WQ0002648_Staff Report_20200420

DocuSign Envelope ID: E3D391B3-8D1B-4F86-8536-050AA8B7AC89
Q�
April 21, 2020
State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report
To: DWR Central Office — WQ, Non -Discharge Unit Application No.: W00002648
Attn: Poonam Giri Facility name: Seagrove-Ulah WWI
From: Patrick Mitchell
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Note: This form has been adapted from the non -discharge facility staff report to document the review of both non -discharge and NPDES permit applications and/or renewals. Please complete all sections as they are applicable.
L GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or ❑ No
a. Date of site visit: April 17, 2020
b. Site visit conducted by: P. Mitchell & C. Caudle
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No
d. Person contacted: Larry Chilton, ORC and their contact information: (336) 302 - 3782
e. Driving directions: See file.
II. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
2. Are the design, maintenance and operation of the treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal
system? ❑ Yes or ® No
Explain: See comments in section IV. Additional Regional Staff Review Items below.
3. Are the site conditions (e.g., soils, topography, depth to water table, etc) maintained appropriately and adequately
assimilating the waste? ® Yes or ❑ No
Explain: Appear to be. However, due to electrical work at the time of the site visit irrigation was not conducted.
4. Has the site changed in any way that may affect the permit (e.g., drainage added, new wells inside the compliance
boundary, new development, etc.)? ❑ Yes or ® No
5. Is the residuals management plan adequate? ❑ Yes or ® No
Explain: They are currently wasting sludge into the effluent storage pond. See section IV below for more details.
6. Are the existing application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) still acceptable? ® Yes or ❑ No
Explain: See section IV. for comments and recommendations related to field loading.
7. Is the existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
8. Are there any setback conflicts for existing treatment, storage and disposal sites? ❑ Yes or ® No
9. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit correct? ❑ Yes or ® No
Explain: See section IV. below for comments and recommendations.
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
12. Has a review of all self -monitoring data been conducted (e.g., DMR, NDMR, NDAR, GW)? ❑ Yes or ® No
Explain: Jim Gonsiewski of WSRO is in process of reviewing all data from 2019.
13. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? ❑ Yes or ® No
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: E3D391B3-8D1B-4F86-8536-050AA8B7AC89
14. Check all that apply:
® No compliance issues ❑ Current enforcement action(s) ❑ Currently under JOC
❑ Notice(s) of violation ❑ Currently under SOC ❑ Currently under moratorium
Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit been satisfied? ❑ Yes ® No
Explain: Reportedly Lagoon #1 can not be installed due to the presence of wetlands and unavailable space.
Schedule conditions related to Lagoon #1 needs to be removed.
15. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
❑ Yes ®No❑N/A
III. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ® Yes or ❑ No
Explain: Additional information is needed on the items described in section IV. below before permit should be
issued.
2. List any items that you would like the NPDES Unit or Non -Discharge Unit Central Office to obtain through an
additional information request:
Item
Reason
Updated set of system plans.
Due to changes in system use and modifications.
Updated site map for the
irrigation system.
Due to differences in irrigation operations versus current Permit
Attachment B.
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
I.1., I.2. & I.4. Lagoon #1 reportedly will not be installed.
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
Two PPIs in Att. A
WWTP currently will only accomodate 30,000 GPD.
Att. B include all 16 subzones.
There are 16 subzones, not all 40 acres is irrigated when individual
irrigation events occur.
5. Recommendation: ® Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office
® Hold, pending review of draft permit by regional office
❑ Issue upon receipt of needed additional information
❑ Issue
❑ Deny (Please state reasons: )
,—DocuSigned by:
6. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of regional supervi
Luti -T Stied«
..
Date: April 21, 2020 `145B49E225C94EA.
IV. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
On April 17, 2020, WSRO staff made a site visit to the subject facility for review associated with an application for permit renewal.
Mr. Larry Chilton, ORC and Mr. Russell Welch, Backup ORC accompanied staff on the entire site visit. Mr. Mike Walker, Board
