WQ0000430_Staff Report_20200211

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge Unit Application No.: WQ0000430
Attn: [e-mail] Facility name: City of Cherryville
County: Gaston
From: [e-mail]
Mooresville Reeional 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.
I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or ❑ No
a. Date of site visit: 01-22-2020
b. Site visit conducted by: Maria Schutte
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No See BIMS.
d. Person contacted: Alex Fox (Syangro) and their contact information: [phone]; Permittee
contact is: Larry Wright (704)-435-1739.
Mr. Fox contacted MRO staff with notice of a land application event. All fields included with this
renewal/modification were also viewed. MRO staff then drove to the Chenmille WWTP for inspection
of the residuals storage lagoon only.
e. Driving directions: From the MRO travel to NC 150 West. Cont. following signs for Hwy 150 W for approx.
35 miles. Turn Right onto Bud Black Road; Turn Left onto Robert Rd; Turn Right onto Tot Delin ee r Rd.
Facility is on the Right at 736 Tot Delin eg r Rd.
2. Discharge Point(s): NA
Latitude:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: NA
Classification:
River Basin and Sub -basin No.
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
II. PROPOSED FACILITIES: NEW APPLICATIONS
1. Facility Classification: (Please attach completed rating sheet to be attached to issued permit)
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow:
2. Are the new treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
If no, explain:
3. Are site conditions (soils, depth to water table, etc.) consistent with the submitted reports? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ N/A If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 4

4. Do the plans and site map represent the actual site (property lines, wells, etc.)? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
6. Are the proposed application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) acceptable? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
7. Are there any setback conflicts for proposed treatment, storage and disposal sites? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
8. Is the proposed or existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
9. For residuals, will seasonal or other restrictions be required? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If yes, attach list of sites with restrictions (Certification B)
Describe the residuals handling and utilization scheme:
10. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
11. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
III. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
Form emailed to Permittee & Synagro contacts with recent inspection report for update, as BIMS information
(below) is outdated.
ORC: Robert M. Cox Certificate #: 13191 Backup ORC: Erik R. Bruce Certificate #: 1003528
2. Are the design, maintenance and operation of the treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and
disposal system? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
Description of existing facilities: CheMille WWTP maintains residuals in a storage lagoon. Liquid residuals
are typically land applied at least once a year. This facility utilizes an oxidation ditch, which may cause the VAR
to fail for the Van Kleeck VSR method, so it is important the laboratory data also show the Mass -Balance results.
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow:
Explain anything observed during the site visit that needs to be addressed by the permit, or that may be
important for the permit writer to know (i.e., equipment condition, function, maintenance, a change in
facility ownership, etc.)
3. Are the site conditions (e.g., soils, topography, depth to water table, etc.) maintained appropriately and
adequately assimilating the waste? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain: MRO staff viewed new and existing land added for buffer changes. Buffers appeared
adequate. Items of interest are noted in Sections IV & V.
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 Per cover letter removing sites NC-LT-124- 01&02 and
adding sites NC-LT-107-04, 05 & 06 (see their cover -letter & site certification pages).
If yes, please explain:
5. Is the residuals management plan adequate? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
6. Are the existing application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) still acceptable? ❑ Yes or ® No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain: This is a land application permit. Application rates need to be calculated with relevant
sampling results.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 4

7. Is the existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
8. Are there any setback conflicts for existing treatment, storage and disposal sites? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
9. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit correct? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? ❑ Yes ❑ No ®N/A
If no, please explain:
I t . Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, please complete the following (expand table if necessary): I have no records that these MWs exist.
Monitoring Well
Latitude
Longitude
O l 11
O / 11
O l 11
O / 11
O l 11
O / //
O / //
O / //
O / //
O / //
12. Has a review of all self -monitoring data been conducted (e.g., DMR, NDMR, NDAR, GW)? ❑ Yes or ®No
Please summarize any findings resulting from this review: Additional data will be reviewed with the 2019 annual
report and follow-up with permittee as needed, since MRO staff did not meet with CheMille plant staff during
this inspection.
Provide input to help the permit writer evaluate any requests for reduced monitoring, if applicable.
13. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
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
Please explain and attach any documents that may help clarify answer/comments (i.e., NOV, NOD, etc.)
If the facility has had compliance problems during the permit cycle, please explain the status. Has the RO been
working with the Permittee? Is a solution underway or in place?
Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit been satisfied? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
15. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
❑ Yes ®No❑N/A
If yes, please explain:
16. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: Only by Vill or run-off from over -application (fecal, solids, etc.), ND
permit should not result in discharges to surface waters.
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
IV. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
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
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 4

The spill plan in this renewal application is a generic Synagro spill plan, with
Updates to Spill Plan
contact phone #s for MRO & NC Emergency reporting. MRO staff requests at
least a 24hr contact phone # for Cherryville and Synagro be included. Previous
versions of the spill plan included a 2' page with even more contact numbers.
Soils report does not include all metals tracked in CPLRs. Are all heavy metals
Heavy metals Soils Report
(Ex. Mercury) required with initial soils background screening? Suspect some
for new land. CO office
soils lab may not offer Hg testing because of timely nature. In addition, this
Question.
item may have been overlooked in other recent MRO RLAP renewals
(WQ0000057 CW & WQ0001793 TRUs).
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
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: )
6. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: 2.11.2020
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
A*-tuw H P:z*.t4
61 FB69A2D84A3...
MRO staff reviewed field coordinates in current BIMS permit and sites mapped correctly.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 4