NC0020559_Historical_2002-2007

0T.
FACILITY:
CITY:
COUNTY:
COUNTY/FREMISE NUMMER
PER = NUMBER
Permit Information that Needs to be Incorporated into Future Permit Retirisiow:
DATE CON2gENTS /
•,a

4-1 r / 5/
Michael F. Easley, Governor
1 � State of North Carolina
�J William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
December 6, 2002
The Honorable Robert G. Young, Jr., Mayor
City of Henderson
P.O. Box 1434
Henderson, North Carolina 27563
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NCO020559
City of Henderson WRF
Vance County
Dear Mayor Young.
Division staff have reviewed and approved your renewal application for an NPDES discharge permit.
Accordingly, the Division is forwarding the subject NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between
North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently
amended).
In response to the City of Henderson's letter dated September 17, 2002 we offer the following comments:
• Treatment units - The description of the treatment system was modified to add the units that were not
listed.
• Dissolved Oxygen - The dissolved oxygen limit footnote was modified to read "daily average dissolved
oxygen effluent concentration".
• Metals monitoring — Monitoring for chromium and lead were eliminated from the permit as you
requested. These parameters still must be monitored quarterly for the Long Term Monitoring Plan. The
results for lead have been below detection levels for more than twelve months of sampling. The results
for chromium were generally non -detect or less than half the allowable concentration.
• Chronic Toxicity — The information in Section A. (4) of the permit represents the current method for
chronic toxicity tests. In answer to your question regarding monthly tests results of 809/6 the first month,
80% the second month and 100% the third month, the first two months will be considered non-
compliant and the third month would be considered compliant. If you have any questions concerning
compliance with Whole Effluent Toxicity requirements please call Mr. Matt Matthews of the Aquatic
Toxicity Unit at [phone].
• Effluent Pollutant Scan — The requirement to perform the pollutant scan can't be removed from the
permit. This requirement is part of the federal regulations for POTW and is being implemented in all
major permits. To meet the seasonal variation requirement samples should be collected in a different
calendar quarters each year. A copy of the form (DMR-PPA-1) to report the results from the effluent
pollutant scan is included. Two copies of the form should be submitted to Central Files attached to the
monthly DMR.
• Mercury — Compliance with metal limits, including mercury, will continue to be evaluated as it has been
in the past. The Division's policy is to impose a fine of $250.00 when the limit is exceeded by 20% or
more. If you have any questions concerning compliance and enforcement please contact Mr. Shannon
Langley, Supervisor of the Point Source Compliance and Enforcement Unit at [phone], extension
516.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Visit us on the INTERNET @ www.enr.state.nc.us

Permit NCO020559
City of Henderson
Page 2
This final permit includes weekly average limits for ammonia. The U.S. EPA required the Division to
develop a polity by October 2002 to implement weekly average ammonia limits for municipal facilities. The
weekly average limit is established based on a ratio of 3:1 (weekly average : monthly average). The
corresponding weekly average limits in your permit are 9.0 mg/L for the summer and 18.0 mg/L for the
winter for the flow of 4.14 MGD and 6.0 mg/L for the summer and 12.0 mg/L for the winter for the flow of
6.0 MGD.
If any parts, measurement frequencies, or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable to
you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following
receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and
binding.
This permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may require modification or
revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other
permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality, the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal
Area Management Act, or any other federal or local governmental permit.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Teresa Rodriguez at telephone number (919)
733-5083,extension 595.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
SUSAN A. WILSON
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: NPDES Files
Central Files
U.S. EPA Region IV
Raleigh Regional Office / Water Quality Section
Technical Assistance & Certification Unit
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Thomas Spain, W WfP Director
City of Henderson
P.O. Box 1434
Henderson, North Carolina 27563

• Permit NCO020559
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 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 January 1, 2003.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on March 31, 2007.
Signed this day December 6, 2002.
;'RIGINAL SIGNED B.
SUSAN A. WILSON
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

• Permit NC0020559
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
The City of Henderson is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 4.14 MGD wastewater treatment facility (located at 1646
West Andrews Avenue in Henderson, Vance County), 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
2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division of Water Quality,
construct and operate wastewater treatment facilities with an ultimate capacity of 6.0
MGD.
3. Discharge from said treatment works via outfall 001 into Nutbush Creek, a class C
stream in the Roanoke River Basin, at the location specified on the attached map.

/rv'/
^" �lf��- Jc\� _ \\ �� rJ L����F�6GJ� � ^.\•��!'l� ?) , ,ram � r'�••//�.
� ��-- \ Ci �- .^+ �:: °�: • j� 1J" -�.�= J `�. :mil j� a � 1 ✓: \ J �� { °/ �
r , 1 U C� .�,J' 1:.. eB•Y t�ti'} ooirilri-
�h :err P) Outfa11001
City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
SlateGridA u& Hmilown
Latihde W 21' 01" N
B25SW
l�hide 78' 24' 40„ W
Roodyme.9tr=wNu9ush Cn k
Dretu Hasbx Roanoke
Str mClaw C
Sub -Basis 030206
North
e @tvM

Permit 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
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample Location'
Flow
4.14 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 200C 2
(April 1- October 31)
6.0 mg/L
9.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 200C 2
(November 1 - March 31)
12.0 mg/L
18.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mglL
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
NHa as N
(April 1- October 31)
3.0 mg/L
9.0 mg/L
Dairy
Composite
Effluent
NHa as N
(November 1 - March 31)
6.0 mg/L
18.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
(April 1- September 30)3
1.0 mg/L quarterly average
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
(October 1 - March 31)3
1.5 mg/L quarterly average
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine4
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
2001100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pHs
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
TotalMercuryr
0.012pg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Nickel
90.7 Ng/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
MBAS
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Silver
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
ChronicToxicitya
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 (85%
removal).
3. Compliance shall be based upon a quarterly average of weekly samples.
4. Monitoring only applies if chlorine is added to the treatment system for disinfection.
5. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
6. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
7. Beginning on or before September 1, 2003, analysis for mercury shall conform to sampling and analytical techniques specified
in test method EPA 1631. For this new method, sample type shall change from "composite" to "grab."
8. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodapbwa) at 90 % with testing in January, April, July and October (see A. (4)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

• Permit NCO020559
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:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location'
Flow
6.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 200C 2
(April 1- October 31)
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 200C 2
(November 1 — March 31)
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1- 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 Phosphorus3
0.5 mg/L quarterly average
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine°
17 Ng/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pH5
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygens
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Mercury'
0.012 Ng/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Nickel
89.9 Ng/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
MBAS
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Silver
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity8
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Notesr
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 (85%
removal).
3. Compliance shall be based upon a quarterly average of weekly samples.
4. Monitoring only applies if chlorine is added to the treatment system for disinfection.
5. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
6. The daily average effluent dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
7. Beginning on or before September 1, 2003, analysis for mercury shall conform to sampling and analytical techniques specified
in test method EPA 1631. For this new method, sample type shall change from "composite" to "grab."
8. Chronic Toxicity (Crriodaphnia) at 90 %; January, April, July and October (see A. (4)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

• Permit NCO020559
A. (3) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Effluent Characteristics
nitoring Requirements
Measurement
Frequency
Sample Type
Sample Locationl
Dissolved Oxygen
Weekly
Grab
U. D1, D2
H
Weekly
Grab
U, D1,D2
Temperature
Weekly
Grab
U, D1,D2
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
U, D1, D2
Dissolved Oxv9en (April - October)
Monthly
Profile2
DI, D2
H (April -October)
Monthly
Profile2
DI, D2
Temperature (April -October)
Monthly
Profile2
D1, D2
Secchi Depth (April -October)
Monthly
Composite 3
Dl, D2
NO2. NO3 (April -October)
Monthly
Composite 3
DI, D2
NH3-N (April -October)
Monthly
Composite 3
Dl, D2
TKN (April -October)
Monthly
Composite 3
DI, D2
Total Phosphorus (A ril-October)
Monthly
Composite 3
Dl, D2
Chloro h ll-a (A ril-October)
Monthly
Composite 3
DI, D2
Notes:
1. U = upstream at NC Highway 39. Dl = 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 a discontinuance pursuant to this provision, stream sampling shall be
resumed at the first opportunity after the risk period have 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 dubnn at an effluent concentration of 90 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, auarterlu monitoring using test procedures outlined in
the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or
subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of
January, April, July and October. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below
the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the
two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test
Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.

• Permit NC0020559
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 H Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1995) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DENR / DWQ / Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no later
than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate
signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if
chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there he 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 fall 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) Effluent Pollutant Scan
Permit NC0020559
The permittee shall perform an annual pollutant scan of its treated effluent for the following
parameters:
Ammonia (as N)
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Chlorine (total residual, TRC) 1,1-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Dissolved oxygen
1.2-dichloropropane
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Nitrate/Nitrite
- 1,3-dichloropropylene
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Total F4eldahl 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
Tetrachlomethylene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic
Toluene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Beryllium
1, 1, 1-trichloroethane
1,2-dlchlorobenzene
Cadmium
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromium
Trichloroethylene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Copper
Vinyl chloride
3,3-dichlorobemidme
Lead
Acid -extractable compounds:
Diethyl phthalate
Mercury
P-chloro-m-creso
Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Selenium
2,4-dichlomphenol
2.6-dinitrotoluene
Silver
2,4-dimethylphenol
1.2-dipheny1hydrazlne
Thallium
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Fluoranthene
Zinc
2,4-dinitrophenol
Fluorene
Cyanide
2-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds
4-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
Volatile anionic compounds:
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Acrolein
Phenol
Hexachloroethane
Acrylomtrile
2,4,6-trieMomphenol
Indeno(1,2.3-cd)pyrene
Benzene
Base -neutral compounds:
lwphomne
Bromoform
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Acenaphthylene
Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Anthmcene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamme
Chlorodibromomethane
Benzidme
N-riitrosodimethylamine
Chloroethane
Benzo(a)anthracene
N-nitrosodiphenylamme
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Chloroform
3.4 benzofluoranthene
Pyrene
Dichlorobromomethane
Benzo(ghl)perylene
1.2.4-trichlorobenzene
1,1-dlchlomethane
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1,2-dichloroethane
Bis (2-chlomethoxy) methane
1 The total set of samples analyzed during the current term of the permit must be representative of
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- DMR-PPAl
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.

NPDES Permit Requirements
• Page 1 of 15
PART I
(continued)
Section B. Schedule of Compliance
The permittee shall comply with Final Effluent Limitations specified for discharges in accordance with the
following schedule:
Permittee shall comply with Final Effluent Limitations by the effective date of the permit unless
specified below.
2. Permittee shall at all times provide the operation and maintenance necessary to operate the existing facilities at
optimum efficiency.
3. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of compliance, the permitter shall
submit either a report of progress or, in the case of specific actions being required by identified dates, a written
notice of compliance or noncompliance. In the latter case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance,
any remedial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the next schedule requirements.
Section C. Annual Administering and Compliance Monitoring Fee Requirements
The permittee must pay the annual administering and compliance monitoring fee within thirty days after being
billed by the Division. Failure to pay the fee in a timely manner in accordance with 15A NCAC 21-1.0105 (b) (4)
may cause this Division to initiate action to revoke the permit
PART II
STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. DEFINITIONS
1. Permit Issuing Authority: The Director of the Division of Water Quality.
2. DEM or "the Division' Means the Division of Water Quality, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
3. F.MC Used herein means the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission.
4. Act or "the Act" The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, as amended,
33 USC 1251, et seq.
S. Mass/Day Measurements
a. The monthly average discharge is defined as the total mass of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured
during a calendar month on which daily discharges are sampled and measured, divided by the number of daily
discharges sampled and/or measured during such month. It is therefore, an arithmetic mean found by
adding the weights of the pollutant found each day of the month and then dividing this sum by the number
of days the tests were reported. The limitation is identified as "Monthly Average" in Pan I of the permit.
b. The "weekly average discharge" is defined as the total mass of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured
during the calendar week (Sunday - Saturday) on which daily discharges are sampled and measured, divided
by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such week. It is, therefore, an arithmetic
mean found by adding the weights of pollutants found each day of the week and then dividing this sum by
Version 7=2

• NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 2 of 15
the number of days the tests were reported. This limitation is identified as "Weekly Average" in Part I of the
permit. .
c. The "maximum daily discharge" is the total mass (weight) of a pollutant discharged during a calendar day. If
only one sample is taken during any calendar day the weight of pollutant calculated from it is the "maximum
daily discharge." This limitation is identified as "Daily Maximum," in Part I of the permit.
d. The "average annual discharge" is defined as the total mass of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured
during the calendar year on which daily discharges are sampled and measured, divided by the number of daily
discharges sampled and/or measured during such year. It is, therefore, an arithmetic mean found by adding
the weights of pollutants found each day of the year and then dividing this sum by the number of days the
tests were reported. This limitation is defined as "Annual Average" in Part I of the permit.
6. Concentration Measurement
a. The average monthly concentration, other than for fecal coliform bacteria, is the sum of the concentrations
of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar month on which daily discharges are
sampled and measured, divided by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such
month (arithmetic mean of the daily concentration values). The daily concentration value is equal to the
concentration of a composite sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted by flow
value) of all the samples collected during that calendar day. The average monthly count for fecal coliform
bacteria is the geometric mean of the counts for samples collected during a calendar month. This limitation
is identified as "Monthly Average" under "Other limits" in Part I of the permit
b. The "average weekly concentration," other than for fecal coliform bacteria, is the sum of the concentrations
of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar week (Sunday/Saturday) on which daily
discharges are sampled and measured divided by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured
during such week (arithmetic mean of the daily concentration values). The daily concentration value is equal
to the concentration of a composite sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted
by flow value) of all the samples collected during that calendar day. The average weekly count for fecal
coliform bacteria is the geometric mean of the counts for samples collected during a calendar week. This
limitation is identified as '"Weekly Average" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit.
c. The "maximum daily concentration" is the concentration of a pollutant discharge during a calendar day. If
only one sample is taken during any calendar day the concentration of pollutant calculated from it is the
"Maximum Daily Concentration". It is identified as "Daily Maximum" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the
permit.
d. The "average annual concentration," other than for fecal coliform bacteria, is the sum of the concentrations
of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar year on which daily discharges are sampled
and measured divided by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such year
(arithmetic mean of the daily concentration values). The daily concentration value is equal to the
concentration of a composite sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted by flow
value) of all the samples collected during that calendar day. The average yearly count for fecal coliform
bacteria is the geometric mean of the counts for samples collected during a calendar year. This limitation is
identified as "Annual Average" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit.
e. The daily average concentration (for dissolved oxygen) is the minimum allowabk: amount of dissolved
oxygen required to be available in the effluent prior to discharge averaged over a calendar day. If only one
dissolved oxygen sample is taken over a calendar day, the sample is considered to be the "daily average
concentration" for the discharge. It is identified as "daily average" in the text of Part 1.
f. The "quarterly average concentration" is the average of all samples taken over a calendar quarter. It is
identified as "Quarterly Average Limitation" in the text of Part I of the permit
g. A calendar quarter is defined as one of the following distinct periods: January through March, April through
June, July through September, and October through December.
Version 712002

"Tr r)ES Permit Requirements •
Page 3 of 15
7. Other Measurements
a. Flow, (MGD): The flow limit expressed in this permit is the 24 hours average flow, averaged monthly. It is
determined as the arithmetic mean of the total daily flows recorded during the calendar month.
b. An "instantaneous flow measurement" is a measure of flow taken at the time of sampling, when both the
sample and flow will be representative of the total discharge.
c. A "continuous flow measurement" is a measure of discharge flow from the facility which occurs continually
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.
a. Composite Sample: A composite sample shall consist of:
(1) 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
(2) 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 present
gallon interval between sample collection fixed at no greater than 1 /24 of the expected total daily flow at
the treatment system, or
(3) a single, continuous sample collected over a 24-hour period proportional to the rate of flow.
In accordance with (1) above, the time interval between influent grab samples shall be no greater than
once per hour, and the time interval between effluent grab samples shall be no greater 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 time intervals evenly spaced over the 24-hour period which are
equal in number of hours to the detention time of the system in number of days. However, in no case
may the time interval between effluent grab samples be greater than six (6) hours nor the number of
samples less than four (4) during a 24-hour sampling period.
b. Grab Sample: Grab samples are individual samples collected over a period of time not exceeding 15 minutes;
the grab sample can be taken manually. Grab samples must be representative of the discharge or the
receiving waters.
9. Calculation of Means
a Arithmetic Mean: The arithmetic mean of any set of values is the summation of the individual values divided
by the number of individual values.
b. Geometric Mean: The geometric mean of any set of values is the Nth root of the product of the individual
values where N is equal to the number of individual values. The geometric mean is equivalent to the antilog
of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms of the individual values. For purposes of calculating the geometric
mean, values of zero (0) shall be considered to be one 0).
c. Weighted by Flow Value: Weighted by flow value means the summation of each concentration times its
respective flow divided by the summation of the respective flows.
10. Calendar DW A calendar day is defined as the period from midnight of one day until midnight of the next day.
However, for purposes of this permit, any consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day
may be used for sampling.
11. Hazardous Substance: A hazardous substance means any substance designated under 40 CFR Part 116
pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
Version 7M2

NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 4 of 15
12. Toxic Pollutant: -a tllutant is any pollutant listed as toxtiOnc action 307(a)(1) of the Clean
Water Act.
SECTION B. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Duty to Comply
The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation
of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance,
or modification; or denial of a permit renewal application.
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 a permit condition is subject to a civil penalty
not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation. Any person who negligently violates any permit condition
is subject to criminal penalties of $2,500 to $25,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than
1 year, or both. Any person who knowingly violates permit conditions is subject to criminal penalties of
$5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. Also, any person
who violates a permit condition may be assessed an administrative penalty not to exceed $10,000 per
violation with the maximum amount not to exceed $125,000. [Ref: Section 309 of the Federal Act 33 U.S.C.
1319 and 40 CFR 122.41 (a)]
c. Under state law, a civil penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) 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. [Ref: North Carolina General Statutes § 143-215.6A]
d. Any person may be assessed an administrative penalty by the Administrator for violating section 301, 302,
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. 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.
2. DuV to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimi a 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.
3. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" (Part II, C-4) and "Power Failures" (Part 1I, C-7),
nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties
for noncompliance pursuant to NCGS 143-215.3, 143-215.6 or Section 309 of the Federal Act, 33 USC 1319.
Furthermore, the permittee is responsible for consequential damages, such as fish kills, even though the
responsibility for effective compliance may be temporarily suspended.
4. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject to under NCGS 143-
215.75 et seq. or Section 311 of the Federal Act, 33 USG 1321. Furthermore, the permittee is responsible for
consequential damages, such as fish kills, even though the responsibility for effective compliance may be
temporarily suspended.
Version 712002

NPDES Permit Requirements
• Page 5 of 15
5. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any
exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations.
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. Severabili
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the application of any
provision of this permit to any circumstances, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby.
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 to be kept by this permit.
9. Duty to Reapply
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.
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. SignatoEy Requirements
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority shall be signed and certified.
a. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
(1) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this Section, a responsible
corporate officer means: (a) a president, secretary, treasurer or vice president of the corporation in
charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision
making functions for the corporation, or (b) the manager of one or more manufacturing production or
operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures
exceeding 25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if 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.
b. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by the Permit Issuing Authority shall be
signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly
authorized representative only if:
p) 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
Version 712002

NPDES Permit Requirements
Page G of 15
(3) The written authorizauvii is submitted to the Permit Issuing uthw.,y.
c. Certification. Any person signing a document under paragraphs a. or b. of this section shall make the
following certification:
'I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate
the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the information, the information 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
pemmittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned
changes or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition.
13. Permit Modification Revocation and Reissuance or Termination
The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the permit issuing authority from reopening and modifying the
permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit as allowed by the laws, rules, and regulations
contained in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 122 and 123; Title 15A of the North Carolina
Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H .0100; and North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 et. al.
14. Previous Permits
All previous National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits issued to this facility, whether for
operation or discharge, are hereby revoked by issuance of this permit. The exclusive authority to operate this
facility arises under this permit. The authority to operate the facility under previously issued permits bearing this
number is no longer effective. I The conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions of this permit authorizing
discharge under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System govern discharges from this facility.
SECTION C. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROLS
1. Certified Operator
Pursuant to Chapter 90A-44 of North Carolina General Statutes, and upon classification of the facility by the
Certification Commission, the permittee shall employ a certified wastewater treatment plant operator in
responsible charge (ORC) of the wastewater treatment facilities. Such operator must hold a certification of the
grade 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 any grade to comply with the conditions of Title 15A NCAC Chapter 8G .0200. The ORC of the facility
must visit each Class I facility at least weekly and each Class 11, III, and IV facility at least daily, excluding
weekends and holidays, and must properly manage and document daily operation and maintenance of the facility
and must comply with all other conditions of Title 15A, NCAC Chapter 8G .0200. Once the facility is classified,
the permittee shall submit a letter to the Certification Commission which designates the operator in responsible
charge within thirty days after the wastewater treatment facilities are 50% complete.
2. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control
(and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the pemmiucc 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 operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities
or similar systems which are installed by a perrmittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance
with the conditions of the permit.
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.
Version 7M2

. )ES Permit Requirements
Page 7 of 15
4. Bypassing of Treatment Facilities
a. Definitions
(1) "Bypass" means 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.
(2) "Severe property damage" means 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 does not
mean economic loss caused by delays in production.
b. Bypass not exceeding limitations.
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 c. and d. of this section.
c. Notice
(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 affect of the bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as required in Part
II, E. 6. (24hour notice).
d. Prohibition of Bypass
(!) Bypass from the treatment facility is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority may take enforcement
action against a permittee for bypass, unless:
(A) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage;
(B) There were no feasible 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 c. 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 affects, if
the Permit Issuing Authority determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above in Paragraph
d. p) of this section.
5. Upsets
a. Definition: "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary
noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable
control of the permince. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational
error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance,
or careless or improper operation.
b. Effect of an upset: An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance
with such technology based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph c. of this condition
are met. No determination made during administrative review of claims that noncompliance was caused by
upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to judicial review.
c. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset: A permittee who wishes to establish the
affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or
other relevant evidence that:
(1) An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset;
(2) The permittee facility was at the time being properly operated; and
Version 7=2

NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 8of15
(3) The pemilttee Suomi.-- iotice of the upset as required in P (b) (B) of this permit.
(4) The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under Part II, B. 2. of this permit.
d. Burden of proof: In any enforcement proceeding the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an
upset has the burden of proof.
6. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters
shall be utilized/disposed of in accordance with NCGS 143-215.1 and in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant
from such materials from entering waters of the State or navigable waters of the United States. The permittee
shall comply with all existing federal regulations governing the disposal of sewage sludge. Upon promulgation of
40 CFR Part 503, any permit issued by the Permit Issuing Authority for the utilization/disposal of sludge may be
reopened and modified, or revoked and reissued, to incorporate applicable requirements at 40 CFR Part 503.
The permittee shall comply with applicable 40 CFR Part 503 Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage
Sludge (when promulgated) within the time provided in the regulation, even if the permit is not modified to
incorporate the requirement. The permittee shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority of any significant change in
its sludge use or disposal practices.
7. Power Failures
The permince is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards (as required by 15A NCAC 21-1.0124 —
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 which 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.
2. Rel2ortin
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month and reported on a
monthly Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form (DEM No. MR 1,1.1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by
the Director, DEM, postmarked no later than the 30th day following the completed reporting period.
The first DMR is due on the last day of the month following the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new
facility, on the last day of the month following the commencement of discharge. Duplicate signed copies of
these, and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the following address:
NC DENR / Division of Water Quality / Water Quality Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
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 are
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. Once -through condenser cooling water flow which is 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.
Version 7=2

• MMES Permit Requirements
Page 9 of 15
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.
To meet the intent of the monitoring required by this permit, all test procedures must produce minimum
detection and reporting levels that are below the permit discharge requirements and all data generated must be
reported down to the minimum detection or lower reporting level of the procedure. If no approved methods are
determined capable of achieving minimum detection and reporting levels below permit discharge requirements,
then the most sensitive (method with the lowest possible detection and reporting level) approved method must
be used.
5. Penalties for Tampering
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by
a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or
by both. If a conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person under this
paragraph, punishment is a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more
than 4 years, or both.
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 and all original strip char recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports
required by this permit, 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.
7. Recording Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the permittee shall record
the following information:
a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
c. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
8. Inspection and En=
The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative (including an authorized contractor acting
as a representative of the Director), upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required
by law, to;
a. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or where
records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of this
permit;
c. Inspect at reasonable 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.
Version 712002

NPDES Permit Requirements
• Page 10 of 15
SECTION E REPORI ....; ...:JUIREMENTS
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. Notice is required only when:
a. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for determining whether a
facility is a new source in 40 CFR Part 122.29 ft or
b. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification applies to pollutants which are subject neither to effluent limitations in the
permit, nor to notification requirements under 40 CFR Part 122.42 (a) (I).
c. The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the permittee's sludge use or disposal practices,
and such alternation, addition or change may justify the application of permit conditions that are different
from or absent in the existing permit, including notification of additional use or disposal sites not reported
during the permit application process or not reported pursuant to an approved land application plan.
3. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity
which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
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 permittee and incorporate such other requirements as may be
necessary under the Clean Water Act.
5. Monitoring Reports
Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified elsewhere in this permit.
a. Monitoring results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (E)MR) (See Part H. D. 2 of this
permit) or forms provided by the Director for reporting results of monitoring of sludge use or disposal
practices.
b. If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by the permit, using test procedures
specified in Part II, D. 4. of this permit or in the case of sludge use or disposal, approved under 40 CFR 503,
or as specified in this permit, the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting
of the data submitted in the DMR.
c. Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean
unless otherwise specified by the Director in the permit.
G. Twenty-four Hour Reporting
a. The permittee shall report to the central office or the appropriate regional office any noncompliance which
may endanger 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.
b. The following shall be included as information that must be reported within 24 hours under this paragraph:
(1) Any unanticipated bypass that exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit.
(2) Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit.
(3) Violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed by the Director in
the permit to be reported within 24 hours.
Version 712002

• Pro^ES Permit Requirements
Page 11 of 15
c. The Director may waive the written report on a case -by -case basis for reports under paragraph b. above of
this condition if the oral report has been received within 24 hours.
7. Other Noncompliance
The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under Part H. 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.
B. 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.
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 neat working day following the
occurrence or first knowledge of the occurrence of any of the following.
a. Any occurrence at the water pollution control facility which results in the discharge of significant amounts of
wastes which are abnormal in quantity or characteristic, such as the dumping of the contents of a sludge
digester; the known passage of a slug of hazardous substance through the facility; or any other unusual
circumstances.
b. Any process unit failure, due to known or unknown reasons, that render the facility incapable of adequate
wastewater treatment such as mechanical or electrical failures of pumps, aerators, compressors, etc
c. Any failure of a pumping station, sewer line, or treatment facility resulting in a by-pass directly to receiving
waters without treatment of all or any portion of the influent to such station or facility.
Persons reporting such occurrences by telephone shall also file a written report within 5 days following first
knowledge of the occurrence.
10. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under NCGS 143-215.3 (a)(2) or Section 308 of the Federal Act, 33
USC 1318, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms shall be available for public inspection at the offices
of the Division of Water Quality. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidential.
Knowingly making any false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties as
provided for in NCGS 143-215.1 (b)(2) or in Section 309 of the Federal Act.
11. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or
certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit, including
monitoring reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of
not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both.
PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
SECTION A. CONSTRUCTION
No construction of wastewater treatment facilities or additions to add to the plant's treatment capacity or to change
the type of process utilized at the treatment plant shall be begun until Final Plans and Specifications have been
submitted to the Division of Water Quality and written approval and Authorization to Construct has been issued.
Version 712002

• NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 12 of 15
SECTION B. GROUNDWAi r:tt MONITORING
The permittee shall, upon written notice from the Director of the Division of Water Quality, conduct groundwater
monitoring as may be required to determine the compliance of this NPDES permitted facility with the current
groundwater standards.
SECTION C. CHANGES in DISCHARGES of TOXIC SUBSTANCES
The permittee shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority as soon as it knows or has reason to believe:
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 000 µg/L);
(2) Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 µg/L) for acrokin and acrylonitrik; five hundred micrograms
per liter (500 µg/L) for 2.4dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4.6-dinitrophenol; and one milligram per liter
0 mg/L) for antimony;
(3) Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application.
b. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, on a non -routine or
infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the
highest of the following "notification levels';
0) Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 µg/L);
(2) One milligram per liter 0 mg/L) for antimony,
(3) Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application.
SECTION D. CONTINUAL EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES
The permittee shall continually 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
sixty (60) days of notification by the Division.
(Note: Conditions E-G apply to municipal facilities only)
SECTION E. 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 into that POTW by a
source introducing pollutants into the 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 F. CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS FROM INDUSTRIAL USERS.
1. Effluent limitations are listed in Part I of this permit. Other pollutants attributable to inputs from
industries using the municipal system may be present in the 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 closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees
Centigrade using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21;
Version 7=2

)ES Permit Requirements
Page 13 of 15
b. Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the TW, 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 40°C
(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 into 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 Division a Pretreatment Program for approval per 15A
NCAC 2H .0907(a) or modify an existing Pretreatment Program per 15A NCAC 2H .0907(b).
5. This 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 G. PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS
Under authority of sections 307(b) and (c) and 402(b)(8) of the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations 40
CFR Part 403, North Carolina General Statute 143-215.3 (14) and implementing regulations 15A NCAC 2H
.0900, and in accordance with the approved pretreatment program, all provisions and regulations contained and
referenced in the Pretreatment Program Submittal are an enforceable part of this permit.
The permittee shall operate its approved pretreatment program in accordance with Section 402(b)(8) of the Clean
Water Act, the Federal Pretreatment Regulations 40 CFR Part 403, the State Pretreatment Regulations 15A
NCAC 2H .0900, and the legal authorities, policies, procedures, and financial provisions contained in its
pretreatment program submission and Division approved modifications there of. Such operation shall include
but is not limited to the implementation of the following conditions and requirements:
1. Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO)
The permittee shall maintain adequate legal authority to implement its approved pretreatment program.
2. Industrial Waste Survey (IWS)
The permittee shall update its Industrial Waste Survey (1WS) of all users of the sewer collection system at
least once every five years.
3. Monitoring Plan
The permince 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.
Vet ion 7=2

NPDES Permit Requirements
• Page 14 of 15
4. Headworks Analysis (HWA) 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. 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 (IUP) & 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 summarizes 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.
G. Authorization to Construct (A to C)
The permittee shall ensure that an Authorization to Construct (A to C) is issued to all applicable industrial
users for the construction or modification of any pretreatment facility. Prior to the issuance of an
Authorization to Construct (A to C), 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:
7a. Inspect all Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) at least once per calendar year; and
7b. Sample all Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) at least twice per calendar year for all permit -
limited pollutants, once during the period from January 1 through June 30 and once during the
period from July 1 through December 31, except for organic compounds which shall be sampled
once per calendar year;
8. SIU Self Monitoring and Reporting
The permittee shall require all industrial users to comply with the applicable monitoring and reporting
requirements outlined in the Division approved pretreatment program, the industry's pretreatment permit,
or in 15A NCAC 2H .0908.
9. Enforcement Response Plan (ERP)
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 etseq.), prohibitive
discharge standards as set forth in 40 CFR 403.5 and I5A 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.
Version 712002

NPOES Permit Requirements
F Page 15 of 15
For all other active pretreatment programs, the permittee shall submit topics 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 (SNCR)
The nature of the violations and the actions taken or proposed to correct the violations on
specific forms approved by the Division;
d.) Industrial Data Summary Forms (IDSF)
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 POTWs allocation table, new or modified enforcement compliance schedules,
public notice of SIUs in SNC, and any other information, upon request, which in the
opinion of the Director is needed to determine compliance with the pretreatment
implementation requirements of this permit;
11. Public Notice
The permittee shall publish annually a list of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) that were in Significant
Non -Compliance (SNC) as defined in the permittee s Division approved Sewer Use Ordinance with
applicable pretreatment requirements and standards during the previous twelve month period. This fist
shall be published within four months of the applicable twelve-month period.
12. Record Keeping
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 NCAC 2H .0114 and
15A NCAC 2H .0907.
Version 712002

t

\O�O
/F)F w a rF19
rr
1
� Y
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
7006 0810 0002 6048 8787
Mark Warren
Assistant City Manager
City of Henderson
PO Box 1434
Henderson NC 27536
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
December 19, 2007
Subject: NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Permit No. NCO020559
Henderson WRF
Case No. NOV-2007-LV-0613
Vance County
Dear Mr Warren:
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
0 M o�
a-7
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed Henderson WRF's monitoring report for October 2007
and we noted the followingviolations had been reported:
Parameter
Date
Limit
Reported
Limit Type
Value
Value
Chlorine, Total Residual
10/10/07
17 ug/1
23 ug/l
Daily Maximum
Exceeded
Remedial actions should be taken to correct this problem. It is the duties of every permitted
facility to meet permit limits. We urge you to avoid future occurrences. By doing so, you will
prevent further action by the State regarding the problems this month while protecting our lakes,
rivers and streams.
If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact Stephanie B 'W919-79-4200.
SjFei' ,
S. Daniel Smith
Surface Water Protection Supervisor
Raleigh Regional Office
Cc: Central Files
RRO SWP files
9�!�
Raleigh Regional Office 1628 Mail Service Center ,
Surface Water Protection Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
phone [phone] Customer Service
facsimile [phone] 1-877-623-6748
Np'rlhCarolina
Naturdly

TRICKLING FILTER AND SOC EXTENSIONi-
1iANCC Qw oT�
Subject: TRICKLING FILTER AND SOC EXTENSION
From: "SPAIN, TOM" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:49:24 -0500
To: "'[e-mail]"' <barry. herzberg@ncmail. net>
Barry,
I was on vacation last week but I am almost certain that the City has not
heard about the SOC extension request.
The trickling filter with just a center column feed is probably obtaining
30n to 50% treatment. This is more than enough for the plant to operate
properly. Since we lost so much industry the plant is loaded at less than
50% capacity. The secondary aeration tank is designed for a BOD of 120 but
is only receiving 30 to 40 mg/l. I can assure you that I will promptly
notify the Regional Office if I think any equipment or process problem may
cause a noncompliance situation
Thank You
Tom Spain.
1 of 1 12/5/2007 8:52 AM

Michael F. Easley, Governor
i
William G. Ross Jr, Secretary
rNorth
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
y
.�
Coleco H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
September 21, 2007
242
Mr. Darrel Johnson
City of Henderson WRF
P.O. Box 1434
180 Beckford Drive
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
SUBJECT: Parameter Change
Dear Mr. Johnson,
We have received your request to substitute the TKN EPA method 351.4 for Standard
Methods 4500 Norg C and 4500 NH3 D. At this time our database does not contain SM4500
NH3 D under the TKN heading. You may, however, begin using the new methods
immediately. We are currently working to update our database to reflect the recent changes
to the Federal Register. As soon as this work is completed, we will update your list of certified
parameters with the changes that you have requested. Once this is done we will issue a new
Attachment to your Certification with an effective date of September 12, 2007.
The same requirements applying to your present certification are applicable to the new
parameter addition.
Please contact Todd Crawford at [phone] ext. 251, if you have questions or need
additional information.
cc: Pat Donnelly
Todd Crawford
Raleigh Regional Office
cerely,
L�.
Dana tterwhite
Unit Supervisor
Laboratory Certification Section
N""o��l,,Carolma
�va&ra!!y
Laboratory Section 1623 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1623 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.dwalab.ore Location: 4405 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh. NC 27607 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

