The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWQ0006594_Review of 2020 Annual Report_20210902ROY COOPER Governor ELIZABETH S. BISER Secretory S. DANIEL SMITH NORTH CAROLINA Director Environmental Quality September 3, 2021 Ms. Lisa Haynes — Corporate Environmental Manager Unifi Manufacturing, Inc. Post Office Box 1437 Reidsville, North Carolina 27323 SUBJECT: 2020 Annual Report Review Unifi Manufacturing, Inc., Distribution of Class A Residuals Permit No. WQ0006594 Rockingham County Dear Ms. Haynes: The Division of Water Resources (DWR) acknowledges receipt of your 2020 Annual Report for the subject permit. A review of this report conducted by DWR staff person Jim Gonsiewski reflects compliance with Permit Number No. WQ0006594. A routine compliance evaluation inspection is planned to occur within the next 12 months. If you or your staff have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Gonsiewski or me at (336) 776- 9800 or via email at jim.gonsiewskiencdenr.gov. Sincerely, Docutllomd by: (9 v4.)Adakk. 0D2D3CE3F1B7456... Jennifer F. Graznak Assistant Regional Supervisor Water Quality Regional Operations Section Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ — WSRO encl: Compliance Inspection Report cc: Rockingham County Environmental Health (Electronic Copy) Brent Collins — EMA Resources (Electronic Copy) WSRO Electronic Files Laserfiche Files North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 1 Division of Water Resources Winston-Salem Regional Office 1450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 I Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105 336.776.9800 Compliance Inspection Report Perm it:WQ0006594 Effective: 12/31/19 SOC: Effective: County: Rockingham Region: Winston-Salem Contact Person: Timothy Cole Expiration: 03/31/26 Expiration: Title: Owner : Unifi Manufacturing Inc Facility: Unifi Manufacturing DCAR 805 Island Dr Madison NC 27025 Phone: 910-679-8891 Directions to Facility: WSRO - US 52N - BUS 40E - HVVY 158N - Left on Reid School Rd. - Right on Vance Street Ext. (Facility on left/ north side) System Classifications: Primary ORC: Certification: Phone: Secondary ORC(s): On -Site Representative(s): Related Permits: NC0021873 Town of Mayodan - Mayodan WWTP NC0024881 City of Reidsville - Reidsville WWTP Inspection Date: 08/31/2021 Primary Inspector: Jim J Gonsiewski Secondary Inspector(s): Reason for Inspection: Routine Entry Time 07:30AM Exit Time: 12:15PM Phone: 336-776-9704 Inspection Type: Annual Report Review Permit Inspection Type: Distribution of Residual Solids (503 Exempt) Facility Status: 11111 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Question Areas: Miscellaneous Questions In Record Keeping MI Wells (See attachment summary) IN Sampling Page 1 of 3 Permit: WO0006594 Owner - Facility: Unifi Manufacturing Inc Inspection Date: 08/31/2021 Inspection Type : Annual Report Review Reason for Visit: Routine Inspection Summary: The Division of Water Resources (DWR) received the 2020 Annual Report for the subject permit. A review of this report conducted by DWR staff person Jim Gonsiewski reflects compliance with Permit Number No. W00006594. A routine compliance evaluation inspection is planned to occur within the next 12 months. Page 2 of 3 Permit: WQ0006594 Owner - Facility: Unifi Manufacturing Inc Inspection Date: 08/31/2021 Inspection Type : Annual Report Review Reason for Visit: Routine Type Land Application Distribution and Marketing Record Keeping Is GW monitoring being conducted, if required? Are GW samples from all MWs sampled for all required parameters? Are there any GW quality violations? Is GW-59A certification form completed for facility? Is a copy of current permit on -site? Are current metals and nutrient analysis available? Are nutrient and metal loading calculating most limiting parameters? a. TCLP analysis? b. SSFA (Standard Soil Fertility Analysis)? Are PAN balances being maintained? Are PAN balances within permit limits? Has land application equipment been calibrated? Are there pH records for