The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0020559_Historical_2008-2013FACILITY: COUNTY/FREI USE NUMBER � CITY: PE1=1 NUMBER COUNTY: 'Permit Information that Needs to be Incorporated into Future Permit Revisions: DATE CONMENTS PITY 7- ziI 'ail -IS .l�W=� � �� U �� t �� r�e� �• � � , r L "' o, MG$ ex, =A NCDENR- Thomas M. Spain, W WTP Director City of Henderson P.O. Box 1434 Henderson, North Carolina 27536-1434 Dear Mr. Spain: E 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 August 15, 2007 Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NCO020559 Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Vance County The Division of Water Quality (the Division) hereby issues the attached NPDES permit for the subject facility. We issue this permit 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. The Division has reviewed your comments on the draft permit dated June 28, 2007 and have included your requests and corrections. We have added no other corrections to the draft permit. If any parts, monitoring frequencies, or sampling requirements contained m this permit are unacceptable, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing, upon written request, within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. You must submit this request in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and file it with the office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding. Please notice that this permit is not transferable except after notifying the Division. The Division may modify, or revoke and reissue this permit. This permit does not affect your legal requirements to obtain other permits required by the Division of Water Quality, the Division of Land Resources, the Division of Coastal Management, or by other federal or local governments. If you have questions, or if we may be of further service, please call Joe Corporon at (919) 733-5083, extension 597 or email ioe.cgMgron a&cmail.net. .{ur: Colleeen H. Su(1/1//ins Enclosure: NPDES Permit NCO020559 cc: Raleigh Regional Office/Surface Water Protection Section NPDES Program East Pretreatment Unit Aquatic Toxicology Unit Central Files EPA Region 4 N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit Phone: (919) 733-5083 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699.1617 fax: (919) 733-0719 Internet: h2o.enrstate.nc.us DENR Customer Service Center: 1 800 623-7748 • 'ermit NCO020559 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 DES 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 City of Henderson is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility 1646 West Andrews Avenue, Henderson Vance County to receiving waters designated as Nutbush Creek in the Roanoke River Basin in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, and III hereof. The permit shall become effective October 1, 2007. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on March 31, 2012. Signed this day August 15, 2007 4r : Coleen 11. Sullins, Director / Division of Water Quality By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission Permit NCO020559 SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked, and as of this 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 described herein. City of Henderson is hereby authorized to: 1. continue to operate an existing 4.14 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting of the following wastewater treatment components: ■ Bar screen and grit chamber ■ Primary clarifiers ■ Trickling filters ■ Secondary clarifiers ■ Pure oxygen activated sludge nitrification basin ■ Final clarifiers ■ Tertiary filters ■ Post aeration ■ UV disinfection with sodium hypochlorite backup ■ Dissolved air flotation sludge thickening ■ Pure oxygen aerobic digester ■ Anaerobic digesters ■ Aerobic digester ■ Sludge holding tank ■ Sludge drying bed located at the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility, 1646 West Andrews Avenue in Henderson, Vance County, and 2. after receiving an Authorization to Construct permit from the Division of Water Quality, construct and operate wastewater treatment facilities with an ultimate capacity of 6.0 MGD, and 3. discharge via Outfall 001 from said treatment works, at the location specified on the attached map, into Nutbush Creek, a Class C waterbody located within the Roanoke River Basin. Cj 3 M Outfall 001 (flows north) US HWY 158 Approximate property perimeter Cit of Henderson Facility Y Location AIAW-' Henderson Water Reclamation Facility (map not to scale) State Grid/Ouad: B 25 SW / Henderson Latitude: 36° 21' 010 N Reeeivina Stream: Nutbush Creek Longitude: 78° 24' 40- W NPDES Permit NCO020559 Drainage Basin: Roanoke Sub -Basin: 03-02-06 Stream Class: C NORTH Vance County . 'ermit NCO020559 A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (4.14 MGD) Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expansion above 4.14 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below: EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS PARAMETER Monthly Weekly Daily Measurement Sample Sample Average Average Maximum Frequency Type Location' Flow 4.14 MGD Continuous Recording Influent or Effluent BOD, 5-day, 20°C' 6.0 mg/L 9.0 mg/L Daily Composite Influent and (April I- October 31) Effluent BOD, 5-day, 20°C 2 12.0 mg/L 18.0 mg/L Daily Composite Influent and (November 1 -March 31) Effluent Total Suspended Solids r 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L Daily Composite Influent and Effluent NH3 as N 3.0 mg/L 9.0 mg/L Daily Composite Effluent (April 1- October 31) NH3 as N 6.0 mg/L 18.0 mg/L Daily Composite Effluent (November 1 - March 31) Total Phosphorus 1.0 mg/L quarterly average Weekly Composite Effluent (April I- September 30) 3 Total Phosphorus 1.5 mg/L quarterly average Weekly Composite Effluent (October 1 - March 31)' Total Residual Chlorine ° 17 µg/L Daily Grab Effluent Fecal Coliform (geometric 200/100 ml 400/100 ml Daily Grab Effluent mean) pH > 6.0 and < 9.0 standard units Daily Grab Effluent Dissolved Oxygen Daily average > 6.0 mg/L Daily Grab Effluent Temperature Daily Grab Effluent Conductivity Daily Grab Effluent Total Nitrogen Monthly Composite Effluent (NO2+NO3+TICK Total Mercury' 0.012 µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent Total Zinc 2/Month I Composite I Effluent Total Copper 2/Month I Composite I Effluent Chronic Toxicity 6 Quarterly I Composite I Effluent Notes: 1. See A. (3.) for instream sampling requirements. 2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (i.e., 85% removal required). 3. The Permittee shall base Total Phosphorus compliance upon a quarterly average of weekly samples. 4. Chlorine monitoring and limit apply only if chlorine is added to the treatment system 5. Sampling and analysis for mercury shall conform to analytical techniques specified in test method EPA 1631E. 6. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 90 % with testing in January, April, July and October [see A. (4.)]. 7. Additional PPA and annual 2°" Species testing is required by this permit [see Special Conditions A. (5.) and A. (6.)] The Permittee shall discharge no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts. • Permit NC0020559 A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (6.0 MGD) Beginning upon expansion above 4.14 MGD and lasting until 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' Flow 6.0 MGD Contiguous Recording Influent or Effluent BOD, 5-day, 20°C (April 1- October 31) 5.0 mg/L 7.5 mg/L Daily Composite Influent and Effluent BOD, 5-day, 20°C 4 (November I — March 31) 10.0 mg/L 15.0 mg/L Daily Composite Influent and Effluent Total Suspended Solids 2 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L Daily Composite Influent a d Effluent NH3 as N (April I- October 31) 2.0 mg/L 6.0 mg/L Daily Composite Effluent NH3 as N (November 1 - March 31) 4.0 mg/L 12.0 mg/L Daily Composite Effluent Total Phosphorus 3 0.5 mg/L quarterly average Weekly Composite Effluent Total Residual Chlorine 17 µg/L Daily Grab Effluent Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 2101100 ml 1 4001100 ml Daily Grab Effluent pH > 6.0 and < 9.0 standard units Daily Grab Effluent Dissolved Oxygen Daily average > 6.0 mg/L Daily Grab Effluent Temperature Daily Grab Effluent Conductivity Daily Grab Effluent Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN) Monthly Composite Effluent. Total Mercury 0.012 µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent Total Zinc 2/Month Composite I Effluent Total Copper 2/Month Composite Effluent Chronic Toxicity Quarterly Composite Effluent Notes: 1. See A. (3.) for instream sampling requirements 2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (i.e., 85% removal required). 3. The Permittee shall base Total Phosphorus compliance upon a quarterly average of weekly samples. 4. Chlorine monitoring and limit apply only if chlorine is added to the treatment system 5. Sampling and analysis for mercury shall conform to analytical techniques specified in test method EPA 1631E. 6. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 90 %; January, April, July and October (see A. (4.)]. 7. Additional PPA and 2°" Species testing is required by this permit [see Special Conditions A. (5.) and A. (6.)] The Permittee shall discharge no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts. 'ermit NCO020559 A. (3.) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Effluent Characteristics Monitoring Require ents Measurement Frequency Sample Type Sample Locationl Dissolved Oxygen Weekly Grab U, D1, D2 H Weekly Grab U, DI, D2 Temperature Weekly Grab U, DI, D2 Conductivity Weekly Grab U, DI, D2 Dissolved Oxygen (April — October Monthly Profile 2 DI, D2 H (April -October) Monthly Profile 2 DI, D2 Temperature (April -October) Monthly Profile Z DI, D2 Secchi Depth A l-October Monthly Composite 3 DI, D2 NOz, NO3(April-October).Monthly Composite 3 DI, D2 NH3-N A ril-October Monthly Composite ' DI, D2 TKN (April -October) Monthly Composite 3 DI, D2 Total Phosphorus Aril -October Monthly Composite 3 DI, D2 Chloro h ll-a (April -October) Monthly Composite 3 DI, D2 Notes: 1. U = upstream at NC Highway 39. DI = downstream at the power lines. D2 = downstream immediately above the confluence of Indian and Crooked Creeks. 2. Profiles should be taken at one (1) meter intervals. 3. Composites shall be collected as spatial composites throughout the photic zone (i.e. two times the secchi depth.) As per 15A NCAC 213.0505 (c) (4), stream sampling may be discontinued at such time as flow conditions in the receiving waters or extreme weather conditions will result in a substantial risk of injury or death to persons collecting samples. In such cases, on each day that sampling is discontinued, written justification for the discontinuance shall be specified in the monitoring report for the month in which the event occurred. This provision shall be strictly construed and may not be utilized to avoid the requirements of 15A NCAC 2B.0500 when performance of these requirements is attainable. When there is discontinuance pursuant to this provision, stream sampling shall be resumed at the first opportunity after the risk period has ceased. A. (4.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly) The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 90 %. The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, _quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised 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. • Permit NCO020559 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 R 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 Section 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made. Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream. Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the Permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited above. Should the Permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be required during the following month. Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits. NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring. A. (5.) ANNUAL WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY - 2"o SPECIES TESTING The Permittee shall provide four (4) additional toxicity analyses to verify the absence of chronic toxicity. This WET testing shall be similar to that described in Section A.(4.) except conducted with an alternate species. 2"a Species Testing shall occur approximately annually except to provide seasonal results. Please consult with your North Carolina -certified laboratory for details. Report test results to the Division within 90 days of sampling. Two copies of the report shall be submitted along with the DMRs to the following address: NC DENR / DWQ / Central Files, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617. ermit NC002O559 A. (6.) Effluent Pollutant Scan The Permittee shall perform an annual pollutant scan of its treated effluent for the following parameters: Ammonia (as N) Trans-1,2dichloroethylene Bis (2chloroethyl) ether Chlorine (total residual, TRC) l,ldichloroethylene Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether Dissolved oxygen 1,2-dichloropropane Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Nitrate/Nitrite 1,3dichloropropylene 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether Total Kjeldahl nitrogen Ethylbenzene Butyl benzyl phthalate Oil and grease Methyl bromide 2-chloronaphthalene Total Phosphorus Methyl chloride 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether Total dissolved solids Methylene chloride Chrysene Hardness 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane Di-n-butyl phthalate Antimony Tetrachloroethylene Di-n-octyl phthalate Arsenic Toluene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Beryllium 1, 1, 1 -trichloroethane 1,2dichlorobenzene Cadmium 1,1,2-tiichloroethane 1,3dichlorobenzene Chromium Trichloroethylene 1,4dichlorobenzene Copper Vinyl chloride 3,3dichlorobenzidine Lead Acid -extractable compounds: Diethyl phthalate Mercury P-chloro-m-cresol Dimethyl phthalate Nickel 2chlorophenol 2,4dinitrotoluene Selenium 2,4dichlorophenol 2,6dinitrotoluene Silver 2,4dimethylphenol 1,2diphenylhydrazine Thallium 4,6dinitro-o-cresol Fluoranthene Zinc 2,4dinitrophenol Fluorene Cyanide 2-nitrophenol Hexachlorobenzene Total phenolic compounds 4-nitrophenol Hexachlorobutadiene Volatile orcanic compounds: Pentachlorophenol Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene Acrolein Phenol Hexachloroethane Acrylonitrile 2,4,6-trichlorophenol Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzene Base -neutral compounds: Isophorone Bromoform Acenaphthene Naphthalene Carbon tetrachloride Acenaphthylene Nitrobenzene Chlorobenzene Anthracene N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine Chlorodibromomethane Benzidine N-nitrosodimethylamine Chlomethane Benzo(a)anthracene N-nitrosodiphenylamine 2-chloroethylvinyl ether Benzo(a)pyrene Phenanthrene Chloroform 3,4 benzoiluoranthene Pyrene Dichlorobromomethane Benzo(ghi)perylene 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene I,Idichloroethane Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1,2dichlormthme Bis (2chloroethoxy) methane 1. The total set of samples analyzed during the current term of the permit must represent seasonal variations. 2. Samples shall be collected and analyzed in accordance with analytical methods approved under 40 CFR Part 136. 3. Unless indicated otherwise, metals must be analyzed and reported as total recoverable. 4. Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DNIR-PPAI or in a form approved by the Director, within 90 days of sampling. Two copies of the report shall be submitted along with the DMRs to the following address: NC DENR / DWQ / Central Files,1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617. • i --ES Permit Standard Conditions 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/We 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 coliforrn, the geometric mean of such discharges. Arithmetic Mean The summation of the individual values divided by the number of individual values. Bps The known diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility including the collection system, which is not a designed or established or operating mode for the facility. Calendar Day The period from midnight of one day until midnight of the neat day. However, for purposes of this permit, any consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day may be used for sampling. Calendar Quarts One of the following distinct periods: January through March, April through June, July through September, and October through December. Composite Sample A sample collected over a 24-hour period by continuous sampling or combining grab samples of at least 100 ml in such a manner as to result in a total sample representative of the wastewater discharge during the sample period. The Director may designate the most appropriate method (specific number and size of aliquots necessary, the time interval between grab samples, etc.) on a case -by -case basis. Samples may be collected manually or automatically. Composite samples may be obtained by the following methods: (1) Continuous: a single, continuous sample collected over a 24-hour period proportional to the rate of flow. (2) Constant tune/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 tune/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 tune/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 flow 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. P!r.7,71afrYlt5:7 • NPDES Permit Standard Conditions 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 24-hour 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 2) Daily Maximum The highest "daily discharge" for conventional and other non -toxicant parameters. NOTE: Permittees may not submit a "daily average" calculation [for determining compliance with permit limits) for toxicants. See the relevant Federal effluent guidelines] for the appropriate calculation interval. 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). DWO 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 81112006 • )ES Permit Standard Conditions Page 3 of 16 Monthly Average (concentration limit) The arithmetic mean of all "daily discharges" of a pollutant measured during the calendar month. In the case of fecal coliform, the geometric mean of such discharges. Permit Issuing Authority The Director of the Division of Water Quality. Quarterly Av 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)T of the Clean Water Act Unset 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 Avetag_(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. ion B. General Conditions L Duty to Coatrly 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 ae8kSmt# 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 mminal 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)] acMITE /toil • NPDES Permit Standard Conditions Page 4 of 16 d. Any person who knowingly violates such sections, or such conditions or limitations is subject to criminal penalties of $5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than 3 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)(B)(iii) of the CWA, shall, upon conviction of violating the imminent danger provision, be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 and can be fined up to $2,000,000 for second or subsequent convictions. [40 CFR 122.41 (a) (2)] f Under state law, a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 per violation may be assessed against any person who violates or fails to act in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of a permit. [North Carolina General Statutes § 143-215.6A] g. Any person may be assessed an administrative penalty by the Administrator for violating section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of this Act, or any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of this Act. Administrative penalties for Class I violations are not to exceed $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 Nfigpte The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimi>e 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 Liability Except as provided in peanut conditions on "Bypassing" (Part II. 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 Pernlittee 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 tights, no any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations [40 CFR 19241 (! ] 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. 7. Severability Version 8i12006 • I ES Permit Standard Conditions Page 5 of 16 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 perniS shall not be affected thereby [NCGS 150B-23). 8. Duty to Provide Information The Permittee shall furnish to the Permit Issuing Authority, within a reasonable time, any information which the Permit Issuing Authority may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit or to 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. Duty to Reannly 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. 5 gi ttatory Rcgw rents 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: (>) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this Section, a responsible corporate officer means: (a) a president, secretary, treasurer or vice president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision making functions for the corporation, or (b) the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities, provided, the manager is authorized to make management decisions which govern the operation of the regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major capital investment recommendations, and initiating and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long term environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations; the manager can ensure that the necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for permit application requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures . (2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively; or (3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official [40 CFR 12222). b. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by the Permit Issuing Authority shall be signed by a person described in paragraph a. above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if: 1. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above; 2 The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or well field, superintendent, a position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.); and 3. The written authorization is submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority [40 CFR 12222] Version 8H/I006 • NPDES Permit Standard Conditions 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 122.22] d. Certification. Any person signing a document under paragraphs a. or b. of this section shall make the following certification [40 CFR 122.22]: 'I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel property gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.' 12. Permit Actions This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing of a request by the Permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition [40 CFR 122.41 (0]. 13. Perm t 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 Admirustering and Compliance Monitoring Fee Requirements The Permittee must pay the annual administering and compliance monitoring fee within thirty days after being billed by the Division. Failure to pay the fee in a timely manner in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0105 (b) (2) may cause this Division to initiate action to revoke the permit. Section C. Operation and Maintenance of Pollution Controls 1. Certified Operator Upon classification of the permitted facility by the Certification Commission, the Permittee 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 Permittee 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. Time ORC of each Class II, III and IV facility must: ➢ Visit the facility at least five days per week, excluding holidays ➢ Properly manage and document daily operation and maintenance of the facility ➢ Comply with all other conditions of 15A NCAC 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 8/1i2006 • )ES Permit Standard Conditions Page 7 of 16 b. Within 120 calendar days of: ➢ Receiving notification of a change in the classification of the system requiring 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 app ur*Mances) which are installed or used by the Petmittee 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. Bvoassittgof 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 Permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as required in Part U, E. 6. (24-hour notice). c. Prohibition of Bypass Q) 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 alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate backup equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and (C) The 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. (1) of this section. 5. Uosets a. Effect of an upset [40 CFR 12241 (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 a12006 • NPDES Permit Standard Conditions 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 Pemuttee facility was at the time being properly operated; and (3) The Pennittee submitted notice of the upset as required in Part II. E. 6. (b) of this permit. (4) The Pemuttee complied with any remedial measures required under Part II. B. 2. of this permit. c. Burden of proof [40 CFR 122.41 (n) (4)]: 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 143-2L5.1 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 Peraittee 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. Power Failures The Pernittee 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 Sampling 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 be changed without notification to and the approval of the Permit Issuing Authority [40 CFR 122.41 G)]. 2. Reporting Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month and reported on a monthly Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form (MR ], Ll, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the Director, postmarked no later than the last calendar day of the month following the completed reporting period. The first DMR is due on the last day of the month following the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last day of the month following the commencement of discharge. Duplicate signed copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the following address: NC DENR / Division of Water Quality / Water Quality Section ATTENTION: Central Files 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Version 8412006 • )ES Permit Standard Conditions 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 10% from the true discharge rates throughout the range of expected discharge volumes. Flow measurement devices shall be accurately calibrated at a minimum of once per year and maintained to ensure that the accuracy of the measurements is consistent with the accepted capability of that type of device. The Director shall approve the flow measurement device and monitoring location prior to installation. Once -through condenser cooling water flow monitored by pump logs, or pump hour meters as specified in Part 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 177 41). 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 Tampwhg 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 122.41]. 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 Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including ➢ all calibration and maintenance records ➢ all original stop 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 per i 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 122.41]. 7. Recgiding Results For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the Permittee shall record the following information [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; Vemm 8h2006 • NPDES Permit Standard Conditions Page 10 of 16 e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and f The results of such analyses. 8. Inspection and Entry The Pemuttee 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 Petmittee'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 Pit; c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit; and d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act, any substances or parameters at any location [40 CFR 122.41 (i)]. 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 Changes The Permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility [40 CFR 122.41 (i)]. 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) T. c. The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the Permittee's sludge use or disposal practices, and such alteration, addition or change may justify the application of permit conditions that are different from or absent in the existing permit, including notification of additional use or disposal sites not reported during the permit application process or not reported pursuant to an approved land application plan. 3. Anticipated Noncompliance The Permurtee 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 chi of ownership. Any such action may incorporate other requirements as may be necessary under the Clean Water Act [40 CFR 122.41 (i) (3)]. 5. Monitoring Reports Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified elsewhere in this permit f40 CFR 122 41 (I) (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 Pernittee 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 8i12006 • : )ES Permit Standard Conditions Page 11 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 a) (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. Occurrences outside normal business hours may also be reported to the Division's Emergency Response personnel at (800) 662-7956, (800) 858-0368 or (919) 733-3300. 7. Other Noncompliance The Permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under Part II. E. 5 and 6. of this permit at the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed in Part II. E. 6. of this permit [40 CFR 122.41 (l) (7)]. 8. Other Information Where the Permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to the Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or information [40 CFR 122.410) (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 Esp= Except for data determined to be confidential under NCGS 143-215.3 (a)(2) or Section 308 of the Federal Act, 33 USC 1318, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the Division. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidentiaL Knowingly malting any false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties as provided for in NCGS 143-2151(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 Version 8i1/1008 • NPDFS Permit Standard Conditions 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 122.411. 12. Annual Performance Reports Pennittees 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 plants 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 B. Groundwater Monitorin The Permittee shall, upon written notice from the Director, conduct groundwater monitoring as may be required to determine the compliance of this NPDES permitted facility with the current groundwater standards. Section C. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances The Permittee shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority as soon as it knows or has reason to believe (40 CFR 122.42): a. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following "notification levels"; 0) One hundred micrograms per liter (100 µg/L); (2) Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 µg/L) for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500 K/L) for 2.4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4.6-dirvtrophenol; and one milligram per liter 0 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"; p) Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 Ng/L); (2) One milligram per liter 0 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 rules, regulations or laws, the Permittee shall submit a report in such form and detail as required by the Division evaluating these alternatives 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 1. :J f rx; ... JES Permit Standard Conditions 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 MUNICIPAL 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 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 Permittee'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 Permittee 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 dosed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 26121; 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; C. 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 400C (104°F) unless the Division, upon request of the POTW, approves alternate temperature limits; f 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 CFR Part 403) to ensure compliance by the Permittee 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 Permittee 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 W/2006 • NPDES Perot Standard Conditions Page 14 of 16 Division a Pretreatment Program for approval per 15A NCAC 2H .0907(a) or modify an existing Pretreatment Program per I5A NCAC 2H .0907(b). 5. This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to incorporate or modify an approved POTW Pretreatment Program or to include a compliance schedule for the development of a POTW Pretreatment Program as required under Section 402(b)(8) of the 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 Perm ttee shall maintain adequate legal authority to implement its approved pretreatment program. 2. Industrial Waste Survey (IWS) 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. Monitoring Plan The Pennittee 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- WAI 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 Permittee shall submit to the Division a written technical evaluation of the need to revise local limits (i.e., an updated HWA or documentation of why one is not needed) [40 CFR 122.44]. The Permittee shall develop, in accordance with 40 CFR 403.5(c) and 15A NCAC 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 (II2) & 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. / k5. OS Permit Standard Conditions Page 15 of 16 6. Authorization to Construct AtQ 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 SIUs 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 i through June 30 and once during the period from July 1 through December 31, except for organic compounds which shall be sampled once per calendar year; B. 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 (ERPI 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; c.) Significant Non -Compliance Report (SN R) 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 Sumg! ry Forms (IDSQ l M. • NPDES Permit Standard Conditions 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 Pe®irtee'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 Emir, 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 Report The Permittee 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 NC —AC 2H .0114 and 15A NCAC 2H .0907. NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Pat McCrory Charles Walcild, PE John Skvarla, III Governor Director Secretary May 29, 2013 Mr. Tom Spain, Water Reclamation Director MAY 3 0 IV City of Henderson PO Box 1434 Henderson, North Carolina 27536 Subject: Interim Inspection and Progress Meeting City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Improvements [VANCE County] SRF No. CS370 410-06 Dear Mr. Spain: The Construction Inspection Group of the Infrastructure Finance Section performed an interim inspection for the state and federally funded portion of subject project at 1:00 p.m. Thursday May 9, 2013. This interim inspection was conducted in conjunction with the monthly progress meeting which is scheduled for the 2nd Thursday each month. Meetings are held at the construction trailer on site, NC39. The next interim inspection and progress meeting is scheduled for June 13, 2013. You should review this report, take actions or provide responses as indicated, and then file with your project records. You should maintain these project records for 3 years from completion of the project. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (919) 707-9185 or via e-mail at gerald.horton@ncdenr.gov. Zd ely, W. Horton, PE Environmental Engineer Construction Inspection Group cc: Wes Wightman, PE, McGill Assocs., PA Hickory office Danny Smith, Raleigh DWQ Regional Office IFS — Mark Hubbard, PE, Don Evans, Gerald Horton SRF Infiastructure Finance Section One 1633 Mail Service Center, Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1633 NOI'1t1CaT0]1I11 location 9- flo97 9160 \ daleFAX Building.1-7-9 2N Salisbury St. Raleigh. North Carolina 27664 JVaturalt� Phone: t: if .nc. \ v 919-716-fi2Y9 Internist: ifs.nC.9ov City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Improvements Project No. CS 370 725-02 Int Inspection & Progress Meeting of May Y, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Comments, observations and concerns discussed at the Preconstruction meetine Please note that updates are noted in italics. The following comments and concerns (though not intended to be a complete list) were discussed at this or prior meetings: 5. May update: IFS received set of half sized drawings. [April] - IFS received set at April meeting. *IFS requested an half size set of conformed drawings, you may provide these at next meeting. 7. May update: IFS received confirmation letter dated May 15, 2013 which satisfactorily attests to scope of work. [Precon comment] -IFS requests Owner and Engineer read the description of eligible work on page 3 herein & confirm in 30 days from receipt of this report in writing the Scope of Work is accurate & as approved or negotiated. 13. [April ] with 2 projects in Henderson going on simultaneously, Henderson agreed to conduct the sewer project meeting at 8:30 a.m. and to conduct the WRF project at 1:00 p.m. After completion of the sewer project the WRF project can be moved to the a.m. Regularly scheduled Progress meetings and interim inspections, it was subsequently decided, will be the 2ad Thursday each month until project completion. 