NC0025453_Historical information_20051231 (2)

Michael F. Easley, Governor
February 22, 2005
Subject:
Dear Mayor McLeod:
on
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Construction Grants and Loans Section
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1633
Phone: [phone]/ FAX: [phone] / Internet: www.nccgl.net
It is the responsibility of the recipient and the consulting engineer to insure that the
project plan documents are in compliance with Amended N.C.G.S. 133-3 (ratified July 13,
1993). The administrative review and approval of addenda do not imply approval of a restrictive
specification for bidding purposes; nor is it an authorization for noncompetitive procurement
actions.
A copy of the approved addendum is attached for your files, and one (1) copy retained for
our files.
The proposed addendum, as described in the attachment, has been reviewed by this
office, and is hereby approved, and eligible for funding in accordance with the loan offer and
conditions thereof.
Reference is made to Addendum No. 3, received February 22, 2005 from the engineer for
revisions to the subject project.
The Honorable Jody L. McLeod, Mayor
Town of Clayton
Post Office Box 879
Clayton, North Carolina 27520-0879
Adequate time must be allowed for the potential bidders and this office to receive and act
addenda prior to the receipt of bids for subject project.
WWTP Improvements
Town of Clayton
Approval of Addendum No. 3
Project No. CS 370431-04
Alan W. Klimek. P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
The approval of this addendum does not constitute any change in the amount of your loan
for this project.
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
&
r
X TOne 1 1 •
NorthCarolina Naturally
go |\| I k;
Sincerely,
§
ID/dr l V
Attachment
cc:
/K-
The Honorable Jody L. McLeod, Mayor
Page 2
February 22, 2005
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
Ishwar Devkota, P.E. at [phone].
Cecil G. Madden, Jr. P. E., Supervisor
Design Management Unit
Construction Grants & Loans Section
co
co
u1
The Wooten Company (Dr. Shankar R. Mistry, P.E.)
Raleigh Regional Office, Surface Water Protection
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Ishwar Devkota, P.E.
Valerie Lancaster
Amy Simes, P.E.
Cecil G. Madden, Jr., P.E.
CS 370431-04
Michael F. Easley, Governor
February 18, 2005
/
✓
Subject:
Dear Mayor McLeod:
An Fnual Onnnrtiinitv/Affirmative Action t-mnlnvpr- Rocvclpd/in0:-. Pnc* Onnsumor Pannr
Construction Grants and Loans Section
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1633
Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone] / Internet: wvyw.nccgl.net
The proposed addendum, as described in the attachment, has been reviewed by this
office, and is hereby approved, and eligible for funding in accordance with the loan offer and
conditions thereof.
The approval of this addendum does not constitute any change in the amount of your loan
for this project.
Adequate time must be allowed for the potential bidders and this office to receive and act
on addenda prior to the receipt of bids for subject project.
A copy of the approved addendum is attached for your files, and one (1) copy retained for
our files.
The Honorable Jody L. McLeod, Mayor
Town of Clayton
Post Office Box 879
Clayton, North Carolina 27520-0879
Alan W. Klimek. P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Reference is made to Addendum Number 2, received February 1 7, 2005 from the
engineer for revisions to the subject project.
It is the responsibility of the recipient and the consulting engineer to insure that the
project plan documents are in compliance with Amended N.C.GvS. 133-3 (ratified July 13,
1993). The administrative review and approval of addenda do not imply approval of a restrictive
specification for bidding purposes; nor is it an authorization for noncompetitive procurement
actions.
O
%
WWTP Improvements
Town of Clayton
Approval of Addendum No. 2
Project No. CS 370431-04
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NorthCarolinaNaturallu
1
ID/dr
Attachment
cc:
The Honorable Jody L. McLeod, Mayor
Page 2
February 18, 2005
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
Ishwar Devkota, P.E. at [phone].
The Wooten Company (Dr. Shankar R. Mistry, P.E.)
Raleigh Regional Office, Surface Water Protection
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Ishwar Devkota, P.E.
Valerie Lancaster
Amy Simes, P.E.
Cecil G. Madden, Jr., P.E.
CS 370431-04
Sincerely,
Cecil G. Madden, Jr. P. E., Supervisor
Design Management Unit
Construction Grants & Loans Section
Engineer's Certification
Signature Registration No.
Date
Send to:
I certify that the construction of the above referenced project was observed to be built within
substantial compliance and intent of the approved plans and specifications.
Town of Clayton
A To C No. 025453A03
Issued February 17, 2005
Construction Grants & Loans
DENR/DWQ
1633 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1633
I,, as a duly registered Professional Engineer in
the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically/weekly/full time)
the construction of the modifications and improvements to the Little Creek Water Reclaimation
Facility, located in Johnston County for the Town of Clayton, hereby state that, to the best of my
abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the following construction:
A new 214,500 gallon anaerobic basin; one new 300,000 gallon anoxic tank, one
new 200,000 gallon anoxic tank; modifications to the existing aeration basins; a
new 360,000 gallon sludge holding/digestion tank with two blowers each having
1100 SCFM of aeration capacity, and twolO HP submersible mixers,
instrumentation, site work, piping, electrical work, and associated appurtenances,
pursuant to the letter of request received on December 29, 2003, and in
conformity with the project plan, specifications, and other supporting data
subsequently filed and approved by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
We understand that the new limits associated with the modifications to expand to 2.5 MGD now
apply.
February 14, 2005
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Biggs:
1.
2.
Construction Grants and Loans Section
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1633
Phone: [phone]/ FAX: [phone]/ Internet: www.nccgl.net
An Equal Opponunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
As you were notified by letter from Governor Easley, the Town of Clayton has been
approved for loan assistance from the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund in the amount of
$4,450,000. i his loan will assist the funding for nutrient removal and sludge handling
improvements at the Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility.
Mr. R. Steven Biggs, Town Manager
Town of Clayton
P.O. Box 879
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
One (1) copy of the original Offer and Acceptance Document executed by the authorized
representative for the project. Retain the other copy for your files.
A resolution adopted by the governing body accepting the loan offer and making the
applicable assurances contained therein. (Sample copy attached)
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Offer and Acceptance For a
Slate Loan
Project No. CS370431-04
Town of Clayton, North Carolina
Enclosed are two (2) copies of an Offer and Acceptance Document extending a State
Revolving loan in the amount of $4,450,000. This offer is made subject to the assurances and
conditions set forth in the Offer and Acceptance Document. Upon executing the Offer and
Acceptance Document, please submit the following items to the Construction Grants and Loans
Section, 1633 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633 within forty-five (45)
days of receipt.
^^^vlichael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
_ TOneNorthCarolinaNaturally
>
Q
•W|if
Sincerely,
ST/sd
Enclosures
cc:
Mr. R. Steven Bigga
February 14, 2005
Page 2
/ohn R. Blowe, P.E., Chief
Construction Grants & Loans Section
Raleigh Regional Office
Valerie Lancaster
SRF
In addition, the enclosed pay request form must be used for all reimbursement requests.
You may make additional copies as needed. Also, enclosed is a copy of a memorandum
requesting your Federal Identification Number. Please contact the State Auditors office for the
compliance pertaining to the North Carolina Clean Water Revolving Loan and Grant Program.
On behalf of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, I am pleased to
make this offer of State Revolving Loan funds made available by the North Carolina Clean
Water Revolving Loan and Grant Act of 1997 and the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of
1987.
In accordance with G.S. 159-26(b)(6), a capital project fund is required to account for all
debt instrument proceeds used to finance capital projects. It is required that a capital project
ordinance, in accordance with G.S. 159-13.2, be adopted by the governing board authorizing all
appropriations necessary tor the completion of the project. A copy of the approved ordinance
must be submitted to this office before requesting the first reimbursement request.
Michael F. Easley, Governor
February 10, 2005
SUBJECT:
Dear Mayor McLeod:
on
Construction Grants and Loans Section
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1633
Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone] / Internet: www.nccgl.net
A copy of the approved addendum is attached for your files, and one (1) copy retained for
our files.
Reference is made to Addendum No. 1, received February 9, 2005 from the engineer for
revisions to the subject project.
I he approval of this addendum does not constitute any change in the amount of your loan
for this project.
The Honorable Jody L. McLeod, Mayor
Town of Clayton
Post Office Box 879
Clayton, North Carolina 27520-0879
Adequate time must be allowed for the potential bidders and this office to receive and act
addenda prior to the receipt of bids for subject project.
WWTP Improvements
Town of Clayton
Approval of Addendum No. 1
Project No. CS 370431-04
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
It is the responsibility of the recipient and the consulting engineer to insure that the
project plan documents are in compliance with Amended N.C.G.S. 133-3 (ratified July 13,
1993). The administrative review and approval of addenda do not imply approval of a restrictive
specification for bidding purposes; nor is it an authorization for noncompetitive procurement
actions.
The proposed addendum, as described in the attachment, has been reviewed by this
office, and is hereby approved, and eligible for funding in accordance with the loan offer and
conditions thereof.
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
'X>&
co
>
Q
NorthCarolinaXaturalluFnnal Clnnnrti mitv/Affirmativa Artinn Pmnlnvor- ^H0/- Par\/rloH/in°/- Pnct Cnncnmar Donor
Sincerely,
ID/dr
Attachment
cc:
- c
/
The Honorable Jody L. McLeod, Mayor
Page 2
February 10, 2005
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
Ishwar Devkota, P.E. at [phone].
The Wooten Company (Dr. Shankar R. Mistry, P.E.)
Raleigh Regional Office, Surface Water Protection
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Ishwar Devkota, P.E.
Valerie Lancaster
Amy Simes, P.E.
Cecil G. Madden, Jr., P.E.
CS 370431-04
Cecil G. Madden, Jr. P. E., Supervisor
Design Management Unit
Construction Grants & Loans Section
03-07-2005 09:22AM P.001/002 F-520
^^<3
MAGNAFAX TRANSMITTAL
Date:
To:
Location:
1Fax No. £
/^y
Location:
Pagettto Follow
A-5
From: _
Fax No.
S'! I-l-'l/g
S/zk.cJ~
[phone] Tele: (919) 7/^~- G 7
DWQ - Construction Grants & Loans Section
I
FROM-CiAcgftants And Loans T-928
OF ^KlRONMENT AND NA TURALEE^^CES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
FRO Grants And Loans 9197151
Full
, as a duly registered ProfessionalMichael C. Wicker, P.E.I,
aving been authorized to observe
1 t.
57/^7/^
fo
hereby states that with the best of my abilites, due care and diligence was used in
the observation of the project construction such that the construction was observed
to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the approved plans and
specifications.
rated at 75 HP to replace one 50 HP)
SIGNATURE
7/26/02DATENC 11325REGISTRATION NO.
c;
j
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER’S CERTIFICATION
X
4 OF CLAYTON
(OWNER)
ON WWTP UPGRADE
CT NAME)
NC, JOHNSTON COUNTY
LOCATION)
>453ACD, May 24, 2001
1IT NO.)
Replacement of two existing Carousel aerators (one rated at 50 HP to
replace one existing 25 HP aerator, one 1-----
Addition of a 65 foot clarifier,
all additional piping, valves, control equipment and appurtenances.
03-07-2005 09:22AM T-928 P.002/002 F-520
>
<- ■
April 26, 2005
Subject:
Dear Mr. Biggs:
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
3. Talecris, another pharmaceutical SIU, is proposing a new process for its waste treatment.
The SIU wants to add a fixed film reactor and a DAF unit with hopes of reducing COD
concentrations in its process water. Mr. Warren sought the aid of S.T. Wooten for third
party approval.