ELECTRICAL DAMAGE TO UV SYSTEK
Subject: ELECTRICAL DAMAGE TO UV SYSTEM
From: "SPAIN, TOM" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:05:38 -0400
To: "'Shannon Langley"' <[e-mail]>
Shannon,
tJt+o ,V sS q
via of, at I&.
14e04Le1Voa+ WR.F
On 7-15-07 around 4:50 p.m. we had an electrical fire in one bank of our UV system. We had to shut the whole
system down and I started a sodium hypochlorite feed at a dosage of 0.7 mg/I of chlorine content at the front
of the chlorine contact tank by 5:15 p.m... We were able to get one bank of the UV back in full service by 6:30
p.m. and cut off the sodium hypochlorite feed at this time. I have parts on order to repair the damaged bank and
we have been working all week on removing damaged parts and replacing them with what we had in stock. I
expect that full repairs will not be complete for 2 to 3 weeks. I notified emergency management on 7-15-07
about the problem and discussed it with Matt Matthews. He agreed with the action I took. I'm sending this
e-mail as a follow up on the progress of the repairs. I will keep you posted on the progress of the repairs or if we
experience further problems with the UV. At present the system is disinfecting very well. Please call me if you
have any questions.
THANK YOU!
Tom Spain
Director --Henderson WRF
PO Box 1434
Henderson, NC 27536
e-mail: tspaiiiCdci.hend(,i-son.nc.n5
Off# 252-431-6081
Cell# 252-432-0446
Fax# [phone]
o, 1 6/25/2007 9:38 AM

June 20, 2007
Thomas M. Spain, WWTP Director
City of Henderson
P.O. Box 1434
Henderson, North Carolina 27536-1434
Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
'.iEIGH REGIO[iAL Of�ICE
Subject: NPDES Permit — DRAFT review
Permit NC0020559
Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
Vance County
Dear Mr. Spain:
In response to your request to renew the subject NPDES permit, the Division of Water Quality (the
Division) hereby transmits this draft for your review and comment. We encourage you read it carefully to
ensure a thorough understanding of its limits and conditions.
Concurrent with this transmittal, the Division will solicit public comment on this draft by publishing a
notice in newspapers having circulation in the general Vance County area, as required by the NPDES
Program. Should you wish to correct errors, if any, or provide comments regarding this draft, please
contact the DENR / DWQ / NPDES Program no later than 30 days after receiving this document.
Changes to Your Previous Permit. The Division has made minor changes to your previous permit.
Based on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) of your discharge analytical data, several parameters
no longer show reasonable potential to exceed their respective water -quality stream standard. Therefore,
we have removed parameters MBAS (surfactants), and the metals nickel and silver from your effluent
monitoring requirements (see permit sections A. (L) and A. (2.). We have also added a Total Residual
Chlorine (TRC) limit of 17 ug/L consistent with the new statewide stream standard for chlorine. You
must comply with this limit and monitoring only if you add chlorine to your treatment system.
Following the 30-day public comment period, the Division will review all pertinent comments and take
appropriate action prior to issuing a final NPDES permit. If you have questions concerning the draft
permit for your facility, please contact me by e-mail, [e-mail], or call me at (919) 733-
5083, extension 597.
Enclosure: NPDES Permit
cc: Raleigh Regional Office, Surface Water Protection Section; [NPDES Permit and Fact Sheet]
NPDES Program Ann. Joe Corporon [NPDES Permit and Fact Sheet]
Aquatic Toxicology Unit [NPDES Permit and Fact Sheet]
EPA Region 4 [NPDES Permit, Fact Sheet, and Permit Renewal Application]
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Visit us on the INTERNET @ www.enr.state.nc.us

Permit 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
(NPDES)
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Sta el -215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Caro ' it ental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Ac�ended,
City of
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater
1646
to receiving waters desighkieq as
limitations, monitoring req
The permit shall become effective
at the
0
the Roanoke River Basin in accordance with effluent
ditions set forth in Parts I, II, and III hereof.
2007.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on March 31 , 2012.
Signed this day , 2007
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Pemrit NC0020559
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
■ Primary ch
■ Trickling f
• Secondary
■ Pure oxyge
■ Final clarif
•. Tertiary fit
■ Post aeratii
■ UV disinfe
■ Dissolved
■ Pure oxyge
■ Anaerobic
■ Aerobic di
■ Sludge hot
■ Sludge dry
located at the 1
Vance County, and
me in Henderson,
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.

a
0
Outfa11001
(flows north)
US HWY 158
City of Henderson
Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
n
State Grid/Ouad:
B 25 SW / Henderson
Latitude:
36021' 01' N
Receiving Stream:
Nuthush Creek
L ongihule:
780 24' 40" W
Drainage Basin:
Roanoke
Sub -Basin:
03-02-06
Stream Class:
C
0
2
0
U
Approximate property
perimeter
00M.
Facility ,W,
Location
(map not to scale)
NPDES Permit NCO020559
NORTH Vance County

Permit NCO020559
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
cnecified helnw'
EFFLUENT
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Measurement
Sample
Sample
Average
Average
Maximum
Frequency
Type
Location'
Flow
6.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or
Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20°C
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
(April 1- October 31)
BOD, 5-day, 20°C 1110.0
mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
(November 1— March 31)
2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
D y/X
Composite
ElBuentid
Total Suspended Solids
NH3 as N
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
ail
Composite
Effluent
(April 1- October 31)
NH3 as N
4.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
Daily
omposite
Effluent
(November 1 -March 31)
Total Phosphorus 3
0.5 mg/L quarterl rage
1 eek
Co ite
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine a
eek
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform (geometric
200/100 ml
0 ml
y
Grab
Effluent
mean)
pH
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
Daily
Composite
Effluent
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
IN
Total Mercury
0.012 µg/L
1/Week
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite_
Effluent
Cbronic Toxicity
1/Quarter
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. Effluent pH shall not fall below 6.0 nor exceed 9.0 standard units.
6. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not fall below 6.0 mg/L.
7. Sampling and analysis for mercury shall conform to analytical techniques specified in test method EPA 1631E.
8. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 90 %; January, April, July and October [see A. (4.)].
The Permittee shall discharge no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.

Permit 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
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENT'S
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Measurement
Sample
Sample
CHARACTERISTICS
Average
Average
Maximum
Frequency
Type
Location'
Flow
4.14 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20°C r
6.0 mg/L
9.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
(April 1- October 31)
Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 200C r
12.0 mg/L
18.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
(November 1— March 31)
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Influent and
Effluent
NH3 as N
3.0 mg/L
9.0 mg/L
Composite
Effluent
(April 1- October 31)
tDComposite
NH3 as N
6.0 mg/L
I8.0 mg/L
Composite
Effluent
(November 1 -March 31)
Total Phosphorus
1.0 mg/L quarterly average
1 k
site
Effluent
(April 1- September 30) 3
Total Phosphorus
1.5 mg/L quarterly
/Week
Composite
Effluent
(October 1 - March 31) 3
Total Residual Chlorine'\AP4>
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform (geometric
mean)
200/1
400/10
Grab
Effluent
PH 5
L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen'
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
1/Month
Composite
Effluent
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Total Mercury 7
0.012 µg/L
UWeek
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity'
1/Quarter
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. Effluent pH shall not fall below 6.0 nor exceed 9.0 standard units.
6. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not fall below 6.0 mg/L.
7. Sampling and analysis for mercury shall conform to analytical techniques specified in test method EPA 1631E.
8. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 90 % with testing in January, April, July and October [see A. (4.)].
The Permittee shall discharge no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.

Permit NCO020559
A. (3.) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Effluent Characteristics
Monitoring Require ents
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
I Sample
Locationl
Dissolved Oxygen
Weekly
Grab
U, DI, D2
H
Weekly
Grab
U, DI, D2
Temperature
Weekly
Grab
U, DI, D2
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
U, DI, D2
Dissolved Oxygen A 'l—October
Monthly
Profile
DI, D2
H (April -October)
Monthly
Profile 2
DI,D2
Temperature (April -October)
Monthly
Proffe%
DI, D2
Secchi Depth (April -October)
Monthly
C to 3
Di, D2
NO2. NO3 Aril -October)
Monthly
Co s 3
D1, D2
NH3-N (April -October)
Monthly
orrrposi
DI, D2
TKN Aril -October
Monthly
Composite�4
DI, D2
Total Phosphorus (April -October)
Monthly
Composite 3
DI, D2
Chloro h 11-a (April -October)
M
o osite 3
DI, D2
Notes:
i. U = upstream at NC Highway I 1 tre o lin s�2 = downstream
immediately above the conflu ce Indian n Cro d eeV/
2. Profiles should be taken at one eter int Is.
3. Composites shall be cc s ti c s thr out the photic zone (i.e. two
times the secchi deo .)
As per 15A NCAC 213.050 (4), stre may be discontinued at such time as flow conditions in
the receiving waters or extre eather co
'lion ill result in a substantial risk of injury or death to
persons collecting samples. In c cases,
ach day that sampling is discontinued, written justification for
the discontinuance shall be speci a
nitoring report for the month in which the event occurred.
This provision shall be strictly cons ed
d may not be utilized to avoid the requirements of 15A NCAC
213.0500 when performance of these re uirements
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 11 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 NC0020559
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the
permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two
following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest
concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that
does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment,"
collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina
Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter code TGP3B
for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be
sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DENR / DWQ / En;onm S 'ences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina -1
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with a onmental S ' es Section no later than
30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the r is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all s . g the 'c&P (S;ical measure) is and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by lab upervi r nd ORC or approved designate
signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxic' s mus easured and reported if chlorine is
employed for disinfection of the waste earn.
Should there be no discharge of flo in the fa it ty d month ' loch toxicity monitoring is
required, the Permittee will co lete o ti n loca t the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form
indicating the facility n pemv um rpe co and the month/year of the report with the
notation of "No Flow" ' co o e fo rt shall be submitted to the Environmental
Sciences Branch at the e, cited a
Should the Permittee fail to itor durin o which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will
be required during the followi onth.
Should any test data from this mo g r uirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality indicate potential imp a o 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.

Permit NCO020559
A. (5.) Effluent Pollutant Scan
The Permittee shall perform an annual pollutant scan of its treated effluent for the following parameters:
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Total Kjeldabl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Total Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic con
Volatile organic compc
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachlorii
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromome
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
l,l-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
Trans-1,2dichloroethylene
l,ldichloroethylene
1,2dichloropropane
1,3dichloropropylme
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)mthracene
adiene
e
mine
ne
ne
Pyrene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
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- DMR-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 Flies,1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.

NCDENR / DWQ / NPDES Program
FACTSHEET
FOR NPDES PERNHT RENEWAL
Permit NC0020559
INTRODUCTION
City of Henderson / Henderson Water Reclamation Facility, herein called Henderson or the Permittee,
requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to dispose treated wastewater
to the surface waters of the state. The permittee's 5-year NPDES permit expired March 31, 2007 and they
have requested renewal from the Division of Water Quality (the Division). This Fact Sheet summarizes
background information and rationale used by the Division's NPDES Program to determine permit limits
and monitoring conditions for renewal.
FACILITY RECORDS REVIEW
Facility Description. Henderson W WTP (Table 1) is 4.14 MGD (6.0 MGD upon expansion), Grade IV,
publicly owned treatment works (POTW) with a Pretreatment Program. The treatment system consists of a
bar screen and grit chamber, Parshall flume, influent flow meter, 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, sludge holding tank and sludge drying beds.
Table 1.
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name
City of Henderson / City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
Applicant Address
P.O. Box 1434, Henderson, NC 27536
Facility Address
1646 West Andrews Ave., Henderson, NC
Permitted Flow (MGD)
Phased Permit: 4.14 and 6.0 (upon expansion)
Type of Waste
Domestic (90%) / Industrial (10%)
Facility Grade / Permit Status
Grade IV / Renewal
Drainage Basin / County
Roanoke River Basin / Vance County
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream
Nutbush Creek
Regional Office
Raleigh
Stream Classification
C
State Grid / USGS Quad
B 25 SE / Vicksboro, NC
303(d) Listed?
Yes
Permit Writer
Joe R Corporon
Subbasin
03-02-06
Date:
23May07
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
3.8
A4W
Lat 36° 21' 01" N Long. 78' 24' 40" W
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
0.2
Winter 7Q 10 (cfs)
0.4
30Q2 (cfs)
0.5
Average Flow (cfs)
3.5
IWC (%)
97
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES Permit NCO020559
Page 1 of 5

CORRESPONDENCE
Staff Report. Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) conducted its annual facility inspection and Shannon
Langley (RRO) prepared a Staff Report dated October 19, 2006. RRO found the facility in good
condition and generally in compliance with the permit, but notes that recent flooding events have
inundated the plant. Increase in local residential development and sewer collection system stormwater
inflow and infiltration (M) have exacerbated this problem. RRO recommends that the Permittee
adequately protect, and certify that treatment units are protected from, a 100-year flood. RRO further
recommends that the NPDES Program renew the permit in accordance with the Basin Plan.
Division Records and Permittee's Renewal Application. The current permit expired on March 31,
2007, and the Division received the Permittee's prompt request to renew (Standard Form C) on
September 29, 2006. The Permittee requested that Division renewal keep the phased limit page for
flow expansion to 6.0 MGD, as previously approved and permitted. This request will be granted.
COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Waste Load Allocation (WLA). The Division prepared a WLA for the receiving stream in March 1994
and developed effluent limits and monitoring requirements considering proposed flows of 4.14 MGD and
6.0 MGD. At 4.14 MGD permitted, the current in -stream waste concentration (IWC) of 97 % considered a
summer 7Q10 flow of 0.2 cfs in Nutbush Creek. The Division views these limits and monitoring
requirements appropriate for renewal except as outlined below (see Renewal Summary).
Verifying Existing Stream Conditions. This facility discharges to Nutbush Creek [Stream Index No.
23-8-(1)], a Class C waterbody within the Roanoke River Basin. Nutbush Creek is impaired [DWQ
303(d) list, February 2003] based on biological data. Although the causes of impairment are currently
"unknown," the Division suspects that contributors to impairment include this major municipal point
source, storm sewer point sources, and non -point source urban runoff.
DMR Instream Data and Effluent Flow Review. The Division reviewed 48 months of monthly
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) for January 2003 through December 2006. The Permittee's
DMRs appear regular, thorough, and complete. The Division compared daily flows for years 2005, 2006,
and part of 2007. These data yield a 27-month average flow of 2.4 MGD, or a discharge amounting to
about 58 % of currently permitted capacity (Phase 1).
Reasonable Potential Analyses (RPA) — Pollutants of Concern (POCs). The Division established
renewal permit limits and monitoring for metals and toxicants by evaluating the Permittee's analytical
database from January 2005 through March 2007. To establish POCs, the Division reviewed the permit
application, discharge monitoring reports (2003 through 2006), pretreatment data, and the Basin Plan. The
Division applied the standard Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) to calculate a maximum predicted
concentration for each POC. Each maximum was then compared to the POC's freshwater Chronic
Standard ('fable 2) and also to its Final Acute Value ('/2 FAV) for freshwater (Table 3).
Note: The Division also calculated RPA for the permitted Phase H flow (6.0 MGD) and the results
are identical to Phase I shown below (4.14 MGD).
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NCO020559
Page 2 of 5

If by the above method, a POC showed reasonable potential to exceed its %FAV, the Division
included a permit limit as a Daily Maximum to protect the receiving stream against acute toxic
affects. Similarly, if the maximum exceeded the chronic standard, a Weekly Average limit was added
to the permit. Table Comments and Renewal Actions reference the previous permit, effective January
1, 2003. Findings and renewal actions are summarized in Renewal Summary, Table 4.
Table 2. Henderson WRF -- Chronic RPA Findings and Renewal Action
Samples
Hits
Maximum
Allowable
RP*
Comments /
Parameter
(n)
(n)
Predicted
Concentration
y/n
Renewal Action
No changes to pemut. Action
Copper
108
108
34 µg/L
7 µg/L
Yes
Level Standard — no toxicity
problem, therefore no limit
Mercury
103
103
13 n
12 n
Yes
No changes to the permit.
M 3AS
77
1
271 µg/L
500 µg/L
No
Delete permit monitoring
to pretreatment program)
Nickel
32
32
23 µg/L
91 µg/L
No
Delete permit monitoring
to pretreatmentprogram)
Silver
61
0
Not detected
_
_
Delete permit monitoring
::treatmentprogram)
to
No changes to permit. Action
Zinc
53
53
99 µg/L
52 µg/L
Yes
Level Standard — no toxicity
problem, therefore no limit
*RP = data indicate reasonable potential to exceed instream Water Quality Standard.
Table 3. Henderson WRF -- Acute RPA Findin s and Renewal Action
Parameter
Samples
Hits
Maximum
/, FAV /
RP*
Comments /
n
n
Predicted <
CIVIC
/n
Renewal Action
No changes to permit. Action
Copper
108
108
34 µg/L
7 µg/L
Yes
Level Standard — no toxicity
Problem, therefore no limit
No acute criteria - standard
Mercury
103
103
13 ng/L
_
—
based on bio-accumulation
see Table 2
MBAS
77
1
271 ggIL
No Acute Standard
Nickel
32
32
23 µg/L
261 µg/L
No
Delete permit monitoring
see Table 2
Silver
61
0
Not detected
Delete permit monitoring
see Table 2
No changes to permit. Action
Zinc
53
53
99 µg/L
67 µg/L
Yes
Level Standard — no toxicity
problem, therefore no limit
*RP = data indicate reasonable potential to exceed instream Water Quality Standard.
Effluent Total Residual Chlorine (TRC). The Permittee currently disinfects effluent using ultra -violet
(UV) facilities, but reserves chlorination and de -chlorination facilities as redundant backup. Effluent
Monitoring currently includes a Weekly Average TRC limit of 17 µg/L (compliance applicable only if
chlorine is used). No other changes recommended.
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing. The Division reviewed Henderson's quarterly Whole
Effluent Toxicity testing records from January 2003 through January 2007 (25 quarterly tests including
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NC0020559
Page 3 of 5

second -species tests). These tests indicate, "pass" except for two - in July 2004 and April 2005. These
exceptions were followed by monthly tests indicating, "pass" at > 100 %.
Compliance Notices of Violation (NOVs) and Penalty Assessment. The Permittee has an excellent
permit compliance record with no penalties assessed since September 2001.
Pretreatment Compliance. The Permittee manages an NCDENR-approved Long Term
Management Plan (LTMP) or Pretreatment Program, as required under federal regulations 40CFR
403 and NC State regulations 15A NCAC 2H.0900. As of this reporting, Henderson services 4
significant industrial users (SlUs) detailed in the application to renew (Supplemental Application
Information, Part F). The Division requires this facility to continue this Pretreatment Program.
RENEWAL SUMMARY
The following permit changes and renewal recommendations reference the previous permit (effective
January 1, 2003).
Effluent Monitorine
Table 4_ Permit Renewal — Summary of Changes to Previous Permit:
Parameter
RP*
Comments / Renewal Action M i=
TRC
—
Added 17 u limit and monitoring for Total Residual Chlorine(only if used for disinfection
Copper
Yes
No changes to thepermit; continue monitoring 2/Month
Mercury
Yes
No changes to thepermit; continue monitoring 1/Week
MBAS
No
Deleted monitoring to pretreatment LTMP, as appropriate)
Nickel
No
Deleted monitoring to pretreatment LTMP, as appropriate)
Silver
No
Deleted monitoring to pretreatment LTMP, as appropriate)
Zinc
Yes
No changes to the t• continue monitoring 2/Month
*RP = data indicate reasonable potential to exceed parameter -specific instream water -quality standard.
Instream Monitoring: — Previous Requirements:
Upstream (U)—1/Week
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
pH
Temperature
Conductivity
Renewal: — No changes recommended.
Downstream at DI & D2
(1/Month —April through October)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
pH
Temperature
Conductivity
Secchi Depth
NO2 + NO3
Ammonia (NH3)
TKN
Total Phosphorus
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NCO020559
Page 4 of 5

PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice:
Permit Scheduled to Issue:
NPDES UNIT CONTACT
If you have question"-
- Joe Corpordn at
June 20, 2007
August 20, 2007
of a above information or on the attached permit, please
S xt. 597.
COMMENTS
NAME: DATE:
REGIONAL SUPERVISOR: DA
NPDES SUPERVISOR: DATE:.
Fact Sheet
Renewal — NPDES NCO020559
Page 5 of 5

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Henderson WWTP
NCO020559
Time Period Jan2005-Mar2OO7
Qw (MGD)
4.14
701OS (CIS)
0.2
701OW(Cls)
0.4
3002 (ds)
0.5
Avg. Stream Flow, OA (ds)
3.5
Rec'ving Stream Nutbush Creek
WWTP Claw IV
IWC (%) 0 7Q10S 96.977
0 7010W 94.132
0 3002 92.771
® OA 64.707
Stream Class C
Outfall 001
Qw=4.14MGD
STANDARDS&
PARAMETER
TYPE
CRITERIA (2)
POL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Ill
wwos/ Bray/
n �aat. w.ernea Allueaele cw
CMonk Awe
Acute: 7
RIP =YES
Copper
NC
7 AL 72
uW1
108 108
34
_ ___ __
Chronic 7
R_P=YES _______
Acute: N/A
Mercury
NO
12
2.0000
ng/L
103 103
13
1
__
Chronic---12
_ _ ----------
RP=YES--------_----
Acute: N/A
MBAS
NC
500
ug/L
77 1
271.2
-----------------------
Chronic 516
RP=NO
Acute: 261
RP = NO
Nickel
NC
88 261
uWL
32 32
23
__ _ ___ __
Chronic 91
_ _ _______
RP=NO
Acute: 1
Not Detected
Silver
NC
0.06 AL 1.23
ug/L
61 0
1.0
__ _ ---__
Chronic0
_ _ _
Not Detected ----------------------
Acute: 67
RP YES
Zinc
NC
50 AL 67
uyL
53 53
99.2
Chronic-_-62
------------------------
RP=YES
Legend:
C= Ca2Yrrogenic
NC= Non -carcinogenic
A= Aesthetic
Freshwater Discharge
20559 RPA - 2007, rpa
61122007

Table 1. Project Information
Facility Name
WWTP Grade
NPDES Permit
Outfall
Flow, Qw (MGD)
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
7010s (cfs)
7010w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
CIA (cfs)
Time Period
Data Source(s)
Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
IV
NC0020559
001
4.1
Nutbush Creek
C
0.2
0.4
0.5
3.5
Jan2005-Mar2007
BIMS / DMRs
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
Par09
Part
Par11
Part
Par13
Par14
Par15
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Copper
NC
7
AL
7.3
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Mercury
NC
12
2.0
ng/L
MBAS
NC
500
ug/L
Nickel
NC
88
261
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Silver
NC
0.06
AL
1.23
ug/L
Zinc
NC
50
AL
67
ug/L
20559 RPA - 2007, input
6/12/2007

Table 1. Project Information
Facility Name
WWTP Grade
NPDES Permit
Qutfall
Flow, Ow (MGD)
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
7Q10s (cfs)
7010w (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
CIA (cfs)
Time Period
Data Source(s)
Henderson WWTP
IV
NC0020559
001
4.1
Nutbush Creek
C
0.2
0.4
0.5
3.5
Jan2005-Mar2007
BIMS / DMRs
Par01
Par02
Par03
Par04
Par05
Par06
Par07
Par08
ParOg
Par1O
Par11
Par12
Par13
Par14
Par15
Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Name Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
20559 RPA - 2007, input
6/12/2007

U
+O N W V� fOTA W N+ONCeJ W (Nl�>IJN+OfAO W V O UA W N� O m 0 V O1N AfJN�OIOm V mNA4iN��rom V mNA W N�Oa0 (O V ONA W N�
N N N N N N ... N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N OOiNN(OTN(OTN OOi fOT OOi N fOT (OT (TN
�GRV so. IN WP:lj 74P AOl OJ tO Vfp+NWV WO{OW VOl p OI tJ++
+m V W Ol +N + W fY V V V P Ammo V (O+NU V W Opp V m f0 W fY++
00000 00 O 0000 00 0000000000 0000 o o O O o O O
0
N PI) to N N N N N N N N N N b b^
O O O pp O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UOi fOT (0)�N (OTBNNNlO/1 fOTNNN
O A OV O(DNVW+WN NW
� 9O
o a m.io mtn�w+a(.� ui.�p
0
0 0 00000000co ocr
?� OG.A
fJN� O
N O as O V O�
+ON O� V W (mTA W N W Omm V W UTA 41N+OfAb IO V O�OIA fJN+OlO W J W (RA W N+OtO W V W fTA W N+OOP V ON±fJN+Om01 V OI IRAWN+
O O O O O O O O O O O N N O O N O
00000000000SSooSo
N NtP (T N OiN NN WORN (T N Oi (T (T
0
b
O
N+
. . .
. . . . . . .
W N�AtNO
WV
W
WOAON+
(NT�
ANINT
fnf++
W�OVR
m.
+U VfWD+�mtNJ tJ
JNV
W
+VfOVJWOR
+
woo A0
+NWOI
NWV
v
�
R
+OR W.-p7fp
W+
'a88N88+S
+N
N+
N��N�
NA
NWWN��N++
W
J+JNWW.a
N
�
SNVOO
8%,
=HV..8.88
889
S
888-t348
+
8888H
SSSS
8S0r
8888888
�d= '<�sN
RUH8&�
'ma
8 888.
add
�bg
ggo

T
n
J
Q
z
a
J
a
H
z
W
H
0
IL
w
_J
m
a
z
0
f�
Q
W
w
O N N S �: O(5qS� 00 SN R O V N m g O O NO0N O� N qro O�ON
�(JN 1-oi O NM N Nb6C4 —N. N
V:NN�-:q ., ((!GOO NNN (OVNm(O aY0(NO. O O�gMN N qq MNN
—NN—mm— NN MN —NvMN —NNN
0
N
00000000000
N N N N N N N N N N N
S vO Oc'1 S� OrSS W 0
mN N G, N N GO h O: GO M n(n
.-(v - tV •- fV -tJ - N
o ono
oo$o
N N N N
NMVN(p�. eAD Wa00'!NN WN 3Im 0�SSWW0001 ONi6mSWSO"O^0�aNtO'0�0'N"eON-N'NNt'1M'(7 Cl C)fMoo
r rrrA ^^"' `tNV (V
00000000 000000 0000a o000000000 0000000000 00 00000 00 00000000000
rv�ro �n of �omn roof acN oi' ai aivrn orri ai of rovi rc � ��c �i ro��moiav e 6 6i+i ni ..i ni ni of NN e nib of of vi rieerui
N IA (Li`CD ([I (dn (O DO OONMr Oi Oi V nn 666 C66 N(O 666 6(6666 Ci 7444 VM 66(6 66 C�(V 6Ci K(h M6 C]V 4r6
(O(O(OGO(O(O( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0a0 a0 atO t otO 0 a0 0n0 0 o0 a 0
000000000000000000
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
(onnnnnnnrnnnnnn
000000000000000
000000000000000
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N C1<Yf tl)A a0WO NCI t00W WW �-- aAD��SWmmWWOWWW80`'.O-�O�00------WW�'��"N�NNt+Of��t•1 f7 m^(�'O
rArrn nrrco aGm
e

IWpn moN �gmpoa
N mmm �N
NCO
II
'J Qm �Cp •..
p� cp> Jc cN cN
�InGVC GGG
J O O O O O
Q tJ H h A
u i
Z p
m
N YI h A
a
n
Q
In IDN pN pN pN pN Nlpn pN 1pOplO NIpO p�NN pN p�lpO In ifll(p71/)�NN pN NN NIA Ipp/)Inl/1NNNN N10101(J �O IANN NCO IONN NtANI(11n 1nN N10 t0 t0 f0�mtO fD rO�
.�NNNNNNNNtVNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN(�VNNNNNNNNt�VNNNNNNNNNNN(QVNNNNNNNNNNNNt�VNNNNNNN
n
N m Y m f0 A m W 0^ d m m m W N N N N N N N N N N CO'1 t'n M tmn C'I (m'I cm'1 c] t'm1 N< d V d d V V d d Y N �(I If1 N N N N N N N S m m t0 [O m m tD m m N A
�I
S Nmm OON
A 00�
�06 CNN
n
n
x
6 U
J 0000p0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Q OSSYOSSSOOSSSOSSSSOSSSSSSSSOSSSSSOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSCOO SSSSSSSSSSSO
Q N er-eea eC 0 0 0.. 0
Oi J
Q
(C
888g88SSS88SSS888S888SSS888SS8SSS8888SS8SSS88888888S88SS8S8888SS88888�5
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN N
fl
n
0
m
A
Q
�NmYmmAm W o.-^MammAm W NNNNNNNNNNt m(Nm'1 �imNnnnav a a V d d o NNI[I IA InN Vlmm mN mmm m Col

.0
J
Q
Z
Q
J
Q
F-
Z
W
F-
O
a
W
J
In
Q
Z
O
S
u
Y
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0..00. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IG fD N G�WtO Oi rfDN ANNNNn �IINNN�D N� N
SSSo�SSSSSS88258888880SSSaa aSSSSMOM SSSSSSSSSSSSS�o�SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
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 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 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N m d N m r^ (O m m mm 0 0 m 0 W 8 w T m w 0 w O w w O o O' a moo - w O O 7!'' N !g ' m� p' N''
0000.0
og0000
0 000a
SSSSSS
N N N N N N
N m V N m n m m o N m a m m r m m o N m d w 0 d O o o^ O' O^ m p m' w N f' R. ;N� R 8 n' m o
r n n n r r n r m m m m m m m m m m w w w w Ol
ro

J
�j
V OI OIT a)OI OIT OIN OIN W JOi 41A W N i O NCa V OA! W A ON Oco V W A W Ni0(OW JOINA W N�O(O W V OIN A W N+ OfO lP V OI OVA W N+
O t O W V O l f T A W N+ O( O
O
Y
0
O
Y
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 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 N N N N N N N N N
m
O
r
n
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r
EMM
x?, = . nq
O C_
a a < Q
N
F
o+o
_ 000
000
ooS �'SSS
+Ot00 m Jmom W N A W Nao o gJO+UNi A W N+O NAW J�fAT AIJN� Oro fDr O�NA N �O(Om JO to W ow
O
Y
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 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 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Ol OIOmNN(1�(TNN(T4�tT(I�NGitnN(nN(T(I�NNfT(It(I�N N(TtTtI�fTNN(1�tTNtli(1�(TNtnNN(TN(T N(TNt/�U�(TNNNU�U�tT fT (T <TNNN
N W �i
N
A
A
w
mPD
OOi
m
O
NW
Oj
N
A
A
b
W O
W W' A
0 0 a o
0
0
0
o
c
o r
K%
<y
T
�dn
Ou
� O C_
GiF
A
+ V N
No 41 m N N
N
A
N
O
X
R
v.
Z
D
W
r
m
v
O
1
m
Z
D
r
Z
D

00 m0m00tp0O yoyoy
ON V %R S
0 0
m N
0m0
NN
00
dim
0W0oo
2N<N
0p00
NM V
00pmt0pp0
Nth Q(7
0 0
N
VNVmm
p4yy9
Vth
N M
MN
M
MNVN
N V
NthvM
M N
N NON o o088882588oee8o888888o 8�pee88
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 N
0 00 0 00 0 0m000g0000
N NMNNNmmNM ( NN MN
88888o88oe88888oe8
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
NmVmml�n0mm��mm0m0J0WWON1WWNW0mg800--00-00---^"--mmn!-m--tl'`"NN'---- 'CJ l7mAC'1 V
m
Nmammnmwo�N�nVmmnmwo�NmVmmnmwgo�"o'$�e�000�Nma�m�mwR'c�"'N'N��"��,�����p
n n n n n n n n m m m m m m m m m m W w w w w W w w w w

Form WWTP-BYPASS/UPSET
Treatment Plant (WWTP) Bypass/Upset Reporting Form 5 Day Report
PART I
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 # 200701322
Region: Raleigh
County: Vance
SPECIFIC location of the treatment units bypassed or where the upset occurred in the facility:
Water left plant just after trickling filter. Everything after trickling filter was bypassed.
Was the WWTP compliant with permit requirements? ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 Unknown
Was samples be taken during bypass?: ❑ Yes ❑ No UnknowrM
Incident Started Dt: 04/15/07 Time: 03:00 PM Incident End Dt:
(mm-dd-yyyy) hh:mm AM/PM (mmdd-yyyy)
Estimated volume of the Bypass/Upset: 25000 gallons
Describe how the volume was determined:
Weather conditions during bypass/upset event:
Time:
hh:mm AM/PM
Did Bypass/Upset reach surface waters? 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown Volume reached surface waters (gallons): 25000
Surface water name:
Did the bypass/upset result in a fish kill? ❑Yes MNo ClUnknown If Yes, estimated number of fish killed? 0
SPECIFIC cause(s) of the Bypass/Upset:
m Severe Natural Condition . Pump Station Equipment Failure
WWTP-Bypass/Upset Form April 16, 2007 10:16 AM
Page 1

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
Severe Natural Condition
Describe the "severe natural condition" in detail?
How much advance warning did you have and what actions were taken in preparation for the
event?
Comments:
Pump Station Equipment Failure
What kind of notification/alarm systems are present?
Auto-dialer/telemetry (one-way communication)
Audible
Visual
SCADA (two-way communication)
Emergency Contact Signage
Other
Describe the equipment that failed?
What kind of situations trigger an alarm condition at this station (i.e. pump failure, power failure,
high water, etc.)?
Were notification/alarm systems operable?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
WWTP-Bypass/Upset Form April 16, 2007 10:16 AM Page 2

If no, explain:
If a pump failed, when was the last maintenance and/or inspection performed?
What specifically was checked/maintained?
If a valve failed, when was it last exercised?
Were all pumps set to alternate?
Did any pump show above normal run times prior to and during the SSO event?
Were adequate spare parts on hand to fix the equipment (switch, fuse, valve, seal, etc.)?
Was a spare or portable pump immediately available?
If a float problem, when were the floats last tested? How?
If an auto -dialer or SCADA, when was the system last tested? How?
Comments:
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
As a representative for the responsible party, I certify that the information contained in this report is true and accurate to
e best of my now ge.
Person submitting claim:
Signature:
Telephone Number:
Title
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 April 16, 2007 10:16 AM Page 3

DWO POINT SOURCE Fax:[phone] Apr 16 2007 8:25 P.04
',eM?Ag tvatuatton
lease PEI or Type
use Attachments if Need
Report Number: County: va-A C-
Type of Incident (CheckI One): 10 Complaint (?r—SprU 0 Other
Reporting Person: Phone Number. 'e;a - �f-1 -03 6S
Reporting Person!s Affiliation: rn
Incident Started: Date: Time: 1:!L-00 6", 20
I RQ in Pounds
MateriaJ Category Estimated Quantity Quantity Units Chemical Name (If Applicable) (U0rdrftS):
1&'Gal. OLbs.
I
]0
Gal. 0 Lbs.
I
P Gal. 0 Lbs.
I
Containment: 10 Yes G?RO
Location of the Spill:
Cleanup Completed:
Did the Material reach the Surface Waters? Surface. Water Name. JLLI u5� e�.
Did the Spill result in a Fish Kill? 10 Yes @f4o Estimated Number of Fish:'
Cause of the Spill:
If the Spill was from a Storage Tank please indicate the type: 0 AST 0 UST
Responsible Party- ei'L4 v Z
Contact: Phone Number. 2SZ- V52- o
yy
Address:
City / State / Zip:
On site Contact. Phone Number: 2 G7 21 - 41 3 2
Contact Agency: Pager Number -
Action Taken to Contain Spill, Clean Up Waste and Remediste the Site:
Comments:

DWO POINT SOURCE Fax:[phone] Apr 16 2007 8:25 P.05
Spill Response Evaluation
:ase Print or Type - Use Attachments if Need.. i
Other Agencies Notified
Agency Name and Phone Number Contact Name, Date, and Time of Contact

Taken by: J Peters
Date Occurred: 04/15t2007
IReported by: Tom Spain
ICounty: Vance
Weather Event:
Wx Event Name:
Event:
rmr Type:
FNF Class:
Fire Event:
OTHER EVENT: Sewage
NC Division of Emergency Management
Emergency Report Form (Rev 2.0)
Date Reported: 04/15/2007 Time Reported: 04:35 PM
Time Occurred: 03:00 PM
Agency: City of Henderson
City: HENDERSON
EVENT TYPE
HazMat Event:
HazMat Class: N/A
HazMat Mode: N/A
Non-FNF Event:
_ I
rcomplaint:
252-432-0446
Area: C 06
�SAR Event:
Event Description:
Approx 25,000 gallons of sewage spilled due to a pump failure. Spill started at 1500 hrs and ended at 1520 hrs. Spill entered Nutbush Creek. No public drinking
water source effected and no fish kill observed. There was nothing to clean up, high water in the creek washed spill away.
Attachments:
Deaths: Injuries: Evac: Radius:
Responsible Party:
Of Contact:
RP Phone:
IPOC Phone:
Event Location: 1646 W. Andrews Ave, Henderson, NC
Latitude (decimal degrees ) (NC inland range is 33.840 - 36.588 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
Longitude (decimal degrees) (NC inland range is 75.460 - 84.322 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
USFS Block -Square -Point System: Block= Square= Point=
RRT Request: No IRRT Mission No.: RRT Team Number:
LEMC: 13-0 :
Other Local Agencies:
COUNTY AGENCIES
PD: LFD: CHealth: Sewer: Y PWRK:
STATE AGENCIES
rAIC: SHP/SWP: IEnv. Mgt: A Water: DRP: CAP: DOT: DMV:

0�0F W A41f oQ Michael F. Easley, Governor
Y William G. Ross Jr, Secretary
r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O C Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
January 25, 2007
Mr. Thomas M Spain J
City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility l I JAN 2 9 2007
1646 West Andrews Avenue
Henderson, North Carolina 27537 DENR RALEIGH REGIBIAL OFFID
Subject•. Speculative Effluent Limits — -
City of Henderson
Proposed Discharge at Tar Pamlico River Basin
Warren County
Dear Mr. Spain: �k / 11 rIC00 2 S S L(
VAncR (—"�.
This letter is in response to your request for speculative effluent limits for a proposed wastewater discharge of 7.0
MGD into Sandy Creek near the Warren and Vance County line.
Receiving Stream: The proposed point of discharge is to Sandy Creek, approximately half a mile downstream of
Southerlands Pond, and 3.3 miles from Highway 401. This segment of Sandy Creek is classified B, NSW waters. A
segment downstream of the proposed discharge point is listed in the 2006 303(d) list as biological impaired.
Proposed Discharge to Sandy Creek in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin
There are several issues you should be aware of pertaining to this proposal:
1) The entire Tar -Pamlico River Basin has been designated as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) in response to
the problems associated with nutrient loading from both point source and non -point sources. As part of the
effort to reduce nutrient loading in the basin, the EMC adopted nutrient sensitive waters management
strategy rule in 1997. The rule specifically states that any new wastewater discharges with permitted flow
greater than or equal to 0.05 MGD, who are not members of the Tar -Pamlico Basin Association, shall be
required to offset their nutrient loads by funding nonpoint source control programs approved by the Division
of Water Quality prior to the issuance of their NPDES permit and at each renewal. Based on this
management strategy, the City's discharge into the Tar Pamlico River Basin would cost approximately
$2,163,330 to offset the nutrient load contribution (15A NCAC 2B. 0229 (c)). If Henderson decides to
proceed forward with this discharge, the Division recommends that the City contact Paul B. Blount at (919)
972-1290 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin Association.
2) Sandy Creek forms the headwaters of Swift Creek Swift Creek supports the only viable populations of the
Tar River spiny mussel (Elliptio (Canthyria) steinstansana), a federally endangered species. Swift Creek also
supports populations in North Carolina of five other mussel species listed by the State as threatened.
Presently portions of Sandy and Swift Creeks have been reclassified Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
because of the excellent water quality. You may wish to contact the Resources Agencies to discuss the City's
proposal (both US Fish & Wildlife and NC Wildlife Resources Commission have been copied on this letter).
3) Interbasin transfer issues must be resolved through the Division of Water Resources.
Speculative Limits: The speculative limits were developed based on an EPA -approved level B model on Sandy Creek
with an added wastewater discharge of 7.0 MGD.
Based on available information, speculative effluent limits for the proposed discharge of 7.0 MGD to Sandy Creek are
presented in Table 1. A complete evaluation of these limits and monitoring frequencies in addition to monitoring
requirements for metals and other toxicants, will be addressed upon receipt of a formal NPDES permit application
request.
I` Carona
ahu;1Y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Intemet: %w .ncwatcrqualitv.ore location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recyded/10%Post Consumer Paper

ivir. opam
Page 2 of 3
The model results do not show significant impact on predicted instream dissolved oxygen levels from this proposed
discharge for the speculative limitations for BOD5 and NH3 presented in Table L However, the Division does have
concerns regarding nutrient loading.
TABLE 1. Soeculative Limits for a Proposed Discharge
Effluent Characteristic
Effluent Limitations
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Daily Maximum
Flow
7.0 MGD
BODS, Summer
6.7 mg/1
10.0 /1
BOD5, Winter
13.3 I
20.0 /1
TSS
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
NH3 as N, Summer
1.1 mg/1
3.3 /l
NH3 as N, Winter
2.4 m /l
7.2 /l
TRC
19 u /l
Fecal coliform(geometric mean
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Total Nitrogen*
6 mg/1
Total Phosphorus*
1 mg/1
*Depending on membership in Tar -Pamlico River Basin Association {15A NCAC 2B.0229 (c)).
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (F_AA). Please note that the Division cannot guarantee that an NPDES permit for
a new discharge of 7.0 MGD will be issued with these speculative limits. Final decisions can only be made after the
Division receives and evaluates a formal permit application for the City's proposed discharge. In accordance with the
North Carolina General Statutes, the practicable wastewater treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse
impact on the environment is required to be implemented. Therefore, as a component of all NPDES permit
applications for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering alternatives analysis (EAA) must be prepared. The
FAA must justify requested flows, and provide an analysis of potential wastewater treatment alternatives. Alternatives
to a surface water discharge, such as spray/drip irrigation, wastewater reuse, or inflow/infiltration reduction, are
considered to be environmentally preferable. A copy of the EAA requirements is attached to this letter. Permit
applications for new or expanding flow will be returned as incomplete if all EAA requirements are not
adequately addressed. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the DWQ NPDES
Unit at 919-733-5083.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) EVEIS Requirements. A SEPA EA/EIS document must be prepared for
all projects that 1) need a permit; 2) use public money or affect public lands; and 3) might have a potential to
significantly impact the environment. For new wastewater discharges, significant impact is defined as a proposed
discharge of >500,000 gpd and producing an instream waste concentration of > 33% based on summer 7Q10 flow
conditions. For existing discharges, significant impact is defined as an expansion of > 500,000 gpd additional flow.
Since your proposed discharge is a new wastewater discharge of >500,000 gpd flow, you must prepare a
SEPA document that evaluates the potential for impacting the quality of the environment. The NPDES
Unit will not accept an NPDES permit application for the proposed new discharge until the Division has
approved the SEPA document and sent a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the State
Clearinghouse for review and comment. A SEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) should contain a clear
justification for the proposed project If the SEPA EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significant
adverse effect on the quality of the environment, you must then prepare a SEPA EIS (Environmental Impact
Statement). Since your proposed discharge is subject to SEPA, the EAA requirements discussed above will
need to be folded into the SEPA document. The SEPA process will be delayed if all EAA requirements are
not adequately addressed. If you have any questions regarding SEPA EA/EIS requirements, please contact
Hannah Stallings with the DWQ Planning Branch at [phone], ext. 555.

Mr. Spain
Page 3 of 3
Should you have any questions about these speculative limits or NPDES permitting requirements, please feel free to
contact Agyeman Adu-Poke at [phone], extension 508.
Sincerely,
4Susan A. Wilson, P.E.
Supervisor, NPDES Western Program
Attachment: EAA Guidance Document
cc: (without Attachment)
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Central Files
NPDES Permit File, NC0020559
US Fish & Wild Life/Tom Augspurger
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
Tar -Pamlico River Basin Association/Paul B. Blount
P.O. Box 1847
Greenville, NC 27835
NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Inland Fisheries/Fred Hams
1721 Mail Service Centel
Raleigh, NC 27699-1721

':k Cer7i N)5/Ob
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: [phone] FAX: [phone]
November 7, 2006
Mr. Charles Wakild
NC Division of Water Quality
Environment and Natural Resources
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
RE: Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
Backup ORC
NPDES # NCO020559
Dear Mr. Wakild:
We have hired a chief operator, Kenneth Gerard Bello to replace Linda Leyen.
As of today, we would like to make Kenneth Gerard Bello our primary backup ORC of the
City of Henderson's Water Reclamation Facility. Linda Leyen will remain an alternate
backup ORC. Mandy Tingen Hall will serve as an alternate backup ORC until November
30"' when her contract will expire.
If you should require additional information or have any questions, please contact me at
252-431-6081.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Spain /
Director (ORC) HWRF
City of Henderson
Copy to: Jerry Moss, City Manager
Mark Warren, Assistant City Manager
Kenneth Gerard Bello, Chief Operator
Files

Water Pi tion Control System Desil ition Form
WPCSOCC
NCAC 15A:08G .0201
General Information:
Permittee Owner/OfficerrNName:
Mailing Address:
City: /V State: (-, Zip:
Telephone Number: (J�ri 7<31`- � t! 0T
!///./jr7
Signature: �t — Date: /,/-
....................................................................smog,
Facility Information:
Facility: �E"•/t��G
/7^J l t/�( �[��
�C
�;-l�l�iA�
ltn/ Y/dl���
Permit Number:
���- �� r�� J J County:
y4lyG%•
! SUBMIT A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH TYPE OF SYSTEM!
Mark (X) Type of Facility Class (I — 4) Class
Wastewater Plant ✓ `d4 Spray Irrigation N/A
Physical/Chemical Land Application _ N/A
Collection System Subsurface N/A
............................................................. 0..........I
Operator in Responsible Charge:
Print Name: / r a .PP
177, 5-
Certificate Type and Grade: X_ 1_0 t
Social Security #:. OK- 2v2.5 6-
Certificate #: ��� J
Work Telephone: (,2f2-) /43/- 4 b V Signature: tip
Back -Up Operator in Responsible Charge:
Print Name: Social Security # : �' 7 - r7t,
Certificate Type and Grade:
tv V
Work Telephone: ( �131- bell Signature:
Mail or Fax to: WPCSOCC
1618 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1618
Fax:[phone]
Certificate
/#: 73 Z �)
Revised 10/2000

o;
gate
S�4
J;
THE WASTEWATER IRFATMFNT PLC
,e
here
has met the 1 i 1 ren;� + ' r c.+' ih� Ititin tsta
pursuant to Article 3 1I,t c:
H
fi Gra e`7
i
iRTI FICATIO
r
,the. (rrlilicatiQp
na Gcnm:l Stain
WAS I Fk k I Ef? TRF,vrN11,NT �7vT (►Pt+:HAT
CERTIFICATE
L_2 1 (` tlrt a
7379 -'

lr.=
1
�t a
NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(This form is best filled out on computer, rather than hard copy)
Date: 10/I912QQb
County: Vance
To: NPDES Discharge Permitting Unit Permitee: Henderson WRF
Atm. NPDES Reviewer: Carolyn Bryant Application/ Permit No.: NCO020559
Staff Report Prepared By: Shannon Langlev
Project Name: City of Henderson Nutbush WRF
SOC Priority Project? (Y/1) N If Yes, SOC No. N/A
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. This application is (check all that apply): ❑ New N Renewal
❑ Modification
2. Was a site visit conducted in order to prepare this report? N Yes or ❑ No.
a. Date of site visit: 09/19/2006
b. Person contacted and telephone number: Tom Spain (ORC)
c. Site visit conducted by: Shannon Langley
d. Inspection Report Attached: N Yes or ❑ No.
3. Keeping BIMS Accurate: Is the following RIMS information (a. through e. below) correct?
N Yes or ❑ No. If No, please either indicate that it is correct on the current application or the
existing permit or provide the details. If none can be supplied, please explain:
(if there is more than one discharge pipe, put the others on the last page of this form.)
a. Location OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit N, or provide Location:
b. Driving Directions OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit N, or provide Driving Directions (please be accurate):
c. USGS Quadrangle Map name and number OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide USGS Quadrangle Map name and number: B25SW
Henderson Quadrangle
d. Latitude/Longitude OK on Application N, (check at hM://www.Mozone.com These are often
inaccurate) OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Latitude: Longitude:
e. Receiving Stream OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Receiving Stream or affected waters: tributary to Nutbush
creek
a. Stream Classification: Class C
b. River Basin and Sub basin No.: Roanoke River basin. Subbasin No.: 03-02-06
c. Describe receiving stream features and downstream uses: Nutbush flows into John Kerr
Reservoir approximately one mile downstream. The reservoir is an important primary and

NPDTS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT ANDRECOMMENDATIONS
secondary recreation area and a drinking water supply. The Nutbush arm of the resovoir is
listed on the 303(d) list for impaired biological integrity.
B. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND WASTE(S) (renewals and modifications only)
1. Describe the existing treatment facility: The facility consists of Influent barscreen, grit removal,
primary clarifiers, trickling filters, secondary clarifiers, pure oxygen nitrification basin, a third set of
clarifiers, tertiary filters, post aeration basin, UV disinfection, DAF unit, sludge digesters and storage
tanks, Influent and effluent flow measurement. Ferrous sulfate is added in the collection system to aid
with phosphorus removal.
2. Are there appropriately certified ORCs for the facilities? ® Yes or ❑ No.
Operator in Charge: Tom Spain Certificate # 6065 (Available in BIMS or Certification Website)
Back- Operator in Charge: Linda Leyen Certificate # 22337
3. Does the facility have operational or compliance problems? Please comment: This facility has
complied with existing permit limits. The problems associated with this facility are extreme surges of
flow during wet weather and an increased occurrence of flooding of treatment units from Nutbush
creek.
Summarize your BIMS review of monitoring data (Notice(s) of violation within the last permit cycle;
Current enforcement action(s)): The facility has met its permit limits during the last cycle. The
facility has lost some industrial clients during the last permit cycle. Nitrification has been consistent
with ammonia levels discharged being very low. The facility does not denitrify. There are no
pending enforcement actions for the Wastewater plant. The RRO is considering different remedies
for continuing overflows within the sewer collection system and surcharged flow conditions during
wet weather. While these issues are being addressed under a different permit (WQCS00055) they do
have an effect on the wastewater reclamation facility during periods of high flow.
Are they currently under SOC, ❑ Currently under JOC, ❑ Currently under moratorium ❑? Have
all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit, SOC, JOC, etc. been complied with? ❑ Yes
or ❑ No. If no, please explain:
4. Residuals Treatment: PSRP N (Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens, Class B) or
PFRP ❑ (Process to Further Reduce Pathogens, Class A)?
Are they liquid or dewatered to a cake?
Land Applied? Yes ® No ❑ If so, list Non -Discharge Permit No. Granville Farms WQ000838
Contractor Used: Granville Farms
FORM: NPDES-RRO 06/03, 9/03 2

NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Landfilled? Yes ❑ No® If yes, where?
Other?
Adequate Digester Capacity? Yes ® No ❑ Sludge Storage Capacity? Yes ® No ❑
--- -- " eaPi�se comment on current operational practices: Sludge is thickened via a DAF unit then sent to a
Pure oxygen aerobic digester, a primary anaerobic digester and a secondary anaerobic digester. The
sludge is then pumped to a 1,000,000 gallon aerobic digester before being hauled away by Granville
Farms. An additional 1,000,000 gallon sludge tank and drying beds are availble if needed.
5. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this
permit? ❑ Yes or ® No. If yes, please explain:
C. E VAL UA TION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: has the facility evaluated the non -discharge options available? Give
regional perspective for each option evaluated:
Spray Irrigation: N/A
Connect to Regional Sewer System: N/A
Subsurface: N/A
Other Disposal Options: N/A
2. Provide any additional narrative regarding your review of the application:
3. List any items that you would like NPDES Unit to obtain through an additional information
request. Make sure that you provide a reason for each item:
Recommended Additional Information
Reason
Certification that treatment units are adequately
protected from 100-year flood events.
Recent flooding has inundated the plant.
Lower clarifiers and DAF unit specifically
are most vulnerable units.
Flooding seems to be more prevalent due to
upstream development.
4. List specific Permit requirements that you recommend to be removed from the permit when
issued. Make sure that you provide a reason for each condition:
Recommended Removal Reason
FORM: NPDES-RRO 06/03, 9/03

NPbES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5. List specific special requirements or compliance schedules that you recommend to be included in
the permit when issued. Make sure that you provide a reason for each special condition:
Reason
6. Recommendation: ❑ Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office;
® Hold, pending review and approval of required additional information by NPDES permitting
office; ❑ Issue; ❑ Deny. If deny, please state reasons:
Reminder. attach inspection
7. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of WQS regional si
Date: �� 0
FORM: NPDES-RRO 06/03, 9/03

�OF W ATF90 Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
\O, G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
� Raleigh Regional Office
(.O
O < Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
September 20, 2006
Mr. Mark Warren
City of Henderson
P.O. Box 1434
Henderson, NC 27536
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
City of Henderson
NCO020559 and NCG110075
Vance County
Dear Mr. Warren:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2006, Mr. Shannon Langley conducted an inspection of the subject
facility. The assistance of your Operator in Responsible Charge, Mr. Tom Spain, was very
helpful and greatly appreciated. A copy of our NPDES Inspection checklist is attached. It
should be reviewed for specific findings. Some of the major findings from the inspection were:
The plant is seeing an increasing amount of flow during wet weather events. These
heavy spikes in flow have a detrimental effect on the operation of the plant. The Division
of Water Quality has previously issued a Notice of Violation to the City for wet weather
related overflows within the collection system. Flooding from Nutbush creek and the
tributary to Nutbush on the other side of the plant pose a significant risk to the operation
of the plant as well and needs to be evaluated. We request a meeting, in our office to
discuss both these issues. Our expectation is that the City would come to this meeting
with a plan for correction of overflows in the system and for protection of the W WTP
from flooding and this plan would include a defined and aggressive implementation
schedule. Please contact me at [phone] to arrange this meeting.
2. It was unclear how the flow proportional sampler is set up. Please provide a description
of the operation of the effluent sampler.
3. The return flows from the mud well enter the plant above the influent sampling point and
influent flow metering station. This can lead to inaccuracies in the measurement of
influent parameters. The RRO recognizes this would be very difficult to re -pipe at this
time. This must be considered as the plant expansion and modification is considered.
4. The plant's operation appears to have recovered from the recent from the recent `wash
out" when the plant was flooded and influent flows exceeded 14 MGD. The effluent was
clear during the inspection and analytical tests indicate the effluent routinely produces a
compliant effluent.
Raleigh Regional Office 1628 Mail Service Center phone [phone]
Water Quality Section Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 facsimile [phone]
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
h1C`D�EIvR

Town Selma collection system
August 29, 2005
Page 2 of 2
5. Many areas of the plant were rusted (railings, stairs etcTanTin need of maintenance. The
City must allocate proper resources to ensure the plant is properly maintained.
6. The facility's permit expires March 31, 2007 and application for renewal is due by
October 2, 2006. Mr. Spain indicated the application along with required additional
testing would be submitted before this deadline.
Mr. Spain is monitoring the Storm water outfalls at the plant in accordance with permit
Number NCG110075.
I appreciate the assistance of your staff during the inspection. Please contact me at (919) 791-
4200 or shannon.Langley(o,ncmail.net to schedule a meeting to discuss the City's
implementation of flow reduction in the sewer system. We would like for this meeting to take
place in October 2006.
Sincerely,
4:
E. Shannon Langley
Environmental Specialist 11
Cc: RRO Files
Central Files
Tom Spain — ORC
City of Henderson
P.O. Box 1434
Henderson, NC 27536

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water COm fiance 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 I Nl 2 l 451 31 NCO020559 111 121 06/09/19 117 16I rl 19I=I 20I I
lJ =J 1.-1 �I
Remarks
2111111111111111111111111111
lllllllllllllllllll6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 CA ----------- •------ Reserved------
67I 169 70u 71 U721 N 73Lt75IJ__I I I I 180
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
Henderson WRF
09:30 AM 06/09/19
03/01/01
NC Hwy 39
Exit Time/Date
Parmit Expiration Date
Henderson NC 27536
12:45 PM 06/09/19
07/03/31
Names) of Onsite Representative(syTitles(s)/Phone and Fax Numbers)
Other Facility Data
Thomas M Spain/ORC/252-431-6061/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Thomas Spain,PO Box 1434 Henderson NC 27536//919-431 6006/ Contacted
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement E Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal 0 Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Waters
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
E. Shannon Langley RRO WQ//919-791-4200/
1"l-siciiii912olo`
Signature of 7agemnt O Reviewer 1 Agency/Offioe/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page # 1

NPDES yr/nno/day Inspection Type
NC0020 559 111 12I 06 / 09 / 19 117 18 L1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
The facility is experiencing very high flows associated with rain events. This is causing problems both in the
sewer collection system and at the Wastwater plant. The RRO is requesting a meeting and updated plan
for correcting problems associated with high flows.
Page # 2

Permit: NCO020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 09/19/2006 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?
■
❑
❑
❑
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? nn
■
❑
-
-
Comment:
Operations & Maintenance
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
❑
■
❑
❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable Solids, pH, DO, Sludge ■
❑
❑
❑
Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: Many of the railings, stairs etc are in need of painting at the facility. The
units appear structurally sound but are very rusty.
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
■
Cl
❑
❑
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?
■
❑
n
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
❑
❑
❑
■
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 2417 with a certified operator on each shift?
❑
❑
■
❑
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
■
❑
n
❑
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
■
n
n
❑
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification?
■
❑
❑
❑
Page # 3

Permit: NG0020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 09/19/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
00
n
❑
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
❑
n
n
■
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?
n
n
■
Cl
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Influent
Yes
No
NA
NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
■
n
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
■
n
n
n
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
n
n
n
■
Comment: Return flows from the mudwell come back into the plant above the flow
meter and metered. This must be evaluated with modifications to the plant.
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:
Solids Handling Equipment
Yee
No
NA
NE
Is the equipment operational?
❑
❑
❑
❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
n
n
n
n
is storage adequate?
n
n
❑
❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
n
n
n
n
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
n
n
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
n
n
n
n
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
n
n
n
n
Comment:
Page # 4

Permit: NC0020559 Owner - Facility: Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 09/1912006 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Bar Screens
Yes No
NA
NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
■
b.Mechanical
■
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
■
n
n
n
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
■
n
n
n
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
■
n
n
n
is the unit in good condition?
■
❑
Q
❑
Comment:
Grit Removal
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
0
b.Mechanical
■
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
■
n
n
n
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
■
❑
0
❑
# Is disposal of grit in compliance?
■
Q
O
Comment:
Primary Clarifler
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
■
n
n
n
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
n
n
■
Cl
Are weirs level?
■
n
n
n
Is the site free of weir blockage?
■
n
n
n
is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
■
n
n
n
Is scum removal adequate?
■
n
n
n
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
■
n
n
n
Is the drive unit operational?
n
n
■
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
n
n
■
n
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately '/4 of the sidewall depth)
n
n
■
n
Comment:
Secondary Clarifler
Yes
No_
NA
NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
■
n
n
n
Page # 5

Permit: NC0020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 09I19/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifler
Yes No NA NE
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
■ n ❑ ❑
Are weirs level?
■ Q ❑ ❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
n ■ n n
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
■ n n ❑
Is scum removal adequate?
■ n n ❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
■ n n n
Is the drive unit operational?
■ Q fl Q
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
■ n ❑ ❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
❑ n n n
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately % of the sidewall depth)
❑ n ■ n
Comment: This section applies to the third set of clarifiers. A significant amount of
algae had built on on the clarifier weirs. Mr. Spain stated they clarifiers are cleaned —
once per week. The clarifiers should be cleaned as often as necessary to prevent the
buildup of algae from blocking weirs. The City should either clarifiers, purchase a brush
system to automatically clean the clarifiers or invest in the appropriate manpower to
keep the clarifier weirs clean and functioning properly.
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?
■
❑
n
❑
Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth?
■
❑
n
Cl
Are the filter's distribution arms orifices free of clogging?
■
❑
❑
n
Is the filter free of excessive filter flies, worms or snails?
■
❑
❑
Cl
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?
0130
n
Is nutrient removal process operating properly?
■
n
❑
❑
Page # 6

Permit: NCO020559 Owner -Facility: Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 09/19/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Nutrient Removal
Yes No
NA
NE
Comment: Ferrous added at two places in colection system to aid in Phosphorous
removal
Pure Oxygen
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of pure oxygen system
Generated on -site
Is there a back-up source for the system?
Q
❑
❑
■
Are mixers operational?
MOD
Cl
Are samples port/points easily accessible?
■
n
n
n
Comment:
Filtration (High Rate TA a"
Yes
No
NA
NE
Type of operation:
Down flow
Is the filter media present?
■
❑
Q
❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
■
❑
Q
Q
Is the filter free of growth?
❑
■
❑
Cl
Is the air scour operational?
❑
Q
fl
■
O
C1
0
■
Is the scouring acceptable?
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and fitter media?
❑
O
❑
■
Comment: Only one filter was in use at time of inspection.
Disinfection - UV
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are extra UV bulbs available on site?
■
Q
Q
Are UV bulbs clean?
■
0
0
❑
is UV intensity adequate?
n
n
n
■
Is transmittance at or above designed level?
Q
C1
Q
■
Is there a backup system on site?
■
0
O
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?
■
n
n
n
Is the generator tested under load?
■
O
fl
Cl
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
n
■
n
❑
Page # 7

Permit: NCO020559 Owner . Facility: Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 09/19/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Yes No NA NE
Standby Power
Do the generators) 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:
Yes No NA NE
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Are pumps in place?
■❑❑❑
Are pumps operational?
■❑nn
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
Laboratory
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
■ 100
# Is the facility using a contract lab?
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
■❑❑❑
Incubator (Feral Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
■❑❑❑
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/-1.0 degrees?
Comment: Most parameters are analyzed on site. The plant utuilzes a contract lab for
low-level mercury, toxicicty, and nitrate -nitrite.
Yes No NA NE
Influent Sampling
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
# Is composite sampling flow proportional?
❑ ❑n
■
Is sample collected above side streams?
■n❑❑
Is proper volume collected?
■n❑❑
Is the tubing clean?
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius).
■000
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
❑❑❑
■
Comment: Influent sampler was 3.0 degrees Celsius.
Yes No NA NE
Effluent Sampling
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
■ ❑ Cl Cl
❑❑❑■
Is proper volume collected?
Page # 8

Permit: NCO020559
Inspection Date: 09/19/2006
Owner - Facility: Henderson WRF
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the tubing clean? ■ n n n
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)? ■ ❑ fl ❑
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)? ■ ❑ Q Q
Comment: It was unclear how the sampler is setup to pull samples(at what flow, etc).
RRO requested follow up describing how sampler is currently set up.
Upstream l Downstream Sampling Yes No NA NE
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and sampling location)? ■ ❑ 0 Q
Comment:
Page # 9

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: [phone] FAX: [phone]
September 5'b, 2006
Ms. Judy Garrett
NC Division of Water Quality
Environment and Natural Resources
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Re: Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
Additional Backup ORC
NPDES # NCO020559
Dear Ms. Garrett:
My Backup ORC, Linda Leyen, has taken a new job as Director of public Works with the City of
Henderson. She has agreed to continue as a Backup ORC for the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility.
The City felt it would be wise to have a second Backup ORC during this time of transition and until a new
Chief Operator is hired. Mandy Tingen Hall of Tingenenviron has been hired as a second Backup ORC for
the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility. I am forwarding a copy of the City's contract with her and
request that she be added as a Backup ORC for Henderson.
Should you require additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 252-431-6081.
E4a
ely,
,_ rM - r
s M. Spa
Director (ORC) HWRF
City of Henderson
Copy to: Jerry Moss, City Manager
Mark Warren, Assistant City Manager
Files

P. , . -elpo. n irv_rm s y A j ai` .e `•`F" �.
.,aa.
• •{,
" F �,{�s�' C�t, >nl�t'!#:,_1 f?1S:)�r` ',` fr_���^^^��TTT
�-
`
.i(/7r,i:y11i1:1:
��
»�
tii��':t"� Qtfi�k:ti:i�1`.3•-.��.i ;ifl��? [I r'2.''!`�'fl`)ii '�„�
.;,,,, �1.
y_
4�• 1 �� c.. �i�..r _ .-".1 !+.{•1 T IaK. rJ. j , l _� `.j .,ll; .{i'1
'
Y
- �
- '. '{St!f�r,�,..{.: a =y:s ryn' , •,:ayix ..; �:;;.`
96
1 J.r/r t! Y,h' A&V* retJ+ .t; ,s: ma Ti9), • r.,n;'- a5 .. <. a fxk vcn
- t .... .. ,!>1:..'r.Nr, r•-�'e'..::>Ii :1u t; •3i"ItWiWAR r:• ..r.,r;,'_ •.i b.,'7�:r,. .. _ ... bwf�"
t .
r.. .• 1»b tt(7^: �t+`Z} (t) :�:tt7 at� trC,7h +iji`'!AW 1.Tii' ,. 9.tli t '. ./ v. .;itt{W,• i- :t'p OL 1 *41
Y 3 -
t cam, t , tctugn rn !r, ,ir,r: n 1 , t4.:yatiJ,:, Info-xQ blan
ba:. rxt iir'ilhw°tsoar',gtt3 ,�tin'dg., ':tutr•nc': mr t .;? wrc rrtoimairhb+lr±.'J? �T+ tk:aa. ^:N
fiiE' ;i14'�-Ai 4. :d1..41. , ,'t ::•ntljK^r
' •�_
i46 Jlcjlu ,Etip+}'ti , y,.L:, 0,4, i J -47IN
, • ..� .; +� iw.—
---'"°'`:s•> . _ _ - , %ilk- f F A ^?'' {� M �.2r't���T i
{. -
r
T
n
d
�
,. ' d6ft :h1lJ "J1•!` ,.,3E A?..•�//�- % ,;�Y.
9 - ..:.if tif•5�i •'ii -if8 :r'.., r.. IT J A
.. Y5i f
''�e��i
Li�i s. •c . 1-�.::. • : '�.r .=�'—'S _ _ �, _ - _ _ _ _ _ .ty �_ y.S-...._.. -•.
�: �4

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: [phone] PAX: [phone]
This agreement between Mary Amanda Tingen Hall and the City of Henderson is for Back-
up Operator in Responsible Charge services at the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility.
Mary Amanda Tingen Hall agrees to:
1. Serve as Back-up Operator in Responsible Charge to the Henderson Water
Reclamation Facility ORC and Director, Thomas M. Spain.
2. Services are to be rendered only in the event of illness, training out of town or
vacation preventing Thomas M. Spain from performing duties for the
Henderson Water Reclamation Facility.
3. All services will be performed in compliance with NCDWQ-DENR
regulations and requirements.
4. Services are to be performed to maintain compliance with all permit discharge
requirements for the plant operations and maintenance.
5. Provide copy of certification (# 23237) for City records.
6. Services are to begin immediately upon this document being signed.
The City of Henderson agrees:
1. Pay a fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per month for each month service
is provided.
2. Pay a fee of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per hour for actual time spent on site.
3. Fee of each hour to be prorated for partial hours spent on site.
4. City reserves the right to cancel this agreement at any time should services
not be needed or the services provided are below City standards.
Ma Amanda Tingen Hal
Date
Mire ACM
Date

Water Pollution Control System ORC Designation Form
WPCSOCC
NCAC 15A:08G .0201
General Information-
Permittee Owner/Officer Name: / / / 4,2 L 41A2/L�/Y
Mailing Address:
City .�✓d 6i%Z ffeh/ State: �_ Zip:
Telephone Number:
Signature::Date:
.... sea ............ ■....■....... .......■...■........■■..■■.......... move.
Facility Information:
Facility:/✓�dpPile�tS1�
PermitNumber: /Y C/ `�OS County: _1���,
! SUBMIT A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH TYPE OF SYSTEM!
Mark (X) Type of Facility Class (1 — 4) Class
Wastewater Plant V Spray Irrigation N/A
Physical/Chemical Land Application N/A
Collection System Subsurface N/A
........................................................................
Operator in Responsible Charge:
Print Name: 2z,,4AS Xi Jr fil Social Security i! : r/ I
Certificate Type and Grade: 4XW(,t/ Certificate #: //K5,
Work Telephone: (IV ) `/i��rSd�� Signature:*
........................................................ e....■...■ ■....�
Back -Up Operator in Responsible Charge:
Print Name:N1QRU Social Security#: 7,41-23 (o3,2_8
Certificate Type and Grade: W V4 J:y Certificate #: L3 2.3 %r
Work Telephone: (qlq )(1QB-q<34, Signaturel`li����
Mail or Fax to: WPCSOCC
1618 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 276"-1618
Fax:[phone]

Fax Cover Sheet
Tingen Environmental Company
7579B Hwy 222 West
Kenly, NC 27542
919-608-4535
919-284-1859
[e-mail]
Send to: HWRF
From: Mandy Tingen Hall
Attention: Tom Spain
Dote: 09-05-06
Fax Number: 252-492-3324
Phone Number:
Total pages, including cover.
Comments:
Talk to you soonll
4
I OON I
2°0(o Wallet Cate( 44
7ha-,KS 1

M N
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
April 27, 2006
Mark Warren
City of Henderson
P.O. Box 1434
Henderson, NC 27536
SUBJECT: Advance Notice of Renewal Application Requirements
Permit NCO020559
Henderson WRF
Dear Permittee:
Your NPDES permit for a municipally owned/operated W WTP expires on March 31, 2007. This notice is
being sent to explain the requirements for your permit renewal application.
You are receiving this advance notice because your facility has a permitted flow at or above 1
MGD, or the subject facility receives industrial [pretreatment] wastewater. If either of these
criteria no longer applies, contact the NPDES Unit before submitting a renewal application.
Federal (40 CFR 122) and state (15A NCAC 2H.0105(e)) regulations require that permit renewal
applications be filed at least 180 days prior to expiration of the current permit. Your renewal application is
due to the Division postmarked no later than October 2, 2006. Failure to apply for renewal by the
appropriate deadline may result in a civil penalty assessment or other enforcement activity at the discretion
of the Director.
The U.S. EPA revised and expanded the application requirements for municipal permits, effective August 1,
2001. EPA form 2A is attached to this Notice, and must be used for your permit renewal application. The
new application requirements mandate additional effluent testing:
1. Conduct three Priority Pollutant Analyses (PPAs) and submit results with your renewal
application. Collect samples for the PPAs in conjunction with sampling for your current
quarterly toxicity test. The new PPA requirements differ from previous versions. Each PPA
must include:
➢ Analyses for all total recoverable metals listed in Part D of form 2A. This includes metals
that are not normally monitored through your NPDES permit.
➢ Analyses for total phenolic compounds and hardness.
➢ Analyses for all of the volatile organic compounds listed in Part D.
➢ Analyses for all of the acid -extractable compounds listed in Part D.
➢ Analyses for all base -neutral compounds listed in Part D.
➢ Analyses for Total Mercury must be performed using EPA Method 1631.
2. Conduct four toxicity tests for an organism other than Ceriodaphnia and submit results with
your renewal application. The tests should be conducted quarterly, with samples collected on the
same day as your current toxicity test. Call the Aquatic Toxicology Unit at [phone] for
guidance in conducting the additional tests.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 One
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 NorthCarolina
Phone: [phone]FAX [phone]Internet: h2o.encstate.nc.us Naturally
An Equal OpportunitylAifirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper lILLI KKLL !L" s s��//

wal Notice for Permit NC0020559
Vance County
Page 2
The pollutant and toxicity scans described above must accompany your permit renewal application,
or any major permit modification request. The Division cannot draft your permit without the additional
data. Any data submitted cannot be over 4 '/, years old, and must account for seasonal variation
(samples cannot be collected during the same season each year if collected over multiple years). If your
permit already contains a requirement for an annual effluent pollutant scan, additional scans are not
required [provided you have conducted at least 3 scans prior to submitting your application].
If any wastewater discharge will occur after the current permit expires, this NPDES permit must be
renewed. Discharge of wastewater without a valid permit would violate Federal and North Carolina law.
Unpermitted discharges of wastewater could result in assessment of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day.
Use the checklist below to complete your renewal package. The checklist identifies the items you
must submit with the permit renewal application. If all wastewater discharge has ceased at this facility and
you wish to rescind this permit, please contact me. My telephone number, fax number and e-mail address
are listed at the bottom of the previous page.
Sincerely,
Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NPDES Unit
cc: Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Section
NPDES File
The following items are REQUIRED for all renewal packages:
o A cover letter requesting renewal of the permit and documenting any changes at the facility since
issuance of the last permit. Submit one signed original and two copies.
o The completed EPA Form 2A application (copy attached), signed by the permittee or an Authorized
Representative. Submit one signed original and two copies.
o If an Authorized Representative (such as a consulting engineer or environmental consultant) prepares
the renewal package, written documentation must be provided showing the authority delegated to the
Authorized Representative (see Part II.B.11.b of the existing NPDES permit).
o A narrative description of the sludge management plan for the facility. Describe how sludge (or other
solids) generated during wastewater treatment are handled and disposed. If your facility has no such
plan (or the permitted facility does not generate any solids), explain this in writing. Submit one signed
original and two copies. This information can be included in the cover letter.
Send the completed renewal package to:
Mrs. Carolyn Bryant
NC DENR / DWQ / Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

