WQ0001800_Review of the 2021 Annual Report_20220412

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
RICHARD E. ROGERS, JR.
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
April 12, 2022
Mr. Jacob Swaim, Director of Public Works
Town of Yadkinville
P.O. Box 816
Yadkinville, North Carolina 27055
SUBJECT: 2021 Annual Report Review
Town of Yadkinville, Residuals Land Application Program
Permit No. WQ0001800
Yadkin County
Dear Mr. Swaim:
Staff of the North Carolina Division of Water Resources Winston-Salem Regional Office (DWR)
have completed a review of the 2021 Annual Report for the subject facility. This review was
completed by DWR staff person Jim Gonsiewski. Review of the subject report reflects compliance
with Permit Number No. WQ0001800.
Please refer to the enclosed compliance inspection report form for additional observations and
comments for the review. 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 Jim
Gonsiewski at [phone] or via email at jim.gonsiewski@u,ncdenr.gov.
Sincerely,
DoeuSiyned by:
SeA-ki.trn, .l.tia.^.ak.
0D2D3CE3F1B7456...
Jennifer F. Graznak
Assistant Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ — WSRO
encl: Compliance Inspection Report
cc: Yadkin County Environmental Health (Electronic Copy)
Grant Trivette — Town of Yadkinville (Electronic Copy)
Alex Fox — Synagro (Electronic Copy)
WSRO Electronic Files
Laserfiche Files
CARO DE
aua V
DewAame orrnd,oaaKna,i auxh
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office 1450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300 I Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
336.776.9800

'1
;Cc I _
I '1.4
•
1 kr'
. • M 1, ,,
,.; i -.- -. i: -1 --v, , i --`1.-,1 4',
-„ --. - . - ,
,
_ 1-
4 ,
1 I,
•
:

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: WQ0001800 Effective: 02/09/22 Expiration: 07/31/28 Owner : Town of Yadkinville
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: Town of Yadkinville Class B Residuals Program
County: Yadkin 1620 Fred Hinshaw Rd
Region: Winston-Salem
Contact Person: Grant Trivette
Directions to Facility:
Yadkinville NC 27055
Title: Phone: [phone]
System Classifications: LA,
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
NC0020338 Town of Yadkinville - Yadkinville VWVTP
Inspection Date: 04/07/2022 Entry Time 01:30PM
Exit Time: 04:45PM
Primary Inspector: Jim J Gonsiewski Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Annual Report Review
Permit Inspection Type: Land Application of Residual Solids (503)
Facility Status: Compliant Not Compliant
Question Areas:
▪ Miscellaneous Questions II Record Keeping Sampling
▪ Pathogen and Vector Attraction
(See attachment summary)
Page 1 of 4

Permit: WQ0001800 Owner - Facility: Town of Yadkinville
Inspection Date: 04/07/2022 Inspection Type : Annual Report Review
Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Staff of the North Carolina Division of Water Resources Winston-Salem Regional Office (DWR) completed a review of the
2021 Annual Report for the subject facility. This review was completed by DWR staff person Jim Gonsiewski. Review of the
subject report reflects compliance with Permit Number No. WQ0001800.
A routine compliance evaluation inspection is planned to occur within the next 12 months.
Page 2 of 4

Permit: WQ0001800 Owner - Facility: Town of Yadkinville
Inspection Date: 04/07/2022 Inspection Type : Annual Report Review
Reason for Visit: Routine
Type
Distribution and Marketing
Land Application
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:
Pathogen and Vector Attraction
a. Fecal coliform SM 9221 E (Class A or B)
Class A, all test must be <1000 MPN/dry gram
Geometric mean of 7 samples per monitoring period for class B<2.0*10E6 CFU/dry gram
Fecal coliform SM 9222 D (Class B only)
Geometric mean of 7 samples per monitoring period for class B<2.0*10E6 CFU/dry gram
b. pH records for alkaline stabilization (Class A)
c. pH records for alkaline stabilization (Class B)
Temperature corrected
d. Salmonella (Class A, all test must be < 3MPN/4 gram day)
Yes No NA NE
•
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ • ❑
O E1.0
❑ ❑■❑
❑❑■❑
■ ❑❑❑
• ▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑ U
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑❑■
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ M
❑ ❑ ❑•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑•
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
•
❑ ❑ U ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ U ❑
D011111
Page 3 of 4