Pretreatment Compliance Inspection Report
Program: Town of Clayton
Johnston County
NPDES Number NC0025453
Mr. Steve Biggs, Town Manager
Town of Clayton
P.O. Box 879
Clayton, NC 27520
1. There are currently 3 Significant Industrial Users (SIU) discharging to the POTW, all of
which are Categorical Industrial Users (CIU). Novo Nordisk, a pharmaceutical SIU, was
found to be in SNC for the first semi-annual monitoring period of 2005 for acetone
violations. The industry does not use acetone anywhere in its process. Mr. Warren
believes the acetone could possibly originate from the EQ tank where isopropyl alcohol is
exposed to sunlight and has the potential to degrade to acetone. As a result of the
violations, the SIU was required to submit a plan of action to the POTW. Novo Nordisk
is currently still trying to find the origins of the acetone.
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NprthCaroli)
-----------datura Hi
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
2. The Town of Clayton currently has a trading agreement with Johnston County where
flow is partially diverted between the two POTWs. The pump station that services the 3
SIUs in Clayton has the capability of sending its flow to either POTW. In the past, the
POTW that received greater than 50% of the flow was held accountable for pretreatment
duties. In 2005, however, the percentages were extremely close, as Clayton received
50.3% of the flow and Johnston County received 49.7%. Whoever receives less of the
flow will be required to get an IUP. The two POTWs are currently trying to resolve this
issue of responsibility.
On April 26, 2006 Mr. Christopher Wu of the Raleigh Regional Office performed a pretreatment
compliance inspection with Mr. James Warren at the Town of Clayton’s Wastewater Treatment
Facility. The inspection report is attached. Mr. Warren’s assistance was greatly appreciated as it
facilitated the inspection process. The significant findings were as follows:
rbjjca
O . ' <
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
Sincerely,
You are doing an excellent job of meeting the pretreatment program goals for the Town of
Clayton.
Cc: Dana Folley, DWQ - PERCS Unit
Chris Wu-RRO
James Warren, Toami of Clayton
Central Files
4. An inspection of Novo Nordisk was conducted with the assistance of Mr. David Bright,
Environmental Health and Safety Manager, and Mr. Fred Seymour, Environmental
Safety Specialist. Mr. Warren was very thorough in his evaluation.
Christopher Wu
Environmental Specialist
Town of Clayton
NC0025453
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(£/ ncmail.net].
5. Mr. Warren is keeping all of the files and data in a well organized fashioned. Such order
eased the file review process.
f
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Inspector
(INSP)
PSNC1
0
POTW INTERVIEW
Yes KI No17.
K No18.
19.
20.
None
KI No21.
Page 1
I
Filename: Clayton
Revised: 6/30/98
Since the Last PCI, has the POTW had any POTW Permit Limits Violations?
If Yes, What are the Parameters and How are these Problems Being Addressed?
SNC for Limits: Novo Nordisk; acetone
SNC for Reporting: None
Not Published: None
Main Program Permit Number
I N I C I 0 I 0 I 2 I 5 I 4 I 5 I 3 I
Trans.Code
LnJ
In spec.Type
(TYPI)
Yes
Yes
MM/DD/YY
I 04 I 26 I 06 I
(DTIA)
3_
3_
£
o'
£
7
NOIN
NOCM
MSNC
SNPS
Fac. Type
LU
(FACC)
SIUS
CIUS
I^h^lOLlNA DIVISION OF X^^EMMlLITY
PRETREAl^^T COMPLIANCE INSPECTIO^pTl) REPORT
Since the Last PCI, has the POTW had any Problems Related to an Industrial
Discharge (Interference, Pass-Through, Blockage, Citizens’ Complaints, Increased
Sludge Production, Etc.)?
If Yes, How are these Problems Being Addressed?
Which Industries have been in SNC during either of the Last 2 Semi-
Annual Periods? Have any Industries in SNC (During Either of the Last
2 Semi-Annual Periods) Not Been Published for Public Notice?
(May refer to PAR if Excessive SIUs in SNC)
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?
Are Any Permits Or Civil Penalties Currently Under Adjudication? If Yes, Which
Ones?
BACKGROUND INFORMATION [Complete Prior To PCI; Review Program Info Database Sheet(s)|
Control Authority (POTW) Name: Town of Clayton
Control Authority Representative(s): Mr. James Warren
Title(s): WRF Superintendent
Last Inspection Date: 05/20/2005 Inspection Type (Circle One): PCI Audit
Has Program Completed All Requirements from the Previous Inspection or Program Info Sheet(s)? KI Yes No N/A
Is POTW under an Order That Includes Pretreatment Conditions? Yes K] No
Order Type and Number: Are Milestone Dates Being Met? Yes No K N/A
PCS CODING
7. Current Number Of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)?________________________________
8. Current Number Of Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs)?________________________________
9. Number of SIUs Not Inspected By POTW in the Last Calendar Year?_____________________
10. Number of SIUs Not Sampled By POTW in the Last Calendar Year?______________________
11. Enter the Higher Number of 9 or 10_________________________________________________
12. Number of SIUs With No IUP, or With an Expired IUP_________________________________
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)__________________________________
14. Number of SIUs in SNC For Reporting During Either of the Last 2 Semi-Annual Periods______
15. Number of SIUs In SNC For Limits Violations During Either of the Last 2 Semi-Annual Periods
16. Number of SIUs In SNC For Both Reporting and Limits Violations During Either of the Last 2
Semi-annual Periods
I
Program Element
01/15/200704/11/2002Headworks Analysis (HWA)
02/04/200802/07/2003Industrial Waste Survey (IWS)
08/19/1997Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO)
11/18/1998Enforcement Response Plan (ERP)
Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP)10/02/1997
Nog] Yes
3.1. Novo Nordisk26. User Name
Yes No Yes No
a.nYesnNoDN/Aa-nYesDNoBN/A a-DYesDNoON/A
Page 2
22.
23.
24.
25.
Filename. Clayton
Revised: 6/30/98
No
Is the Table Adequate?
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM^^^N^^E
INDUSTRIAL USER PERMIT (IUP) FILE REVIEW(3 IUP FILE REVIEWS OR 1 FILE REVIEW AND 1 IU INSPECTION)
2?
VIEW- Please review POT
Date of Last Approval
□YesDNolWA
□YesdNoEN/A
□YesDNogN/A
□YesEJNoDN/A
YesDNoDN/A
□YesONodN/A
|g] Yes No
ElYesDNodN/A
laYesdNogN/A
K]Yes No
0 Yes r~l No
a. DYes ONo
b. DYes DNo
YesDNodN/A
0 Yes r~] No
a. UYes DNo
b. DYes UNo
□YesdNodN/A
a. ElYes DNo
b-DYesDNoaN/A
|0 Yes 0 No
0 Yes No
a. E3Yes DNo
b. DYes DNo
dYesdNodN/A
a.DYesDNoBN/A
b-OYesaNoBN/A
0 Yes 0 No
a. ElYes ENo
b-DYesaNoDN/A
0 Yes 0 No
a.nYesEINonNZA
b-DYesaNoDN/A
0 Yes 0 No
dYesdNodN/A
0 Yes 0 No
b.qYesaNoDNZA
dYesdNodN/A
0 Yes 0 No
dYesdNodN/A
a. qYesnNoDN/A
b. qYesqNoDN/A
0 Yes 0 No
0 Yes 0 No
dYesdNodN/A
dYesdNodN/A
0 Yes 0 No
b.BYesqNoqN/A
DYesdNodN/A
0 Yes 0 No
DYesdNodN/A
0003-02
0 Yes 0 No
06 / 30 / 07
439.40
0 Yes 0 No
b.qYesqNoqN/A
dYesdNodNM-
0 Yes 0 No
dYesdNodN/A
0 Yes 0 No
dYesdNodN/A
0 Yes | I No
7 7
0 Yes 0 No
7 7
ct^PFete the following:__________
Date Next Due, If Applicable
LTMP FILE REVIEW:
Is the LTMP Monitoring Being Conducted at Appropriate Locations and Frequencies? 0 Y<
Should any Pollutants of Concern be Eliminated from or Added to the LTMP?
If yes, which ones? Eliminated: Added:
Are Correct Detection Levels being used for all LTMP Monitoring? 0 Yes
Is the LTMP Data Maintained in a Table or Equivalent? 0 Yes 0 No
es | | No
0 Yes 0 No
a. EYes E)No
b. qYesqNoEIN/A
0 Yes 0 No
27. IUP Number______________________________________________________
28. Does File Contain Current Permit?__________________________________
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?______________________________________________
32. Does File Contain an Inspection Completed Within Last Calendar Year?
33. a. Does the File Contain a Slug Control Plan?
b. If No, is One Needed? (See Inspection Form from POTW)__________
34. For 40 CFR 413 and 433 TTO Certifiers, Does File Contain a Toxic
Organic Management Plan (TOMP)?________________________________
35. a. Does File Contain Original Permit Review Letter from the Division?
b. All Issues Resolved?____________________________________________
36. During the Most Recent Semi-Annual Period, Did the POTW Complete
its Sampling as Required by IUP?___________________________________
37. Does File Contain POTW Sampling Chain-Of-Custodies?_____________
38. During the Most Recent Semi-Annual Period, Did the SIU Complete its
Sampling as Required by IUP?______________________________________
39. Does Sampling Indicate Flow or Production?_________________________
40. During the Most Recent Semi-Annual Period, Did the POTW Identify
All Non-Compliance from Both POTW and SIU Sampling?____________
41. a. Was the POTW Notified by SIU (Within 24 Hours) of All Self­
Monitoring Violations?
b. Did Industry Resample Within 30 Days?___________________________
42. Was the SIU Promptly Notified of Any Violations (Per ERP)?_________
43. During the Most Recent Semi-Annual Period, Was the SIU in SNC?
44. During the Most Recent Semi-Annual Period, Was Enforcement Taken
as Specified in the POTWs ERP?___________________________________
45. Does the File Contain Penalty Assessment Notices?___________________
46. Does The File Contain Proof Of Penalty Collection?__________________
47. a. Does the File Contain Any Current Enforcement Orders?
b. Is SIU in Compliance with Order?________________________________
48. Did the POTW Representative Have Difficulty in Obtaining Any of This
Requested Information For You?
FILE REVIEW COMMENT:f
The files were kept in good order and everything was readily accessible.
PCI SUMMARY AND COMMENTS:
PCI Comments: Clayton currently has a trade agreement with Johnston County. Flow is partially diverted between the two POTWs.
Requirements:
Recommendations:
Unsatisfactory OSatisfactoryMarginal
PCI COMPLETED BY: Christopher Wu DATE: 04/26/2006
INDUSTRY INSPECTION PCS CODING:
Fac. Type[nspec.Type
FACC)(TYPI)
No
Page 3
1. Industry Inspected: Novo Nordisk
2. Industry Address:
3. Type of Industry/Product: Pharmaceuticals
4. Industry Contact: David Bright, Fred Seymour Title: Environmental Health & Safety Manager, Environmental Safety Specialist
Filename: Clayton
Revised: 6/30/98
KI No
KI No
KI No
Main Program Permit Number
iNlclololzlsIdlsHI
Trans.Code
I N I
Inspector
(INSP)
NOD: Yes
NOV: Yes
QNCR: Yes
POTW Rating:
MM/DD/YY
I 04 I 26 I 06 I
(DTIA)
Phone: Fax:
5. Does the POTW Use the Division Model Inspection Form or Equivalent? KI Yes
6. Did the POTW Contact Conduct the Following Parts of the Industrial Inspection Thoroughly?
Comments:
A. Initial Interview KI Yes KI No
B. Plant Tour KI Yes KI No
C. Pretreatment Tour K Yes KI No
D. Sampling Review K Yes KJ No
E. Exit Interview K Yes KI No
Industrial Inspection Comments:
Mr. Warren was extremely thorough in his inspection of the SIU.
“SERVICE”
April 20, 2005
Re: Holding Tank Foaming Incident Town of Clayton NPDES # NC 00025453
Dear Mr. Hayes:
653 Highway 42 West • P.O. Box 879 • Clayton, North Carolina 27520 • [phone] • Fax [phone]
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
[phone]
ELECTRIC SERVICE
[phone]
The town is currently pursuing ways of preventing future occurrences. A high level alarm
will be installed to alert plant personnel of problems, along with some procedural changes
to lessen the potential of further problems.