\o�0F w A rFROG
5;UG1
ftMichael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Darrel Johnson
Pretreatment Coordinator
City of Henderson
P.O. Box 1434
Henderson, NC 27536
April 3, 2006
Subject: Pretreatment Annual Report Review
City of Henderson
Vance County
NPDES Number: NCO020559
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The Central and Regional Offices have reviewed the Pretreatment Annual Report (PAR)
covering January through December 2005. The PAR was received on February 13, 2006.
The PAR is considered complete and satisfies the requirements of 15A NCAC 2H .0908(b) and
the Comprehensive Guidance for North Carolina Pretreatment Guidance for North Carolina Pretreatment Pro�ams.
Thank you for your continued cooperation with the Pretreatment Program. If you have any
questions or comments, please contact Darryl Merritt at [phone] ext. 554 [email:
dar [e-mail]].
Sincerely,
Christop W\ u
Environmental Specialist
cc: Central Files
Darryl Merritt, Pretreatment Unit
Christopher Wu, RRO
a f/
NC DWQ/PERCS Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Smice
Internet h2o.enr.state.nc.us/Pretreat/index.html 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/A16rma8ve Action Employer- 50% Recycled/l 0% Post Consumer Paper

search
http://bims.enr.state7001/selectOnelncident.do?id=3M05F...
go a
Bypass/Upset Details 24 Hour Details 5 Day Details 10 Day Details Questions Agencies Q
Permit: NC0020559 Incident Number: 200500425
Facility Name: Henderson WRF County : Vance �Y y
Owner: City of Henderson Region : Raleigh u�
City : Henderson fl`Y
24 Hours
*Bypass/Upset Start Date/Time:
02/17/2005
Flo to pm,
*Est. Volume in gallons: YO — gallons
Report Received:
02/18/2005
Report Entered: OT1812005
*Did Bypass/Upset reach Surface Water?
Yes No
Unknown Est. Volume: 10 gallons
*Fish Killed?
Yes No
Unknown Est. Fish Killed?
Other WaterBody:
INutbush Creek (Including Nutbush Creek Arm of John H. Kerr Resei
5 Day Details
*Bypass/Upset Start Date/Time'.
[F—
Duration: F— —
*End Date/Time:
r�---
*Est. Volume in gallons: gallons
Report Received:
F - l
Report Entered: `���---
*Did Bypass/Upset reach Surface Water?
Yes '...- No
Unknown Est. Volume: [,7— gallons
*Fish Killed?
Yes No
Unknown Est. Fish Killed? f^
Other WaterBody:
Regional Contact : Dare, Mike.
Date/Time (mm/dd/yyyy hh:mm am): 02/18/2005 04:00 pm
County : Vance
City : IHenderson
*Location of Units being Bypassed?
. Secondary clarifier sludge pit
Req Comments:
Ms. Leyen thinks that the'. bypass resulted from a check
valve failure at the secondary clarifier sludge pit.
Changes have been made in the operation of associated
pumps to correct the problem. Area of spill raked and
limed. Any solids in UT flushed by water action of
Specific Cause (check all that Apply)
Severe Natural Condition Vandalism Pump Station Equipment Failure
Power outage Other (Please explain in Part 11) 1 For DWQ Use Only:
Construction Maintenance Upsets
Finish Cancel
1 of 1 2/18/2005 4:33 PM

FROM
ft(FRI)FEB 18 2005 16a 16:12/No.6821955416 P 1
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: [phone] FAX: [phone]
pw%
TO: FAX # :
COMPANY NAME:
DATE:
FROM: PHONE # 46.2 - L137- (o Oa'2
NUMBER OF SHEETS TRANSMITTED (INC. COVER) R_
If you do not receive the correct number of sheets transmitted, or have any questions,
please call the number on this fax.
COMMENTS:

FROM ft (FRO FEB 18 2005 1640 16:12/No.6821955416 P 2
SeweetSnlllReeooax Evaluation:
(page 1 of 2)
Permittes _City of Henderson Pill Number_N00020559 County —Vance—
Incident Ended(DatafTims)_02/17/05_/ 2210— Eslimated Duration (Timl
First knomedge of incident: (Oate/Time),2.17-05_1_2210_
Estimated volume of spilVbypass _20T gallons. Show rational for volume. Visual inspection by staff
ff spill Is ongoing, please notify Regional Office on a daily basis until spill can be stopped.
Reported to Mike Dare - (Datettime) 2.18-05 1600
Name of person
Weather conditions: Dark, Colo, Clear
Source of spill/bypass (check one): ___-_Sanitary Sewer _Pump Statlon _X_WWTP
Level of treatment (check one)'. ____ None _Primary Treatment
TX' Secondary Treatment _ Chlorination Only
Did splll/bypass reach surface waters? X_Yes No (If Yes, please list the following)
Volume reaching surface waters? 10 gallons
Name of surface water. Un-named tributary of hill Creek
Did spill bypass result In a fish kill? _Yes _X_No
If Yes, what is the estimated number of fish killedi
please pimide the followinginfonnatlon;
1. Location of spllpbypass._Wasting pit at secondary clarifiers
2, Cause of Spllebype59: _Operator started wasting pumps for frnel clarifiers. flow fed back through discharge line to
secondary clarifier wasting pumps, check valve was not seated on pump, flow fed back to wasbng pit for secondary
sludge
3. Did you have personnel available to perform initial assessment 24 hours/day (including weekends and holidays)?
Yes _X_ No
4. How long did it take to make an initial assessment of the spilltover low after first knowledge
Hours I Minutes
How long did it take to get a repair crew orl N/A
Hours Minutes
Please explain the time taken to make initial assessment

FROM % (FRO FEB 18 2005 1640 16:12/No.6821955416 P 3
Sawaee Spill Rnrwnsc Evaluation:
(Pagc 2 of2)
Pormitlee _City of Henderson Permit Number_NC0020559_____ County_Vance_
5. Agron taken to contain spill, dean up waste, and/or remediate the site: Operator immediately turned on the
Secondary sludge wasting pump and lowered the level in the wetwell to stop bypass. Area was raked and
Limed
6. Were the equipment and parts needed to make repairs readily available? NIA
Yes No If no, please explain why.
7. If the spill/overflow occurred at a pump station, or was the result of a pump station failure,
was the alarm system functional at the time of the spill? Yes _ No_ If the alarm
system did not function, please explain why:
8. Repairs made are: Permanent _�L Temporary
Please describe what repairs were made. If the repairs are temporary, please indicate a dale by
which permanent repair will be completed, and notify the Regional Offlcs within 7 days of the
permanent repair
S. Whal actions have been made to prevent this disdharge, from occurring again in the future?
Operators have been instructed to dove the secondary wasting pumps on in automatic.
Maintenance staff will take Check valves apart and make sure they am working properly.
10. Comments.
Other agencies
Person reporting spilAbypass:_Lmda Leyen Phone Number:_252.431.6065_
For DWO Use Only:
DWO requested additional written report? _Yes _No
If yes. what additional information Is needed?
Requested by

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
January 17, 2006
Darrel Johnson
Pretreatment Coordinator
City of Henderson
P.O. Box 1434
Henderson, NC 27536
Subject: Pretreatment Compliance Inspection Report
Program: City of Henderson
Vance County
NPDES Number NCO020559
Dear Mr. Johnson:
On January 17, 2006 Mr. Christopher Wu of the Raleigh Regional Office performed a
pretreatment compliance inspection with you at the Henderson WRF and an industry inspection
of the Wal-Mart Distribution Center with additional help from Mr. Thomas Spain, WRF
Director. The inspection report is attached. Thank you for your assistance. The significant
findings were as follows:
1. There are currently 4 non -Categorical Significant Industrial Users (SIU). Wal-Mart
Distribution was recently added as a SIU in March 2005. Wastewater from Wal-Mart
derives from a vehicle washing area, produce washing, and a cooling tower. The SIU is
permitted for a flow of 0.045 MGD.
2. For the first semi-annual monitoring period of last year, Wal-Mart was very close to
obtaining SNC status for Molybdenum. The wastewater received by the POTW also had
elevated levels of TKN, BOD, and zinc. As a result, Wal-Mart was placed under a
consent order for TKN and Molybdenum on October 25, 2005 (later modified in
December 2005). The City of Henderson has yet to receive the results for the most
recent sampling, but it is still possible that Wal-Mart will be in SNC for the second semi-
annual monitoring period of 2005.
3. Kennametal, a SIU of the Henderson WRF, recently added an internal chiller to its
process. This chiller significantly reduces the flow sent to the plant. It is possible that
the City of Henderson will either drop Kennametal as a SIU or keep the IUP but modify
it to reduce the monitoring frequency.
4. The City of Henderson conducts all of the sampling for its industries with the exception
of its groundwater remediation SIU (the City splits sampling with the SM.
5. An industry inspection of Wal-Mart Distribution Center was conducted with the
assistance of Mr. Rob Avery, maintenance manager of the facility. Both you and Mr.
Naturally
NC DWQ/PERCS Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Internet h2o.enr.state.nc.us/Pretreat/index.html 3800 Barrett Drive Raleigh, NC 27609
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Phone [phone] Customer Service
FAX [phone]

Henderson WRF — NCO020559
01/18/06
Spain were very thorough and professional throughout the inspection. This Wal-Mart
facility will be expanding soon and flow to the POTW will most certainly increase. On
occasion, the pipes near the flow meter will clog with debris. Such blockage hinders the
integrity of the flow readings as flow will reduce as a result of interference. When
enough pressure builds the debris is washed away but the flow is extremely high. The
City of Henderson will be working with Wal-Mart to remedy the situation.
6. You are keeping all of the files and data in a well organized fashioned. Such order eased
the file review process.
You are doing an excellent job of meeting the pretreatment program goals for the City of
Henderson. Thank you for your continued support of the Pretreatment Program. If you have any
questions or comments, please contact Christopher Wu at [phone] [email:
Chris.Wu(a)ncmail.netl.
Sincerely,
Christopher Wu
Environmental Specialist
Cc: Darryl Merritt, DWQ — PERCS Unit
Thomas Spain, City of Henderson
Christopher Wu — RRO
Central Files

NORT._ _MOLINA DIVISION OF WATE JALITY
PRETREATMENT COMPLIANCE INSPECTION (PCI) REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION lComolete Prior To PC[-. Review Program Info Database Sheet(sll
1. Control Authority (POTW) Name: Henderson WRF
2. Control Authority Representative(s): Darrel Johnson
3. Title(s): Pretreatment Coordinator
4. Last Inspection Date: 02/17/2005 Inspection Type (Circle One): ® PCI ❑ Audit
5. Has Program Completed All Requirements from the Previous Inspection or Program Info Sheet(s)? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
6. Is POTW under an Order That Includes Pretreatment Conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
Order Type and Number: N/A Are Milestone Dates Being Met? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
PCS CODING
Trans.Code Main Program Permit Number MM/DD/YY Inspec.Type Inspector
INI IN�C�O)0� IO�51519I 101117106L2_J L�1
Fac. Type
LL
(FACC)
`-`- (DTIA) (1YPI)
(INVfl
7. Current Number Of Significant Industrial Users SIUs ?
0
SIUS
8. Current Number Of Categorical Industrial Users CIUs ?
00
CIUS
9. Number of SIUs Not Inspected B POTW in the Last Calendar Year?
10. Number of SIUs Not Sampled B POTW in the Last Calendar Year?Rth
0
11. Enter the Higher Number of 9 or 10
NOIN
12. Number of SIUs With No IUP, or With an Expired IUP
NOCM
13. Number of SIUs in SNC for Either Reporting or Limits Violations During Eit
0
PSNC
Semi -Annual Periods Total Number of SIUs in SNC
14. Number of SIUs in SNC For Reporting DuringEither of the Last 2 Semi -Annual Periods
�
MSNC
15. Number of SIUs In SNC For Limits Violations DuringEither of the Last 2 Semi -Annual Periods
0
SNPS
16. Number of SIUs In SNC For Both Reporting and Limits Violations During Either of the Last 2
0
Semi-annual Periods
POTW INTERVIEW
17. Since the Last PCI, has the POTW had any POTW Permit Limits Violations? ® Yes ❑ No
Chronic Toxicity - failed in April
If Yes, What are the Parameters and How are these Problems Being Addressed? 2005: retest - passed.
18. Since the Last PCI, has the POTW had any Problems Related to an Industrial ❑ Yes IN No
Discharge (Interference, Pass -Through, Blockage, Citizens' Complaints, Increased
Sludge Production, Etc.)?
If Yes, How are these Problems Being Addressed?
19. Which Industries have been in SNC during either of the Last 2 Semi- SNC for Limits: Possibly Wal-Mart
Annual Periods? Have any Industries in SNC (During Either of the Last SNC for Reporting: None
2 Semi -Annual Periods) Not Been Published for Public Notice? Not Published: None
(May refer to PAR if Excessive SIUs in SNC)
20. Which Industries are on Compliance Schedules or Orders? For all SIUs on an Wal-Mart
Order, Has a Signed Copy of the Order been sent to the Division?
21. Are Any Permits Or Civil Penalties Currently Under Adjudication? If Yes, Which ❑ Yes ® No
Ones?
Filename: Henderson PCI Page I

r c nvx�xu _ mo....o.de.,, UnTW file ., ,, em�le.te the following:
Program Element
Date of Last Approval
Date Next Due, If Applicable
Headworks Analysis (HWA)
6/3/2002
6/1/2007
Industrial Waste Survey (IWS)
10/12/2001
9/30/2006
Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO)
3/19/2004
12/31/2006
Enforcement Response Plan (ERP)
9/03/2002
Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP)
t 4/13/2005
LTMP FILE REVIEW:
22. Is the LTMP Monitoring Being Conducted at Appropriate Locations and Frequencies? ® Yes ❑ No
23. Should any Pollutants of Concern be Eliminated from or Added to the LTMP? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, which ones? Eliminated: Added:
24. Are Correct Detection Levels being used for all LTMP Monitoring? ® Yes ❑ No
25. Is the LTMP Data Maintained in a Table or Equivalent? ® Yes ❑ No Is the Table Adequate? ® Yes ❑ No
o.r c i1LIl Vlal/ITT ro rTT r Dr\/TF\T/c nu I Fir F RFVIFW ANr1 1 FIT INCPFCTl()N)
26. User Name
-
1. Kennametal
2. Wal-Mart Distribution
3.
27. rUP Number
0012
0016
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
28. Does File Contain Current Permit?
04 / 01 / 2006
03 / 07 / 2010 IF
29. Permit Expiration Date
30. Categorical Standard Applied I.E. 40 CFR, Etc. Or N/A
N/A
N/A
�1
31. Does File Contain Permit Application Completed Within One Year Prior
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
to Permit Issue Date?
32. Does File Contain an Inspection Completed Within Last Calendar Year?
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
33. a. Does the File Contain a Slug Control Plan?
a. ®Yes ❑No
a. ®Yes ❑No
a. ❑Yes ❑No
b. If No, is One Needed? See Inspection Form from POTW)
b. []Yes [-]No
b. ❑Yes [-]No
b. ❑Yes ❑No
34. For 40 CFR 413 and 433 TTO Certifiers, Does File Contain a Toxic
❑Yes❑No®N/A
11
❑Yes❑NoON/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
Organic Management Plan TOMP ?
35. a. Does File Contain Original Permit Review Letter from the Division?
a. ®Yes ❑No
a. ®Yes ❑No
a. ❑Yes ONo
b. All Issues Resolved?
b.❑YesONo®N/A
b.❑YesONo®N/A
b.OYes0NO0N/A
36. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did the POTW Complete
® Yes ❑ No
®Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
its Sampling as Required b IUP?
37. Does File Contain POTW Sampling Chain -Of -Custodies?
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑ No
38. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did the SIU Complete its
❑Yes❑No®N/A
❑Yes❑No®N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
Sampling as Required b ]UP?
39. Does Sampling Indicate Flow or Production?
®Yes❑N'o❑N/A
®Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
40. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did the POTW Identify
®Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
All Non -Compliance from Both POTW and SIU Sampling?
41. a. Was the POTW Notified by SIU (Within 24 Hours) of All Self-
a.oYesONoON/A
a.OYesONo®N/A
a.OYesoNoON/A
Monitoring Violations?
b. Did Industry Res le Within 30 Days?
b.®YesONoON/A
b.OYesONOON/A
b.OYesONOON/A
42 Was the SIU Promptly Notified of Any Violations (Per ERP)?
®Yes❑No❑N/A
NYes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
43. Duringthe Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Was the SIU in SNC?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
44. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Was Enforcement Taken
❑Yes®NopN/A
®Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
as Specified in the POTWs ERP?
45. Does the File Contain Penalty Assessment Notices?
❑Yes❑No®N/A
®Yes❑NopN/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No®N/A
®Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
46. Does The File Contain Proof Of Penalty Collection?
47. a. Does the File Contain Any Current Enforcement Orders?
a.oves❑No®N/A
a.®YesONoON/A
a.oYesONoON/A
b. Is SIU in Compliance with Order?
b.❑Yes❑Na0N/A
b.®YesONoON/A
b.oYesONOON/A
48. Did the POTW Representative Have Difficulty in Obtaining Any of This
❑Yes ®No
❑Yes ®No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Requested Information For You?
Filename: Henderson PCI Page 2
Revised: 6/30/98

FILE REVIEW COMMENTS:
Files were very well organized and facilitated the review process.
The POTW is responsible for all of the industry sampling with the exception of one SIU.
It is possible that Wal-Mart is in SNC for the most recent semi-annual monitoring period. Mr. Johnson is currently awaiting the latest set of
sampling results to determine compliance.
PCI SUMMARY AND COMMENTS:
PCI Comments:
Requirements:
Recommendations:
NOD: ❑ Yes ® No
NOV: ❑ Yes ® No
QNCR: ❑ Yes ® No
POTW Rating:
Satisfactory ® Marginal ❑ UnSatisfactory ❑
PCI COMPLETED BY: Christopher Wu DATE: 01/17/2006
INDUSTRY INSPECTION PCS CODING:
Trans.Code Main Program Pernut Number MM/DD/YY Inspec.Type Inspector Fac. Type
LhLf N C 10 1 0 I o 1 5 1 5 1-9-J 11 1 17 1 06 1
(DTIA) (TYPI) (INSP) FACC)
1. Industry Inspected: Wal-Mart Distribution
2. industry Address: Henderson, NC
3. Type of Industry/Product: Distribution, vehicle wash -down, produce washing.
4. industry Contact: Rob Avery Title: Maintenance Manager
Phone: Fax:
5. Does the POTW Use the Division Model Inspection Form or Equivalent? ® Yes ❑ No
6. Did the POTW Contact Conduct the Following Parts of the Industrial Inspection Thoroughly?
Comments:
A. Initial Interview ® Yes ❑ No
B. Plant Tour ® Yes ❑ No
C. Pretreatment Tour ® Yes ❑ No
D. Sampling Review ® Yes ❑ No
E. Exit Interview ® Yes ❑ No
industrial Inspection Comments:
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Spain were both very thorough in their inspection of Wal-Mart Distribution.
Filename: Henderson PCI Page 3
Bexised: fiW91

\Ob-i
F FW A 7 q
r
h
i 1
242
Mr. Darrel Johnson
City of Henderson WRF
P.O. Box 1434
180 Beckford Drive
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
December 21, 2005
� ` 66 20091'
SUBJECT: Laboratory Certification Maintenance Inspection
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Michael F. Fasley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Enclosed is a report for the inspection performed on November 29, 2005 by Ms. Edith
Henderson. Where deficiencies are cited in this report, a response is required as well as for all
lettered comments and/or recommendations. Within thirty days of receipt, please supply this office
with a written item for item description of how these deficiencies, comments and/or recommendations
were corrected. If the deficiencies cited in the enclosed report are not corrected, enforcement actions
will be recommended. For certification maintenance, your laboratory must continue to carry out the
requirements set forth in 15A NCAC 2H .0800.
Copies of the checklists completed during the inspection may be requested from this office.
Thank you for your cooperation during the inspection. If you wish to obtain an electronic copy of this
report by email, or if you have questions or need additional information please contact us at 919-733-
3908.
Sincerely,
1�I
James W. Meyer
Laboratory Section
Enclosure
cc: Edith Henderson
Raleigh Regional Office
r,�of`thCarolina
,NaA(mily
Laboratory Section 1623 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1623
4405 Reedy Creek Road; Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet w xwglab.org
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recyded/10% Post Consumer Paper

LABORATORY NAME:
ADDRESS:
CERTIFICATE NO:
DATE OF INSPECTION:
TYPE OF INSPECTION:
EVALUATOR:
LOCAL PERSON (S) CONTACTED:
I. INTRODUCTION:
On -Site Inspection Report
City of Henderson WRF
P.O. Box 1434
180 Beckford Drive
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
242
November 29, 2005
Maintenance
Ms. Edith Henderson
Mr. Darrel Johnson, Mr. David Nickels, and Mr. Douglas Lorbacher
This laboratory was inspected to verify its compliance with the requirements of 15A NCAC 2H .0800 for the
analysis of environmental samples.
II. GENERAL COMMENTS:
This report reflects findings related to on -site inspection, application information and DMR review. Laboratory
personnel were cooperative throughout the audit and provided the inspectors with all materials and information
requested for examination. Some further quality control procedures need to be implemented.
III. DEFICIENCIES, RECOMMENDATIONS, REQUIREMENTS, AND COMMENTS:
General:
A. COMMENT: The laboratory is requested to submit documentation indicating all pH meters and Conductivity
meters with Automatic Temperature Compensation have been verified.
RECOMMENDATION: The Automatic Temperature Compensation of all pH and conductivity meters should
be verified at least annually to ensure accurate and reproducible results even if not used for reporting
Temperature. Temperature can affect pH either mechanically by changes in the properties of the electrodes or
chemically due to equilibrium changes. For conductivity instruments with automatic temperature compensation
and readout directly in pmhos/cm, the readout automatically is corrected to 25.0°C. The operation of the
compensator must be verified annually. Ref.: Standard Methods - 18'h Edition 4500H+B (1) (b); (2) (a) and
2510E (5) (b).
To verify the temperature correction or compensation:
1). Take a sample (slightly cool) and read the temperature.
2). Analyze the sample at that temperature. Document the temperature and the sample value on the
logsheet.
3). Raise the temperature a couple of degrees and analyze the sample. Document the temperature and
the conductivity value on the logsheet.
4). Raise the temperature a couple of degrees more... repeat until the sample has been measured at
least five degrees below and five degrees above the temperature usually measured for the samples.
One of the temperature measurements must be at 25°C. As the temperature increases or decreases,
the value of the sample should remain approximately the same.

Page 2
Fecal Coliform:
B. COMMENT: The laboratory is not consistent in calculating the fecal Coliform counts per 100 ml of sample.
The laboratory should thoroughly review, with all analysts; the guidance document entitled "Fecal Coliform
Reporting, March 26, 2003" to ensure accurate fecal Coliform calculations and reporting.
REQUIREMENT: Compute the density from the sample quantities that produced MF counts within the desired
range of 20 to 60 fecal Coliform colonies. Ref: Standard Methods, 18th Edition 9222D. (3) p. 9-61.
Conductivity:
C. COMMENT: The laboratory has not verified the cell constant for the Conductivity meter in current use.
RECOMENDATION: Meters with automated cell constant correction should be verified annually. Methods for
the verification of the instrument's cell constant may vary for different manufacturers. Please consult the
manufacturer's manual for instructions specific to your instrument.
D. COMMENT: Conductivity standard solutions were not removed from laboratory usage once the expiration
date was exceeded.
REQUIREMENT: Some standardized solutions alter slowly because of chemical or biological changes. The
practical life, required frequency of standardization, or storage precautions are indicated for such standards.
A laboratory should not consider a solution valid once the practical life or expiration date has passed. Ref:
Standard Methods 18t" Edition - Method 1070 C p1-26.
Total Suspended Solids:
E. COMMENT: The temperature log for the oven indicated an allowable operation range of 104 t 2°C.
REQUIREMENT: DrV evaporated sample for at least 1 hour in an oven at 103 to 105°C, cool in desiccator to
balance temperature, and weigh. Repeat cycle of drying, cooling, desiccation, and weighing until a constant
weight is obtained, or until weight change is less than 4% of previous weight or 0.5 mg, whichever is less. Ref:
Standard Methods 18th Edition - Method 2540 D p2-54.
IV. PAPER TRAIL INVESTIGATION:
A paper trail was not conducted at this time.
V. CONCLUSIONS:
Correcting the above comments implementing the recommendations and requirements should help this
laboratory to produce quality data and meet certification requirements.
Please respond to all lettered Comments cited in this report.
Report prepared by: Edith M. Henderson Date: December 12, 2005

D
November 8, 2005
NC' GOzos�q
242
Mr. Darrel Johnson
City of Henderson WRF
P.O. Box 1434
180 Beckford Drive
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
SUBJECT: Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification Renewal
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Alen W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, in accordance with the provisions of NC GS
143-215-.3 (a) (10), 15 NCAC 2H .0800, is pleased to renew certification for your laboratory to perform
specified environmental analyses required by EMC monitoring and reporting regulations 15 NCAC 2B
.0500, 2H .0900 and 2L .0100, .0200, .0300, and 2N .0100 through .0800.
Enclosed for your use is a certificate describing the requirements and limits of your certification.
Please review this certificate to insure that your laboratory is certified for all parameters required to
properly meet your certification needs.
Please contact us at 919-733-3908 if you have questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
James W. Meyer
Laboratory Section
Enclosure
cc: Edith M. Henderson
Raleigh Regional Office
Laboratory Section 1623 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1623
4405 Reedy Creek Road; Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: www.dwglab.org
0.rCarolina
ura!!y
An Equal OpportunitylAfirmative Action Employer- 50% Recyded/10% Post Consumer Paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
LABORATORY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
In accordance with the provisions of N-C.G.S. 143-215.3 (a) (1), 143-215.3 (a)(10) and NCAC 2H.0800:
SrA --
M fv xo rnQP §
-A = `
1 ✓ _ = - I�
',
fgSt
QUA M V19r`Q'-
CITY OF HENDERSON WRF
Is hereby certified to perform environmental analysis as listed on Attachment 1 and report monitoring data to DWO for
compliance with NPDES effluent, surface water, groundwater, and pretreatment regulations.
By reference 15A NCAC 2H .0800 is made a part of this certificate.
This certificate does not guarantee validity of data generated, but indicates the methodology, equipment, quality control procedures,
records, and proficiency of the laboratory have been examined and found to be acceptable.
This certificate shall be valid until December 31, 2006
Certificate No. 242
James W Meyer

•
Attachment
North Carolina Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification
Certified Parameters Listing
Lab Name: City of Henderson WRF Certificate Number: 242
Address: P.O. Box 1434
Effective Date: 01/01/2006
180 BeWord Drive
Expiration Date: 12/31/2006
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
Date of Last Amendment:
The above named laboratory, having duly met the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2H.0800, is hereby certified for the measurement of the parameters listed below.
CERTIFIED PARAMETERS
COPPER
INORGANICS
Std Method 31138
ALKALINITY
IRON
Std Method 2320B
Std Method 3111B
BOD
LEAD
Std Method 5210E
Std Method 3113B
COD
NICKEL
EPA Method 410.4
Sid Method 3113B
CHLORIDE
SELENIUM
EPA Method 325.3
SMethod 3113E
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
Sid Method 4500 Cl G
SidSILVER
Method 31138
COLIFORM FECAL
ZINC
Std Method 9222D (MF)
Std Method 3111E
Std Method 9222D (MF) 24hr 503
CONDUCTIVITY
Sid Method 2510E
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Std Method 4500 O G
FLUORIDE
Std Method 4500 F C
AMMONIA NITROGEN
Sid Method 4500 NH3 F
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
EPA Method 351.4
TOTALPHOSPHORUS
EPA Method 365.3
OIL & GREASE
EPA Method 413.1
pH
Std Method 4500 H B
SW846 Method 9040E
RESIDUE SETTLEABLE
Sid Method 254OF
RESIDUE TOTAL
Std Method 2540B
RESIDUE SUSPENDED
Sid Method 2540D
TEMPERATURE
Sid Method 2550E
VECTOR ATTRACTION REDUCTION
Option 1: Reduction in Volatile Solids
METALS
ARSENIC
Std Method 3113B
CADMIUM
Std Method 3113E
CHROMIUM TOTAL
Sid Method 3113E
This car ifiption requires maintance of an acceptable quality assurance program, use of approved methodology, and satisfactory performance on evaluation samples. Laboratories are
subject to civil penalties and/or decertification for infractions as set forth in 15A NCAC 21-1.0807.

CITY OF HENDERSON c I
`a °F WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY, ;
z Post Office Box 1434
1646 West Andrews Avenue J
Px toE Henderson, North Carolina 27536-1434- -- f
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
June 20, 2005
Mr. Matt Matthews
Aquatic Toxicology Supervisor
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Subject: Response to Notice of Violation - Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing
Copper and Zinc Action Level Policy
NPDES Permit NO. NCO020559
City of Henderson WWI? (Now WRF), Vance County
Dear Mr. Matthews:
I recently received your Notice of Violation for the City of Henderson's WRF whole effluent toxicity test failure for
April, 2005.
After a conversation with the Plant Director, Mr. Tom Spain, I discovered that the WRF staff was unable to determine
the cause of the failure.
It did not appear to be related to copper or zinc levels in the plant effluent.
The plant passed whole effluent toxicity tests in May and June with chronic values >100°/u.
Even though this brings our plant back into compliance with whole effluent toxicity limits, we still require our
industries to test their discharges for toxicity and are constantly looking for potential problems.
If you need further information please contact me a 252-4316040 or the WRF Director at
252-431.6081.
Sincerely,
.Mark
Assistant City Manager
City of Henderson
cc: Ken Schuster, Raleigh Regional Office
Dave Goodrich, Point Source Branch
Marshall Hyatt, USEPA Region IV
Central Files
City of Henderson WRF Files

�OF `N AT Fq0 Michael F. Easley, Governor
(/ William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
rNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
y
p Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
June 15, 2005
CERTIFIED MAIL %oc_a4io-aoob-qo�o—o/�S
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
uf�,� ,FTii!T1
City of Henderson
PO Box 1434
Henderson, North Carolina 27536
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing
Copper and Zinc Action Level Policy
NPDES Permit No. NC0020559
City of Henderson W WTP
Vance County
Dear Mr. Warren:
This is to inform you that a review of your toxicity self -monitoring report form for the month of April 2005
indicates a violation of the toxicity limitation specified in your NPDES Permit. You should undertake necessary actions to
eliminate or reduce effluent toxicity to acceptable levels.
In addition, this correspondence contains important information on the Division's Copper and Zinc Action Level
Policy which is triggered by two or more toxicity limit violations that occur during the toxicity testing calendar quarter
specified by the toxicity testing special condition of your NPDES Permit. Attachments addressing policy implementation
and a copy of the Division's Toxicity Reduction Guidance have been included with this Notice of Violation.
You should initiate follow-up toxicity testing upon a single WET test failure which occurs during the toxicity testing
calendar quarter.
Your facility is currently monitoring for copper and the data indicate that the level of copper in your effluent has the
potential to cause an exceedance of the NC water quality action level for this parameter in your receiving stream during low
stream flow conditions. The policy states that whenever a facility experiences two or more toxicity limit violations during a
toxicity testing calendar quarter, the NPDES Permit will be modified to include numeric limits for copper and/or zinc
UNLESS the permittee provides one or more of the following:
1. Instream measurements of dissolved metal during low flow conditions that demonstrate compliance with
the Action Level standard
2. A revision of the prospective permit limit using improved inputs that in concert with existing or additional
monitoring data demonstrates compliance with the Action Level standard
3. Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) results that definitively rule out copper and/or zinc as causes of
effluent toxicity
4. Demonstration by an alternative method approved by the Division and EPA that copper and/or zinc is not
the cause of toxicity
NilIZy
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: w .esb.encstate.nc.us 4401 Reedy Creek Rd. Raleigh, NC 27607 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50%RecycW10% Post Consumer Paper

Page 2
City of Henderson
June 15, 2005
The Division has evaluated your copper monitoring data. The Division has also developed a prospective NPDES
permit limit based on your facility's instream waste concentration, the copper action level criterion and a translator
procedure. Based on this data your prospective copper permit limit is 15 jig/L.
The permittee, upon experiencing two or more toxicity limit violations during a toxicity testing calendar
quarter must either provide DWQ with:
a) Written notification indicating acceptance of the prospective copper and/or zinc permit
limit. Notification is due within 30 days after the date of the second WET Notice of
Violation.
OR
b) Written notification indicating your choice of option(s) as noted on page one of this correspondence.
Notification is due within 30 days after the date of the second WET Notice of Violation. DWQ
approval of options 1-3 (previous page) is not necessary as the Division expects work to rule out
copper and/or zinc as causative effluent toxicants to begin immediately upon the second WET permit
limit violation.
Written notification (a or b above) shall be sent to:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Please note that if you choose item b) above, you will be given nine months to submit documentation that eliminates
copper as a causative effluent toxicant. Your final report should be comprehensive and include all data used to support your
conclusion(s). Should the data indicate copper as the source of effluent toxicity or if the data are inconclusive as to copper's
role as a toxicity source, then the NPDES Permit will be reopened and the metal limit specified above will be applied to the
permit. The report is due nine months after the date of the second WET Notice of Violation.
Three copies of the final report shall be submitted to:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
You should consider submitting the above correspondence certified mail.
Failure to notify DWQ of your acceptance of a limit, failure to notify DWQ of your option selection or failure to
make acceptable demonstration to DWQ that copper is not a causative effluent toxicant within the stated time frames will
result in reopening of the NPDES Permit to include a copper numeric limitation, as appropriate.

