Waste:
85 % Domestic 15 % Industrial
Facility Classification:
IV
Permit Status:
Renewal
County:
Edgecombe
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Tar River
Regional Office:
RRO
Stream Classification:
C Sw — NSW
State Grid / USGS Quad:
303(d) Listed?
No
Permit Writer:
Teresa Rodriguez
Basin/Subbasin:
Tar -Pam / 03-03-03
Date:
8/19/04
Drainage Area (mi):
2180
& IF,
Lat. 350 52' 59" N Long. 770 32' 19" W
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
90
Winter 7010 (cfs):
210
30Q2 (cfs)
Average Flow (cfs):
2230
IWC (%):
8
Summary: The Town of Tarboro submitted an application on April 2, 2004, for the
renewal of their NPDES permit. There have been no changes to the facility since the last
permit renewal. Tarboro participates in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin Association. The
treatment system consist of an automatic and manual bar screen, influent lift station,
aerated grit chamber, three primary clarifiers, two trickling filters, two aeration basins,
four secondary clarifiers, anaerobic/aerobic sludge digesters, aerated sludge holding
basin, chlorination/dual contact basin, effluent flow measurement, dechlorination,
cascade aerator, standby power and sandfilter drying beds.
Pre -Treatment: Tarboro has an approved full pre-treatment program with 1 SIU and 3
CIU for a permitted industrial flow of 0.778 MGD.
Basin Plan: The Tar Pam River is impaired in the fish consumption category because fish
tissue samples exceeded the criterion of methylmercury per gram of fish tissue. Mercury
is a statewide issue. A new mercury analytical method for measuring very low
concentrations of mercury in water was approved by EPA. This method is being used by
wastewater treatment plants to determine levels of mercury from treatment plants. The
division is also conducting a study to gather information that will help in the development
of a water quality standard and a TMDL.
COMPLIANCE REVIEW
DMR Review: All reported values for Cadmium were < 1 pg/l, for arsenic < 5 pg/l,
Selenium < 10 pg/L, and Mercury <0.2 Ng/L. Lead was detected once at 6 lig/l.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NCO020605
Renewal
Page I

Reasonable Potentio. ..> _� sis: RPA was completed forpr__, zinc, nickel, chromium.
See attached spreadsheet for the RPA results. Copper and Zinc presented reasonable
potential, since these are action level standards, monitoring will be continued. The
maximum predicted concentration for nickel (395 pg/1) is above the acute criteria of 261
pg/1. A daily maximum limit of 261 pg/1 will be implemented for nickel.
Effluent Toxicity: The facility performs chronic toxicity at 8 %. They passed all the tests
from 2000 to 2004.
Priority Pollutant Scan: The results of three priority pollutant scans were submitted
with the permit application. Silver was detected once at 0.11 mg/1 and cyanide at 0.002
mg/L. The 1/z FAV for silver is 1.23 pg/L and 22 11g/L for cyanide. Monthly monitoring for
silver will be added to the permit.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Permit Condition
Proposed Changes
Comments
Ammonia limits
Weekly averages for
summer and 35 mg /L for the the
Federal requirements and Division Policy require
winter.
weekly limits for ammonia. (40 CFR 122)
Total Residual
TRC policy adopted in April 2003. Facilities that
Chlorine limit
Daily maximum of 28 pg/L
didn't have TRC limits will get limits at permit
renewal time.
Silver
Monthly monitoring
Silver was detected above the'h FAV acute value
in the Priority Pollutant analysis.
Nickel
Daily maximum limit of 261 pg/L
Nickel presented reasonable potential to exceed
the water quality acute criteria.
According to Division's guidelines, discharges with
Instream monitoring
Conductivity monitoring
active pre-treatment programs are required to test
for conductivity.
Priority Pollutant
Include a yearly requirement to
This condition is been added to ail municipal
Analysis
do a PPA of the effluent
facilities above 1 MGD to collect data necessary
for permit renewal.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice:
Permit Scheduled to Issue:
September 1, 2004.
October 25, 2004.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0020605
Renewal
Page 2

I , •
NPDES DIVISION CONTACT
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit,
please contact Teresa Rodriguez at [phone] ext. 553.
GJ
8/d7
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENTS p�
v/G12 /
SUPERVISOR: DATE:
Fact Sheet
NPDES NCO020605
Renewal
Page 3