Steve Biggs
Tim Simpson
Mitch Hayes
DWQ, Raleigh Regional Office
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
ETON OF CLA *0^
OPERATIONS CENTER “’’ENVIRONMENT’
As reported to Mr. Dare in your office on April 15, 2005. plant staff arrived and
discovered that the sludge holding tank foamed over the side of the tank after the
biosolids were lime stabilized. The incident was contained on Town property and cleaned
up via vacuum truck. Approximately 7,000 gallons of rinse water was collected and
treated in the plant influent. Additional lime was applied to the affected area. The
incident did not pose a threat to the environment.
Sincerely.
C-kfmes Warren,
ORC, Town of Clayton
'I
--------PUBLIC WORKS
ikri r^T^-335.30
■'L ’------------WATER RECLAMATION
"SERVICE"
April 20,2005
Dear Mr. Hayes:
Sincerely,
653 Highway 42 West • P.O. Box 879 • Clayton. North Carolina 27520 • [phone] • Fax [phone]
Steve Biggs
Tim Simpson
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
[phone]
ELECTRIC SERVICE
[phone]
The town is currently pursuing ways of preventing future occurrences. A high level alarm
will be installed to alert plant personnel of problems, along with some procedural changes
to lessen the potential of further problems.
As reported to Mr. Dare in your office on April 15,2005, plant staff arrived and
discovered that the sludge holding tank foamed over the side of the tank after the
biosolids were lime stabilized. The incident was contained on Town property and cleaned
up via vacuum truck. Approximately 7,000 gallons of rinse water was collected and
treated in the plant influent. Additional lime was applied to the affected area. The
incident did not pose a threat to the environment.
TOWN Ol
OPERATIC
WATER RECLAMATION
[phone]
Jdmes Warren,
ORC, Town of Clayton
Re: Holding Tank Foaming Incident Town of Clayton NPDES # NC 00025453
Mitch Hayes
DWQ, Raleigh Regioni_ .
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Co.
Phone#
Fax#
'S 'i.'
jonal Office
'•V
TOWNOFCLAMj^ N
Poet-it* Fax NoS^
coTd^T
Phon®#
Fax #
04/20/2005 13:46 1553
Michael F. Easley, Governor
April 11,2005
Dear Mr. Gutierrez:
Sincerely,
cc:
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
MR. JAMES WARREN
WRF SUPERINTENDENT
TOWN OF CLAYTON
P.O. BOX 879
CLAYTON, NC 27520
The Central and Regional Offices have reviewed the Pretreatment Annual Report (PAR)
covering January through December 2004. This PAR was received on March 2, 2005.
The PAR is considered complete and satisfies the requirements of 15A NCAC 2H .0908(b) and
the Comprehensive Guidance for North Carolina Pretreatment Programs.
Central Files
James Warren, Town of Clayton
Dana Folley, Pretreatment Unit
Christopher Wu, RRO
Christopher Wu
Environmental Specialist
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
NC DWQ/PERCS Unit 1617 Mail Service Center
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/Pretreat/index.html 512 N. Salisbury St.
Subject: Pretreatment Annual Report Review
Town of Clayton
Johnston County
NPDES Number: NC0025453
NorthCarolina
-------------Naturally
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
Thank you for your continued cooperation with the Pretreatment Program. If you have any
questions or comments, please contact Dana Folley at [phone] ext. 523 [email:
[e-mail]].
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
oU£^
I JI III SL> —
//
09/I
> ||
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Division of Water Qualify
February 17, 2005
Subject:
Dear Mayor McLeod:
i
1617 Mail Service Center
512 N. Salisbury St.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
The Honorable Jody L. McLeod, Mayor
Town of Clayton
Post Office Box 879
Clayton, North Carolina 27520-0879
A letter of request for Authorization to Construct was received on December 29, 2003, by
the Division, and final plans and specifications for the subject project have been reviewed and
found to be satisfactory. Authorization for the construction of modifications to the existing 1.9
MOD Wastewater Treatment Plant, with discharge of treated wastewater into the Neuse River in
the Neuse River Basin was issued on October 4, 2004. We are re-issuing this Authorization to
Construct to correct the A to C number from 02543A01 to 025453 A03. No conditions of this
Authorization to Construct are changed from previously issued Authorization to Construct
except the A to C Number. This A to C thus voids A to C No. 02543A01 issued on
October 4, 2004.
This Authorization to Construct is issued in accordance with Part III, Paragraph A of
NPDES Permit No. NC0025453 issued March 11, 2004, and shall be subject to revocation unless
the wastewater treatment facilities are constructed in accordance with the conditions and
limitations specified in Permit No. NC0025453.
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Raleigh, NC 27604
Authorization to Construct
A to C No. 025453A03
Town of Clayton
Little Creek WWTP
Johnston County
Project No. CS370431-04
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W*. Klimek, P.E. Director
NqrthCarolina
____ Naturally
Customer Sen ice
1-877-623-6748
CD
This authorization results in an increase in design and permitted capacity to 2.5 MGD.
and is awarded for the construction of the following specific modifications:
___________-y z.. er
j; , : < A new 214,500 gallon anaerobic basip; one new 300,000 gallon anoxic tank, one
new 200,000 gallon anoxic tank; modifications to the existing aeration basins; a
-new 360,000 gallon sludge holding/digestion tank with two blowers each having
1100 SCFM of aeration capacity, and two 10 HP submersible mixers,
instrumentation, site work, piping, electrical work, and associated appurtenances,
pursuant to the letter of request received on December 29, 2003, and in
conformity with the project plan, specifications, and other supporting data
subsequently filed and approved by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
>
o
The Honorable Jody L. McLeod, Mayor
February 17, 2005
Page 2
The sludge generated from these treatment facilities must be disposed of in accordance
with G.S. 143-215.1 and in a manner approved by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of
nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action, including those as may
be required by this Division, such as the construction of additional or replacement wastewater
treatment or disposal facilities.
The Raleigh Regional Office, telephone number [phone], shall be notified at least
forty-eight (48) hours in advance of operation of the installed facilities so that an on site
inspection can be made. Such notification to the regional supervisor shall be made during the
normal office hours from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding State
Holidays.
Upon classification of the facility by the Certification Commission, the Permittee shall
employ a certified wastewater treatment plant operator to be in responsible charge (ORC) of the
wastewater treatment facilities. The operator must hold a certificate of the type and grade at
least equivalent to or greater than the classification assigned to the wastewater treatment
facilities by the Certification Commission.
The Permittee must also employ a certified back-up operator of the appropriate type and
grade to comply with the conditions of T15A:8G.0202. The ORC of the facility must visit each
Class I facility at least weekly and each Class II, 111 and IV facility at least daily, excluding
weekends and holidays, must properly manage the facility, must document daily operation and
maintenance of the facility, and must comply with all other conditions of T1 5A:8G.02()2.
During the constmction of the proposed additions/modifications, the permittee shall
continue to properly maintain and operate the existing wastewater treatment facilities at all times,
and in such a manner, as necessary to comply with the effluent limits specified in the NPDES
Permit.
A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by the
Permittee for the life of the facility .
You are reminded that it is mandatory for the project to be constructed in accordance
with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, and. when applicable, the North
Carolina Dam Safety Act. hi addition, the specifications must clearly state what the contractor's
responsibilities shall be in complying with these Acts.
Upon completion of construction and prior to operation of this permitted facility, a
certification must be received from a professional engineer certifying that the permitted facility
has been installed in accordance with the NPDES Permit, this Authorization to Construct and the
approved plans and specifications. Mail the Certification to Cecil G. Madden, Jr., P.E.,
Construction Grants & Loans, DWQ / DENR, 1633 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-
1633.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
ICD.cgm
cc:
j
The issuance of this Authorization to Construct does not preclude the Permittee from
complying with any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by
other government agencies (local, state, and federal) which have jurisdiction.
The Honorable Jody L. McLeod, Mayor
February 17, 2005
Page 3
Failure to abide by the requirements contained in this Authorization to Construct may
subject the Permittee to an enforcement action by the Division of Water Quality in accordance
with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Cecil G.
Madden, Jr., P.E. at telephone number [phone].
The Wooten Company, Shankar R. Mistry, Ph.D., P.E.
Johnston County Health Department
Raleigh Regional Office, Surface Water Protection
Technical Assistance and Certification Unit
Daniel Blaisdell. P.E.
Point Source Branch. NPDES Program
Cecil G. Madden, Jr., P.E.
Ishwar Dcvkota, P.E.
Project No. CS370431-04
t
May 18, 2005
Dear Mr. Biggs:
The speculative limits presented here
Environmental Assessments of New Projects
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Mr. Steven Biggs, Manager
Town of Clayton
P.O. Box 879
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
1617 Mail Service Center
512 N. Salisbury St.
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]
Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Raleigh. NC 27604
Ikhnr b_aleigh regional
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits Request
Town of Clayton
NPDES Permit NC0025453
Johnston County
lTDUJGt!'
This letter is in response to your request for speculative effluent limits for the proposed expansions of Clayton’s
wastewater treatment plant from 2.5 MGD to 8.0 MOD. We have reviewed the request and provide the following
response.
NorthCarolinaNaturally
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
==4
An Environmental Assessment should contain a clear justification for the proposed project. It should provide an
analysis of potential alternatives, including a thorough evaluation of non-discharge alternatives and connection to
a regional treatment system. Nondischarge alternatives or alternatives to expansion, such as spray irrigation,
water conservation, or inflow and infiltration reduction, are considered to be environmentally preferable to a
surface water discharge. In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the preferred alternative must
be the practicable waste treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment. If
the EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment,
you must then prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
Please be aware that you will have to evaluate this project for environmental impacts before receiving a modified
permit. Anyone proposing to construct new or expanded waste treatment facilities using public funds or public
(state) lands must first prepare an environmental assessment (EA) when wastewater flows (1) equal or exceed 0.5
MGD or (2) exceed one-third of the 7Q10 flow of the receiving stream. DWQ will not accept a permit
application for a project requiring an environmental assessment until the Division has approved the EA and sent a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the state Clearinghouse for review and comment.
are based on our understanding of the proposal and of present
environmental conditions. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) cannot guarantee that it will issue the Town an
NPDES permit to discharge treated wastewater into waters of the State. Nor can we guarantee that the effluent
limitations and other requirements included in any permit will be exactly as presented here. Final decisions on
these matters will be made only after the Division receives and evaluates a formal permit application for the
Town’s proposed discharge.
Speculative Effluent Limits
SPECULATIVE LIMITS
PARAMETER Monthly Average Weekly Average Daily Maximum
8.0
5.0 mg/L 7.5 mg/L
10.0 mg/L 15.0 mg/L
30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L 3.0 mg/L
2.0 mg/L 6.0 mg/L
200/100 ml 400/100 ml
28 ng/L
21,400 (pounds/year)
2.0 mg/L
BOPs - The limits for BOD are water quality based limits to protect the receiving stream.
NH3-N - The limits for NH3-N are water quality based limits to protect the receiving stream.
TSS - The limits for total suspended solids are standard for secondary treatment of municipal wastewater.
P.O. - The D.O. limit is a water quality based limit to protect the receiving stream.
Ms. Donald B. Rains
Town of Princeton
Page 2
Fecal Coliform, pH - The limits for fecal coliform bacteria and pH are derived to protect water quality in the
receiving stream.
Based on the available information, tentative limits for the Princeton WWTP at the expanded flow of 8.0
MGD are as follows:
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) - Facilities that use chlorine disinfection receive a total chlorine limit to
protect against chlorine toxicity in the receiving stream.