Page 3
City of Henderson S v
June 15, 2005
If the effluent is toxic, then we expect work to commence immediately with tonic effluent samples. Failure to
initiate work with toxic effluent samples during the study period is unacceptable and will be considered a failure to make
acceptable demonstration as cited above. We recommend a minimum of three separate sampling events during the nine
month period to definitively rule out copper as a causative effluent toxicant.
Please note that your actions to notify DWQ of prospective limit acceptance or to notify DWQ of plan option(s) and
subsequent submission of a plan are contingent upon two or more toxicity NPDES permit limit violations occurring during a
toxicity testing calendar quarter.
Also note that the WET limit will remain in your NPDES permit regardless of whether metals are the source of
effluent toxicity. The data resulting from your actions to disprove copper as a source of effluent toxicity will determine
whether an NPDES Permit limit will be assigned for this parameter. You are responsible for initiating actions to address
these issues.
You may consider entering into a Special Order by Consent (SOC) with DWQ. A SOC provides regulatory relief
for specific NPDES permit limit violations and, if signed, will contain a requirement to conduct a Toxicity Reduction
Evaluation. The SOC will contain a compliance schedule, stipulated penalties for failing to meet milestone activity dates and
may contain upfront penalties to settle past permit limit violations.
Additional information regarding the Division's Copper and Zinc Action Level Policy can be found at the following
web site - htp://www.esb.enr.state.ne.us. Click on the "Aquatic Toxicology" Unit and go to the prompt "AT Downloadable
Files" located at the bottom of the page. This web site also contains EPA's `"Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Guidance for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants." Section 4 of this document contains pertinent information on Toxicity
Identification Evaluations.
If you have any questions concerning this correspondence, please contact me or Mr. Kevin Bowden at (919) 733-
2136.
ATTACHMENTS
Sincerely,
-Plf 011514�
Matt Matthews
Aquatic Toxicology Unit Supervisor
cc: Ken Schuster — Raleigh Regional Office (no attachments)
Dave Goodrich - Point Source Branch (no attachments)
Marshall Hyatt-USEPA Region IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St., SW, Atlanta, GA
30303 (no attachments)
Central Files (no attachments)
Aquatic Toxicology Unit Files (no attachments)

Re: Fw: (068091909) EPA R4 Questions
Subject: Re: Fw: (068091909) EPA R4 Questions
From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:21:08-0500,v) ff`Sd tiJ'T I�!�
To: [e-mail] Q I1 f�U�
CC: [e-mail] r�
Mr. Dare,
A wastewater treatment plant FACILITY is not exempt from SPCC if it
stores oil. The wastewater treatment exemption in 40 CFR 112.1(d)(6)
is exempting the 'flow -through' treatment structures (aeration ponds,
sedimentation ponds,
chemical treatment basins, etc) of a wastewater facility from SPCC. So,
the facility does not need to consider SPCC requirements (secondary
containment, integrity testing, etc) for their treatment ponds, lagoons,
chambers, treatment units, that are treating water/wastewater.
If the facility is storing oil, e.g.--like a diesel tank for an
emergency generator or a diesel tank that supplys some treatment unit,
then thse tanks would be regulated under SPCC and the facility would
need an SPCC plan for their storage tanks. But the flow -through
treatment structures would be exempt from SPCC requirements.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Ted Walden
EPA SPCC Coordinator
404-562-8752
Ted
Walden/R4/USEPA/
US
03/22/2005 05:32
PM
Ted Walden/R4/USEPA/US®EPA
To
CC
Subject
Fw: (068091909) EPA R4 Questions
----- Forwarded by Ted Walden/R4/USEPA/US on 03/22/2005 05:32 PM -----
John
Wright/R4/USEPA/
US To
Ted Walden/R4/USEPA/US®EPA
03/10/2005 10:10 cc
AM
Subject
Fw: (068091909) EPA R4 Questions
Fq(,I I, ) tY
1 of 3 3/23/2005 10:23 AM

Re: Fw: (068091909) EPA R4 Questions •
Ted,
This request was received from the EPA Region 4
Public page, forwarding to you for your attention.
Please copy responses to [e-mail]
for tracking purposes.
Thank you,
John N. Wright
Vistronix, Inc.
EPA Region 4
Information Responder
[phone]
[e-mail]
----- Forwarded by John Wright/R4/USEPA/US on 03/10/2005 10:10 AM -----
Internet Daemon
Owner
<idaemon@mounta To
in.epa.gov> R4-Library@EPA
cc
03/10/2005
09:19 AM Subject
(068091909) EPA R4 Questions
COMMENTS_ OF_REQUESTOR
Are wastewater treatment
planning requirements as
Please elaborate.
Thanks,
Mike Dare
EMAIL OF REQUESTOR
[e-mail]
facilities exempt from SPCC preventative
40cfr112.1(d)(6) suggests?
NAME_ OF_REQUESTOR
Mike Dare
ORG OF REQUESTOR
NC Division of Water Quality
STATE_OF_REQUESTOR
NC
referring_page
http://www.epa.gov/region4/home/contact.html
submit
2 of 3/23/2005 10:23 AM

Re: Fw: (068091909) EPA R4 Questions
Send your question
------------------------------------------------
WARNING NOTICE
This electronic mail originated from a federal government
computer system of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Unauthorized access or use
of this EPA system may subject violators to criminal,
civil and/or administrative action. For official
purposes, law enforcement and other authorized personnel
may monitor, record, read, copy and disclose all
information which an EPA system processes. Any person's
access or use, authorized and unauthorized, of this EPA
system to send electronic mail constitutes consent to these
terms.
This information is for tracking purposes only.
Submitting script: /cgi-bin/mail.cgi
Submitting host: 149.168.26.69 (149.168.26.69)
Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en -US; rv:1.7.2)
Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
Referred: http://www.epa.gov/region4/home/contact questions.html
TSSMS: region04
Mail to File: recipientshome
3 of 3 3/23/2005 10:23 AM

,21TY OF RENDERSI_ _ I
Post Office Box 1434
Henderson, North Carolina 27536-1434
Henderson Water r Reclamation Facility
1646 West Andrews Avenue
Henderson, North Carolina 27537
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
March 7, 2004
Mr. Michael Daze, Environmental Technician
NC Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection Section
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Re: Fuel Storage Tank
Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan
Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
NPDES #NC0020559
Dear Mr. Dare,
r
co
The City of Henderson has investigated the requirements of the EPA Oil Pollution Prevention
Regulations. The regulations, specifically Section 112.1(d)(6) (Federal Register 67-137, dated July 12,
2002), state that a facility used for wastewater treatment exclusively is not subject to the preventative
planning requirements. Based on this exclusion contained in the rules, it is not necessary for the
Henderson Water Reclamation Facility to prepare or implement a Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure Plan.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do no hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Linda Leyen,
pest IN
Chief
Chief Operator
C: Mark Warren, ACM �
Files a2,eKc� �df
H�. �y�v � ��K�� MP'r
faC/L1ilE� 6(5�7� yXdLNSI✓tLy

0 W ATF9oG a
co
1 �
O Y
March 23, 2005
Ms. Linda Leyen, Chief Operator
Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
PO Box 1434
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
Subject: Fuel Storage Tank
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan
Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
NPDES Permit No. NCO020559
Vance County
Dear Ms. Leyen,
a
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
In my follow-up letter for the Compliance Evaluation Inspection of the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility performed
on January 6, 2005, 1 included the following statement:
The USEPA requires facilities meeting certain fuel storage criteria to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control,
and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. One of these criteria is above ground storage of greater than 1320 gallons of fuel.
Since the Henderson W RF falls into this category (due to the 8,000-gallon emergency generator fuel storage tank),
Facility Management should investigate further the requirements of this regulation. A brief overview of the regulation is
attached.
You subsequently responded by letter indicating that the City of Henderson had investigated and determined that a facility
used for wastewater treatment exclusively is not subject to the preventive planning requirements (of the SPCC
regulations).
I emailed EPA for clarification on the matter and received the following response (see attached): A wastewater treatment
plant facility is not exempt from SPCC if it stores oil. The wastewater treatment exemption in 40 CFR 112.1(d)(6) is
exempting the 'Bow -through' treatment structures (aeration ponds, sedimentation ponds, chemical treatment basins, etc.)
of a wastewater facility from SPCC. So, the facility does not need to consider SPCC requirements (secondary
containment, integrity testing, etc.) for their treatment ponds, lagoons, chambers, treatment units, that are treating
waterlwastewater.
If the facility is storing oil, e.g.--like a diesel tank for an emergency generator or a diesel tank that supplies some treatment
unit, then these tanks would be regulated under SPCC and the facility would need an SPCC plan for their storage tanks.
But the Bow -through treatment structures would be exempt from SPCC requirements.
If you have any questions concerning the requirements, please call me at [phone] or contact Mr. Ted Walden,
EPA SPCC Coordinator. at 404-562-8752.
Sincerely,
Michael Dare
Environmental Technician
Cc: Mr. Mark Warren, Assistant City Manager, City of Henderson, PO Box 1434, Henderson, NC 27536-1434
Q" rCarolina
ura/!y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet h2o.enr.state.nc.us 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recyded110% Post Consumer Paper

Re: Fw: (068091909) EPA R4 Questions so 0
Subject: Re: Fw: (068091909) EPA R4 Questions
From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:21:08 -0500
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
Mr. Dare,
A wastewater treatment plant FACILITY is not exempt from SPCC if it
stores oil. The wastewater treatment exemption in 40 CFR 112.1(d)(6)
is exempting the 'flow -through' treatment structures (aeration ponds,
sedimentation ponds,
chemical treatment basins, etc) of a wastewater facility from SPCC. So,
the facility does not need to consider SPCC requirements (secondary
containment, integrity testing, etc) for their treatment ponds, lagoons,
chambers, treatment units, that are treating water/wastewater.
If the facility is storing oil, e.g.--like a diesel tank for an
emergency generator or a diesel tank that supplys some treatment unit,
then thse tanks would be regulated under SPCC and the facility would
need an SPCC plan for their storage tanks. But the flow -through
treatment structures would be exempt from SPCC requirements.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Ted Walden
EPA SPCC Coordinator
404-562-8752
Ted
Walden/R4/USEPA/
US
03/22/2005 05:32
PM
Ted Walden/R4/USEPA/US®EPA
To
CC
Subject
Fw: (068091909) EPA R4 Questions
----- Forwarded by Ted Walden/R4/USEPA/US on 03/22/2005 05:32 PM -----
John
Wright/R4/USEPA/
US
03/10/2005 10:10
AM
Ted Walden/R4/USEPA/US®EPA
To
CC
Subject
Fw: (068091909) EPA R4 Questions
1 of 3 3/23/2005 10:23 AM

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: [phone] FAX: [phone]
March 14, 2005
Ms. Judy Garrett
NC Division of Water Quality
ty '.,.
Environment and Natural Resources t
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Re: Operator in Responsible Charge �1A
NPDES # NCO020559
Dear Ms. Garrett: ?/
This is to inform you that Mr. Thomas M. Spain returned to work on March 8, 2b65 from an
extended medical leave. With his return he has assumed his duties as Operator in
Responsible Charge at the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility.
Linda Leyen, Chief Operator will assume her original duties as back up ORC to Mr. Spain.
The services of Amanda Tingen as contract back up ORC have been terminated.
Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me at 252-431-6040 or
Tom Spain at 252-431-6081.
Sincerely,
�ar:#—
Assistant City Manager
Copy to: Thomas Spain, WRF Director
Linda Leyen , WRF Chief Operator
rd,K- W;i1;R,,�s, C; ry inow7e/ -

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
=j j
February 18, 2005
Darrel Johnson
Pretreatment Coordinator
City of Henderson
P.O. Box 1434
Henderson, NC 27536
Subject: Pretreatment Compliance Inspection Report
Program: City of Henderson
Vance County
NPDES Number NCO020559
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
On February 17, 2005 Jon Risgaard of the Central Office and Christopher Wu of the Raleigh
Regional Office performed a pretreatment compliance inspection with you at the Henderson
WWTP. The inspection report is attached. Thank you for your assistance. The significant
findings were as follows:
There are currently 3 non -Categorical Significant Industrial Users. With approval from
the Division, 2 SIU's have been dropped since the last inspection.
2. The Kennametal IUP states that the sampling is completed by the SIU when, in fact, the
POTW is performing the sampling. The IUP should be modified to indicate the correct
sampling requirements. The City is required to make this modification and submit
the IUP to the Division for approval with the next IUP modification or renewal.
3. The Long Term Monitoring Plan indicates a single detection limit for mercury. As of
September 2004 the City has been performing low lever mercury analysis at the WWTF
effluent. The City is required to modify the LTMP to include the low-level detection
level for the effluent and submit the modification to the Division by May 1, 2005.
4. The requested documents were readily available and easily accessed from a well -
organized system. The file organization certainly facilitated the review process.
With the exception of a few minor necessary adjustments you are doing an excellent job of
meeting the pretreatment program goals for the City of Henderson.
Thank you for your continued support of the Pretreatment Program. If you have any questions or
comments, please contact Christopher Wu at [phone] [email: Chris. WuCa,ncmail.net] or
Jon Risgaard at [phone] ext.580 [email: [e-mail]].
✓Vutumliy
NC DWQ/PERCS Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet h2o.enr.state.ta:.uWPmtreat/index.html 3800 Barret Drive Raleigh, NC 27609 FAX [phone]
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmalive Action Employer— 50% Recycledl10% Post Consumer Paper

Darrel Johnson
Page 2 of 2
02/21/05
Sincerely,
r
Christopher Wu
Environmental Specialist
Cc: Jon Risgaard, DWQ — PERCS Unit
Chris Wu — RRO
Central Files

NORT OLINA DIVISION OF WATE ALITY
PRETREAT NT COMPLIANCE INSPECTIOP CI) REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION [Complete Prior To PCI; Review Program Info Database Sheet(s)l
I. Control Authority (POTW) Name: Henderson
2. Control Authority Representative(s): Darrel Johnson
3. Title(s): Pretreatment Coordinator
4. Last Inspection Date: 12/29/03 Inspection Type (Circle One): ® PCI ❑ Audit
5. Has Program Completed All Requirements from the Previous Inspection or Program Info Sheet(s)? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
6. Is POTW under an Order That Includes Pretreatment Conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
Order Type and Number: Are Milestone Dates Being Met? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
PCS CODING
Trans.Code Main Program Permit Number MM/DD/YY Inspec.Type Inspector
LN1 I N I C 10 I 0 1 7 10 1 5 1 5 9 I 107 117 105 I LP-1 L_s_J
Fac. Type
LLJ
(FACC)
(D'11A) (1YY1)
(INJY)
7. Current Number Of Significant Industrial Users SIUs ?
�3 SIDS
8. Current Number Of Categorical Industrial Users CIUs ?
�0
CIUS
9. Number of SIUs Not Inspected B POTW in the Last Calendar Year?
�0
10. Number of SIUs Not Sampled B POTW in the Last Calendar Year?
0
11. Enter the Higher Number of 9 or 10
�0
NOIN
12. Number of SIUs With No IUP, or With an Expired IUP
0
NOCM
13. Number of SIUs in SNC for Either Reporting or Limits Violations During Either of the Last 2
Semi -Annual Periods Total Number of SIUs in SNC
0
PSNC
14. Number of SIUs in SNC For Reporting DuringEither of the Last 2 Semi -Annual Periods
�0
MSNC
15. Number of SIUs In SNC For Limits Violations DuringEither of the Last 2 Semi -Annual Periods
0
SNPS
16. Number of SIUs In SNC For Both Reporting and Limits Violations During Either of the Last 2
Semi-annual Periods
0
11
17. Since the Last PCI, has the POTW had any POTW Permit Limits Violations? Q9 Yes U No
If Yes, What are the Parameters and How are these Problems Being Addressed? Toxicity - July, 2004. No issues
since.
18. Since the Last PCI, has the POTW had any Problems Related to an Industrial L l Yes 12SI No
Discharge (Interference, Pass-Througb, Blockage, Citizens' Complaints, Increased
Sludge Production, Etc.)?
If Yes, How are these Problems Being Addressed?
19. Which Industries have been in SNC during either of the Last 2 Semi- SNC for Limits:
Annual Periods? Have any Industries in SNC (During Either of the Last SNC for Reporting:
2 Semi -Annual Periods) Not Been Published for Public Notice? Not Published:
(May refer to PAR if Excessive SIUs in SNC)
20. Which Industries are on Compliance Schedules or Orders? For all SIUs on an
Order, Has a Signed Copy of the Order been sent to the Division? None
21. Are Any Permits Or Civil Penalties Currently Under Adjudication? If Yes, Which ❑ Yes ® No
Ones?
Filename: Henderson PCI Page I
Revised: 6/30/98

PRETREATMENT PROGRAM EL NTS REVIEW - Please review POTW file complete the following:
Program Element
Date of Last Approval
Date Next Due, If Applicable
Headworks Analysis (HWA)
6/3/02
6/1/07
Industrial Waste Survey (IWS)
10/12/01
9/30/06
Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO)
3/14/04
12/31/06
Enforcement Response Plan (ERP)
9/13/02
Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP)
6/6/01
LTMP FILE REVIEW:
22. Is the LTMP Monitoring Being Conducted at Appropriate Locations and Frequencies? ® Yes ❑ No
23. Should any Pollutants of Concern be Eliminated from or Added to the LTMP? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, which ones? Eliminated: Added: Hg - lower level; I mg/1 should be added
24. Are Correct Detection Levels being used for all LTMP Monitoring? ® Yes ❑ No
25. Is the LTMP Data Maintained in a Table or Equivalent? ® Yes ❑ No Is the Table Adequate? ® Yes ❑ No
INDUSTRLAL USER PERMIT (IUP) FILE REVIEW(3 IUP FILE REVIEWS OR I FILE REVIEW AND 1 IU INSPECTION)
26. User Name
1. Kennametal
2.
3.
27. IUP Number
000
28. Does File Contain Current Permit?
® Yes ❑ No
TEI Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑ No
29. Permit Expiration Date
30. Categorical Standard Applied I.E. 40 CFR, Etc. Or N/A
31. Does File Contain Permit Application Completed Within One Year Prior
to Permit Issue Date?
®Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Does File Contain an Inspection Completed Within Last Calendar Year?
®Yes ❑ No
❑Yes
❑ No
❑Yes ❑ No
33. a. Does the File Contain a Slug Control Plan?
b. If No, is One Needed? See Inspection Form from POTW
a. ®Yes ON o
b. ❑Yes ❑No
a. ❑Yes ❑No
b. ❑Yes ❑No
a. ❑Yes ❑No
b. ❑Yes ❑No
34. For 40 CFR 413 and 433 TTO Certifiers, Does File Contain a Toxic
Organic Management Plan TOMP ?
❑Yes❑No®N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
35. a. Does File Contain Original Permit Review Letter from the Division?
b. All Issues Resolved?
a. ®Yes ❑No 11
b NYesONOON/A
a. ❑Yes ❑No
11 b.13Yes0No0N/A
a. ❑Yes ❑No
I b.OYesOMON/A
36. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did the POTW Complete
its Sampling as Required by IUP?
®Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑ No
37. Does File Contain POTW Sampling Chain -Of -Custodies?
®Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
38. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did the SIU Complete its
Sampling as Required by IUP?
❑Yes❑No®N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
39. Does Sampling Indicate Flow or Production?
®Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
40. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Did the POTW Identify
All Non -Compliance from Both POTW and STU Sampling?
®Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑ No
41. a. Was the POTW Notified by SIU (Within 24 Hours) of All Self-
Monitoring Violations?
b. Did Indus Res le Within 30 Days?
a.OYesONo®N/A
b.OYesONoON/A
a.OYesOMON/A
b.pYesONoON/A
OYesONoON/A
rb.OYesONop N/A
42. Was the SIU Promptly Notified of Any Violations (Per ERP)?
®Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
43. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Was the SIU in SNC?
I ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
44. During the Most Recent Semi -Annual Period, Was Enforcement Taken
as Specified in the POTWs ERP?
®Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
45. Does the File Contain Penalty Assessment Notices?
❑Yes❑No®N/A
❑YespNo❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
46. Does The File Contain Proof Of Penalty Collection?
❑YespNo®N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
❑Yes❑No❑N/A
47. a. Does the File Contain Any Current Enforcement Orders?
b. Is SIU in Compliance with Order?
a.OYes0NoON/A
b.OYesONoON/A
a.OYesONoON/A
b.OYesONoON/A
a.OYesONoON/A
b.OYesONoON/A
48. Did the POTW Representative Have Difficulty in Obtaining Any of This
Requested Information For You?
❑Yes ®No
❑Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑ No
Filename: Henderson PCI Page 2
Revised: 6/30/98

FILE REVIEW COMMENTS:
Files were very well organized and facib.,,.. the review process.
PCI SUMMARY AND COMMENTS:
PCI Comments:
Requirements:
Recommendations: 1. Kennametal IUP -the permit limit's page states "sampling by SIU" when it should state: "sampling by POTW."
2. The LTMP needs to be updated to include eftlent Hg detection levels.
NOD: ❑ Yes ® No
NOV: ❑ Yes ® No
QNCR: ❑ Yes ® No
POTW Rating:
Satisfactory ® Marginal ❑ UnSatisfactory ❑
PCI COMPLETED BY: Jon Risgaard, Christopher Wu DATE: 02/17/2005
INDUSTRY INSPECTION PCS CODING:
Trans.Code Main Program Permit Number MM/DD/YY Inspec.Type Inspector Fac. Type
(DTIA) (TYPI) (INSP) FACC)
1. Industry Inspected: Iams
2. Industry Address: 845 Commerce Drive
3. Type of Industry/Product: Dog food / cat food
4. Industry Contact: Frank Ayscue Title: Maintenance Manager, Pretreatment ORC
James McColl Plant Engineer
Phone: [phone] Fax:
5. Does the POTW Use the Division Model Inspection Form or Equivalent? ® Yes ❑ No
6. Did the POTW Contact Conduct the Following Parts of the Industrial Inspection Thoroughly?
Comments:
A. Initial Interview ® Yes ❑ No
B. Plant Tour ® Yes ❑ No
C. Pretreatment Tour ® Yes ❑ No
D. Sampling Review ® Yes ❑ No
E. Exit Interview ® Yes ❑ No
Industrial Inspection Comments:
Filename: Henderson PCI Page 3
Revised: 6/30/98

�FR
Y
January 10, 2005
Mr. Mark Warren, Assistant City Manager
City of Henderson
PO Box 1434
Henderson, NC 27536
• Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
NPDES Permit No. NC0020559, NPDES Stormwater Permit No. NCG11075
Vance County
Dear Mr. Warren,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
An inspection of the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility was conducted by this writer and Mr. Shannon
Langley, both of the NCDENR, on January 6, 2005. Ms. Linda Leyen, Chief Operator and ORC, Mr. Darrel Johnson,
Laboratory Supervisor and Pretreatment Coordinator, represented the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility during the
inspection. The assistance of the aforementioned Facility personnel during this inspection was greatly appreciated.
Findings during the inspection are as follows:
1) This 4.14 MGD Class IV wastewater treatment plant consists of one mechanical and one manual bar screens,
comminutor, grit chamber, primary clarifiers, trickling filters, secondary clarifiers, activated sludge aeration tank, final
clarifiers, tertiary filters, ultraviolet disinfection, dissolved air flotation thickeners, dual stage anerobic digester and two 1-
million gallon sludge storage tanks. All units were available for use at the time of inspection except for the comminutor
and one of the 1-million gallon sludge storage tanks. Due to the relatively low incoming flow only four of six primary and
secondary clarifiers were required for adequate treatment. Some wastewater debris was observed on the ground in the
vicinity of the influent structures. This debris should be cleaned up.
2) One of the 1-million gallon sludge storage tank was reportedly approximately 70% full at the time of inspection.
Granville Farms was scheduled to begin removing this sludge for land application beginning on January 7, 2005. It should
be noted that the second 1-million gallon sludge storage tank is unavailable for use due to containing a large amount of
grit and sand build-up that cannot be easily removed. The tank is currently idle and deteriorating due to inactivity.
Consideration should be given to salvaging this tank for either routine or emergency sludge storage or some other related
use.
3) The influent sampler temperature was 4.0 degrees C and collecting flow proportional samples. The accuracy of the
meter was spot checked and found to be > 99% accurate. The accuracy of the final effluent meter could not be checked,
as the Facility was not discharging at the time of inspection because post aeration basin cleaning was taking place. (Flow
was being temporarily diverted to an empty clarifier.) Both meters are calibrated twice a year.
4) To meet the reliability requirements for power, one generator runs automatically to power the entire Facility during
power outages.
5) A comparison of bench note data with the Discharge Monitoring Report for the month of March 2004 was made. No
discrepancies were noted.
6) The ORC log sheets were found to be up to date. Ms. Leyen is a grade IV certified W WTP Operator. Ms. Mary Tingen
(under contract with City of Henderson) is the back-up ORC until HW RF Director Mr. Tom Spain returns to work.
N�am�`ItCaro a
�vaturny
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone [phone] Customer Service
Intemet h2o.encstate.nc.us 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX (9I9) 571-4718 1-377-623-6748
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recydedl10% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Warren •
Page 2
7) A review of the DMR data for the 12-month period from November 2003 through October 2004 was performed prior to
this inspection. The DMR's indicated compliance with final effluent limitations with the exception of July 2004 when there
was a toxicity limit violation. Passing results were achieved when the test was repeated in August and September 2004.
Ms. Leyen stated during this inspection that the filter carbon, which is usually replaced every 6 months, had gone 9
months without replacement prior to the failed toxicity test. It is noted by this office that quarterly toxicity tests are being
performed immediately following the quarterly cleaning of the post aeration tank and UV channel and the semi-annual
replacement of filter carbon.
8) A 10,000 gallon bypass was reported on October 19, 2004. The bypass was caused by the clogging of the manually
cleaned influent bar screen. This office recommends that a high level alarm be installed at this location to help avoid
similar future incidents.
8) The Facility's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan was reviewed during this inspection. Records of periodic
inspections performed by Facility personnel as part of the Plan were up to date. One of the Facility's seven storm water
discharge points was randomly selected and viewed during this inspection. The discharge point was free of debris. No
evidence of spills, overflows or similar incidents was visible.
9) The USEPA requires facilities meeting certain fuel storage criteria to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control,
and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. One of these criteria is above ground storage of greater than 1320 gallons of fuel.
Since the Henderson W RF falls into this category (due to the 8,000-gallon emergency generator fuel storage tank),
Facility Management should investigate further the requirements of this regulation. A brief overview of the regulation is
attached.
10) Attached are the checklists generated as a result of the inspections.
If you have any questions concerning the inspection, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Michael Dare
Environmental Technician
Cc: EPA
Vance County Health Dept.
Central Files

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.0 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 9-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 U 2 U 31 NCO020559 1 11 121 05/01/06 1 17 18 19 Lgj 20'
u u u u
Remarks
211111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111166
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating 81 QA----Reserved --
671 1 69 70 U 71 U 72 U 73 L1J 74 75 L_I_L_L_L_LLJ 80
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
09:00 AM 05/01/06
03/01/01
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
NC Huy 39
Henderson NC 27536
12:30 PM 05/01/06
07/03/31
Name(s) of Onsile Representative(s)/Ti0es(s)/Phone and Fax Numbers)
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible OfBciaUTitie/Phone and Fax Number
Thomas Spain,PO Box 1434 Henderson NC 27536//919-431-6006/ Contacted
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection Check only those areas evaluated
Permit E Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review Compliance Schedules
Efnuent/Receiving Waters Laboratory Storm Water 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/Ofriice/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Mike Dare RRO WQ//919-571-4700/919-571-471e
�1r of,
Eduard S Langley RRO WQ//919-571-4700/919-571-471e v
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Dale
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.

NPDES yNmdday Inspection Type
31 NCO020559 '11 12l 05/01/06 17 7s U
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)

n
Permit: NC0020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 01/06/05 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new application?
Vac
❑
Nn
❑
NA
0
NE
❑
Is the facility as described in the permit?
N
❑
❑
❑
Are there any special conditions for the permit?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Yes
Nu
NA
NF
Operations & Maintenance
Does the plant have general safety structures in place such as rails around or covers over tanks, pits, or wells?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Wastewater debris observed on ground near influent structures.
Yes
No
NA
NF
Pump Station - Influent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is the general housekeeping acceptable?
❑
❑
M
❑
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
❑
❑
0
❑
Are all pumps present?
❑
❑
M
❑
Are all pumps operable?
❑
❑
0
❑
Are float controls operable?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment:
Par 4rreanc
Yes
Nn
NA
NF
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
❑
Cl
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
❑
Cl
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: one manual and one mechanical.
Grit Removal
Yes
No
NA
NF
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the site free of excessive organic content in the grit chamber?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive odor?
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of grit in compliance?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Vac
No
NA
NF
Grease Removal
Is automatic grease removal present?
M
D
❑
❑
Is grease removal operating properly?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Grease removal at primary clarifiers.
PrimaClarifier
Yec
Nu
NA
NE

Permit: NCO020559 Owner • Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 01/06/05 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Primary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Yes
No
O
NA
❑
NE
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
E
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
N
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Snrnndary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Yes
0
Nn
❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
N
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiflng?
O
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
0
❑
O
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin Floc?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the surface free of bulking ?
0❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Pumns-RAS-WAS
Yes
Nn
NA
NF
Are pumps in place?
E
❑
❑
❑
Are pumps operational?
N
❑
❑
❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
N
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Trinklino_Filter
Is the filter free of ponding?
Yes
0
Nn
❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of filters distribution arms?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of uneven or discolored growth?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filler free of sloughing of excessive growth?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the site odor -free?
E
❑
❑
O
Are the filter's distribution arms orifices free of clogging?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of excessive filter flies, worms or snails?
111111
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Small amount of ponding observed
ation Rosins
Mode of operation
Type of aeration system

I1
U
Permit: NCO020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 01/06/05 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
A ratloonn Rnelfh
Is the basin free of dead spots?
Yes
❑
No
❑
NA
❑
NF
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
❑
❑
❑
Are the diffusers operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
❑
❑
❑
0
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
❑
❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
Are setaeometer results acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Basin covered, could not observe.
Nutrient
Yes
No
NA
NF
emoval
Is total nitrogen removal required?
❑
E
❑
❑
Is total phosphorous removal required?
M
❑
❑
❑
Type
Chemical
Is chemical feed required to sustain process?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is nutrient removal process operating properly?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Ferrous sulfate added In collection system for odor control and phosphorus reduction.
Pure rp Oxygen
Yes
No
NA
NF
Type of pure oxygen system
Bulk storage
Is there a back-up source for the system?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the DO in an acceptable range?
❑
❑
❑
Are mixers operational?
❑
❑
❑
0
Are samples port/points easily accessible?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Oxygen added to dual stage digesters.
Filtration Rate Tartiarvl
Yes
No
NA
NF
(High
Type of operafion:
Is the filler 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?
❑
❑
❑
Does backwashing frequency appear adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: No flow through filters at time of inspection.
Disinfectinn UV
Yes
No
NA
NF
-
Are tertiary fillers present before disinfection treatment?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are extra UV bulbs available on site?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are UV bulbs dean?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is UV Intensity adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is transmittance at or above designed level?
❑
❑
❑
Is effluent clear?
❑
❑
❑
Is there a backup system on site?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: No flow through UV system at time of inspection
vlby D=

n
U
Permit: NCO020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 01/06/05 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
I
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Yes
0
No
0
NA
0
NE
0
Is generator tested weekly by interrupting primary power source?
0
0
0
0
Is generator tested under load at least quarterly?
0
0
0
0
Was generator tested 8 operational during the inspection?
0
0
0
0
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
0
0
0
Cl
Does generator have adequate fuel?
0
0
0
0
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
0
0
0
Comment:
YPs
No
NA
NE
I ahnratnN
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
0
0
0
0
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
0
0
0
0
Is the facility using a contract lab?
0
0
0
0
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
0
0
0
0
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
0
0
0
M
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
0
0
0
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees?
0
0
0
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Influent
Is flow meter used for reporting?
Yes
0000
No
NA
NE
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
■
0
0
0
Is flow meter operating properly?
0000
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
0
0
0
0
Comment:
Flow Meac rr ment - Fffluent
Is flow meter used for reporting?
Yes
0
Nn
0
NA
0
NF
0
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
00
0
0
Is flow meter operating properly?
0
0
0
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
0
0
0
Comment: No flow through metering point at lime of inspection.
Yes
No
NA
NE
Record Kweninn
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
0
0
0
0
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
M
0
0
0
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
0
0
0
0
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
0
0
0
0
Are sampling and analysis data adequate and include:
0
0
0
0
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
0
Name of person performing analyses
0
Transported COCs
0
Plant records are adequate, available and include
0
0
11
N

�1
u
Permit: NCO020559 Owner -Facility: City of Henderson - HendersonWRF
Inspection Date: 01/06/05 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Kppnina
O&M Manual
Yes
0
Nn
NA
NE
As built Engineering drawings
0
Schedules and dates of equipment maintenance and repairs
0
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
0
0
0
0
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users?
■
0
0
0
(If the facility is = or> 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 2417 with a certified operator on each shill?
0
0
E
0
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
E
0
0
0
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
E
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
Is the facility description verified as contained in the NPDES permit?
0
0
0
0
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for example: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable Solids, DO, Sludge
0
0
0
Judge, pH, and others that are applicable?
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
0
0
0
0
Comment: Facility notifies users of availability of Annual Report.
Vas
Nn
NA
NF
Inflrlent Semolina
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
E
0
0
0
Is sample collected above side streams?
0
0
0
0
Is proper volume collected?
E
0
0
0
Is the tubing clean?
0
0
0
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
0
0
0
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
0
0
0
Comment:
Fffl rpiSamnllno
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Yes
0
Nn
0
NA
0
NE
0
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
0
N
0
0
Is proper volume collected?
E
0
0
0
Is the tubing clean?
0
0
0
E
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
0
0
0
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)?
0
0
0
Comment: Sampler located above UV system.
Yes
Nn
NA
NE
t lnstream / Downstream Sampling
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and sampling location)?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Yes
Nn
NA
NF
Aprohin Digpster
Is the capacity adequate?
0
0
■
0
Is the mixing adequate?
0
0
0
0
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
0
0
N
0
Is the odor acceptable?
0
0
0
0
Comment:
Anaerobic Dinester
Vas
No
NA
NF
Type of operation:
Is the capacity adequate?
■
0
0
0

Permit: NC0020559 Owner- Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 01/06/05 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Anaerobic Dinester
Is gas stored on site?
Yes
❑
No
0
NA
❑
NE
❑
Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the gas burner operational?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the digester heated?
❑
❑
❑
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Ves
No
NA
NE
Q,grjTna SedsSeds
Is there adequate drying bed space?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is the sludge disbibution on drying beds appropriate?
❑
❑
M
❑
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
❑
❑
M
❑
Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
❑
❑
N
❑
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is the sludge land applied?
❑
❑
0
❑
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
❑
❑
M
❑
Comment:
VPs
No
NA
NE
Snlids Handling Fgidpai t
Is the equipment operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
N
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
❑
Cl
0
❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment:
Vag
No
NA
NE
Chemirnl Feed
Is containment adequate?
❑
❑
❑
0
Is storage adequate?
❑
❑
❑
0
Are backup pumps available?
❑
❑
❑
0
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
❑
❑
❑
0
Comment: Aluminum chloride. polymer and caustic soda are stored on site but currently not used.
Yes
No
NA
NF
Cnm^ lianee Schedules
Is there a compliance schedule for this facility?
❑
❑
❑
Is the facility compliant with the permit and conditions for the review period?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Vas
No
NA
NE
Effluent Pine.
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are receiving water free of solids and floatable wastewater materials?
E
❑
❑
❑
Are the receiving waters free of solids / debris?
N
❑
❑
❑
Are the receiving waters free of foam other than a trace?
❑
❑
❑
M
Are the receiving waters free of sludge worms?
❑
❑
❑
N
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
0
❑
0
0

Permit: NC0020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 01/06/05 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Comment: No flow at time of inspection.

United Slates Environmentai Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding i.e., PCS
Transaction Code NPDES yrlmo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
20I
1 U 2 ICJ 31 NCG110075 111 121 wow/o6 117 18 19 u u
u u u
Remarks
111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII66
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QP. Reserved
67 I 169 70 U 71 U 72 U 73 w 74 75I I I I I I I 180
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also Include
Entryrime/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
03/07/11
09: 00 AM 05/01/06
Nutbueh Creek WWTP
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
1646 W Andrews Ave
Henderson NC 27536
12:30 PM 05/01/06
08/04/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representalive(s)/ritles(s)/Phone and Fax Numbers)
Other Facility Data
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Thomas M Spafn,180 Beckford Dr Henderson NC Contacted
No
27536//252-431-6081/2524927935
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
Mike Dare RRO WQ//919-571-4700/919-571-4718
I _ 0 r
Edward S Langley RRO NO//919-571-4700/919-571-4718
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.