Chairman was present for portions of the WWTP discussions only. There are a number of items which require action and some
items of concern which also require attention. Below is a summary of these items followed by recommendations.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: E3D39lB3-8D1B-4F86-8536-050AA8B7AC89
A. The WWTP has two independent treatment trains present: a 30,000 GPD domestic wastewater treatment system and a 60,000
GPD industrial wastewater treatment system (see attached system diagram). Each of these flows independently from each other
into the 588,000-gal effluent storage pond. The items listed below for each treatment train require attention.
Domestic Wastewater Treatment train:
• The domestic wastewater treatment facilities are rusting badly and are in need of maintenance and/or repair.
• According to their Engineer, the current disinfection system was designed for <30,000 GPD and is inadequate for any
greater flow (see attached correspondence). The most recent system plans dated 2006 supports this limit and only shows
the domestic wastewater treatment train connected to disinfection (see attached system diagram).
Industrial Wastewater Treatment train:
• The industrial influent lines reportedly only serve the onsite buildings that were previously used by Lucks Bean Cannery
(i.e. no offsite industrial users were tied into these lines). The cannery is no longer present and the buildings are now used
for mixed uses.
• The industrial wastewater treatment facilities are particularly in bad condition with some units nearly rusted through. These
units are currently not in use and would most likely require major repairs or replacements before being returned to use.
• The preliminary screening system and the DAF units included in the Permit system description are no longer in operation
and it is unknown if these units are operational or even remain connected to the system. These units would likely require
major repair/replacement before being returned to use.
• During the site visit, representatives indicated that there are no industrial waste producers currently present in the onsite
buildings which feed the industrial influent sewer lines. Reportedly there are several businesses now present in the onsite
buildings and several proposed new businesses are planning to move in (including a small brewery). These businesses
reportedly only utilize the domestic wastewater lines only. However, industrial collection lines from these onsite buildings
are still present and connected to the system. These lines have the potential to now carry mixed domestic and industrial
wastes.
According to the attached system diagram, the "industrial non -treated" influent line bypasses the entire WWTP and does
not receive any treatment. This diagram also shows that the "industrial treated" influent line receives treatment but does
not receive any disinfection.
B. The sludge from both treatment trains previously had bypass lines installed from each of the clarifiers, where sludge bypassed
the sludge storage pit and was wasted directly into the 588,000-gal effluent storage pond. The facility is reportedly in the
process of modifying this where sludge will be collected in the sludge pit and subsequently removed from the system.
C. The 2,005,265-gal effluent storage lagoon is reportedly not connected to the system yet. The lagoon has been certified in terms
of construction of the structure itself and a survey was completed confirming the size. However, there has been no confirmation
nor as -built plans produced for connection to the system.
D. Onsite representatives indicated that Lagoon #1 (i.e. the proposed 1,009,563 gallon lagoon) cannot be installed due to the
presence of wetlands resulting in inadequate space.
E. The current Permit Attachment B only list the 40-acre spray field. Therefore, when NDAR data is submitted, it reports the
hourly and annual loading based upon loading to all 40 acres for each irrigation event. However, the spray field has a total of
16 "irrigation lanes" or subzones present. According to representatives, each irrigation event consists of loading either two,
three, or four irrigation subzones; not the entire 40 acres. Operating at —60 PSI for proper spray patterns.
The frequency of use for each individual subzone and the combination of use is at the discretion of the operators. This is leading
to inaccurate reporting for both hydraulic loading and agronomic loading. For example, many NDAR forms consistently report
an hourly loading rate of 0.02 inches/hour and an annual loading rate of 5 to 8 inches/year. Using the NDMR effluent data, the
PAN loading ranges from 25 — 40 lbs. of PAN/acre/year. These values are based upon evenly loading all 40 acres. These values