Minimum 6.0 mg/L
>6.0 and <9.0 standard units
Flow (MGD)__________
BOD, 5-day, 20°C
(April 1 - October 31)
BOD, 5-day, 20°C
(November 1 - March 31)
Total Suspended Solids
NH3 asN
(April 1 - October 31)
NH3 asN
(November 1 - March 31)
Dissolved Oxygen______
PH_________________
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)______
Total Residual Chlorine
TN Load____________
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen - The nitrogen limit represents the Town’s annual allocation for total nitrogen, as defined in the
proposed Neuse River Basin Strategy (T15A NCAC 2B.0234). The Strategy also gives dischargers in the basin
the option of forming a group compliance association and working collectively to meet the overall nitrogen
reduction target. The rule waives the individual nitrogen permit limits for any discharger that joins an approved
association. The association then becomes responsible for meeting the collective allocation of its members.
The Town’s allocation represents a nitrogen “cap” and does not increase with increasing flows. At the 1.9 MGD
flow previously permitted, the 21,400 Ib/yr allocation was equivalent to an average concentration of 3.7 mg/L
TN. The equivalent concentration will decrease to 0.87 mg/L at 8.0 MGD. The Division considers 3 mg/L as the
Sincerely,
cc:
Ms. Donald B. Rains
Town of Princeton
Page 3
minimum technologically and economically feasible achievable treatment level. Considering that a limit of 0.87
mg/L is not feasible to achieve, the Town must evaluate other options such as pursuing water reuse or other non­
discharge options in order to reduce the amount of nitrogen discharged to the receiving stream. Furthermore, to
increase its nitrogen allocation, the Town can purchase the allocation from existing dischargers or can purchase
the allocation from the Wetlands Restoration Fund, which uses the payment to fund offsetting non-point nutrient
reductions. Payments for the purchase of allocation are set at $22/lb and must be paid for a 30-year period prior
to application for an NPDES permit modification.
The limits presented above were based on the information presented in the speculative limits request. A complete
evaluation of these limits and monitoring frequencies in addition to monitoring requirements for metals and other
toxicants will be addressed upon receipt of a formal NPDES permit application.
I trust this response offers sufficient guidance for the Town’s proposed treatment plant expansion. If you have
any additional questions about these limits, feel free to contact Teresa Rodriguez at [phone] ext. 553.
Mark McIntire
EAST NPDES Unit Supervisor
Total Phosphorus - In the Neuse River Basin, facilities permitted at or above 0.5 MOD receive a TP limit. For
facilities that are not members of the compliance association the corresponding limit is 1.0 mg/L as a monthly
average. For compliance association members the limit is 2.0 mg/L as a quarterly average.
Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office #
Construction Grants and Loans Section
NPDES Unit
Shankar R. Mistry, Ph.D., P.E. - The Wooten Company
120 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1423
04/22/2005 09: 35 TOWNOFCLA PAGE 01
-'ENVIRONMENT’
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
mtcAATTN:
FAX NO.:
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER) :
THANK YOU,
WATER RECLAMATION
[phone]
PUBLIC WORKS
[phone]
TOWN OF CLAYTON
OPERATIONS CENTER
COMPANY: Owe FROM:
^33-97/^
ELECTRIC SERVICE
ft ' (9)9) 553*4530
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
[phone]
COMMENTS:
Should you have any problems receiving this FAX,
please call the Water Reclamation Facility at
[phone], or our FAX number is [phone].
653 Highway 42 Wc.$t • PO. Box 879 • Clayton. North Carolina 27520 • (919) 553-153(7’ Fax [phone]
91
-’ENVIRONMENT’"SERVICE"
April 22,2005
Re: Effluent Pump Station Problem, Town of Clayton NPDES # NC 00025453
Dear Mr. Hayes:
Please call me directly at 919-553-1536 if you have any questions.
:rel
653 Highway 42 West • P.O. Box 879 • Clayton. Nonh Carolina 27520 • [phone] • Fax [phone]
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
[phone]
ELECTRIC SERVICE
[phone]
James Warren,
ORC, Town of Clayton
Steve Biggs
Tim Simpson
As reported to you on April 18, 2005, plant staff was notified of a high water alarm at our
effluent pump station. An automobile accident had occurred near the plant site and as
result the plant experienced transient power surges. As a result of these transient or short
terms power surges the variable frequency drives tripped out and had to be reset. The
backup pump had a problem with the float system this was repaired later in the am. The
disinfected effluent was over running the pump station when the operator arrived. Power
was restored to the controls and the pump station returned to normal operation. The time
between the call out and response was less than thirty minutes and normal operation was
noted within 45 minutes. The estimated volume for 45 minutes at 833 gpm would be
37,485 gls.. The effluent sheet flowed into the woods behind pump station and did not
pose a threat to the environment.
WATER RECLAMATION
[phone]
Mitch Hayes
DWQ, R^eigh Regional Office
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
PUBLIC WORKS
[phone]
TOWNQFCLA^^N
TOWN OF CLAYTO
OPERATIONS CENTER
04/22/2005 09:35 PAGE 02
May 18, 2005
Dear Mr. Biggs:
Environmental Assessments of New Projects
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Mr. Steven Biggs, Manager
Town of Clayton
P.O. Box 879
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
This letter is in response to your request for speculative effluent limits for the proposed expansions of Clayton’s
wastewater treatment plant from 2.5 MOD to 8.0 MGD. We have reviewed the request and provide the following
response.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
1617 Mail Service Center
512 N. Salisbury St.
Phone[phone]
FAX [phone]
Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Raleigh. NC 27604
..OneNorthCarohnaNaturally
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
3 Irf__J 1
REGIONAL Of M;
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits Request
Town of Clayton
NPDES Permit NC0025453
Johnston County
The speculative limits presented here are based on our understanding of the proposal and of present
environmental conditions. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) cannot guarantee that it will issue the Town an
NPDES permit to discharge treated wastewater into waters of the State. Nor can we guarantee that the effluent
limitations and other requirements included in any permit will be exactly as presented here. Final decisions on
these matters will be made only after the Division receives and evaluates a formal permit application for the
Town’s proposed discharge.
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
■»
An Environmental Assessment should contain a clear justification for the proposed project. It should provide an
analysis of potential alternatives, including a thorough evaluation of non-discharge alternatives and connection to
a regional treatment system. Nondischarge alternatives or alternatives to expansion, such as spray irrigation,
water conservation, or inflow and infiltration reduction, are considered to be environmentally preferable to a
surface water discharge. In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the preferred alternative must
be the practicable waste treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment. If
the EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment,
you must then prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
Please be aware that you will have to evaluate this project for environmental impacts before receiving a modified
permit. Anyone proposing to construct new or expanded waste treatment facilities using public funds or public
(state) lands must first prepare an environmental assessment (EA) when wastewater flows (1) equal or exceed 0.5
MGD or (2) exceed one-third of the 7Q10 flow of the receiving stream. DWQ will not accept a permit
application for a project requiring an environmental assessment until the Division has approved the EA and sent a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the state Clearinghouse for review and comment.
.oVC,, N,
Co /ill I
Speculative Effluent Limits
SPECULATIVE LIMITS
Daily MaximumWeekly AverageMonthly AveragePARAMETER
8.0
7.5 mg/L5.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L10.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L30.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L1.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L2.0 mg/L
400/100 ml200/100 ml
28 gg/L
21,400 (pounds/year)
2.0 mg/L
BOPs - The limits for BOD are water quality based limits to protect the receiving stream.
NfL-N - The limits for NH3-N are water quality based limits to protect the receiving stream.
TSS - The limits for total suspended solids are standard for secondary treatment of municipal wastewater.
P.O, - The P.O. limit is a water quality based limit to protect the receiving stream.
Minimum 6.0 mg/L
>6.0 and <9.0 standard units
Ms. Donald B. Rains
Town of Princeton
Page 2
Based on the available information, tentative limits for the Princeton WWTP at the expanded flow of 8.0
MGD are as follows:
Fecal Coliform. pH - The limits for fecal coliform bacteria and pH are derived to protect water quality in the
receiving stream.
Total Nitrogen - The nitrogen limit represents the Town’s annual allocation for total nitrogen, as defined in the
proposed Neuse River Basin Strategy (T15A NCAC 2B.0234). The Strategy also gives dischargers in the basin
the option of forming a group compliance association and working collectively to meet the overall nitrogen
reduction target. The rule waives the individual nitrogen permit limits for any discharger that joins an approved
association. The association then becomes responsible for meeting the collective allocation of its members.
The Town’s allocation represents a nitrogen “cap” and does not increase with increasing flows. At the 1.9 MGD
flow previously permitted, the 21,400 Ib/yr allocation was equivalent to an average concentration of 3.7 mg/L
TN. The equivalent concentration will decrease to 0.87 mg/L at 8.0 MGD. The Division considers 3 mg/L as the
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) - Facilities that use chlorine disinfection receive a total chlorine limit to
protect against chlorine toxicity in the receiving stream.
Flow (MGD)__________
BOD, 5-day, 20°C
(April 1 - October 31)
BOD, 5-day, 20°C
(November 1 - March 31)
Total Suspended Solids
NH3 asN
(April 1 - October 31)
NH3 asN
(November 1 - March 31)
Dissolved Oxygen_____
PH_________________
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)______
Total Residual Chlorine
TN Load
Total Phosphorus
cc:
Ms. Donald B. Rains
Town of Princeton
Page 3
The limits presented above were based on the information presented in the speculative limits request. 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.
I trust this response offers sufficient guidance for the Town’s proposed treatment plant expansion. If you have
any additional questions about these limits, feel free to contact Teresa Rodriguez at [phone] ext. 553.
Mark McIntire
EAST NPDES Unit Supervisor
Total Phosphorus - In the Neuse River Basin, facilities permitted at or above 0.5 MOD receive a TP limit. For
facilities that are not members of the compliance association the corresponding limit is 1.0 mg/L as a monthly
average. For compliance association members the limit is 2.0 mg/L as a quarterly average.
Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office
Construction Grants and Lcians Section
NPDES Unit
Shankar R. Mistry, Ph.D., P.E. - The Wooten Company
120 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1423
minimum technologically and economically feasible achievable treatment level. Considering that a limit of 0.87
mg/L is not feasible to achieve, the Town must evaluate other options such as pursuing water reuse or other non­
discharge options in order to reduce the amount of nitrogen discharged to the receiving stream. Furthermore, to
increase its nitrogen allocation, the Town can purchase the allocation from existing dischargers or can purchase
the allocation from the Wetlands Restoration Fund, which uses the payment to fund offsetting non-pomt nutrient
reductions. Payments for the purchase of allocation are set at $22/lb and must be paid for a 30-year period prior
to application for an NPDES permit modification.
Sincen
August 8, 2005
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Biggs:
An Eaual Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
n n f r
I am writing to confirm the status of our review of the subject Engineering Report that
was received on May 13, 2005. A preliminary review of the report determined that the town’s
discharge, after the proposed plant upgrade and expansion, could not comply with its current
allocation and permit limit of 21,400 Ib/year for total nitrogen at the 8.0 mgd design flow. The
report concludes “The Town needs to make an official request to NCDWQ for either increase in
Total Nitrogen discharge allocation or provide BAT limit for Total Nitrogen.” The report further
recommends that the town “Maintain the membership of the Lower Neuse Basin Association...
The town will be responsible for group compliance limits. The town will not get a notice of
violation from the N.C. Division of Water Quality for non-compliance with its individual total
nitrogen discharge limit.” During our June 2, 2005 meeting with you and your engineers, we
discussed the need for additional information regarding this recommendation before beginning
our formal review of the Engineering Report.