.aEASONABLE POTENTIAL ANAL ..
Tarboro WWTP
NCO020605
7 ne Period
0
OR, IWO)
5
7070S(da)
90
]OIOW(CIs)
210
30M(ch)
0
Aeg. StOmma Fb,, OA (cb)
2230
Rec-9 Stream Tar River
WWTP Class IV
IWCN 07010E 7.9284
0701OW 3.5591
0 3002 WA
0 OA 0.3463
Stream Class C
Outfall 001
Ow = 5 MGD
STANDARDS•
PARAMETER
TYPE
CRMRIA 12)
POL
Unite
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED
NCWOS/ BFAY/
Ill
ACMN
Cllrni[ "m
/(M MY IrMCY a1NYYlI L1
M le: WA
Arsenic
NC
50
uglL
0 0 WA
__
Chonk: 631
--- .--- .__----- .--- ._.---------
Acute: WA
Beryllium
C
65
uryL
0 0 WA
Chunk: 1,877
----- ._.___._._._._._
AMe: S
Catlmrvm
NC
2 IS
uglL
0 0 WA
Charlk: ._. __
__------- .__----- ._._._._._._
Acute: 1.022
LNOmium
NC
50 1,022
ug1L
AO 0
1WA
MAe: T
Monnol
Coeper
NC
] AL 7.3
ug2
29 0
15.3
Chock: --
_. ___._._._.___. ---------------
Awle: 32
CNanitle
NC
5 N 22
10
up1L*DWA
Ch_.—._
_._. ___._._._._._._._._.___._
MAe: WA
Fluontle
NC
1.800
u02
c13orar. zz.Tti3
--- .--- .--------- ---- ._._._._.__
Aare: m
Leatl
NC
25 N 338
ug4
Chink: 315
. _ . _ . _ . _. _. _. _. _ _ _
Mae: WA
Mercury
NC
0.012
0W02
u0A
0 0
WA '
Chplk:._.O._
----------- -------------------
Meta: WA
MchOtlenum
A
3.500
ugM1
p 0
WA
mmkm
NC
88 261
ug/L
40 A
395.8
(Chunk:
M e: WA
PNends
A
I N
aryl
0 0
WA
AMe: 56
Selanlum
NC
5.0 E6
uyL
0 0
WA
ApAe:
Silver
NC
0.06 ql 123
uyL
0 0
WA
AMe: 6]
Monik.
Lnc
NC
50 M 6]
uryL
30 W
MBA
Chunk: 631
'Legend
C = CarclnWse
NL =lnogenc
A - Assllscha. 'elc
" Frglhm*w Dl4Ula
r0a 20V 5.XLT, rya
Sr27Ro00

so
N
NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(This form is best filled out on computer, rather than hard copy)
Date: 6/10/2004 County: Edeecombe
To: NPDES Discharge Permitting Unit Permitee: Town of Tarboro
Attn. NPDES Reviewer: Teresa Rodriguez Application/ Permit No.: NCO020605
Staff Report Prepared By: Mvrl Nisely
Project Name:
SOC Priority Project? (Y/N) N If Yes, SOC No.
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. This application is (check all that apply): ❑ New ® Renewal
❑ Modification
2. Was a site visit conducted in order to prepare this report? ® Yes or ❑ No.
a. Date of site visit: 3/5/2004
b. Person contacted and telephone number: Lynwood Sessoms
c. Site visit conducted by: Kirk Stafford
d. Inspection Report Attached: ® Yes or ❑ No.
3. Keeping BIMS Accurate: Is the following BIMS information (a. through e. below) correct?
® Yes or ❑ No. If No, please either indicate that it is correct on the current application or the
existing permit or provide the details. If none can be supplied, please explain:
(If there is more than one discharge pipe, put the others on the last page of this form.)
a. Location OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Location:
b. Driving Directions OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Driving Directions (please be accurate):
c. USGS Quadrangle Map name and number OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide USGS Quadrangle Map name and number:
d. Latitude/Longitude OK on Application ❑, (check at http://www.tgpozone.com These are often
inaccurate) OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Latitude: Longitude:
e. Receiving Stream OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Receiving Stream or affected waters:
a. Stream Classification:
b. River Basin and Sub basin No.:
c. Describe receiving stream features and downstream uses:
For NEW FACILITIES Proceed to Section C. Evaluation and Recommendations
(For renewals or modifications continue to section B)

NPDWEGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
B. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND WASTE(S) (renewals and modifications only)
1. Describe the existing treatment facility: 5 MGD modified biological nutrient removal plant with auto
and manual bar screens, aerated grit chamber and auger for grit removal, influent flow meter (for
reporting), 3 primary clarifiers„ 2 trickling filters, 3 basins with 1 anoxic zone, I aerobic zone with
diffused air, and 1 aerobic zone with mechanical air; 4 secondary clarifiers, dual chlorine contact tanks,
dechlorination, effluent flow meter (not used for reporting), cascade aeration, 2 aerobic digesters for
primary sludge, 1 aerobic digester for secondary sludge, a 1.65 MG sludge holding basin and 18 drying
beds (not used). Adequate standby power is provided. Pretreatment program is compliant and
effective.
2. Are there appropriately certified ORCs for the facilities? ® Yes or ❑ No.
Operator in Charge: Lynwood Sessoms Certificate # 1852 (Available in BIMS or Certification
Website)
Back- Operator in Charge: Hubert Whitehead Certificate # 7929
3. Does the facility have operational or compliance problems? Please comment: No, a fine record
Summarize your BIMS review of monitoring data (Notice(s) of violation within the last permit cycle;
Current enforcement action(s)): None
Are they currently under SOC, ❑ Currently under JOC, ❑ Currently under moratorium ❑? Have
all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit, SOC, JOC, etc. been complied with? ❑ Yes
or ❑ No. If no, please explain:
4. Residuals Treatment: PSRP ® (Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens, Class B) or
PFRP ❑ (Process to Further Reduce Pathogens, Class A)?
Are they liquid or dewatered to a cake? Liquid
Land Applied? Yes ® No ❑ If so, list Non -Discharge Permit No. W00002047
Contractor Used: Granville Farms
Landfilled? Yes ❑ No® If yes, where?
Other?
Adequate Digester Capacity? Yes ® No ❑ Sludge Storage Capacity? Yes ® No ❑
Please comment on current operational practices: 5 sites totalling 828 acres, 200 of which are owned
by the Town.
5. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this
permit? ❑ Yes or ® No. If yes, please explain:
C. E VAL UA TION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FORM: NPDES-RRO 06/03, 9/03 2

NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: has the facility evaluated the non -discharge options available? Give
regional perspective for each option evaluated:
Spray Irrigation: NA
Connect to Regional Sewer System: NA
Subsurface: NA
Other Disposal Options: NA
2. Provide any additional narrative regarding your review of the application: A chlorine limit is probably
already a "given" for this renewal. They have dechlorination, as noted above.
3. List any items that you would like NPDES Unit to obtain through an additional information
request. Make sure that you provide a reason for each item:
Recommended Additional Information I Reason
4. List specific Permit requirements that you recommend to be removed from the permit when
issued. Make sure that you provide a reason for each condition:
Reason
5. List specific special requirements or compliance schedules that you recommend to be included in
the permit when issued. Make sure that you provide a reason for each special condition:
Recommended Addition I Reason
6. Recommendation: ❑ Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office;
❑ Hold, pending review and approval of required additional information by NPDES permitting
office; ® Issue; ❑ Deny. If deny, please state reasons:
FORM: NPDES-RRO 06/03, 9/03

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

Michael F. Easley, Governor
Jm William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Colleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
March 12, 2004
Mr. Samuel Noble, Jr.
Tarboro Town Manager
P.O. Box 220
Wilson, NC 27886
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Tarboro WWTP
NPDES Permit NCO020605
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Noble:
On March 5, 2004, Mr. Kirk Stafford of the Raleigh Regional Office conducted a
Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) of the subject facility accompanied by Mr.
Lynwood Sessoms, Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC). His help and cooperation
during that inspection was helpful and appreciated. The checklist used during that
inspection is enclosed. Please note the comments sections in the checklist.
Sincerely,
Kirk Stafford
Environmental Chemist
Cc: Lisa Uhl -EPA
VOW
Raleigh Regional Office 1628 Mail Smice Center NCDEN
Water Quality Section Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
phone [phone] Customer Service
facsimile [phone] 1-877-623-6748

so 40
NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
NCO020605 I11 12 I 04/03/11 I17 18 1=1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)