would likely be reported 4 to 8 times higher based on the acreage utilized for each subzone and how many subzones are being
utilized in any given irrigation event
F. Groundwater sampling results in the two downgradient wells continue to show TDS near or above the 2L limits. In addition,
Chloride levels have been elevated as well. These parameters may be relict of the previous cannery operations, which included
high salt contents. Recommend that this continue to be studied and that the adjacent surface water feature be monitored
periodically by the WSRO for potential impacts.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: E3D39lB3-8D1B-4F86-8536-050AA8B7AC89
G. Groundwater sampling results in the two downgradient wells also show Nitrate levels have increased in some sample events,
just below the 2L limit. This could be related to higher nutrient concentrations in effluent resulting from sludge bypassing into
the effluent storage pond. Removal of sludge from the system should improve this.
Another potential contribution is the inaccurate loading of fields as described in item E. above. For example, assuming even
loading over 40 acres = 25 — 40 lbs. PAN/ac./yr, this is well below agronomic limits... However, more accurate loading would
be 4 to 8 times higher based on acres utilized. This would result in annual loading that is potentially over the agronomic limit
of 151 lbs PAN/ac.yr. for portions of the field.
Based on the items described above, the following recommendations are made:
1. Request that two PPI's be generated for the renewed Permit Attachment A. PPI-01 with a max daily flow of 30,000 GPD
(sanitary sewer influent), and PPI-02 with a max daily flow of 80,000 GPD (combined onsite influent of domestic or mixed
domestic -industrial waste). However, use of PPI-02 should be prohibited until the actions listed below are completed. This
could be included in the renewed Permit as a schedule condition.
(1) The 2,005,265-gal effluent storage lagoon is connected and placed into use to provide adequate wet weather
storage,
(2) Modifications to the disinfection system (currently design for <30,000 GPD) are made to accommodate and
disinfect 80,000 GPD,
(3) That all existing industrial influent lines be connected to the treatment facilities (including disinfection) to ensure
the new mixed uses within the onsite buildings are adequately treated, and
(4) That necessary repairs be made to the industrial treatment train and it be returned to use for treating mixed wastes
that are generated into the old industrial lines from onsite buildings. It should be again be noted that there is potential
for wastewater to be generated into these existing lines. Washdown floor drains and sewer connections are still present
in these buildings, and the influent lines are still connected to the system.
2. Request that an updated set of plans for the wastewater treatment facilities be provided. These updated plans should be clearly
labeled, show flow directions within the treatment facilities, show all existing modifications, and show any proposed
modifications (e.g. current work on the sludge storage pit lines, proposed expansion of the disinfection system, replumbing the
old industrial influent lines, adding bar screens to both treatment trains, etc.). Any proposed modifications should be listed
in the renewed Permit with timelines as schedule conditions for completion.
3. There was some discussion during the site visit that the design Engineer may propose a new package treatment plant to
accommodate flows greater than 30,000 GPD, and remove one or both of the old treatment trains. Request that if this proposal
is to be considered with this permitting action, those plans and specifications be submitted. This would be considered a major
modification and require a permitting fee be collected.
4. Request that an update irrigation system site map be submitted that shows the 16 subzones in the spray field along with their
associated acreages. The renewed Permit Attachment B should list all 16 subzones which make up the 40-acre spray field and
future NDAR data should be accurately reported based upon subzones utilized during each irrigation event.
5. Request that a schedule condition be included for a sludge survey of the 588,000 gal effluent storage pond be completed within
the next permit cycle. This is due to sludge currently being wasted into the effluent storage pond.
6. Request that Lagoon #1 described in the description as "construction of', be removed from the permit along with its associated
language and conditions. Due to it not being installed and the onsite representatives indicating that it will not be installed due
to unavailable space.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 4