NPDES yr/moAay Inspection Type
�11 121 __ _ 17 18 U
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)

Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation FAOs, Oil Program, US EPA
http://www.epa.gov/o i I sp i I Vopprfags.It tm#what
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oil Program
�
Recent Additions I Contact Us I Print Version Search:
EPA Home > Oil Program > Reporting Oil Spills > FAOs Regarding Oil Spill Reporting > Oil Pollution
RDPq01 Prevention Regulation FAOs
Where You Live
About the Oil Program Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation FAQs
Reporting Oil Spills
Preventing Oil Spills What is EPA's Oil Pollution Prevention regulation?
Preparing for Oil Spills This regulation establishes requirements for facilities to prevent oil spills from
reaching the navigable waters of the U.S. or adjoining shorelines. The rule applies
Responding to oil to owners or operators of certain facilities that drill, produce, gather, store, process,
Spills refine, transfer, distribute, use, or consume oil. The text of the regulation is found at
Learning Center 40 CFR part 112.
Science and Research What facilities are regulated under the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation?
The regulation applies to non -transportation -related facilities with a total
aboveground (i.e., not completely buried) oil storage capacity of greater than 1,320
gallons, or total completely buried oil storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons.
The regulations apply specifically to a facility's storage capacity, regardless of
whether the tank(s) is completely filled. In addition to the storage capacity criteria, a
facility is regulated if due to its location the facility could reasonably be expected to
discharge oil into navigable waters of the U.S. or adjoining shorelines.
What types of facilities are considered non -transportation related?
Non -transportation -related facilities refer to all fixed facilities, including support
equipment, but excluding certain pipelines, railroad tank cars en route, transport
trucks an route, and equipment associated with the transfer of bulk oil to or from
water transportation vessels. The term also includes mobile or portable facilities,
such as drilling or workover rigs, production facilities, and portable fueling facilities
while in a fixed, operating mode.
What does the regulation require a facility to do?
The regulation requires that all regulated facilities have a fully prepared and
implemented Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure, or SPCC Plan. The
SPCC Plan must be certified by a licensed professional engineer. Facilities must
implement the Plan, including carrying out the spill prevention and control
measures established for the type of facility or operations, such as measures for
containing a spill (e.g.. berms). In the event that a facility cannot implement
containment measures, the facility must demonstrate that secondary containment
is impracticable, conduct periodic integrity and leak testing of bulk containers and
associated valves and piping; develop and incorporate a strong spill contingency
plan into the SPCC Plan; and provide a written commitment of manpower,
equipment, and materials required to quickly remove any quantity of oil discharged
that may be harmful. In addition, facility owners or operators must conduct
employee training on the contents of the SPCC Plan. Facilities that become
operational between August 17, 2002 and August 18, 2006 must prepare and
implement an SPCC Plan by August 18, 2006. Facilities that become operational
after August 18, 2006, must prepare and implement a Plan before beginning
operations.
I of 2 1/7/2005 7:31 AM

Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation FAQs, Oi 'JS EPA :://--w.epa.gov/oilspill/opprfags.htm#what
OSWER Home I Suoerfund Home I Oil Program
EPA Home I Privacy and Security Notice I Contact Us
Last updated on Thursday, December 23rd, 2004
URL: http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/opprfags.htm#what
2 of 2 1/7/2005 7:31 AM

\o��F
� � r
>_ y
O Y
November 16, 2004
242
Mr. Darrel Johnson
City of Henderson WRF
P.O. Box 1434
180 Beckford Drive
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
SUBJECT: Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification Renewal
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, in accordance with the provisions of NC GS
143-215-.3 (a) (10), 15 NCAC 2H .0800, is pleased to renew certification for your laboratory to perform
specified environmental analyses required by EMC monitoring and reporting regulations 15 NCAC 2B
.0500, 2H .0900 and 2L .0100, .0200, .0300, and 2N .0100 through .0800.
Enclosed for your use is a certificate describing the requirements and limits of your certification.
Please review this certificate to insure that your laboratory is certified for all parameters required to
properly meet your certification needs.
Please contact us at 919-733-3908 if you have questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Jmes W. Meyer
Laboratory Section
Enclosure
cc: Edith M. Henderson
Raleigh Regional Office
Laboratory Section 1623 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1623
4405 Reedy Creek Road; Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: w Awglab.org
N,'wp�hCanolina
�/VlliItra,1
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
LABORATORY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
In accordance with the provisions of N.C.G.S. 143-215.3 (a) (1), 143-215.3 (a)(10) and NCAC 21-1.0800:
�v �.Y Yf lJys �Y
ti '�• 4, moo"
a:•
FS� QGAM ViDE�,.
CITY OF HENDERSON WRF
Is hereby certified to perform environmental analysis as listed on Attachment 1 and report monitoring data to DWQ for
compliance with NPDES effluent, surface water, groundwater, and pretreatment regulations.
By reference 15A NCAC 2H.0800 is made a part of this certificate.
This certificate does not guarantee validity of data generated, but indicates the methodology, equipment, quality control procedures,
records, and proficiency of the laboratory have been examined and found to be acceptable.
This certificate shall be valid until December 31. 2005
Certificate No 242
James W. Meyer(

Attachment
North Carolina Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification
Certlfled Parameters Listing
Lab Name: City of Henderson WRF Certificate Number: 242
Address: P.O. Box 1434 Effective Date: 01/01/2005
180 Beckford Drive Expiration Date: 12/31/2005
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
Date of Last Amendment:
The above named laboratory, having duty met the requirements of 15A NCAC 21-1.0e00, is hereby certified for the measurement of the parameters listed below.
CERTIFIED PARAMETERS
INORGANICS
ALKALINITY
Sid Method 2320B
BOD
Sid Method 52108
COD
EPA Method 410.4
CHLORIDE
EPA Method 325.3
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
Sid Method 4500 Cl G
COLIFORM FECAL
Sid Method 9222D (MF)
CONDUCTIVITY
Sid Method 2510E
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Sid Method 4500 O G
FLUORIDE
Sid Method 4500 F C
AMMONIA NITROGEN
Std Method 4500 NH3 F
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
EPA Method 351.4
TOTALPHOSPHORUS
EPA Method 365.3
OIL 8 GREASE
EPA Method 413.1
pH
Sid Method 4500 H B
RESIDUE SETTLEABLE
Sid Method 254OF
RESIDUE TOTAL
Sid Method 25408
RESIDUE SUSPENDED
Sid Method 2540D
TEMPERATURE
Sid Method 2550E
VECTOR ATTRACTION REDUCTION
Option 1: Reduction in Volatile Solids
METALS
ARSENIC
Std Method 3113E
CADMIUM
Sid Method 3113B
CHROMIUM TOTAL
Sid Method 3113E
COPPER
Std Method 3113E
IRON
Sid Method 3111 B
LEAD
Sid Method 3113E
NICKEL
Sid Method 3113E
SELENIUM
Sid Method 3113E
SILVER
Sid Method 3113E
ZINC
Sid Method 3111E
This certifirason requires malntance of an acceptable quality assurance program, use of approved methodology, and satisfactory performance on evaluation samples. Laboratodes are
subject to civil penalties and/or decertification for Infractions as set forth In 15A NCAC 2H.0e07.

L'
November 16, 2004
242
Mr. Darrel Johnson
City of Henderson WRF
P.O. Box 1434
180 Beckford Drive
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
SUBJECT: Laboratory Certification Maintenance Inspection
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality,
�J
Enclosed is a report for the inspection performed on November 2, 2004 by Ms. Edith
Henderson. Where deficiencies are cited in this report, a response is required as well as for all
lettered comments and/or recommendations. Within thirty days of receipt, please supply this office
with a written item for item description of how these deficiencies, comments and/or recommendations
were corrected. If the deficiencies cited in the enclosed report are not corrected, enforcement actions
will be recommended. For certification maintenance, your laboratory must continue to carry out the
requirements set forth in 15A NCAC 2H .0800.
Copies of the checklists completed during the inspection may be requested from this office.
Thank you for your cooperation during the inspection. If you wish to obtain an electronic copy of this
report by email, or if you have questions or need additional information please contact us at 919-733-
3908.
Sincerely,
James W. Meyer
Laboratory Section
Enclosure
cc: Edith Henderson
Raleigh Regional Office
bCarolina
umlly
Laboratory Section 1623 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1623
4405 Reedy Creek Road; Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: w axwglab.org
An Equal OpportunitylAffinnative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

On-zsne Inspection Report
LABORATORY NAME:
ADDRESS:
CERTIFICATE NO:
DATE OF INSPECTION:
TYPE OF INSPECTION:
EVALUATOR:
LOCAL PERSON (S) CONTACTED:
I. INTRODUCTION:
Henderson Nutbush WWTP
P.O. Box 1434, 180 Beckford Drive
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
#242
November 2, 2004
Maintenance
Ms. Edith Henderson
Mr. Darrell Johnson, Mr. Phil Lewis, Mr. David Nickels, and Mr.
Doug Louborcher
This laboratory was inspected to verify its compliance with the requirements of 15A NCAC 2H .0800 for the
analysis of environmental samples.
II. GENERAL COMMENTS:
This report reflects findings related to on -site inspection, application information and DMR review.
III. DEFICIENCIES RECOMMENDATIONS, REQUIREMENTS, AND COMMENTS:
General:
A. COMMENT: The laboratory makes serial dilutions of purchased quality control standards and applies the
acceptance limits of the certified concentration to the diluted concentration.
RECOMMENDATION: The acceptance limits provided by quality control standard manufacturers may not be
valid through a wide range of analyte concentrations. If a dilution scheme is performed it is recommended
that the laboratory use acceptance limits not exceeding 90-110 percent recovery of the diluted standard
concentration.
B. COMMENT: The laboratory will adjust temperatures of refrigerators for sample storage and ovens for
residue analysis when temperature requirements are not met. However, the laboratory will not ensure the
adjustments were sufficient to bring temperatures within storage and method requirements.
REQUIREMENT: The acceptable temperature range of samples during storage and for stored sample
extracts is 1.0 - 4.4°C. To assure NPDES compliance, sample storage temperature should not exceed 4.4°C.
Ref: Federal Register; July 1, 2002, 40 CFR 136; Table II. Required Containers, Preservation Techniques,
and Holding Times.
C. COMMENT: The laboratory NIST thermometer was last certified in 1996.
RECOMMENDATION: The laboratory should have a NIST thermometer recalibrated on a periodic basis to
not exceed five years.

Page 2
BO D:
D. COMMENT: The laboratory is reporting values that are less than the lower reporting limit of the method for
BOD.
REQUIREMENT: For N.C. samples the lower reporting limit per the method must be 2 mg/L. Ref: Standard
Methods 18th Edition; Method 5210 B. 6. b. Working Range and Detection Limit. Page 5-6.
Ammonia:
E. COMMENT: Please submit a copy of the 2004 Distillation comparative study with the laboratory response.
REQUIREMENT: To analyze samples without distillation, laboratories shall accumulate comparative data by
analyzing at least two samples from all waste types. Analyze one sample distilled and undistilled yearly from
all waste types. Additional samples must be analyzed comparatively if the above sample results do not
indicate approximately the same values for distilled and undistilled samples. Ref: Federal Register,
January 31, 1994; 40 CFR 136; Footnote 6.
Fecal Coliform:
F. COMMENT: No comparison test is conducted before a new lot of consumables are put into use.
REQUIREMENT: When a new lot of culture medium, pads, or membrane filters is to be used, a comparison
of the current lot in use, (reference lot) against the new lot (test lot), should be made. Ref: Standard Methods,
18t' Edition - Method 9020 B.3 d p9-7.
G. COMMENT: The laboratory does not report data from the 100 ml sample when it is within the desired
counting range.
REQUIREMENT: If a 100 ml sample is analyzed and the counts are less than 60 colonies: report the total
number of colonies present on the 100ml sample. If zero counts are obtained: report as <1/100 mi. The
guidance document entitled "Fecal Coliform Reporting, March 26, 2003" is attached for the laboratory's
assistance.
1. DEFICIENCY: The laboratory does not add Sodium Thiosulfate to sample bottles and sterilize prior to
collection of samples.
REQUIREMENT: Add a reducing agent to containers intended for the collection of water having residual
chlorine or other halogen... For sampling chlorinated wastewater effluents add sufficient Na2SO3 to a clean
sample bottle to give a concentration of 100 mg/L in the sample. Ref: Standard Methods, 18`" Edition —
Method 9060A 2 p 9-18. Ref: Federal Register; July 1, 2002, 40 CFR 136; Table II. Required Containers,
Preservation Techniques, and Holding Times.
Oil and Grease:
H. COMMENT: A new Freon blank must be analyzed with each new lot of Freon. The blank value obtained
must be used in the determination of extracted sample results for the lot in use. The laboratory currently
analyzes a Freon blank each month and may want to consider a blank per lot of Freon as indicated.
Settleable Solids:
I. COMMENT: The laboratory does not maintain bench sheets for the analyses

Page 3
REQUIREMENT: All laboratories must use printed laboratory bench worksheets that include a space to enter
the signature or initials of the analyst, date of analyses, sample identification, volume of sample analyzed,
value from the measurement system, factor and final value to be reported and each item must be recorded
each time samples are analyzed. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H .0800 (a) (7) (H).
Fluoride:
J. COMMENT: The laboratory lists process control samples on the same bench sheet as the reportable data
REQUIREMENT: All uncertified data must be clearly documented as such on the benchsheet and on the final
report. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H .0800 (e) (3).
IV. PAPER TRAIL INVESTIGATION:
This consisted of comparing data reported on DMR's submitted to this Division with the values obtained on
laboratory bench worksheets. Data was reviewed for the months of January, April, and August 2004. No data
transcription or reporting errors were observed.
V. CONCLUSIONS:
Correcting the above deficiency and comments and implementing the recommendations should help this
laboratory to produce quality data and meet certification requirements.
Please respond to all lettered Comments and numbered Deficiencies cited in this report.
Report prepared by: Edith M. Henderson Date: November 3, 2004

Page 4
March 25, 2003
FECAL COLIFORM REPORTING
The following criteria are to be used in obtaining and reporting fecal coliform data:
Standard Methods suggests analyzing samples by filtering three different volumes (diluted or undiluted) depending on the bacterial density.
Each laboratory must filter multiple dilutions of the sample in order to obtain plates containing 20 to 60 fecal coliform colonies. it is strongly
recommended that sampling containers of at least 250 ml be used in order to collect sufficient volume to meet method criteria. See Standard
Methods lB , 19'" or 2e Edition 9222D, and EPA Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the Environment Part IIC and Part IIIC. The rules for
calculating values are given in Standard Methods 9222 D.3, 9222 B.6, and EPA Micro Methods, Part IIC 3.6 and Part IIIC 2.7. The following is a
compilation of these rules to be used in calculating the fecal coliform count per 100 ml of sample for compliance with NCIENRIDWQ Laboratory
Certification.
ALL RESULTS MUST BE REPORTED IN WHOLE NUMBERS.
(1) Countable Membranes with 20-60 Blue Colonies: Calculate the fecal coliform results from membrane filters within the ideal counting
range of 20-60 blue colonies using the general formula:
Number of colonies counted x 100 = Fecal coliform colonies per 100 ml
volume of sample filtered in mi
If more than one filter has a count in the acceptable range, calculate the values in counts1100 ml and average.
If a 100 ml sample is analyzed and the counts are less than 60 colonies: report the total number of colonies present on the 100mi
sample. If zero counts are obtained: report as <11100 mi. (This is a whole volume sample)
(2) Countable Membranes with less than 20 Blue Colonies: If all counts are below the lower limit (20) of the ideal counting range:
(a) Select the count most nearly acceptable and compute the count using the general formula. Report the count as an Estimated Count
per 100 mi: or
(b) Total the counts on all filters and report as number per 100 mi, For example if 50, 25, and 10 mi portions were examined and counts
were 15, 6, and 0 coliform colonies respectively, calculate results as follows and report the count as 25 colonies per 100 mi.
(15 + 6 + 01 counts x 100 = 25 colonies per 100 mi
50+25+10 mi
(3) Membranes with No Colonies: If counts from all filters are zero, report the count for the fecal coliform as a less than (<) value.
Calculate the number of colonies per 100 mi that would have been reported if there had been one colony on the filter representing the
largest filtration volume. For example, sample volumes of 25, 10 and 2 mi produced colony counts of 0, 0 and 0, respectively. The
count would be reported as <4 colonies per 100 mi.
<1 counts x 100 = <4 colonies per 100 mi
25 mi
(4) Countable Membranes with more than 60 Colonies: If all filter counts are above the upper limit (60), but countable, calculate the count
from the smallest volume filtered and report as a greater than (>) value. For example, if 10, 5, and 1 mi portions of samples were
examined and counts were TNTC, 310, and 95 coliform colonies respectively, calculate results as follows and report the count as >9500
coloniesf100 mi.
>95 counts x 100 = >9500 colonies per 100 mi
1 ml
(5) Uncountable Membranes: For uncountable filters with more than 60 colonies or "Too numerous to Count' (TNTC), use 60 colonies as
the basis of calculation with the smallest filtration volume and report as a greater than value. For example, sample volumes of 10, 1.0
and 0.1 mi all produced too many colonies to show separated colonies and the laboratory bench sheet showed TNTC. The count would
be reported as >60,000 colonies per 10D mi.
>60 counts x 100=>60,000 colonies per 100 mi
0.1 mi
(6) If the Filters for a sample have counts of both >60 and <20, but none in the 20-60 range: Use all countable filters and calculate as in (2)
(b) above.
(7) Abnormalities: The above rules are to be used except when an abnormality occurs in the analysis of a sample. When abnormalities
occur, analysts must use their best judgment in selecting the proper value to report
Geometric Mean: Find the log of the values and add them together and then average. Get the antilog. Anything with a less than number is a 1. If
greater than number, use the absolute number.

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: [phone] FAX: [phone]
November 12, 2004
Ms. Judy Garrett
NC Division of Water Quality
Environment and Natural Resources
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Re: Operator in Responsible Charge
NPDES # NCO020559
Dear Ms. Garrett:
As per my letter to you dated November 10, 2004. enclosed is a copy of the agreement
with the City of Henderson and Mary Amanda Tingen for Back up Operator in
Responsible Charge services for the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility. Ms. Tingen
will provide back up services to our Chief Operator Linda Leyen until such time as our
HWRF Director Tom Spain returns to work.
Should you require additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 252-431-6040 or Linda Leyen at 252-431-6086.
Sincerely,
Mark Warre�� n —
Assistant City Manager
City of Henderson
Copy to: Linda Leyen, HWRF Chief Operator
Tom Spain, HWRF Director Files
Eric Williams, City Manager

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: [phone] FAX: [phone]
]'his agreement between Mary Amanda Tingen and the City of Henderson is for Back-up
Operator in Responsible Charge services at the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility.
Mary Amanda Tingen agrees
1. Serve as Back-up Operator in Responsible Charge to the Henderson Water
Reclamation Facility Chief Operator Linda Leyen.
2. Services are to be tendered only in the event of illness preventing Linda
Leyen from performing duties for the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility.
3. All services will be performed in compliance with NCDWQ-DENR
regulations and requirements.
4. Services are to be performed to maintain compliance with all permit discharge
requirements for the plant operations and maintenance.
5. Provide copy of certification (4 23237) for City records.
6. Services are to begin immediately upon this document being signed.
The City of Henderson agrees.
1. Pay a fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) per month for each month service is
provided.
2. Pay a fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) per hour for actual time spent on site.
3. Fee of each hour to be prorated for partial hours spent on site.
4. City reserves right to cancel this agreement at any time should services
not be needed or the services provided are below City standards.
Miiry Amarida Tingen i
IIII CIUa
Date
Mark Warren, A
Date
—�O—O
i d 912SS&1i99'cN/SZ bl'1S/9i Pl t00Z 01 AON(03td) W08i
2-d b6SS-464-6T6 dZmmsmoj dTE:40 40 OT AoW

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: [phone] FAX: [phone]
November 10, 2004
Ms. Judy Garrett
NC Division of Water Quality
Environment and Natural Resources
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Re: Operator in Responsible Charge
NPDES # NCO020559
Dear Ms. Garrett:
,1\
-e;,
/. Z,;.
The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility (HWRF) is currently operating
without an Operator in Responsible Charge. Effective November 4, 2004, Thomas M.
Spain, HWRF Director and ORC, has taken a medical leave of absence from work.
Neither Mr. Spain nor his doctors have given a return date on his leave at the present
time.
Back up ORC and Chief Operator Linda Leyen is currently filling in for Mr. Spain at the
HWRF. She possesses a Grade IV certification (# 22337) for wastewater and has worked
for the City of Henderson for 6 years. She is knowledgeable with the operations and
maintenance of the plant. I foresee no problems with her filling in for Mr. Spain.
As per your telephone conversation with Linda today the City of Henderson has
contacted a Back up ORC to Linda and we are finalizing the financial arrangements. As
soon as this is completed I will forward a letter to the Division with the certification
number and signatures required.

The City is aware of the requirements involving signatory rights of the Back up Operator.
I am also aware of the City's responsibility to name a permanent replacement ORC
should Mr. Spain not return within the one hundred and twenty (120) days allowed by 15
NCAC Chapter 8 Subchapter 8G. Section 0205.1.2.2.
Should you require additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 252-431-6040 or Linda Leyen at 252-431-6086.
Sincerely,
Z/X-
Mark Warren
Assistant City Manager
City of Henderson
Copy to: Linda Leyen, HWRF Chief Operator
Tom Spain, HWRF Director Files
Eric Williams, City Manager

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Septet r�9, 200�4\'
242
Mr. Darrel Johnson
City of Henderson WRF
P.O. Box 1434
180 Beckford Drive
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
SUBJECT: Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification
Dear Mr. Johnson:
We have scheduled an on -site inspection of your laboratory for approximately 8:00 a.m., November 2, 2004. The scope of the
inspection will include all methods marked on Attachment I of the laboratory's current North Carolina Wastewater /Groundwater Certificate
and /or marked on the application for NC Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification. A copy of the current Attachment I is enclosed
for your reference. The purpose of the inspection will be to verify the laboratory's documented quality control/quality assurance procedures
and adequacy in meeting the requirements of 15A NCAC 2H .0800.
Enclosed are inspection checklists for the upcoming inspection. Prior to the on -site inspection, excluding the data review sections,
please have your analysts complete each checklist. Any checklists that your laboratory is unable to complete, or any specific items that you
do not understand, will be completed during the inspection. Completion of these checklists prior to the on -site inspection, with comments
by analysts relating to specific procedural differences will help avoid any unnecessary interruption of the analyst's schedule.
Please have available the DMR report sheets and corresponding bench data available for the months of January, April and
August 2004 for us to review. If further data or report sheets are required, we will notify you during the inspection. These data sets will be
used to assess the quality of your data during the inspection.
Review your last inspection report (Inspection date: November 7, 2003), to assure that all deficiencies have been corrected. If the
deficiencies cited in the December 2, 2003 inspection report have not been corrected, enforcement action will be recommended.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. 1 can be contacted at [phone] (extension 272), if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Edith Henderson
Laboratory Section
Enclosures
cc: James W. Meyer
Raleigh Regional Office
tCarolina
ura/!y
Laboratory Section 1623 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699.1623
4405 Reedy Creek Road; Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: w Awglab.org
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recyded/10% Post Consumer Paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
3800 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
September 24, 2004
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
W. Tom Spain
City of Henderson
P.O. Box 1434
Henderson, North Carolina 27536
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing
Copper and Zinc Action Level Policy
NPDES Permit No. NC0020559
City of Henderson WWI?
Vance County
Dear Mr. Spain:
This is to inform you that a review of your toxicity self -monitoring report form for the month of
July 2004 indicates a violation of the toxicity limitation specified in your NPDES Permit. You should
undertake necessary actions to eliminate or reduce effluent toxicity to acceptable levels.
In addition, this correspondence contains important information on the Division's Copper and
Zinc Action Level Policy which is triggered by two or more toxicity limit violations that occur during
the toxicity testing calendar quarter specified by the toxicity testing special condition of your NPDES
Permit. Attachments addressing policy implementation and a copy of the Division's Toxicity Reduction
Guidance have been included with this Notice of Violation.
You should initiate follow-up toxicity testing upon a single WET test failure which occurs during
the toxicity testing calendar quarter.
Your facility is currently monitoring for copper and/or zinc and the data indicate that the levels
of copper/zinc in your effluent have the potential to cause an exceedance of the NC water quality action
level for this (these) parameter(s) in your receiving stream during low stream flow conditions. The
policy states that whenever a facility experiences two or more toxicity limit violations during a toxicity
testing calendar quarter, the NPDES Permit will be modified to include numeric limits for copper and/or
zinc UNLESS the permitter: provides one or more of the following:
1. Instream measurements of dissolved metal during low flow conditions that demonstrate
compliance with the Action Level standard
2. A revision of the prospective permit limit using improved inputs that in concert with
existing or additional monitoring data demonstrates compliance with the Action Level
standard
3. Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) results that definitively rule out copper and/or zinc
as causes of effluent toxicity
4. Demonstration by an alternative method approved by the Division and EPA that copper
and/or zinc is not the cause of toxicity

2
The Division has evaluated your copper and/or zinc monitoring data. The Division has also
developed a prospective NPDES permit limit based on your facility's instream waste concentration, the
copper and/or zinc action level criterion and a translator procedure. Based on this data your prospective
copper permit limit is 16 µg/L.
The permittee, upon experiencing two or more toxicity limit violations during a toxicity
testing calendar quarter must either provide DWQ with:
a) Written notification indicating acceptance of the prospective copper
and/or zinc permit limit. Notification is due within 30 days after the date of
the second WET Notice of Violation.
OR
b) Written notification indicating your choice of option(s) as noted on page
one of this correspondence. Notification is due within 30 days after the date
of the second WET Notice of Violation. DWQ approval of options 1-3
(previous page) is not necessary as the Division expects work to rule out
copper and/or zinc as causative effluent toxicants to begin immediately upon
the second WET permit limit violation
Written notification (a or b above) shall be sent to:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Please note that if you choose item b) above, you will be given nine months to submit
documentation that eliminates copper and/or zinc as causative effluent toxicants. Your final report
should be comprehensive and include all data used to support your conclusion(s). Should the data
indicate copper and/or zinc as the source of effluent toxicity or if the data are inconclusive as to copper
and/or zinc's role as a toxicity source, then the NPDES Permit will be reopened and the metal limits
specified above will be applied to the permit. The report is due nine months after the date of the second
WET Notice of Violation.
Three copies of the final report shall be submitted to:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
You should consider submitting the above correspondence certified mail.
Failure to notify DWQ of your acceptance of a copper and/or zinc limit, failure to notify
DWQ of your option selection or failure to make acceptable demonstration to DWQ that copper
and/or zinc are not causative effluent toxicants within the stated time frames will result in
reopening of the NPDES Permit to include copper and/or zinc numeric limitations, as appropriate.
Please note that your actions to notify DWQ of prospective limit acceptance or to notify DWQ of
plan option(s) and subsequent submission of a plan are contingent upon two or more toxicity NPDES
permit limit violations occurring during a toxicity testing calendar quarter.

3
If the effluent is toxic, then we expect work to commence immediately with toxic effluent
samples. Failure to initiate work with toxic effluent samples during the study period is unacceptable and
will be considered a failure to make acceptable demonstration as cited above. We recommend a
minimum of three separate sampling events during the nine month period to definitively rule out copper
and/or zinc as causative effluent toxicants.
Also note that the WET limit will remain in your NPDES permit regardless of whether metals are
the source of effluent toxicity. The data resulting from your actions to disprove copper and/or zinc as
sources of effluent toxicity will determine whether NPDES Permit limits will be assigned for these
parameters. You are responsible for initiating actions to address these issues.
You may consider entering into a Special Order by Consent (SOC) with DWQ. A SOC provides
regulatory relief for specific NPDES permit limit violations and, if signed, will contain a requirement to
conduct a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation. The SOC will contain a compliance schedule, stipulated
penalties for failing to meet milestone activity dates and may contain upfront penalties to settle past
permit limit violations.
Additional information regarding the Division's copper and/or zinc action level policy can be
found at the following web site - http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us. Click on the "Aquatic
Toxicology" Unit and go to the prompt "DOWNLOADS" located at the bottom of the page. This web
site also contains EPA's "Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Guidance for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants." Section 4 of this document contains pertinent information on Toxicity Identification
Evaluations.
If you have any questions concerning this correspondence, please contact me at (919) 5714700
or Mr. Matt Matthews, Supervisor of the Aquatic Toxicology Unit at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ken Schuster, P.E.
Regional Water Quality Supervisor
ATTACHMENTS
cc: Raleigh Regional Office (no attachments)
Susan Wilson-NPDES Unit (no attachments)
Pretreatment Unit (no attachments)
Kim Pierce-USEPA Region IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St., SW, Atlanta, GA
30303 (no attachments)
Central Files (no attachments)
Aquatic Toxicology Unit Files (no attachments)

CITY OF HENDERNUN
Post Office Box 1434
Henderson, North Carolina 27536-1434
Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
1646 West Andrews Avenue
Henderson, North Carolina 27537
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
July 23, 2004
Mr. Ken Schuster
Raleigh Regional Supervisor
NC DENR DW
Q ~_ \
1628 Mail Service Center ,v
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 ,
`'?, J
Re: City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
City of Henderson Collection System (j
Annual System Performance Report ^ : ` Af
NPDES No. NC 0020559 e,
Dear Mr. Schuster, v
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.
Please contact me at 252431-6081 or Bryce Mendenhall at 252-431-6105 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Spain
HWRF Director
C: Eric Williams
Mark Warren
Bryce Mendenhall
Linda Leyen
Darrel Johnson
Files

RE: a reminder -from Henderson (E W..: NPr _- NC00200559, some feedback
Subject: RE: a reminder -from Henderson (E Williams) -Annual Report-NPDES # NC00200559,
some feedback
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 17:48:01 -0400
From: "WILLIAMS, ERIC" <[e-mail]>
To: "SPAIN, TOM" <[e-mail]>
CC: "WARREN, MARK" <[e-mail]>,
"'DENR DWQ (Charlene Stephens, with Ken S)"' <[e-mail]>
Tom ... go ahead if you think it would help, and assist Ken, I know he is
busy. I spoke to Ken personally (he was in and out so much this week I
couldn't hardly figure out his schedule) but he knows what I'm looking for,
as we talked by phone a day or so back..... out of their ordinany *box*, from
what I gathered, but I explained the situation to him, but he said he would
email something. If no luck with Ken, then his Secretary, Charlene, was
very helpful to me (thanks again, Charlene!). when we talked he wasn't sure
where the report was that we submitted... but I gave him the date of your
transmittal, etc
Thanks, Eric
> -----Original Message-----
• From: SPAIN, TOM
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:22 PM
> To: WILLIAMS, ERIC
> Cc: WARREN, MARK
> Subject: RE: a reminder -from Henderson (E Williams) -Annual
> Report-NPDES # NCO0200559
> Eric,
> I thought you would have had this by now. Do you want me to contact Ken
> Monday to see if I can speed this up?
> Thanks ------------ Tom
> -----Original Message -----
> From: WILLIAMS, ERIC
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:04 PM
> To: 'DENR DWQ (Ken Schuster)'
> Cc: 'DENR DWQ (Charlene Stephens, with Ken S)'; SPAIN, TOM;
> WARREN, MARK; MENDENHALL, BRYCE
> Subject: a reminder -from Henderson (E Williams) -Annual
> Report-NPDES # NCO0200559
> Importance: High
> Dear Ken.... (and Charlene, copying you in case you see before Ken
> does) ..... pls don't forget to communicate with me (email is fine) as we
> discussed on Aug 8th on the matter of our Performance Annual Report (for
> the period July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003) and some feedback regarding it's
> accuracy, sufficiency, etc, etc. Anything you could do in this regard
> would assist me in responding back to the Council appropriately.
> Thanks much, call me at 252-431-6006 and I trust ny the time you
> read this you've had a nice weekend. Regards, Eric Williams, Henderson
> Manager
1 of 1 8/11/03 8:02 AM

PUBLIC NOTICE
PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT
JULY 1, 2003 TO JUNE 30, 2004
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 Henderson Water
Reclamation Facility and Collection System.
Copies of the report are available to the public at no charge. You can pick up a copy at the
City Hall Reception Area in the City Hall Municipal Building located at 180 Beckford Drive
or contact Tom Spain at [phone] or Bryce Mendenhall at [phone] to request a
copy be mailed to you at no charge and to answer any questions you have regarding the
report.
jrw
o�
� /fro- �y%�/��'��

PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT
JULY 1, 2003 TO JUNE 30, 2004
I. General Information
Facility/System Name: City of Henderson
Water Reclamation Facility
Puma Stations and Collection System
Responsible Entity: City of Henderson
CD
Person in Charge/Contact: Thomas M. Spain, Director WRF
I Bryce Mendenhall, Director Utility Operations
Applicable Permit(s): NPDES # NCO020559
Description of Collection System or Treatment Process:
The treatment plant is designed for a flow of 4.14 million gallons per day of
wastewater and receives an average of 2.592 million gallons per day. The plant treated
948,616,000 gallons from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004
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 biosolids are applied at agronomic rates to farmland by a private
contractor, Granville Farms, Inc.
The collection system consists of approximately one hundred sixty one (161) miles
of gravity sewer and force main lines and thirteen (13) pumping stations that convey the
wastewater to the treatment plant.
H. Performance Summary
The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility was in compliance with all
permit limits durine this performance period.
The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility biosolids were applied to
farmland at agronomic rates and met all permit conditions.
The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility was inspected by the State
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on March 31, 2004. The DWQ noted that there were
no violations of the permit limits or monitoring reauirements and no discrepancies
were noted during inspections of the plant logs and lab data. It was noted that the
Effluent and Influent flow meters were out of calibration and the City should correct this.
The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Pretreatment Program was
inspected by the State Division of Water Quality on December 31, 2003. No deficiencies or
violations were found.

-:r
The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Laboratory was inspected
by the State Division of Water Quality on November 7, 2003. Deficiencies were noted and
a response was made by the City. See November 2003 under the Performance section of
this report for a breakdown.
The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility bypassed a total of 314,617
gallons of secondary treated sewage between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004.
The City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility Collection System (pump
stations and gravity and/or force main lines) bypassed a total of 45,110 gallons of untreated
sewage between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004.
There were 5 bypasses of the Water Reclamation Facility, 0 bypasses of the pump
stations and 5 bypasses of the gravity lines. All of the bypasses were the result of heavy
inflow and infiltration from rainfall exceeding the system capacity, blockage of the lines
with grease and rags or equipment failure.
The total gallons bypassed was only .038% of the total 948,616,000
gallons treated during this annual report period.
The design of the Sandy Creek Pump Station upgrade should be completed by the
end of 2006.
The City also plans to implement a grease trap permitting and maintenance program
for all restaurants and cafeterias discharging to the collection system.
There was no (mown environmental damage from the bypasses.
No death of fish or other aquatic life was observed.
H. Performance
July 2003 l
DMR Violations - None
Environmental Violations-
7-2-03 Reclamation Facility — 500 gallons bypassed (100 to creek) Speed control
malfunctioned on intermediate lift pumps. Repairs were made.
7-2-03 Intersection of Booth St. and Winder St.—11,250 gallons bypassed (11,250
to creek). Heavy Inflow/Infiltration into lines
August 2003
DMR Violations - None
Environmental Violations-
8-1-03 Reclamation Facility — 20 gallons bypassed (5 to creek) DAF wasting pit
overflowed onto asphalt and went to storm drain (Alarm did not go off)

-;t
September 2003
DMR Violations — None
Environmental Violations —
9-18-03 Reclamation Facility — 185,467 gallons bypassed (185,467 to creek) Bypass
from UV channel had all treatment except disinfection. "Hurricane Isabel'.
9-18-03 Just off Beckford Drive — 9,000 gallons bypassed (9,000 to creek).
"Hurricane Isabel". Heavy Inflow/Infiltration into lines
9-18-03 Intersection of Booth St. & Winder St. — 6,600 gallons (6,600 to creek)
"Hurricane Isabel". Heavy Inflow/Infiltration into lines
October 2003
DMR Violations —None
Environmental Violations —
10-27-03 Reclamation Facility—126,630 gallons bypassed (106,630 to creek) Bypass
from trickling filter lift pump — pump controls malfunctioned.and pump
magnetic drive shut down
November 2003
DMR Violations — None
Environmental Violations — None
Pretreatment Inspection:
1. Comment: Laboratory should review all bench sheets and logbooks to ensure
every entry is marked with the appropriate unit of measure.
Response: We have reviewed all sheets and logs and appropriate units added where
necessary.
2. Deficiency: The laboratory reports results for Alkalinity without certification.
Response: We have stopped analyzing alkalinity on the influent and effluent and
removed it from the daily analysis worksheet. We have since obtained
certification for alkalinity.
3. Comment: The laboratory should either clearly label all non -certified work on
the laboratory benchsheet or have separate benchsheets for process control
(non -certified) and reportable (certified) data.
Response: Process control samples will be identified by a (PC) suffix on the sample
identification where appropriate.
4. Deficiency: The laboratory is not consistently analyzing duplicate samples for all
parameters.
Response: All parameters had consistent duplicate analysis except for metals (replicates
were performed), temperature and dissolved oxygen. Metals duplicates will
be digested and analyzed at a minimum of 5% or monthly. Temperature and
dissolved oxygen will have duplicates run weekly and documented on the
daily analysis sheet.
5. Comment: The laboratory is not distilling samples prior to analysis. No comparative
data was available for review.
Response: Samples were submitted to a contract lab for distillation and analysis. The
results will be compared with our in house results. Comparative data studies
will be performed annually and kept on file.
6. Comment: The laboratory does not document standard preparation
Response: The lab documented ammonia standard preparation on the signed bench

F]
10
11
sheet each day. The lot of ammonia standard used and the final
concentration was recorded. This documentation was not noted as a
problem on the prior audit. We will fully record standard preparation in our
reagent/standard log.
Deficiency: The laboratory reported sample results which were above the calibration
range and analyzed a second source standard with a concentration above the
calibration range.
Response: The only samples analyzed in 2003 were PE samples that had multiple
parameters coming out of a whole volume sample. Insufficient sample
remained to make dilutions after the initial analyses had been completed.
No environmental samples were analyzed and reported by the lab. Proper
sample dilution and proper curve range requirements will be strictly
followed on any future samples analyzed.
Comment: The laboratory does not fully calculate and report a final value for blanks.
Response: For this method, the batch blanks are used to zero the spectrophotometer.
Contamination would not be shown in the blank but would possibly be
indicated in any check samples run. We have implemented calculating a
concentration for the blank, which would always calculate out the same
concentration as the blank from the original linear regression of the
calibration curve.
Comment: The laboratory is not analyzing a quality control standard, (preferably from
a different source than the calibration standards), each analysis day.
Response: The lab was analyzing a curve verification sample each analysis day
prepared from dilution of the same Hach standard used to prepare the
analytical curve. We have in addition added a second source LCS standard
prepared from neat KHP.
Comment: The laboratory analyzes an annual four -point curve and does not analyze a
mid -point verification each analysis day.
Response: A new curve with-5 points will be established before any samples are
analyzed and the curve will be verified with a midpoint standard each time
samples are analyzed.
Comment: Data reviewed for metals As, Zn, Cd. indicated that responses of the high
calibration standards were not significantly different from the mid -point
calibration standard although a linear regression of >0.995 or better was
achieved. This may indicate that the calibration range is beyond the
capability of the instrumentation. If a correlation below >0.995 correlation
coefficient for the laboratory. However, the response of the high calibration
standard continues to indicate a leveling off at the higher end of the
calibration range. Scenarios such as this indicate possible instrument
deterioration which intermittently effects calibration performance.
Response: The Unicam software determines curve acceptability using the coefficient of
determination (RZ) or the square of the correlation coefficient. Our curve
acceptance criteria had been set more stringent than necessary (RZ>0.995)
and so the quadratic fit may have been used when not necessary to meet
linearity requirements. With minor method optimizations, we should be able
to run a viable set of standards and routinely meet the method requirements
of R >0.995 for a linear curve fit.