4W
Permit: NCO020605 Owner - Facility: Town of Tarboro - Tarboro W WTP
Inspection Date: 03/11/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Se condary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Yes
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
❑
❑
❑
0
Is scum removal adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive Floating sludge?
Cl
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
E
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable low turbulence)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the surface free of bulking ?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:The weirs are covered to inhibit algal growth.
Yes
No
NA
NE
Trirklino Filter
Is the filter free of pointing?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of filter's distribution arms?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms?
E
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free Of uneven or discolored growth?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site odor -free?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the filter's distribution arms orifices free of dogging?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the filter free of excessive filter flies, worms or snails?
0
❑
❑
❑
CommenCThe center column appeared to be leaking and some distribution am orifaces are dogged. Mr. Sessoms
stated that the unit would be taken off line and the problems comected.
Mode of operabon
Type of aeration system
Is the basin free of dead spots?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
0 Cl
❑
❑
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?
❑ ❑
❑
Are settleometer results acceptable?
❑ ❑
❑
Comment
nsinfectinn
Type of system ?
Yes No
Gas
NA
NE
Are cylinders secured adequately?
❑
❑
❑
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
❑
❑
❑
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
❑
❑
❑
Is ventilation equipment operational?
❑
❑
❑
Page# 2

so
Permit: NC0020605 Owner - Facility: Town of Tarboro - Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/11/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Fffiuent Sampling
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)?
Yes
00
No
NA
❑
NF
❑
Comment:Ef0uent samples are taken before the step aerator.
Yes
Nn
NA
NE
t inmr .am I nownstr am Samplino
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and sampling location)?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Aemhir Nigester
Is the capacity adequate?
Yes
0
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
IN
❑
110
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
so
❑
❑
Is the odor acceptable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:it was noted that the unit was filled so that when the aeration was activated that sludge sloshed onto the
ground.
Anaemhic Nine=_tar Yes NaNA NE
Type of operation:
Is the capacity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is gas stored on site?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the gas burner operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is the digester heated?
❑
No
❑
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
❑
❑
❑
Comment.The unit is operated at ambient temperature.
Drvmo Beds
Is there adequate drying bed space?
Yam;
M❑
No
NA
❑
NE
❑
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?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
M❑
❑
❑
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
IN
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the sludge land applied?
0
❑
❑
❑
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment:The drying beds are used for emergencies and for disposal of collection system debris
Page# 4

00
Application for Renewal of
NPDES Permit No. NCO020605
Town of Tarboro, North Carolina
APR - 2 2004 y
April 2004
Prepared by:
The Wooten Company
120 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919.828.0531

L7
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, P.E., Director
April 20, 2004
Mr. Samuel Noble, Jr.
Town of Tarboro
PO Box 220
Tarboro NC 27886
M
Ks
10
e �tr
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Subject: NPDES Permit Renewal Application
Permit NCO020605
Tarboro WWTP
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Noble:
The NPDES Unit received your permit renewal application on April 2, 2004. Thank you for
submitting this package.
Your permit renewal application has been assigned to Teresa Rodriguez for review. If the
reissuance of your permit is delayed, the existing requirements in your permit will remain in effect
until the permit is renewed (or the Division takes other action). We appreciate your patience and
understanding while we work to resolve the backlog of projects. If you have any additional
questions concerning renewal of the subject permit, please contact Teresa Rodriguez at (919)
733-5083, extension 553.
cc: Raleigh Regional Office,
NPDES File
Central Files
Water Quality Section
Sincerely,
Valery Stephens
Point Source Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1617 919 733-5063, extension 520 (tax) 919 733-0719
VISIT US ON THE INTERNET ® htry/ih2o.enr.st8tanc.us/NPDES Valery.Stephens®ncmail.net

o�aF w A rE9O
North Carolina Dep r
co r
O 'c
March 12, 2004
Mr. Samuel Noble, Jr.
Tarboro Town Manager
P.O. Box 220
Wilson, NC 27886
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Tarboro WWTP
NPDES Permit NCO020605
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Noble:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
ivironment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Colleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
On March 5, 2004, Mr. Kirk Stafford of the Raleigh Regional Office conducted a
Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) of the subject facility accompanied by Mr.
Lynwood Sessoms, Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC). His help and cooperation
during that inspection was helpful and appreciated. The checklist used during that
inspection is enclosed. Please note the comments sections in the checklist.
Cc: Lisa Uhl -EPA
Raleigh Regional Office 1628 Mail Service Center
Water Quality Section Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Sincerely,
Kirk Stafford
Environmental Chemist
�� phone [phone] Customer Service
facsimile (919) 5714718 1-877-623-6748