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: WQ0002648 Effective: 10/01/15 Expiration: 09/30/20 Owner: Seagrove -Utah Metropolitan Water District
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: Seagrove -Utah Metropolitan Water District WW
County: Randolph 770 NC Hwy 705 S
Region: Winston-Salem
Seagrove NC 27341
Contact Person: Larry Thomas Chilton Title: ORC Phone: [phone]
Directions to Facility:
from i-40/85 in greensboro, take US 220 south. Take exit 52 south to seagrove. At town of Seagrove turn left heading south on NC
Hwy 705
System Classifications: SI, WW2,
Primary ORC: Larry Thomas Chilton Certification: 28234 Phone: [phone]
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 04/17/2020 Entry Time 10:OOAM
Primary Inspector: Patrick Mitchell
Secondary Inspector(s):
Caitlin Caudle
Reason for Inspection: Other
Permit Inspection Type: Wastewater Irrigation
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
Miscellaneous Questions
(See attachment summary)
Exit Time: 01:30PM
Phone: [phone]
Inspection Type: Reconnaissance
X Neither
Page 1 of 5

Permit: WQ0002648 Owner - Facility: Seagrove -Utah Metropolitan Water District
Inspection Date: 04/17/2020 Inspection Type : Reconnaissance Reason for Visit: Other
Inspection Summary:
On April 17, 2020, WSRO staff made a site visit to the subject facility for review associated with an application for permit
renewal. Mr. Larry Chilton, ORC and Mr. Russell Welch, Backup ORC accompanied staff on the entire site visit. Mr. Mike
Walker, Chairman was present for portions of the WWTP discussions only. There are a number of items which require
action and some items of concern which also require attention. Below is a summary of these items followed by
recommendations.
A. The WWTP has two independent treatment trains present: a 30,000 GPD domestic wastewater treatment system and a
60,000 GPD industrial wastewater treatment system (see attached system diagram). Each of these flows independently
from each other into the 588,000-gal effluent storage pond. The items listed below for each treatment train require attention.
Domestic Wastewater Treatment train:
• The domestic wastewater treatment facilities are rusting badly and are in need of maintenance and/or repair.
• According to their Engineer, the current disinfection system was designed for <30,000 GPD and is inadequate for any
greater flow (see attached correspondence). The most recent system plans dated 2006 supports this limit and only show the
domestic wastewater treatment train connected to disinfection (see attached system diagram).
Industrial Wastewater Treatment train:
• The industrial influent lines reportedly only serve the onsite buildings that were previously used by Lucks Cannery (i.e. no
offsite industrial users were tied into these lines).
• The industrial wastewater treatment facilities are particularly in bad condition with some units nearly rusted through. These
units are currently not in use and would most likely require major repairs or replacements before being returned to use.
• The preliminary screening system and the DAF units are no longer in operation and it is unknown if these units are
currently operational or even remain connected to the system. These units would likely require major repair/replacement
before being returned to use.
• During the site visit, representatives indicated that there are no industrial waste producers currently present in the onsite
buildings which feed the industrial influent sewer lines. Reportedly there are several businesses currently present in the
onsite buildings and several proposed new businesses are planning to move in (including a small brewery). These
businesses reportedly only utilize the domestic wastewater lines only. However, industrial collection lines from these onsite
buildings are still present and connected to the system. These lines have the potential to now carry mixed domestic and
industrial wastes.
According to the attached system diagram, the "industrial non -treated" influent line bypasses the entire WWTP and does not
receive any treatment. This diagram also shows that the "industrial treated" influent line receives treatment but does not
receive any disinfection.
B. The sludge from both treatment trains previously had bypass lines installed from each of the clarifiers, where sludge
bypassed the sludge storage pit and was wasted directly into the 588,000-gal effluent storage pond. The facility is reportedly
in the process of modifying this where sludge will be collected in the sludge pit and subsequently removed from the system.
C. The 2,005,265-gal effluent storage lagoon is reportedly not connected to the system yet. The lagoon has been certified in
terms of construction of the structure itself and a survey was completed confirming the size. However, there has been no
confirmation nor as -built plans produced for connection to the system.
D. Onsite representatives indicated that Lagoon #1 (1,009,563 gallon) cannot be installed due to the presence of wetlands
and inadequate space.
Page 2 of 5