12. Deficiency: The laboratory does not analyze a digested blank.
Response: The lab has implemented digesting a blank with each blank of samples
digested. The blank will be analyzed for all metals that are required within
the batch of samples. A new metal prep log has been created to document
each batch of samples and the corresponding blank.
13. Comment: The laboratory does not analyze a digested laboratory control standard.
Response: The lab has implemented digesting a LCS with each batch of samples
digested. The.LCS will be an ERA QC standard or equivalent and will be
analyzed for each metal required in the batch. The pass/fail criteria will be
based on the supplied acceptable limits with the standard
December 2003
DMR Violations — None
Environmental Violations — None
Pretreatment Inspection Violations — None
January 2004
DMR Violations - None
Environmental Violations —
1-16-04 Reclamation Facility — 2,000 gallons bypassed (10 to creek) Bypass from
trickling filter lift pump — pump controls malfunctioned and pump magnetic
drive shut down
February 2004
DMR Violations - None
Environmental Violations — None
March 2004
DMR Violations - None
Environmental Violations —None
ElWRF Inspection Violations- None
April 2004
DMR Violations - None
Environmental Violations - None
May 2004
DMR Violations - None
Environmental Violations —
5-15-04 Dead end of Ranes Street — 4,500 gallons bypassed (4,500 to creek) Grease
in lines stopped flow through the main line.
5-18-04 Marshall St. & Lucy St. (outfall that runs behind this intersection)—13,760
gallons bypassed (13,760 to creek) Debris and roots in the lines stopped flow.
June 2004
DMR Violations - None
Environmental Violations - None

III. Notification
The following public notice was run in the Henderson Daily Dispatch on
% — -2X 0�4 , 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 1, 2003 TO JUNE 30, 2003
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 Nutbush Creek Wastewater
and Collection Systems.
Copies of the report are available to the public at no charge. You can pick up a copy at the
City Hall Reception Area in the City Hall Municipal Building located at 180 Beckford Drive
or contact Tom Spain at [phone] or Bryce Mendenhall at [phone] to request a
copy be mailed to you at no charge and to answer any questions you have regarding the
report.
IV. 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 Spain ` Date
Title: Director /
Entity: City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
Responsible Person: f Bryp Mende Date: i / Z3
Title: Director
Entity: City of Hend pe ewq//

imap://[e-mail]:143/fe...
Subject: Mayor name change
From: Mitch Hayes <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:28:21 -0400
To: Jerry Rimmer <[e-mail]>
Jerry,
The City of Henderson phoned yesterday to notify us that the Mayor of Henderson is
now Donald C. Seifert Jr. Please use this name on all corospondance to the City of
Henderson; NOV, NOVA'S, CEI, etc. Could you please make a note of this change in
the file on the comments page. I guess BIMS should be changed also. Don't know how
to do that.
Mitch Hayes
1 of 1 7/21/2004 3:24 PM

�OF W AT FRO Michael F Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
0 9 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r
y Alan W. Klimek P.E. Director
< Colleen H. Sullins. Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
April 6, 200,3q-J,
Mr. Mark R. Warren, Assistant Town Manager
City of Henderson
PO Box 1434
Henderson, NC 27563
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
City of Henderson
Water Reclamation Facility
Permit No. NCO020559
Vance County
Dear Mr. Warren:
On March 31, 2004, Paul Clark performed a Compliance Evaluation Inspection at the City of Henderson
Water Reclamation Facility. The cooperation of Mr. Thomas Spain, the primary ORC, and Mr. Darrel
Johnson, the pretreatment coordinator and laboratory supervisor, was greatly appreciated. Mr. Spain
has a Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System Operator certification.
Influent and effluent flow meters are calibrated twice/year. The check during the inspection indicated
that the influent meter was off by about 16 percent and the effluent flow meter was off by about 36
percent. Mr. Spain will investigate this matter.
Other than the issue mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the inspection indicated that the facility is
being operated appropriately. If you have any questions concerning this evaluation summary, please
contact me at 571-4700 x260. Thank you.
cc: Vance County Health Department
Central Files
EPA
Raleigh Regional Office 1628 Mail Service Center
Water Quality Section Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Sincerely,
Paul B. Clark
Environmental Engineer
phone [phone] Customer Service
facsimile (919) 5714718 1-877-623-6748

United States Environmental Pmtectlun Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D C. 2o4so
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 U 2 151 31 NCO020559 111 121 31 17 18u1 19U 20L
Re0m4a/r0k3s/
"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIis6
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating 81 CA ----------Reserved------------
67 69 70 u 71 U 72 U 73 W 74 75I I I I I I I 180
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Henderson WRF
08:30 AM 04/03/31
03/01/01
NC Highway 39
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Henderson NC 27536
12:10 PM 04/03/31
07/03/31
Name(s) of Onske Representadve(syTitles(syPhone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Thomas M Spain/CRC/252-431-6081/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Thomas Spain,PO Box 1434 Henderson NC 27536//919-431-6006/ Contacted
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance CSO/SSO(Sewer Overflow)
Records/Reports Self -Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Pollution Prevention
Facility Site Review Compliance Schedules Pretreatment Multimedia
Effluent/Receiving Waters � Laboratory � Storm Water � Other
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/OfficaPhone and Fax Numbers Date
Paul
Pau/l/�//;�Claarrk//�/
RRO WQ//919-571-4700/919-571-4719
Sign re of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
v
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9- )Previous editions are obsolete.

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
31 NCa02O559 111 12 I 04/03/31 117 18 1 _I
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)

Permit: NCO020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 03/31/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new application?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is the facility as described in the permit?
No
❑
❑
Are there any special conditions for the permit?
No
❑
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
IN
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
0
Cl
❑
❑
Comment:Special Conditions - Chronic Toxicity Permit Limit (Ouartedy) and Effluent Pollutant Scan (Annually)
Onerations & M-intenance
Yes
Does the plant have general safety structures in place such as rails around or covers over tanks, pits, or wells?
No
No
NA
❑
NF
❑
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment:ORC admitted that W WTP needs general overall painting
Bar Screens
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
IN ❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
IN ❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Comment: Wastewater proceeds through mechanical screen with 3/4-inch openings, proceeds through grit removal, and
then proceeds through manual screen with 1/2-inch openings.
Remoyn]
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the site free of excessive organic content in the grit chamber?
No
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive odor?
N ❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of girt in compliance?
M ❑
❑
❑
Comment:Waste grit goes to Person County landfill.
Grease Ramnval
Is automatic grease removal present?
Yes No
No
NA
❑
NF
❑
Is grease removal operating property?
s ❑
❑
❑
Comment:There is grease removal in the primary clarifiers.
Primary Clarifi r
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Yes No NA
❑ 0 ❑
NF
❑
Is the site fine of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
a ❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
a ❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
N ❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
N 0
0
0

Permit: NCO020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 03/31/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Primary Clarifier Yes No NA NF
Comment:Primary clarifiers often have black and odorous wastewater. The weirs were leveled the week prior to
inspection. Sludge in primary clarifiers goes directly to sludge thickener. Normally, only four of the six primary
clarifiers and four of the six secondary clarifiers are used at one time. The extra clarifiers are sometimes used for
equalization.
Secondary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Yes Nn
E ❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
N❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
E
❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
.
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
❑
❑
❑
Is the surface free of bulking ?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:Sludge in secondary clarifiers goes directly to thickener. Normally, only four of the six primary clarifiers and
four of the six secondary darters are used at one time. The extra darifiers are sometimes used for equalization.
Pmmns-RAS-WAS
Are pumps in place?
Yes
■
No
❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
Are pumps operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Comment:
Trickling Filter
Is the filter free of ponding?
Yes No
❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of filter's distribution anus?
E ❑
❑
❑
Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms?
N ❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of uneven or discolored growth?
0❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth?
N❑
❑
❑
Is the site odor -free?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Are the filter's distribution arms orifices free of dogging?
N ❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of excessive filter flies, worms or snails?
E Cl
❑
❑
Comment:
Ition Resins
Mode of operation
Type of aeration system
Is the basin free of dead spots?
❑ ❑
❑
0
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
❑ ❑
❑
Are the diffusers operational?
❑ ❑
❑
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
❑ ❑
❑
Does the foam cover less than 25 % of the basin's surface?
❑ ❑
❑
Is the DO level acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
Are settleometer results acceptable?
Cl
❑
❑
Comment:The aeration basin uses pure oxygen forced into water under pressure. Basin is covered and so many
factors could not be evaluated.

Permit: NCO020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 03/31/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Nutrient Removal Yes
Is total nitrogen removal required?
0000
No
NA
NF
Is total phosphorous removal required?
0
❑
❑
❑
Type
Is chemical feed required to sustain process?
❑
N
❑
❑
Is nutrient removal process operating property?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment:Phosphorus removal begins in collection system where ferric sulfate is added and continues through W WTP.
Pure Oxvaen Yes
Type of pure oxygen system
No
NA
NF
Is there a back-up source for the system?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the DO in an acceptable range?
so[][]
Are mixers operational?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Are samples port/points easily accessible?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Comment: W WTP has equipment to generate oxygen onsite, but it is not used because it is less expensive to purchase
oxygen.
;ton fHigh Rate 7
Type of operation
Is the filter media present?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
E ❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of growth?
0❑
❑
❑
Is the air scour operational?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the scouring acceptable?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
❑ ❑
❑
Does backwashing frequency appear adequate?
M ❑
❑
❑
Comment:Clearwell is covered and could not be examined.
Disinfection -IN
Are tertiary filters present before disinfection treatment?
Yes No
0 ❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
Are extra UV bulbs available on site?
IN ❑
❑
❑
Are UV bulbs clean?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is UV intensity adequate?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is transmittance at or above designed level?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is effluent clean
M ❑
❑
❑
Is there a backup system on site?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Comment:Sodium hypochlorite is used as backup for disinfection
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Yes No
E ❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
Is generator tested weekly by interrupting primary power source?
❑ 0
❑
❑
Is generator tested under load at least quarterly?
M ❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
❑ 0
❑
❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
M ❑
❑
❑
Does generator have adequate fuel?
M❑
❑
❑
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
❑ ❑
❑
0
Comment:Generator is tested/run every two weeks.
I
ahoralnry
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
Yes Nn
No
NA
❑
NIF
❑
Are all other paremeters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
0 0
0
0

Permit: NCO020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 03/31/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Lahntatory
Is the facility using a contract lab?
Ves
■
No
❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
■
❑
❑
❑
Incubator (Fecal Colfform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
■
❑
❑
❑
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:Henderson W WTP laboratory analyzes several parameters themselves (i.e., BOD, TSS, etc.) and sends the
remainder to a commercial lab.
Flow Measurement - Influent Yes No NA NE
Is flow meter used for reporting? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is flow meter operating properly? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment:The meter was off by about 16 percent during check. Tom Spain will investigate this matter.
Flow M as irempm - FfilijAnt
Is flow meter used for reporting?
Yes
■
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter operating properly?
❑
moo
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meleR
❑
❑
■
❑
Comment:The meter was off by about 36 percent during check. Tom Spain will investigate this matter.
Record Kagnmo
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
Yes
■
No
❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
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?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are sampling and analysis data adequate and include:
■
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
■
Name of individual performing the sampling
■
Results of analysis and calibration
■
Dates of analysis
■
Name of person performing anatyses
■
Transported COCs
■
Plant records are adequate, available and include
■
❑
❑
❑
O&M Manual
■
As built Engineering drawings
■
Schedules and dales of equipment maintenance and repairs
■
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
■
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users?
■
❑
❑
❑
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24R 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 cement NPDES permit available on site?
IN
❑
❑
❑
Is the facility description verified as contained in the NPDES permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for example: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable Solids. DO, Sludge
■
❑
❑
❑
Judge, pH, and others that are applicable?

Permit: NC0020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 03/31/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Knenina
Facility has copy of previous years Annual Report on file for review?
Yes
❑
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
Comment:
Yes
No
NA
NF
Influent Samolina
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
❑
❑
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
Cl
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsiust?
❑
❑
❑
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Ff luent Samolina
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
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 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
❑
❑
❑
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Yes No
NA
NF
I Instream / Dnwnslr am Samnlina
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and sampling location)?
No
❑
❑
Comment:
Yes No
NA
NF
Aerohic Digester
Is the capacity adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
❑ ❑
❑
Is the odor acceptable?
M ❑
❑
❑
Comment:Tank very tall, did not climb up and look in top
erobir. Djggstpr
Type of operation
Is the capacity adequate?
■ ❑
❑
❑
Is gas stored on site?
❑ 0
❑
❑
Is the digesters) free of tilting covers?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the gas burner operational?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the digester heated?
❑
❑
❑
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:Covers did not appear to be Elting during inspection.
Drvina Reds
Is there adequate drying bed space?
Yes
0
No NA
❑ ❑
NF
❑
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
❑
❑ 0
❑
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
❑
E ❑
❑
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
❑
E ❑
❑
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
0
❑ ❑
❑
Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
0
0 0
0

Permit: NC0020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 03/31/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Dry nn Reds V c N� o NA NF
Is the sludge land applied? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Comment:The sludge drying beds are not really used at this facility. There was a very small amount of sludge on a
couple of the beds. Granville Fames land applies Henderson's sludge.
Is the equipment operational?
V c No
■ ❑
NA
❑
NF
❑
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?
❑ ❑
■
❑
CommentUssolved air Floatation is used for sludge thickening as opposed to a belt filter press.
Ves No
NA
NE
Chemical Feed
Is containment adequate?
■ ❑
❑
❑
Is storage adequate?
■ ❑
❑
❑
Are backup pumps available?
❑ ❑
❑
■
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
■ ❑
❑
❑
Commem:The only chemical fed regularly in the treatment process is lime.
Yes No
NA
NF
Compliance Schedules Schedules
Is there a compliance schedule for this facility?
❑ ❑
■
❑
Is the facility compliant with the permit and conditions for the review period?
❑ ❑
■
❑
Comment:
Ye, No
NA
NE
Fffluent Poe
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
■ ❑
❑
❑
Are receiving water free of solids and floatable wastewater materials?
■ ❑
❑
❑
Are the receiving waters free of solids / debris?
■ ❑
❑
❑
Are the receiving waters free of foam other than a trace?
■ ❑
❑
❑
Are the receiving waters free of sludge worms?
■ ❑
❑
❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
❑ ❑
■
❑
Comment:

�0 NJ A TF,gO Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
�O G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
7
> ti Raleigh Regional Office
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
January 6, 2004
Memorandum
To: Coleen Sullins
From: Ken Schuster
Subject: Sanitary Sewer Overflows
Action Plan Follow up
Below is an update on the status of previously identified Municipalities with issues related to
collection systems. The Raleigh Regional Office continues to work with all of these situations as
well as many others that experience collection system problems.
Town of Roxboro — As anticipated, the Town of Roxboro has experienced significantly
fewer SSO's since the replacement of the Tanyard and Marlowe lines. Flow is at times
overwhelming the WWTP. The Town also had a problem when a contractors bypass line
ruptured on the new outfall line job. The RRO is evaluating its response in that situation.
The RRO anticipates continuing to work with the Town as increased flows at the WWTP
have been seen since the completion of the line replacement. It is hoped a collection
system inspection can be performed at Roxboro during the first quarter of 2004.
2. City of Sanford — The collection system permit was issued in December. A permanent
generator has been installed at the Little Buffalo pump station. The City continues to
experience overflows at that site, and other areas of the collection system during rain
events. Long term plans call for the removal of this station. The City has initiated the
flow study of the Little Buffalo Creek drainage basin.
3. Town of Hillsborough —A collection system inspection was performed December 12,
2003. The town has made improvements within the system. Wireless alarm systems
(Mission and Strison) have been installed at each of the Town's 24 pump stations.
Fences have been installed around several pump stations and permanent generators with
natural gas lines were observed at three stations during the inspection. The alarm
systems functioned during the inspection. One generator did not function properly but
the cause of that problem was corrected while staff were on site. The city has complied
with requirements of its permit.
4. City of Oxford —The City continues to experience spills of untreated wastewater at the
headworks of the plant. The city's 201 facility plan was approved in March 2003. Plans
for an upgraded treatment plant including new influent headworks are being developed.
The ATC request for the WWTP expansion has been received by DWQ. The City has
applied for an SOC and a draft has been developed. Work is ongoing with this facility.
Raleigh Regional Office 1628 Mail Service Center phone [phone] Customer Service
Water Quality Section Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 facsimile (919) 5714718 "77-623-6748
vl�A
? L'DEI4R

5. City of Henderso— .'he regional office is also evaluating .,...jrcement options related to
past overflows and continuing to work towards getting the facility's Collection system
permit issued.
If you have any questions feel free to give me a call.
Cc: Region Files

0
g*;1
Y
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
December 2, 2003
242
Mr. Darrel Johnson
Henderson Nutbush WWTP
P.O. Box 1434
180 Beckford Drive
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
SUBJECT: Laboratory Certification Maintenance Inspection
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Enclosed is a report for the inspection performed on November 7, 2003 d i t h
M. Henderson and Mr. Frederick L. Bone. Where deficiencies are cited i- 'f 4eport, a
response is required as well as for all lettered comments and/or recommendations. Within
thirty days of receipt, please supply this office with a written item for item description of how
these deficiencies, comments and/or recommendations were corrected. If the deficiencies
cited in the enclosed report are not corrected, enforcement actions will be recommended.
For certification maintenance, your laboratory must continue to carry out the requirements
set forth in 15A NCAC 2H .0800.
Copies of the checklists completed during the inspection may be requested from this
office. Thank you for your cooperation during the inspection. If you wish to obtain an
electronic copy of this report by email, or if you have questions or need additional
information please contact us at 919-733-3908.
Enclosure
cc: Edith M. Henderson
Raleigh Regional Office
Sincerely,
�Ar
James W. Meyer
Laboratory Section
`NMENOR
N. C. Division of Water Quality Laboratory Section 1623 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1623 [phone]
FAX: [phone]

On -Site Inspection Report
LABORATORY NAME: Henderson Nutbush WWTP
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1434, 180 Beckford Drive
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
CERTIFICATE NO: #242
DATE OF INSPECTION: November 7, 2003
TYPE OF INSPECTION: Maintenance
EVALUATOR: Ms. Edith Henderson and Mr. Frederick L. Bone
LOCAL PERSON (S) CONTACTED: Mr. Darrell Johnson, Mr. Phil Lewis, Mr. David Nickels, and Mr.
Doug Louborcher
I. INTRODUCTION:
This laboratory was inspected to verify its compliance with the requirements of 15A NCAC 2H .0800 for the
analysis of environmental samples.
II. GENERAL COMMENTS:
This report reflects findings related to on -site inspection, application information and DMR review.
III. DEFICIENCIES, RECOMMENDATIONS, REQUIREMENTS, AND COMMENTS:
General:
A. COMMENT: Some of the daily logs used by the laboratory do not contain all of the necessary labeling
information. No units of measure are associated with some of the data values in the logbooks and benchsheets.
RECOMMENDATION: The laboratory should review all bench sheets and logbooks to ensure everyentry is
marked with the appropriate unit of measure.
REQUIREMENT: All laboratories must use printed laboratory bench worksheets that include a space to enter
the signature or initials of the analyst date of analyses, sample identification, volume of sample analyzed, value
from the measurement system, factor, final value to be reported, and each item must be recorded each time
samples are analyzed. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H .0805 (a) (7) (h).
REQUIREMENT: Supporting records shall be maintained as evidence that these practices are being
effectively carried out. All analytical records must be available for a period of five years. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H
.0805 (a) (7) and (a) (7) (G).
COMMENT: The laboratory does not list the Standard Methods Edition along with the method that is being used
on their benchsheets.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended to list the Standard Methods Edition used since the 181h, 19'h, and 201h
are all promulgated editions and may differ in requirements per method.
1. DEFICIENCY: The laboratory reports results for Alkalinity without certification.

Page 2
REQUIREMENT: Municipal and Industrial Laboratories are required to obtain certification for parameters which
will be reported to the State to comply with State surface water monitoring, groundwater, and pretreatment rules.
Ref: 15A NCAC 2H .0804 (a).
B. COMMENT: The laboratory lists process control samples on the same benchsheet as the reportable data.
Some of the process control data does not meet the requirements of the cited methodology.
RECOMMENDATION: The laboratory should either clearly label all non -certified work on the laboratory
benchsheet or have separate benchsheets for process control (non -certified) and reportable (certified) data.
This will allow the laboratory to demonstrate that all data used for reporting purposes has met all method
requirements.
REQUIREMENT: All uncertified data must be clearly documented as such on the benchsheet and on the final
report. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H .0805 (a) (3).
COMMENT: The laboratory does not list the recovery acceptance ranges of quality control samples and the %
RPD acceptance criteria for duplicates on the bench sheets.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the laboratory list the acceptance ranges for each quality control
sample on the benchsheet. This will enable the analyst to be able to immediately confirm whether or not the
data falls within acceptable limits.
COMMENT: The laboratory does not clearly label duplicate samples on benchsheets.
RECOMMENDATION: For duplicate samples, the laboratory should clearly delineate duplicate samples from
regular samples. Sample identification by terminology such as "Dup" or "Duplicate" to indicate sample
duplication should be used.
C. COMMENT: The laboratory does not routinely check and document the Residual Chlorine content in samples
upon sample receipt.
REQUIREMENT: For any sample that requires the removal of residual chlorine, (TKN, Ammonia, Fecal
Coliform) the laboratory must check to ensure that the chlorine has been removed. The residual chlorine check
must be performed to verify that the residual chlorine level is below 0.5 mg/L. Commercially available starch
iodide paper can be used to perform this determination. Ref: Standard Methods, 18th Edition - Method 4500
NH3, Method 5210B, Method 9060A.
2. DEFICIENCY: The analyst does not initial the computer -generated benchsheets and logs on a daily basis.
REQUIREMENT: All laboratories must use printed laboratory bench worksheets that include a space to enter
the signature or initials of the analyst, date of analyses, sample identification, volume of sample analyzed, value
from the measurement system, factor, and final value to be reported, and each item must be recorded each
time samples are analyzed. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H .0805 (a) (7) (h).
D. COMMENT: The laboratory documents reagent preparation on reagent storage containers with no other
supporting documentation.
RECOMMENDATION: The laboratory should maintain a reagent log, which will enable the laboratory to
document exactly when, by whom, and how each reagent was prepared.
REQUIREMENT: All analytical records must be available for a period of five years. Records, which are
stored only on electronic media, must be maintained and supported in the laboratory by all hardware and
software necessary for immediate data retrieval and review. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H .0805 (a) (7) (g).

Page 3
REQUIREMENT: Supporting records shall be maintained as evidence that these practices are being
effectively carried out. All analytical records must be available for a period of five years. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H
.0805 (a) (7) and (a) (7) (G).
3. DEFICIENCY: The laboratory is not consistently analyzing duplicate samples for all parameters.
REQUIREMENT: Except for Oil and Grease, settleable solids or where otherwise specified in an analytical
method, analyze five percent of all samples in duplicate to document precision. Laboratories analyzing less
than 20 samples per month must analyze at least one duplicate each month samples are analyzed. Ref: 15A
NCAC 2H .0805 (a) (7) (c).
BOD:
COMMENT: The laboratory data reviewed indicated the possibility of toxic effects in effluent samples.
Toxicity may be characterized by a significant increase in BOD values as the concentration of sample is
decreased.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the laboratory verify the toxic effect by performing more
dilutions or creating a broader dilution scheme. This may enable the laboratory to produce a viable dilution in
which the source of toxicity may not affect the microorganisms.
Ammonia:
E. COMMENT: The laboratory is not distilling samples prior to analysis. No comparative data was available
for review.
REQUIREMENT: To analyze samples without distillation, laboratories shall accumulate comparative data by
analyzing at least two samples from all waste types. Analyze one sample distilled and undistilled yearly from
all waste types. Additional samples must be analyzed comparatively if the above sample results do not
indicate approximately the same values for distilled and undistilled samples. Ref: Federal Register, January
31, 1994; 40 CFR 136; Footnote 6.
F. COMMENT: The laboratory does not document standard preparation
RECOMMENDATION: The laboratory should maintain a standard log, which will enable the laboratory to
document exactly when, by whom, and how each standard was prepared.
REQUIREMENT: All analytical records must be available for a period of five years. Records, which are
stored only on electronic media, must be maintained and supported in the laboratory by all hardware and
software necessary for immediate data retrieval and review. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H .0805 (a) (7) (g).
REQUIREMENT: Supporting records shall be maintained as evidence that these practices are being
effectively carried out. All analytical records must be available for a period of five years. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H
.0805 (a) (7) and (a) (7) (G).
Fecal Coliform:
COMMENT: The culture positive sample analyzed by the laboratory each analysis day does not obtain counts
in the ideal plate counting range of 20 — 60 colonies per plate.
RECOMMENDATION: The culture positive sample should meet the same method quality control standards
as any other sample. Dilutions should be set such that the ideal counting range of 20 — 60 colonies per plate
is achieved.

Page 4
Fluoride:
4. DEFICIENCY: The laboratory reported sample results which were above the calibration range and
analyzed a second source standard with a concentration above the calibration range.
REQUIREMENT: The laboratory is required to analyze a series of standards, which bracket the
concentration of samples analyzed. All quality control standard values should fall within the range of the
calibration. Samples, which are above the calibration range, should be diluted to fall within the bracketed
concentrations. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H .0805 (a) (7) (i).
REQUIREMENT: Verify the standard curve daily by analyzing one or more standards within the linear range,
as specified in the individual method. Reportable analytical results are those within the range of the standard
dilutions used. Ref: Standard Methods, 18th Edition - Method 1020E (5).
COD:
G. COMMENT: The laboratory does not fully calculate and report a final value for blanks.
RECOMMENDATION: The laboratory must fully calculate all blank values and record the values on the
benchsheet. Blanks should not account for more than one half the value of the low-level standard. Blanks that
yield values more than one half of the low reporting limit may indicate contamination.
REQUIREMENT: All laboratories must use printed laboratory bench worksheets that include a space to enter
the signature or initials of the analyst date of analyses, sample identification, volume of sample analyzed, value
from the measurement system, factor, final value to be reported, and each item must be recorded each time
samples are analyzed. Ref:15A NCAC 2H .0805 (a) (7) (h).
H. COMMENT: The laboratory is not analyzing a quality control standard, (preferably from a different source
than the calibration standards), each analysis day.
REQUIREMENT: Excluding Oil and Grease, all residue parameters, TCLP extractions, residual chlorine, and
coliform, analyze one known standard in addition to calibration standards each day samples are analyzed to
document accuracy. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H .0800(a)(7)(b).
REQUIREMENT: Analyze one known standard in addition to calibration standards to document accuracy
each day samples are analyzed. This LCS (laboratory control standard) must be from a second source. For
held curves for colorimetric methods, it must be analyzed after the initial CCV (continuing calibration
verification standard) is analyzed. It is recommended that the laboratory control standard, like the CCV, have
a concentration at the mid -range of the curve and not vary by more than t 10%. If it does, the analysis is out
of control. The analysis must be terminated and the problem corrected. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H .0805 (a) (7) (B),
(F), and Standard Methods, 18th Edition - Method 1020 B.3.
Total Residual Chlorine:
I. COMMENT: The laboratory analyzes an annual four -point curve and does not analyze a mid -point
verification each analysis day.
REQUIREMENT: For oolorimetric analyses, a series of five standards for a curve prepared annually or three
standards for curves established each day must be analyzed to establish a standard curve. The curve must
be updated as set forth in the standard procedures, each time the slope changes by more than 10 percent at
mid -range, each time a new stock standard is prepared, or at least every twelve moths. Each analyst
performing the analytical procedure must produce a standard curve. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H .0800(a)(7)(i).

Page 5
Total Phosphorus:
5. DEFICIENCY: The laboratory analyzes a second source standard with a concentration below the
calibration range.
REQUIREMENT: The laboratory is required to analyze a series of standards, which bracket the
concentration of samples analyzed. All quality control standard values should fall within the range of the
calibration. Samples, which are above the calibration range, should be diluted to fall within the bracketed
concentrations. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H .0805 (a) (7) (i).
REQUIREMENT: Verify the standard curve daily by analyzing one or more standards within the linear range,
as specified in the individual method. Reportable analytical results are those within the range of the standard
dilutions used. Ref: Standard Methods, 18th Edition - Method 1020B (5).
Metals:
COMMENT: On computer generated benchsheets results are labeled as ppm. However, for transferring data
results to DMR reporting forms the laboratory writes in the converted ppb value.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that a reported result column, noted as ppb, be added to the
computer -generated worksheets. This will aid in transferring data to the DMR reporting forms.
J. COMMENT: Data reviewed for the metals As, Zn, Cd, indicated that responses of the high calibration
standards were not significantly different form the mid -point calibration standard although a linear regression
of >_0.995 or better was achieved. This may indicate that the calibration range is beyond the capability of the
instrumentation. If a correlation below 0.995 is obtained the laboratory will reprocess the data with a
quadratic fit. This generally produces a z0.995 correlation coefficient for the laboratory. However, the
response of the high calibration standard continues to indicate a leveling off at the higher end of the
calibration range. Scenarios such as this indicate possible instrument deterioration, which intermittently
effects calibration performance.
RECOMMENDATION: The majority of samples analyzed by the laboratory have results in the lower range
of their calibrations. It is recommended that the laboratory decrease the high end of their calibrations for
metals, which are reprocessed with a quadratic fit on a normal basis. However, if a quadratic fit is used a
minimum of seven points should be included in the calibration range.
REQUIREMENT: This office does not consider the use of higher order quadratic equations acceptable for
these analytical procedures. In these cases, calibration curves must be obtained from a portion of the curve
that is linear and able to produce a correlation coefficient of z0.995. It should be noted that 20TH Edition of
Standard Methods is specific in the use of 0.995 when linear regression is used and an acceptable correlation
is not indicated in the method. Ref: Standard Methods, 20th Edition - Method 1020B (10) (b).
6. DEFICIENCY: The laboratory does not analyze a digested blank.
REQUIREMENT: Analyze a full procedural blank with each set of samples by carrying reagent water blank
through every step, including any digestion steps. Ref: Standard Methods, 18th Edition - Method 3020.
7. DEFICIENCY: The laboratory does not analyze a digested laboratory control standard.
REQUIREMENT: Analyze one known standard in addition to calibration standards to document accuracy
each day samples are analyzed. This LCS (laboratory control standard) must be from a second source. For
held curves for colorimetric methods, it must be analyzed after the initial CCV (continuing calibration
verification standard) is analyzed. It is recommended that the laboratory control standard, like the CCV, have
a concentration at the mid -range of the curve and not vary by more than t 10%. If it does, the analysis is out

Page 6
of control. The analysis must be terminated and the problem corrected. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H .0805 (a) (7) (B),
(F), and Standard Methods, 18th Edition - Method 1020 B.3.
IV. PAPER TRAIL INVESTIGATION:
This consisted of comparing data reported on DMR's submitted to this Division with the values obtained on
laboratory bench worksheets. Data was reviewed for the months of January, March, and July 2003. No data
transcription or reporting errors were observed.
V. CONCLUSIONS:
Correcting the above deficiencies and comments and implementing the recommendations should help this
laboratory to produce quality data and meet certification requirements.
Please respond to all numbered Deficiencies and lettered Comments cited in this report.
Report prepared by: Edith M. Henderson Date: November 17, 2003

off A TF Michael F. Easley, Governor
\O�� f` William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Dcv-.....,,.0 of Environment and Natural Resources
r? 7 Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
>_ _{ _ Division of Water Quality
O C Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
November 20, 2003
242
Mr. Darrel Johnson
Henderson Nutbush W WTP
P.O. Box 1434
180 Beckford Drive
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
v
r-
SUBJECT: Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification Renewal
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, in accordance with the provisions of NC
GS 143-215-3 (a) (10), 15 NCAC 2H .0800, is pleased to renew certification for your laboratory to
perform specified environmental analyses required by EMC monitoring and reporting regulations 15
NCAC 2B .0500, 2H .0900 and 2L .0100, .0200, .0300, and 2N .0100 through .0800.
Enclosed for your use is a certificate describing the requirements and limits of your certification.
Please review this certificate to insure that your laboratory is certified for all parameters required to
properly meet your certification needs.
Please contact us at 919-733-3908 if you have questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
James W. Meyer
Certification Branch Chief
Enclosure
cc: Edith M. Henderson
Raleigh Regional Office
jENR
N. C. Division of Water Quality Laboratory Section 1623 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1623 [phone]
FAX: [phone]

Cedifcate No. 242
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
LABORATORY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
In accordance with the provisions of N.C. G.S. 143.215.3 (a) (1), 143-215.3 (a)(10) and NCAC 2H.0800:
,-�c.
y SrATF;
Lw
4
Ess .�nlL 12 1I'-
ham._ F QLIAIA VL4�
HENDERSON NUTBUSH WWTP
Is hereby certified to perform environmental analysis as listed on Attachment I and report monitoring data to DWO for
compliance with NPDES effluent, surtace water, groundwater, and pretreatment regulations.
By reference 15A NCAC 2H .0800 is made a part of this certificate.
This certificate does not guarantee validity of data generated, but indicates the methodology, equipment, quality control procedures,
records, and proficiency of the laboratory have been examined and found to be acceptable.
This certificate shall be valid until December 31, 2004
James W. Meyer

Attachment
North Carolina Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certinwuvn
Certified Parameters Listing
Lab Name: Henderson Nutbush
WWiP Certificate Number. 242
Address: P.O. Box 1434
Effective Date: 01/01/2004
180 Beckford Drive
Expiration Date: 12/31/2004
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
Date of Last Amendment:
The above named laboratory, having duly met the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2H.0800, is hereby certified for the measurement of the parameters listed below.
CERTIFIED PARAMETERS
Std Method 3111E
INORGANICS
LEAD
BOD
Std Method 3113E
Sid Method 5210B
NICKEL
COD
Sid Method 3113B
EPA Method 410.4
SELENIUM
CHLORIDE
Std Method 3113E
EPA Method 325.3
SILVER
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
Std Method 3113E
Std Method 4500 Cl G
ZINC
COLIFORM FECAL
Std Method 3111B
Std Method 9222D (MF)
CONDUCTIVITY
Std Method 2510E
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Std Method 4500 O G
FLUORIDE
Std Method 4500 F C
AMMONIA NITROGEN
Sid Method 4500 NH3 F
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
EPA Method 351.4
TOTALPHOSPHORUS
EPA Method 365.3
OIL & GREASE
EPA Method 413.1
pH
Std Method 4500 H B
RESIDUE SETTLEABLE
SW Method 2540F
RESIDUE TOTAL
Sid Method 2540B
RESIDUE SUSPENDED
Std Method 2540D
TEMPERATURE
Sid Method 2550B
VECTOR ATTRACTION REDUCTION
Option 1: Reduction in Volatile Solids
METALS
ARSENIC
Sld Method 31138
CADMIUM
Sid Method 3113B
CHROMIUM TOTAL
Std Method 3113E
COPPER
SW Method 3113B
IRON
This certification requires maintance of an acceptable quality assurance program, use of approved methodology, and satisfactory performance on evaluation samples. Laboratories are
subject to civil penalties and/or deceNfication for infractions as set forth in 15A NCAC 2H.0807.