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D C 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspel Bewil
Approval 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 NCO020605 J 11 121 04/03/11 117 18 LJ 19 U 20 U
Remarks
21111111111111[ill [ill 11111111111111111111111111166
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating 131 OA -------ReseNed
67 I 3.0 69 70 U 71 U 72 U 73 L_Lj 74 75I I 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)
09 :30 AM 04/03/11
01/02/01
Tarboro WWTP
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
US Highway 64 Bypass
Tarboro NC 27886
12:15 PM 04/03/11
04/09/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representafive(s)Rtles(syPhone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible OfficiaVTide/Phone and Fax Number
Samuel Noble dr,PO Box 220 Tarboro NC 27886//252-641-4200/ C00tacted
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit E Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program N Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Waters
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
Kirk M Stafford RRO WQ//919-571 4700/919-571-4718 [,Ij
Signature of Management O A R "ewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
ellkw yI 3 isaf
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete. ( /

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
31 NCO020605 I11 12 I 04/03/11 17 18 U
Section D: Summary of Findina/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)

Permit: NCO020605 Owner - Facility: Town of Tarboro - Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/11/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes
No
NA
NE
P t
(if the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the pernittee submitted a new application?
❑
Cl
❑
❑
Is the facility as described in the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Yea_
No
NA
NE
Oneralions & Maintenance
Does the plant have general safety structures in place such as rails around or covers over tanks, pits, or wells?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
No
❑
❑
Comment:
Screens
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
❑
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:The facility rakes the bar screen and places the screenings into a wheelbarrow which leaks onto the cement
pad and runs off onto the ground. A pad with drain is in place above the bar screen and is designed to dewater the
sreening.
Yes
No
NA
NE
Ent Removal
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
E
Is the site free of excessive organic content in the grit chamber?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive odor?
s
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of grit in compliance?
N
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Yes
No
NA
NF
Primary Clarifier
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?
N
❑
❑
❑
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?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment One unit was down for repair
indary Clarifier
Page# 1

n
u
Permit: NC0020605 Owner - Facility: Town of Tarboro - Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/11/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
E
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
No
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
❑
❑
❑
■
Is the site free of weir blockage?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
❑
❑
❑
S
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?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
S
❑
❑
❑
Is the surface free of bulking ?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment:The weirs are covered to inhibit algal growth.
Trickling Filter
Is the filter free of ponding?
Yes
0
No
❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of filter' s distribution arms?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of uneven or discolored growth?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site odor -free?
N
❑
❑
❑
Are the filter's distribution arms orifices free of clogging?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the filter free of excessive filter flies. worms or snails?
N
❑
❑
❑
Comment:The center column appeared to be leaking and some distribution arm orifaces are dogged. Mr. Sessoms
stated that the unit would be taken oft line and the problems corrected.
Jinn Basins
Mode of operation
Type of aeration system
Is the basin free of dead spots?
❑
❑ ❑
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
❑
❑ ❑
Are the diffusers operational?
❑
❑ ❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
❑
❑ ❑
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
❑
❑ ❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
❑ ❑
❑
Are settleometer results acceptable?
❑ ❑
❑
Comment:
Disinfe tion
Type of system ?
Yes_ No
Gas
NA
NE
Are cylinders secured adequately?
❑
❑
❑
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
No
❑
❑
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
N ❑
❑
❑
Is ventilation equipment operational?
s ❑
❑
❑
Page# 2