16. [April] - IMPORTANT - IFS suggested prior to first reimbursement request that Owner's financial person contact Ms. Leslie Rogers, IFS Accountant, tele: 919 707-9167 to discuss reimbursement procedures. 17. May update: Owner is still in process of contracting with a testing firm. [April] testing firm is yet undetermined, tentatively will be ECS. Engineer stated that testing will be paid by Owner and that testing firm (concrete, compaction etc.) has not yet been selected. 25. May update: alternate feeds line resolved. [April] -An alternate feed line was discussed at sludge drying beds. Specifically, the Owner needs sludge lines to be rerouted to maintain use of sludge beds. Refer to drwg. C-113. 26. May update: May 14 has been determined to be the ground breaking ceremony. A discussion of the project sign ensued in order to have it available for the ceremony. [April] - Owner stated that the City Manager has requested a ground breaking ceremony near end of April. 27. May update: building permit extent and costs is still pending, there are 7 buildings in this construction project. [April] - There was a discussion on building permits from the County, DeVere stating the cost far exceeds the $5000+ allowance. Owner stated they would try to assist in seeking fair costs. 28. May update: all present stated there have been no spills or bypasses of sewage since last meeting. IFS may ask at each meeting if there has been any spill of sewage from the site. 29. Project substantial completion date is November 13, 2014. 30. IFS requested being provided a CD of DeVere's safety training. 31. For the record, the oxidation ditch manufacturer is Ovivo/Carosel (formerly Enviro Tech). 32. DeVere requested a conference call with McGill-DeVere and manufacturer of the centrifuge equipment. 33.Owner discussed pavement details, specifically detail C-207. Owner, DeVere and Engineer reviewed pavements after meeting. Please discuss decisions at June meeting. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION Observations of DeVere construction progress meeting of April includes but is not limited to: o Thru May meeting demo continuing on sludge beds o Clearing area for oxidation ditches o Placed erosion & sediment controls MAY 3 0 2013 City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facinty Improvements Project No. CS 370 725-02 Inl Inspection & Progress Meeting of May Y, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Project Schedule — At May meeting, DeVere stated the buildings have caused the schedule to move out by 1 month. Request for Proposals — none CHANGE ORDERS- none. Request for Information - there have been 10 RFIs, 2 were answered and 1 is pending Submittal Status — there have been 44 submittals to date, none are indicated as critical. IFS suggests Submittals be discussed at each meeting until all submittals are approved. Inspectors logs/Work Orders -please have inspection logs available for review by IFS at all progress meetings. Testing - no testing yet performed, please have all testing records for subsurface investigations, concrete breaks, compaction, pipe pressure, etc. available for review at all meetings. Safety - no issues, IFS requested being provided a CD of DeVere's safety training. As-builts or Record Drawings — Please have Record drawings updated and available for review at all meetings. Progress Meetine Attendees Frank Frazier City of Henderson, Asst. City Mgr. 252 430-5703 Tom Spain City of Henderson 252 432-4547 Peter Sokalski, PE City Engineer, Henderson 252 430-5728 Wes Wightman, PE McGill Assocs., Proj. Mgr. 828 328-2024 TS Childers McGill Assocs., inspector 828 328-2024 Tim Meyer DeVere Construction Co. Inc., Proj Mgr. 919 363-6551 Roy Schultz DeVere Construction Co. Inc., Supt. 919 268-1258 Gerald Horton, PE NC Infrastructure Finance Section gerald.horton@ncdenr.gov — End of Report — 919 601-1864 (C) 919 707-9185 (ofc) MAY 3 0 7.013 NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Division of Water Resources Water Quality Programs Pat McCrory Thomas A. Reeder Governor Director November 19, ,& U 3 Mr. Tom Spain Director of Water Reclamation Facility City of Henderson PO Box 1434 Henderson, NC 27536 Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility NPDES Permit No. NCO020559 Vance County Dear Mr. Spain: Natural Resources John E. Skvarla, III Secretary On October 29, 2013, Cheng Zhang and Michael Young of the Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) conducted a compliance evaluation inspection of the subject facility. Your assistance was greatly appreciated as it facilitated the inspection process. The inspection report is attached. The following observations were made: Henderson Reclamation Facility is permitted to discharge at a rate of 4.14 MGD and consist of: bar screen and grit chamber, primary clarifiers, trickling filters, secondary clarifiers, pure oxygen activated sludge nitrification basin, final clarifiers, tertiary filters, post aeration, UV disinfection with sodium hypochlorite backup, dissolved air floatation sludge thickening, pure oxygen aerobic digesters, anaerobic digesters, aerobic digesters, sludge holding tank, and sludge drying bed. The facility discharges into Nutbush Creek in the Roanoke River Basin. 1. The current permit became effective on November 1, 2012. The facility is undergoing a plant upgrade. Open channel oxidation ditches are being constructed, and will replace the pure oxygen activated sludge nitrification basin when the upgrade is completed. 2. At the time of inspection, primary clarifiers and trickling filters were decommissioned and demolished (in June 2013). All treatment units were in operable condition except: a) One rectangle secondary clarifier needed a new valve; b) No. 2 tertiary filter was being repaired; c) One of six intermediate pumps needed to be repaired. Nf��`nnCazolina Naturall North Carolina Division of Water Resources 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Phone (919) 7914200 Internet: www.ncwateraualitv.orc Location: 3800 9amett Drive Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax (919) 788-7159 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Reeyycled/10% Post Consumer Paper City of Henderson Water RE cation Facility Permit No. NC0020559 Compliance Evaluation Inspection 3. The pure oxygen system broke down in August 2013, the facility managed to manually feed the aeration basin. The system was repaired just before this inspection. 4. Due to low flow, only two of the four final clarifiers, two of four tertiary filters were in service. 5. Waste activated sludge is thickened first by the dissolved air floatation (DAF) unit, and then digested in the pure oxygen digesters, followed by anaerobic digesters and final stored in the aerobic digesters. Only one of the two pure oxygen sludge digester was in use at the time of inspection. 6. The standby power generator is tested under load weekly. The generator will be activated automatically when primary power is out. The generator has capacity to operate the entire facility during power outrage. 7. The ORC maintains a daily logbook. Lab results, chain -of -custody forms, and DMRs were complete and current, kept in good order and ready for review. June 2013 DMR data were compared to lab bench sheets; no data transcription errors were noted. Influent and effluent flow meters were calibrated twice a year by facility staff. 8. The right of way to the outfall was well maintained. No visible impacts were noted immediately downstream the effluent pipe. 9. Field lab parameter (Certificate No. 242) calibration and analysis records were reviewed during the inspection. If you have any questions regarding the attached reports or any of the findings, please contact Cheng Zhang at: (919) 791-4200 (or email: cheng.zhan¢ mcderingov). Since ly, Danny Srfiith Regional Supervisor Raleigh Regional Office ATTACHMENTS Compliance Inspection Reports Cc: Central Files w/attachment Raleigh Regional Office w/attachment United states Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved. Washington, D.C. 20460 EPA OMB No. 2040-0057 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 ,J 31 NCO020559 11 121 13I109 17 18a 19J 20 2 IJ Remarks 21IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII6 Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Mondonng Evaluation Rating B1 GA -Reserved---- 67I 169 70I I 711 tyI 72 (N ( 73It_u I 174 75I I I I I I I 180 u u SectionB: 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 13/10/29 12/11/01 Henderson WRF Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date NC Hwy 39 Henderson NC 27536 12:30 PM 13/10/29 17/03/31 Names) of Onsite Representative(syTitles(syPhone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data 1/1 Thomas M SpairdORC/252-431-6081/ Name, Address of Responsible OfflciatrTitie/Phone and Fax Number Contacted Thomas M Spain,PO Box 1434 Henderson NC 275361434//919431-6006/ No 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 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 Michael D Young RRO WO/// Chang Zhang RRO WO//919-791-4200/ , 11 Sign lure of Me gement Agency/Of c /Phone and Fax Numbers Date VAeviewer �¢ q2-6 2.0/16yl 3 G' EPA Form 560.3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete. Page # 1 Permit: NCO020559 Date: 10/29/2013 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF 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: The facility analyzes MLSS, MCRT, pH, DO, sludge judge for process control. 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? 0013 Cl # 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: There are no special conditions for the 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: NCO020559 Inspection Date: 10/29/2013 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: compliance Evaluation Record Keeping Yes No NA NE Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? ■ Cl ❑ ❑ Facility has copy of previous years Annual Report on file for review? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 - Influent Yes No NA NE # Is flow meter used for reporting? ■ ❑ O Cl Is flow meter calibrated annually? ■ ❑ n n Is the flow meter operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ (If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? ■ ❑ ❑ Comment: Flow meters are calibrated once every six months. 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: Influent flow meter is used for reporting. Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE Is the capacity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the mixing adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is the odor acceptable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: One of two oxygen digesters was in service. Anaerobic Digester Yes No NA NE Type of operation: Floating cover Is the capacity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page # 4 Permit: NCO020559 Inspection Date: 10/29/2013 Owner • Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Anaerobic Digester Yes No NA NE # Is gas stored on site? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the gas burner operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the digester heated? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the temperature maintained constantly? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is tankage available for property waste sludge? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Methane gas is flared. Both Anaerobic digesters will be decommisioned and demolished when the plant upgrade is completed. Drying Beds Yes No NA NE 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: Only one bed was in use 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? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ The facility has an approved sludge management plan? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: The facility used OAF to homogenize sludge from various sources. OAF will be removed when screw thickeners are added in the future. Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE Page # 5 Permit: NC0020559 Owner - Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 10/29/2013 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: Vea Mn NA NF Type of bar screen a.Manual ■ b.Mechanical ■ Are the bars adequately screening debris? ■ 000 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: 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? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Page # 6 Permit: NCO020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 10/29/2013 Inspection Type: compliance Evaluation Primary Clarifier Yes No NA NE 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? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately % of the sidewall depth) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Comment: Primary clarifiers were decommisioned and demolished in June 2013 as part of the plant upgrade. 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? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the drive unit operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc? ■ Cl Cl ❑ Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately''/. of the sidewall depth) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Two of four rectangle secondary clarifiers were in service, one secondary clarifier needed a new valve. Only two of the four final clarifiers were in service although all were operable. Trickling Filter Yes No NA NE Is the fitter free of ponding? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of filters distribution arms? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Is the finer free of uneven or discolored growth? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth? Cl n ■ ❑ Page 4 7 Permit: NCO020559 Owner • Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 10/29/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Trickling Filter Yes No NA NE Are the filters distribution arms orifices free of clogging? DONO Is the filter free of excessive filter flies, worms or snails? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Comment: Trickling filters were decommisioned and demolished in June 2013 as part of the plant upgrade. Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE Mode of operation Plug Flow Type of aeration system Fixed 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/1) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: The aeration basin is sealed. DO in the basin was 20.6 mg/L. Pure Oxygen Yes No NA NE Type of pure oxygen system Bulk storage Is there a back-up source for the system? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are mixers operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are samples port/points easily accessible? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: The pure oxygen system broke down in August 2013. The operators managed to manually operator the system. The system was finally fixed right before the time of inspection. Filtration (High Rate Tertiary) Yes No NA NE Type of operation: Down flow Is the filter media present? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the filter surface free of clogging? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the filter free of growth? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the air scour operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the scouring acceptable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page # 8 Permit: NC0020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 10/29/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Filtration (High Rate Tertiary) Yes No NA NE Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: No. 1 and 3 were on line at the time of inspection. No. 2 was being repaired. Disinfection - UV Yes No NA NE Are extra UV bulbs available on site? M ❑ ❑ ❑ Are UV bulbs clean? M ❑ ❑ ❑ Is UV intensity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is transmittance at or above designed level? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is there a backup system on site? M ❑ ❑ ❑ Is effluent clear and free of solids? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Standby Power Yes No NA NE Is automatically activated standby power available? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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: Laboratory Yes No NA NE Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory? M ❑ ❑ ❑ Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is the facility using a contract lab? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 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 Yes No NA NE # Is composite sampling Flow proportional? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Page # 9 Permit: NC0020559 Inspection Date: 10/292013 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE Is sample collected above side streams? ■ 1311 ❑ 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 sampling performed according to the permit? ■ ❑ ❑ Cl Comment: Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE Is composite sampling flow proportional? In ❑ ❑ ❑ Is sample collected below all treatment units? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is proper volume collected? in ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the tubing clean? ■ Cl ❑ ❑ # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? Is ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: 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 u 10 Regional I ectors' Checklist for Field •ameters Facili Name: e.rs- F Regional Plant Inspector: G, a-,"Zh4•t NPDES #: N c pp ao f t- Regional Inspector Contact*5'ZJ- Field Lab Certification #: Region: Nele-'S A Lab Contact: o, rre, UI7h SG h Date: o/a-P / -2-0 r3 I. Check the parameter(s) performed at this site for reporting purposes. M Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) a Temperature (TEMP) M Specific Conductivity (SC) Z.pH EX Dissolved Oxygen (DO) ❑ Settleable Residue (SETT) It. General Laboratory (note any exceptions in section XIl Are instruments, meters, probes, photometric cells, etc. maintained in good condition? EX Yes ❑ No Are standards, reagents and consumables used within manufacturer expiration dates? RC gel standard is exempt.] Yes ❑ No Are the following items documented where applicabie : Item TRC pH TEMP DO SC SETT Date of sample collection' ✓ Time of sample collection' V ✓ Sample collector's initials or signature ✓ ✓ ✓ v Date of sample analysis* ✓ ✓ V/ Time of sample analysis* v/ V V Analyst initials or signature ✓ ✓ Sample location Date ana time of sample collection ana analysis may be the same for in situ or on -site measurements. III. Total Residual Chlorine Total Residual Chlorine meter make and model: Sp e c Et -on : C_ 2 Is a check standard analyzed each day of use? Circle one: gel or liquid standard Yes ❑ No What is the assigned/observed value of the daily check standard? o. of I-m /L Is a 5-point calibration verificationperformed? Note date of last verification: L4 Yes ❑ No Alternatively, does the lab construct a linear regression, using 5 standards, to calculate results? Note date of last calibration curve constructed: S'i I / s G f3 Lj Yes ❑ No True values: ❑ pg/L mg/L v . a op o, o%r o, oJ-c2 Om- Obtainedvalues: ❑Ng/L[v1mg/L o,,49 0,20. What program are samples analyzed on? or, Are results reported in proper units? Check one: Pq pg/L ❑ m /L ❑ Yes ❑ No Are results reported between the facility's permit limit and the compliance limit of 50 pg/L? If value is less than the low standard, report as "<x", where x=low standard conc. 4 Yes ❑ No Are samples analyzed within 15 minutes of collection? Yes ❑ No IV. pH pH meter make and model: m 1 !on o jo C Is the pH meter calibrated with at least 2 buffers per mfg's instructions each day of use? Note buffers used: aYes ❑ No Is the pH meter calibration checked with an additional buffer each day of use? Note check buffer used: 0 , '7 , t D ® Yes ❑ No Does the check buffer read within t0.1 S.U. of the known value? 7 Yes ❑ No Are the following items documented: Meter calibration? Yes ❑ No Check buffer reading? Yes ❑ No Are samples analyzed within 15 minutes of collection? I ❑ Yes ❑ No Are sample results reported to 0.1 pH units? I JA Yes ❑ No V. Temperature �Athat instrument(s) is used to measure temperature? Check all that apply: ❑ pH meter DO meter ❑ Conductivity meter ❑ Digital thermometer ❑ Glass thermometer ment/thermometer calibration checked at least annually against a NIST NIST certified thermometer? Mtemperature Yes ❑ No corrections even if zeroposted on the instrument/thermometer? [X Yes ❑ No Are samples measured in situ or on -site? [REQUIRED - there is no holding time for temperature] ® Yes ❑ No Are sample results reported in degrees C? MKess=D No VI. Dissolved Oxygen DO meter make and model: = sing Iq Is the air calibration of the DO meter performed each day of use? Yes ❑ No Are the following items documented: Meter calibration? Yes ❑ No Are samples analyzed within 15 minutes of collection? ® Yes ❑ No Are results reported in m /L? ®.Yes ❑ No VII. Conductivity Conductivity meter make and model:Is the meter calibrated daily according to the manufacturer's instructions? Note standard used this is generally a one -point calibration): 9,64e. 4?5('r, 99FZ ® Yes ❑ No Is a daily check standard analyzed? Note value: / Y t 2- Yes ❑ No Are the following items documented: Meter calibration? Yes ❑ No Are samples analyzed within 28 days of collection? Yes ❑ No Are results reported in mhos/cm some meters display equivalent S/cm units)? ® Yes ❑ No Vill. Settleable Residue Does the laboratory have an Imhoff Cone in good condition? ❑ Yes ❑ No Is the sample settled for 1 hour? ❑ Yes ❑ No Is the sample aitated after 45 minutes? ❑ Yes ❑ No Are the following items documented: Volume of sample analyzed? Note volume analyzed: ❑ Yes ❑ No Date and time of sample analysis(settling start time)? ❑ Yes ❑ No Time of agitation after 45 minutes of settling? ❑ Yes ❑ No Sample analysis completion(settling end time)? ❑ Yes ❑ No Are samples analyzed within 48 hours of collection? ❑ ❑ Yes Yes ❑ ❑ No No Are results reported in ml/L? IX. Was a paper trail (comparing contract lab and on -site data to DMR) performed? If so, list months reviewed: ❑ Yes ❑ No X. Is follow-up by the Laboratory Certification program recommended? ❑Yes No XI. Additional comments: Please submit a copy of this completed form to the Laboratory Certification program at: DWQ Lab Certification, Chemistry Lab, Courier # 52-01-01 Electronic copies may be emailed to Iinda.chavis(ccDncdenr.gov. Revision 04/20/2012 ility Status: (Please check one of the folloN _ All monitoring data and sampling frequencies meet permit requirements El weekly averages, if applicable) Compliant All monitoring data and sampling frequencies do NOT meet permit requirements m Noncompliant moo" rP The pennittee shall report to the Director or the appropriate Regional Office any noncompliance that cal potentially threatens public health or the environment. Any information shall be provided orally within 24 0— hours from the time the permittee became aware of the circumstances. A written submission shall also be cw provided within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. If the facility is noncompliant, please attach a list of corrective actions being taken and a time -table for improvements to be made as required by Part II.E.6 of the NPDES permit. "I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who managed 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." City of Henderson 7p WI A Permittee (Please print or type) Signature of Permittee*'* Da e (Required unless submitted electronically) P.O. Box 1434, Henderson, NC 27536 252-431-6081 tspain@ci.henderson.nc.us March 31, 2017 Permittee Address Phone Number e-mail address Permit Expiration Date Certified Laboratory (2) Certified Laboratory (3) Certified Laboratory (4) Certified Laboratory (5) ADDITIONAL CERTIFIED LABORATORIES Pace Analytical Services Certification No. Meritech Certification No. Environment 1 PARAMETER CODES Certification No. Certification No. 67 165 10 Parameter Code assistance may be obtained by calling the NPDES Unit at (919) 733-5083 or by visiting the Surface Water Protection Section's web site at h2o.em.state.nc.us/was and linking to the unit's information pages. Use only units of measurement designated in the reporting facility's NPDES pemit for reporting data. * No Flow/Discharge From Site: Check this box if no discharge occurs and, as a result, there are no data to be entered for all of the parameters on the DMR for the entire monitoring period. '• ORC On Site?: ORC must visit facility and document visitation of facility as required per 15A NCAC 8G .0204. '•• Signature of Permittee: If signed by other than the permittee, then the delegation of the signatory authority most be on file with the state per I SA NCAC 2B .0506(b)(2)(D). Page 2 EFFLUENT NPDES PERMIT NO. NCa120559 DISCHARGE NO" 00i FACILITY NAME_ HENDERSON WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY CERTIFIED LABORATORY (1) CITY OF HENDERSON WRE CERTIFICATION NO.242_ (list additional laboratories on the backsidelpage 2 of this form) OPERATOR IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE (ORC) THOMAS M- SPAIN PERSON(S) COLLECTING SAMPLES t AR STAFF CHECK BOX IF ORC HAS CHANGED r-1 Mail ORIGINAL and ONE COPY to: AT ITC CENTRAL FILES DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY 1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NC 27699.1617 X MONTH Angt16I YEAR-2M CLASSY COUNTY VAhLCE GRADER, CERTIFICATION NO.6065 ORC PHONE. 252431-6091 NO FLOW/ DISCHARGE FROM SITE BY'1'HIS SIGNATURE, I CERTIFY THA9" THIS REPORT 1S ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. 50050 00010 00400 50060 00310 00610 00530 31616 00300 00600 00665 00630 00625 00410 THP3B W e C { 2� $ Lry D rot �o` O M e. .Y O x FLOW 5, �W dV S d i �g H WX ob' mry =W oo 2� <z o Cj �w° Oy� N y J21 cai01yyypQQ LLJY U_ >W Jo �O �W � _ nrc jrc ;j6 �M B ,rC 7 3 ,? Ji a D x F U EFT JQQ <OK12 X !cope "M Hm Y/ MGD ° C UMTS UGI MGR MG& MM 911MML MCA. MGIL MG& MG MG& MG& CTr 110800 24 Y 2.873 24.8 7.1 <2.0 <0.1 <2.5 < 1 - 7.6 - - 2 0800 24 Y 2.705 25.0 7.4 <2.0 <0.1 3 0800 24 2.670 - 4 0800 24 2.358 5 0800 24 Y 2.278 24.9 72 <2.0 <0.1 Q.5 15 - - 7.4 - - - -- 6 0800 24 Y 2.460 24.9 7.3 <2.0 <0.1 <2.5 10 7.3 '- - 7 0800 24 Y 2.416 -2.344 25.1 - 74 <2.0 <0.1 a.5 2 7.5 25.2 0.4 252 <1.0 216 8 0800 24 Y 25.3 7.4 <2.0 <0.1 <2.5 1 7.6 9 0800 24 Y 2.182 25.6 - 7.5 <2.0 <0.1 <2.5 < 1 - 7.6 10 0800 24 2.310 11 0800 24 2.334 : .. 12 08001 24 j Y 2.055 26.0 7.5 <20 <0.1 <2.5 1 7.6 13 0800 241 Y 2.105 26.0 ' 7.5 <2.0 - <0.1 <2.5 < 1 7.2 14 0800 24 1 Y 2298 26.0 7.3 <2.0 0.1 <2.5 < 1 6.9 0.4 237 15 0800 241 Y 2.102 25.2 -7.4 <2.0 : <0.1 <2.5 4 :7.4 16 0800 24 Y 2.196 24.7 7.5 <2.0 1.9 2.6 4 7.0 17 0800: 24 2.016 - 18 0800 24 1.993 19 0800 24 . - Y. 1.827 24.7 7.5 1 <2.0 ': = 23.0 <2.5 6 "1 7.0 20 0800 24 Y 2.473 24.5 7.5 <2.0 20.8 <2.5 25 1 7.3 21 0800 24. Y: 2.198 1 25.0:1 7.4 <2.0 19.9 <2.5 10 6.9 0.6.. 236. ' 22 0800 24 Y 2.240 25A 7.2 <2.0 10.7 <2.5 34 7.0 - 23.0800::.24 Y_ . 2.224. 25.2' . '7.2 <2.0 ": 2.1 <2.5 '. 82:. 7.4 241 0800 24 2.145 25 09001241 2.102 26 0800 24 B 2.096 24.6 7.3 <2.0 <0.1 <2.5 31 8.1 27 0800, 24 Y. 2.329 26.0, :.6.9 : <2.0 :, <0.1 32 3.'.. 7.7 28 0100 24 Y 2.318 24.6 7.3 <2.0 <0.1 <2.5 320 7.6 dO.6 184 29080tr24 Y3.520. 24.8 -. 7.2 3U : 3.3 <2.5 '62 7.5 30 0800 24 Y 1.043 25.0 7.1 <2.0 0.2 <2.5 1 7.431 0800 2 1AVERAGE MAXIMUM 2.264 3,520 25.1 26.0 - 7.5 0.1 3.1 3.7 0.3 3.2 6 320 7.4 8.1 25.2 25.2 0.6 25.2 25.2 0.00 <1.0. 218- - 237 23.0 MINIMUM 1.043 24.5 6.9 <2.0 <0.1 <2.5 < 1 6.9 25.2 0.4 25.2 <I.0 184 Comp. (C) / Grab (G) Daily Maximum G G G C C C G C C C C C G C 17 6.0 min Weekly limit 9.0 9.0 45.0 400 Monthly Limit 4.14 6-9 6.0 3.0 30.0 200 Quarterly Limit I i 1.0 >9096 Fecal Coliform-Data Valid but Qualified -Did not meet QC criteria for Duplicate Analysis-8/5/13, 8/20/13,8/21 /13,8/22/13,8/29/13 DWQ F" MR-1 (I1,N) * S� id7Ti�f'� Page 2 EFFLUENT NPDES PERMIT NO. NCNC OOI17�_ DISCHARGE NO. 001 MONTH A'� YEAR—= FACILITY NAMF_ HFNDFRSON WATFR RFPLAMATION FACII 1TV CLASSY COUNTY VANCE CERTIFIED LABORATORY (1) CITY OF HENDERSON WRF CERTIFICATION NO..242 (list additional laboratories on the backsidelpage 2 of this form) OPERATOR IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE (ORC) THOMAS M_ SPAIN PERSON(S) COLLECTING SAMPLES t AR STAFF CHECK BOX IF ORC HAS CHANGED 0 Mail ORIGINAL and ONE COPY to: ATTN: CENTRAL FILES DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY 1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NC 276".1617 GRADES CERTIFICATION NO. 1D65 ORC PHONE uz-aa I -6ng I NO FLOW /DISCHARGE FROM SITE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. 0 �0000000000000�00 DWQFm MR-1(11/04) Page 3 EFFLUENT NPDES PERMIT NO. NCOO 0� DISCHARGE NO., 001 MONTH9ugiW YEAR 0I a FACILITY NAME HFNOFRSON WATER RECLAMATION FACII 1TY CLASSY COUNTY VANCF CERTIFIED LABORATORY (1) CITY OF HENDERSON WRF CERTIFICATION NO.142— (list additional laboratories on the backside/page 2 of this form) OPERATOR IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE (ORC) THOMAS M. SPAIN GRADES CERTIFICATION NO. 6M PERSON(S) COLLECTING SAMPLES I AR STAFF ORC PHONE 252-431-6051 CHECK BOX IF ORC HAS CHANGED Q NO FLOW / DISCHARGE FROM SITE n Mail ORIGINAL and ONE COPY to: ATTN: CENTRAL FILES DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY 1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NC 276"A617 BY THIS SIGNATURE, I CERTIff THAT THIS REPORT IS ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. m DWQ Forth Ma-1 (11/04) J A W 11 a 3 — O b ONo P U N O �D OG J P U A W N — O a n 41 lW tJ w W w tY W t✓ tJ tJ w A w tJ tJ 41 tJ lJ U W w y O O n A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 3 R 3 y rt J J J J J C .Q 4 N—� N `- �. G g N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N n y n in O -��__ n N O P O J P J p� J O] W J �p P U W P P U U A J N N N n m ,••3 D p `O' — Cl Q Z O n 0a W J A U W A p Wp pN� W P J W W W J A N W A W W J N m � A 00 J N A P pwp p� O A 00 P N Oo N N P P o0 0o Oo N A oo A � CJ CJ m O C Z m z z a n ? y -- m m 4 q n n m U Z 0 Oy O QN z n cam- o G N m z m m Z O z 0 O N O Ut _O n D 37 m m z O O 0 z x m D 9 0 Page #2 INFLUENT NPDES NO. NC0020559 DISCHARGE NO. 001 Month August YEAR 2013 County Vance 000_000000 Page #3 INFLUENT NPDES NO. NC0020559 DISCHARGE NO. 001 Month August YEAR 2013 FACILITY NAME CITY OF HENDERSON WRF County Vance • Settle able matter • . 000000000 NPDES NO. NCOC 9 DISCHARGE NO. 001 )NTH August YEAR 2013 FACILITY NAME City of Henderson WRF STREAM LOCATION Nutbush Creek Hwy. 39 North UPSTREAM COUNTY Vance 00010 00400 00310 00300 31616 00095 00630 00625 1 00600 00665 F F q E UU a U umhos/ Cm Enter Parameter Above Name Unit Below Code and y zz 2. F FZ Fs a. Has C Units mg/I mgA N/looms mgA mgA m9/1 mgA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13:42 22.6 6.9 1 7.7 63 199 8 9 10 11 12 13:47 24.5 6.8 6.9 114 213 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 13:38 20.7 6.4 7.6 390 144 21 22 23 24 25 26 13:41 19.6 6.6 7.5 79 195 27 28 29 30 31 Average 21.9 7.4 122 188 Maximum 24.5 6.9 7.7 390 213 Minimum 19.6 6.4 6.9 1 63 144 STRATIFIED FIELD DATA NPDES NO: NC0020559 FACILITY: CITY OF HENDF.RSON WRF MONTH: August 2013 LOCATION: NUTBUSH ARM OF COUNTY: Vance STATION NO: NR - 6 KERR LAKE POWERLINE Test performed by Pace Analytical "" Rainfall data included as a separate weather report -_- rr rr rrr r rr. rr rrr• rr r rr .r � rrr rr.. rr.rr rr. rr. r rr. r r r r r r r. NPDES NO: NC0020559 FACILITY: CITY OF HENDERSON WRF COUNTY: Vence Test performed by Pace Analytical "" Rainfall data included as a separate weather report STRATIFIED FIELD DATA MONTH: August 2013 LOCATION: NUTBUSH ARM OF STATION NO: NR - S KERR LAKE ABOVE THE CONFLUENCE --- rr rr rr• r r•,•r rrr• •• r rr .r � rrr rr.. rr.rr �r. rr. r r•. r � r • r r r. Chlorophyl a samples analyzed by Pace Laboratories and Environment I-It"uIts averaged �- • NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATIOk NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE 08: 00 RECORD OF RIVER AND CLIMATOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS . . - ... -.. ® . ��REMARKS •� m® (SPECIAL OWER�TIONS ETC, ■��v�m■.wee■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■. ■ ��... NINE■■ ■��om.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■..■■.....NINEloss NINE son monsoon NINE ■��om.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ son ......�.�� NINE ■��....•■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ oil ■■■■.■■■■..■■■■■■�� ■��... mm. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ son .■■..111011 ■ �®.. , mv�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.■■..Will m... mm.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ee■■■■■.......��. mom■ ®mom. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■......111 m�■ll=..... ■■......��. wee■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ee■■■101111 ..■■■■�■■ m MEN •• ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■....■■.��■�� m=011 . ■■■■■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.■■..■■.�. gym■■■■■■■ Bill ■■■■■■■■■■.■■......�� ■■ 011 mom® ■■■■■■■isell e■■■■e■■■e■e..■■.IN MEN m®��v�ov�■■■■■■■■NINE ■■■■■monsoon ...■■....�. m��v�ov�■■eeeee■loss ■■■■■monsoon ■■...MONSOON m®�w��■■■■■■■■long ■■■■■■■■■■■■....■■..111■�. WIN ■■■■■■■■■e■■e■■■■e■■e■■eWIN .■■.....■■■�. IN Will 011 m ��v�om.■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■■e111 SIMMER! IN I: WIN M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■....SOMEONE! 011 M EIN ... =■■■■■■■■■ III ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■..■■.. � m■v®®..... ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.■■111011 �. mMEN■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■monsoon .■■■■001 111�. m��v�om.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■■e...■■■■.m.�� ■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■....■■...�� m WIN =Ell..■■......■.■■.■■...■..■........�C • / Romanski, Autumn From: Spain, Tom [TSpain@ci.henderson.nc.usj Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 5:30 PM To: Smith, Danny; Romanski, Autumn Subject: ATUS OF HENDERSON'S WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY AND COMPLIANCE Danny and Autumn, The Henderson's pure oxygen system still has not been repaired. However we have eliminated a lot of items that are not the problem. I was able to get in touch with M2T on 8-21-13 (used to be Lotepro who made our system). I emailed blueprints of the system to Roger Hill, one of their technicians, and plan to email Hill pictures I took of the system today, 8-23- 13. 1 got the main feed control valve back working today. If I can get the technician to come to the plant site (he is on other jobs fort to 3 weeks) he should be able to make final repairs. He is one of the technicians who helped to assemble our oxygen system 33 years ago.The activated sludge system has continued to improve. The Ammonia — Nitrogen concentration was 19.9 mg/I on 8-21-13, 10.2 mg/I on 8- -22-13 and 2.1 mg/I on 8-23-13. 1 expect it to be < 0.1 by Monday. We appear to have bypassed enough controls To operate the oxygen system in manual with enough control to keep the dissolved oxygen levels high enough to support nitrification in the aeration tank. This is the most difficult and dangerous system repair that I have been involved with in my career. We had four days of noncompliance that were high enough for us to violate out weekly and monthly limit for ammonia -nitrogen. If you need to get in touch I can be reached at 252-432-4547. Sincerely, Thomas M. Spain Director HWRF 1 Romanski, Autumn From: Smith, Danny Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 10:15 AM To: Romanski, Autumn, Zhang, Cheng Subject: FW: SATUS OF HENDERSON WRF AND OXYGEN SYSTEM Lets discuss and be sure this gets into file so we can consider when we get DMRs Danny Smith Regional Supervisor Raleigh Regional Office NCDENR-Division of Water Resources 3800 Barrett Drive Raleigh, NC 27609 (919)791-4252 Danny.Smith@ncdenr.gov Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation. From: Spain, Tom [mailto:TSpain@ci.henderson.nc.us] Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 7:05 PM To: Smith, Danny; autum.romanski@ncdenr.gov Subject: SATUS OF HENDERSON WRF AND OXYGEN SYSTEM Danny and Autumn, We had four NH3-N samples in the upper teens or lower twenties that caused us to violate our weekly and monthly limits. We finally have the oxygen feed system Operating (with constant operator manual adjustment) sufficiently to maintain the aeration tank DO above 10.0 mg/I. . Our NH3-N effluent level dropped from 20 mg/I to 10.0 mg/I Overnight. I expect it to be lower than that on 8-23-13 and to be back to normal in two to three days.. Again, I ask if we run NH3-N seven days this week can we use those results in our monthly Limit calculation? I contacted Jerry Warascomski of Lotepro today, He was around when our system was built. He said that he only had three repair technicians and all of them were tied up for the next Two to three weeks. He was not sure that his technicians could figure out how to repair our system. I will have one of their technicians on site as soon as they are available. Also 1 plan to continue to look for any company who would have the ability to repair our system. My Instrumentation Tech, his assistant and I worked on the oxygen system four hours each today but we just can't locate the main problem. One big hindrance is we can't take apart some of the equipment because a diaphragm or an electrical part may break and we have no parts and cannot get parts for much of our oxygen system. The equipment is 32 to 34 years old. I plan to keep trying to make full repairs to our oxygen system. If you think I need to be doing something different please let me know. Thank You, Tom Spain Director HWRF A NCDETIR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Division of Water Infrastructure Pat McCrory Kim Colson Governor Acting Director October 17, 2013 Mr. Tom Spain, Water Reclamation Director City of Henderson PO Box 1434 Henderson, North Carolina 27536 Dear Mr. Spain: OCT 2 1 2013 Resources John Skvada, III Secretary Subject: Interim Inspection and Progress Meeting City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Improvements [VANCE County] SRF No. CS370 410-06 The Construction Inspection Group of the Infrastructure Finance Section performed an interim inspection for the state and federally funded portion of subject project at 10:30 a.m. Thursday October 10, 2013. This interim inspection was conducted in conjunction with the monthly progress meeting which is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. on the 2nd Thursday each month. Meetings are held at the construction trailer on site. The next interim inspection and progress meeting is scheduled for, 2013. You should review this report, take actions or provide responses as indicated, and then file with your project records. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (919) 707-9185 or via e-mail at gerald.horton@ncdenr.gov. Si rely, /A / Gerald W. Horton, PE Environmental Engineer Construction Inspection Group mom cc: Frank Frazier, Asst. City Manager Wes Wightman, PE, McGill Assocs., PA Hickory office Danny Smith, Raleigh DWQ Regional Office IFS — Mark Hubbard, PE, Gerald Horton SRF RF"Am SR'41f1 (Ire nwr•i1 Infrastructure Finance Section One 1933 Mail Service Center, Raleigh. North Carolina 77699-1633 oO//� Location. B" Flour Archdale Building, 512 N Salisbury St. Raleigh. North Carolina 27604 T �CSiI' Phone: 919-707-9160 \ FAX 919-715 6229 Natura"hIIa Internet: Ifs.nc.gov City of Henderson • Water Reclamation Facility Improvements Project No. CS 370 725-02 In6 m Inspection & Progress Meeting of October 10, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Comments, observations and concerns discussed at the Preconstruction meetin Please note that updates are noted in italics. The following comments and concerns (though not intended to be a complete list) were discussed at this or prior meetings: 44. October update: Engineer acknowledged inspectors logs were not up to date on the FTP project web site and stated they would be up to date henceforth. [Sept] -IFS reviewed inspectors logs at the FTP web site and noted the inspection logs are not up to date, specifically the logs last entry was June 13. Please resolve. 46. Engineer stated at September meeting that Change Order #1 would go to City Council within 2 weeks. As of October meeting IFS has not received CO #1. IFS reminds Owner and Engineer, upon execution, to submit all change orders to IFS with proper documentation and with printed names and titles. A change order checklist was provided with the Preconstmction report from IFS and should accompany each change order. 48. DeVere again mentioned to Owner that they will begin working on the Influent works very soon and that this could pose an inconvenience to Owner access and parking as well as concerns regarding the Oxygen facilities. 49. At October meeting, IFS questioned if there has been any spill or by-pass of sewage; answer was none. 50. For the record, Wes Wightman did not attend the October meeting as he is an expectant father. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION Observations of DeVere construction progress through meeting of October includes but is not limited to: o poured -1500 cubic yards of concrete to date including finishing slab pours of Oxidation Ditches (ODs) and starting wall sections o excavating for clarifier #2 is - 50% done and is completed for clarifier #1 o installed force main from ODs to within - 1001n ft of proposed Influent pump station Project Schedule - At October meeting DeVere provided a 3 week look ahead schedule indicating continued work on OD walls, installation of under slab pipe and electrical for the 2 new clarifiers, and work initiating on new Maintenance Bldg. There has been no change in contract Substantial Completion date. DeVere provided an updated schedule at the October meeting. Schedule indicated DeVere is on schedule. Request for Information - RFIs through nos. 36 have been submitted. Only #20 (RAS Control Panel), 432 dog house MH no. 3, and a new one for changing chemical feed manhole from 4 ft dia. to 6 ft. are outstanding and critical. Tom Spain made the request to change it to a larger MH because it is a chemical feed point and operators must access the manhole. Request for Proposals - RFPs are pending answers on the last 2 RFIs mentioned above. CHANGE ORDERS- Engineer stated at September meeting that Change Order #1 would be going to City Council in 2 weeks. IFS reminds Owner and Engineer to submit all change orders to IFS with proper documentation and with printed names and titles. A change order checklist was provided with the Preconstmction report from IFS and should accompany each change order submitted to IFS whether for determination of eligibility or otherwise. Submittal Status - IFS has previously suggested that submittals be discussed at each meeting until all submittals are approved. DeVere related at September meeting that Grit equipment and Ovivo equipment are critical. At October meeting, DeVere noted these 2 are still pending. City of Henderson • Water Reclamation Facility Improvements Project No. CS 370 725-02 Inkm Inspection & Progress Meeting of October 10, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Inspectors logs/Work Orders - inspection at this time is part-time on an as needed basis. Logs are kept on laptop available at job site. IFS reviewed inspectors logs at FTP site and noted they are not up to date, specifically the logs last entry was June 13. Please have inspection logs available for review by IFS at all progress meetings. Testing - IFS previously requested that all testing records for subsurface investigations, concrete breaks, compaction, pipe pressure, etc. be available for review at all meetings. At September meeting Engineer stated the information is available on the FTP site, subsequently IFS can check that information on line - hMp://moall.srredfile.00WaDV2/offiWdataftnderson%20WRF%201=rovements/ECS%2OHendersoon%20WRF 08152013 PDF IFS checked out above site and spot reviewed some of the testing reports. All concrete breaks have been satisfactory and entrained air percentage has been worked out during subgrade concrete placement. Safety - no issues brought forth at October meeting As-builts or Record Drawings -Please have Record drawings updated and available for review at all meetings. Inspector and DeVere are noting "discoveries' as incurred. As of October there are no changes to the drawings except for annotations on discoveries. Labor - At October meeting, Engineer presented the form keeping log of Certified Payroll records. Form indicates DeVere is current with Payroll through September. IFS advised at meeting that Surveyors and delivery truck drivers are exempt from providing Certified Payrolls. Progress Meetin¢ Attendees Frank Frazier City of Henderson, Asst. City Mgr. 252 430-5703 Tom Spain City of Henderson 252 4324547 TS Childers McGill Assocs., inspector 828 328-2024 Doug Chapman, PE McGill Assocs. 828 328-2024 Jason Beard McGill Assocs. 828 328-2024 Tim Meyer DeVere Construction Co. Inc., Proj Mgr. 919 363-6551 Roy Schultz DeVere Construction Co. Inc., Supt. 919 268-1258 Gerald Horton, PE NC htfrastructure Finance Section 919 219-5989 (C) eerald.horton@ncdennizov 919 707-9185 (ofc) - End of Report - CITY OF HENDERSON Post Office Box 1434 Henderson, North Carolina 27536-1434 Henderson Water Reclamation Facility S�Q 1646 West Andrews Avenue Henderson, North Carolina 27537 Phone: (252) 431-6080 FAX: (252) 492-3324 September 23, 2013 Mr. Danny Smith Raleigh Regional Supervisor NCDWQ 1628 Mail Service Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 RE: Malfunction of the Liquid Oxygen System at the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility and Violations of Weekly and Monthly NH3-N Limits Dear Mr. Smith: As you are aware, the City's liquid oxygen controls malfunctioned the week of August 12, 2013. It was feeding erratically. One minute it would be closed completely and the next it would be wide open. Finally the valve stuck in the closed position. This cut off 90% of the oxygen feed going to our aeration tank. I had some 50% hydrogen peroxide on site to supplement the dissolved oxygen and ordered another 10 barrels. We tried opening the main valve on the oxygen tank and thought it was broken because we got no oxygen feed. Shortly after this we found the valve that modulates the oxygen flow stuck in the closed position. We had to pry it open and use a block of metal to hold it open. Scott Hunt, my Senior Instrumentation Tech and his assistant, Jake Robbins, checked the controls on the entire oxygen skid but could find no problems. I contacted a repair technician who does work for Air Liquide on their liquid oxygen tanks and got him to try to make repairs to our oxygen system. He knew how liquid oxygen tanks worked but not our control system. I then tried to contact Lotepro who sold us the system and designed the control system. I finally located them as a subsidiary of another company and using the name U2T. They have only three service technicians to cover all of the United States. Two people with the company were present when our system was installed, Jerry Warakomski and Roger Hill. Roger and Scott stayed on the phone while Scott checked out the oxygen controls. They just could not work out what the problem was. Jerry told me that he could have a technician on our site in 4-8 weeks. I started work on getting a purchase order number and he suddenly changed his mind and said he could not have a technician at our site until sometime in November. I tried to get him to send someone sooner but he just wouldn't budge off the November schedule. Mr. Danny Smith September 23, 2013 Page 2. We have the oxygen system running in total manual with operators making adjustments on their shifts as needed. I called the DWQ several times and emailed at least three times to keep you informed of our situation and progress. Please keep in mind that the load on our aeration tank is above design. The Trickling Filters and Primary Clarifiers have been removed for renovation of the plant. Had they been in place we would have had no violations. I have included a copy of the August, 2013 monthly DMR. As you can see the concentrations of NH3-N are high enough the week of August 19, 2013 to violate our monthly and weekly limits for NH3-N. If you have any questions or need to get in touch with me you can contact me at 2524324547. Sincerely, mt Thomas M. Spain Director, HRWF cc: Ray Griffin, City Manager Frank Frazier, Assistant City Manager Lamont Allen, Chief Plant Operator HWRF Darrel Johnson, Lab Supervisor HWRF PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT JULY 1, 2013 TO JUNE 30, 2014 I. Facility/System Name: Responsible Entity: General Information City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility, Pump Stations and Collection System City of Henderson Person in Charge/Contact: Thomas Spain, Director HWRF Joey Long, ORC Utility Operations Applicable Permit(s): NPDES # NCO020559 Water Reclamation Facility WOCS00055 Collection System Description of Collection System and Treatment Process: The treatment plant is designed for a flow of 4.14 million gallons per day of wastewater and receives an average of 2.331 million gallons per day. The plant treated 850,780,000 gallons from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014. The treatment process consists of rag and grit removal, intermediate clarification, pure oxygen activated sludge, final clarification, filtration, post aeration and ultraviolet disinfection. The new Trojan 5000 Plus UV System is finishing its first three years of operation. The results have been excellent with nearly a total kill of all fecal coliform. The City is in the process of completing an $18 million upgrade to the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility to modernize it with a new headworks, oxidation ditch, sludge thickener, Aerobic Digester SCADA control and video security. The collection system consists of approximately one hundred eighty-two and 57/100 (182.57) miles of gravity sewer and force main lines, thirteen (13) pumping stations that convey the wastewater to the treatment plant and four(4) stations for odor control. H. Performance Summary The City of Henderson's Industrial Pretreatment Program, HWRF Stormwater Program and Laboratory were in compliance with all permit limits during this performance period. The treatment plant bio-solids are applied at agronomic rates to farmland by a private contractor, Granville Farms, Inc. The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility produced 2,667,000 gallons of bio-solids which were applied to farmland and met all permit conditions. The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility was not inspected by the NCDWQ Raleigh Regional Office this year. The facility violated ammonia nitrogen limits. The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Stormwater System was inspected by the State Division of Water Quality during this performance period. All Stormwater Permit conditions were met. The Laboratory was not inspected by the State DWQ, but is being operated in compliance with all State DWO regulations. The lab obtained acceptable proficiency test results on all parameters as noted by Todd Crawford, Certification Auditor, for the state lab on May 22, 2014. The Pretreatment Annual Report was reviewed by the State DWQ and The City of Henderson's Collection System was not inspected by the State DWQ during this reporting period. At the last inspection record keeping was found to be excellent. The City's Spill Response Action Plan is adequate. With the permanent generators, electrical hookups, portable generators, portable pumps and portable piping and connections to pump stations all stations can pump in case of a power failure. The City made 19 inspections of facility grease traps this year. A total of $2,425 in fines were issued during the year: The City documented when grease educational flyers "Don't Feed the Grease Goblin" were distributed to the public this year. The City mailed out Grease Goblin flyers to a the restaurants/food preparation facilities; delivered 100 to City Hall for distribution to the pubic; mailed 44 to the residents of Lynn Avenue and The City sent out 8,500 flyers in water and sewer bills in April 2014. For the period of July 1, 2013 thin June 30, 2014 the City of Henderson Collection System staff received and responded to 77 service calls, cleared 203 blockages in the sewer lines, repaired 29 services and sewer line breaks, installed 8 new sewer line taps and replaced 4 taps; smoke tested 21.092 feet of gravity line and TV video inspected 17.236 feet of gravity line: cut 46,841 feet (8.8 7miles) of the right-of-ways and performed 100 % of their semiannual inspection of priority lines and manholes within the system. They actually inspected many of them on a weekly basis. The staff cleaned 297.068 feet (56.41 miles) of sewer line with the Jet Vac and rodded 2.750feet (0.52 miles). This is 31.2 % of the entire system and exceeds the State DWO requirement by 21.2 % of cleaning 10% of the system per year. Root Foam Control was applied to 9,200 feet of gravity sewer. Inflow/Infiltration repairs made: 55 cleanouts were repaired, 35 cleanouts were installed and 10 were located;12 manholes were repaired, 6 manhole rings and 12 manhole lids were replaced due to theft; It is estimated that Inflow/Infitration was reduced by 150 gpm (216,000 gallons per day). The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility violated the permit limits for Ammonia Nitrogen The month of August, 2013 because the Oxygen System Controller broke down. In June, 2014 the plant violated the permit limits for Ammonia Nitrogen again. The plant staff Is confident that something very toxic entered the plant and killed the nitrifier bugs. We were able to purchase concentrated nitrifier bugs and bring the pant back into. compliance. January, 2014 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations— On January 17, 2014; 90 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed from 1832 Lynn Avenue. On 1-22-2014; 190,000 gallons overflowed from Sandy Creek Pump Station. The two overflows entered tributaries to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. No known environmental damage occurred as a result of the overflow. February 2014 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---On February 13, 2014, 200 gallons of untreated sewage overflowed a manhole in the highway. There was no known environmental damage from the overflow. March 2014 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations —NONE April 2014 DMR VIOLATIONS -NONE Environmental Violations- On April 7, 2013; 9,150 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed into a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. On 4-15-2014, 186 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed from a manhole at Marrow Street into Nutbush Creek which is part of the Roanoke River basin. There were no known negative environmental impacts from the overflows. May 2014 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations —There were four sewer overflows in May, 2014: 40 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed from a manhole on Monroe Street and entered Nutbush Creek in the Roanoke River Basin. 450gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed the Country Club Pump Station on 5-11-2014 and entered a tributary to the Tar Pamlico Basin. On 5-16-2014; 1,200 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed Sandy Creek Pump Station and entered a tributary to the Tar Pamlico Basin. On 5-20-2014; 296 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed from a manhole at Graham Avenue and entered Redbud Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The overflows are not known to have any negative impact on the environment. June 2014 DMR Violations —Violated Ammonia Nitrogen limits because a toxic substance entered the plant and killed the bacteria. Environmental Violations —None The City of Henderson's Collection System (pump stations and gravity and/or force main lines) overflowed a total of 244,145 gallons of untreated wastewater between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014. There were 10 overflows of the pump stations and 6 overflows of the gravity lines. All of the overflows were the result of one of the following: heavy inflow and infiltration from rainfall exceeding the system capacity or blockages of the lines with grease and rags. III. Performance July, 2013 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations —Three sanitary sewer overflows occurred July 1, 2013: 10,800 gallons overflowed at Sandy Creek Pump Station. A second one of 3,900 gallons overflowed Martin's Creek Pump Station. These two overflows entered Sandy Creek which is part of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The third overflow of 4,725 gallons occurred at Redbud Pump Station. A fourth sewer overflow of 900 gallons occurred at Sandy Creek Pump Station on July 7,h, 2013. They also ended up in the tar Pamlico River Basin. No known environmental damage occurred because of the overflows. August, 2013 DMR Violations — The plant violated Ammonia -Nitrogen limits when the oxygen system controls broke down. We were back in compliance as soon as the controls were repaired. Environmental Violations overflows: There were two sewer overflows in August, 2013 840 gallons of sewage overflowed from a manhole on Fox Run Road. On 8-27-2013, 660 gallons of sewage overflowed from a manhole on Beckford Drive. The sewage entered Nutbush Creek part of the Roanoke River Basin. There was no known Environmental impact as a result of the overflows. September, 2013 DMR Violations -NONE Environmental Violations -NONE October, 2013 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations —NONE November 2013 DMR Violations —NONE Environmental Violations —NONE December, 2013 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations —There were two overflows: One of 4,950 gallons of sewer from Sandy Creek Pump Station on 12-23-2013 and another overflow of 7,525 gallons of sewage from Sandy Creek Pump Station on 12-29-2013. There were no known detrimental environmental impacts from the overflows. V. Notification The following public notice was run in the Henderson Daily Dispatch on PUBLIC NOTICE PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT JULY 1, 2013 TO JUNE 30, 2014 CITY OF HENDERSON WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY AND CITY OF HENDERSON WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM As required by North Carolina General Statutes Article 21 Chapter 143.215 C, the City of Henderson has produced a Performance Annual Report from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014 for the Water Reclamation Facility and Wastewater Collection System. Copies of the report are available to the public at no charge. You may pick up a copy at the Reception area in the City Hall Municipal Building at 134 Rose Avenue or in the Lobby of the Operation's Center located at 900 South Beckford Drive. Contact Tom Spain at (252) 431-6081 or Joey Long at (252) 431-6030 to request a copy be mailed to you at no charge and to answer any questions you have regarding the report. V. Certification I certify under penalty of law that this report is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further certify that this report has been made available to the users or customers of the named system and that those users have been notified of its availability. Responsible Person: Thomas M. Spain ,.. Date:_9-2-14 Title: Director Entity: City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Responsible Person: Joey Long 'Sr. %94/, .Oy Date_9-2-14 Title: Operator in Responsible Chargf fa'Sewer Col%ction and Water Distribution Entity: City of Henderson Utility Operations 40A NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Pat McCrory Thomas A. Reeder John Skvar a, III Govemor Acting Director Secretary July 19, 2013 Mr. Tom Spain, Water Reclamation Director City of Henderson PO Box 1434 Henderson, North Carolina 27536 Subject: Interim Inspection and Progress Meeting City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Improvements [VANCE County] SRF No. CS370 410-06 Dear Mr. Spain: The Construction Inspection Group of the Infrastructure Finance Section performed an interim inspection for the state and federally funded portion of subject project at 1:00 p.m. Thursday July 11, 2013. This interim inspection was conducted in conjunction with the 4da monthly progress meeting which is scheduled for the 2°d Thursday each month. Meetings are held at the construction trailer on site. The next interim inspection and progress meeting is scheduled for August 8, 2013. You should review this report, take actions or provide responses as indicated, and then file with your project records. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (919) 707-9185 or via e-mail at gerald.horton@ncdenr.gov. Si e6rely, Gerald W. Horton, PE Environmental Engineer ply Construction Inspection Group cc: Wes Wightman, PE, McGill Assocs., PA Hickory office Danny Smith, Raleigh DWQ Regional Office IFS — Mark Hubbard, PE, Gerald Horton SRF L.`dlsPir\gw.boMri �C icur NnipL;ls Of irr r,:nl."n:rhV rrrlm S441i 16f w P'It, 4.,udz,'::nn MVIi7 Infrastmctura finance Section One 1633 Mail Service Center. Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633 o�Cal'ina o/l/� tocation: B^ floor Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh. North Cervlina 27694 ,* Nonce 919-707-9190 \ FAX 919-715-6229 ;VaturrL` Internet: ifs.ne.gov City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Improvements Project No. CS 370 725-02 Interim I :lion & Progress Meeting of July 11, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Please note that updates are noted in italics. The following comments and concerns (though not intended to be a complete list) were discussed at this or prior meetings: 17. July update: The testing firm is ECS and they have now been retained by Owner. [ June]- F. Frazier is taking recommendation for geotechnical services to City Council's next meeting. The proposal is from ESC. [May]- Owner is still in process of contracting with a testing firm. [April] testing firm is yet undetermined, tentatively will be ECS. Engineer stated that testing will be paid by Owner and that testing firm (concrete, compaction etc.) has not yet been selected. 32. July update: Done. [May]-DeVere requested a conference call with McGill-DeVere and manufacturer of the centrifuge equipment. 33. [ June] - paving matters are deferred until nearing completion of project when it will be more relevant and obvious. Owner discussed pavement details, specifically detail C-207. Owner, DeVere and Engineer reviewed pavements after meeting. Please discuss decisions at June meeting. 34. July update: Owner did gather trickling filter stone and hauled it off to a remote site. It is understood there was a considerable temporary increase in population of filter flies during the episode. Owner expressed desire to gather stone from trickling filter for other uses and will haul to another site. 35. July update: Engineer and DeVere stated these were up to date, meaning current up to — 4 weeks ago. [June] - prepared to discuss status of Certified Payrolls at July meeting and make sure Wage Rate determination is posted. Owner and DeVere should verify that Certified Payrolls are compliant with Wage Rate determination. 38. At July meeting there was a long discussion on spoil disposition. There will be — 18 to 20K cubic yards. Owner's concern is slope stability. DeVere's concern is lack of room to place spoil. IFS strongly recommends Engineer or DeVere propose a grading plan addressing the spoil placement. 39. IFS recommends the Project Manual (Specs) be readily available at each progress meeting. A discussion at 4th progress meeting revealed that the addenda were not readily available. 40. RFI #13 on Water Proofing is outstanding. Engineer stated this matter was addressed in one of the 4 addenda. Please discuss this matter at August meeting. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION Observations of DeVere construction progress through meeting of July includes but is not limited to: o Continued Oxidation Ditch excavation and now in subsurface preparation stage including under slab piping and will be placing stone o Complete primary clarifier demolition this week o Complete Trickling filter demo this week o Starting on laying out Admin. Bldg. Project Schedule — At July meeting, DeVere provided a 3 week look ahead schedule. DeVere stated the overall project schedule (last version of 3/5) will be revised. There has been no change in contract Substantial Completion date thus far though DeVere stated they have incurred weather days which will affect the Substantial Completion date. No change orders have been prepared thus far. City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Improvements Project No. CS 370 725-02 Request for Proposals - none, see comment 38. CHANGE ORDERS- none. Interim I ;lion & Progress Meeting of July 11, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Request for Information - there have been 15 RFIs, (12 RFIs thru June). RFI on Water Proofing is outstanding. Engineer stated this matter was addressed in one of the 4 addenda. Please discuss this matter at August meeting, after reviewing requirements. Submittal Status - IFS has suggested Submittals be discussed at each meeting until all submittals are approved. At July meeting there have been - 100 submittals/resubmittals. Turnaround of submittals appears to be satisfactory. DeVere related that the Metal Bldg. and Glazing/Doors- Hardware will become critical. Inspectors logs/Work Orders - inspection at this time is part-time on an as needed basis. Logs are kept on laptop available at job site. IFS reviewed inspectors logs after June meeting and found them to be satisfactory. Please have inspection logs available for review by IFS at all progress meetings. Testing - please have all testing records for subsurface investigations, concrete breaks, compaction, pipe pressure, etc. available for review at all meetings. ECS took 3 soils samples and has developed the proctor density charts. As of July meeting no other testing has been done. Safety - no issues, DeVere provided Safety Training CDs to Owner. Owner stated their personnel had reviewed or were in the process. As -bunts or Record Drawings - Please have Record drawings updated and available for review at all meetings. Inspector and DeVere are noting "discoveries'. Presently there are no changes to the drawings. Labor - refer to comment 35. Proeress Meeting Attendees Frank Frazier City of Henderson, Asst. City Mgr. 252 430-5703 Tom Spain City of Henderson 252 432-4547 Peter Sokalski, PE City Engineer, Henderson 252 430-5728 Wes Wightman, PE McGill Assocs., Proj. Mgr. 828 234-7131 (C) Joel Whitford, PE McGill Assocs., Hickory ofc. 828 328-2024 TS Childers McGill Assocs., inspector 828 328-2024 Tim Meyer DeVere Construction Co. Inc., Proj Mgr. 919 363-6551 Roy Schultz DeVere Construction Co. Inc., Supt. 919 268-1258 Gerald Horton, PE NC Infrastructure Finance Section 919 601-1864 (C) gerald.horton@ncdenr.gov 919 707-9185 (ofc) - End of Report - CITY OF HENDExSON Post Office Box 1434 Henderson, North Carolina 27536-1434 Henderson Water Reclamation Facility 1646 West Andrews Avenue Henderson, North Carolina 27537 Phone: (252) 431-6080 FAX: (252) 492-3324 August 29, 2013 Mr. Danny Smith Raleigh Regional Supervisor NC DENR DWQ 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Re: City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility City of Henderson Collection System Annual System Performance Report NPDES No. NCO020559 WQCS No. 00055 Dear Mr. Smith, I am furnishing you two copies of the Annual System Performance Report for the City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility and Sewer Collection System from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013. Please contact me at 252-431-6081 if you have any questions. Sincerely, p ��74cv+rw, in. re oU-� Thomas M. Spain HWRF Director C: Ray Griffin, City Manager Frank Frazier, Assistant City Manager Joey Long, Collection & Distribution Sys ORC Files PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT JULY 1, 2012 TO JUNE 309 2013 1. Facility/System Name: Responsible Entity: General Information City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Pump Stations and Collection System City of Henderson Person in Charge/Contact: Thomas Spain, Director HWRF Joey Long, ORC Utility Operations Applicable Pennit(s): NPDES # NCO020559 Water Reclamation Facility WOCS00055 Collection System Description of Collection System and Treatment Process: The treatment plant is designed for a flow of 4.14 million gallons per day of wastewater and receives an average of 1.632 million gallons per day. The plant treated 672,330,000 gallons from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013. The treatment process consists of rag and grit removal, primary clarification, two stage trickling filters, intermediate clarification, pure oxygen activated sludge, final clarification, filtration, post aeration and ultraviolet disinfection. The new Trojan 5000 Plus UV System is finishing its first two years of operation. The results have been excellent with nearly a total kill of all fecal coliform. The City is in the process of completing an $18 million upgrade to the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility to modernize it with a new headworks, oxidation ditch, sludge thickener, SCADA control and video security. The collection system consists of approximately one hundred eighty-two and 57/100 (182.57) miles of gravity sewer and force main lines, thirteen (13) pumping stations that convey the wastewater to the treatment plant and four(4) stations for odor control. II. Performance Summary The City of Henderson's Industrial Pretreatment Program, HWRF Stormwater Program and Laboratory were in compliance with all permit limits during this performance period. The treatment plant bio-solids are applied at agronomic rates to farmland by a private contractor, Granville Farms, Inc. The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility produced 2,653,000 gallons of bio-solids which were applied to farmland and met all permit conditions. The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility was inspected by a representative of the Raleigh Regional Office, Division of Water Quality on December 14, 2012. The inspector didn't note any problems during the inspection. His report noted no mistakes in DMR reports and the staff should be commended because The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility was in compliance with all NPDES permit parameters. The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Stormwater System was inspected by the State Division of Water Quality during this performance period. All Stonmwater Permit conditions were met. The Industrial Pretreatment Program was not inspected by the Division of Water Quality but is in compliance with all the pretreatment regulations. The Laboratory was not inspected by the State DWQ, but is being operated in compliance with all State DWO regulations. They obtained acceptable results on all parameters. The Pretreatment Annual Report was reviewed by the State DWQ and was determined to be adequate. The City of Henderson's Collection System was inspected by the State DWQ on March 3, 2013. Recordkeeping was found to be excellent. The City's Spill Response Action Plan was adequate. Between generators, electrical hookups, portable generators and portable piping, connections to pump stations are all covered. fines of $75 were issued. The City documented when grease educational flyers "Don't Feed the Grease Goblin" were distributed to the public this year. The City sent out 8,700 flyers in water and sewer bills in April 2013 and hand delivered 50 flyers to residents of Patton Circle on January 18, 2013. Flyers are also replenished at City Hall's receptionist area as needed. For the period of July 1, 2012 thru June 30, 2013 the City of Henderson Collection System staff cut 16,079 feet (3.05 miles) of the right-of-ways and performed 100 % of their semiannual inspection of priority lines and manholes within the system. They actually inspected many of them on a weekly basis. The staff cleaned 218,756 feet (41.43 miles) of sewer line with the Jet Vac and rodded 6,995 feet (1.32 miles). This is 23.4% of the entire system and exceeds the State DWQ requirement by 13.4% of cleaning 10% of the system per year. Inflow/Infiltration repairs made: 28 cleanouts were repaired, 6 cleanouts were installed and 1 manhole was repaired, 8 rings and 8 manhole lids were replaced. It is estimated that Inflow/Infiltration was reduced by 500 gallons/minute. The City is completing a Sanitary Sewer Rehab project in which over 7,000 linear feet of sewer mains and manholes were rehabbed and some replaced. The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility had one bypass event between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. The City of Henderson's Collection System (pump stations and gravity and/or force main lines) overflowed a total of 166,085 gallons of untreated wastewater between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. There were 4 overflows of the pump stations and 8 overflows of the gravity lines. All of the overflows were the result of one of the following: heavy inflow and infiltration from rainfall exceeding the system capacity or blockages of the lines with grease and rags. The death of 50 fish was observed. III. Performance July 2012 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations —A sanitary sewer overflow of 50,250 gallons occurred at Sandy Creek Pump Station on July 9, 2012 from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The sewage entered a tributary to Nutbush Creek which is part of the Roanoke River Basin. No known environmental damage occurred because of the overflow. August, 2012 DMR Violations —NONE Environmental Violations -A Sanitary Sewer overflow of 100,000 gallons of untreated sewage overflowed manhole 024 at Redbud Pump Station from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on August 14, 2012. The overflow entered Redbud which is a tributary of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. Fifty fish were killed by overflow. No known environmental impact from the overflow. An overflow of 2,000 gallons occurred at Sandy Creek manhole 015 between 12:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. on August 19, 2012. No environmental damage was known to occur as a result of the overflow. Sewage overflow of 2,000 gallons occurred at manhole 015 at Sandy Creek Pump Station between 12:20 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 19, 2012. No known environmental impact from the overflow. September 2012 DMR Violations -NONE Environmental Violations -NONE October 2012 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations —NONE November 2012 DMR Violations —NONE Environmental Violations —NONE December, 2012 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations --NONE January 2013 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations--- On January 2, 2013 there was an overflow of 75 gallons of untreated wastewater at 208 Patton Circle. The overflow entered a tributary of Sandy Creek which is a tributary of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. No known environmental damage occurred as a result of the overflow. February 2013 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---On February 21, 2013, 250 gallons of untreated sewage overflowed a manhole at the comer of Valley Drive and Lynne Avenue. The overflow entered Redbud Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. There was no known environmental damage from the overflow. On February 26, 2013 from 7:00 p.m. to 8:10 p.m., 500 gallons of wastewater bypassed the Henderson water Reclamation Facility into Nutbush Creek which is part of the Roanoke River Basin. No negative environmental impact was noted. March 2013 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations —NONE April 2013 DMR VIOLATIONS -NONE Environmental Violations- On April 10, 2013 from 1:40 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., 80 gallons of wastewater bypassed. Eighty gallons of wastewater overflowed at manhole 285 and entered Nutbush Creek which is part of the Roanoke River Basin. No negative environmental impact was noted. May 2013 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations— On May 6, 2013 at 2:20 p.m. to May 7, 2013 at 8:40 pm., 7,000 gallons of wastewater overflowed into sandy creek which is part of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. No known detrimental effect occurred as a result of the bypass. June 2013 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations — On June 7, 2013 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., 600 gallons of wastewater overflowed from Martin's Creek Pump Station into Martin's Creek which is part of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. There was no known negative environmental impact from the overflow. On June 7, 2013 from 5:12 p.m. to 9:15 p.m., 3,330 gallons of wastewater overflowed from manhole 015 at Sandy Creek Pump Station and entered Sandy Creek which is part of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. No known environmental damage occurred from the spill. IV. Notification The following public notice was run in the Henderson Daily Dispatch on August 29, 2013 to fulfill the requirement of making the Performance Annual Report available to the users of the system and indicating how the users were notified of its availability. PUBLIC NOTICE PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT JULY 19 2011 TO JUNE 30, 2012 CITY OF HENDERSON WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY AND CITY OF HENDERSON WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM As required by North Carolina General Statutes Article 21 Chapter 143.215 C, the City of Henderson has produced a Performance Annual Report from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 for the Water Reclamation Facility and Wastewater Collection System. Copies of the report are available to the public at no charge. You may pick up a copy at the Reception area in the City Hall Municipal Building at 134 Rose Avenue or contact Tom Spain at (252) 431-6081 or Joey Long at (252) 431-6030 to request a copy be mailed to you at no charge and to answer any questions you have regarding the report. V. Certification I certify under penalty of law that this report is complete and accurate io the best of my knowledge. I further certify that this report has been made available to the users or customers of the named system and that those users have been notified of its availability. Responsible Person: Thomas M. Spain �aj- Date: 8_ ( 13 Title: Director Entity: City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Responsible Person: Joey Long '� Date -.29 Title: Operator in Responsible h ge for 8e er Collection and Water Distribution Entity: City of Henderson Utility Operations RIVER North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Infrastructure Pat McCrory Kim Colson John Skvarla, III Governor Acting Director Secretary August 19, 2013 Mr. Tom Spain, Water Reclamation Director City of Henderson PO Box 1434 Henderson, North Carolina 27536 2 ] 7073 Subject: Interim Inspection and Progress Meeting City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Improvements [VANCE County] SRF No. CS370 410-06 Dear Mr. Spain: The Construction Inspection Group of the Infrastructure Finance Section performed an interim inspection for the state and federally funded portion of subject project at 1:00 p.m. Thursday August 8, 2013. This interim inspection was conducted in conjunction with the monthly progress meeting which is scheduled for the 2°d Thursday each month. Meetings are held at the construction trailer on site. The next interim inspection and progress meeting is scheduled for September 12, 2013. You should review this report, take actions or provide responses as indicated, and then file with your project records. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (919) 707-9185 or via e-mail at gerald.horton@ncdenr.gov. S7IL/, / �/ Gerald W. Horton, PE Environmental Engineer Construction Inspection Group t IN I I-, I, cc: Wes Wightman, PE, McGill Assocs., PA Hickory office Danny Smith, Raleigh DWQ Regional Office �p IFS — Mark Hubbard, PE, Gerald Horton SRF 1"_98-08ddNendersunWWRFdac Infrastructure Finance Section ne 1633 Mail Service Center, Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1633 NOQ�th(`aroUrta location:8' Floor Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh. North Carolina 27604 (/�Y7 /.,�N�f// Phone: 919-707-9160 \ FAX 919-715-6229 irb{i! 1911 Internet: ifs.nc.goV City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facili Project No. CS 370 725-(r2 Iprovements hiteri Augu Page 2 of Ipection & Progress Meeting of 2013 Please note that updates are noted in italics. The following comments and concerns (though not intended to be a complete fist) were discussed at this or prior meetings: 38. August update: Engineer stated the maximum slope must be 4:1(H: V) and stated McGill is preparing a new grading plan in the spoil pile / clarifier area. IFS requests this new grading plan be available at September meeting. At July meeting there was a long discussion on spoil disposition. There will be — 18K to 20K cubic yards. Owner's concern is slope stability. DeVere's concern is lack of room to place spoil. IFS strongly recommends Engineer or DeVere propose a grading plan addressing the spoil placement. 39. IFS recommends the Project Manual (Specs) be readily available at each progress meeting. A discussion at 4 h progress meeting revealed that the addenda were not readily available. 41. IFS requested Owner consider moving the progress meeting to a.m. in September and thereafter because the other Henderson project (sewer rehab) is now completed. IFS requests acknowledgement and notification of next meeting. 42.Owner, Tom Spain, expressed his concern about compatibility of new SCADA system with existing SCADA system. Please discuss this matter at September meeting. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION Observations of DeVere construction progress through meeting of August includes but is not limited to: o August — nearing completion of demolition work - primary clarifier and trickling filter areas o Preparing footing for Admin. Bldg. and roughing in electrical and plumbing o Setting forms and reinforcement on north end of Oxidation ditches Project Schedule —There has been no change in contract Substantial Completion date thus far though DeVere stated they have incurred weather days which will affect the Substantial Completion date. No change orders have been prepared thus far. Request for Proposals — none CHANGE ORDERS- none, items discussed at August meeting included time extension and valve stem travel distance. Request for Information - there have been 29 RFls. On RFI #028 Engineer wants the cost with the proposed changes on the Performance Bond. Submittal Status — IFS has suggested Submittals be discussed at each meeting until all submittals are approved. Turnaround of submittals at this time appears to be satisfactory. DeVere related at August meeting there are no critical submittals presently, but DeVere noted that clarifiers, Aeration System, and Electrical items particularly conduit and Electrical manholes may soon become critical. City of Henderson Interi— T- ;pection & Progress Meeting of Water Reclamation Facili iprovements Augu 2013 Project No. CS 370 725-try Page s or 3 Inspectors logs/Work Orders — inspection at this time is part-time on an as needed basis. Logs are kept on laptop available at job site. IFS reviewed inspectors logs after June meeting and found them to be satisfactory. Please have inspection logs available for review by IFS at all progress meetings. Testing - please have all testing records for subsurface investigations, concrete breaks, compaction, pipe pressure, etc. available for review at all meetings. Safety -no issues As-builts or Record Drawings —Please have Record drawings updated and available for review at all meetings. Inspector and DeVere are noting "discoveries' as incurred. As of August there are no changes to the drawings. Labor — Engineer proposed and presented a form for keeping log of Certified Payroll records, IFS agreed that this form is useful and acceptable. Engineer stated DeVere is current with Payroll through July. Progress Meeting Attendees Frank Frazier City of Henderson, Asst. City Mgr. 252 430-5703 Tom Spain City of Henderson 252 432-4547 Peter Sokalski, PE City Engineer, Henderson 252 430-5728 Wes Wightman, PE McGill Assocs., Proj. Mgr. 828 234-7131 (C) TS Childers McGill Assocs., inspector 828 328-2024 Tim Meyer DeVere Construction Co. Inc., Proj Mgr. 919 363-6551 Roy Schultz DeVere Construction Co. Inc., Supt. 919 268-1258 Gerald Horton, PE NC Infrastructure Finance Section 919 601-1864 (C) gerald.horton@ncdenr.gov 919 707-9185 (ofc) — End of Report -- r FROG Form WWTP-BYPASS/UPSET Treatment Plant (WWTP) Bypass/Upset Reporting Form 5 Day Report PART I P. This form shall be submitted to the appropriate DWQ Regional Office within five days of the first knowledge of the unanticipated bypass or upset. Permit Number: NC0020559 Facility: Henderson WRF Owner: City of Henderson City: Henderson (Always use treatment plant permit number) Incident# 201301736 Region: Raleigh County: Vance SPECIFIC location of the treatment units bypassed or where the upset occurred in the facility: Aerobic Diaester Was the WWTP compliant with permit requirements? ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 Unknown Was samples be taken during bypass?: ❑ Yes @ No UnknowrO Incident Started Dt: 07/29/13 Time: 06:15 PM Incident End Dt: (mm-dd-yyyy) hh:mm AWPM (mm-dd-yyyy) Estimated volume of the Bypass/Upset: 800 gallons Describe how the volume was determined: Weather conditions during bypass/upset event: Did Bypass/Upset reach surface waters? M Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown Volume reached surface waters (gallons): 2 Surface water name: Did the bypass/upset result in a fish kill? [)Yes MNo I�t � nknown If Yes, estimated number of fish killed? 0 SPECIFIC cause(s) of the Bypass/Upset: ■ Other (Please explain in Part II) Time: hh:mm AM/PM Form WWTP-BYPASS/UPSET Treatment Plant (WWTP) Bypass/Upset Reporting Form 5 Day Report PART I I ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR EACH RELATED CAUSE CHECKED IN PART I OF THIS FORM AND INCLUDE THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION AS REQUIRED OR DESIRED COMPLETE ONLY THOSE SECTIONS PERTAINING TO THE CAUSE OF THE INCIDENT AS CHECKED IN PART I (In the check boxes below, NA = Not Applicable and NE = Not Evaluated) A HARDCOPY OF THIS FORM SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE DWQ REGIONAL OFFICE UNLESS IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE ONLINE REPORTING SYSTEM Other (Please explain in Part II) Describe: Were adequate equipment and resources available to fix the problem? If Yes, explain: If the problem could not be immediately repaired, what actions were taken to lessen the impact of the SSO? Comments As a representative for the the best of my knowledge. Person submitting claim: Signature: Telephone Number: (that the information contained in this re Title 1 Yes 1=1 No I I NA 0 NE is true and accurate to Any additional information desired to be submitted should be sent to the appropriate Division Regional Office within five days of first knowledge of the Bypass with reference to the incident number (the incident number is only generated when electronic entry of this form is completed, if used). WWTP-Bypass/Upset Form August 1, 2013 11:23 AM Page 2 I�CDEE R North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Pat McCrory Thomas A Reeder John Skvada, III Governor Acting Director Secretary June 24, 2013 Mr. Tom Spain, Water Reclamation Director City of Henderson PO Box 1434 Henderson, North Carolina 27536 Subject: Interim Inspection and Progress Meeting City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Improvements [VANCE County] SRF No. CS370 410-06 Dear Mr. Spain: The Construction Inspection Group of the Infrastructure Finance Section performed an interim inspection for the state and federally funded portion of subject project at 1:00 p.m. Thursday June 13, 2013. This interim inspection was conducted in conjunction with the monthly progress meeting which is scheduled for the 2nd Thursday each month. Meetings are held at the construction trailer on site. The next interim inspection and progress meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2013. You should review this report, take actions or provide responses as indicated, and then file with your project records. You should maintain these project records for 3 years from completion of the project. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (919) 707-9185 or via e-mail at geraid.horton@ncdenr.gov. Sincerely, Gerald W. Horton, PE ' Environmental Engineer Construction Inspection Group cc: Wes Wightman, PE, McGill Assocs., PA Hickory office Danny Smith, Raleigh DWQ Regional Office IFS — Mark Hubbard, PE, Don Evans, Gerald Horton SRF Infrastructure Finance Section 1633 Mail Service Center. Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633 Location. B' Boor Archdale Building. 512 N Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Phone. 919-707.9160 \ FAX 91915-6229 Inamet: ifs.nc.gov Ne Carolina oNtura!!r� 1 16-1 13 NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Pat McCrory Governor Ray Griffin, City Manager City of Henderson P.O. Box 1434 Henderson, NC 27536 Dear Mr. Griffin: Division of Water Quality Charles Wakild, P.E. Director January 14, 2013 John E. Skvarla, III Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection Henderson Water Reclamation Facility NPDES Permit NCO020559 Stormwater Permit NCG110075 Secretary I, Mitch Hayes of the Division of Water Quality conducted a Compliance Evaluation Inspection at the subject facility on December 14, 2012. Tom Spain's time and assistance with this inspection was greatly appreciated. Below is a list of findings developed from the inspection: 1. The subject permit was reissued October 03, 2012, became effective November 01, 2012 and will expire March 31, 2017. 2. The 4.14 MGD facility consists of the following treatment units: automatic and manual bar screens; grit basin; comminutor and Parshall flume; 6 — rectangle primary clarifiers; 4 — trickling filters; 4 — rectangle secondary clarifiers; 4 — circular final clarifiers; 4 — tertiary filters; UV disinfection; an enclosed pure oxygen aerated, activated sludge nitrification basin; 2 — anaerobic sludge digesters; 1 — pure oxygen sludge digester; 1 — aerobic digester; 1 — sludge holding tank; a dissolved air floatation (DAF) sludge thickener; a sludge loading station; 31 sludge drying beds; and a on -site generator capable of powering the entire facility. 3. At the time of inspection 3 rectangle primary clarifiers, 2 rectangle secondary clarifiers, and 2 circular secondary final clarifiers were off line due to low inflow; 1 tertiary filter was out of sevice due to a broken manifold; the sludge drying beds are used as a back-up, and the DAF sludge thickener is operated only in manual mode. All other units were operational. Influent was dark in color due to the addition of ferrous to reduce phosphorus. The effluent at the UV disinfection unit appeared clear with no odor or solids. 4. Granville Farms Inc. is permitted to apply up to 600 dry tons of stabilized sludge on permitted farm land under their land application program covered under permit WO0000838. Discharge Monitoring Reports for the period February 2011 to October 2012 were reviewed for compliance with permit limits and monitoring requirements. Two violations were noted for not measuring flow on 09.04.2012 and 09.05.2012. These violations were dismissed. There were no other violations for the review period. North Carolina Division of %ter Quality 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27694628 Phone (919) 7914200 Customer Service Internet: www.newaterquality.org Location: 3800 Barrett Drive Raleigh. NC 27609 Faz (919) 788-7159 1-877-623-6748 An Equal Cpportun4lAffirmative Action Employer 50%Recycledll0% Pest Consumer Paper Noe Carolina WA07110 Henderson WRF CEI Page 2 6. Commercial lab results, chain of custody records, and bench sheets were compared with data submitted on the DMR for the month ofOctober 2012. No discrepancies were noted. Henderson WRF laboratory analyzes TKN, NH3-N, COD, BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, Cu, Zn (high level), Cr, Cd, Na, Se, As. Environmental Testing Solutions (ETS) analyses whole effluent toxicity, Merritech and Pace Laboratory analyzes all other parameters. Stormwater Permit NCG110075 Stormwater Permit NCG110075 was issued June 06, 2008 and will expire May 31, 2013. Permit renewal is required within 180 days permit expiration date. A review of the permit requirements was conducted after the CEI for NC0020559. A copy of the permit was on hand and contained all permit requirements. There are 7 stormwater discharge outfalls. There was no discharge at the time of inspection. There have been no changes to the facility within the past two years. All elements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) are being maintained. Qualitative monitoring was conducted 05.15.2012. Employee training was last conducted on 12.13.2012. I would like to thank Tom Spain for his time and assistance with this inspection. If you have any questions about this inspection or this letter, please contact me at mitch. havesna.ncdenr.gov or at 919.791.4261. Sincerely, Mitch Hayes Environmental Specialist cc: Permit files Central files United States Environmental Protection Agency . Approved-3 Washington, D.C. 20460 EPA OMB No.2040 nrt7Form 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 N I 2 I s I 31 NC0020559 111 121 12/12/14 117 181 C I 191 c I 201 1 IJ LJ U U lJ Remarks 21111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111116 Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 OA —Reserved-- 67I I69 70u71J72`73( _74 75I I I I I I80 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) Henderson WRF 10:15AM 12/12/14 12/11/01 Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date NC Hwy 39 Henderson NC 27536 01:30 PM 12/12/14 17/03/31 Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(syPhone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data Harry Lamont Allen/ORC/252-431-6086/ Thomas M Spain//919-431-6006 / Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number Thomas M Spain,PO Box 1434 Henderson NC 275361434//919-431-6006/ Contacted Yes 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 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 NumbersDate Mitchell S Hayes / (.,(Ti 'N RRO WO//919-791-4200/ 1 afManagerne A Revie Agency/Oifice/Ph ne and Fax Numbers Date V %� 11 EPA Form 3 -3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete. Page # 1 NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (cont . ) 3I NC0020559 I11 12I 12/12/14 17 18i d Section D: Summary of Findinq/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary) The 4.14 MGD facility consists of the following treatment units: automatic and manual bar screens; grit basin; comminutor and Parshall flume; 6 — rectangle primary clarifiers; 4 — trickling filters; 4 — rectangle secondary clarifiers; 4 — circular final clarifiers; 4 — tertiary filters; UV disinfection; an enclosed pure oxygen aerated, activated sludge nitrification basin; 2 — anaerobic sludge digesters; 1 — pure oxygen sludge digester; 1 — aerobic digester; 1 — sludge holding tank; a dissolved air floatation (DAF) sludge thickener; a sludge loading station; 31 sludge drying beds; and a on -site generator capable of powering the entire facility. At the time of inspection 3 rectangle primary clarifiers, 2 rectangle secondary clarifiers, and 2 circular secondary final clarifiers were off line due to low inflow; 1 tertiary filter was out of service due to a broken manifold; the sludge drying beds are used as a back-up, and the OAF sludge thickener is operated only in manual mode. All other units were operational. Influent was dark in color due to the addition of ferrous to reduce phosphorus. The effluent at the UV disinfection unit appeared clear with no odor or solids. Granville Farms Inc. is permitted to apply up to 600 dry tons of stabilized sludge on permitted farm land under their land application program covered under permit WQ0000838. Discharge Monitoring Reports for the period February 2011 to October 2012 were reviewed for compliance with permit limits and monitoring requirements. Two violations were noted for not measuring flow on 09.04.2012 and 09.05.2012. These violations were dismissed. There were no other violations for the review period. Commercial lab results, chain of custody records, and bench sheets were compared with data submitted on the DMR for the month of October 2012. No discrepancies were noted. Henderson WRF laboratory analyzes TKN, NH3-N, COD, BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, Cu, Zn (high level), Cr, Cd, Na, Se, As. Environmental Testing Solutions (ETS) analyses whole effluent toxicity, Merritech and Pace Laboratory analyzes all other parameters. Page # 2 Permit: NCO020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 12/14/2012 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 (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 conditions in the permit. Record Keeping 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? Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? Yes No NA NE ❑ Cl ■ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Cl ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■❑❑❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes No NA NE Page # 3 Permit: NCO020559 Inspection Date: 12/14/2012 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Record Keeping Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? Comment: Commercial lab results, chain of custody records, and bench sheets were compared with data submitted on the DMR for the month of October 2012. No discrepancies were noted. Effluent Pipe 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: Effluent appeared clear at the reaeration zone entering the effluent pipe. Flow Measurement - Influent # 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: Henderson staff calibrates flow meter twice a year. Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE ■❑❑❑ Yes No NA NE ■❑❑❑ ■ ❑ ❑ n nn■n Yes No NA NE Yes No NA NE # Is flow meter used for reporting? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Is flow meter calibrated annually? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the flow meter operational? ■ Cl ❑ Cl (If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? ■ n n n Comment: Henderson staff calibrates flow meter twice a year. Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE Is the capacity adequate? ■ n n ❑ Is the mixing adequate? ■ n ❑ n Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is the odor acceptable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? ■ n n ❑ Comment: Anaerobic Digester Yes No NA NE Type of operation: Floating cover Page # 4 Permit: NC0020659 Inspection Date: 12/14/2012 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Anaerobic Digester Is the capacity adequate? # Is gas stored on site? Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers? Is the gas burner operational? Is the digester heated? Is the temperature maintained constantly? Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? Comment: Methane is flared. 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: Sludge beds are used for back-up. Yes No NA NE Yes No NA NE 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: Manual bar screens are after the mechanical bar screens. Grit Removal Yes No NA NE Type of grit removal Page # 5 Permit: NC0020659 Inspection Date: 12/14/2012 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: Grit is landfilled. Primary Clarifier Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation 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? 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? Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately 1/4 of the sidewall depth) Comment: $rimarys are rectangle. Three out of Six rectangle primary clarifiers were in service due to low inflow. Secondary Clarifier 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? 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 solids/pin floc? NE Yes No NA ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes No NA NE Yes No NA NE Page # 6 Permit: NCO020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 12/14/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately % of the sidewall depth) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Two out of Four rectangle secondary clarifiers were in service due to low inflow. There are also four final clarifiers. Two final clarifiers were not in service due to low inflow. 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? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 of excessive filter flies, worms or snails? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Some ports were blocked giving more flow to the other ports Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE Mode of operation Plug now Type of aeration system Fixed 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/1) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: The aeration nitfification basin is closed (sealed) and could not be evaluated. Pure Oxygen Yes No NA NE Type of pure oxygen system Bulk storage Is there a back-up source for the system? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are mixers operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are samples port/points easily accessible? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page # 7 Permit: NCO020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 12/14/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Pure Oxygen Yes No NA NE Comment: Nutrient Removal Yes No NA NE # Is total nitrogen removal required? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ # Is total phosphorous removal required? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Type Chemical # Is chemical feed required to sustain process? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Is nutrient removal process operating properly? 000 ❑ Comment: Ferrous solution is added at pump stations to reduce phosphorus and corrosion. Filtration (High Rate Tertiary) Yes No NA NE Type of operation: Down flow Is the filter media present? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the filter surface free of clogging? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the filter free of growth? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the air scour operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the scouring acceptable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: One filter was out of service due to a broken manifold Disinfection - UV Yes No NA NE Are extra UV bulbs available on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are UV bulbs clean? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is UV intensity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is transmittance at or above designed level? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is there a backup system on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is effluent clear and free of solids? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Standby Power Yes No NA NE Is automatically activated standby power available? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the generator tested under load? ■ ❑ ❑ Cl Page # 8 Permit: NCO020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 12/14/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Standby Power Yes No NA NE 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 is operated automatically once a week under load. Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE Are pumps in place? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are pumps operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment 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 less than or equal to 6.0 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: Henderson WRF laboratory analyzesTKN, NH3-N, COD, BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, Cu, Zn (high level), Cr, Cd, Na, Se, As. Environmental Testing Solutions (ETS) analyses whole effluent toxicity, Merritech and Pace Laboratory analyzes all other parameters. Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE # 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 less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is sampling performed according to the permit? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Sample storage temperature was zero degrees C without freezing. Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE Is composite sampling Flow proportional? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page # 9 Permit: NCO020559 Inspection Date: 12/14/2012 Owner - Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE 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)? ■ n o n Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Effluent sampler temperature was two degrees C. 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? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ The facility has an approved sludge management plan? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Granville Farms Inc. is permitted to apply up to 600 dry tons of stabilized sludge on permitted farm land under their land application program covered under permit WQ0000838. Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures? n n ■ n 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? n n ■ n Is audible and visual alarm available and operational? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Comment: Influent enters the plant by gravity. 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 LA Region nspectors' Checklist for Fit Parameters Facility Name: Regional Plant Inspector: ; NPDES #: I L 6 Regional Ins ector Contact M Field Lab Certification #: Region: Lab Contact: Date: u I. Check the parameter(s) performed of this site for reporting purposes. ❑ Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Z Temperature (TEMP) 2'Specific Conductivity (SC) RpH EaDissolved Oxygen (DO) ❑ Settleable Residue (SETT) ll. General Laboratory (note any exceptions in section XI) Are instruments, meters, probes, photometric cells, etc. maintained in good condition? I ❑ Yes ❑ No Are standards, reagents and consumables used within manufacturer expiration dates? RC gel standard is exempt.) ❑ Yes ❑ No Are the following items documented where applicabie : Item TRC pH TEMP DO SC SETT Date of sample collection* ✓ Time of sample collection* v Sample collector's initials or signature Date of sample analysis* Time of sample analysis* i/ Analyst initials or signature V- Sam le location l/ *Date and time of sample collection and analysis may be the same for in situ or on -site measurements. III. Total Residual Chlorine Total Residual Chlorine meter make and model: Is a check standard analyzed each day of use? Circle one: gel or liquid standard ❑ Yes ❑ No What is the assigned/observed value of the daily check standard? Is a 5-point calibration verificationperformed? Note date of last verification: ❑ Yes ❑ No Alternatively, does the lab construct a linear regression, using 5 standards, to calculate results? Note date of last calibration curve constructed: ❑ Yes ❑ No True values: ❑ pg/L ❑ mg/L Obtained values: ❑ pg/L ❑ mg/L What program are samples analyzed on? Are results reported in proper units? Check one: ❑ /L ❑ m /L ❑ Yes ❑ No Are results reported between the facility's permit limit and the compliance limit of 50 pg/L? If value is less than the low standard, report as "<x", where x=low standard conc. ❑ Yes ❑ No Are samples analyzed within 15 minutes of collection? ❑ Yes ❑ No IV. pH pH meter make and model: tAme Is the pH meter calibrated with at least 2 buffers per mfg's instructions each day of use? Note buffers used: E9fes ❑ No Is the pH meter calibration checked with an additional buffer each day of use? Note check buffer used: [-Yes ❑ No Does the check buffer reAd wl hin t0.1 S.U. of the known value? ['Yes ❑ No Are the following items documented: Meter calibration? 9"Yes ❑ No Check buffer reading? Yes ❑ No Are samples analyzed within 15 minutes of collection? D Yes ❑ No Are sample results reported to 0.1 pH units? NFYes EJ-No V. Temperature What instrument(s) is used to measure temperature? Check all that appy. OpH -meter ❑ DO meter ❑ Conductivity meter ❑ Digital thermometer ❑ Glass thermometer Is the instrument/hermometer calibration checked at least annually against a NIST traceable or NIST certified thermometer? [g'fes ❑ No Are temperature corrections even if zeroposted on the instrument/thermometer? [9-Yes ❑ No Are samples measured in situ or on -site? [REQUIRED - there is no holding time for temperature] 2 Yes ❑ No Are sample results reported in degrees C? FrYes ❑ No VI. Dissolved Oxygen DO meter make and model: Is the air calibration of the DO meter erfrmed each da of use? [ Yes ❑ No Are the following items documented: Meter calibration? es ❑ No Are samples analyzed within 15 minutes of collection? ['Yes ❑ No Are results reported in m /L? ['Yes ❑ No VII. Conductivity Conductivity meter make and model: r Gu✓he Is the meter calibrated daily according to the manufacturer's instructions? Note standard used this is generally a one -point calibration): Enes ❑ No Is a daily check standard analyzed? Note value: 141 100[ -Yes ❑ No Are the following items documented: Meter calibration? [ -Yes ❑ No Are samples analyzed within 28 days of collection? ['Yes ❑ No Are results reported in mhos/cm some meters display equivalent S/cm units)? ffYes ❑ No Vill. Settleable Residue Does the laboratory have an Imhoff Cone in good condition? ❑ Yes ❑ No Is the sample settled for 1 hour? ❑ Yes ❑ No Is the sample aitated after 45 minutes? ❑ Yes ❑ No Are the following items documented: Volume of sample analyzed? Note volume analyzed: ❑Yes ❑ No Date and time of sample analysis(settling start time)? ❑ Yes ❑ No Time of agitation after 45 minutes of settling? ❑ Yes ❑ No Sample analysis completion(settling end time)? Are samples analyzed within 48 hours of collection? Are results reported in ml/L? UL Was a paper trail (comparing contract lab and on -site data to DMR) performed? If so, list months reviewed: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No X. Is follow-up by the Laboratory Certification program recommended? ❑ Yes ❑ No XI. Additional comments: Please submit a copy of this completed form to the Laboratory Certification program at: DWQ Lab Certification, Chemistry Lab, Courier # 52-01-01 Electronic copies may be emailed to linda.chavis( ncdenr.gov. Revision 04120/2012 City of Henderson A To C No. 020559AOi Issued June 1, 2009 =Y 21t>1 Engineer's Certification I "Mm I) G h R G(J Fib Inr,S as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically/weekly/full time) the construction of the modifications and improvements to the Henderson WRF, located on West Andrews Avenue in Vance County for the City of Henderson, hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the following construction: Installation of a new UV disinfection system with two (2) banks (each capable of treating a peak flow of 12.5 MGD), one precast manhole, approximately 120 LF of 36-inch effluent gravity line and a new precast concrete effluent headwall in conformity with the project plans, specifications, and other supporting data subsequently filed and approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. I certify that the substantial coml Signature Date t ` a 3 - l7;?, ie above referenced project was observed to be built within of the approved plans and specifications. Registration No_ q ` 1� F Send to: Construction Grants & Loans DENR/DWQ 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 pFESSj SEAL - y�'. 