Mr. R. Steven Biggs, Town Manager
Town of Clayton
Post Office Box 879
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
Accordingly, the Division met with the Executive Committee of the Neuse River
Compliance Association on June 23, 2005 to discuss nitrogen allocation accounting issues. In
the meeting, it was agreed to consider an approach by which any member of the Association
could pursue a plant expansion without having to first acquire the traditional allocation it will
Construction Grants and Loans Section
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1633
Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone] / Internet: www.nccgl.net
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, I’.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
We have since discussed your specific requests and also, generically, nitrogen allocation
issues. Changes in nitrogen allocations or limits must conform to the provisions of the Neuse
River Basin Nutrient Management Strategy rule (T15A NCAC 2B.0234) and be consistent with
the Neuse River Estuary TMDL approved by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency. As a result, the Division does not have the authority to increase the town’s allocation or
limit by either of the approaches suggested in the Engineering Report. Although the town is a
member of the Neuse River Compliance Association, it must demonstrate to the Division’s
satisfaction that 1) it can and will meet its TN limit for the life of the project, or that 2) it can
acquire the additional allocation necessary for compliance, before the Division can approve the
proposed expansion.
ij. AUG I I 2
i ,.___t ■
:D7hNR RALEIGH REGION*! OFFICE •
Town of Clayton
Engineering Report for Wastewater Treatment
System Capacity Study and Improvements
Project No. CS370431-05
DUJQ.
O * X-
NorthCarolinaNaturally
DMB/dr
cc:
Sincerely,
/
eventually need. This approach would require a joint effort by the member and the Neuse River
Compliance Association to develop and submit a Nutrient Management Plan as part of its project
proposal. In Clayton’s case the plan would detail the strategy for complying with the town’s
nitrogen discharge limit for the life of the project. For example, the town and the Compliance
Association could propose that in the first 5 to 10 years, Clayton will rely on unused allocation
available from the Association; and that by year “x”, other specific steps will be taken to meet
the town’s long-term needs, such as constructing a reuse system to reduce the nitrogen discharge,
or purchasing allocation from another discharger or from the Ecosystems Enhancement Program.
In order to be approved, the Nutrient Management Plan would have to provide sufficient detail to
demonstrate that the facility will comply with its nitrogen limits through each phase of the
strategy, up to and including the proposed design capacity of the plant expansion. The Plan must
include a clear timeline for wastewater treatment improvements, construction of a reuse system,
and/or the acquisition of additional nitrogen allocation needed during the life of the project, and a
detailed plan for financing those efforts. Wherever the Plan relies on the Compliance
Association, another discharger, or other entity, it must document the commitment of each such
entity.
Mr. R. Steven Biggs, Town Manager
Page 2
August 8, 2005
In summary, before the Division can begin its review of the Engineering Report, modify
Clayton’s individual NPDES permit, or issue an Authorization to Construct for a project that will
not meet its current nitrogen limit, the town and the Neuse River Compliance Association must
provide an approvable Nutrient Management Plan. Upon the Division’s approval, the Nutrient
Management Plan will become an enforceable part of the town’s NPDES pennit.
Neuse River Compliance Association - Cindy Finan, Executive Director
Neuse River Compliance Associate - Haywood Phthisic, President
Division of Water Quality - Alan Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality - Colleen Sullins, Deputy Director
Mike Templeton, P.E.
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
The Wooten Company - Shankar Mistry, P.E.
Bobby Blowe, P.E.
Daniel Blaisdell. P.E.
Amy Simes, P.E.
Rob Brown
DMU/FEU/SRF
1K. Lawrence Horton, III, P.E., Supervisor
Facilities Evaluation Unit
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at [phone] or
Mr. Daniel M. Blaisdell, P.E. at [phone].
August 22, 2005
Subject:
Dear Mr. Biggs:
Date Limit Value Reported Value Limit Type
04/30/05 1 mg/1 1.02 mg/1
Nitrate + Nitrite Not Sampled
Total Nitrogen Not Sampled
Total Phosphorous Not Sampled
NorthCarolinaNaturally
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total
(as N)
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed Little Creek WWTP's monitoring report for April
2005 and we noted the following violation(s) had been reported:
Parameter
Raleigh Regional Office
Surface Water Protection
03/27/05-
04/02/05
03/27/05-
04/02/05
03/27/05-
04/02/05
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
phone [phone]
facsimile [phone]
Weekly
Monitoring
Violation
Weekly
Monitoring
Violation
Monthly
Average
Exceeded
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Permit No. NC0025453
Little Creek WWTP
Case No. NOV-2005-LM-0008
Johnston County
R Steven Biggs
Town of Clayton
PO Box 879
Clayton NC 27520
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
O
II
NCDEM
Weekly
Monitoring
Violation
A review of the April 2005 submitted DMR for this facility shows that the POTW status was
marked as ‘Compliant’. Please submit an amended DMR for April 2005 with the POTW status
marked as ‘Noncompliant’. Please provide an explanation for the sampling deficiencies for April
2005 as well.
Please remember, every permit violation has a potential negative impact on the surface waters of
our State. We urge you to immediately take any and all steps necessary 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.
0 7
u —£
Sincerely,
xc:WQ Central Files
Kenneth Schuster, P.E.
Raleigh Regional Surface Water Quality Supervisor
Town Of Clayton
Little Creek WWTP ”
Case No. NOV-2005-LM-0008
If you should have any questions regarding this notice, please contact Chad Cobum at 919-791-
4200 extension 4247, or by e-mail at [e-mail].
EFFLUENT
APRIL YEAR 2005DISCHARGE NO.NPDES PERMIT NO.NC0025453 MONTH
COUNTY Johnston
James Warren IV PHONE [phone]
(2)
Leigh Honeycutt, Jimmy CreechPERSON(S) COLLECTING SAMPLESCHECK BOX IF ORC HAS CHANCED
Mail ORIGINAL and ONE COPY to:
ATTN: CENTRAL FILES
'^■1
DIV. OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEHNR
P.O BOX 29535
RALEIGH. NC 27626-0535
50050 00010 00400 00310 00530 655 600 630 625 95 thp3b
FLOW
<
<
<
1.84 0.56 1.28
0.57
<
<
< <
<1.33 0.57 0.76
1.42
<<
<
<3.28 1.18 2.1
3.12
3.74 1.32 2.42
0.52<
####
lbs
1.424
1.116
1.043
2 *Q
O
O
X
(SIGNAnjR£<5F OPERATOR IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE)
BY THtS^IGNITURE, I CERTIFY THAT THE REPORT IS
ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
£
n
O
o
o
o
a
Q s
o
CMO
2
>.
i
"o
■O
o o
£
o
X o
UJ
Q
S
<n
5
1
►-
o
S
§.
O
5
i t z -I
o
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
Comp. (C) Grab (G)
Monthly Limit
Total Eff MG
DEM Form MR-1 (12/93)
2.5
42.763
1.425
2.162
1.043
16.952
20
15
G
17
18
16__
16
17
7.5
7
G
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.3
2
2.3
3.2
3.5
4.4
1.02
3.81
0
C
1
0.00
0.66
0.51
2.27
1.58
7
74
1
G
200/100
Total
8.1
8.4
9.4
8.1
8.1
691
1028
414
17
16
18
19
18
20
16
15
15
15
19
16
18
17
17
7.5 H
7.3
7.5 r
7.4
7.5
G
28
2.738
4.4
2
C
5
1.048
2
1__
C
30
1
1
1
1
1
10
15
8
16
1
1
5
2
10
15
4
2
16
8
1
7.8
8.9
7,8
7.6
8.6
7.4
9.9
8.9
9.5
MGA-
3.12 2.62
0.93
1.32
0.56
1004
* 1000
~ 1019
" 1028
916
435
445
514
576
643
_1_
2
4
_6_
7
8
10
11
1Z ]I
11
11
11
1Z
_18
.11
20
21_
.22"
23
24
26
J7
28
29
30
31
3.81
3.05
1.05
1.34
1.55
74
42
6
24
5
8,51
9.9
7.3
G
6
Nitrogen
2.56
3.74
1.33
C
MGA
1.01
uS
437
1.75
3.12
0.52
C
MG/L
1.61
■c
16
MG/L
2
425
414
420 __
441
458
HRS
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
2
8
8
8
8
8
4.5
7.5
8
‘: 8 f
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
UNITS
7
#100ML
14
9.5
8.3
8.6
8.2
7.3
913.71__________________________
Fornn by WndowCh«m(707)8a4H»45J>/n11158?<5.0;1/i/B6
861
833
863
894
893
HRS
7:00
7:30
8:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
8:00
7:30
7:00
7:00
7;00
7:00
7:00
8:00
6:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
6:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:00
7:30
Y/N/B
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
IIISYB
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y _______
Y 1.465
Y
Y
N
50060
—Z----f o
X o
<
g s
£
UG/L MG/L
< 1
00300
I
iI
MG/L .
To/
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.2
3.9
2.7
3.7
3.8
3.9
MG/L, zz
00610
I
I
MG/L
1.08
001
CLASS IV
GRADE
Sui
MGD
1.374
1.261
1.504
1.42
1.258
1.192
1.187
1.224
1.234
1.254
1.272
1.134
1.488
1.786
2.009
1.495
2.162
1.477
1.485
1.598
1.442
1.531
1.352
1.541
1.533
1.502
FACILITY NAME Little Creek Water Reclamation
OPERATOR IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE (ORC)
CERTIFIED LABORATORIES (1) ________Tri-Test
S
Q
SS
V> Q
32
o
11 o
5 2 E a
EFF
INF a
w
^2
£P s. o
w
d
£
2
1
< 1
< 1__
1
1_
1_
i< 1
< 1
< 1
| 31616
0.69
0.58
0.00
< 0.00
< 0.00
Bill Taylor, Charlie Harrell
Tl'i'IoS------ Ite
2
2
-J 2
< __ 2_
< 2
< __1_
< __1_
<
1
1
2.15
0.54
< 0.00
< 0.00
0.55
< ___2
< 2
< ___2_
___X9
2.2
All monitoring data and sampling frequencies meet permit requirements
/11oS
Forms by WindowChem(707)864-0B45;p/n11158:v5.0;1/1/96
01207 Cadmium
___________3/31/2008
Permit Exp. Date
I I
Compliant
If the facility is noncompliant, please comment on corrective actions being taken in respect to equipment, operation,
maintenance, etc., and a time table for improvements to be made.
71880 Formaldehyde
71900 Mercury
81551 Xylene
00010 Temperature
00076 Turbidity
00080 Color (Pt-Co)
00082 Color(ADMII)
00665 Total Phosphorous
00720 Cyanide
00745 Total Sulfide
00927 Total Magnesium
00929 Total Sodium
00940 Total Chloride
00556 Oil & Grease
00600 Total Nitrogen
00610 Ammonia Nitrogen
00625 Total Kjeldhal
Nitrogen
00630 Nitrates/Nitrites
01045 Iron
01051 Lead
01147 Total Selenium
31616 Fecal Coliform
32730 Total Phenolies
34235 Benzene
34481 Toluene
38260 MBAS
39516 PCBs
50050 Flow
01067 Nickel
01077 Silver
01092 Zinc
01105 Aluminum
50060 Total
Residual
Chlorine
01307 Total Cobalt
01042 Copper
00095 Conductivity
00300 Dissolved Oxygen
03100 BOD5
00340 COD
00400 pH
00530 Total Suspended
Residue
00545 Settleable Matter
919-553-5002
Phone Number
Steve Biggs_________________
Permittee (Please print or type)
PO Box 879, Clayton NC 27520
Permittee Address
The facility exceeded the monthly ammonia limit of 1.0 mg/l, the reported limit was 1.02 mg/l. __________________
The limit excursion was attributed to seasonal turnover. The BNR project underway should improve the performance
of the facility._______________ ___________________ _______
BOD QC did not meet reporting criteria 4/06/05._______________________________________________________
This sheet was amended to reflect lab error on ammonia reporting, and missing phosphorus and nitrogen data.
^1'01-0^-
Date
"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 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."