i
Permit: NC0020605 Owner - Facility: Town of Tarboro - Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/11104 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes
Disinfection
Is ventilation equipment properly located?
M
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
❑
Is SCBA equipment available on site?
❑
E
❑
❑
Is SCBA equipment operational?
❑
❑
11
❑
Is staff trained is operating SCBA equipment?
❑
❑
11
❑
is staff trained in emergency procedures?
❑
❑
11
❑
Is an evacuation plan in place?
❑
❑
11
❑
Are tablet chlorinators operational?
❑
❑
11
❑
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
❑
❑
11
❑
Number of tubes in use?
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
❑
❑
11
❑
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
❑
❑
❑
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is mere adequate detention time
❑
Cl
❑
Is the contact chamber free of growth. or sludge buildup?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:Mr. Sessoms stated that the facility is not permitted to have SCBA equipment.
:hinrinatinn
Type of system ?
Is the feed ratio proportional tochlonne amount (1 to 1)?
❑
❑
IN
❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers?
0
❑
]
❑
Is ventilation operational?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
❑
❑
❑
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational?
❑
❑
❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Yes
0
No
❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
Is generator tested weekly by interrupting primary power source?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is generator tested under load at least quarterly?
0
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑
111
❑
❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Does generator have adequate fuel?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment:Mr. Sessoms stated that the electric department load manages the generator
Effluent Samminnc
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Yes
0
No
❑
NNE
❑
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
on
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
IN
❑
❑
❑
Page# 3

n
u
Permit: NC0020605 Owner - Facility: Town of Tarboro - Tarboro WWTP
Inspection Date: 03/11/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
FHhwnt Semolina_ Yes No NA NF
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)? ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:Effluent samples are taken before the step aerator.
Upstream / Downstream Samolino
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and sampling location)?
Yes No
M ❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
Comment:
Aerohir Digwc er
Is the capacity adequate?
Yes No
0❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the odor acceptable?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Comment:It was noted that the unit was filled so that when the aeration was activated that sludge sloshed onto the
ground.
arch Digester
Type of operation
Is the capacity adequate?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is gas stored on site?
❑ 0
❑
❑
Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the gas burner operational?
❑ ❑
❑
0
Is the digester healed?
❑ 0
❑
❑
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
❑ ❑
0
❑
Comment:The unit is operated at ambient temperature.
Q[jrmg esd=
Is there adequate drying bed space?
Yam No
M ❑
NA
❑
N
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
❑M
❑
❑
Is the sludge land applied?
a ❑
❑
❑
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
❑ ❑
a
❑
Comment:The drying beds are used for emergencies and for disposal of collection system debris.
Page# 4

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, P.E., Director
December 11, 2003
Samuel W. Noble
Town of Tarboro
P O BOX 987
Tarboro, NC 27886
40
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL Resou RCEs
SUBJECT: Renewal Application Requirements for Per C0020605
Tarboro WWTP
Dear Permittee:
Your NPDES permit for a municipally owned/operated W WTP expires on September 30, 2004. This advance notice
is being sent to explain the new requirements for your permit renewal application.
You are receiving this advance notice because your facility has a permitted flow at or above 1 MGD, or your
W Wl'P has a pretreatment program. If either of these criteria no longer apply to your facility, contact the NPDES
Unit before submitting a renewal application.
Federal (40 CFR 122) and state (15A NCAC 2H.0105(e)) regulations require that permit renewal applications be filed
at least 180 days prior to expiration of the current permit. Your renewal application is due to the Division no later
than April 3, 2004. Failure to apply for renewal by the appropriate deadline may result in a civil penalty assessment
or other enforcement activity at the discretion of the Director.
The U.S. EPA revised and expanded the application requirements for municipal permits, effective August 1, 2001.
EPA forms I and 2A are attached to this Notice, and must be used for your permit renewal application. The new
application requirements mandate additional effluent testing.
1. Conduct three Priority Pollutant Analyses (PPAs) and submit results with your renewal application.
Collect samples for the PPAs in conjunction with sampling for your current quarterly toxicity test. The
new PPA requirements differ from previous versions. Each PPA must include:
➢ Analyses for all total recoverable metals listed in Part D of form 2A. This includes metals that are
not normally monitored through your NPDES permit.
➢ Analyses for total phenolic compounds and hardness.
➢ Analyses for a of the volatile organic compounds fisted in Par D.
➢ Analyses for all of the acid -extractable compounds fisted in Part D.
➢ Analyses for AU base -neutral compounds listed in Part D.
2. Conduct four toxicity tests for an organism other than Ceriodapbxia and submit results with your renewal
application. The tests should be conducted quarterly, with samples collected on the same day as your
current toxicity test. Call the Aquatic Toxicology Unit at [phone] for guidance in conducting the
additional tests.
These additional analyses must accompany your permit renewal application, or any request for a major permit
modification. The Division cannot draft your permit without the additional data. Any data submitted cannot be
over 4 Vi years old, and must account for seasonal variatioti (samples cannot be collected during the same season
each year if collected over multiple years).
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 919 733-5083, extension 511 (fax) 919 733-0719
VISITU50NTHE INTEFINET@ htlplPo2o.encsta1e.nc.us/NPDES [e-mail]