948o - PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT JULY 19 2011 TO JUNE 309 2012 I. Facility/System Name: Responsible Entity: General Information Pump Stations and Collection System City of Henderson Person in Charge/Contact: Thomas Spain, Director HWRF Paul Brown, ORC Utility Operations Applicable Permit(s): NPDES # NCO020559 Water Reclamation Facility WOCS00055 Collection Svstem Description of Collection System and Treatment Process: The treatment plant is designed for a flow of 4.14 million gallons per day of wastewater and receives an average of 1.842 million gallons per day. The plant treated 672,316,000 gallons from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012. The treatment process consists of rag and grit removal, primary clarification, two stage trickling filters, intermediate clarification, pure oxygen activated sludge, final clarification, filtration, post aeration and ultraviolet disinfection. The aging UV Disinfection system was replaced with a new more reliable Trojan 5000 Plus UV System. The results have been excellent with nearly a total kill of all fecal coliform. The treatment plant bio-solids are applied at agronomic rates to farmland by a private contractor, Granville Farms, Inc. The collection system consists of approximately one hundred eighty-two and 57/100 (182.57) miles of gravity sewer and force main lines, thirteen (13) pumping stations that convey the wastewater to the treatment plant and three (3) stations for odor control. II. Performance Summary The City of Henderson's Industrial Pretreatment Program, HWRF Stormwater Program and Laboratory were in compliance with all permit limits during this performance period. The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility bio-solids were applied to farmland at agronomic rates and met all permit conditions. The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility was inspected by a representative of the Raleigh Regional Office Division of Water Quality on July 11, 2011. The inspector didn't note any problems durine the inspection. His report noted no mistakes in DMR reports and the staff should be commended because The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility was in compliance with all NPDES permit parameters. The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Stormwater System was not inspected by the State Division of Water Quality during this performance period, but all Stormwater Permit conditions were met. The Industrial Pretreatment Program was inspected by the Division of Water Quality on 3-16-12 and the state commented that "the files needed were in excellent condition". The Laboratory was not inspected by the State DWQ, but is being operated in compliance with all State DWQ regulations. The City of Henderson's Collection System was not inspected by the State DWQ during this performance period. The City made 49 inspections of facility grease traps this year. A total of 28 violations and fines of $6,300 were issued. The City documented when grease educational flyers "Don't Feed the Grease Goblin" were distributed to the public this year. The City sent out 8,900 flyers in the water and sewer bills and replenished City Hall's Receptionist area with 100 copies in January, 2012. The City conducted an Inflow/Infiltration repair project in the Sandy Creek Basin this year and has another project scheduled to start in the near future. The City examined 5,889 feet (1.12 miles) of the gravity sewer with a special closed circuit TV camera and documented the condition of the pipe on DVDs. For the period of July 1, 2011 thru June 30, 2012 the City of Henderson Collection System staff cut 72,650 feet (13.76 miles) of the right-of-ways and performed 100 % of their semiannual inspection of priority lines and manholes within the system. They actually inspected many of them on a weekly basis. The staff cleaned 97,095 feet (18.39 miles) of sewer line with the Jet Vac and rodded 680 feet (0.13 miles). This is 10.1% of the entire system and exceeds the State DWQ requirement by 0.1% of cleaning 10% of the system per year. Inflow/Infiltration repairs made: 28 cleanouts were repaired, 6 cleanouts were installed and 1 manhole was repaired, 8 rings and 8 manhole lids were replaced. It is estimated that Inflow/Infiltration was reduced by 500 eallons/minute. Additional work that was performed: 33,800 feet (6.40 miles) of sewer lines were smoke tested. The Collection System had 119 blockages that had to be cleared. There were 4 new taps installed on homes, 2 industrial taps installed and 5 replacement taps installed. There were 3 service lines repaired. The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility had no bypass events between July 1 2011 and June 30, 2012. The City of Henderson's Collection System (pump stations and gravity and/or force main lines) overflowed a total of 416,050 gallons of untreated wastewater between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012. There were 2 overflows of the pump stations and 8 overflows of the gravity lines. All of the overflows were the result of one of the following: heavy inflow and infiltration from rainfall exceeding the system capacity or blockages of the lines with grease and rags. The gallons that overflowed from the Collection System were only .06 % of the total gallons treated during this annual reporting period. There was no known environmental damage from the bypasses. No death of fish or other aquatic life was observed III. Performance July 2011 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations —A sanitary sewer overflow of 7,500 gallons occurred on Keen Street from manhole B-74 on 7-21-11 from 11:30 AM to12:45 PM. The sewage entered a tributary to Nutbush Creek which is part of the Roanoke River Basin. No known environmental damage occurred because of the overflow. August, 2011 DMR Violations —NONE Environmental Violations --A Sanitary Sewer overflow of 900 gallons of untreated sewage occurred at manhole 182 at Neathery Street from 9:30 PM to 10:30 PM on 8-29-11. Also 900 gallons of untreated sewage overflowed at the manhole at Sandy Creek Pump Station on 8-29-12 from 9:30 PM to 10:30 PM. The overflows entered Sandy Creek which is a tributary of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. No known environmental damage occurred as a result of the overflows. September 2011 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---On 9-23-11 from 2:15 PM to 5:10 PM the Sandy Creek Pump Station at 482 Rock Mill Road overflowed 7,000 gallons of untreated sewage into Sandy Creek which is a tributary of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. From 1:30 PM to 2:30 PM, 500 gallons of untreated sewage overflowed from manhole 22 at 738 East Rock Spring Street and entered a tributary to Sandy Creek. From 2:30 PM to 4:30 PM, 1,000 gallons of untreated sewage overflowed from manhole 182 at Neathery Street and entered a tributary to Sandy Creek. From 2:30 PM to 4:30 PM, 1,000 gallons of untreated sewage overflowed manhole 88 at Pinkston Street School and 500 gallons entered an unnamed tributary to Sandy Creek. Sandy Creek is a tributary of the Roanoke River Basin. There was no known environmental damage from the overflows. October 2011 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---On 10-24-11, 250 gallons of untreated sewage overflowed from an 8 inch sewer line off Berry Street and entered a tributary to Sandy Creek which is part of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The overflow was the result of a pipe failure that had to be replaced. There was no known environmental damage from the overflow. November 2011 DMR Violations —NONE Environmental Violations— On 114-11 from 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM, 500 gallons of untreated sewage overflowed from manhole 182 on Neathery Street and 9,600 gallons of untreated sewage overflowed on 114-11 from 7:OOAM to 11:00 AM from manhole 015 at Sandy Creek Pump Station. All of the untreated sewage entered Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. There was no known environmental damage from the overflows. December 2011 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations —NONE January 2012 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations ---NONE February 2012 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---NONE March 2012 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations— On 3-20-12 the City had a sanitary sewer manhole # 092 to overflow 100 gallons of untreated wastewater at the intersection of Lynn Avenue and Valley View Drive. The overflow was the result of rags and debris blocking the line. The City cleared the blockage. Approximately 50 gallons of the overflow reached a tributary to Redbud Creek which is part of the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. There was no known environmental damage from this overflow. April 2011 DMR VIOLATIONS -NONE Environmental Violations -NONE May 2011 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations-- NONE June 2011 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations —NONE IV. Notification The following public notice was run in the Henderson Daily Dispatch on 7-20-11 to fulfill the requirement of making the Performance Annual Report available to the users of the system and indicating how the users were notified of its availability. PUBLIC NOTICE PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT JULY 19 2011 TO JUNE 309 2012 CITY OF HENDERSON WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY AND CITY OF HENDERSON WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM As required by North Carolina General Statutes Article 21 Chapter 143.215 C, the City of Henderson has produced a Performance Annual Report from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 for the Water Reclamation Facility and Wastewater Collection System. Copies of the report are available to the public at no charge. You may pick up a copy at the City Hall Reception Area in the City Hall Municipal Building at 134 Rose Avenue or contact Tom Spain at (252) 431-6081 or Paul Brown at (252) 431-6030 to request a copy be mailed to you at no charge and to answer any questions you have regarding the report. V. Certification I certify under penalty of law that this report is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further certify that this report has been made available to the users or customers of the named system and that those users have been notified of its availability. Responsible Person: Thomas M. Spain 164 Date: Title: Director Entity: City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Responsible Person: Paul Browr4 Date7— l7 — �1,--- Title: Operator in Responsible Charge for Sewer Collection and Water Distribution Entity: City of Henderson Utility Operations L'i I r Hall, Mandy From: Hall, Mandy Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 9:45 AM To: 'Spain, Tom' Cc: Johnson, Darrel; Herzberg, Barry; Zhang, Cheng Subject: RE: SHOULD WE RERUN LAB WORK? Tom, Barry's work day ends at 3 pm. I would not come in and do extra work this weekend. Technically, based on your email, the composite sample would representative of the flow for Sunday to Monday. Just qualify it on the DMR, as you indicated. I will print this conversation and place it in your file. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Mandy MOA% v Tinge..14&U, WWTP Consultant NCDENR-DWQ-SWP 919-791-4254 P 919-788-7159 F 3800 Barrett Drive Raleigh INC 27609 www.ncwaterguality.org Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute orother regulation. From: Spain, Tom[mailto:TSpain@ci.henderson.nc.us] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:36 PM To: Hall, Mandy Cc: Johnson, Darrel Subject: FW: SHOULD WE RERUN LAB WORK? Importance: High Mandy, I haven't heard from Barry yet. I sure would appreciate it if you could get me a response as soon as possible. I need to let the lab staff know if they have to work on Saturday as early as possible. Sundays are the lowest flow days we have and I thinK the results we have are representative. We haven't had anyone to dump on us in a long time. I was hoping to qualify the Sunday to Monday results but I will resample Friday to Saturday if necessary. Phone # 252- 432-4547 Thank You and have a Great Weekend!!! From: Tom Spain [mailto:tspain@ncol.net] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 3:44 PM To: barry.herzberg@ncdenr.gov Subject: SHOULD WE RERUN LAB WORK? Importance: High Barry, I had an operator that forgot to cut on our samplers at 8:OOAM last Sunday. The second shift caught it and cut them on at 11:00 PM. Our composite sample was 9 hours. We ran the required tests on the sample and were going to qualify the results. I wanted to know if we should collect a sample from Friday to Saturday to replace the short Sunday to Monday sample. My lab staff would have to work on Saturday but we will if that is what is required. Please send response to my City email: tsoain(o ci.henderson.nc.us Please respond as soon as you can. Thank You, Tom Spain J� �u1dr� Hall, Mandy l r ✓V VQ From: Spain, Tom ITSpain@ci.henderson.nc.us] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 12:08 PM To: Hall, Mandy Subject: RE: EFFLUENT SAMPLER FAILED TO COLLECT FULL COMPOSITE Thanks and Happy 4`h to you also. From: Hall, Mandy [mailto:mandy.hall@ncdenr.gov] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 12:02 PM To: Spain, Tom Subject: RE: EFFLUENT SAMPLER FAILED TO COLLECT FULL COMPOSITE Hi Tom, The sample that you collected will be sufficient. As long as it pulled 4 draws that were several hours apart, you will be fine. Since the majority of your flow is during the day, this will be representative of your "day'. Just qualify this on the bottom of the DMR. Happy 4thl I Mandy Tingen Hall WWTP Consultant NCDENR-DWQ-SWP 919-791-4254 P 919-788-7159 F 3800 Barrett Drive Raleigh NC 27609 www. n cwa to rg u a I itv.o rg Fine Prim: Email ...respondence 10 and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Spain, Tom[mailto:TSpain@ci.henderson.nc.usl Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 12:00 PM To: Hall, Mandy Subject: FW: EFFLUENT SAMPLER FAILED TO COLLECT FULL COMPOSITE Mandy, Please read the email below and respond. I sent this email earlier but I had the wrong email address. Thanks ---Tom Spain From: Spain, Tom Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 7:25 PM To: 'mandy.hall@ncmail.net' Gc: Johnson, Darrel Subject: EFFLUENT SAMPLER FAILED TO COLLECT FULL COMPOSITE Mandy, How are you doing? I've got a sampling problem I need clarified. On Monday 6-27-11, the contractor was working on installation of our new UV System. He ran into a concrete duct bank seven feet deep in the ground. My electrician had to move the conduits and wires out of the contractor's way. He connected our post aerator to our UV power. We have enough power to operate both. However, he removed power from our effluent sampler without realizing it. The sampler had been collecting from 8:00 AM to 5:00 or 6:00 PM when he accidentally disconnected it. We only had a nine to ten hour sample composite. The lab staff went ahead and ran this sample with qualifiers. I need to know if this is sufficient, or if we have to collect a sample from Friday to Saturday to have a proper composite sample? I will do this but I hate to do it if I don't have to. The whole lab staff will have to come in working on overtime. Since most of our industries shut down I think there is very little variation in the strength or make up of our flow during a 24 hour period. Thanks --------------- Tom 2 *A NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Division of Water Quality Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Governor Director August 26, 2011 242 Mr. Darrel Johnson City of Henderson WRF P.O. Box 1434 1646 W. Andrews Ave. Henderson, NC 27536-1434 Dear Mr. Johnson: Natural Resources Dee Freeman Secretary Your letter received on August 11, 2011 concerning corrective actions for your analytical procedures has been reviewed. The quality control measures, taken in reference to the findings cited in the July 27, 2011 inspection report are acceptable. Please continue to follow all approved methods, rules and regulations. Thank you again for your cooperation during the inspection. Contact us at (919) 733 — 3908 Ext.249 if you have any questions or need additional information regarding our requirements. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Adams Laboratory Section Cc: Dana Satterwhite Raleigh Regional Office _U AUG 3 1 2011 DENR DwD Laboratory Section NC Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification Branch One 1623 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1623 NorthC2lrolttla Location: 4405 Reedy Creek Road. Raleigh, North Carolina 27607-6445 Phone: 919-733-39081 FAX: 919-733-6241 Naturally Internet: www.dwglab.org An Equal Opportunity l Arfimam Acton Employer Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748 www.ncwaterquality.org CITY OF HENDERSON Post Office Box 1434 Henderson, North Carolina 27536-1434 Henderson Water Reclamation Facility 1646 West Andrews Avenue Henderson, North Carolina 27537 Phone: (252) 431-6080 FAX: (252) 492-3324 July 27, 2011 Mr. Danny Smith Raleigh Regional Supervisor NC DENR DWQ 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Re: Amendment Changing City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility City of Henderson Collection System Annual System Performance Report NPDES No. NCO020559 WQCS No. 00055 Dear Mr. Smith, I am furnishing you two copies of the amended Annual System Performance Report for the City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility and Sewer Collection System from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011. I made an error on 8-23-11 and recorded the location as Westau and Bragg Street (which is the example on the BIMS report forms). The location has been corrected to Sidney Hill and the reports for distribution have been corrected also. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Please contact me at 252431-6081 or Paul Brown at 252431-6030 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Spa Thomas M..Spalri4& HWRF Director C: Ray Griffin, City Manager Frank Frazier, Assistant City Manager Paul Brown, Collection & Distribution Sys ORC Jerry Bello, HWRF Chief Operator. 2�11 Files �UL h,,na1011ice (�8101�; y PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT JULY 19 2010 TO JUNE ^ 2011 L Facility/System Name: Responsible Entity: General Information City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility, Pump Stations and Collection System City of Henderson Person in Charge/Contact: Thomas Spain, Director HWRF Paul Brown, ORC Utility Operations Applicable Permit(s): NPDES # NCO020559 Water Reclamation Facility WOCS00055 Collection System Description of Collection System and Treatment Process: The treatment plant is designed for a flow of 4.14 million gallons per day of wastewater and receives an average of 1.912 million gallons per day. The plant treated 697,880,000 gallons from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011. The treatment process consists of rag and grit removal, primary clarification, two stage trickling filters, intermediate clarification, pure oxygen activated sludge, final clarification, filtration, post aeration and ultraviolet disinfection. The treatment plant bio-solids are applied at agronomic rates to farmland by a private contractor, Granville Farms, Inc. The collection system consists of approximately one hundred eighty-two and 57/100 (182.57) miles of gravity sewer and force main lines, thirteen (13) pumping stations that convey the wastewater to the treatment plant and three (3) stations for odor control. H. Performance Summary The City of Henderson's Industrial Pretreatment Program, HWRF Stormwater Program and Laboratory were in compliance with all permit limits during this performance period. The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility bio-solids were applied to farmland at agronomic rates and met all permit conditions. The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility was inspected by a representative of the Raleigh Regional Office Division of Water Quality in mid -July, 2011. We have not received a report of the inspection yet but the inspector didn't note any problems during the inspection. lfa:`f: i Is•Lal•.t . r1 `.' e•: ` !i3 .,fir ,,li ' :+'_ ` ._aiti_C2� Urn-',! nl:-.7 Illy. 4 r'_:1 y i.J' i•e44tF r`•;?, iistt: TnAq ^i' f v tT r ; z^ �!{cg e.. ttit:, "('. f it.7 rf;: •,. ..; ...' i . . )470 „ 0r . i !'fwl s(7Ff'!` <..t: `i•_dai I"+a h` I1 $"...tT I Ow )-. di: 1�s 1' .. f".. .'.i' :i� i id, ."t? I&I Rti':dum .;'•,i({{r .uj ii t 1 '1'i i! 10, ,73A (T'._ %:' i `l (; nc i - <.. .• . • m ; le wAh" .-Ih!` '((•ti+l'4+1+ o?;! ,. '.I .. >(d: .... .j;. (:) eta' .. .. VOPI,'--%-J%:1J +i PH'Clc_• -07(1bP .�J�_^i91j.•'J sir ((: ii;��';'.9.:3.-..P�9j »lY'..tte �i ,"i t1T'.:.i di �^' l�i+' �`. C,� :f N ' _14(7�4 fi/. r ?4 ;Y y .i"`: "PAS IT, Pit-1 9'1974 fl,Yn - -il s°,', ;, i . -.; p. l 7B;.:'a 'T37q P i i, .? I-Ah -ri it) yii�) a{ IF �� T+'r i:(4f1'1 17 (47i��4111•=!+; (: 29/l7'i ii4p0110•LKP. 71{! �f U!i}HiL97 T�t�a+ f"� iRi: .:cL: rl. .., � .. i G :1. •. •.i rTjl ._� „ .t !!-. - iUfi`'t . 5 7R�. hTflum I T/i! I MO :iV .+.it. /O(,'-:., : a :i:'i+!•. - •_,I;, .� I_. ':Ii ,•T�,,,r,;,yas ai.9!1 Bf49f4f";ey rfF_e. ?e�:.l-7 '_.:: :'rt .lntl• � ^a: ._ f�� ,�: The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility was in compliance with all NPDES permit parameters for this twelve month reporting period. The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Stormwater System was not inspected by the State Division of Water Quality this year but all Stormwater Permit conditions were met. The Industrial Pretreatment Program was inspected by the Division of Water Quality and the state commented that the "program was very well managed". The Laboratory was inspected by the State DWQ and only minor problems were noted by the inspector who said that "overall we had a very well run lab". The Fats, Oils and Grease Program was not inspected by the State Division of Water Quality during this performance reporting period but is being operated in compliance with all State DWO regulations. The City's Pretreatment Program was inspected by the State Division of Water Quality on August 9th, 2010. Their report indicated that "the Pretreatment Program is very well managed". The City of Henderson's Collection System was inspected by the State DWQ. The State noted that the "record keeping was excellent". The City made 31 insuections of facility erease traps this year. A total of 28 violations and fines of $1,975 were issued. The City documented when grease educational flyers "Don't Feed the Grease Goblin" were distributed to the public this year. The City sent out 8,900 flyers in the water and sewer bills and replenished City Hall's Receptionist area with 100 copies in April, 2011. The City is conducting an Inflow/Infiltration repair project in the Sandy Creek Basin at present and has another project scheduled to start in approximately six months. The City examined 7,270 feet (1.38 miles) of the gravity sewer with a special closed circuit TV camera and documented the condition of the pipe on DVDs. For the period of July 1, 2010 thru June 30, 2011 the City of Henderson Collection System staff cut 90,712 feet (17.18 miles) of the right-of-ways and performed 100 % of their semiannual inspection of priority lines and manholes within the system. They actually inspected many of them on a weekly basis. The staff cleaned 135,338 feet (25.6 miles) of sewer line with the Jet Vac. This is 14.0% of the entire system and exceeds the State DWQ requirement by 4.0% of cleaning 10% of the system per year. The staff also rodded 4,373 feet of gravity lines. This type of heavy duty cleaning helps to remove roots and partial blockages. Inflow/Infiltration Repairs made: 43 cleanouts were repaired and 18 manholes were repaired. It is estimated that Inflow/Infiltration was reduced by 500 eallons/minute. -7 _71 v _11r. �AUV tip, jyj7p .41A 113vp a if A, 1.00, r, Aim A SAIL "C7341:. ;14 XMCGO 10PRilad2 AST! bw .'Y& 'I wa.001 po"W"'"9 If, 101 ii! Abni T-ow, t . ;nl . "liff 'fij" -.. i 1 r.ijk (1-;' .11 ..'41 tr p rr= a{ii,.r•I.; 1 i'41" Je -21k. . "L� 119-m" v:;. - 2;1 401mv F LAIN URIA ongs 1 F-5,01 J I-Inxil lwtoiw_ 5", 4)3l 'i:oatl`A "INQ Pa ur"'i 10 L1 !%I w !T; rj,. . , .47.v! . 1") lei 19K 00 Q An 1) 0 Aw q 01"'alwasif - up, bo 'An"10' "n Mori 't'4 h;f;t xy rnj V Havlap blew 1, xy % 541a OW10 w, w! its %a STO %j 10 tv^ witi -Alll- voijibool �Wv AA1, °; " /w -ml a vv'141*4 1". 1, .01 5! 1% K01, .11$1V 't i-)f! Su"00 me be, > : +W& j(h V. ("Ififf :m! (17"W W on; hru i v At 1010i q 0 110myn, fit A Olin .0 1 vi'61 ;° th 'XII A Ito, 1 Zo tat'.. u;M%J_. �i; I .0 wn PuAl 101%, bav un- Niraqu a., Wq An 0, '00 yn& I wfk d tijg 1 1 P I bn m I *a v r �_,3Afjj: e 4jan:xA Wj,j Additional work that was performed: 35,572 feet (6.74 miles) of sewer lines were smoke tested. The Collection System had 76 blockages that had to be cleared. There were 11 new taps installed on homes and 6 industrial taps installed. 7 service lines were repaired and 3 were replaced. One eight inch line was repaired. The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility had no bypass events between July 1. 2010 and June 30, 2011. The City of Henderson's Collection System (pump stations and gravity and/or force main lines) overflowed a total of 416,050 gallons of untreated wastewater between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011.There were 2 overflows of the pump stations and 8 overflows of the gravity lines. All of the overflows were the result of one of the following: heavy inflow and infiltration from rainfall exceeding the system capacity or blockages of the lines with grease and rags. The gallons that overflowed from the Collection System were only .06 % of the total gallons treated during this annual reporting period. There was no known environmental damage from the bypasses. No death of fish or other aquatic life was observed The City has continued implementation of a Fats, Oil & Grease Ordinance for all food service establishments discharging to the collection system. Considerable progress has been made in eliminating grease from the sewer collection system. The staff completed 30 initial inspections of facilities and 2 follow-up inspections during this reporting period. M. Performance July 2010 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---NONE August 2010 DMR Violations —NONE Environmental Violations —A Sanitary Sewer overflow of 100 gallons of untreated sewage occurred at manhole 064 at 1930 Parker Lane on 8-22-10. The overflow entered Redbud Creek which is a tributary of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. No known environmental damage occurred as a result of the overflow. A Sanitary Sewer overflow of 100 gallons of untreated sewage occurred at manhole 107 at Sidney Hill on 8-23-10 at 3:00 PM. The overflow entered Redbud Creek which is a tributary of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. No environmental damage resulted from the overflow. r� t 8:Y `aaF!F93fQ'f'; :'Q:� •r: Y i.,,)..i {of'. .,. ,a u-: y,.., �;� q.•�,. 1putlemb(t' ') hou :')MO r)r ia':V.: 4. SE.. `1^ waa l { t'. itd;a ti,.�? , 4g.'ii{9URi{ •t:f;ttY �!aR :ti..:.1'ow 1 i➢6,f ...f_ { .?Pit Sd! R: Sii!:iEftf Jr':' y �!i4l.Y', .41. Yii'tia :r, t, r t {r., ,'{ ° l+An An AN N itrf .t f`.ul i iLi •!i �,.�E!.Y. f-'U'! r1wic t ,tt'•})ill. '•P:' r 'h .,. _ e •('•>...9 }. r,tj J"; ��) `nri •.:OWE %w 0102 . I!"r! "s, i.', MAN, i,:... 7'uk r t .. .,;, r�; ;o yC -!'11t 87;i !,'jt ',`. VY.., h'� 1-!.', ,. �. -•;,: .�JCl�P.; �')'. t �fVe1�{{.: (•,.,>'1......t, 3"J t��r ��. ': Sc_5 <. 7Y "s!I cY,4'f•,,' Stliil'1SR9.�9,ii fnm� i)$N!1.Ri'.lu. ?i.'. ^t, •f it:: ±ip� Yfi -..� l r'S! l ` l�Jd?�Lll �1.'_. ' 9'•' �'i` t{ "�{.t ';g'!R 'n? r(}>t{i Rath ,•z [f'fh9 !,l; •.i`ir'. ti Yi 7)t1N i'}9ii�� FJJt-mfif{.1; j ; _l A 11F i .'iS ' R ,f. _::I:$7��.F1: 1'.i!!t 5y',: i' Mj , >. r '/Nl ady :a`x1?�t't')'=i'OS !-, t f[f C(_ f17?�•11.'P!'t i�j•'i, .:- Idl mn r.t oof i'w!:0 i, ;is 'IlYya -. ! J t . 1 •1•.SYi 1?' ,f .'+. Srii'2Q771`{;t j 4): tf! tLaNat ' Te i's:f r;1t't" tgNti T IMAJ ' - �t�: �r•:i.9^• .tl l'.1 '.(tI1R�:•• ht j l:�'Nr 9r ,•.;)7r!9iJ .�tC flit,:! f.--$t1 UFt st*r�f iH1): rf0'17filjli�: +K 'Ts):SfYitRA �6�$918F.7 ,7:'+R`.` a+�Pf1:rlCr l', 'ti°'i{ 1 L:.)! ' ,. vii"`j lt.l �f tip ;'F pft E1 ;, ii I�U{i:1•/ - 's: ME [ '.Uf!.'Ctffo :— yusslo 9•::,Y)t}5'. f, 1C0 n.; _'J ,,n ,i_ ::, Q ,ri Jf(O-! yy�rp�i. -rl` I ? y i•l. }� 11 , ,, t. ii , M '! t ti F • � .7 it�'S i :'.r. (:i � � i ..7 i!,S � M9ft{i . a , ')ti'{ QOfT {�'=iCfJ71: 9�+iflf)filT {ti..h rt:::''.�ra.• t`'' .rria.sLl "r-;? t .c.. t - 1 •.,r, " -r 7 _ . G�'1fY19 { 11"• S SIt7 -'- ,"_«r _ .. September 2010 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---On 9-30-10 Sandy Creek Pump Station on Rock Mill Road overflowed 12,400 gallons of untreated sewage into Sandy Creek which is a tributary of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. There was no known environmental damage from the overflow. October 2010 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---On 10-28-10, 500 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed from Manhole 449 located at Beckford Drive. The wastewater entered Nutbush Creek which is part of Kerr Lake and the Roanoke River Basin. There was no known environmental damage from the overflow. November 2010 DMR Violations —NONE Environmental Violations —NONE December 2010 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations --NONE January 2011 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations ---NONE February 2011 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---NONE March 2011 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations— On 3-14-11, 200 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed from manhole 270 on Oakland Avenue entered Redbud Creek which is a tributary of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The overflow resulted from debris in the line that had to be cleared. No known environmental damage occurred from the overflow. From March 14, 2011 to March 21', 2011 352,700 gallons of untreated sewage overflowed from manhole 025 located in the sewer line right-of-way close to Progress Energy's substation. The cause of the overflow was grease and debris in the line that clogged it. The overflow entered a tributary to Redbud Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. No known environmental damage resulted from the overflow. April 2011 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations —From April 23, 2011 at 12:00 AM to April 20h, 2011 at 10:30AM approximately 50,000 gallons of raw sewage overflowed atl019 Hargrove Street into a tributary Z-, -4-tUlt, t, -prof' •aot ses� mvvi w f�:..t 1'p,':ttt ,:.o ty;Wk.: -44 IG'v t4 ii -.4ft44h 1,-, ...... t Ft 9 rp fe w�fv) 0fliva: t:--.�;A it", I-, Pit WO: of Nutbush Creek which is a tributary to The Roanoke River Basin. There was no known environmental damage from the overflow. May 2011 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations-- NONE June 2011 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations— NONE 1V. Notification The following public notice was run in the Henderson Daily Dispatch on 7-25-11 to fulfill the requirement of making the Performance Annual Report available to the users of the system and indicating how the users were notified of its availability. PUBLIC NOTICE PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT JULY 19 2010 TO JUNE 309 2011 CITY OF HENDERSON WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY AND CITY OF HENDERSON WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM As required by North Carolina General Statutes Article 21 Chapter 143.215 C, the City of Henderson has produced a Performance Annual Report from July 1, 2010 to June 30th 2011 for the Water Reclamation Facility and Wastewater Collection System. Copies of the report are available to the public at no charge. You may pick up a copy at the City Hall Reception Area in the City Hall Municipal Building at 134 Rose Avenue or contact Tom Spain at (252) 431-6081 or Paul Brown at (252) 431-6030 to request a copy be mailed to you at no charge and to answer any questions you have regarding the report. V. Certification I certify under penalty of law that this report is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further certify that this report has been made available to the users or customers of the named system and that those users have been notified of its availability. Responsible Person: Thomas M. Spain %� / ; Date: `� Title: Director 1 Entity: City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Responsible Person: Paul Brown 1�fiYy�H'ate Title: Operator in Responsible Ch ge for Sewer gollectio! and Water Distribution Entity: City of Henderson Utility Operations CLIPPING OF LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT ATTACHED HERE NORTH CAROLINA, VANCE COUNTY. PUBLIC NOTICE PERFORMANCE ANNUAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION REPORT July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011 Before the undersigned, a Notary Public City of Henderson of said County and State, duly water Reclamation commissioned, qualified, and authorized Facility And by law to administer oaths, personally City of Henderson Collection System appeared CAROLYN WILLIAMS, who Wastewater being first duly swom, deposes and . As required by North Caro- says: that he is Business Manager lina General Statutes Article Chapter 143.215 C, the (Owner, partner, publisher, or other 21 City of Henderson has pro- officer or employee authorized to make duced a Performance Annual this affidavit) of Henderson Report from July 1, 2010 to June30, 2011 for the Water Newspapers, Inc., engaged in the Reclamation Facility and publication of a newspaper known as Wastewater Cotibction Sys- The Daily Dispatch, published, issued, tem. Copies of the report are and entered as second class mail in the available to the public at no You may p' P City of Henderson, in said County and charge. copy at the City Hall Reception State; that she is authorized to make this Area in the City Hall Municipal affidavit and swom statement; that the Building at 134 Rose Avenue at the rece t1 notice or other legal advertisement, a or Center at the city operationstrue copy of which is attached hereto, goo South Beckford Drive or contact Tom Spain at (252) was published in The Daily Dispatch on 431-6061 or Paul Brown at the following dates: (252) 431.6030 to request a 26, 2011 copy be mailed to you at no _July charge and to answer any you have regarding questions the report. July 26, 2011 and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper, document, or legal advertisement was published was, at the time of each and every such publication, a newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. 26 day pf Js11y, 2011. (Signs{ re f person making affidavit) Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 26 day of July, 201 . Notary lic My commission expires: June 28, 2013 ANC rMAILED NCDENR a4, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural R sources Division of Water Quality Beverly Eaves Perdue Colleen H. Sullins Governor Director July 12, 2011 Mr. Ray Griffin Henderson City Manager PO Box 1434 Henderson, NC 27536 Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection Henderson Water Reclamation Facility NPDES Permit NCO020559 Vance County Dear Mr. Griffin: Dee Freeman Secretary On July 11, 2011, Thomas Ascenzo of the Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) conducted a compliance inspection (CEI) of the subject's water reclamation facility. The assistance of Thomas Spain, operator in charge (ORC) was appreciated as it facilitated the inspection process. The following observations were made: The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) is permitted to discharge at a rate of 4.14 MGD and consist of: bar screens and grit chamber, primary clarifiers, trickling filters, secondary clarifiers, pure oxygen activated sludge nitrification basin, final clarifiers, tertiary filters, post aeration, ultraviolet (UV) disinfection with sodium hypochlorite backup, dissolved air floatation (DAF) sludge thickening, pure oxygen aerobic digester, anaerobic digesters, sludge holding tank, sludge drying, and standby power. The plant discharges to Nutbush Creek, a Class C Waterbody located in the Roanoke River Basin, the plant is located at NC Highway 39 in Henderson NC. 2. A review of Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data for the 12 month period from January 2010 to January 2011 was performed prior to this inspection. The staff of this facility should be commended for not having any permit limit or monitoring violations in this 12 month time period. 3. DMRs for January 2011 was reviewed and compared to lab reports. No mistakes or inconsistencies were noted. Chain of custody were complete and kept on file as required. 4. All plant components were inspected and were operational at the time of inspection. 5. During the site visit a review of the July 1, 2009- June 30, 2010 annual report was conducted. Please submit current annual report to this office. 6. It was noted that the current UV (ultraviolet system) is currently experiencing electrical issues. Backup system is in place in the event of a system failure, it is noted that a new UV disinfection system was under construction at the time of inspection and should be on line in 3-6 weeks. 7. Reported on calibration sheets, flow meters were calibrated on April 15, 2011. 8. ORC Log books were observed to be complete and up to date. No thCarolina .lVatura!!y North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone (919) 791-4200 Customer service Internet: www.ncwaterquality. org 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX (919) 788-7159 877-623-6748 An Equal Opportunity/ARrmaave Action Employer— 50 % Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper Henderson Water Reclamation Facilit, I NC0020559 Page 2 of 2 9. The right of way for the effluent was well maintained. The effluent was clear and free of solids or polluCanff. --'*- ' -. 10. The standby generator has a 8000 gallon diesel fuel above ground storage tank (AST) to allow for 8- 10 days of emergency power. 11. The Primary Clarifiers were off line and on standby at the time of inspection due to low flow. The plant was well maintained. All plant components were inspected and were operational and compliant with Division standards. Please continue your diligence in the proper operation and maintenance of the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility. Should you or your staff have any questions regarding this inspection, please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-791-4256 or you can e-mail me at tom.ascenzo(cDncdenr.gov. Sincerely, Thomas Ascenzo Environmental Specialist Surface Water Protection Attachment: Compliance Inspection Reports CC: Central Files NC0020559 Tom Spain, Director Henderson WRF 1646 West Andrews Ave, Henderson, NC 27536 Raleigh Regional Office SWP United States Environmental Protection Agency FOmt Approved. Washington, D.C. 20460 EPA 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 yrfmo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fee Type 1 I NI 2 t Ct 31 NCO020559 111 121 11/07/1, 117 181 rl 19I Ct 20U IJ U t t.J U Remarks zllillJill llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllJill lll6 Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA --------------Reserved------------ 67I 169 701 IJ 1 711liI 721 NI 731 I 174 75I I I I I I I 160 IJ L1J Section B:FacilityData 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) Henderson WRF 01:00 PM 11/07/11 07/10/01 Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date NC Hwy 39 Henderson NC 27536 02:30 PM 11/07/11 12/03/31 Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number Thomas M Spain, PO Box 1434 Henderson NC 275361434//919-431-6006/ ContactedNo Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated) Permit 0 Flow Measurement ■ Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports Self -Monitoring Program E 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) Names) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Dale �1 7 -am ascenzo /� / RRO Wp//919-791-4200/ hs Signature Manageme t Q A Revi r Agen /Of8 /Phone and Fax Numbers Date .. 