alkaline stabilization? Are there pH records for the land application site? Are nutrient/crop removal practices in place'? Do lab sheets support data reported on Residual Analysis Summary'? Are hauling records available? Are hauling records maintained and up-to-date? # Has permittee been free of public complaints in last 12 months? Has application occurred during Seasonal Restriction window? Comment: Sampling Describe sampling: Is sampling adequate? Is sampling representative? Comment: TCLP and residuals sampling. Yes No NA NE Yes No NA NE ❑ ❑■❑ ❑ ❑ • ❑ ❑ ❑■❑ ❑ ❑•❑ III ❑ ❑ ❑ • ❑ ❑ ❑ 111000 ■ ❑❑❑ ❑ ❑ I ❑ • ❑ ❑ ❑ • ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑•❑ ❑ 0E10 ❑ ❑■❑ ❑ ❑❑■ ▪ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑• ❑ ❑ ❑• ■ ❑❑❑ • ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes No NA NE • ❑ Cl ❑ ■ ❑❑❑ Page 3 of 3 lt I I- Annual Report Review Class A Distribution Reporting.Period: C 3, a Permit Details: \L•h A Cal Q, tD O D 6S-9 • Is 503?Nl D n • Class A or B?'t • Maximum Dry Tons Per Year: c11:9 • Number of acres permitted: ---s • Number of fields in permit: — • Counties that land is permitted for. — • Monitoring Frequency for TCLP: try N t. • Monitoring Frequency for Residuals Analysis: Cp¢ c/' * - Monitoring Frequency for Pathogen & Vector Attraction Reduction:.... 1. Class A Annual Distribution and M k ting/Surface Disposal Certification Form • Was a certification form submitted? Y<S • Was distribution conducted during the reported period? 9 • How many dry tons were produced and distributed? Ablib • Were the distributions with the pen • • Were recipients information Ii ted? • Did it indicate compli ce?. Q S • Was form complete? • Was it signed by the appropriate people? \J 2. Monitoring / Were the analyses conducted at the required frequency? — So ,P‘ • Was an analyses taken for each source that was distribute • Were the metals analyses reported on the Residual Sampling ummary Form? • Were the results reported in mg/kg? ' .Q:S • Were the pH's 6.0 or greater for eachsidual sample? • Were the heavy metals within ceiling co entration perfnit limits? �� Were the lab analyses attached? • Were all the required parameters tested? \ • Was TCLP analysis conducted? • Were the TLCP contaminants wiXne_c regulatory limits? • Was a corrosivity, ignitability, and reactivity analysis conducted? y 3. Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction • Was a sign y of the Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction Form submitted? • Did the form inch a the period of coverage, the residual class, and the pathogen reduction alternative and the vec attraction reduction option used? Was the appropriate doc ntation to show pathogen and vector attraction reduction included in the report? - Was pathogen and vector attract reduction demonstrated according to 40 CFR Part 503? Class A Pathogen Review To be Class A, residuals shall meet eith r fecal Coliform density or salmonella density. Fecal Coliform density • Was the sampling conducted at the required frequency? • Were multiple samples taken? • Was each sample less than 1000 MPN/gram of total solids? OR Salmonella density • Was the sampling conducted at the required frequency? • Were multiple samples taken? Was each sample less than 3 MPN/4 grams of total solids? To be Class A, residuals shall meet one of the following alternatives: Alternative 1— Time/Temperature • Were the residuals maintained for correct time and temperature? • Were logs submitted showing time and temperature? • Were temperatures within range for complete time period? Alternative 2 — Alkaline Treatment - • Were logs submitted showing time and temperature? • Was the pH raised to 12 or greater and maintained for 72 hours or longer? • Was the temperature 52°C (126°F) for 12 hours or longer while the pH was 12 or greater? • Were logs submitted showing time and pH? • Was the temperature corrected to 25°C (77°F)? Alternative 5 — Process To Further Reduce Pathogens PFRP Composting • Were the within -vessel method or static aerated pile methods