01032 Hexavalent Chromium
01034 Chromium
PARAMETER CODES
00951 Total Flouride
01002 Total Arsenic
Signiture of Permittee**
Copyright© 1992-1996, WindowChem SoftwareAll rights reserved http://www.windowchem com
Facility Stai!^(PraKe check one of the following)
* ORC mmust visit facility and document visitation of faciclity as required per 15 A NCAC 8A .0202 (b) (5) (B)
** If signed by other than the permittee, delegaation of signatory authority must e on file with the state per 15A NCAC 2B 0506 (b)
(2) (D)
Parameter Code assistance may be obtained by calling the Waer Quality Compliance Group at [phone], extension 581 or 534
The monthly average for fecal colifrrom is to be reprted as a GEOMETRIC mean. Use only units designated in the reportin
facility's permit for reprtin data.
All monitoring data and sampling frequencies do NOT meet permit requirements |x |
Noncompliant
“SERVICE”
September 1, 2005
Re: Monthly DMR Report Forms: NPDES# 0025453
To Whom It May Concern:
Please contact me directly at 919-553-1536 if you have any questions.
653 Highway 42 West • P.O. Box 879 • Clayton, North Carolina 27520 • [phone] • Fax [phone]
TOWN OF CLAYTON
OPERATIONS CENTER
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
[phone]
ELECTRIC SERVICE
[phone]
WATER RECLAMATION
[phone]
PUBLIC WORKS
[phone]
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Attn. Information Processing Unit
Raleigh, NC 27699
Sincerely,
dames Warren,
ORC, Town Of Clayton, NC
“’’ENVIRONMENT”
Enclosed please find an amended DMR for April 2005. Due to a calculation error the
monthly value for ammonia has changed, and the data for phosphorus, total nitrogen has
been added for April 1st. Also included is an amended facility status form.
Page 1 of 1
Laboratory Report
Work Order#:0504-00007
CL1535 !
QualifierMethodResultsTest Performed
Reviewed by:
No.
001
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate-Nitrite
Total Nitrogen Calculation
ERA 351.2
ERA 353.2
Time Sampled
9:00
1.61 mg/L
1.01 mg/L as N
2.62 mg/L
Report Date:
Date Received:
Gust. Code:
Gust. P.O.#:
NC/WW Cert. #: 067
NC/DW Cert. #: 37731
Sample Type
Composite
4/7/05
4/5/05
4/7/05
4/8/2005
4/1/2005
Condition
4 +/- 2 deg C
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Sample ID
EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
Date Sampled
4/1/2005
3909 Beryl Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Matrix
WW
10:46
6:29
10:46
— Prepared for —
Ms. Leigh Honeycutt
Clayton WWTP, Town of
PO Box 879
Durham St. ext.
Clayton, NC 27528
------
for Tritest, Inc.
I
o
o
TCoTEST
Analyzed
Date Time
Project No.: 01
Project ID: TOTAL NITROGEN
STM 4500-P 18th ed.
j j (pt 3 j~3
sumx2-(sumx)2/#stds. 2.0066671.1822.6
XY
0.478
0 50Blank
PHOSLIN.XLS
Dup.
Dup.
T-Phosphorus
Town of Clayton, NC
Using 100 ml volumetric flasks:
(1 ml of the Standard solution in 50 mis DI water. Bring to volume.)
.1 ml Std = 1 ml of 10 ml Stock in 50 mis of DI water, bring to volume.
.5 ml Std= 5 mis of the 10 ml stock in 50 mis of DI water, bring to volume.
1.0 ml Std: 10 mis of thelOml stock in 50 mis of DI water, bring to volume.
2.0 ml Std; 20 m|s of the 10ml stock in 50 mis of DI water, bring to volume.
Second Source Standard (SSC)
Make up a 10 ml stock solution from the Second Source; Using 100 ml volumetric flasks:
(1 ml of the Second Source solution in 50 mis DI water, bring to volume.)
1.0 mlStd= 10 mis of the SSC in 50 mis DI water, bring to volume.
Date:
Time:
Analyst:
0.1
0.5
2
0.8666667
0.394
%R ReRun if
-102.862 <90 %
Primary Source Std.:
Assurance Phosphorus
Lot #9-1 SOP
Second Source Std.:
HACH Lot# A 1302
Corelation Coefficient > .995
0.999952
0.5849
0.0173
0.142
1.45
0
____0
1.6093|
4/22/05
1:00
Leigh Honeycutt
0.475
0.723
0.716
0.654
0.255
0.721
0.203
0.438
0.436
Absorbence
Y square
0.029929
0.080656
0.525625
0
______0
0.63621
50
25
25
50
50
25
50
5
5
50
5
1.04
3.13
3,10
1.42
0.57
3.12
0.46
9.60
9.56
#DIV/0!
1.04
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
0.03
1 mg/l
Eff 4/22
Eff 4/22
Eff 4/15
Eff 4/8
Eff 4/1
Eff 3/24
Inf 4/22
Inf 4/1
Inf
SSC1.0
factor STTJ
______1
_______2
_______2
_______1_
_______1_
_______2
_______1_
______10
______10
#DIV/0!
_______1_
______10
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
1
Standards:
Make up a 10ml stock solution from the Primary Source;
50 ml. Sample:
Concentration
X X square
0.01
0.25
4
0
0
4.26
0.725
RPD ReRun if
4.70 <10 %
0.471049 -0.014242
“SERVICE”
September 1, 2005 2005
Re: NOV, Permit # NC0025453, Little Creek WRF, Case # NOV-2005-LM-0008
Dear Mr. Schuster:
An amended DMR has been submitted for April 2005.
Please contact me directly at 919-553-1536 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
653 Highway 42 West • P.O. Box 879 • Clayton, North Carolina 27520* [phone] • Fax [phone]
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
[phone]
ELECTRIC SERVICE
[phone]
Copy: Steve Biggs
Tim Simpson
The reporting violations for missing data was also attributed to a laboratory transcription
error, the tests were ran but not recorded. Copies of the data are attached. The facility is
taking measures to ensure such mistakes are corrected.
James Warren. ORC
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility, Town Of Clayton, NC
The ammonia monthly limit of 1.0 mg/1 was exceeded; the DMR submitted should have
recorded the value of 1.02 mg/1. The lab analyst left one of the values out of the
calculation by accident. The higher ammonia values for the month could be attributed to
seasonal turnover of the microbes in the facility. The BNR process upgrade the town has
started should enable the system to treat the waste more efficiently.
PUBLIC WORKS
[phone]
"ftwN OF CLAYTOR
OPERATIONS CENTER
WATER RECLAMATION
[phone]
Kenneth Schuster P.E.
Raleigh Regional Surface Water Quality Supervisor
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
This letter serves as a response to the Notice of Violation issued to the Town Of Clayton,
NC on August 22, 2005.
“’’ENVIRONMENT’
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Date: October 24, 2005
Subject: Notice of Incomplete Discharge Monitoring Report - NC0025453
Dear Permittee:
Sincerely,
cc:
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Future DMR submittals with the same or similar problems will be unacceptable. If you have any questions
about the proper completion of DMRs, please contact Michele Phillips at 919-733-5083 Ext. 534. Thank
you for your assistance in this matter.
Incomplete or illegible DMRs affect our staffs ability to provide a timely and effective evaluation of DMR
submittals. Please be aware that until the Division receives a corrected DMR, you may be considered
noncompliant with your NPDES permit and 15A NCAC 02B .0506, and you may be subject to further
enforcement action. Please take the necessary steps to correct the problems and submit two copies of the
amended DMR within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter to the following address:
Raleigh Regional Office
Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
512 N. Salisbury St.
Attention: Michele Phillips
Division of Water Quality
Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Nonh Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
N. C. Division of Water Quality
Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us
R Steven Biggs
Post Office Box 879
Clayton, NC 27520
Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1617
Raleigh, NC 27604
k.
^/^Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
The purpose of this letter is to call your attention to problems with the recent submittal of the Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) from your facility. As you may know, the data recorded on your DMR is keyed
into the Division’s database. Our data entry staff has informed me of problems with your recent DMR
submittal. Until these problems have been corrected, your DMR will be considered incomplete. Please
see the attached form along with a copy of the problem DMR for details regarding the DMR’s deficiency.
D C-
NorthCarolina____ Naturally
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
^/Til I > (L/UUk-^
Notice of Incomplete Discharge Monitoring Report
O The written values are illegible.
I | The Average, Maximum, and/or the Minimum data points have been omitted.
Q The Units of Measure have been omitted or are incorrect
Permit Number
Facility: __J
County.
DMR Month and Year
^ohnSrfcrY______ ______—
The Division of Water Quality deems the aforementioned DMR as incomplete due to the
followdng reason(s): (Please see the highlighted areas on the attached DMR for details.)
Q The DMR Parameter Codes have been omitted.
Other
Ok e. fa p hz?spWu-%
Mi lrvztp(fgcfr. lo^
&Ote & b t
MW*
Permit: NC0025453
Inspection Date: 10/14/2005
Yes No NA NE
■
Yes No NA NE
Yes No NA NE
Yes No NA NE
Yes No NA NE
Yes No NA NESolids Handling Equipment
Is storage adequate?
Is the equipment operational?
Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
Owner - Facility: Little Creek VWVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
■
■
■
■
■
■ o
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■ D
■ O
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Influent Sampling
Is composite sampling flow proportional
Is sample collected above side streams?
Is proper volume collected'?
Is the tubing clean?
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1 0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
Is sampling performed according to the permit?
Comment: Temperature was 1.5 degrees C.
Effluent Sampling
Is composite sampling flow proportional?
Is sample collected below all treatment units?
Is proper volume collected'?
Is the tubing clean?
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1 0 to 4 4 degrees Celsius)?
Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)"?
Comment: Temperature was 3 degrees C.
Aerobic Digester
Is the capacity adequate?
Is the mixing adequate?
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
Is the odor acceptable?
Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
Comment: Sludge was being lime stablized during inspection. Will be hauled week of October 9-15.
Drying Beds
Is there adequate drying bed space?
Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
Is the sludge land applied?
(Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate"?
Comment: Drying beds are used as a back-up only. Sludge is lime stablized to Class B and hauled by Atlantic Coast
Record Keeping
Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
Comment: July 2004 through July 2005 DMR's checked for permit limit and monitoring violations. One monthly
violation for Ammonia was noted for April 2005. This has already been addressed July 2005 DMR was checked for
data entry, lab bench sheet, COC's. No discrepancies noted.
Yes No NA NE
Yes No NA NE
Owner - Facility: Little Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
■
■
■ ODD
■ D D D
■ D D D
■ D D D
■ D D D
■ D D D
Is containment adequate?
Is storage adequate?
Are backup pumps available?
Is the site free of excessive leaking?
Comment: Alum is used for chemical phosphorus removal and polymer is used for enhanced clarification.
Effluent Pipe
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris'?
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly"?
Comment: Effluent discharge pipe was submerged in the river at the time of inspection. Effluent appeared clear and
was mixing with the water with no foam or solids.
Solids Handling Equipment
Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press'?
Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
Comment: Sludge press was not being operated at the time of inspection.
Chemical Feed
Yes No NA NE
■ D D D
■ D D D
■ D D D
Permit: NC0025453
Inspection Date: 10/14/2005
Permit: NC0025453
I nspection Date: 10/14/2005
Nutrient Removal Yes No NA NE
Yes No NA NE
Down flow
Yes No NA NE
Yes No NA NE
Are extra UV bulbs available on site?
Are UV bulbs clean?
Yes No NA NE
(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup"’
Is there chlorine residual prior to de-chlormation?
Comment: Liquid chlorination is used only as a back-up. Contact chamber would need to be cleaned out if used
Disinfection - UV
Comment: One bank out of two is used. Both banks are used when flow is high.
Pump Station - Effluent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Are all pumps present?
Are all pumps operable?
Are float controls operable?
Are cylinders secured adequately?
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
Are tablet chlorinators operational?