Permit: WQ0001800 Owner - Facility:Town of Yadkinville
Inspection Date: 04/07/2022 Inspection Type :Annual Report Review
Reason for Visit: Routine
e. Time/Temp on:
Digester (MCRT)
Compost
Class A lime stabilization
f. Volatile Solids Calculations
g. Bench -top Aerobic/Anaerobic digestion results
Comment:
Sampling
Describe sampling:
Residuals, TCLP
Is sampling adequate?
Is sampling representative?
Comment:
❑ ❑ • ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
II ❑ ❑ ❑
Page 4 of 4

Annual Report Review Class B Land Application Permit No. WQ00 0 ' g 0
Reporting Period: (�
Permit Details:
• Is 5037 `z� Yes ❑No
• Class or
• Maximum Dry Tons Per Year: W$O < 70 00,ss g) 3 0 C ic,,S l
• Number of acres permitted• • t$
• Number of fields in permit ''
• Counties that land is permitted for: e v. :�
• Monitoring Frequency for TCLP: 1;1r.+r�vnd t`j (P3 i /PR-rY' - Cs d 2 -P
• Monitoring Frequency for Residuals Analysis: QYm i
Ni
• Monitoring Frequency for Pathogen & Vector Attraction Reduction: P' rtnvAN 191/
None 7• Groundwater monitoring: ❑Yes 7tit:T
1. Annual Land Application Certification Form
• Was a certification form submitted?
• Was land application conducted during the reported year?
• How many dry tons and dry tons per acre were applied? q 5--
• Were the applications within the permitted amount?
• Verify PAN if more than 10 tons/acre?
• Did it indicate compliance?4-errs, 1U DU rn 3.0 ate
• Was it signed by the appropriate people?
jes
Lis nNo
t'fC?oT/...-c-,�� �-
i�'r"es ❑ No
U'es N
Yes No
nNo
2. Monitoring
• Were the analyses conducted at the required frequency?
• Was an analyses taken for each source that was land applied?
• Were the metals analyses reported on the Residual Sampling Summary
• Were the results reported in mg/kg?
• Were the pH's 6.0 or greater for each residual sample?
• Were the heavy metals within ceiling concentration permit limits?
o Were the lab analyses attached?
• Were all the required parameters tested?
• Was TCLP analysis conducted?
• Were the TLCP contaminants within regulatory limits?
• Was a corrosivity, ignitability, and reactivity analysis conducted?
❑'Y�s
Form? es
ge
es
3. Field Summary
• Were all land application events recorded on e FSF and MFLS forms? E'S'es
• How many fields were applied on this year? t
• Was a Field Summary Form submitted for each field? [ Yes
• Was the Regional Office notified prior to each land application event? PY.es
• Were all the residuals applied to permitted land? pf s
• Were all the residuals applied from permitted sources? es
• Were the field loading rates for each metal and PAN calculated (year to date)?
• Were the cumulative pollutant loading rates calculated?
• Were the calculations correct?
• Were the PAN loading rates within permit limits? �ij ��e
• Were the heavy metal cumulative pollutant loading rates within permit limits? s
• Were the residuals applied on a suitable crop? DlY=s
• Were the applications conducted during the crop's growing season? L ss
• Were the Field Summary Forms complete? [J' es
• Was lime application on Field Summary Form? ❑Yes
❑No
❑No
❑No
[1]No
nNo
❑No
❑ No
❑No
❑No
❑ No
❑No
❑ No
No
nNo
❑No
❑No
nNo
I1No
❑No
❑ No
❑No
❑ No
❑No
nNo
No

4. Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction
• Was a signed copy of the Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction Form submitted?
• Did the form(s) indicate the period of coverage, the residual class, and the pathogen reduction
alternative and the vector attraction reduction option used?
Class B Pathogen Review
Alternative 1 — Fecal Coliform Density
• Was the sampling conducted at the required frequency?
Were seven samples taken?
• Was the geometric mean calculated and done correctly?
• Did the results show compliance (less than either 2,000,000 MPN/gram of total solids r 2,000,000
Colony Forming Units/gram of total solids)? 1Pfes
s
nAlternative 2 — Use of Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (one of five)
• Was the sampling conducted at the required frequency? ❑Yes
['Aerobic Digestion
• Was it an aerobic process (Inspection)? ❑Yes
• Were logs submitted showing time and temperature? [Yes
Were temperatures within range for complete time period? ['Yes
• Was the time and temperature between 40 days at 20°C (68°F) and 60 days at 15°C (59°F)?
❑Yes
['Air Drying
• Were the residuals on sand beds or pave or unpaved basins for three months? L]Yes
• Was the ambient temperature above 0°C (32°F) for two months? ❑Yes
• Were the residuals partially digested? [Yes
• Were residuals exposed to atmosphere during two months above 0°C (not snow covered)?
[Yes
❑Anaerobic Digestion
•Was it an anaerobic process (Inspection)?
•Were logs submitted showing time and temperature?
•Were temperatures within range for complete time period?
No
( 1No
No
No
No
No
No
No
nNo
❑No
❑ No
No
❑No
[Yes ❑No
[Yes []No
❑Yes ❑ No
•Was the time and temperature between 15 days at 35°C (95°F) to 55°C (131°F) and 60 days at 20°C
(68°F)? ['Yes ❑No
❑Composting (usually will be Class A when composting is used) ['Yes ❑No
Was it a composting procedure (not natural decay under uncontrolled conditions)?
[Yes [ I No
Were logs submitted showing time and temperature? [Yes I INo
See White House Manual for additional requirements.
❑Lime Stabilization
• Was alkaline material added to residuals a form of lime
dust or fly ash)?
• Were logs submitted showing time and temperature?
• Was the pH raised to 12 after two hours of contact?
Were Togs submitted showing time and pH?
Was temperature corrected to 25°C (77°F) (by calculation, NOT auto correct)? ['Yes
['Alternative 3 — Use of Processes Equivalent to RSRP
(Not commonly use. See White House Manual page 100-103, tables 11-1 and 11-2.)
(hydrated lime, quicklime, lime containing kiln
❑Yes
❑Yes
[Yes
❑Yes
II
No
❑No
['No
nNo
I INo

Class B Vector Attraction Reduction Review
• Was the sampling conducted at the required frequency?
❑Option 1 — 38% 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 (Ins ection)?
Wes / (1No
• Were calculations correct?
❑Yes
❑No
ray-c f 'No
nNo
es No
['Option 2 — 40-Day Bench Scale Test
• Were residuals from anaerobically digested treatment (Inspection)? ❑Yes
• Was average temperature of the WWTP digester between 30°C (86°F) — 40°C (104°F)?
EYes
• Were residuals anaerobically digested in lab? []Yes
• Was the test run for 40 days? ❑Yes
• Was the lab bench -scale test done between 30°C (86°F) and 37°C (99°F)? [Yes
• Was the reduction of'on volatile solids (not total solids)? ❑Yes
• Was the reduction less than 17%? ['Yes
• Were lab sheets/calculations in report? [Yes
• Were calculations correct? ['Yes
['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 unchlor
• 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?
nOotion 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 Tess than 1.5 mg of oxygen per hour per gram of total residual solids (dry
weight basis)? ❑Yes ❑No
• Was the sampling holding time two hours? Yes ❑No
• Was the test started within 15 minutes of sampling or aeration maintained? ❑Yes FT No
[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)?
I
No
No
▪ No
[No
❑ No
El No
❑No
El No •
[1]No
❑No
❑Yes ❑No
[Mies ❑No
['Yes ❑ No
inated effluent?
['Yes ❑No
[Yes No
❑Yes ❑No
❑Yes No
❑Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑No
❑Yes [No
[hies ❑No
❑Yes UNo
['Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑No
❑Yes
['Yes
['Yes
❑Yes
❑No
ENo
❑No
❑No