Oenewal Notice for Permit NCO020605
Edgecombe County
Page 2
If your permit already contains a requirement for an annual effluent pollutant scan, additional scans are not
required [provided you have conducted at least 3 scans prior to submitting your application].
If any wastewater discharge will occur after the current permit expires, this NPDES permit must be renewed.
Discharge of wastewater without a valid permit would violate Federal and North Carolina law. Unpermitted
discharges of wastewater could result in assessment of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day. If all wastewater
discharge has ceased at your facility and you wish to rescind this permit, contact Vanessa Manuel of the Division's
Compliance Enforcement Unit at [phone], extension 532. You may also contact the Raleigh Regional Office
at [phone] to begin the rescission process.
Use the checklist below to complete your renewal package. The checklist identifies the items you must
submit with the permit renewal application. If you have any questions, please contact me. My telephone number, fax
number and e-mail address are listed at the bottom of the previous page.
Sincerely,
4k �-
Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NPDES Unit
cc: Central Files I Gm
Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Section
NPDES File `
O O
The following items are REQUIRED for all renewal packages:
❑ A cover letter requesting renewal of the permit and documenting any changes at the facility sit14- i'of the
last permit. Submit one signed original and two copies.
❑ The completed application form (copy attached), signed by the permittee or an Authorized Representative.
Submit one signed original and two copies.
❑ If an Authorized Representative (such as a consulting engineer or environmental consultant) prepares the renewal
package, written documentation must be provided showing the authority delegated to the .Authorized
Representative (see Part II.B.1 Lb of the existing NPDES permit).
❑ A narrative description of the sludge management plan for the facility. Describe how sludge (or other solids)
generated during wastewater treatment are handled and disposed. If your facility has no such plan (or the
permitted facility does not generate any solids), explain this in writing. Submit one signed original and two
copies. This information can be included in the cover letter.
Send the completed renewal package to:
Mrs. Valery Stephens
NC DENR / Water Quality / Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

�3� `T•'' %wn of T a r b% o
0
117 I P. O. Box 220 - 500 Main Street
Tarboro, NC 27886-0220
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
July 15, 2003
Mr. Joseph W. Albiston
Environmental Specialist II
Raleigh Regional Office — Water Quality Section
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Dear Mr. Albiston:
\C0110
I have received your Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report. The response to
item 7 is as follows:
7. The Town budgeted $100,000 in 2002 to install cured in place liners for 1,087
feet of 8" sewer line, 412 feet of 15" sewer line and 361 feet of 18" sewer tine.
This was in addition to repairs and inspections made by Town forces. For fiscal
year 2003-2004 the Town has budgeted $100,000 for line and manhole repair and
will continue to also monitor and correct I and I using Town forces. The Town
makes every effort to inspect its sewer collection system and correct inflow and
infiltration as identified.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to
contact David L. Cashwell, Public Works Director at [phone].
Sincerely,
zl�L41j.
Samuel W. Noble, Jr.
Town Manager
SWN: ab
cc: David L. Cashwell