Are the tablets the proper size and type?
Number of tubes in use?
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational’’
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Comment:
Is UV intensity adequate?
Is transmittance at or above designed level?
Is there a backup system on site?
Is effluent clear and free of solids?
Owner - Facility: Little Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
■
■ o
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Type
Is chemical feed required to sustain process?
Is nutrient removal process operating properly?
Comment: Magnesium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide are used for pH control.
Filtration (High Rate Tertiary)
Type of operation:
Is the filter media present?
Is the filter surface free of clogging?
Is the filter free of growth?
Is the air scour operational?
Is the scouring acceptable?
Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
Comment: Teritiry filters are covered. Effluent appeared clear in channel.
Disinfection-Liquid
■
■
■
■
■
■
Biological
■
■
Permit: NC0025453
Inspection Date: 10/14/2005
Yes No NA NE
Yes No NA NE
Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44 5 degrees Celsius+/- 0 2 degrees?
Yes No NA NEFlow Measurement - Effluent
Is flow meter used for reporting?
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
Is the flow meter operational?
Yes No NA NERecord Keeping
Dates of analysis
Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification?
Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
Is the facility using a contract lab?
Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1 0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/-1 0 degrees?
Comment: Fecal coliform water bath was 44.5, BOD incubator was 18 7, drying oven was at 103 degrees C. Tritest
analyzes all N parameters, Pace Laboratories analyzes aquatic toxicity.
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment: Flow meter was calibrated 06/23/2005
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
Is all required inform,ation 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
Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
(If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator on each shift?
Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
Owner - Facility: Little Creek VWVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■ 0
■
■
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
Is the generator tested under load?
Is the generator fuel level monitored^
Comment: Generator is load tested weekly.
Laboratory
Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
Are all other parameters!excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
Permit Yes No NA NE
Yes No NA NE
Comment:
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
b.Mechanical
Yes No NA NE
b.Mechanical
Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
Is the grit free of excessive odor?
Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
(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?
Owner - Facility: Little Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■ o
■
Permit: NC0025453
Inspection Date: 10/14/2005
Are the bars adequately screening debris?
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
Comment:
Grit Removal
Type of grit removal
a Manual
Yes No NA NE
■
■
■
■
■
■
■ O
■
■
Comment: Permit describes units that are on site but are no longer in use. The units not in use consists on the
orginal wastewater treatment plant. The treatment facility consists of a mechanically cleaned bar screen a manually
cleaned bar screen, vortex type grit removal system, 9-inch Parshall flume for influent flow metering, influent
wastewater pumping, extended aeration Carrousel type oxidation ditches, secondary clarifiers, sludge
recirculation/waste pumping, magnesium hydroxide feed system for pH and alkalinity controls,'alum feed system for
chemical phosphorus removal, polymer feed system for enhanced clarification, tertiary shallow bed traveling bridge
filters, UV disinfection, chlorination/dechlonnation facilities (back-up only), effluent pumping to the Neuse River
aerobic sludge digestion tank, polymer sludge conditioning and thickening by drum thickener, sludge storage tank
sludge drying beds, and sludge loading station for sludge disposal by land application
Operations & Maintenance
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?
Pump Station - Influent
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
Are all pumps present?
Are all pumps operable?
Are float controls operable?
Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
weeHo'test'tlfe^V0'1 V'SUal alarms were tested using mar"jal switch. ORC stated that floats are pulled once a
Permit: NC0025453
Inspection Date: 10/14/2005
Yes No NA NEGrit Removal
Yes No NA NE
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Yes No NA NEPumps-RAS-WAS
Are pumps in place?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE'rickling Filter
Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms'?
Is the filter free of excessive filter files, worms or snails?
Yes No NA NE
Are the aerators operational?
Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up?
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?
Yes No NA NE
Is total nitrogen removal required?
Is total phosphorous removal required?
Comment: Trickling filters are on site but are not being used. They will be dismantled at a later date.
Oxidation Ditches
Are settleometer results acceptable (> 30 minutes)?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/l)
Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/l in 30 minutes)
Comment: Foam covered approximatly 40% of the surface area.
Nutrient Removal
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier"?
Are weirs level?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Are pumps operational?
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?
Is the filter free of uneven or discolored growth?
Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth?
Are the filter’s distribution arms orifices free ofclogging?
Is the filter free of ponding?
Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of filter's distribution arms?
Owner - Facility: Little Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Comment: Uses a vortex grit classifier.
Seconda ry Cl arifi er
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pm floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately 7« of the sidewall depth)
Comment: Moderate amount of scum of secondary clarifier number 1, lesser amount on number 2, and little to none
on number 3. Scum most likely from running aerators at a higher rate than normal.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
ERA
NPDES
12,25453
I I I I I I I I I I I I I !6c
Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
03/04/01AMLittle Creek WWIp
Durham St Extension Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
Clayton NC
Ob/1L/1
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)Other Facility Data
James O Warrer./ORJ/919-553-1536
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Steven
Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance
Facility Site Review
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s)Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Mitchell RRO XQ//'?1-4 ■’00 Ext. 2f: 5/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
3|
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e, PCS)
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Records/Reports
Effluent/Receiving WatersSludge Handling Disposal
Storm Water
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D C. 20460 Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Inspection Work Days
67| I 69
Bl
71 LI
Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating
70U
yr/mo/day
05/10/14
Contacted
No
QA
72U
I17
Inspection Type
1BI_I
FacType
20U
Inspector
,9U
____________________________________________Section B: Facility Data______
POTW namLeO^dONPDESCp^mitSflum^»ffOr '"““S1" diSChar9in9 ,0 P°™- aB° indUde
-379 Claytrn NC _7Slu/'rcwn
Manager /919- 55 3-58-36/91955 31o41
73| | |74
—Reserved----------------------
75| I I | | | | | 80
K Permit
Self-Monitoring Program
Ml Laboratory
J"
Remarks
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Section D. Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Transaction Code
1 U 2 Id
11:3 • PM
7
(cont.)1NPDESyr/mo/day
/10/14NC0025453
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
,2I3IJ1’
Inspection Type
,8uJ17
plant: Is pnrmitted for 2.5 MGD. Units havr not bben —-.mt riprcd that will increase the design and permitted
cap«icity to 2.5 YGO. Upgrade to the plant will include a rew 21 4,000-gal Ion anaerobic basin; • no new 300,000
gallon anoxic Lank, one new 200^600 gallon anoxic Lank; modi fl c ati.-i to the existing aeration basins; a new
560,000 gallon sludge liolding/digestion tank with two blowers each having HOC §cfM of deration capacity, and
two 10 H? sutcersib-e mixers ? Grading is underway ter the sludge i ••idir.g tank. Influent pump station has three
submersible centrifugal pt. ps witr VFD tor tw: ■_ t ‘he pimps.
Audible arid visual alarms fur.ctitned when tested by the switch. Wet well has ultrasonic flew riieter with ba>
up float. 3oth oxidation ditches were in operation. CQ is kept at 2.2 mg/1. ?crty percent of surface area was
covered with foam. Influent was light brown to brown. Anoxic and anaerobic selectors will be added in front of
oxidation ditches during next upgrade. Thick scum was noted in Secondary clarifier number 1, lesser amount in
number two, and little to none in number 3. Very little scum was flowing over weirs. All weirs had even flow.
Very little algae growth was noted cn weirs. Tertiary filters are covered. No algae were noted in flit •>.-.
Effi lent appeared clear ir. clear well. One bank of UV was being operated. Tw«. banks are operated during ;
flow. Thlcrir.o and sodium bisulphate -are on hand for back-up chlcrir.ation/dechlorinaticn. The aerated sludge
holding tank was full and being lime stabiiizted during inspection. Sludge will be hauled later ir. the week by
Atlantic Coast, Sludge drying beds were not being used and are used as a back up. In plant reuse ... tr ated
wastewater is used si-e for nun-potable usage. Permit WQ002222'1 l.s under review to install a water reuse
ro ect use an average o£ i’5,00i; gallons .! per day at the Pine Hollow Go_l Coarse. The effluent discharge
submerged in the NeuSe River. Effluent appeared clear and was dxing with th-? river with no toam,
solids or :doc.'
July 2C04 through July 2005 DMR’s checked for permit limit and monitoring violations. One monthly violation
for Ammonia was noted for April 2005. Ibis has already been addressed. July 2CG5 ZMR was checked for data
-ntry, compared with lab tench sheets and cc-mmercial data and COC's. No discrepancies noted.
Lab was checked in a cursory manner. Fecal coliform water bath was 44,5, BOD incubator was 18.J, drying
.'-as at 103 degrees •?. Tritest analyzes all M parameters, Pace Laboratories analyzes aquatic toxicity.
Michael F. Easley, Governor
November 9, 2005
Subject:
Dear Mr. Biggs:
Cc: Central Files
OneNorth Carolina Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
Mr. Steven Biggs, Town Manager
Town of Clayton
P.O. Box 879
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
Mitch Hayes of the Raleigh Regional Office conducted the subject inspection October 5,
2005. The cooperation of James Warren, Grade IV ORC, during the inspection was appreciated.
Please find the attached Basin Wide Information Management System (BIMS) inspection
checklist summarizing the inspection.
1617 Mail Service Center
512 N. Salisbury St.
Mitch Hayes
Environmental Technician
William G. Ross. Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]
Alan W, Klimek, P.E.. Director
Division of Water Quality
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Raleigh, NC 27604
Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility
NPDES Permit NC0025453
Johnston County
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
If you have any questions concerning this report
919.791.4200.
or the inspection, please contact me at
/DUJGi
Sincerely,
Permit: NC0025453
I nspection Date: 10/14/2005
Yes No NA NEInfluent Sampling
■ Is proper volume collected?
■ Is the tubing clean?
■ Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
■ Is sampling performed according to the permit^
Comment:Temperature was 1.5 degrees C.
Yes No NA NEEffluent Sampling
■ Is composite sampling flow proportional?
■ Is sample collected below all treatment units?
■ OIs proper volume collected?
■ Is the tubing clean?
■ Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
■ Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)?
Comment:Temperature was 3 degrees C.
Yes No NA NEAerobic Digester
■ Is the capacity adequate?
■ Is the mixing adequate^
■ Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
■ # Is the odor acceptable7?
■ # Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
Yes No NA NEDrying Beds
■ oIs there adequate drying bed space?
■ Is the sludge distribution on drying beds appropriate?
■ Are the drying beds free of vegetation?
■ # Is the site free of dry sludge remaining in beds?
■ Is the site free of stockpiled sludge?
■ O Is the filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to the front of the plant?
■ # Is the sludge disposed of through county landfill?
■ # Is the sludge land applied?
Page #9
Owner - Facility: Little Creek VWVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Comment: Sludge was being lime stablized during inspection. Will be hauled week of
October 9-15.
Permit: NC0025453
Inspection Date: 10/14/2005
Yes No NA NEDrying Beds
■ (Vacuum filters) Is polymer mixing adequate?
Yes No NA NESolids Handling Equipment
■ Is the equipment operational?
■ Is the chemical feed equipment operational?
■ Is storage adequate?
■ Is the site free of high level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters?
■ Is the site free of sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press?
■ Is the site free of excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake?
■ The facility has an approved sludge management plan?
Comment:Sludge press was not being operated at the time of inspection.
Yes No NA NEChemical Feed
■ Is containment adequate?
■ Is storage adequate^
■ O Are backup pumps available?
■ Is the site free of excessive leaking?
Yes No NA NEEffluent Pipe
■ Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
■ Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
■ If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
Page# 10
Owner - Facility: Little Creek VWVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Comment: Effluent discharge pipe was submerged in the river at the time of
inspection. Effluent appeared clear and was mixing with the water with no foam or
solids.
Comment: Drying beds are used as a back-up only. Sludge is lime stablized to Class
B and hauled by Atlantic Coast.
Comment: Alum is used for chemical phosphorus removal and polymer is used for
enhanced clarification.