rlOption 6 — Alkaline Stabilization
Was the pH of the residuals raised to 12 or higher by the addition of alkali? ['Yes 1 INo
Did the pH of residuals remain at 12 or higher for two hours without the addition of more alkali?
[Yes ❑No
• Did the pH of residuals remain at 11.5 or higher for an additional twenty-two hours
(i.e. 24 hours total) without the addition of more alkali? ['Yes ❑No
• Was the pH corrected to 25°C (77°F) (by calculation, NOT auto correct)? ❑Yes ❑No
❑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?
HOption 8 — Drying of Unstabilized Residuals
• Were the residuals mixed with any other materials?
• Were the residuals dried to 90% total solids?
II
Yes
Yes
L1Yes
Yes
Yes
No
(1No
( 1No
11
No
No
['Option 9 — Injection
• Was there any significant amount of residuals on land surface one hour after injection (Inspection)?
❑Yes ❑ No
• Was injection done on pasture or hay field? ❑Yes ❑No
• Was injection done at time that crop was growing? ['Yes ❑ No
If Class A with respect to pathogen, were residuals injected with eight hours after discharge from
pathogen treatment? ❑Yes n No
• Was the appropriate documentation to show pathogen and vector attraction reduction included in the
report?
❑Yes
• Was pathogen and vector attraction reduction demonstrated according to 40 CFR Part 503?
❑Yes
5. Soil Tests
• Was a Standard Soil Fertility Analysis conducted for each application field?
• Were all the required parameters reported?
• Were the soil pH's 6.0 or greater for each application field?
• If no, was lime applied to those fields if recommended by the Agronomist?
• Were the copper and zinc indexes in the soil less than 2000 for each application
es
['Yes
['Yes
field?
W)res
• Was sodium less than 0.5 meq, and exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) less than /o?
es
6. General
• Was the report in the proper format?
• Was the annual report complete?
• Was the report submitted on time?
Eyes
❑Yes
❑Yes
I
No
n No
❑ No
LiNg
I''i•IV Q No -s`ti(e
❑ No utb.
No
No
No

Pollutant
Ceiling
Concentration
Below
Limit
Cumulative Pollutant
Loading Rate
Below
Limit
kg/ha
Ibs/ac
Arsenic
75
-' }
41
36
Cadmium
85
✓</ 39
34
Copper
4300
4.---;:/1500
1338
Lead
840
e/300
267
Mercury
57
t/ 17
15
Molybdenum
75
✓�/N/A
N/A
Nickel
420
V
420
374
Selenium
100100
89
Zinc
7500
L.it-4800
2498
,....,...,-
Parameter
Below
Parameter
Below
Limit
Parameter
Below
Limit
Arsenic (5.0)
t/
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (7.5)
\✓
Nitrobenzene (2.0)
V
I� /'
Barium (100.0)
✓
1,2-Dichloroethane (0.5)
t/
Pentachlorophenol (100.0)
Benzene (0.5)
✓
1,1-Dichloroethylene (0.7)
V
Pyridine (5.0)
Cadmium (1.0)
V
2,4-Dinitrotoluene (0.13)
Selenium (5.0)
V
Carbon tetrachloride (0.5)
'✓
Endrin (0.02)
't/
Silver (5.0)
1.
V
1
Chlorodane (0.03)
Hepatachlor (and its
epoxide) (0.008)
, /
V
Tetrachloroethylene (0.7)
Chlorobenzene (100.0)
Hexachlorobenzene (0.13) '
✓
Toxaphene (0.5)
(,/
'I/
Chloroform (6.0) .
Hexachlorobutadiene (0.5).
�/
Trichloroethylene (0.5)
Chromium (5.0)
i/
Hexachloroethane (3.0)
v
1
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
(400.0)
L---"1
m-Cresol (200.0)
>--"
Lead (5.0)
✓
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (2.0)
o-Cresol (200.0)
✓
Lindane (0.4)
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) (1.0)
p-Cresol (200.0)
v
Mercury (0.2)
Chloride (0.2)
Cresol (200.0)
i.---
Methoxychlor (10.0)
/Vinyl
1
2,4-D (10.0)
i/
Methyl ethyl Ketone (200.0)
nG.7MH YUI.7 P%I ma ..7
Parameter
Analyzed
Parameter
Analyzed For
11
Parameter
Analyzed For
Aluminum
L ,-.J
Mercury
✓
Potassium
Ammonia-
Nitrogen
✓
Molybdenum
(. r/
)
Selenium
-
Arsenic
t/l 4_1
Nickel
Sodium
✓ >�
t/t
��
Cadmium
,_.1 i/
Nitrate -Nitrite
Nitrogen
V,/
SAR
Calcium
t/
% TS
TKN
Copper
J
pH
��
Zinc
/"'J
Lead
►�
Phosphorus
Magnesium
�%
PAN
L/i-
JUII MIsat you �
Parameter
lay d For
Parameter
Anal zed For
Parameter
Analyze For
Acidity
/
ESP
Phosphorus
Base Saturation
t/
Magnesium
��
Potassium
Calcium
L,.
Manganese
"lam
Sodium
/
CEC
t ��
% HM
t- //
Zinc
Copper
f /
pH
�/