Permit: WO0002648 Owner - Facility: Seagrove -Utah Metropolitan Water District
Inspection Date: 04/17/2020 Inspection Type : Reconnaissance Reason for Visit: Other
E. The current Permit Attachment B only list the 40-acre spray field. Therefore, when NDAR data is submitted, it reports the
hourly and annual loading based upon loading to all 40 acres with each event. However, the spray field has a total of 16
"irrigation lanes" or subzones present (see attached site map). According to representatives, each irrigation event consists of
loading either two, three, or four irrigation subzones; not the entire 40 acres.
The frequency of use for each individual subzone is at the discretion of the operators. This is leading to inaccurate reporting
for both hydraulic loading and agronomic loading. For example, many NDAR forms consistently report an hourly loading rate
of 0.02 inches/hour and an annual loading rate of 5 to 8 inches/year. Using the NDMR effluent data, the PAN loading ranges
from 25 — 40 lbs. of PAN/acre/year. These values are based upon evenly loading all 40 acres. These values would likely be
reported 4 to 8 times higher based on the acreage utilized for each subzone and how many subzones are being utilized in
any given irrigation event
F. Groundwater sampling results in the two downgradient wells continue to show TDS near or above the 2L limits. In
addition, Chloride levels have been elevated as well. These parameters my be relict of the previous cannery operations,
which included high salt contents. Recommend that this continue to be studied and that the adjacent surface water feature
be monitored periodically for potential impacts.
G. Groundwater sampling results in the two downgradient wells also show Nitrate levels have increased in some sample
events, just below the 2L limit. This could be related to higher nutrient concentrations in effluent resulting from sludge
bypassing into the effluent storage pond.
A potential contribution is the inaccurate loading of fields as described above. For example, assuming even loading over 40
acres = 25 — 40 lbs. PAN/ac./yr, well below agronomic limits... However, more accurate loading would be 4 to 8 times higher
based on acres utilized, placing the annual loading potentially over the agronomic limit (i.e. 151 lbs PAN/ac.yr.) at times for
portions of the field.
Based on the items described above, the following recommendations are made:
1. Request that two PPI's be generated for the renewed Permit Attachment A. PPI-01 with a max daily flow of 30,000 GPD
(sanitary sewer waste only), and PPI-02 with a max daily flow of 80,000 GPD (combined sanitary sewer and onsite mixed
waste). However, PPI-02 should not be allowed until the following are completed:
(1) The 2,005,265-gal effluent storage lagoon is connected and placed into use to provide adequate wet weather storage,
(2) Modifications to the disinfection system (currently design for <30,000 GPD) are made to accommodate and disinfect
80,000 GPD,
(3) That all existing industrial influent lines be connected to the treatment facilities and receive disinfection to ensure the new
mixed uses within the onsite buildings are adequately treated, and
(4) That necessary repairs be made to the industrial treatment train and it be returned to use for treating mixed wastes that
are generated into the old industrial lines from onsite buildings. It should be again be noted that there is potential for
wastewater to be generated into these lines. Washdown floor drains and sewer connections are still present in these
buildings, and the influent lines are still connected to the system.
2. Request that an updated set of plans for the wastewater treatment facilities be provided. These updated plans should
clearly show flow directions within the treatment facilities, show all existing modifications, and show any proposed
modifications (e.g. work on the sludge storage pit lines, expansion of the disinfection system, replumbing the old industrial
influent lines, adding bar screens, etc.). Any proposed modifications should be listed in the renewed Permit as schedule
conditions for completion.
3. There was some discussion during the site visit that the design Engineer may propose a new package treatment plant to
accommodate flows greater than 30,000 GPD. Request that if this proposal is to be considered with this permitting action,
those plans and specifications be submitted. This would be considered a major modification and require a permitting fee be
collected.
Page 3 of 5

Permit: WO0002648 Owner - Facility: Seagrove -Utah Metropolitan Water District
Inspection Date: 04/17/2020 Inspection Type : Reconnaissance Reason for Visit: Other
4. Request that the renewed Permit Attachment B list all 16 subzones which make up the 40-acre spray field and that
NDAR data be accurately reported based upon subzones utilized during irrigation events moving forward.
5. Request that a schedule condition be included for a sludge survey of the 588,000 gal effluent storage pond be completed
within the next permit cycle. This is due to sludge currently being wasted into the effluent storage pond.
6. Request that Lagoon #1 described in the description as "construction of', be removed from the permit. Due to it not being
installed and the onsite representatives indicating that it will not be installed due to unavailable space.
*Follow -Up Inspection is needed
Page 4 of 5