William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
nvironment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Mr. Darrel Johnson
Henderson Nutbush WWTP
P.O. Box 1434
180 Beckford Drive
Henderson, NC 27536-1434
SUBJECT: Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification
Dear Mr. Johnson:
We have scheduled an on -site inspection of your laboratory for approximately 9:00 a.m., November 7,
2003. The scope of the inspection will include all methods marked on Attachment I of the laboratory's current
North Carolina Wastewater /Groundwater Certificate and /or marked on the application for NC
Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification. A copy of the current Attachment I is enclosed for your
reference. The purpose of the inspection will be to verify the laboratory's documented quality control/quality
assurance procedures and adequacy in meeting the requirements of 15A NCAC 2H .0800.
Enclosed are inspection checklists for the upcoming inspection. Prior to the on -site inspection,
excluding the data review sections, please have your analysts complete each checklist. Any checklists that your
laboratory is unable to complete, or any specific items that you do not understand, will be completed during the
inspection. Completion of these checklists prior to the on -site inspection, with comments by analysts relating to
specific procedural differences, will help avoid any unnecessary interruption of the analyst's schedule.
Please return these completed checklists, with 5 copies of completed benchsheet data for each
inorganic parameter listed on your Attachment I. The checklists and completed data are to be received by this
office on or before October 20, 2003.
Please have available the DMR report sheets and corresponding bench data available for the months
of January and April and August 2003 for us to review. If further data or report sheets are required, we will
notify you during the inspection. These data sets will be used to assess the quality of your data during the
inspection.
Review your last inspection report (Inspection date: December 4, 2001), to assure that all deficiencies
have been corrected. If the deficiencies cited in the January 5, 2002 inspection report have not been corrected,
enforcement action will be recommended.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. I can be contacted at [phone] (extension 272), if you
have questions.
Sincerely,
Edith Henderson
Laboratory Section
Enclosures
cc: James W. Meyer
Raleigh Regional Office
Laboratory Section N. C. Division of Water Quality 1623 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1623
[phone] Fax: [phone] Internet: dwqlab.org Customer Service 1-800-623-7748

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Depar of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Colleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
July 14, 2003
The Honorable Robert G. Young, Jr., Mayor
City of Henderson
PO Box 1434
Henderson, NC 27563
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
City of Henderson
Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
Permit No. NCO020559
Vance County
Dear Mayor Young:
On March 31, 2004, Paul Clark performed a Compliance Evaluation Inspection at Henderson
Water Reclamation Facility. The cooperation of Mr. Thomas Spain, the primary ORC, and Mr.
Darrel Johnson, the laboratory supervisor, was greatly appreciated. Mr. Spain has a Grade IV
Biological Water Pollution Control System Operator certifications. As a result of the inspection,
the following comments and/or recommendations were developed:
1. The most recent NPDES permit became effective January 1, 2003.
2. The treatment plant consists of one mechanical and one manual bar screen, an aerated grit
chambers, six primary clarifiers, four trickling filters, six secondary clarifiers, pure oxygen
aeration basin, three final clarifiers, tertiary filters immediately followed by a holding well and
a clearwell (used for storage), ultraviolet disinfection, dissolved air flotation sludge
thickening, autothermal digesters, two anaerobic digesters, sludge holding tanks (two — only
one currently used), and sludge drying beds.
3. Influent and effluent flow meters are calibrated twice/year. The check during the inspection
indicated that the influent meter was off by about 16 percent and the effluent flow meter was
off by about 36 percent. Mr. Spain will investigate this matter.
4. Influent and effluent composite sampler refrigerators were both at less than four (4) degrees
Centigrade.
5. The sludge blankets in the final clarifiers are maintained at about six inches to one foot.
Twelve months (May 2002 — April 2003) of DMRs were reviewed for compliance with permit
limits and monitoring requirements. There were no violations of the permit limits or the
monitoring requirements. It was noted that higher than usual NH3-N concentrations at the
end of February and beginning of March 2003 were due to the following: (a) switching from
one aeration basin to another and (b) generally higher flows through the plant because of
rain.
Raleigh Regional Office 1628 Mail Service Center ND
Water Quality Section Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
phone [phone] Customer Service
facsimile [phone] 1-877-623-6748

Henderson WWTP Inspection
March, 2004
Page 2 of 2
7. Laboratory checks indicated that temperatures for incubator, refrigerator, and fecal were
within appropriate ranges and correct buffers and standards were used for lab analyses.
The laboratory is certified for all parameters for which they perform analyses.
B. Samples not analyzed by Henderson are collected and analyzed by Tritest. After collection,
samples are preserved as necessary and stored in lab refrigerator until they are picked up
by Tritest. The chain of custodies, operators daily logs, and maintenance records were
reviewed. No discrepancies were observed.
9. South Cary Water Reclamation Facility's residual land application permit (WQ0000691) is
currently under renewal. Granville Farms currently hauls and land applies Henderson's
sludge.
If you have any questions concerning this evaluation summary, please contact me at 733-5083,
x 352. Thank you.
Sincerely,
7nfa o n,ca k
Paul B. Clark
Environmental Engineer
cc: Wake County Health Department
Central Files
EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 204W
OMB No. 2040-0057
OMB
Water Comphance Inspectmon 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 L'J 2 U 31 NC0020559 111 121 04/03/31 117 lau 19u 20u
Remarks
211111111111111111111111lllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1166
Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating 81 QA ----Reserved----
67 L______j 89 70 U 71 U 72 u 73 w 74 75I I I I I I I 180
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
08:30 AM 04/03,131
iL/Ol
Henderson WRF
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
NC Highway 39
Henderson NC 27536
12:10 PM 04/03/31
0?/03/31
Name(s) of Ons@e Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Numbers)
Other Facility Data
Thomas M Spain/ORC/252-431-6081/
-
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Thomas Spain,PO Box 1434 Henderson NC 27536//919-431-6006/ Contacted
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance CSO/SSO(Sewer Overflow)
Records/Reports Self -Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Pollution Prevention
Facility Site Review ■ Compliance Schedules Pretreatment Multimedia
Effluent/Receiving Waters Laboratory Storm Water Other
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signatures) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
-..A Clark: Planr.'ng Branch///
Signature of Management O A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Fonn 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
3I NCO020559 I11 12I 04/03/31 I17 18 U
Section 0: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checldists as necessary)

Permit: NC0020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 03/31/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new application?
Yes
❑
No
❑
NA
M
NE
❑
Is the facility as described in the permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are there any special conditions for the permit?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
moo
❑
Comment: Special Conditions - Chronic Toxicity Permit Limit (Quarterly) and Effluent Pollutant Scan (Annually)
Yes
No
NA
NE
iOnErations & Maintenance
Does the plant have general safety structures in place such as rails around or covers over tanks, pits, or wells?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
M
❑
Cl
Cl
Comment: ORC admitted that VAMP needs general overall painting.
Bar Screens
Yes
No
NA
NF
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
0
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Wastewater proceeds through mechanical screen with 3/4-inch openings, proceeds through grit removal,
and then proceeds through manual screen with 1/2-inch openings.
Removal
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
❑
b.Mechanical
Is the site free of excessive organic content in the grit chamber?
No
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive odor?
E ❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of grit in compliance?
N ❑
❑
❑
Comment: Waste grit goes to Person County landfill.
Yes No
NA
NE
Grease Removal
Is automatic grease removal present?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is grease removal operating properly?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Comment: There is grease removal in the primary clarifiers.
Yes No
NA
NE
Primary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
❑ 0
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
E ❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
E ❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is scum removal adequate?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the drive unit operational?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
0 0
0
0

Permit: NC0020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 03/31/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Primary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
Comment: Primary clarifiers often have black and odorous wastewater. The weirs were leveled the week prior to
inspection. Sludge in primary clarifiers goes directly to sludge thickener. Normally, only four of the six primary
clarifiers and four of the six secondary clarifiers are used at one time. The extra clarifiers are sometimes used for
equalization.
Secondary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Yes
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
❑
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
❑
❑
❑
Are weirs level?
E
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of weir blockage?
E
❑
❑
❑
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?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable?
E
❑
❑
❑
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
❑
❑
❑
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
❑
❑
Cl
Is the surface free of bulking ?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Sludge in secondary clarifiers goes directly to thickener. Normally, only four of the six primary clarifiers and
four of the six secondary clarflers are used at one fime. The extra clarifiers are sometimes used for equalization.
Yes
No
NA
NE
Pumps-RAS-WAS
Are pumps in place?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are pumps operational?
N
❑
❑
❑
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
No
❑
❑
Comment:
Yes
No
NA
NE
TricklingFilter
Is the filter free of bonding?
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of fitter's distribution arms?
❑
❑
❑
Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms?
E
Cl
❑
❑
Is the filter free of uneven or discolored growth?
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth?
❑
❑
❑
Is the site odor -free?
❑
❑
❑
Are the fitter s distribution arms orifices free of clogging?
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of excessive fitter flies, worms or snails?
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
at nn Aasins
Mode of operation
Type of aeration system
Is the basin free of dead spots?
❑
❑
❑
0
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?
❑
❑
❑
N
Is the DO level acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are settleometer results acceptable?
0
0
0
0

Permit: NCO020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 03/31/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Aeration Basins Yes No NA NE
Comment: The aeration basin uses pure oxygen forced into water under pressure. Basin is covered and so many factors
could not be evaluated.
Nutrient Removal Yes
Is total nitrogen removal required?
No NA
❑ 0 ❑
NF
❑
Is total phosphorous removal required?
M ❑ ❑
❑
Type
Is chemical feed required to sustain process?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
Is nutrient removal process operating properly?
0 ❑ ❑
❑
Comment: Phosphorus removal begins in collection system where ferric sulfate is added and continues through W WTP.
Pure Oxvaen Yes
Nn NA
NF
Type of pure oxygen system
Is there a back-up source for the system?
0000
Is the DO in an acceptable range?
N
❑
❑
❑
Are mixers operational?
❑
❑
❑
Are samples port/points easily accessible?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: VWV rP has equipment to generate oxygen onsite, but it is not used because it is less expensive to
purchase oxygen.
ration (Hioh Rah
Type of operation
Is the filter media present?
M
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the filter free of growth?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the air scour operational?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the scouring acceptable?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the clear vrell free of excessive solids and fitter media?
❑
❑
❑
0
Does backwashing frequency appear adequate?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Clearwell is covered and could not be examined.
Disinfection - UV
Are tertiary filters present before disinfection treatment?
Yes No
M ❑
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 effluent clean
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is there a backup system on site?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Comment: Sodium hypochlorite is used as backup for disinfection.
Standby Power
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is automatically activated standby power available?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is generator tested weekly by interrupting primary pourer source?
❑
M
❑
❑
Is generator tested under load at least quarterly?
M
❑
❑
❑
Was generator tested 8 operational during the inspection?
❑
0
❑
❑
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
❑
Cl
❑
Does generator have adequate fuel?
0
0
0

Permit: NC0020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 03/31/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Standby Power
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
Yes
❑
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
Comment: Generator is tested/run every two weeks.
Yes
No
NA
NE
I ahnratory
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the facility using a contract lab?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
0
❑
❑
❑
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees?
M
❑
❑
❑
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +1- 1.0 degrees?
M
❑
❑
❑
Comment: Henderson VWVTP laboratory analyzes several parameters themselves (i.e., BOD, TSS, etc.) and sends the
remainder to a commercial lab.
Flow Measurement- Influent
Is flow meter used for reporting?
Yes
M
No NA
❑ ❑
NE
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
0
❑ ❑
❑
Is flow meter operating properly?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow metes
❑
❑ 0
Cl
Comment: The meter was off by about 16 percent during check. Tom Spain will investigate this matter.
Flow Measurement- Fffluent
Yes
No NA
NE
Is flow meter used for reporting? 0000
Is flow meter calibrated annually? 0000
Is flow meter operating properly? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? 0000
Comment: The meter was off by about 36 percent during check. Tom Spain will investigate this matter.
Record Keenino
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
Yes
M
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
❑
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
N
❑
❑
❑
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. rag. required 5 years)?
E
❑
❑
❑
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are sampling and analysis data adequate and include:
0
❑
❑
❑
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Plant records are adequate, available and include
❑
❑
❑
O&M Manual
As built Engineering drawings
Schedules and dates of equipment maintenance and repairs
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
❑
❑
❑
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users?
M000
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator on each shift?
0 0
11
0

Permit: NCO020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 03/31/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
N
❑
❑
❑
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 pennit available on site?
❑
❑
❑
Is the facility description verified as contained in the NPDES permit?
0
❑
❑
❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for example: MISS, MCRT, Settleable Solids, DO, Sludge
0
❑
❑
❑
Judge, pH, and others that are applicable?
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
❑ ❑
❑
0
Comment:
Influent Samnlinn
Is composite sampling Flow proportional?
Yes No
M ❑
NA
❑
NE
❑
Is sample collected above side streams?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
❑
❑
❑
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
❑
❑
❑
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Effluent Samnlinn
Is composite sampling Flow proportional?
Yes No
❑
NA
❑
NE
❑
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
❑
❑
❑
Is proper volume collected?
❑
❑
❑
Is the tubing clean?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Comment:
( Igstream / Downstream Samnlinn
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and sampling location)?
Yes No
❑
NA
❑
NE
❑
Comment:
Yes No
NA
NE
Aerobic Digester
Is the capacity adequate?
M ❑
❑
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
❑ ❑
❑
IN
Is the odor acceptable?
M ❑
❑
❑
Comment: Tank very tall, did not climb up and look in top.
Anaerohir. Digester
Yes No
NA
NE
Type of operation:
Is the capacity adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Is gas stored on site?
❑ M
❑
❑
Is the digester(s) free of tilting covers?
❑
❑
❑
Is the gas burner operational?
❑
❑
❑
Is the digester heated?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the temperature maintained constantly?
M ❑
❑
❑
Comment: Covers did not appear to be tilling during inspection

Permit: NC0020559 Owner - Facility: City of Henderson - Henderson WRF
Inspection Date: 03/31/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
nrvina Beds
Is there adequate drying bed space?
Yes No
M ❑
NA
❑
NE
❑
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
❑
❑
0
❑
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the sludge land applied?
❑
❑
❑
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
❑
❑
M
❑
Comment: The sludge drying beds are not really used at this facility. There was a very small amount of sludge on a
couple of the beds. Granville Farms land applies Hendersons sludge.
Yes
No
NA
NE
Solids Handlino Eaumment
Is the equipment operational?
0 ❑
❑
❑
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
❑
❑
M
❑
Is storage adequate?
IN
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum fitters?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the site free of sludge buildup on baits and/or rollers of filter press?
❑
❑
0
❑
Is the site free of excessive moisture in bait filter press sludge cake?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment: Dissolved air floatation is used for sludge thickening as opposed to a belt filter press.
Chemical Feed
Is containment adequate?
Yes
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
❑
Is storage adequate?
❑
❑
❑
Are backup pumps available?
❑
❑
❑
0
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
❑
❑
❑
Comment: The only chemical fed regularly in the treatment process is lime.
Yes
No
NA
NE
r..mmnliance Schedules
Is there a compliance schedule for this facility?
❑
❑
0 ❑
Is the facility compliant with the permit and conditions for the review period?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment:
Yes
No
NA
NE
Effluent Pipe
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
0 ❑
Cl
❑
Are receiving water free of solids and floatable wastewater materials?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the receiving waters free of solids / debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the receiving waters free of foam other than a trace?
M
❑
❑
❑
Are the receiving waters free of sludge worts?
0
❑
❑
❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating propedy?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment:

Re: [Fwd: from kirk at rro]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: from kirk at rro[
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:16:27 -0400
From: Teresa Rodriguez <[e-mail]>
Organization: Construction Grants and Loans Section
To: Kirk Stafford <[e-mail]>
Hi Kirk, yes, Henderson will have to use the new method, but the requirement becomes effective in
September 2003. For now they can continue to use the old method and report <0.2 ug/1 but they should
be doing something to move to the new method.
Teresa
Kirk Stafford wrote:
Hello Teresa,
Hope you are doing well. I have a question to ask about Henderson's
most recent permit. BIMS has you as the reviewer so I though to ask if
you remember if Henderson must use the low level method Tonja Springer
mentions in this e-mail to run Mercury. I did a compliance inspection
and saw that they report <0.2 ug/l for mercury. Thanks.
-Kirk
Hi Kirk,
Sorry that it took so long to reply. You say that the permit limit is 0.012 ug/L is this an updated
permit. It sounds like Henderson is on the list that will have to analyze Mercury by the low level
method 1631. If this is the case they will have to sub the samples to one of the 3 certified labs. There
is no way that Henderson will be able to see down that low. I hope this answers your question.
Currently Henderson is not certified for Mercury with us.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Tonja
Kirk Stafford wrote:
Hey Tonja,
Just a quick question for you. Henderson consistently reports <0.2
ug/1 for Mercury on their DMRs. Their limit is 0.012 ug/l. Do they need
to use a more sensitive method or is 0.2 as low as they can go?
-Kirk
1 of 2 4/30/03 10:43 AM

CITY OF HENDERSON
Post Office Box 1434
900 S Beckford Drive
Henderson, North Carolina 27536-1434
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Date 3-31-2003
Mr. Kenneth Schuster
Regional Supervisor
Division of Environmental Management
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 103
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Office of Utility
Operations
J. Bryce Mendenhall
� 9�Q
y
RE: Infiltration/Inflow Status Report
Dear Mr. Schuster:
The following brief report will summarize the Identification and Correction of
Infiltration/Inflow for the quarter ending, 3-31-2003 . This being submitted to the
DEHNR Raleigh Regional Office in accordance with paragraph 9(g) of the Consent
Judgement (JOC #88-04) for the City of Henderson.
During this period there have been (6) manhole repairs and (12) cleanout repairs for a
total cost of $2100..
There were 10,330 feet of 8 inch and 10 inch sewer main line cleaned and rodded for
preventative maintenance.
A total cost of labor and equipment for cleaning and rodding the sewer lines was
$8,780..
If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me at 252-431-6105
Sincerely,
CI OF HENDFk N
/V
Bryce endenhall
Utility Operations Director
C: Mr. Tim Donnelly, Regional Water Quality Supervisor
Mr. Mike Acquesta, Peirson & Whitman, Inc.
Mr. Mark Warren Assist. City Manager
Mr. Tom Spain, WWTP Director

i
•Y... ✓l� t� 6 .. f . � tl 1 i(
S
- I. e r •.j , rYi'.Y f E^rL,r y,� 1�R jj�#9 .5�, ' , �"��57" ,�
404
if E
� 3
Mg
•�-Ad
��
T% lag
�+
f' •g 'sir � yr•
jo
IV
� t a � •� .rl ` :)'�`T a 4q . ; '` 1, s� J i, �a� _- ,L � 1 j.�i tf n .� '
g ,
x� x:
1 ` fit. :! ,O X�T itF .' �S7 `i �� ?tn� I•. v�tc '$y�:.:� '. � iUp..
y
�fi a � ���ry ,•
-�=+r--�Ff ;'� ,f i.1t�.�-`,�, fk-w� VP�i �,P',as+i'• �,�i',;�h' ..�r �y� '�y
T._
1R �' .1 '.h r• { t .!1 ,M fL4F �P t.. �r"L' .
t.,��s91ir t,v
t�����f�.;��yc� - ,why Zt •'''-' '.ti't�' ^Sian r•' f`-f�'i , 'iyjN 10
TV

0 •
DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
N9A9 *1I1• �]
Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Henderson/City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 1434, Henderson, NC 27563
Facility Address:
1646 West Andrews Ave., Henderson, NC
Permitted Flow (MGD)
4.14 and 6.0 upon expansion
Type of Waste:
Domestic (90%) / Industrial (10%)
Facility/Permit Status:
Renewal
County:
Vance
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Nutbush Creek
Regional Office:
RRO
Stream Classification:
C
State Grid / USGS Quad:
Vicksboro
303(d) Listed?
Yes
Permit Writer:
Teresa Rodriguez
Basin/Subbasin:
Roanoke/030206
Date:
7/16/02
Drainage Area (mi2):
3.8
•u
Lat. 36021' 01" N Long. 78024' 40" W
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
0.2
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0.4
30Q2 (cfs)
0.5
Average Flow (cfs):
3.5
IWC (%):
97
Summary
The City of Henderson requested the renewal of the NPDES permit. The application was submitted
to the Division on October 30, 2001. The application received is an older form of the application. The
Division accepted this application because the City requested, both verbally and written, an
application form around August 2001 and was given this form to complete. The Division has accepted
this application but required additional information to fulfill the requirements of 40CFR122. Two
changes were requested at the time of permit renewal; to change the name of the facility to City of
Henderson Water Reclamation Facility and to change the months in which the toxicity test is done to
coincide with the pretreatment sampling. Both changes are included in the draft permit.
Facility Description The facility consists of a bar screen and grit chamber, parshall flume, influent
flow meter, primary clarifiers, trickling filters, secondary clarifiers, pure oxygen activated sludge
nitrification basin, final clarifiers, tertiary filters, post aeration, UV disinfection and sodium hypochkrrite
backup, dissolved air flotation sludge thickening, pure oxygen
aerobic digester, sludge holding tank and sludge drying bed.
Basin Plan The 2001 Roanoke Basin Plan lists Nutbush Creek as impaired due to biological
degradation. Nutbush Creek received a fair bioclassiffication in 1999. Continued monitor of the
stream and the discharge from Henderson was recommended. Stormwater runoff, sedimentation
and collection system problems were also identified as contributing to the degradation of the stream.
Pre-treatment This NPDES permit requires Henderson to maintain a Pretreatment Program and
Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) under federal regulations 40CFR 403 and NC State regulations
15A NCAC 2H.0900. The City has an approved pre-treatment program with 7 significant industrial
users.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0020559
Renewal
PAOP I

Compliance Review* •
The current limits for 4.14 MGD flow are:
Parameter
Monthly Ave
Limit
Weekly Ave
Limit
Daily Max
Limit
BOD summer
6 m /I
9 m /I
BOD winter
12 m /I
18 m /I
Ammonia summer
3 m I
Ammonia winter
6 mgA
TSS
30 m /I
45 mQA
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Total Phos horus summer
1.0 m
Total Phosphorus(winter)
1.5 mgA
Lead
26 11
33.8 pgA
MBAS
516.0 /1
Mercury
0.012 Pg1l
The permit also includes monitoring for temperature, total nitrogen, conductivity, chromium, silver,
zinc and copper.
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) - The permit requires a ceriodaphnia chronic pass/fail toxicity test at
90% effluent. During 1998 and 1999 the facility failed 13 out of 21 tests. During 2000 and 2001 they
failed 4 out of 18 tests. The last failure was in September 2001.
The City of Henderson performed a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation. The toxicity failures were related to
industrial activities. The City has been working with the industrial dischargers over the past few years to
identify and address the sources of toxicity. Improvements have been made and several industries have
changed their processes or raw materials to reduce toxic substances in their effluent. Some industries
are still showing sporadic toxicity in their effluents and studies are under way to address them. As a
result of the toxicity evaluation they implemented a physical change to the treatment system which
consisted of the installation of a granulated activated carbon effluent filter. The measures implemented
by the city have shown positive results.
DMR Effluent Data Review - DMR data was reviewed from January 1999 to December 2001. No
violations of permit limits were reported except as noted above for whole effluent toxicity.
Reasonable Potential Analysis — A reasonable potential analysis was performed for chromium,
copper, lead, silver, zinc, MBAS and mercury. The results are summarized in the following table:
Parameter
Allowable
concentration
Maximum
predicted
RP
/N
Comments
Chromium
51 pg/I
13 pg/I
N
No changes from current permit
Copper
7.2 pg/1
94.5 pg/I
Y
No changes from current permit
Lead
25.8 pg/1
25.2 pg/1
N
Eliminate limit and reduce monitoring to 2/month
Silver
0.1 pg/l
81.7 pg/I
Y
No changes from current permit
Zinc
51.6 pg/I
223 pg/I
Y
No changes from current permit
MBAS
515 pg/I
381 pg/I
N
Eliminate limit and reduce monitoring to 2/month
Mercury
0.012 pg/I
0.3 pg/I
Y
No changes from current permit
Instream Data Review — Henderson monitors the receiving stream at one location upstream and at
two locations downstream. Data was reviewed for the period of January 2000 to December 2001.
The upstream station shows frequent fecal coliform levels above the standard, the two downstream
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0020559
Renewal
PAVe i

stations show only occasiona*oliform levels above 200 #/100 mlltlorophyll-a was below the
standard for all samples. DO levels were above 5 mg/I on all sampling locations.
Waste Load Allocation (WLA)
The last waste load allocation was done in 1996.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES
• The limits for lead and MBAS were eliminated based on the results of the reasonable potential
analysis. Monitoring was reduced to 2/month.
• The name of the facility was changed to City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility.
• The schedule for toxicity monitoring was changed to January, April, July and October.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice:
Permit Scheduled to Issue:
NPDES DIVISION CONTACT
July 31, 2002
September 13, 2002
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Teresa Rodriguez at [phone] ext. 595.
DATE:
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENTS
NAME: DATE:
NPDES SUPERVISOR: DATE:
Fact Sheet
NPDES NCO020559
Renewal
P'AVP i

01/01/1994 01:30 2524923324 HENDERSCN WWTP PAGE 01
CITY OF HENDERSON
NUTBUSH CREEK WWTP
NORTH CAROLINA
FAX NO. 1-252-492-3324
TO:
FROM:
DATA;: 7 CZ3
41 �- J71- �7F
NUMBER OF SHEETS TRANSMITTED 3
(INCLUDING TRANSMITTAL SHEET)
If you do not receive the correct number of sheets transmitted, or have any questions,
please call me at (252) ' 1 - 9 o or use the City of Henderson Nutbush Creek
WWTP FAX number shown above.
COMMNTS: /, ,P-k'
Al J (Too n
r GT
(-Anv
S o3
ge

01/01/1994 01:30 2524923324 HENDERSON WWTP
PAGE 02
Srwqgc Spill Response u,I
(page 1 of 2)
Parmlttee _Henderson Water RsdarnI Facility_ Permit Number_NC0020559_ County_Vanoe
Incident Ended. (D2t11Tlme)_5-&03_/ Estimated Duration (Tims)_45 minutes_
First knowledge of Incident: (Datemm _."-O3_/_9.30 P.M.
Esurnated volume of spllibypess _158,tX10_ gallons Show national for volume. Based on bypass rate of 3 466 gpm
Aapill Is ortgOing, please notify Regional Office On a dolly basis until spill can be stopped.
Reported to:_Kkk StaBbrd (DateNme) ,5-7-03 /_t 1:45 A.M.
Name of person
Weather Conditions ,_Partially d0udy_
Source of spll9bypess (cheek one): Sanitary Sewer _Pump Station X W WTP
Level Of Veetrnem (Chad* one). — None Primary Treatment
,X_ Secondary Treatment Chlorination Only
Did spllllbypass react Surface waters? aX_Yes _No (If Yes. please Ilst the following)
Volume reacting surlacie waters? _136,000 gallons
Name of surface wator_Nutbush Croak
Old spllllbyposs result In a Ilsh kill? _Yes _X_No
If Yes, whet Is the estimated number of fish killed?
' ir-T I. *• mob• u:•. rIL:. •.r
1. L.001i of eplWbyPM: HWRF 1646 West Andrews Avenue
2. Cause of spllpbypass. Trickling Filter Pump Controle Malfunctioned and pump shut down
3. Old you have personnel avaeable to perform initial assessment 24 hours/day (Including weekends and holidays)'+
Yes —)I— No
4. How long did it take to make an Initial assessment of the splifloverflow, after first knowledge?
_0` Hours 0` Minutes
How long did It take to got a repair crew onsite7
Hours _30_ Minutes
Please M laln the sma taken to make Initial assessmsntt_Plant Operator on site antl discovered the Trickling Filter
Pump control malfunction and call the Want electrician and ORC immediately_

01/01/1994 01:30 2524923324 HENDERSON WWTP PAGE 03
Permlttee Henderson Water Racial
5, Action taken to contain spill, cis;
on site by a berm. The plant staff t
a 4" pump In the other and pumpe
the creeks (34,00o gallons). We b(
WRF Poet Aeration Tank to supph
demand on the abeam of 107 too
12, The lab staff took samples of
upstigam D.O. was 7,94, conduc
630 and PH win 7.2. The Spring
the storm draln catch basins on C
no Wide on the sbmambsd whkl
,�67�—j
AL-Uj
6. Were time equipment and Parts needed to make repairs rowdily available'
Yes fit— No — If no, please explain why;
If the spllyoverllow Occurred at a pump station, or was the result of a pump statlon failure,
was the alarm system functional at the time of the spill? Yes ` No _ If the alarm
system did not functlon, Please explain why,NJA
ice_
0 gallons was ccntained
6" pump in one creek and
5 % of the flow that entered
Ibs per day) pnor to the
ated additional D O
'and Ammonia Nitrogen of
ring Valley Road The
is 8.64. conductivity was
as TT We pumped out all
;ion of the creeks showed
ryfew solids.
8. Repairs made are: Permanent _X—
Temporary
Please deecnbe whit repairs were made. It the repairs are temporary, please indicate a date by
which permanent repairs will be completed, and notify the Regional Office within 7 days of the
permanent repair. The ekdrlclan reported the station controls and had the pump running within 15 minutes of getting on
site. He did a thorough inspection of the controls on 5-7.03 and replaced the bubbles compressor because of a small leak
In the tank (not cause of failure but replaced as a precaution).
9. What actions have been made to prevent this discharge from occurring again in the full
See the repairs and inspection of the pump control system listed above. Also, methods to prevent or lessen the volume of
the particular bypass warm reviewed with the plant operators such as pultmg extra primary clarlflers on line, turning oft the
Trickling Filter Recirculation Pump and inserting metal pates over the Primary Fillers Influent pipes. The incident
happened so fast that not IN operators would think of these methods quickly enough.
10. Comments; The Henderson WRF staff regress having a bypass of any type at any tune but I feel the
staff and I did all we possibly could to correct the problem, try to recover the spill, clean up the site,
properly use chemical addition to replace any extra oxygen depletion on the stream and lessen the
probability of this type of bypass in the future.
Other agencies
Person reporting aK1l yPM:_Th*mae M. Spain Phone Number:- 252431-60a1
SlgnaNro n�DOW 5-7-03
For D1NQ UN Only;
DWQ requested additional written report? _Yes —No
If yes, what additional infon, bon Is needed?
Requested by

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
April30,2003
Mr. Thomas Spain
Director of WWTP
City of Henderson
P.O. Box 1434
Henderson, N.C.27536
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Nutbush Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO020559
Vance County
Dear Mr. Spain:
On April 22, 2003, Mr. Kirk Stafford and Mr. Paul Clark of the Raleigh Regional Office conducted a
Compliance Evaluafiminspectlon_ CEI) of the subject facility- aceornpanied-by yourgejf-Your_ ssistancC
and cooperation was helpful and appreciated. As a result of the inspection, the following items were
noted.
1) The facility has a Class IV rating and the Technical Assistance and Certification Unit of the Division
of Water Quality has W. Thomas Spain listed as ORC and three Backup ORCs. Mr. Spain has a
current Class IV Wastewater certification.
2) The facility consists of bar screen, comminutor, mechanical grit removal, parshall flume and influent
flow meter, primary clarifiers, trickling filters, secondary clarifiers, A/O process aerated nitrification
basin, gaseous oxygen production and liquid oxygen storage facilities, lime tower and feed, alum feed
station, caustic feed station, gravity sludge drying beds, pure oxygen aerobic digesters, anerobic
digesters, standard aerobic digester, mechanically mixed sludge holding tank, UV disinfection and
sodium hypochlorite back-up, effluent flow meter, post aeration, and standby power generator.
3) A review of laboratory data and self monitoring data revealed consistent reporting of results.
4) An ORC log and a daily calibration log are kept in accordance with the requirements of 15A NCAC
2B .0506 c(3).
5) The effluent was clear at the time of inspection.
6) It is requested that an updated detailed infiltration and inflow update be submitted detailing the
progress on identifying the sources and the progress made to repair same since the last inspection.
7) The influent sampler was at 0.5 degrees C and the effluent sampler was at 4.0 degrees C. Both
samplers are flow proportional.
8) Screenings are removed from the bar screens and taken to the landfill by BFI Inc.
Raleigh Regional Office 1628 Mail Service Center phone [phone]
Water Quality Section Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 facsimile [phone]
Customer Service
1-800-623-7748

i� as w•a.... va ua wna..0 m� oauawaau7 uuauunaa. ava uo. N�uuu .r wv< uuaauraa umuamy <w�
showed seven compliWsts and one noncompliant test. A Noticolation was issued for the
noncompliant test.
10) A search of the Division's RIMS (Basin Wide Information Management System) system showed no
NPDES Permit parameter violations for the calendar year 2002.
11) Biosolids generated at the subject facility are land applied by Granville Farms Inc.
12) A review of the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) submitted by the facility showed a consistent
reporting of <0.2 ug/l for effluent Mercury. Ms. Tonja Springer of the Division's Lab Certification
section and Ms Teresa Ridriquez of the NPDES Permitting Unit indicated that your facility will have
to analyze Mercury by the low-level method 1631. That testing method will go into effect September
2003. There are currently three contract laboratories that can analyze for that method. Please contact
Ms. Springer at 919-733-3908 if additional information is needed.
If you have any questions concerning this correspondence please me at 919-5714700.
Sincerely,
Kirk Stafford
Environmental Chemist

lu _,�, 3 WLCQO o 11 12��T 11 „1, Id t--r
Remarks
211
r OA
Inspection Work Days Facility See -Monitoring Evaluation Rating 61 73' ' 174 75
671 1--1 69 70 U 71 U 72 U Ly1
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For
/j dustrial/users dis�chha�rg�in-7g r`o �AO7W, also En�trya
include PO7W name and NP0E3 Per(� j (rli/✓ (N 1 r/n
No
its I Permit Effective Date
04 171
Name(s) of On -Site Representativelsl(ntlels)/Phone9_and Fox Number(s)
I Other Facility Data
Name. Address
�ofResponsible off icial/ritla/Phone and Fox Nu
Ad -bar
✓ O lkvte�
Permit Expiration Date
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated!
ow Measurement P
ere[ions & csoisSO (Sewer Overflow)
'ermit sintenence
3gcordslReports Self -Monitoring Program Sludge Handling/Disposel Pollution Prevention
compliance Schedules Pretreatment Multimedia
�eciiiry Site Review p
Effluent/Receiving Waters Laboratory
Stone Water Other:
Section D: Summary of Findings/Comments (Attach addRions/ sheets o/ nenativs and checklists as necessary)
Rhone and Fax Numbers Date
Name(s) and
Signature of Management O A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phons and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.