used? • Was the residuals temperature maintained at 55°C (131°F) or higher for three consecutive days or longer in the within -vessel method or static aerated pile method? OR • Was the windrow composting method used? • Was the residuals temperature maintained at 55°C or higher for 15 consecutive days or longer in the windrow method, and the windrow turned a minimum of five times during this time? PFRP Heat Drying • Was the residuals dried by direct or indirect contact with hot gases and the moisture content of residuals reduced to 10% or lower? • Did the temperature of the residuals or the of the wet bulb temperature of the gas in contact with the residuals as the residualsleave the dryer exceed 80°C (176°F)? Vector Attraction Reduction Review - • Was the sampling conducted at the required frequency? Option 1— 3 8% Volatile Solids Reduction • Was there 38% reduction? • Were lab sheets/calculations in report? • Was the reduction on volatile solids (not total solids)? • Were the samples taken at beginning of digestion process and before application (Inspection)? • Were calculations correct? Option.2 --• 40-Day Bench Scale Test Were residuals from anaerobically digested treatment (Inspection)? • Were residuals anaerobically digested in lab? • Was the test run for 40 days? • Was the test done between 30°C (86°F) and 37°C (99°F)? • Was the reduction of on volatile solids (not total solids)? • Was the reduction less than 17%? - Were lab sheets/calculations in report? • Were calculations correct? Option 3 — 30-Day. Bench Scale. Test • Were residuals from aerobically digested treatment (Inspection)? • Were residuals aerobically digested in lab? • Were residuals 2% or less total solids? • If not 2% total solids, was the test ran on a sample diluted to 2% with unchlorinated. effluent? • Was the test run for 30 days? • Was the test done at 20°C (68°F)? Was the reduction of on volatile solids (not total solids)? • Was the reduction less than 15%? • Were lab sheets/calculations in report? • Were calculations correct? Option 4 — Specific Oxygen Uptake Rate(SOUR) • Were residuals form aerobically digested treatment (Inspection)? • Were residuals 2% or less total solids (dry weight basis) (not diluted)? • Was the test done between 10°C (50°F) and 30°C (86°F)? - Was the temperature corrected to 20°C (68°F)? • Was the SOUR equal to or less than 1.5 mg of oxygen per hour per gram of total residual solids (dry weight basis)? • Was the sampling holding time two hours? • Was the test started within 15 minutes of sampling or aeration maintained? Option 5 — 14-Day Aerobic Process • Were the residuals from aerobically digested treatment (Inspection)? • Were the residuals treated for 14 days? • Was the residuals temperature higher than 40°C (104°F) for a 14-day period? • Was the average residuals temperature higher than 45°C (113°F)? Option 6 — Alkaline Stabilization • Was the pH of the residuals raised to 12 or higher by the addition of alkali? • Did the pH of residuals remain at 12 or higher for two hours without the addition of more alkali? • Did the pH of residuals remain at 11.5 or higher for an additional twenty-two hours without the addition of more alkali? • Was the pH corrected to 25°C (77°F)? Option 7 — Drying of Stabilized Residuals • Does the residuals contain any unstabilized residuals? Were the residuals mixed with any other materials? • Were the residuals dried up to 75% total solids? Option 8 — Drying of Unstabilized Residuals • Were the residuals mixed with any other materials? • Were the residuals dried to 90% total solids? Option 9 — Injection • Was there any significant amount of residuals on land surface one hour after injection (Inspection)? • Was injection done .on pasture or hay field? • Was injection done at time that crop was growing? • If Class A with respect to pathogen, were residuals injected with eight hours after discharge from pathogen treatment? 4.General • Was the report in the proper format? / zcs • Was the annual report complete?"-e..S • Was the report submitted on time?\/