Permit: WQ0002648
Inspection Date: 04/17/2020
Owner - Facility: Seagrove -Utah Metropolitan Water District
Inspection Type : Reconnaissance Reason for Visit: Other
Type
Yes No NA NE
Reuse (Quality)
❑
Infiltration System
❑
Single Family Spray, LR
❑
Activated Sludge Spray, LR
❑
Activated Sludge Drip, LR
❑
Recycle/Reuse
❑
Single Family Drip
❑
Activated Sludge Spray, HR
❑
Lagoon Spray, LR
Page 5 of 5

April 30, 2019
Mr. Mike Walker
Seagrove -Utah Metropolitan Water District
6943 US Hwy 220 South
Asheboro, NC 27205
Re: Wastewater Treatment Facility WQ0002648
Seagrove -Utah Metropolitan Water District, Randolph County, North Carolina
Review of Treatment Capacity
Dear Mike:
Per our previous discussions, LKC Engineering has reviewed the existing treatment process for the above
referenced system. Our review was completed to address the comments for submittal to NCDEQ in
support of your current permit. We reviewed the treatment capacity of each package treatment system
in use at the facility and the treatment capability of the process.
The central focus of the review was to complete an analysis of the package treatment units (30,000 GPD
unit 1 and 60,000 GPD unit 2) working in tandem to treat the domestic waste stream from the water
district customers. We completed this by executing a mathematical model representation of the
existing treatment process to calculate its theoretical capacity. To simulate the seasonal variance of the
plant, the model was executed at the maximum and minimum temperatures that are expected at 45
and 82 degree with a corresponding air temp of 35- and 90-degrees F all while flowing at 90,000 gpd. A
summary report of the plant simulation is attached along with a composite sample of the influent taken
3-12-2019
To further summarize, the 2 package units are capable of treating a domestic wastewater flow of 90,000
gpd (60,000 gpd and 30,000 gpd) to 02T standards for land application. Where the system falls short is
1) that the chlorine contactor appears to have been designed for the 30,000 gpd train and cannot
disinfect the 90,000 gpd flow on anything but the hottest time of year. And 2) it is dangerous to
equipment and reliability to operate a WWTP without adequate screening.
In summary, our review does show that the system meets the capacity of 90,000 gpd. However, it is our
recommendation that you should install proper influent screening, and add volume to the current
chlorine contact chamber. Our recommendation is to install a bar screen at the influent box or at an
upstream manhole , and expand the contact chamber to a minimum 4200 gallons or explore installing
UV disinfection. Our office can assist in providing design and permitting assistance for this work. Since
we have the model calculations of your plant completed we could attack permitting calculations in short
order.
LKC Engineering, PLLC, 140 Aqua Shed Court, Aberdeen, North Carolina 28315
PH: 910/420-1437 * FAX: [phone] * License No. P-1095

Page 2
Mike Walker
April 30, 2019
Upon your review and concurrence with the enclosed information, please forward these results and
recommendations to the following contact:
Ms. Tessa R. Monday
NCDEQ Non -Discharge Branch
Office 942Y, Archdale Building
512 N Salisbury Street, Raleigh NC 27604
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
If you should have any questions regarding this information, or if you wish to discuss further, please do
not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
LKC Engineering, PLLC
Bill Lester, Jr., P.E.
Enclosures