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Deparf�vironment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek. P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
June 27, 2003
Mr. Sam Noble, Jr. Town Manager
Town of Tarboro
P.O. Box 220
Tarboro, NC 27886
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Tarboro WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO020605
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Noble:
The subject inspection was performed June 4, 2003. The cooperation of Lynwood
Sessoms, Grade 4 ORC was appreciated. Findings during the inspection were as follows:
A
You
1. The treatment units at the 5.0 mgd facility include the following: auto bar screen, manual bar
screen, aerated grit chamber, auger system for grit removal, influent magmeter (used for
reporting), 3 primary clarifiers, 2 trickling filters (only 1 in use due to low loading), 3 basins with
1 anoxic zone, I aerobic zone with diffused air, and 1 aerobic zone with mechanical air for
biological nutrient removal, 4 secondary clarifiers (flow is split into thirds, with 1/3 split into 2
of the smaller clarifiers), dual chlorine contact tanks, dechlorination, effluent flow meter (not
used for reporting) cascade aeration, anaerobic digester (for primary sludge), aerobic digester
(for secondary sludge), and 1.65 MG sludge holding basin (approximately '/, full), and 18 drying
beds (not used).
2. The effluent at the time of the inspection appeared clear and free of excess solids.
3. The results of self monitoring toxicity data were reported as "pass" for all tests in 2002.
4. The WWTP laboratory performs analyses for BOD, COD, NH3, TSS, fecal, conductivity, and
chlorine. SIMALABS International performs toxicity testing, and Environment 1 performs
metals and nutrient analyses.
5. A cursory review of the laboratory showed proper calibration of instruments and satisfactory
temperatures of equipment are maintained.
6. A cursory review of June 2002 DMR and laboratory data showed consistent reporting of data.
7. Please provide this office with a summary of inflow/infiltration (I/I) reduction activities the
Town has undertaken in 2002, and what is planned for 2003 and 2004. Please include the
amount of resources expended, the amount of M reduced, etc. in your response.
sv
WCpER
Raleigh Regional Office 1628 Mail Service Center phone [phone] Customer Service
Water Quality Section Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 facsimile [phone] 1-800-623-7748

Noble Pa to 40
Page 2
8. The influent sampler temperature was 4 degrees C. The effluent sampler temperature during
the inspection was 3 degrees C.
9. The flow meters were calibrated in April 2003.
10. Industrial flows to the WWTP are generated from Sara Lee (bakery, app. 200,000 gpd),
Glenoit Mills (fabric, app. 70,000 gpd), Mayo Knitting (socks, app. 100,000 gpd), and ASC (air
handling equipment, recently came on-line, but ship out their waste).
11. It is recommended that the Town install telemetry and emergency generators at each pump
station to eliminate the potential of sewer overflows from these locations.
12. Sludge is disposed of by Granville Farms.
13. Mr. Sessoms stated the emergency generator at the WWTP is checked weekly.
14. It was noted that the clarifier wiers had been covered with metal covers to prevent build upof
algae growth.
15. The current NPDES permit became effective February 1, 2001, and will expire September
30, 2004. We will recommend that the next NPDES permit include a chlorine limit. This should
not be a concern for the facility because dechlorination is already employed at her facility. The
Town may wish to have chlorine metering system based on actual chlorine demand rather than
on flow. This could add up to significant savings for the Town.
16. A review of DMR data for the period January 2002 through March 2003 showed no
violations.
Please submit your response to item 7 within 14 days receipt of this letter. If you have
questions concerning this report, please contact me at 919-571-4700 ext. 267.
Sincerely. ,
Gf Uv'
t
W. Albiston
nmental Specialist II
cc: Maurice Horsey, EPA
Edgecombe Co. Health Dept.

L:]
Umted ates m,ronmemai roecson Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D C 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/miday Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 I„I 2 I�I 3I 11C00206G5 I11 12I 03/06/04 117 18 U
1191�LJ 1 201
LilJ —I
Remarks
21,111111,11111111111111111111111111111111111111166
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 OA Reserved
67 J I 169 70 15 71 � 72 tt 73' I I ' 74 75I I 1 1 I I I 180
L LI
Section B: Facility Data
Name and location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permd Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permk Number)
Tarboro WWTP
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
US Highway 64 Bypass
Tarboro NC 27886
03:00 PM 03,06/04
=4i'3,3'-
Name(s) of Onslte Represerdative(s)/ritles(s)/Phone and Fax Numbers)
Other Facility Data
Lvnwood Sessoosii!
Name, Address of Responsible Officiallf-dle/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Samuel Noble Jr,PO Box 967 Tarboro NC 27886//252-641-4_0E, N.
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement `cerations S Maintenance Records/Reoorta
Self -monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review Compliance Schedules
Effluent/Receiving Waters Laboratory Storm :rater
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Impactors) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
/j
RRO wQ//919-571-4700/919-571-4718 }%(f^"� Z
Joe Albist00on',
/
?V_f, 1/V
SignatureofManagement Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
it Ov ib 3
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.