NC0026000_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20190814

DocuSign Envelope ID: F52A3529-1729-49B6-B517-500630946BA4
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 15 I 3 I NCO026000 111 12 I 19/04/23 I17 18 I S I 19 I G I 201 I
211111 I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I r6
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ---------------------- Reserved -------------------
671
70 I I 71 I I 72 I r I 73 I I 174 751 I I I I I I I80
u ty I I i
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES oermit Number)
10:35AM 19/04/23
15/12/01
Tabor City WWTP
244 US Hwy 701 Bypass N
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Tabor City NC 28463
12:30PM 19/04/23
19/08/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Stephanie Moore/ORC/910-617-1353/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Al Jack Leonard,PO Box 655 Tabor City NC 284630655//910-653-3458/9106533970
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit 0 Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports
Self -Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review Compliance Schedules
Effluent/Receiving Waters Laboratory
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Chad Coburn Docusignedby: WIROWQ//910-796-7379/ 8/16/2019
Ckwlt
E
6EDFCC4A3...
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Morella Sanchez -King WIRO WQ//910-796-7218/ Docusignedby: 8/14/2019
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete. `E3ABA14Ac7Dc434...
Page#

DocuSign Envelope ID: F52A3529-1729-49B6-B517-500630946BA4
NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (Cont.)
NCO026000 I11 121 19/04/23 117 18 ICI
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
A file review and a facility inspection on April 23, 2019 were performed to verify compliance with the
conditions of permit NC0026000. The assistance provided by the operators during the inspection was
greatly appreciated. We would recommend that the facility have a maintenance operator to assist the
ORC with plant maintenance.
I ) File Review
A) A renewal application was received in the Central Office on March 22, 2019.
B) As required by permit condition A (4), a Mercury Minimization Plan has been developed and
implemented by the Town with an update last provided on June 4, 2018.
C) As required by permit condition A(6), a Facility Assessment/Corrective Action Plan (CAP) was
submitted to the DWR on December 7, 2016, with comments from the DWR submitted on January
30,2017.
D) A second CAP was received from the Town on May 23, 2017 with a response from DWR sent to
the Town on June 8, 2017.
E) The DWR approved an Authorization to Construct (ATC) on February 15, 2019 and a draft
milestone schedule was received by the DWR for planning purposes on May 7, 2019.
II) Site Inspection
A) As required by permit Section C (2) a maintenance plan needs to be established. The facility had
seen improvement as observed during the previous inspections when the Town employed a
maintenance operator. We would recommend that the facility hire a maintenance operator to assist
the ORC with plant maintenance.
B) Visitation logs for the influent pump station need to be provided for this inspection.
C) As required by permit Section E (9) The skimmer arm on the clarifier was inoperable during the
inspection and had not been reported to the DWR as required by the Permit. There was a significant
amount of floating solids in the clarifier and in the weir channel. It appeared that the weir was holding
back much of the solids but there was still a small amount passing to the chlorine contact chamber.
There appeared to be a small amount of solids within the discharge channel but no solids were
observed in the receiving ditch. This subsequently led to limit violations for the month of April.
D) As required by permit Section C (2) the aerobic digester should be repaired as soon as is possible.
It was not functioning during the inspection due to the aerator being inoperable and was overgrown with
plants and trees.
III)Conclusions
A) A Notice of Violation will be issued for the items listed above with a recommendation for
enforcement.
Page#