Z 00
Q �
J N
a O
O
W c
PRELI INARY
SCREENIN SYSTEM
GpAVF
[.D
L7TS!"1 L
� -
- �y
Apt EXISTING
CL
ct ccn W
Lu
o
Z_/
FLOW
Lu Ir
L }
C
EQUALIZATION
^
C,
o
NON-CONTA/CT�'
..G
TANK (30,000 GAL.)
a
m c
SCREE
-672
X_
00
O ■ 1 — — — r J
/ O 4L �
f!-7/ j I r.101 // v Ht-R081C
2,005,265 GAL. / / 1� �(y/� -,oLsTjLQ .a, \�
STORAGE LAGOON / / N/ CLARIFIER _
-1
` \ }
r ✓ � F.,E /- f 1 d � �
LIU
SWIaLEr 54" SLUDGE d �w 40
Z V)
LZo f >- Cl)
L.i F-- OLL.z ❑
O r 64 t E.e_ p ct
— Z LLi
W
z P :PROPOSED c3
u u ° u u � � 5 �d
o ATOF2 588,000GAL. it P€�MP p=
3 a o N a j a= o STORAGE POND o ' FiOS� Cr d �_
3 RlPRAP Lw 4
Zw �� �� �� oz �LL t EXIST=-
z z Z z w DISSIPATOR i, ��' �� f P�1MP a C�

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Section
NON -DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT
WASTEWATER IRRIGATION
General Information
Facility Name: Seagrove -Utah Wastewater Irrigation County: Randolph
Permit No.: WQ0002648 Issuance Date: October 1 2015
Owner: Seagrove -Utah Metropolitan Water District Expiration Date: September 30 2020
ORC Name: Larry Chilton Telephone No.: Cell 336-302-3782 or 215-3835
Backup ORC: Jessie (Russell) Welch Telephone No.: 336-302-2384
Other Contact: Michael Walker, Chariman Telephone No.: 336-465-1460
Location (address, gps or directions): Hwy 74/Hwy220 S. L (Ext 45) Hwy 705 to Seagrove 3/4 mi. on Right.
Reason for Inspection
❑ ROUTINE ❑ FOLLOW-UP ❑ COMPLAINT ® PERMITTING ❑ Other:
Comments (attach additional pages as necessary)
here are 2 trains (30k GPD Domestic and 60k GPD Industrial). The WWTP plans show industrial collection sewers seperate
from domestic sewer collection. Has this been modified for all lines to carry domestic? No, if
If not, the permit should clearly describe 30k GPD Max Domestic Flow & 60k GPD Industrial Max Flow for the two trains.
If the industrial train is not in operation or is in disrepair, the max permitted flow should be 30k GPD in Aft. A.
./Only the domestic lines go through the disinfection. Has this been modified? (�p
frhe 60k GPD Industrial train describes a DAF Unit. Where is this DAF Unit & is it still in use? TT �1� OKfI no� rn ul<
,/The VWVrP plans shows one collection sewer line (Industrial Non -Treated) totally bypqipssing treatment. Was this non -contact
process cooling water?Ws , Is this line still present or in use? Flo)-', n iut, bbi I
/Are any industrial wastewater operations tributary to the either of the existing industrial lines shown on the WWTP plans?
t/Is fudge still being discharged into the 0.5 million gallon treated effluent storage pond, as shown on the WWTP plans? 5J,.l1 44fr 6� iw'd
/Has a sludge survey been completed recently? 40 If so, can a copy of record be emailed? rJa} flhu �w1 se cLut�c d 14, ..,
- The new lagoon was not previously connected to the system or disinfection. Has this bee eted? "aver �icr✓ �lovn
?- Without the new lagoon, the system will not support 80k GPD flow, potentially n k P
`Most recent 12 months = daily average flow of -13k GPD.
0-- y-1 /-x,•, a 10 )v F iw^ �e 64 d }like b'. M>ron,
The PE has indicated that the current disinfection is only designed to accommodate the domestic waste (30k GPD) and that a
bar screen is needed at the head of the WWTP. Has this been modified? No,
- There are 15 or 16 'lanes" or zones, how are these operated (e.g. 3 or 4 lanes at a time or the entire 40 ac field)?
'Label the lanes or zones / on site map, & denote how they operate. I Mw
QENERAL USSION:/PAN loading? /GW issues & trends (NO3, TDS, Chloride)? Email Soils reports for last �r�s'?
Mer(-'f.- rrp'". �� a� tll r
Portion of the WWTP in poor condition &not in use?� lr,, Is it the/ Ind st i t train �( �O Basin, tc.)? , _]
- Sludge still present in the Cl contact chamber? Ua, 4�H� V �, N 4, coot )-0, y
Suitable vegetation on embankments & trees <5" cut? ye f
n
- Freeboard markers in both structures? �� f
- Review Bear Creek below the effluent storage pond. r
/Coqdl1 ion of the grout for MW-2 & MW-3 (MW-2 surface cracking)? — -2 6!vkUtd, rx&A
Depths of screenings for MW-2 & MW-3? Nt�_2 2��6 �� Jo I5 n7�.
Is a follow-up inspection necessary
Primary Inspector: P. Mitchell
Date of Inspection: 4/17/2020
Yes ❑ No
Secondary Inspector: C. Caudle
Entry Time: 10:00 am Exit Time: 3D M