1\l , EPA Form 3960-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete. / Page # 1 NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type i 3I NCO020559 I11 121 11/07/11 117 18u Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary) Page # 2 Permit: NCO020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 07/11/2011 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: Plant is well maintained and clean Record Keeping Yes No NA NE Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit? ■ ❑ 130 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? ■ [l ❑ 0 Is the chain -of -custody complete? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Dates, times and location of sampling ■ Name of individual performing the sampling ■ Results of analysis and calibration ■ Dates of analysis ■ Name of person performing analyses ■ Transported COCs ■ Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters? ■ ❑ n ❑ Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWO? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ (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? ■ n ❑ ❑ Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: ORC Log found to be complete and up to date Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE # Is composite sampling flow proportional? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is sample collected above side streams? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is proper volume collected? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the tubing clean? ■ ❑ ❑ n Page # 3 Permit: NC0020559 Date: 07/11/2011 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Influent Sampling Yea No NA NE # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? ■ C C C Is sampling performed according to the permit? ■ C C Comment: Temp was 4 degrees celcius in sampler refrigerator. Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? ■ ❑ Q 11 Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? ■ C C C If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? ❑ C ■ C Comment: Effluent was clear and free of solids or pollutants Bar Screens Yes No NA NE Type of bar screen a.Manual b.Mechanical ■ Are the bars adequately screening debris? ■ C C n Is the screen free of excessive debris? ■ ❑ C C Is disposal of screening in compliance? ■ C C C Is the unit in good condition? ■ ❑ C C Comment: Primary Clarifier Yes No NA NE Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? C C C In Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? ❑ C ❑ ■ Are weirs level? C C C ■ Is the site free of weir blockage? C C C ■ Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting? ❑ 0 C ■ Is scum removal adequate? C C C ■ Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? C C C in Is the drive unit operational? C C C ■ Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? C n C ■ Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately % of the sidewall depth) C C n ■ Comment: Primary Clarifier is out of service and on standby Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE Page # 4 Permit: NCO020559 Owner - Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 07/11/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? ■ 0 0 0 Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? ■ Are weirs level? ■ 0 0 0 Is the site free of weir blockage? ■ 0 0 0 Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting? ■ 0 0 0 Is scum removal adequate? ■ 0 0 0 Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? ■ 0 0 0 Is the drive unit operational? ■ 0 0 0 Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)? ■ 0 0 0 Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc? ■ 0 0 0 Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately Y. of the sidewall depth) ■ 0 0 0 Comment: 3 were online and 3 were offline at the time of inspection n-.:4 Yes No NA NE Type of grit removal a.Manual 0 b.Mechanical ■ Is the grit free of excessive organic matter ■ 0 0 0 Is the grit free of excessive odor ■ 0 0 0 # Is disposal of grit in compliance? ■ 0 0 0 Comment: Grit is brought to a landfill in Person County Trickling Filter Yes No NA NE Is the filter free of ponding? ■ 0 0 0 Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of filter's distribution arms? ■ 0 0 0 Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms? ■ 0 0 0 Is the filter free of uneven or discolored growth? ■ 0 0 0 Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth? ■ 0 Cl 0 Are the filters distribution arms orifices free of clogging? ■ 0 0 0 Is the filter free of excessive filter flies, worms or snails? ■ 0 0 0 Comment: Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE Page # 5 Permit: NCO020559 Inspection Date: 07/11/2011 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE Are pumps in place? ■ ❑ Q 0 Are pumps operational? ■ o n n Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site? ■ n 0 Q Comment: Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE Mode of operation Type of aeration system Is the basin free of dead spots? ■ n n n Are surface aerators and mixers operational? ■ ❑ ❑ Q Are the diffusers operational? ■ n ❑ n Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process? ■ n n Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface? ■ 0 ❑ 11 Is the DO level acceptable? ■ n n n Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 ri ■ n n n 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? ■ n n O # Are there any special conditions for the permit? ■ n n n Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? ■ n n n Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? ■ n n n Comment: Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE Is the capacity adequate? ■ n n n Is the mixing adequate? ■ rl ❑ CD Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank? ■ n n n # Is the odor acceptable? ■ n n n # Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? ■ Q ❑ n Comment: Pure Oxygen Yes No NA NE Page # 6 Permit: NCO020559 Owner- Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 0711112011 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Pure Oxygen Yes No NA NE Type of pure oxygen system Bulk storage Is there a back-up source for the system? ■ O n n Are mixers operational? ■ n n n Are samples port/points easily accessible? ■ n n n Comment: Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures? ■ ❑ n n Is the wet well free of excessive grease? ■ n n n Are all pumps present? ■ n n n Are all pumps operable? ■ 0 0 ❑ Are float controls operable? ■ n n n Is SCADA telemetry available and operational? Q 0 ■ ❑ Is audible and visual alarm available and operational? ■ ❑ ❑ Comment: Solids Handling Equipment Yee No NA NE Is the equipment operational? ■ O O Q Is the chemical feed equipment operational? ■ 0 0 O Is storage adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters? ■ ❑ n n Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press? ■ n n n Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake? ■ n n n The facility has an approved sludge management plan? ■ Q 0 Comment: Drying Beds Yes No NA NE Is there adequate drying bed space? ■ O 0 O Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate? ■ n n n Are the drying beds free of vegetation? ■ n n n # Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds? ■ D n n Is the site free of stockpiled sludge? ■ n n n Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant? ■ n ❑ n Page # 7 Permit: NC0020559 Inspection Date: 07/11/2011 Owner - Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Drying Beds Yes No NA NE # Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ # Is the sludge land applied? ■ ❑ ❑ O (Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate? n n ■ Q Comment: Nutrient Removal Yes No NA NE # Is total nitrogen removal required? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ # Is total phosphorous removal required? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Type Chemical # Is chemical feed required to sustain process? ■ n n n Is nutrient removal process operating properly? ■ n n n Comment: Fi@ration (High Rate Tertiary) Yes No NA NE Type of operation: Down flow Is the filter media present? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the filter surface free of clogging? n n n n Is the filter free of growth? ■ n n Q Is the air scour operational? ■ ❑ Is the scouring acceptable? ■ n n n Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Disinfection - UV Yes No NA NE Are extra UV bulbs available on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are UV bulbs clean? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is UV intensity adequate? ■ n n n Is transmittance at or above designed level? ■ ❑ 0 ❑ Is there a backup system on site? ■ ❑ Q ❑ Is effluent clear and free of solids? ■ n n n Comment: New UV banks are under construction. Current banks have been experiencing electrical issues, backup system in place with sodium hypochlorite treatment if needed. Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE Page # 8 a Permit: NCO020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 07/11/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Effluent Sampling Yes No NA WE 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: Standby Power Yes No NA NE Is automatically activated standby power available? ■ Cl ❑ ❑ 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? ■ ❑ Cl ❑ Is the generator fuel level monitored? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: 8000 gallon diesel Above Ground Tank storage for the standby generator. Gives a 7 day operation in case of loss of power. Laboratory Yea 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 less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? ■ Cl ❑ ❑ Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Incubator (SOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +1- 1.0 degrees? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: 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 # 9 6T 4E NCD NR _F North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman Governor Director Secretary May 13, 2011 Mr. Thomas Spain -ury39 k) dlc 143 4 Henderson, NC 27536 Subject: Whole effluent toxicity test results Henderson WRF NPDES Permit # NCO020559/001 Vance County Dear Mr. Spain, The aquatic toxicity test using 24-hr composite samples of effluent discharged from Henderson Nutbush Creek W WTP has been completed. Henderson Nutbush Creek W WTP has an effluent discharge permitted that is 4.14 million gallons per day (MGD) entering Nutbush Creek (7Q10 of 0.2 CFS). Whole effluent samples were collected on April 5 and April 7 by Vicki Webb and Tom Ascenzo for use in a chronic Ceriodaphnia dubia multiple -dilution toxicity test. The test using these samples resulted in a 'pass. Toxicity test information follows. Test Type Test Concentrations Test Result Control Survival Control Mean Reproduction Test Treatment Survival Treatment Mean Reproduction First Sample pH First Sample Conductivity First Sample Total Residual Chlorine Second Sample pH Second Sample Conductivity Second Sample Total Residual Chlorine 3-Brood Cerio&rphnin dubia chronic multiple dilution 0, 45, 67.5, 90, 95, 100% sample Chv s >100% 100% 26.1 neonates 100% 24.7 neonates at 100% test concentration 7.39 SU 659 micromhos/cm <0. I mg/L 7.32 SU 743 micromhos/cm <0.1 mu/L If you have any questions conceming the toxicity sampling or results, please contact me either by phone at (919) 791-4200 or email at vicki.webb(a)nedenr.gov. Sincerely, cc: RRO files Vicki Webb Environmental Specialist on` NhCarolina North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone (919) 791-4200 Customer Service Internet: w .ncvvaterquality.org 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX (919) 788-7159 877-623-6748 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recyciee/10% Post Consumer Paper United States Environmental Protection Agency orm Approved. EPA Washington, D.C. 20460 MB No. 2040.0057 [Approval Water Compliance Inspection Report 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 NI 2 I CI 31 NCO020559 111 121 11/04/04 117 18I 3I 19I c1 20—I LJ J J J Remarks z,LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII° Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating Bi CA ----Reserved ---------------------- 67L169 70I I 711 ty I 72(N( 731 11 74 75I I I I I I 180 IJ u L.1J Section B: FacilityData Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to Pi also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 09:00 AM 11/04/04 07/10/01 Henderson WRP Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date NC Hwy 39 Henderson NC 27536 03:00 PM 11/04/04 12/03/31 Names) of Onsite Representative(spTitles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number Contacted 1homae M Spain,PO Box 1434 Henderson NC 275361434//919-431-6006/ No Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated) Other 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 Vicki Webb HBO WQ/// I L yllcy 4011 tom ascenzo RHO WQ//919-791-4200/ na re of Mans men t 0 r Ag ncy/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date EPA Form 560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete. Page # 1 Permit: NCO020559 Owner • Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 04/04/2011 Inspection Type: Bioassay Compliance Other Comment: Tox test ran the week of April 4, 2011. Facility passed. Yes No NA NE Page # 3 Hall, Mandy From: Hall, Mandy Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 2:56 PM To: 'Spain, Tom' Subject: HWRF ORC/BORC Great Tom, glad it worked out. I will print this email and keep it in the facility file for Henderson. Let me know if you need any help! Tu Mandy Tingen Hall WWTP Consultant NCDENR-DWQ-SWP Raleigh Regional Office 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 919-791-4254 Ph 919-788-7159 Fax www.ncwaterguality.ora Brrrrrr FINE PRINT: E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. -----Original Message ----- From: Spain, Tom[mailto:TSpain@ci.henderson.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:42 AM To: Hall, Mandy; mandy.hall@ncmail.net Cc: danny.smith@ncmail.net; Frazier, Franklin; Leyen, Linda Subject: Importance: High Mandy, I checked back on my designations of back-up ORCs and in my December 7, 2006 letter I requested to keep Linda Leyen as a Back-up ORC. She is still serving in that capacity and is able to make visits to the plant site on any day that I am out. She knows this plant inside out and would do a great job if she has to fill in. I am waiting to see if Gerry Bello, the Chief Plant Operator, progresses in the recovery from his illness before I make a decision whether to hire a new Chief Plant Operator or not. I will keep you informed of any changes. PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT JULY 19 2009 TO JUNE 309 2010 I. General Information Facility/System Name: City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility, Pump Stations and Collection System Responsible Entity: City of Henderson Person in Charge/Contact: Thomas Spain, Director HWRF Paul Brown, ORC Utility Operations Applicable Permit(s): NPDES # NCO020559 Water Reclamation Facility WOCS00055 Collection System Description of Collection System and Treatment Process: The treatment plant is designed for a flow of 4.14 million gallons per day of wastewater and receives an average of 2.203 million gallons per day. The plant treated 803,964,000 gallons from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010. The treatment process consists of rag and grit removal, primary clarification, two stage trickling filters, intermediate clarification, pure oxygen activated sludge, final clarification, filtration, post aeration and ultraviolet disinfection. The treatment plant bio-solids are applied at agronomic rates to farmland by a private contractor, Granville Farms, Inc. The collection system consists of approximately one hundred eighty-two and 57/100 (182.57) miles of gravity sewer and force main lines, thirteen (13) pumping stations that convey the wastewater to the treatment plant and three stations for odor control. II. Performance Summary The City of Henderson's Industrial Pretreatment Program, HWRF Stormwater Program and Laboratory were in compliance with all permit limits during this performance period. The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility bio-sollds were applied to farmland at agronomic rates and met all permit conditions. The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility had one violation this year for the weekly fecal coliform limits. The geometric mean limit is 400/100ml and the City had 561/100m1. The City was issued a Notice of Violation, a Civil Penalty of $500 and an Enforcement Cost of $51.05. The City has appealed the Civil Penalty since the plant received 18.972 MG of flow in 48 hours and recorded 5.92" of rainfall during this period. The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility and Stormwater Systems were inspected by the State Division of Water Quality and determined to be "compliant'. The Industrial Pretreatment Program was inspected by the Division of Water Quality and the state commented that the "proeram was very well manned". The Laboratory and (Fats, Oils and Grease Program) were not inspected by the State Division of Water Quality during this performance reporting period but are being operated in compliance with all State DWO re¢ulations. Inspections are expected in the near future. The City of Henderson's Collection System was inspected by the State DWQ. The State noted that the "record keeping was excellent". The City made 32 inspections of facility grease traps this year. The City documented when grease education flyers "Don't Feed the Grease Goblin" were distributed to the public and has made special distributions in neighborhoods where grease blockages of lines have occurred. The City placed a supply of the flyers at the City's Receptionist's desk on 7-14-09 for distribution to citizens and visitors, distributed approximately 200 flyers to residents of North Henderson Heights Apartment Complex on 12-8-9, distributed approximately 50 flyers to residents on Bullock Street on 3-18-10 and distributed grease flyers in all of the water and sewer bills on 4-1-10. The City was under a Special Order of Consent to make Inflow/Infiltration repairs to the Collection System which it did on schedule. The City has another repair project ready to go out for bids and will likely seek another Special Order of Consent from the state during this construction period. The City examined 18,938 feet (3.6 miles) of the gravity sewer with a special closed circuit TV camera and documented the condition of the pipe on DVDs. For the period of July 1, 2009 thru June 30, 2010 the City of Henderson Collection System staff cut 23,825 feet of the right-of-ways and performed 100 % of their semiannual inspection of priority lines and manholes within the system. They actually inspected them on a weekly basis. The staff cleaned 105,149 feet (19.92 miles) of sewer line. This is 10.9% of the entire system and exceeds the State DWQ requirement by 0.9% of cleaning 10% of the system per year. The sewer Rudder was used to clear 5,279 feet of line. The Jet Vac was used to clean 99,870 feet of line. A contractor treated the following lines with root control foam: 4,791 feet of 8 inch; 7,869 feet of 12 inch, 742 feet of 15" and 2,200 feet of 18". Inflow/Infiltration Repairs made: Twelve rain stoppers were added to manholes, 52 cleanouts were repaired and 24 manholes were repaired. It is estimated that Inflow/Infiltration was reduced by 500 zaflons/minute. Additional work that was performed: 21,750 feet of sewer lines was smoke tested. The Collection System had 66 blockages that had to be cleared. There were 8 new taps installed on homes and 3 industrial taps installed. The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility lost 1,709,350 gallons of secondary treated wastewater during five bypass events between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010. This 1,709,350 gallons of wastewater had all treatment except disinfection and accounted for only .002% of the total flow treated during this annual reporting period. The City of Henderson's Collection System (pump stations and gravity and/or force main lines) overflowed a total of 255,450 gallons of untreated wastewater between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010.There were 5 overflows of the pump stations and 23 overflows of the gravity lines. All of the overflows were the result of one of the following: heavy inflow and infiltration from rainfall exceeding the system capacity or blockages of the lines with grease and rags. The gallons overflowed from the Collection System was only .0003 % of the total gallons treated during this annual reporting period. There was no known environmental damage from the bypasses. No death of fish or other aquatic life was observed The City has continued implementation of a Fats, Oil & Grease Ordinance for all food service establishments discharging to the collection system. Considerable progress has been made in eliminating grease from the sewer collection system. The staff completed 30 initial inspections of facilities and 2 follow-up inspections during this reporting period. III. Performance July 2009 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations --NONE August 2009 DMR Violations —NONE Environmental Violation"n 8-5-09 between 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM manhole # 190 located at the intersection of Belle and Parham Streets overflowed 800 gallons of untreated wastewater that entered a tributary of Nutbush Creek which is part of the Roanoke River Basin. The cause of the overflow was a blockage in the line from rags. The City crew cleared the blockage as soon as they came on site. There was no known environmental damage from the overflow. September 2009 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---From 8:50 PM on 9-7-09 to 1:15 AM on 9-8-09 Sandy Creek Pump Station at 482 Rock Mill Road overflowed 7,950 gallons of untreated wastewater. On 7-9-09 from 7:OOPM to 11:00 PM manhole 182 at the end of Neatherly Street overflowed 6,000 gallons of untreated wastewater. Both the Sandy Creek Pump Station and Neatherly Street bypasses entered Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The overflows were the result of heavy inflow and infiltration from heavy rainfall. There was no known environmental damage from the overflows. October 2009 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---On 10-23-09 from 2:00 PM to 2:30 PM manhole 084 on South Carolina Avenue overflowed 100 gallons of wastewater into Sandy Creek which is a tributary of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The overflow was the result of root growth blocking the line. There was no known environmental damage from the overflow. November 2009 DMR Violations —The week of 11-9-10 the Water Reclamation Facility violated its weekly Geometric Mean limit of 400/100 mis. The Geometric mean was 560.48/100 mis. The violation of the limit was due to an incoming flow of 18.972 million gallons in 48 hours because of a 5.92 inch rainfall event. The plant discharge enters Nutbush Creek which is part of the Roanoke River Basin. The City received a Notice of Violation and a civil penalty of $551.05 from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. The City has appealed the penalty. There was no known environmental damage that resulted from the fecal violation. Environmental Violations —On 11-11-09 600 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed at Redbud Pump Station on Vance Academy Road. The wastewater entered Redbud Creek which is a tributary of the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. On 11-11-09 21,000 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed at Sandy Creek Pump Station located at 482 Rock Mill Road. The wastewater entered Sandy Creek which is a tributary of the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. On 11-11-09 17,250 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed at Pinkston Street Apartments and entered a tributary of Sandy Creek which is a tributary of the Tar-Parnlico River Basin. On 11-11-09 12,600 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed at Rock Spring Street and entered a tributary to Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. On 11-11-09 15,000 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed at Pinkston Street School and entered a tributary to Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. On 11-11-09 12,000 gallons of untreated sewage overflowed at Pinkston and Adams Streets and entered a tributary to Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. On 11-11-09 16,800 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed on Neatherly Street and entered a tributary to Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. On 11-11-09 500,000 gallons of secondary treated effluent bypassed the UV Disinfection System and entered Nutbush Creek which is a tributary of the Roanoke River Basin. On 11-12-09 12,000 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed the sewer line at 482 Rock Mill Road and entered Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. February 2010 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations — On 2-5-10 2,000 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed Sandy Creek Pump Station and entered Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. There was no known environmental damage from the overflow. March 2010 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations-300 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed at Lynn Avenue and Valley View Drive and entered Redbud Creek which is a tributary to the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. There was no known environmental damage from the overflow. April 2010 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations --NONE May 2010 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations — The manhole behind Daniels Street overflowed 150 gallons of untreated wastewater on 5-4-10. The entire bypass entered a tributary of Nutbush Creek which is part of the Roanoke River Basin. The overflow was a result of vandalism, debris in the line and a break in the pipe. There was no known environmental damage resulting from the overflow. June 2010 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations —On 6-1-10 100 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed at Valleyview, Drive and Peace Street Extension. The overflow entered Redbud Creek which is a tributary of the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. On 6-28-10 2,000 gallons of sludge bypassed from a drain pipe of one of the digesters at the Water Reclamation Facility. 200 gallons entered Nutbush Creek which is a tributary of the Roanoke River Basin. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass and overflow. IV. Notification The following public notice was run in the Henderson Daily Dispatch on 7-23-10 to fulfill the requirement of making the Performance Annual Report available to the users of the system and indicating how the users were notified of its availability. PUBLIC NOTICE PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT JULY 19 2009 TO JUNE 30, 2010 CITY OF HENDERSON WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY AND CITY OF HENDERSON WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM As required by North Carolina General Statutes Article 21 Chapter 143.215 C, the City of Henderson has produced a Performance Annual Report from July 1, 2009 to June 300,, 2010 for the Water Reclamation Facility and Wastewater Collection System. Copies of the report are available to the public at no charge. You may pick up a copy at the City Hall Reception Area in the City Hall Municipal Building at 134 Rose Avenue or contact Tom Spain at (252) 431-6081 or Paul Brown at (252) 431-6030 to request a copy be mailed to you at no charge and to answer any questions you have regarding the report. V. Certification I certify under penalty of law that this report is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further certify that this report has been made available to the users or customers of the named system and that those users have been notified of its availability. Responsible Person: Thomas A Spain Date: 7 .V-/G Title: Director Entity: City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Responsible Person: Paul Brown Date_Z-1210 Title: Operator in Responsible Charge for Sewer Collection and Water Distribution Entity: City of Henderson Utility Operations PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT JULY 19 2009 TO JUNE 30, 2010 I. General Information Facility/System Name: City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility, Puma Stations and Collection System 3 Responsible Entity: City of Henderson Person in Charge/Contact: Thomas Spain, Director HWRF Paul Brown, ORC Utility Operations Applicable Permit(s): NPDES # NCO020559 Water Reclamation Facility WOCS00055 Collection System Description of Collection System and Treatment Process: The treatment plant is designed for a flow of 4.14 million gallons per day of wastewater and receives an average of 2.203 million gallons per day. The plant treated 803,964,000 gallons from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010. The treatment process consists of rag and grit removal, primary clarification, two stage trickling filters, intermediate clarification, pure oxygen activated sludge, final clarification, filtration, post aeration and ultraviolet disinfection. The treatment plant bio-solids are applied at agronomic rates to farmland by a private contractor, Granville Farms, Inc. The collection system consists of approximately one hundred eighty-two and 57/100 (182.57) miles of gravity sewer and force main lines, thirteen (13) pumping stations that convey the wastewater to the treatment plant and three stations for odor control. II. Performance Summary The City of Henderson's Industrial Pretreatment Program, HWRF Stormwater Program and Laboratory were in compliance with all permit limits during this performance period. The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility bio-solids were applied to farmland at agronomic rates and met all permit conditions. QUG 1 3 "' The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility had one violation this year for the weekly fecal coliform limits. The geometric mean limit is 400/100ml and the City had 561/100ml. The City was issued a Notice of Violation, a Civil Penalty of $500 and an Enforcement Cost of $51.05. The City has appealed the Civil Penalty since the plant received 18.972 MG of flow in 48 hours and recorded 5.92" of rainfall during this period. The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility and Stormwater Systems were inspected by the State Division of Water Quality and determined to be "compliant'. The Industrial Pretreatment Program was inspected by the Division of Water Quality and the state commented that the "program was very well managed". The Laboratory and (Fats, Oils and Grease Program) were not inspected by the State Division of Water Quality during this performance reporting period but are being operated in compliance with all State DWO regulations. Inspections are expected in the near future. The City of Henderson's Collection System was inspected by the State DWQ. The State noted that the "record keeping was excellent". The City made 32 inspections of facility grease traps this year. The City documented when grease education flyers "Don't Feed the Grease Goblin" were distributed to the public and has made special distributions in neighborhoods where grease blockages of lines have occurred. The City placed a supply of the flyers at the City's Receptionist's desk on 7-14-09 for distribution to citizens and visitors, distributed approximately 200 flyers to residents of North Henderson Heights Apartment Complex on 12-8-9, distributed approximately 50 flyers to residents on Bullock Street on 3-18-10 and distributed grease flyers in all of the water and sewer bills on 4-1-10. The City was under a Special Order of Consent to make Inflow/Infiltration repairs to the Collection System which it did on schedule. The City has another repair project ready to go out for bids and will likely seek another Special Order of Consent from the state during this construction period. The City examined 18,938 feet (3.6 miles) of the gravity sewer with a special closed circuit TV camera and documented the condition of the pipe on DVDs. For the period of July 1, 2009 thru June 30, 2010 the City of Henderson Collection System staff cut 23,825 feet of the right-of-ways and performed 100 % of their semiannual inspection of priority lines and manholes within the system. They actually inspected them on a weekly basis. The staff cleaned 105,149 feet (19.92 miles) of sewer line. This is 10.9% of the entire system and exceeds the State DWQ requirement by 0.9% of cleaning 10% of the system per year. The sewer Rodder was used to clear 5,279 feet of line. The Jet Vac was used to clean ",870 feet of line. A contractor treated the following lines with root control foam: 4,791 feet of 8 inch; 7,869 feet of 12 inch, 742 feet of 15" and 2,200 feet of 18". Inflow/Infiltration Repairs made: Twelve rain stoppers were added to manholes, 52 cleanouts were repaired and 24 manholes were repaired. It is estimated that Inflow/Infiltration was reduced by 500 gaflons/minute. Additional work that was performed: 21,750 feet of sewer lines was smoke tested. The Collection System had 66 blockages that had to be cleared. There were 8 new taps installed on homes and 3 industrial taps installed. The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility lost 1,709,350 gallons of secondary treated wastewater during five bypass events between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010. This 1,709,350 gallons of wastewater had all treatment except disinfection and accounted for only .002% of the total flow treated during this annual reporting period. The City of Henderson's Collection System (pump stations and gravity and/or force main lines) overflowed a total of 255,450 gallons of untreated wastewater between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010.There were 5 overflows of the pump stations and 23 overflows of the gravity lines. All of the overflows were the result of one of the following: heavy inflow and infiltration from rainfall exceeding the system capacity or blockages of the lines with grease and rags. The gallons overflowed from the Collection System was only .0003 % of the total gallons treated during this annual reporting period. There was no known environmental damage from the bypasses. No death of fish or other aquatic life was observed The City has continued implementation of a Fats, Oil & Grease Ordinance for all food service establishments discharging to the collection system. Considerable progress has been made in eliminating grease from the sewer collection system. The staff completed 30 initial inspections of facilities and 2 follow-up inspections during this reporting period. III. Performance July 2009 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations —NONE August 2009 DMR Violations —NONE Environmental Violations —On 8-5-09 between 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM manhole # 190 located at the intersection of Belle and Parham Streets overflowed 800 gallons of untreated wastewater that entered a tributary of Nutbush Creek which is part of the Roanoke River Basin. The cause of the overflow was a blockage in the line from rags. The City crew cleared the blockage as soon as they came on site. There was no known environmental damage from the overflow. September 2009 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---From 8:50 PM on 9-7-09 to 1:15 AM on 9-8-09 Sandy Creek Pump Station at 482 Rock Mill Road overflowed 7,950 gallons of untreated wastewater. On 7-9-09 from 7:OOPM to 11:00 PM manhole 182 at the end of Neatherly Street overflowed 6,000 gallons of untreated wastewater. Both the Sandy Creek Pump Station and Neatherly Street bypasses entered Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The overflows were the result of heavy inflow and infiltration from heavy rainfall. There was no known environmental damage from the overflows. October 2009 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---On 10-23-09 from 2:00 PM to 2:30 PM manhole 084 on South Carolina Avenue overflowed 100 gallons of wastewater into Sandy Creek which is a tributary of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The overflow was the result of root growth blocking the line. There was no known environmental damage from the overflow. November 2009 DMR Violations —The week of 11-9-10 the Water Reclamation Facility violated its weekly Geometric Mean limit of 400/100 mis. The Geometric mean was 560.48/100 mis. The violation of the limit was due to an incoming flow of 18.972 million gallons in 48 hours because of a 5.92 inch rainfall event. The plant discharge enters Nutbush Creek which is part of the Roanoke River Basin. The City received a Notice of Violation and a civil penalty of $551.05 from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. The City has appealed the penalty. There was no known environmental damage that resulted from the fecal violation. Environmental Violations —On i l -11-09 600 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed at Redbud Pump Station on Vance Academy Road. The wastewater entered Redbud Creek which is a tributary of the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. On 11-11-09 21,000 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed at Sandy Creek Pump Station located at 482 Rock Mill Road. The wastewater entered Sandy Creek which is a tributary of the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. On 11-11-09 17,250 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed at Pinkston Street Apartments and entered a tributary of Sandy Creek which is a tributary of the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. On 11-11-09 12,600 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed at Rock Spring Street and entered a tributary to Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. On 11-11-09 15,000 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed at Pinkston Street School and entered a tributary to Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. On 11-11-09 12,000 gallons of untreated sewage overflowed at Pinkston and Adams Streets and entered a tributary to Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. On 11-11-09 16,800 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed on Neatherly Street and entered a tributary to Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. On 11-11-09 500,000 gallons of secondary treated effluent bypassed the UV Disinfection System and entered Nutbush Creek which is a tributary of the Roanoke River Basin. On 11-12-09 12,000 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed the sewer line at 482 Rock Mill Road and entered Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. February 2010 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations — On 2-5-10 2,000 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed Sandy Creek Pump Station and entered Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. There was no known environmental damage from the overflow. March 2010 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations-300 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed at Lynn Avenue and Valley View Drive and entered Redbud Creek which is a tributary to the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. There was no known environmental damage from the overflow. April 2010 DMR Violations - NONE. Environmental Violations --NONE May 2010 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations — The manhole behind Daniels Street overflowed 150 gallons of untreated wastewater on 5-4-10. The entire bypass entered a tributary ofNutbush Creek which is part of the Roanoke River Basin. The overflow was a result of vandalism, debris in the line and a break in the pipe. There was no known environmental damage resulting from the overflow. June 2010 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations —On 6-1-10 100 gallons of untreated wastewater overflowed at Valleyview Drive and Peace Street Extension. The overflow entered Redbud Creek which is a tributary of the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. On 6-28-10 2,000 gallons of sludge bypassed from a drain pipe of one of the digesters at the Water Reclamation Facility. 