WQ0019755_Staff Report_20220112

DWR
Division of Water Resources
State of North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
WATER QUALITY REGIONAL OPERATIONS SECTION
NON -DISCHARGE APPLICATION REVIEW REQUEST FORM
January 3, 2022
To: WSRO-WQROS: Lon Snider / Jenny Graznak
From: Vivien Zhong , Water Quality Permitting Section - Non -Discharge Branch
Permit Number: WQ0019755 Permit Type: Reclaimed Water
Applicant: JPC Utilities LLC Project Type: Minor Modification
Owner Type: Organization Owner in BIMS? Yes
Facility Name: Oak Ridge Commons WWTP Facility in BIMS? Yes
Signature Authority: Philip Cooke Title: Manager
Address: PO Box 345, Oak Ridge, NC 27310 County: Guilford
Fee Category: Non -Discharge Major Fee Amount: $0 - Minor Mod
Comments/Other Information: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Attached, you will find all information submitted in support of the above -referenced application for your review, comment,
and/or action. Within 45 calendar days, please take the following actions:
® Return this form completed. El Return a completed staff report.
n Attach an Attachment B for Certification.
Issue an Attachment B Certification.
When you receive this request form, please write your name and dates in the spaces below, make a copy of this sheet, and
return it to the appropriate Central Office Water Quality Permitting Section contact person listed above.
RO-WQROS Reviewer: Date:
FORM: WQROSNDARR 09-15 Page 1 of 1

Xig1 E CV?
State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report
January 11, 2022
To: DWR Central Office — WQ, Non -Discharge Unit
Attn: Vivien Zhong
Application No.: WQ0019755
Facility name: Oak Ridge Commons WWTP
From: Caitlin Caudle
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.
I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ❑ Yes or ® No
II. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
ORC: Bradley Flint Certificate #:27171 Backup ORC: Doug Smith Certificate #:1008611
2. Are the design, maintenance and operation of the treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal
system? ® Yes or ❑ No
3. Are the site conditions (e.g., soils, topography, depth to water table, etc) maintained appropriately and adequately
assimilating the waste? ® Yes or ❑ No
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 n No
6. Are the existing application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) still acceptable? ® Yes or No
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? n Yes or ® No
9. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit correct? ® Yes or n No
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? ['Yes ❑ No ® N/A
11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? n Yes n No ® N/A
12. Has a review of all self -monitoring data been conducted (e.g., DMR, NDMR, NDAR, GW)? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
13. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? ❑ Yes or ® No
14. Check all that apply:
® No compliance issues n Current enforcement action(s) n 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 I 1 N/A
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 3

15. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
nYes ®NonN/A
If yes, please explain:
III. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ❑ Yes or ® No
2. List any items that you would like the NPDES Unit or Non -Discharge Unit Central Office to obtain through an
additional information request:
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
I.1
This permit condition has been completed.
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
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: DocuSigned by: bi{i,tbl. r,A.U.d,(L
L-o. 'T. SMg«- '-8B834968199D49D...
Signature of regional supervisor:
1/12/2022 145B49E225C94EA...
Date:
IV. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
UPSET SYSTEM
Based on the drawings provided, the pipe from the mudwell to the upset system was connected to the system above the
septic tank. My understanding is that the only wastewater going to the upset system is from the mudwell, so why are
some of these volumes so high?
Month (2021)
Upset Volume
Reclaimed Volume
January
89800
402000
February
195500
227000
March
108600
362000
April
56400
441000
May
165900
343700
June
142100
427000
July
48350
467000
August
40550
454000
September
81200
354000
October
138750
420000
Why did the pumps in the dose tank need to be raised? Shouldn't the septic tank have caught most of the solids? Is
the septic tank getting overloaded with the volume of solids that are being sent to it from the reclaimed system? Is
the piping accurate? Does the mudwell actually go to the septic tank, or does it go to the dose tank and that is why
the pumps had to be raised?
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14
Page 2 of 3

TERTIARY FILTERS
The plans provided show that the pipe originally installed from the inlet through to the clear well empties into the clear
well, not into the chlorinator. If the issues have supposedly been fixed (filters no longer receiving excess solids and the
media has been changed), why is that pipe still there?
There seem to be several parts of the application that are missing (specifications and engineering calculations for
example), but I see no problem with issuing the permit. There may be some solids management issues at the facility that
will be monitored during compliance inspections.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 3