SYSTEM PLANS
WQ0002648
LEGEND aI' l 1 1 l I f�I
SANITARY -- R--'—'Ju r 4
SEWER
INDUSTRIAL
NON -TREATED = k � y, ♦ O !" ♦ t i
INDUSTRIAL
TREATED z \ \ ` mlrr
o>
INDUSTRIAL \ I z
MIXED SANITARY_ 4
& INDUSTRIAL=
TREATED _ tg, 1q1• \
EFFLUENT
SLUDGE
O r
z
+ _= mt bAF
T--4 ace f I i > use'
�/cCi>ro� � � I 1 r !r r r/ r 1 ,r I
z
M `� m 1 I j 1 I I 'D—' r
� I r I 1 �N.z
HATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
EQUALIZATION LAGOONS Hobbs, Upchu►
FOR THE CWtSu
TOWN OF SEAGROVEFj
ANDOLPH COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN PILAF
NAGS HEAD,
MYRTLE BEACH,
G AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN 300 S.W. Brood Street, Soul
Phone: [phone]

14 1.at! = (an r(r')44 � IAA?) CO'
* t � ,,, 1 11 (or/ 4 �, L" It I
E v
eq �Sj

F----7CV
1 �u NL•vv •-�
41�30 000
00
2L
/
,v,eM r Acli c 12-0 000 GP
r
wl �
J
�,r
:tAI,4 ^ t "r(64,J
✓IL 9 ZoeG Ste �iuf fwr ;, �,r l ry►�l
.,; �euCr?
�•e Sq >y � c� � �r� s s I� dtd
c
is 4t INV,o�� �+� L.�, ���.�� S•''7 �.
jAevy Mef w ;oa(ri tlt 6w ,-�W) work W�vwCA Wi frcow t
"000 •
2.0 Zo
�Q () �\ r Cca�
re
ww fr rtic I�•,-4

NLE,NJ
Ca
✓ s�� d s awl ,�,� �
� P
Q i It �0,
o r�_� ecj
?
✓ G
//(q
i'j�5 �i�orl�'T�G
r N'�^
= 7urF b
ara��a�rc l.r}
� // •
O �L
� "mil
�'O ��%% 4�
3 r
4L
T'?,e',� "s 'eg pPn d J- Z4 , �UA�J,
4- �� Z uvmY C/mc �� Sw
rr
d
/
to
e-L V A
1�
du,4 r
rl 2,611 v1w aF Ow c
r F L
1 /mod f l-r2t�t+� v
b�^►mot
� a
C1,C,c,.�
• boa 6(D
0 0 0 4 6FP
o,'
rLA
[�-/3�c� GPI 1 c �rl
�
�

■
Mw
1 rw��
-'I�s Jai � 7�
�vw
11/b wl !J�
Ale
wit
rLj
J
,IJVA
- 7- MP
S
Q 9 z
, y 11�0
y� = 17-
P AL
tol
f
d', 0. oo"§ ,--�

2,d
v� 4
411
w
�.
G Il A
ALamf/j
* � U
Al /T / ! R
fA