NC0026921_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_19981228

%ATI1 1
la
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
December 28; 1998
The Honorable Tim Parnell.
Mayor, Town of Parkton
PO Box 55
Parkton, NC 28371
SUBJECT: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Town of Parkton
Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit No. NC0026921
Robeson County
Dear Mr. Parnell:
Enclosed is a copy of the Compliance Evaluation Inspection conducted
December 19,.1998. ,
As part of the inspection a tour of the Wastewater Treatment Plant was
conducted. Various areas in the plant needed immediate attention mainly in cleaning
and maintenance. Each site that neededattention is mentioned in Part D. Summary
of Findings/Comments of this inspection report. Please remember it is priority to
discharge a good quality effluent which will not pose any problems to the receiving
stream.
Please review the attached, report and respond by January 31, 1999. If you
or your staff have any questions do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
-62/:»10/co 1. ' kein.oerD
Belinda S. Henson
Environmental Chemist
/bsh
Enclosures
225 GREEN STREET, SUITE 714, FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28301-5043
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION .REPORT
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Fayetteville Regional Office
Section A. National Data System Coding
• Transaction Code: N NPDES NO. NC0026921
Inspector: S Facility Type 1
Facility Evaluation Rating: 4 BI: QA:
Section B: FacilityData
Name and Location of Facility Inspected:
Town of Parkton WWT P
Entry Time: 2:30PM
Exit Time/Date: 5:06PM/981219
Name(s), Title(s) of On -Site Representative():
Leonard Green(Cert. Lic. Gr. IV)-"ORC"
Janet Peele(Operator in Training)
Phone Number(s): [phone]
Name, Title arid Address of Responsible Official:
Tim Parnell, Mayor
PO Box 55
Parkton, NC 28371
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection
Date:981219 Inspection Type: C
Reserved.
Reserved:
Permit Effective Date: 950101
Permit Expiration Date: 991231
COritacted: yes
(S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated, N/A = Not Applicable
Permit: S
Records/Reports: S
Facility Site Review: S •Flow
Measurement: S •
Laboratory: N/A •Effluent/Receiving
Waters: S•
Pretreatment: N/A • ••
Compliance Schedule: N/A
Self -Monitoring Program: S
Operation & Maintenance: S
Sludge Disposal: S •
Other:

Section D: Summary of Findings/Comments:
1.. The manual bar screen was in place and all screenings are placed in a 55 gallon barrel and hauled
to the county landfill when necessary.
2. The influent wastewater is composed of domestic with no industrial waste.
3. Catwalks and power boxes for the two oxidation ditches appeared to have paint worn from the
surface. Painting of these surfaces could prevent major maintenance in the future.
4. Equal distribution of solids into the oxidation ditches appeared to be a problem. From visual
observation oxidation ditch #1 appeared to be brown in color while oxidation #2 appeared to have
a lot less color. The "ORC" was aware of this problem but had not been able to correct it. Checking
the oxidation ditches for Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids(MLSS) would give an idea of the contents.
A suggestion was made to transfer solids from oxidation ditch #1 to oxidation ditch #2 by using a
pump and pipe to assist in reseeding oxidation ditch #2. There is not a pipe available to transfer
these solids so another pumping system would be necessary.
5. Clarifier #1 appeared to have a rising sludge problem. Patches of sludge were floating on top of the
water surface. There was 2 'Y2 feet of sludge in this clarifier. Clarifier #2 did not appear to have a
rising sludge problem. There was very little flow over the weirs in Clarifier #2 as compared to
Clarifier #1. There was 1 'Y2 feet of sludge in this clarifier. Both clarifiers appeared to have algae
around the weir area and the trough. These areas need to be cleaned(brushed).
6. The chlorine contact tank had 1 foot of sludge. The sludge should be removed from the chlorine
contact tank and disposed of in the sludge handling facility. A new chlorine system has been
implemented which allows a 150 lb cylinder to be in use and one in reserve. The system enables a
chlorine feed to the effluent at all times. When one cylinder is empty, the reserve cylinder will
automatically be switched. The effluent appeared to be clear.
7. Sludge drying beds were empty and had not been used since August 1998.
8. Area to the outfall line was obstructed by growth(bushes, weeds, and etc.) and clearing this area
should be done to give accessibility to the outfall.
9. Effluent flow meter was last calibrated November 26, 1997 by Monroe Dismuke Co. An annual
calibration should be scheduled immediately. All flow meters should be calibrated annually. Flow
charts were available from the year 1986-present. A brief review of those charts indicates that the
Town continues to have a Infiltration/Inflow(I/I) problem. The Town should continue to isolate and
remove sources of I/I.
10. A partial NPDES permit was on site that included the limit pages. The complete permit was located
at Town Hall.
11. Test America formally Hydrologic is the contract laboratory. The "ORC" analyzes the following
parameters: Dissolved Oxygen, chlorine residual, temperature and pH. The contract laboratory
analyzes all other parameters.
12. Data was checked for the months July -October, 1998 and October, 1997. All records were neat and
organized. During the months June, September, and October, 1998 Ammonia Nitrogen monthly
limit violations were noted. When checking DMRs and laboratory sheets, it was noted that
September 22, 1998 BOD QC requirements were not met. This was not noted on the DMR. All
notes of this nature must be reported on the DMR. For October 1998, incorrect monthly limits had
been noted for the parameters BOD and Ammonia Nitrogen. The following procedure should be
followed in submitting corrected reports:
A. All corrected data should be written in red ink or hi-lited.
-continued-

B. At the top of the Effluent Page, the words "Corrected Report" or "Amended Report" should
be written in red ink on all copies. This will differentiate between originally submitted
report and corrected report.
C. Two(2) copies of the corrected report should be submitted to this Division and one(1) copy
must be retained by the permittee.
D. A .brief explanation for the correction should be written either on the back side of the
Effluent page or in a cover letter accompanying the reports.
13. All equipment was operational.
14. The grounds were neat and clean.
Name and Signature of Inspector
Belinda S. He son
el1,2-•4
Name and Signature of Reviewer
Paul E. Rawls
Action Taken
Agency/Office/Telephone Date
�al251gs
DENR/Fayetteville/[phone]
Agency/Office/Telephone
DENR/Fayetteville/[phone]
Regulatory Office Use Only
Compliance Status
Noncompliance'
_Compliance
Date
Date