200 gallons entered Nutbush Creek which is a tributary of the Roanoke River Basin. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass and overflow. IV. Notification The following public notice was run in the Henderson Daily Dispatch on 7-23-10 to fulfill the requirement of making the Performance Annual Report available to the users of the system and indicating how the users were notified of its availability. PUBLIC NOTICE PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT JULY 19 2009 TO JUNE 309 2010 CITY OF HENDERSON WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY AND CITY OF HENDERSON WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM As required by North Carolina General Statutes Article 21 Chapter 143.215 C, the City of Henderson has produced a Performance Annual Report from July 1, 2009 to June 30s, 2010 for the Water Reclamation Facility and Wastewater Collection System. Copies of the report are available to the public at no charge. You may pick up a copy at the City Hall Reception Area in the City Hall Municipal Building at 134 Rose Avenue or contact Tom Spain at (252) 431-6081 or Paul Brown at (252) 431-6030 to request a copy be mailed to you at no charge and to answer any questions you have regarding the report. V. Certification I certify under penalty of law that this report is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further certify that this report has been made available to the users or customers of the named system and that those users have been notified of its availability. Responsible Person: Thomas M. Spain ,, Date: Title: Director Entity: City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Responsible Person: Paul Brown Date 7-- Title: Operator in Responsible Charge for Sewer Collection and Water Distribution Entity: City of Henderson Utility Operations North Carolina Beverly Eaves Perdue Governor �F.A OU R Department of Environment and Division of Water Quality Coleen H. Sullins Director Mr. Frank Frazier Henderson Assistant City Manager PO Box 1434 Henderson, NC 27536 Dear Mr. Frazier: November 25, 2009 Natural Resources Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection Dee Freeman Secretary NPDES Permit No. NCO020559 Stormwater Permit No. NCG110075 Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Vance County On November 19, 2009, Cheng Zhang and Mandy Hall of the, Raleigh Regional Office conducted a compliance evaluation inspection of the subject facility. The assistance of Mr. Tom Spain, the operator in responsible charge (ORC) of the facility, was appreciated as it facilitated the inspection process. The inspection report is attached. The following observations were made: City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) is permitted to discharge at a rate of 4.14 MGD and consist of: bar screens and grit chamber, primary clarifiers, trickling filters, secondary clarifiers, pure oxygen activated sludge nitrification basin, final clarifiers, tertiary filters, post aeration, ultraviolet (UV) disinfection with sodium hypochlorite backup, dissolved air flotation (DAF) sludge thickening, pure oxygen aerobic digester, anaerobic digesters, aerobic digester, sludge holding tank, sludge drying, and standby power. The plant discharges to Nutbush Creek, a class C waterbody located in the Roanoke River basin. 1. All primary, secondary, and final clarifiers, trickling filters, pure oxygen fed aeration basin, and tertiary filtration were in good operational condition. Only four primary clarifiers (out of six) and four secondary clarifiers (out of six) were in use because of low flow. It was noted that although the UV disinfection unit was operational, the control panel was not functioning. The facility was granted an Authorization to Construct (A to C No. 020559A01) by the Division to install a new UV disinfection system in June 2009, No fund is located to complete the construction at the time of this inspection. 2. The DAF sludge thickening unit, two pure oxygen aerobic digesters, two anaerobic digesters and two sludge holding tanks were all in good condition. North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1629 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Phone (919) 791-4200 Customer service Intemet: w .ncwaterquality.org Location: 3800 aartett Drive Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax (919) 788-7159 1-877-623-6748 An Equal Opportunity/At rmuttive Action Employer -50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Permit No. NC0029131, NCGI1f1075 Compliance Evaluation ion 3. The standby power will be activated automatically when primary power is out. The generator has capacity to power the operation of the whole plant. 8000 gallon diesel fuel was stored on site, which was enough for the generator to run for 8 to 10 days. 4. The ORC maintains a daily logbook. Lab results, chain -of -custody forms, and DMRs were complete and current, kept in good order and ready for review. June 2009 DMR data were compared to lab bench sheets; No data transcription errors were noted during the inspection. S. The right of way to the outfall was well maintained. The effluent was observed to be clear and free of solids. No visible impacts were noted immediately downstream the effluent pipe. 6. A compliance evaluation inspection was also conducted of the facility's Stormwater permit NCG110075. The facility has been implementing its Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP) as required. All six stormwater outfalls were observed during the inspection and were in good condition. It is noted that the facility did not document annual employee training. Please keep records for future employee training as a component of the SPPP. The SPPP should be reviewed and updated (if necessary) annually. The annual review or update must also be documented. Please note that SPPP update conducted by a certified engineer is not required by the Division. The overall condition of Henderson WRF is compliant with Division standards. If you have any questions regarding the attached report or any of the findings, please contact Cheng Zhang at: (919) 791-4200 (or email: cheng.zhane(a)ncdennRov). Sincerely, Gj,-" Y 244n�, Cheng Zhang Environmental Specialist Attachments Compliance Inspection Report Cc: Central Files w/attachment Raleigh Regional Office w/attachment Tom Spain, Director Henderson WRF 1646 West Andrews Ave. Henderson, NC 27536 Mandy Hall WWTP Consultant United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA Washington, D.C. 20460 Form Approved. 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/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type 1 tut 2 fat 31 NCO020559 111 121 09/11/.9 I17 18Lj 19ICt 20I I lJ LJ U J Remarks 21111111111IIIII IIIIII1111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIII116 Inspection Work Days Facility SeB-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 CA ------•---Reserved--------.----- 67I 169 701 LI 1 711 ty I 721 1 73t _LJ t 174 75I 1 1 1 1 1 1 180 lJ 1 Section B: FacilityData Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include POTW name and NPDES permit Number) Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date Henderson WRF 09:45 AM 09/11/19 07/10/01 NC Hwy 39 Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date Henderson NC 27536 12:15 PM 09/11/19 12/03/31 Name(s) of Onsite Representative(syTitles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data Thomas M Spain/ORC/252-431-6081/ Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number Thomas M Spain,PO Box 1434 Henderson NC 27536//919-431-6006/ Contacted 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) Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date Chang Zhang CLQII_(J E C RRO WQ//919-791-4200/ / L/ I// C o Mandy Hall �� RRO WQ//919-791-4200/ iZ�GIICg Si natu of Manageme O A Re vrer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date EPA Form 3 -3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete. Page # 1 Permit: NCO020559 Inspection Date: 11119QO09 Owner • Faclllty: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ■ ❑ ❑ n Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable Solids, pH, DO, Sludge ■ n ❑ ❑ 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? ■ n ❑ ❑ # Are there any special conditions for the permit? n ■ n n Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? ■ n n n Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? ■ n n n Comment: There are no special conditions for the permit. Record Keeping Yes No NA NE Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit? ■ n ❑ ❑ Is all required information readily available, complete and current? ■ ❑ n n Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)? ■ ❑ ❑ n Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs? ■ n n n Is the chain -of -custody complete? ■ n ❑ n 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 n Transported COCs ■ Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters? ■ n M n Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWO? ■ n n n (If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator on each shift? ■ n ❑ n Is the ORC visitation log available and current? ■ n n n Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification? ■ n n n Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification? ■ n n n Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? ■ n n ❑ Page # 3 Permit NC0020559 Owner - Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 11/19/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Record Keeping Yes No NA NE Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? 00011 Comment: Flow Measurement - Influent Yes No NA NE # Is flow meter used for reporting? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is flow meter calibrated annually? ■ O n n Is the flow meter operational? ■ ❑ n n (If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? Q ❑ ❑ Comment: Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE # Is flow meter used for reporting? ❑ N ❑ ❑ Is flow meter calibrated annually? M ❑ Q O Is the flow meter operational? ■ n n n (If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? ❑ D ■ Q Comment: The facility reports influent flow on DMRs. Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? M ❑ ❑ ❑ Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? ■ Q ❑ ❑ If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE # Is composite sampling flow proportional? M ❑ ❑ ❑ Is sample collected above side streams? ■ n n O Is proper volume collected? ■ ❑ 0 0 Is the tubing clean? ■ n n n # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? ■ ❑ ❑ n Is sampling performed according to the permit? rl Q O Comment: Bar Screens Yes No NA NE Type of bar screen a.Manual Page # 4 Permit: NC0020559 Inspection Date: 11/19/2009 Bar Screens 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 b.Mechanical Is the grit free of excessive organic matter? Is the grit free of excessive odor? # Is disposal of grit in compliance? Comment: Primary Clarifier Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? Owner • Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation 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? 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? Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately %of the sidewall depth) Comment: Four of six primary clarifiers were in use due to low flow. Trickling Filter Is the filter free of ponding? Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of fifler's distribution anus? Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution anus? Yes No NA NE W Yes No NA NE ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■❑❑n ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■❑❑❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■❑nn ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Yes No NA NE ■❑n❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 0 ■❑00 Page # 5 Permit: NC0020559 Inspection Date: 11/19/2009 Owner - Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Trickling Filter Yes No NA NE Is the filter free of uneven or discolored growth? N ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are the filter's distribution arms orifices free of clogging? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the filter free of excessive filter flies, worms or snails? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are weirs level? W ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of weir blockage? N ❑ ❑ ❑ 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)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately %. of the sidewall depth) ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE Are pumps in place? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are pumps operational? N ❑ ❑ ❑ Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site? E ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE Mode of operation Plug flow Type of aeration system Fixed Is the basin free of dead spots? ❑ ❑ ❑ Are surface aerators and mixers operational? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Are the diffusers operational? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process? ❑ ❑ ❑ E Page # 6 Permit: NCO020559 Inspection Date: 11/192009 Owner - Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface? D D D ■ Is the DO level acceptable? ■ D D D Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/l) ■ D D D Comment: The aeration basin is sealed (air tight). The DO was 11.1 mg/I due to pure oxygen feed. Pure Oxygen Yes No NA NE Type of pure oxygen system Bulk storage Is there a back-up source for the system? ■ Q D D Are mixers operational? ■ D D D Are samples port/points easily accessible? ■ D D D Comment: Anaerobic Digester Yes No NA NE Type of operation: Floating cover Is the capacity adequate? ■ D D D # Is gas stored on site? ❑ ■ D D Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers? ■ D D D Is the gas burner operational? ■ 0 D D Is the digester heated? ■ ❑ D D Is the temperature maintained constantly? ■ D p D Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? ■ 0 D D Comment: Gas is flared. Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures? D D ■ D Is the wet well free of excessive grease? ❑ ❑ ■ D Are all pumps present? D D ■ ❑ Are all pumps operable? D D ■ D Are float controls operable? F1 D ■ D Is SCADA telemetry available and operational? D D ■ D Is audible and visual alarm available and operational? ❑ 0 ■ D Comment: Influent enters the plant by gravity Page # 7 Permit: NC0020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 11/19/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE Is the capacity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the mixing adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is the odor acceptable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: 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? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ The facility has an approved sludge management plan? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: All sludge is thickened by a Dissovled Air Floatation (DAF) unit before entering the anaerobic digester. Drying Beds Yes No NA NE Is there adequate drying bed space? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate? ■ Q ❑ ❑ 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 retumed 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: Sludge is land applied. Nutrient Removal Yes No NA NE # Is total nitrogen removal required? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ # Is total phosphorous removal required? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Page # 8 Permit: NCO020559 Owner • Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 11/19/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Nutrient Removal Yes No NA NE Type Chemical # Is chemical feed required to sustain process? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Is nutrient removal process operating properly? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Comment: Phsphorous removal is available but usually not necessory within the plant (never exceeding the quarterly limit). Filtration (High Rate Tertiary) Yes No NA NE Type of operation: Down flow Is the filter media present? M Cl ❑ ❑ Is the filter surface free of clogging? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the filter free of growth? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the air scour operational? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the scouring acceptable? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Disinfection - UV Yes No NA NE Are extra UV bulbs available on site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are UV bulbs clean? M ❑ ❑ ❑ Is UV intensity adequate? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Is transmittance at or above designed level? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Is there a backup system on site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is effluent clear and free of solids? M ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: The UV control panel was broken therefore UV intensity and transmittance could not be evaluated. The facility is seek fund to rebuild the UV system (A to CNo. 020559A01). Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE Is composite sampling flow proportional? - 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is sample collected below all treatment units? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is proper volume collected? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the tubing clean? ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page # 9 3 Permit: NCO020559 Owner - Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 11/19/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE Comment: Standby Power Yes No NA NE Is automatically activated standby power available? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the generator tested under load? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 is tested monthly. 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 less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Incubator (Fecal Colifonn) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/-1.0 degrees? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: The plant lab analyzes the majority of parameters. Contract labs analyze low level mercury and sludge. 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 FROM HENDERSON WATER RECI.AMATI ON F". <FRI)NOV 13 2OOR t3: 16/ST. 13: 1T/No. 953650T92H P t CITY OF HENDERSON Post Office Box 1434 _Henderson, North Carolina 27536-1434 Henderson Water Reclamation Facility 1646 West Andrews Avenue Henderson, North Carolina 27537 Phone: (252) 431-6080 FAX: (252) 492-3324 5,04 C me rc'j f , JQ ]l1 Perm- AA TO: M' FAX: 919-571-4718 COMPANY NC DWQ FROM: Tom Spain DATE: Nov. 13, 2009 PHONE # 252-431-6080 NUMBER OF SHEETS TRANSMITTED (INCL. COVER) 3 If you do not receive the correct number of sheets transmitted, or have any questions, please call the number on this fax. FROM HENDERSON WATER RECLAMATION FAC. (FRI)NOV 13 2009 13:19/9T.13:17/No.753660I929 P 2 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality o�CFwA7F ✓✓If 2UO%0 (� o HWRF Upset, Spill, or Bypass 5-Da rm (SAME FORMAT AS DWQ FORM) (Please Print or I ype Use Attachments if Needed) Pernittee: _City of Henderson Permit Number. _NCO020559 Facility Name: _Henderson Water Reclamation Facility_ County: _Vance_ Incident Started Level of Treatment: Date: _11-13-09_ Time: 12:15 AM_ Date: 11-13-09 Time: 6:35 AM _None _Primary Treatment _X Secondary Treatment —Chlorination/Disinfection Only Estimated Volume of SpilUBypass: _528,000 gallons —(must be given even if it is a rough estimate) Did the Spill/Bypass reach the Surface Waters? X Yes _No If yes, please list the following: Volume Reaching Surface Waters: 528,000_9allons Surface Water Name: _Nutbush Creek —which is tributary to Roanoke River Basin_ Did the Spill/Bypass result in a Fish Kit? _Yes _X_No Was WWTP compliant with permit requirements? _X_Yes _No Were samples taken during event? X Yes _ No Source of the Upset/Spill/Bypass (Location or Treatment Unit): Trickling Filter Secondary Clarifiers and UV Disinfection System Cause or Reason for the VpsetlSpilV ass: Plant flow increased from 2.0 MGD to approximately 12.0 MGD because of I & I from heavy rainfall. Also flow was entering plant from fire trucks trying to put out fire at old J P Taylor Tobacco Factory. Approximately 528,000 gallons of the flow had to be bypassed from the Trickling Filter Secondary Ganfiers to the Chlorine Contact Tank. This same amount had to be bypassed around the UV Disinfection System. The bypasses were necessary to protect the plant equipment and to keep tanks from overflowing. Describe the Repairs Made or Actions Taken: The City is continuing to work on I & I repairs in the Sandy Creek basin and the City crew has made repairs In different parts of the collection system. FROM HENDERSON WATER RECLAMATION F.1. (FRI)NOV 13 200%1 13: 21 /ST. 13: 17/W... 7536507b29 C s WWTP Upset, Spill, or Bypass 5-Day Reporting Form Page 2 Action Taken to Contain Spill Clean Up and Remediate the Site (if applicable): WA Action Taken or Proposed to be Taken to Prevent Occurrences: The City is continuing to work on I & I and plans to replace the UV Disinfection System with a larger one which would allow all flow to be disinfected. We had a CWMTF grant for this work but the govemor pulled the funds and placed them in another account. We are seeking other sources of funding. Additional Comments About the Event: If a portion of the flow had not been bypassed around the UV System then the filter clearwell would have flooded the filter building internally and damaged a lot of pneumatic and electrical equipment 24-Hour Report Made To: Division of Water Quality _X_ Emergency Management _ Contact Name: Autumn Hobun Date: 11-12-09 Time: 11:00 AM Other Agencies Notified (Health Dept, etc): _None Person Reporting Event: _Thomas M. Spain � Date._11-13-09 Phone Number: 252-431-8081 Did DWQ Request an Additional Written Report? _Yes X_No If Yes, What Additional Information is Needed: SpillBypass Reporting Form (August 1997) PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT JULY 19 2008 TO JUNE 30, 2009 I. General Information Facility/System Name: City of Henderson Water ReclamationR& Pump Stations and Collection System C EIVED Responsible Entity: City of Henderson J U L Person in Charge/Contact: Thomas Spain, Director HWRF Paul Brown, ORC utility OperatfabNN�TTR-WATER QUALITY Applicable Permit(s): NPDES # NCO020559 Water Reclamat,o9Pal< §PURGE BRANCH WOCS00055 Collection System Description of Collection System and Treatment Process The treatment plant is designed for a flow of 4.14 million gallons per day of wastewater and receives an average of 2.203 million gallons per day. The plant treated 803,964,000 a¢ lions from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009. The treatment process consists of rag and grit removal, primary clarification, two stage trickling filters, intermediate clarification, pure oxygen activated sludge, final clarification, filtration, post aeration and ultraviolet disinfection. The treatment plant bio-solids are applied at agronomic rates to farmland by a private contractor, Granville Farms, Inc. The collection system consists of approximately one hundred eighty-two (182) miles of gravity sewer and force main lines, thirteen (13) pumping stations that convey the wastewater to the treatment plant and three stations for odor control. II. Performance Summary The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility, Industrial Pretreatment Program, HWRF Stormwater Program and Laboratory were in compliance with all permit limits during this performance period. The City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility bio-solids were applied to farmland at agronomic rates and met all permit conditions. The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility, the Laboratory, Fats, Oils and Grease, Industrial Pretreatment and Storm Water Discharge Programs were not inspected by the State Division of Water Quality during this performance reporting period. Inspections are expected in the near future. The City of Henderson's Collection System has not been inspected by the State DWQ since the beginning of this reporting period. An Annual Inspection by the DWQ is expected in the near future The City documents when grease education flyers are distributed to the public and has made special distributions in neighborhoods where grease blockages of lines have occurred. The City examined 109,490 feet (20.7 miles) of the gravity sewer with a special closed circuit TV camera and documented the condition of the pipe on DVDs. For the period of July 1, 2008 thru June 30, 2009 the City of Henderson Collection System staff cut most of the right-of-ways and performed 100 % of their semiannual inspection of priority lines within the system. The staff cleaned 158,677 feet (30.1 miles) of sewer line with their Jet Vac and assistance from a private contractor. This is 17.1 % of the entire system and exceeds the State DWQ requirement by 7.1% of cleaning 10% of the system per year. The City of Henderson has been under a Special Order of Consent (SOC) with the State Division of Water Quality since July l", 2007 that requires sewer line repairs be made to reduce inflow and infiltration in the Sandy Creek Basin. This is necessary to stop sewer line overflows during heavy rainfall. The City was in compliance with the all requirements of the SOC work during this performance period. Inflow/Infiltration Repairs made: Replaced 1,256 feet of 10" pipe was on Winder Street. Replaced 384 feet and lined 262 feet of pipe on Booth Street. Replaced 230 feet of 8 inch pipe on Maple Street. Replaced 442 feet of 8 inch pipe on Nicholas Street. Replaced 421 feet of 8 inch pipe on Harriet Street. Replaced 755 feet of sewer service pipe in the entire project. Replaced 29 sewer service connections in the entire project. Rehabilitated or replaced 42 sewer manholes in the entire project. This work has eliminated approximately 1,046 GPM of Inflow/Infiltration from the Sandy Creek Basin. Work that was performed: 33,065 feet of sewer lines was smoke tested, 55 clean out plugs were repaired/installed and 3 rain stoppers were installed in manholes. The Collection System had 103 blockages that had to be cleared. There were 5 new taps installed on homes and 1 industrial tap installed. The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility bypassed 294,500 gallons of secondary treated wastewater between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009. This 294, 500 gallons of wastewater had all treatment except disinfection and accounted for only .037% of the total flow treated during this annual reportina period. The City of Henderson Collection System (pump stations and gravity and/or force main lines) bypassed a total of 90,950 gallons of untreated wastewater between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009. There were 3 bypasses of the Water Reclamation Facility, 1 bypass of the pump stations and 13 bypasses of the gravity line and one bypass of a forcemain. All of the bypasses were the result of one of the following: heavy inflow and infiltration from rainfall exceeding the system capacity, blockage of the lines with grease and rags or equipment failure and failure of two forcemain pipes. The 90,950 gallons bypassed from the Collection System was only .011 % of the total gallons treated during this annual reportina period. There was no known environmental damage from the bypasses. No death of fish or other aquatic life was observed The City has continued implementation of a Fats, Oil & Grease Ordinance for all food service establishments discharging to the collection system. Considerable progress has been made in eliminating grease from the sewer collection system. The staff completed 95 initial inspections of facilities and approximately 15 follow-up inspections during this reporting period. II1. Performance July 2008 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations —NONE August 2008 DMR Violations —NONE Environmental Violations —on 8-27-08, Neatheriy Street manhole 182 bypassed 600 gallons of untreated sewage into Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The bypass was the result of heavy inflow and infiltration from heavy rainfall. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass. September 2007 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---On 9-6-08, Sandy Creek Pump Station at 482 Rock Mill Road bypassed 2,000 gallons of untreated sewage into Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The bypass was the result of heavy inflow and infiltration from heavy rainfall. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass. On 9-6-08, manhole 20 at Green Acre Apartments off Pinkston Street bypassed 3,000 gallons of untreated sewage into Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The bypass was a result of heavy inflow and infiltration from heavy rainfall. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass. On 9-6-09, manhole 22 on Rock Spring Street Extension bypassed 1,500 gallons of untreated sewage into Sandy Creek which is tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The bypass was the result of heavy inflow and infiltration from heavy rainfall. There was no known environmental damage caused by the bypass. On 9-6-09, manhole 182 on Neatherly Street bypassed 2,000 gallons of untreated sewage into Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The bypass was the result of heavy inflow and infiltration from heavy rainfall. There was no known environmental damage caused by the bypass. On 9-6-09, manhole 88 at Pinkston Street School bypassed 1,500 gallons of untreated wastewater into Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The bypass was caused by heavy inflow and infiltration from heavy rainfall. There was no known environmental damage caused by the bypass. October 2007 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---NONE November 2007 DMR Violations —NONE Environmental Violations ---On 11-15-08 to I 1-16-08, 225,000 gallons of treated wastewater at the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility did not receive disinfection treatment. The Ultraviolet Disinfection System was damaged by a power surge from the power company and it took the staff24 hours to complete repairs. There was no known environmental damage from the lack of disinfection. December 2007 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations ---On 12-11-08 to 12-12-08, 50,000 gallons of secondary treated wastewater did not receive disinfection since it bypassed the Ultra Violet Disinfection System at the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility and entered Nutbush Creek a tributary of the Roanoke River Basin. The bypass was the result of very heavy inflow and infiltration from heavy rainfall. The flow exceeded the capacity of the disinfection unit. There was no known environmental damage from the lack of disinfection. On 12-11-09, 5,400 gallons of untreated wastewater bypassed from manhole 20 at Green Acre Apartments on Pinkston Street and entered Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The bypass was the result of heavy inflow and infiltration caused by heavy rainfall. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass. On 12-11-09, manhole 88 at Pinkston Street School bypassed 1,800 gallons of untreated sewage into Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The bypass was the result of heavy inflow and infiltration caused by heavy rainfall. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass. On 12-11-09, manhole 182 at Neatherly Street bypassed 1,800 gallons of untreated sewage into Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The bypass was the result of heavy inflow and infiltration caused by heavy rainfall. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass. January 2008 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations — NONE February 2008 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations —NONE March 2008 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations- On 3-9-09, the manhole at Montgomery and Parkview Streets bypassed 100 gallons of untreated sewage into Nutbush Creek which is a tributary to the Roanoke River Basin. The bypass was the result of rags and debris blocking the line. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass. On 3-15-09, 19,500 gallons of secondary treated wastewater bypassed the UV Disinfection System at the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility. The bypass was the result of heavy inflow and infiltration from heavy rainfall. The bypass entered Nutbush Creek which is a tributary of the Roanoke River Basin. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass. On 3-15-09, manhole 28 at 923 Coble Blvd. bypassed 25,000 gallons of untreated wastewater into Nutbush Creek which is a tributary of the Roanoke River Basin. The bypass was a result of heavy inflow and infiltration from heavy rainfall and the blockage and failure of a 24 inch gravity sewer line. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass. On 3-15-09, manhole 182 at Netherly Street bypassed 15,000 gallons of untreated sewage into Sandy Creek. The bypass was the result of heavy inflow and infiltration caused by heavy rainfall. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass. On 3-15-09, manhole 88 at Pinkston Street School bypassed 15,000 gallons of untreated wastewater into Sandy Creek which is a tributary to the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The bypass was the result of heavy inflow and infiltration caused by heavy rainfall. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass. On 3-31-09, the manhole behind 869 Coble Blvd. bypassed 500 gallons of untreated sewage into Nutbush Creek which is a tributary of the Roanoke River Basin. The bypass was the result of a blockage of the line by rags and roots. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass. April 2008 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations: On 4-17-09 a 12 inch forcemain from Sandy Creek split and 30,000 gallons of untreated wastewater bypassed into a tributary to Sandy Creek which is part of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The bypass was close to the intersection of Harriett and Winder streets. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass. On 4-29-09 750 gallons of untreated wastewater bypassed from manhole # 157 at the end of Jane Avenue. The bypass was caused by rags blocking the line. The bypass entered Sandy Creek which is a tributary of the Tar Pamlico River Basin. There was no known environmental damage from the bypass. May 2008 DMR Violations — NONE Environmental Violations — NONE June 2008 DMR Violations - NONE Environmental Violations —Bypass—NONE IV. Notification The following public notice was run in the Henderson Daily Dispatch on 7-23-09 to fulfill the requirement of making the Performance Annual Report available to the users of the system and indicating how the users were notified of its availability. PUBLIC NOTICE PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT JULY 19 2008 TO JUNE 309 2009 CITY OF HENDERSON WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY AND CITY OF HENDERSON WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM As required by North Carolina General Statutes Article 21 Chapter 143.215 C, the City of Henderson has produced a Performance Annual Report for the Water Reclamation Facility and Collection System. Copies of the report are available to the public at no charge. You may pick up a copy at the City Hall Reception Area in the City Hall Municipal Building at 134 Rose Avenue or contact Tom Spain at (252) 431-6081 or Paul Brown at (252) 431-6030 to request a copy be mailed to you at no charge and to answer any questions you have regarding the report. V. Certification I certify under penalty of law that this report is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further certify that this report has been made available to the users or customers of the named system and that those users have been notified of its availability. Responsible Person: Thomas M. Spain Date: Title: Director Entity: City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Responsible Person: Paul Brown Date: Title: Operator in Responsible Charge for Sewer Collection and Water Distribution Entity: City of Henderson Utility Operations NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Beverly Eaves Perdue Governor Mr. Tom Spain City of Henderson PO Box 1434 Henderson, North Carolina 27536 Dear Mr. Spain: Division of Water Quality Colleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman Director Secretary June 1, 2009 SUBJECT: Authorization to Construct A to C No. 020559AOI City of Henderson Henderson WRF Replacement of UV System Vance County A letter of request for an Authorization to Construct was received May 14, 2009, by the Division of Water Quality (Division), and final plans and specifications for the subject project have been reviewed and found to be satisfactory. Authorization is hereby granted for the construction of modifications to the existing 4.14 MGD Wastewater Treatment Plant, with discharge of treated wastewater into the Nutbush Creek in the Roanoke River Basin. This authorization results in no increase in design or permitted capacity and is awarded for the construction of the following specific modifications: Installation of a new UV disinfection system with two (2) banks (each capable of treating a peak flow of 12.5 MGD), one precast manhole, approximately 120 LF of 36-inch effluent gravity line and a new precast concrete effluent headwall in conformity with the project plans, specifications, and other supporting data subsequently filed and approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. This Authorization to Construct is issued in accordance with Part III, Paragraph A of NPDES Permit No. NCO020559 issued August 15, 2007, and shall be subject to revocation unless the wastewater treatment facilities are constructed in accordance with the conditions and limitations specified in Permit No. NC0020559. The sludge generated from these treatment facilities must be disposed of in accordance with G.S. 143-215.1 and in a manner approved by the Division. 1617 Mail Service Center, Ra"h, North Carolina 27699-1617 Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 jV n,.e�t,Carolina Iterne919807-6300gFAx:9198076492I Customer Service: 1-677E238748 � "'I�N�� Internet: ww-w.nwalerqualiive Action f//�r/iV An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer Mr. Tom Spain June 1, 2009 Page 2 In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action, including those as may be required by the Division, such as the construction of additional or replacement wastewater treatment or disposal facilities. The Raleigh Regional Office, telephone number (919) 791-4200, shall be notified at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of operation of the installed facilities so that an on site inspection can be made. Such notification to the regional supervisor shall be made during thet normal office hours from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding State Holidays. Upon completion of construction and prior to operation of this permitted facility, a , certification must be received from a professional engineer certifying that the permitted facility has been installed in accordance with the NPDES Permit, this Authorization to Construct and the approved plans and specifications. Mail the Certification to: Construction Grants & Loans, DWQ/DENR, 1633 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1633. Upon classification of the facility by the Certification Commission, the Permittee shall employ a certified wastewater treatment plant operator to be in responsible charge (ORC) of the wastewater treatment facilities. The operator must hold a certificate of the type and grade at least equivalent to or greater than the classification assigned to the wastewater treatment facilities by the Certification Commission. The Permittee must also employ a certified back-up operator of the appropriate type and grade to comply with the conditions of T15A:8G.0202. The ORC of the facility must visit each Class I facility at least weekly and each Class II, III and IV facility at least daily, excluding weekends and holidays, must properly manage the facility, must document daily operation and maintenance of the facility, and must comply with all other conditions of T15A:8G.0202. A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by the Permittee for the life of the facility. During the construction of the proposed additions/modifications, the permittee shall continue to properly maintain and operate the existing wastewater treatment facilities at all times, and in such a manner, as necessary to comply with the effluent limits specified in the NPDES Permit. You are reminded that it is mandatory for the project to be constructed in accordance with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, and when applicable, the North Carolina Dam Safety Act. In addition, the specifications must clearly state what the contractor's responsibilities shall be in complying with these Acts. Mr. Tom Spain June 1, 2009 Page 3 Prior to entering into any contract(s) for construction, the recipient must have obtained all applicable permits from the State. Failure to abide by the requirements contained in this Authorization to Construct may subject the Permittee to an enforcement action by the Division in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C. The issuance of this Authorization to Construct does not preclude the Permittee from complying with any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by other government agencies (local, state: and federal) which have jurisdiction. One (1) set of approved plans and specifications is being forwarded to you. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Seth Robertson, P.E. at telephone number (919) 715-6206. -/—Coleen H. Sullins MM:sr cc: Steve Scruggs, P.E., Earth Tech of NC, Inc., 701 Corporate Dr. Suite 475, Raleigh NC 27607 Vance County Health Department DWQ Raleigh Regional Office, Surface Water Protection Technical Assistance and Certification Unit Point Source Branch, NPDES Program Michelle McKay ATC File City of Henderson A To C No. 020559AOI Issued June 1, 2009 Engineer's Certification I, , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically/weekly/full time) the construction of the modifications and improvements to the Henderson WRF, located on West Andrews Avenue in Vance County for the City of Henderson, hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the following construction: Installation of a new UV disinfection system with two (2) banks (each capable of treating a peak flow of 12.5 MGD), one precast manhole, approximately 120 LF of 36-inch effluent gravity line and a new precast concrete effluent headwall in conformity with the project plans, specifications, and other supporting data subsequently filed and approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. I certify that the construction of the above referenced project was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the approved plans and specifications. Signature Date Registration No. Send to: Construction Grants & Loans DENR/DWQ 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 FROM OITY OF HEHDERSOH (MOH)MAR 30 200a 8:45/ST. 8:44/Ho.7528874388 P 2 • CLIPPING OF LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT ATTACHED HERE NORTH CAROLINA, VANCE COUNTY. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Before the. undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and State, duly commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths, personally appeared Charlene- Sanford I who being first duly sworn, deposes and says: that he/she is Clerk (Owner, partner, publisher. a othw officer or employee aulhodzed to make this affidavit) of Henderson Newspapers, Inc., engaged in the publication of a newspaper (mown as The Daily Dispatch, published, issued, and entered as second class mail in the City of Henderson, in said County and State; that he (she) is authorized to make this affidavit and sworn statement; that the notice or other legal advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was published in The Daily Dispatch on the following dates: March 20. 2009 and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper, document, or legal advertisement was published was, at the time of each and every such publication, a newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section 1- 597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. Z 1 bl?Tfa, t t W1. A1��V1 •. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 2A day of March. 2009. ry puaic My commission expires: FROM CITY OF NENOERSON (MON)MHR 30 2008 8:44/ST. 8:44/Mo.9628694368 P 1 • TO: CITY OF HENDERSON NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES Director - FAX NO. 252-431-0124 Y' A FROM: '-IRA I,L 1br,,,)n DATE: 3 3o - oq ft1199 NUMBER OF SHEETS TRANSMITTED 2 (INCLUDING TRANSMITTAL SHEET) If you do not receive the correct number of sheets transmitted, or have any questions, please call me at (252)4-al - I or use the Department of Public Works FAX number shown above. COMMENTS: _ North Carolina Department of EnvironmentInd Natural Resources Division of Water Quality O"O� W AT �R�G iM5 Z uo 5o o Print or Type Use Attachments if Needed Permittee: _City of Henderson Permit Number: _NC0020559 Facility Name: _Henderson Water Reclamation Facility_ County: _Vance_ Incident Started: Date: 3-15-09 Time: 5:30 PM Incident Ended: Date: 3-15-09 Time: 6:35 PM Level of Treatment: None _Primary Treatment _X_Secondary Treatment —Chlorination/Disinfection Only Estimated Volume of Spill/Bypass: _19,500_gallons_(must be given even if it is a rough estimate) Did the Spill/Bypass reach the Surface Waters? X_Yes _No If yes, please list the following: Volume Reaching Surface Waters: _19,500_gallons Surface Water Name: _Nutbush Creek —which is tributary to Roanoke River Basin_ Did the Spill/Bypass result in a Fish Kill? _Yes _X_No Was W WTP compliant with permit requirements? _X_Yes No Were samples taken during event? Yes _X__No Source of the Upset/Spill/Bypass (Location or Treatment Unit): UV Disinfection System Cause or Reason for the Upset/Spill/Bypass: Plant flow increased from 2.2 MGD to approximately 12.0 MGD because of I & I from heavy rainfall. Describe the Repairs Made or Actions Taken: The City has two contractors working of I & I in the Sandy Creek basin and the City crew has made repairs In different parts of the collection system. Spill/Bypass Reporting Form (August 1997) 0 WWTP Upset, Spill, or tsypass 5-Day Reporting Form • Page 2 Action Taken to Contain Spill, Clean Up and Remediate the Site (if applicable): N/A Action Taken or Proposed to be Taken to Prevent Occurrences: The City is continuing to work on I & I and plans to replace the UV Disinfection System with a larger one which would allow all flow to be disinfected. We had a CWMTF grant for this work but the governor pulled the funds and placed them in another account. We are seeking other sources of funding. Additional Comments About the Event: If a portion of the flow had not been bypassed around the UV System then the filter clearwell would have flooded the filter building internally and damaged a lot of pneumatic and electrical equipment. 24-Hour Report Made To: Division of Water Quality _X_ Emergency Management Contact Name: Mitch Haves Date: 3-16-09 Time: 11:45 AM Other Agencies Notified (Health Dept, etc): _N/A. Person Reporting Event: _Thomas M. Spain Phone Number: _252-431-6081_ Did DWQ Request an Additional Written Report? _Yes _X_No If Yes, What Additional Information is Needed: Spill/Bypass Reporting Form (August 1997) G Michael F. Easley Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources May 27, 2008 CERTIFIED MAIL 7002 0860 0006 5835 9858 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mark Warren City of Henderson PO Box 1434 Henderson, NC 27536 Subject: NOTICE OF VIOLATION Henderson Water Reclamation Facility NPDES Permit No. NCO020559 Vance County NOV-2008-LR-0024 Dear Mr. Warren: i I ="LEIGi Colson H. Sullins, Director Division of Water Quality This is to inform you that the Division of Water Quality has not received your monthly monitoring report for March 2008. This is in violation of Part B, condition D(2) of the NPDES permit, as well as 15A NCAC 2B .506(a), which requires the submittal of Discharge Monitoring Reports no later than the twenty-eighth (28`h) day following the reporting period. Failure to submit reports as required will subject the violator to the assessment of a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation. You will be considered noncompliant with the self -monitoring requirements of your NPDES permit until the report has been submitted. To prevent further action, please submit said report to me at the letterhead address within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this notice. Additionally, this letter provides notice that this office will recommend the assessment of civil penalties if future reports are not received within the required time frame during the next twelve (12).reporting months. The Division must take these steps because timely submittal of discharge monitoring reports is essential to the efficient operation of our water quality programs. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions about this letter or discharge monitoring reports, please contact me at 919/733-5083, extension 532. Sincerely, V ` Vanessa E. Manuel &4 Eastern NPDES Program Cc: Danny Smith, DWQ/SWP Raleigh Regional Office Case File NOV-2008-LR-0024 DWQ/SWP Central Files 9hCaro ina t ZZY N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 (919) 733-7015 Customer Service 1 800 623-7748 11 `0 �0F W AT Fq�G Michael F. Easley, Governor pj William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary [ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ti Coleen 14. Sullins, Director Division of Water Quality January 28, 2008 Mr. Tom Spain City of Henderson WRF P.O. Box 1434 Henderson, NC 27536 Re: Retraction of Notice of Violation Case No. NOV-2007-LV-0613 Henderson WRF NPDES Permit No. NCO020559 Vance County Dear Mr. Spain: Q MAILED JKLILM The Raleigh Regional Office staff has reviewed your response dated January 15, 2008, requesting the Notice of Violation be retracted. You stated that the chlorine violation is a false positive result due to manganese interference from the ferrous sulfate that is being fed into the collection system. You also stated that the limit only applies if chlorine is added to the treatment system based on your NPDES permit section A. (L) footnote 4. The information you submitted is sufficient. Therefore, I hereby retract the Notice of Violation; NOV- 2007-LV-0613 dated December 19, 2007. If you have any questions please call Stephanie Brixey at (919) 791-4260 [or email: Stephanie.brixey@ncmail.net). Sincerely, S. Daniel Smith Surface Water Protection Supervisor Raleigh Regional Office Cc: Central Files RRO-SWP files ./V a North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone (919) 791-4200 Customer Service Intemet h2o.enrstate.nc.us 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX (919) 571-4718 1-877623-6748 An Equal Opportunity/Afinnative Action Employer- 50% Recyc1ed1l0% Post Consumer Paper CITY OF HENDERSON Post Office Box 1434 Henderson, North Carolina 27536-1434 Henderson Water Reclamation Facility 1646 West Andrews Avenue Henderson, North Carolina 27537 Phone: (252) 431-6080 FAX: (252) 492-3324 1-15-08 Mr. S. Daniel Smith Raleigh Regional Supervisor NCDENR --- DWQ 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 RE: Request for NOV Retraction Case No. NOV-2007-LV-0613 Henderson WRF NPDES Permit No. NCO020559 Vance County Dear Mr. Smith, I am responding to your letter dated January 3, 2008 in response to my request to retract our NOV for a chlorine residual violation on December 19`h, 2007. In response, I still point out that the permit states in section A. (L) note 4. "Chlorine monitoring and limit apply only if chlorine is added to the treatment system." We didn't add chlorine so a limit should not apply per the wording of the permit. I am furnishing the following information to demonstrate that Manganese in our Ferrous Sulfate feed in the collection system is interfering with the residual chlorine test and giving false positive results. I have attached results of residual chlorine run on our post aeration tank (the last process before discharge). I used this location because it would show the Manganese interference but would not give us a monitoring violation. A sample run on 1-7-08 shows sample results of .019 mg/l with no neutralization of chlorine. The same sample still tested 0.19 mg/l after the chlorine was neutralized with Sodium Arsenite. I have also taken a picture of a blank, a sample without Sodium Arsenite and a sample treated with Sodium Arsenite to neutralize the chlorine. You can plainly see that the typical pink color from DPD treatment is present in both samples and the blank is clear. It was not practical to have a contract lab split samples since residual chlorine must be run immediately after collection. I trust that the information provided will be sufficient to retract our NOV. If not please let me know what else is required. Thank you for your assistance with this issue. Sincerely, Thomas A Spain Director HWU C: Stephanie Brixey Barry Herzberg Darrel Johnson \O�OF W A TE9oG so � r >_ ti p January 3, 2008 Mr. Tom Spain City of Henderson WRF P.O. Box 1434 Henderson, NC 27536 Re: Request of NOV Retraction Case No. NOV-2007-LV-0613 Henderson WRF NPDES Permit No. NCO020559 Vance County Dear Mr. Spain: 40 Michael F. Easley, Governor Williarn G. Ross, Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Coleen H. Sullins, Director Division of Water Quality MAMEn r� 81t� The Raleigh Regional Office staff has reviewed your response to the Notice of Violation that was issued December 19, 2007, for a total residual chlorine limit violation. The NPDES Permit No. NCO020559 states that chlorine monitoring and limit only apply if chlorine is added to the treatment system. Based on a conversation that you had with Stephanie Brixey, you stated that chlorine has not been used in the treatment system for disinfection and that the monitoring was conducted to fulfill the permit condition of the annual pollutant scan. Due to the circumstances, the Division is requesting that you provide additional information, Part 11, Section B.8, of your NPDES permit. It is recommended that additional analysis of total residual chlorine be conducted, as well as split sampling between your lab and a contract lab. Since the facility does not use chlorine then the facility is responsible to investigate to find the source of the problem. Please submit your findings to the Division, at which time a decision will be made on whether to retract the Notice of Violation. If you have questions, please call Stephanie Brixey at (919) 791-4260 [or email: st hanie.brixe ncmail.net . Sincerl�, Cc: Central Files RRO SWP files S. Daniel Smith Surface Water Protection Supervisor Raleigh Regional Office Nc00 Cam' to ✓valNM/!y North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone (919) 791.4200 Customer Service Internet h2o.encstate.nc.us 1629 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX (919) 571-4718 1-877-623-6748 An Equal OpportunilylAf anative ActionEmployer— 50% Recydedl10% Post Consumer Paper RE: RESEND OF E-MAIL Subject: RE: RESENT) OF E-MAIL From: "SPAIN, TOM" <tspain@ci.henderson.nc.us> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:54:21 -0500 To: "'danny.smith@ncmail.net"' <danny.smith@ncmail.net> CC: Barry Herzberg <barry.herzberg@ncmail.net>, "JOHNSON, DARREL" <djohnson@ci.henderson.nc.us>, "Stephanie.Brixey@ncmail.net" <stephanie.brixey@ncmail.net> From: SPAIN, TOM Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 5:51 PM To: 'danny.smith@ncmail.net' Cc: 'stephanie. brixey@ncmail. net'; Barry Herzberg; JOHNSON, DARREL Subject: Importance: High Dear Mr. Smith, I recently received a copy of a NOV sent to Mark Warren and dated December 19th, 2007 for a residual chlorine violation on October 10, 2007. My lab ran residual chlorine because it was on the list of annual priority pollutants. Even though we had results of 23 ug/I it was not from residual chlorine. We were disinfecting with UV Light only and were not feeding any type of chlorine. I noted at the bottom of the monthly report "Residual chlorine suspected interference —UV disinfection in operation-10-10-07" I should have stated that there was definite interference with the DPD test method. I suspect it is from some form of Manganese contained in our quicklime that is fed to the aeration tank. In addition, our permit states that the "chlorine monitoring and limit apply only if chlorine is added to the treatment system." We have added chlorine only 2 hours in the past 10 years while we were working to get the UV System back on line. I have asked my Lab Supervisor, Darrel Johnson, to try to isolate the compound interfering with the DPD test method and we will provide results to you if we are able to determine what it is. Given the facts that we were not feeding any type of chlorine, are certain of interference with the DPD test method, and the permit requires no monitoring and has no limit unless chlorine is fed, I respectfully request that the NOV issued for a residual chlorine violation on 10-10-07 be rescinded 1 of 2 1/3/2008 1:20 PM RE: RESEND OF E-MAIL THANK YOU! Tom Spain Director --Henderson WRF PO Box 1434 Henderson, NC 27536 e-mail: Again a ci.hcnderson.nc.us Off# 252-431-6081 Cell# 252-432-0446 Fax# 252-492-3324 2 of 2 1 /3/2008 1:20 PM �oF W a."Y Michael F. Easley, Governor O�I A I ■ YI _ M 16D P William n Ross, al Secretary V w� O North Carolina De artment of Environment and Nature] Resources >_ 1 0 `C 3 bit Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director Division of Water Quality Mr. Frank Frazier Henderson Assistant City Manager PO Box 1434 Henderson, NC 27536 Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection Henderson WWTP Permit No. NCO020559 Vance County Dear Mr. Frazier: On October 30, 2008 Mr. Myrl Nisely and Mr. Dave Parnell of the Raleigh Regional Office conducted a compliance evaluation inspection of the Henderson Wastewater Treatment Plant with the help of ORC Tom Spain. His assistance was greatly appreciated. The facility was in compliance. Attached is a checklist for the inspection. The current permit became effective October 1, 2007 and expires March 31, 2012. Description: This complex 4.14 MGD class IV plant has multiple units in nearly all steps of the treatment process. A grit chamber follows two bar screens, one manual and one mechanical. Six rectangular primary clarifiers feed four trickling filters followed by four rectangular secondary clarifiers. Next is a pure oxygen aeration reactor followed by four final circular clarifiers, four tertiary filters and UV disinfection. Sludges are put through a dissolved air floatation thickener, dual pure oxygen aerobic digesters, two anaerobic digesters and two sludge holding tanks. Observations: All components were available for use at the time of the inspection. Some of the clarifiers were not in use because of low flow. The UV system was reported as having recent electrical problems. Funding has been acquired to upgrade the UV in coming months, expected to take about 18 to 24 months. Sampling and laboratory refrigerators were all within the required temperature range, as were BOD and Fecal incubators. Discharge monitoring reports were shown to have no transcription errors. Operator and ORC logs were satisfactory. If you have comments or questions, please contact me at 919-791-4200. Sincerely, VL/l MI . Nisely Environmental Chemist Raleigh Regional Office cc: SWP/RRO files Central Files ba,K n ax,,j,,G/ Dave Parnell Environmental Specialist Mr. Tom Spain, Director Henderson WWTP 1646 West Andrews Ave. Henderson, NC 27536 Nam` Carolina Naturally North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone (919) 571-4700 Customer Service Intemet: h2o.enrstatemc.us 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX (919) 571-4718 1-877-623-6748 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recydedl10% Post Consumer Paper 40 United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved. EPA Washington, D C 20460 OMB No. 2040-0057 Water Compliance Inspectic 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 UN 2 151 31 NCO020559 111 121 08/10/30 117 18I C 191 s 20U u U U Remarks 21111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111116 Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 OA ----- --------------------- Reserved------------ 73I I 174 75I I I I I I I I80 67I I69 701 IJ I 711 ty I 72u L U 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) Henderson WRP 09:00 AM 08/10/30 07/10/01 Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date NC Hwy 39 Henderson NC 27536 12:15 PM 08/10/30 12/03/31. Names) of Onsite Representative(s)fTitles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data Thomas M Spain/ORC/252-431-6081/ Name, Address of Responsible OfficiallTitie/Phone and Fax Number Contacted Thomas M Spain,PO Box 1434 Henderson NC 27536//919-431-6006/ No 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 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 Myrl Nisely HBO WQ//919-791-4200/ Si I ature of anagemen Review A en Y/Offi hone n ax Numbers Date �IV EPA Form 356(F3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete. Page # 1 NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type 31 NCO020559 I11 12I 08/10/30 1 17 18'_1 Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary) Page # 2 Permit: NCO020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 10/30/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Permit Yes No NA NE (If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new application? 0 0 ■ 0 Is the facility as described in the permit? ■ n n 0 # Are there any special conditions for the permit? O ■ 0 0 Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? ■ 0 0 0 Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? ■ 0 0 0 Comment: Record Keeping Yes No NA NE Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit? ■ 0 0 0 Is all required information readily available, complete and current? ■ 0 0 0 Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)? ■ 0 n O Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs? ■ 0 0 ❑ Is the chain -of -custody complete? ■ 0 0 0 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 0 Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters? ■ 0 n 0 Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWO? ■ 0 0 0 (If the facility is = or> 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator on each shift? ■ 0 0 n Is the ORC visitation log available and current? ■ 0 0 0 Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification? ■ 0 0 0 Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification? ■ 0 0 0 Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? ■ 0 0 0 Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? ■ 0 0 n Comment: Flow Measurement - Influent Yes No NA NE # Is flow meter used for reporting? ■ n 0 0 Page # 3 Permit: NCO020559 Inspection Date: 10/30/2008 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Flow Measurement - Influent Yes No NA NE Is flow meter calibrated annually? ■ 0 Q ❑ Is the flow meter operational? ■ ❑ 0 ❑ (If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? Cl O ❑ ■ Comment: Last calibration 10/7/08. Done semi-annually. Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE # Is flow meter used for reporting? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Is flow meter calibrated annually? ■ D ❑ Cl Is the flow meter operational? ■ n n ❑ (If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? D ❑ O ■ Comment: Design of a small weir box at the effluent prevents reliable flow measurement, so influent flow is used for reporting. Influent Sampling Yes No NA NE # Is composite sampling flow proportional? ■ n n n Is sample collected above side streams? n ■ n O Is proper volume collected? ■ n n n Is the tubing clean? ■ n n ❑ # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? ■ O ❑ ❑ Is sampling performed according to the permit? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Mudflow returns before flow measurement. This has been addressed in previous inspections as a factor to be corrected if the plant is expanded or modified in the future. Bar Screens Yes No NA NE Type of bar screen a.Manual ■ b.Mechanicel ■ Are the bars adequately screening debris? ■ n n n Is the screen free of excessive debris? ■ D ❑ ❑ Is disposal of screening in compliance? ■ ❑ ❑ Q Is the unit in good condition? ■ n n 0 Comment: Grit Removal Yes No NA NE Page # 4 F ''4 6 # e6ed 3N VN ON •eA JBI;uBI :luewwoo D D U ■ Lspeus Jo swJOM'saly Jel!y anlsseoxe;o 88J; Jelly 841 sl U ❑ LJ ■ L6ul66olo;o aaJ; sooyuo swJe uo!lnquls!p s,Jal!y a41 aJV [! ❑ LJ ■ 441AAW6 OAISSGOxa;O 6u!46nols;o aaJ; Jal!y a4l sl U U ❑ ■ ZAIMO 6 POJolooslP Jo uanaun;o aBJ; Jally a41 sl Cj ❑ LJ ■ LswJe uollnquls!p 041 woJ; uana moy;o uo!1ngpjs!p a4l sl 11 LJ 0 ■ Lsuue uo!1nglJlslP sdal!y to uwnloo Jalueo a4l le s4eal;o aaJ; JaAy e41 sl U U U ■ 66u!puod;o aw; Jelly e4l sl 3N VN ON "A Ja311 -suue=j alllAueJE) J(q Palneq si p 'ewll 431AA poxwyy -Alleolpouad NonJl oen;af Aq si IenowaJ aseaJE) -spn Jelnbuepaa quewwoo 0 U ■ (gldep pemaps a4);o /,, Alelew!xoJddV) Lelgeldeooe lava! IoNuelq o6pnls a41 sl [l ❑ ❑ ■ Lalgeldaooe lane1 jaNuelq e6pnls a4l sl cj ❑ Cl ■ Lleuo!leJedo i!un BAIJP a4l SI U Cj ❑ ■ Le6pnis Bu!leog aAlssaoxa;o eaJ; ells 841 sl U ❑ U ■ Lalenbape lenoweJ wnos sl LJ Li ❑ ■ LBuII!non3-1J04s;o aoueP!Ae;o 80J; 91!s 04191 U U U ■ 6a5p3olq J!em;o eaJ; ails a41 sl U U U ■ LIeA81 SJIBM 8JV D ■ ❑ U LJeyuep Jelnogo;o pam Jalueo w sp!los;o dnppnq 8Alsseaxa10 89J; ails 941 Sl 0 U 0 ■ LJalems;seM snwopo pue Jloelq;o aaJ; Jeyuelo 941 sl 3N VN ON 90A joUpol)i J wlJdJ wlJd :Iuewwoo U ❑ U ■ Leouepdwoo ui i!JB to lesods!p sl # U U U ■ UOPO aAlsseoxa;o aaJ;;!JB e41 sl D O U ■ LJagew o!ue6Jo eA!sseoxa;o aw; luB a43 sl ■ leo!uegoeyy-q Q lenueyy-s IenowaJ 1u6;o edAj 3N VN ON saA (eAOWaZI;IJE) uogenleA3 aouepdwoO :edAj uoiloadsul BOOZ/OElol :ale0 uo!loadsul JUM uosJapuaH :Alllloej - Jaumo 699OZOOON :71wJad Permit: NCO020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 10/30/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation 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? ■ Cl ❑ ❑ Are weirs level? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of weir blockage? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is scum removal adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site free of excessive floating sludge? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the drive unit operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin Floc? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately Y. of the sidewall depth) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Frequent washing over several years has eroded the concrete surface immediately below the v-notch weir. Resurfacing with epoxy or other suitable material is advisable as a preventative maintenance measure. Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE Are pumps In place? ■ ❑ 0 ❑ Are pumps operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE Mode of operation Plug flow Type of aeration system Fixed 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/1) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Aerators are enclosed pure oxygen treatment units. Page # 6 Permit: NCO020559 Inspection Date: 10/30/2008 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Pure Oxygen Yes No NA NE Type of pure oxygen system Bulk storage Is there a back-up source for the system? m ❑ ❑ ❑ Are mixers operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are samples port/points easily accessible? ■ ❑ Cl ❑ Comment Anaerobic Digester Yes No NA NE Type of operation: Floating cover Is the capacity adequate? Is ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is gas stored on site? ❑ ■ 0 ❑ Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the gas burner operational? m ❑ ❑ Q Is the digester heated? ■ ❑ n ❑ Is the temperature maintained constantly? ■ ❑ ❑ n Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Gas is flared. Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ■ ❑ ❑ n Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable Solids, pH, DO, Sludge ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Judge, and other that are applicable? 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: Solids Handling Equipment Yes No NA NE Is the equipment operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the chemical feed equipment operational? Cl ❑ ■ 0 Is storage adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ 0 Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters? ❑ ❑ ■ 0 Page # 7 Permit: NC0020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 10/30/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Solids Handling Equipment Yes No NA NE 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? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ The facility has an approved sludge management plan? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Dissolved Air Floatation unit Aerobic Digester Yes No NA NE Is the capacity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the mixing adequate? ■ n ❑ ❑ Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is the odor acceptable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is tankage available for properly waste sludge? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Drying Beds Yes No NA NE 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? ■ n ❑ n 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: Nutrient Removal Yes No NA NE # Is total nitrogen removal required? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ # Is total phosphorous removal required? ■ ❑ Cl ❑ Type Chemical # is chemical feed required to sustain process? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is nutrient removal process operating properly? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Total Phosphorus is a quarterly limit. Has never been violated. Filtration (High Rate Tertiary) Yea No NA NE Page # 8 Permit: NC0020559 Inspection Date: 10/30/2008 Owner • Facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Filtration (High Rate Tertiary) Yes No NA NE Type of operation: Down flow Is the filter media present? ■ ❑ 0 ❑ Is the filter surface free of clogging? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the filter free of growth? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the air scour operational? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the scouring acceptable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media? ■ ❑ Cl ❑ Comment: Disinfection - UV Yes No NA NE Are extra UV bulbs available on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are UV bulbs clean? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is UV intensity adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is transmittance at or above designed level? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is there a backup system on site? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is effluent clear and free of solids? ■ ❑ Cl D Comment: Funding for rebuilding the UV system has been obtained. Estimated to be done in about 18 months. Backup disinfection is hypochlorite. Lab is able to measure TRC at the required low levels. 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 less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Effluent is sampled for all parameters but Fecal Coliform before the UV. Fecal is sampled after UV. Standby Power Yes No NA NE Is automatically activated standby power available? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the generator tested under load? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page # 9 Permit: NC0020559 Owner - facility: Henderson WRF Inspection Date: 10/30/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Standby Power Yes No NA NE Was generator tested & operational during the inspection? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site? ■ ❑ 0 ❑ Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the generator fuel level monitored? ■ ❑ 0 ❑ Comment: Tested monthly Laboratory Yes No NA NE Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory? ■ ❑ Cl ❑ Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab? ■ 0 ❑ ❑ # Is the facility using a contract lab? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? ■ 0 ❑ ❑ Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+L 0.2 degrees? ■ ❑ f_) ❑ Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Upstream / Downstream Samolina Yes No NA NE Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and sampling location)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Page # 10