DocuSign Envelope ID: F52A3529-1729-49B6-B517-500630946BA4
Permit: NCO026000 Owner - Facility: Tabor City WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/23/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Compliance Schedules Yes No NA NE
Is there a compliance schedule for this facility? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the facility compliant with the permit and conditions for the review period? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: As reauired by permit condition A (4). a Mercury Minimization Plan has been developed and
implemented by the Town with an update last provided on June 4, 2018. As required by
permit condition A(6), a Facility Assessment/Corrective Action Plan (CAP) was submitted to
the DWR on December 7, 2016, with comments from the DWR submitted on January 30,
2017. A second CAP was received from the Town on May 23, 2017 with a response from
DWR sent to the Town on June 8, 2017. The DWR approved an Authorization to Construct
(ATC) on February 15, 2019 and a draft milestone schedule was received by the DWR for
planning purposes on May 7, 2019.
Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment: The skimmer arm on the secondary clarifier was inoperable during the inspection and had
not been reported to the DWR as required by the permit. Some solids were passing
through to the chlorine contact chamber and through to the discharge outfall. The aerobic
digester was not functioning during the inspection due to the aerator being inoperable. Also,
the digestor was overgrown with plants and trees.
Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Comment: A renewal application was received in the Central Office on March 22, 2019.
Record Keeping
Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit?
Is all required information readily available, complete and current?
Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)?
Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs?
Is the chain -of -custody complete?
Dates, times and location of sampling
Name of individual performing the sampling
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: F52A3529-1729-49B6-B517-500630946BA4
Permit: NCO026000 Owner - Facility: Tabor City WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/23/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Record Keeping
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 NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Comment: ORC provided the facilitv visitation loa during the inspection. McGill is the current sludae
hauler and last hauled on January 31, 2019 and on February 28, 2019. Statesville Analytical
is processing the lab testing for BOD, TSS, TKN, TP, and Hq. The Operator processes the
fecal testing at the Envirolink lab in Southport. Field testing is done for pH, DO, and TRC by
the ORC and the meter calibrations for those instruments were reviewed during the
inspection.
Pump Station - Influent
Yes No NA NE
Is the pump wet well free of bypass lines or structures?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the wet well free of excessive grease?
0
❑
❑
❑
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: The pump station was flooded during Hurricane Florence but appeared operable during the
inspection. Employees of the Town checks the pump station each morning per the ORC.
Bar Screens Yes No NA NE
Type of bar screen
a.Manual
b.Mechanical
Are the bars adequately screening debris? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: F52A3529-1729-49B6-B517-500630946BA4
Permit: NCO026000 Owner - Facility: Tabor City WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/23/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Bar Screens
Is the screen free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screening in compliance?
Is the unit in good condition?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The manual bar screen was almost completely covered by lawn clippings during the
inspection.
Aeration Basins
Mode of operation
Type of aeration system
Is the basin free of dead spots?
Are surface aerators and mixers operational?
Are the diffusers operational?
Is the foam the proper color for the treatment process?
Does the foam cover less than 25% of the basin's surface?
Is the DO level acceptable?
Is the DO level acceptable?(1.0 to 3.0 mg/1)
Yes No NA NE
Ext. Air
Surface
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
Comment: The upper basin is being used as an equalization basin and is under the corrective action
plan. This basin was out of service during the inspection. The lower basin had all three
aerators functioning during the inspection.
Secondary Clarifier
Is the clarifier free of black and odorous wastewater?
Is the site free of excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier?
Are weirs level?
Is the site free of weir blockage?
Is the site free of evidence of short-circuiting?
Is scum removal adequate?
Is the site free of excessive floating sludge?
Is the drive unit operational?
Is the return rate acceptable (low turbulence)?
Is the overflow clear of excessive solids/pin floc?
Is the sludge blanket level acceptable? (Approximately'/4 of the sidewall depth)
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Page# 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: F52A3529-1729-49B6-B517-500630946BA4
Permit: NCO026000 Owner - Facility: Tabor City WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/23/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Secondary Clarifier
Yes No NA NE
Comment: The skimmer arm on the clarifier was inoperable during the inspection. There was a
significant amount of floating solids in the clarifier and in the weir channel. It appeared
that
the weir was holding back much of the solids but there was still a small amount
passing
to
the chlorine contact chamber.
Aerobic Digester
Yes No NA NE
Is the capacity adequate?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the mixing adequate?
❑
0
❑
❑
Is the site free of excessive foaming in the tank?
❑
0
❑
❑
# Is the odor acceptable?
❑
0
❑
❑
# Is tankage available for properly waste sludge?
❑
0
❑
❑
Comment: The aerator within the diaester was inoDerable durina the insDection. thus the diaester is
Probably functioning as an anaerobic digester currently due to the lack of aeration. The
digester has been inoperable since at least August of 2018 when Envirolink assumed
operation of the plant. The digester was also thickly covered with vegetation and some
trees.
Disinfection -Gas
Are cylinders secured adequately?
Are cylinders protected from direct sunlight?
Is there adequate reserve supply of disinfectant?
Is the level of chlorine residual acceptable?
Is the contact chamber free of growth, or sludge buildup?
Is there chlorine residual prior to de -chlorination?
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 Ibs of Chlorine (CAS No. 7782-50-5)?
If yes, then is there a Risk Management Plan on site?
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000- - )
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Comment: The disinfection chamber contained small amounts of floating solids and some minor
growth on the side walls. The ORC reported that the chamber had the solids removed
during the previous week by McGill.
De -chlorination Yes No NA NE
Type of system ? Gas
Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)? ❑ ❑ ❑
Is storage appropriate for cylinders? ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers? ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: F52A3529-1729-49B6-B517-500630946BA4
Permit: NCO026000 Owner - Facility: Tabor City WWTP
Inspection Date: 04/23/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
De -chlorination Yes No NA NE
Comment:
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? ❑ ❑ ❑
Number of tubes in use?
Comment:
Flow Measurement - Effluent
Yes No NA NE
# Is flow meter used for reporting?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is flow meter calibrated annually?
0
❑
❑
❑
Is the flow meter operational?
❑
❑
❑
(If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter?
❑
❑
M
❑
Comment: The effluent flow meter had been calibrated the previous week of the inspection per the
ORC.
Effluent Pipe
Yes No NA NE
Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris?
0
❑
❑
❑
If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly?
❑
❑
0
❑
Comment: There appeared to be a small amount of solids within the discharge channel but no solids
were observed in the receiving ditch.
Page# 7