Yes No NA NEDisinfection - UV
■ Is effluent clear and free of solids?
One bank out of two is used. Both banks are used when flow is high.Comment:
Yes No NA NEPump Station - Effluent
■ Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
■ Are all pumps present?
■ Are all pumps operable?
■Are float controls operable?
■ Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
■Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Comment:
Yes No NA NEStandby Power
■ Is automatically activated standby power available?
■ Is the generator tested by interrupting primary power source?
■ Is the generator tested under load?
■ Was generator tested & operational during the inspection?
■ Do the generator(s) have adequate capacity to operate the entire wastewater site?
■ Is there an emergency agreement with a fuel vendor for extended run on back-up power?
■ Is the generator fuel level monitored7
Comment:Generator is load tested weekly.
Yes No NA NELaboratory
■ Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory?
■ Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab?
■ # Is the facility using a contract lab?
■ Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)?
■ Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius*/- 0.2 degrees?
■ Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/-1.0 degrees?
Yes No NA NEFlow Measurement - Effluent
■ # Is flow meter used for reporting?
Page#7
Owner - Facility: Little Creek WWTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit: NC0025453
Inspection Date: 10/14/2005
Comment: Fecal coliform water bath was 44.5, BOD incubator was 18.7, drying oven
was at 103 degrees C. Tritest analyzes all N parameters, Pace Laboratories analyzes
aquatic toxicity.
Yes No NA NEFlow Measurement - Effluent
■ Is flow meter calibrated annually?
■ Is the flow meter operational?
■ (If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
Comment:Flow meter was calibrated 06/23/2005
Yes No NA NERecord Keeping
■ Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
■ Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
■ Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
■ Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
■ Is the chain-of-custody complete'?
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
Results of analysis and calibration
Dates of analysis
Name of person performing analyses
Transported COCs
■ Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters?
■ Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ?
■ (If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator on each shift?
■ Is the ORC visitation log available and current?
■ Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification?
■ Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification?
■ Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site?
■ Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review?
Yes No NA NEInfluent Sampling
■ # Is composite sampling flow proportional?
■ Is sample collected above side streams?
Page #8
Owner - Facility: Little Creek VWVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit: NC0025453
Inspection Date: 10/14/2005
Comment: July 2004 through July 2005 DMR's checked for permit limit and monitoring
violations. One monthly violation for Ammonia was noted for April 2005. This has
already been addressed. July 2005 DMR was checked for data entry, lab bench sheet,
COC's. No discrepancies noted.
Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE
■ Are pumps in place?
Are pumps operational?■
Are there adequate spare parts and supplies on site?■
Comment:
Trickling F[lter Yes No NA NE
■ Is the filter free of ponding?
■ Is the filter free of leaks at the center column of filter's distribution arms?
■ Is the distribution of flow even from the distribution arms?
■ Is the filter free of uneven or discolored growth?
■ Is the filter free of sloughing of excessive growth?
■ Are the filter’s distribution arms orifices free of clogging?
■ Is the filter free of excessive filter flies, worms or snails?
Oxidation Ditches Yes No NA NE
■ Are the aerators operational?
■ Are the aerators free of excessive solids build up?
■ # 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 (> 30 minutes)?
■ Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/l)
■Are settelometer results acceptable?(400 to 800 ml/l in 30 minutes)
Comment:Foam covered approximatly 40% of the surface area.
Nutrient Removal Yes No NA NE
■ # Is total nitrogen removal required?
■ # Is total phosphorous removal required?
BiologicalType
■ # Is chemical feed required to sustain process?
■ Is nutrient removal process operating properly?
Page #5
Permit: NC0025453
Inspection Date: 10/14/2005
Owner - Facility: Little Creek VWVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Comment: Trickling filters are on site but are not being used. They will be dismantled
at a later date.
Permit: NC0025453
Inspection Date: 10/14/2005
Yes No NA NENutrient Removal
Magnesium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide are used for pH control.Comment:
Yes No NA NEFiltration (High Rate Tertiary)
Down flowType of operation:
■ Is the filter media present?
■ Is the filter surface free of clogging?
■ Is the filter free of growth?
■ Is the air scour operational9
■ Is the scouring acceptable?
■ Is the clear well free of excessive solids and filter media?
Comment:Teritiry filters are covered. Effluent appeared clear in channel.
Yes No NA NEDisinfection-Liquid
■ Are cylinders secured adequately?
■ Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
■ Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
■ Are tablet chlorinators operational?
■ Are the tablets the proper size and type?
Number of tubes in use?
■(Sodium Hypochlorite) Is pump feed system operational?
■ Is bulk storage tank containment area adequate? (free of leaks/open drains)
■ Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
■ 0Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup9
■ Is there chlorine residual prior to de-chlorination?
Yes No NA NEDisinfection - UV
■ Are extra UV bulbs available on site?
■ Are UV bulbs clean?
■ Is UV intensity adequate?
■ Is transmittance at or above designed level?
■ DIs there a backup system on site?
Page #6
Owner - Facility: Little Creek VWVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Comment: Liquid chlorination is used only as a back-up. Contact chamber would need
to be cleaned out if used.
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?
■
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:
Pump Station - Influent Yes No NA NE
■ Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?■
■ Are all pumps present?
■ Are all pumps operable?
■ Are float controls operable?
■ Is SCADA telemetry available and operational?
■ Is audible and visual alarm available and operational?
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
Page#3
Permit: NC0025453
Inspection Date: 10/14/2005
Owner - Facility: Little Creek VWVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Comment: Permit describes units that are on site but are no longer in use. The units
not in use consists on the orginal wastewater treatment plant. The treatment facility
consists of a mechanically cleaned bar screen, a manually cleaned bar screen, vortex
type grit removal system, 9-inch Parshall flume for influent flow metering, influent
wastewater pumping, extended aeration Carrousel type oxidation ditches, secondary
clarifiers, sludge recirculation/waste pumping, magnesium hydroxide feed system for pH
and alkalinity controls, alum feed system for chemical phosphorus removal, polymer
feed system for enhanced clarification, tertiary shallow bed traveling bridge filters, UV
disinfection, chlorination/dechlorination facilities (back-up only), effluent pumping to the
Neuse River, aerobic sludge digestion tank, polymer sludge conditioning and thickening
by drum thickener, sludge storage tank, sludge drying beds, and sludge loading station
for sludge disposal by land application.
Comment: Audible and visual alarms were tested using manual switch. ORC stated
that floats are pulled once a week to test the A/V.
Yes No NA NEBar Screens
b.Mechanical
■ Are the bars adequately screening debris?
■ Is the screen free of excessive debris?
■ Is disposal of screening in compliance?
■ Is the unit in good condition?
Comment:
Yes No NA NEGrit Removal
Type of grit removal
a.Manual
b Mechanical
■ Is the grit free of excessive organic matter?
■ Is the grit free of excessive odor'?
■ # Is disposal of grit in compliance?
Comment:Uses a vortex grit classifier.
Secondary Clarifier Yes No NA NE
■ Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
■ Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
■ Are weirs level?
■ Is the site free of weir blockage?
■ Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
■ Is scum removal adequate?
■ Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
■ Is the drive unit operational?
■ Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
■ Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
■ Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately 14 of the sidewall depth)
Pumps-RAS-WAS Yes No NA NE
Page#4
Owner - Facility: Little Creek VWVTP
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit: NC0025453
Inspection Date: 10/14/2005
Comment: Moderate amount of scum of secondary clarifier number 1, lesser amount
on number 2, and little to none on number 3. Scum most likely from running aerators at
a higher rate than normal.
EPA
NPDES yr/mo/day
12|
74
Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
0 AMLillie Creek WWTP
Exit Time/DateDurham St Extension Permit Expiration Date
MC PM C/11
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)Other Facility Data
James O Warrer./ORC/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
O/Tcwr.
Permit
Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Waters
Section D Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
1
-571-4
Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers
EPA Form
Page #1
L
3I
Self-Monitoring Program
Laboratory
Sludge Handling Disposal
Storm Water
United States Environmental Protection Agency
VUashington, DC. 20460 Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31 -98
Inspection Work Days
67|| 69
Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating
70U
QA
72U
Contacted
NO
I11
Inspection Type
18IJ
—Reserved-----------------------
75| | | | | I I I80
Fac Type
20UI17
Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers
Inspector
19l_l
/ 2-z
DateName(sj and Signature(s) of Inspector(s)
73LU
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Bl71 u_
___________________________________________________Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
Signatui^/of Management & A ReviewerntjrThX
3q60-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Steven Si'.
Maneger/91
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
H Flow Measurement ■ Operations & Maintenance ■ Records/Reports
Transaction Code
1 LI 2 LI
Remarks
21| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | [ | | | | | | | | | | | | [66
J17
NPDES
NC0025453
yr/mo/day
05/10/14"I 12|
Inspection Type
18. .
July 2004 through July 2005 DMR's checked for permit limit and monitoring violations. One monthly
violation for Ammonia was noted for April 2005. This has already been addressed. July 2005 DMR was
checked for data entry, compared with lab bench sheets and commercial data and COC's. No discrepancies
noted.
The effluent discharge pipe was submerged in the Neuse River. Effluent appeared clear and was mixing
with the river with no foam, solids or odor.
Lab was checked in a cursory manner. Fecal coliform water bath was 44.5, BOD incubator was 18.7, drying
oven was at 103 degrees C. Tritest analyzes all N parameters, Pace Laboratories analyzes aquatic toxicity.
(cont.) 1
Page # 2
r
_______Section D Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Plant is permitted for 2.5 MOD. The next upgrade has already begun and will include the following: a
214,000-gallon anaerobic basin; one 300,000 gallon anoxic tank, one 200,000-gallon anoxic tank;
modifications to the existing aeration basins; a 360,000 gallon sludge holding/digestion tank with two
blowers each having 1100 SCFM of aeration capacity, and two 10 HP submersible mixers. Grading is
underway for the sludge holding tank.
Influent pump station has three submersible centrifugal pumps with VFD for two of the pumps. Audible and
visual alarms functioned when tested by the switch. Wet well has ultrasonic flow meter with back up float.
Both oxidation ditches were in operation. DO is kept at 2.2 mg/l. Forty percent of surface area was covered
with foam. Influent was light brown to brown. Anoxic and anaerobic selectors will be added in front of
oxidation ditches during next upgrade. Thick scum was noted in secondary clarifier number 1, lesser
amount in number two, and little to none in number 3. Very little scum was flowing over weirs. All weirs had
even flow. Very little algae growth was noted on weirs. Tertiary filters are covered. No algae were noted in
filters. Effluent appeared clear in clear well. One bank of UV was being operated. Two banks are operated
during heavy
flow. Chlorine and sodium bisulphate are on hand for back-up chlorination/dechlorination. The aerated
sludge holding tank was full and being lime stabilized during inspection. Sludge will be hauled later in the
week by Atlantic Coast. Sludge drying beds were not being used and are used as a back up.
In plant reuse of treated wastewater is used on site for non-potable usage. Permit WQ0022224 is under
review to install a water reuse project to use an average of 175,000 gallons of per day at the Pine Hollow
Michael F. Easley, Governor
December 9, 2005
Subject:
Dear Mr. Biggs:
If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at 919.791.4200.
Sincerely,
Cc: Central Files
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recyded/10% Post Consumer Paper
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
Mr. Steven Biggs, Town Manager
Town of Clayton
P.O. Box 879
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
Please find the amended Basin Wide Information Management System (BIMS) inspection
checklist summarizing the inspection. James Warren stated that first BIMS checklist I sent
indicated that the plant was not permitted for 2.5 MGD. This was not my intent and I apologize
for the confusion. The original checklist will be expunged from the file and replaced with the
attached BIMS checklist.
1617 Mail Service Center
512 N. Salisbury St.
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Raleigh. NC 27699-1617
Raleigh. NC 27604
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
Amended Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility
NPDES Permit NC0025453
Johnston County
NprthCarolina
Naturally
Mitch Hayes /
Environmental Technician
6^-^
aia