WQ0031314_2021 Annual Report Review_20220509

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
RICHARD E. ROGERS, JR.
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
May 9, 2022
Mr. Bill Brewer
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utilities Commission
Post Office Box 2511
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102
SUBJECT: 2021 Annual Report Review
Swann WTP, Neilson WTP, and Thomas WTP
Distribution of Class A Water Treatment Plant Residuals
Permit No. WQ0031314
Forsyth County
Dear Mr. Brewer:
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) acknowledges receipt of your 2021 Annual Report for the
subject permit. A review of this report conducted by DWR staff person Jim Gonsiewski reflects
compliance with Permit Number WQ0031314.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me or Jim Gonsiewski
at [phone] or via email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
CDocu8lpned by:
Lo� T. 'auler
145B49E225C04EA...
Lon T. Snider
Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ — WSRO
encl: Compliance Inspection Report
cc: Forsyth County Environmental Health (Electronic Copy)
Courtney Driver — City of Winston-Salem (Electronic Copy)
WSRO Electronic Files
Laserfiche Files
NORT
Department of e.moeoumei ou.r�
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

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: WQ0031314 Effective: 11/18/20 Expiration: 08/31/27 Owner : Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utilities
Commission
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utilities Commi:
County: Forsyth
Region: Winston-Salem
Contact Person: William C Brewer
Directions to Facility:
Title: Phone: [phone]
System Classifications:
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
NC0079821 City of Winston-Salem - R.A. Thomas WTP
NC0086011 City of Winston-Salem - Neilson WTP
Inspection Date: 05/05/2022
Entry Time 12 45PM Exit Time: 03:20PM
Primary Inspector: Jim J Gonsiewski Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Annual Report Review
Permit Inspection Type: Distribution of Residual Solids (503 Exempt)
Facility Status: II Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
El Miscellaneous Questions I. Record Keeping • Sampling
Storage
(See attachment summary)
Page 1 of 3

Permit: WQ0031314 Owner - Facility: Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utilities Commission
Inspection Date: 05/05/2022 Inspection Type : Annual Report Review
Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) received the 2021 Annual Report for the subject permit. A review of this report
conducted by DWR staff person Jim Gonsiewski reflects compliance with Permit Number W00031314.
A routine compliance evaluation inspection is planned to occur in the next 12 months.
Page 2 of 3

Permit: WO0031314 Owner - Facility: Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utilities Commission
Inspection Date: 05/05/2022 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:
Sampling
Describe sampling:
TCLP, Residuals
Is sampling adequate?
Is sampling representative?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
El
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
O 0110
❑ ❑ U ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
11000
❑ ❑•❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑•❑
O 0110
O 00111
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑•
• ❑ ❑ ❑
111000
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page 3 of 3

Annual Report Review Class A Distribution Permit No. WQ003 1.3 1
Reporting Periods `O .-
Permit Details:
• Is 503? Yes 1 No
• Class yiA or 11B?
• Maximum Dry Tons Per Year: - 4 L c?
• Number of acres permitted: —
• Number of fields in permit: "---
• Counties that land is permitted for: —
• Monitoring Frequency for TCLP: f '`LC Cfc\\f- c,L» I
• Monitoring Frequency for Residuals Analysis: Cyr «-/ Y.c CA (' or va`n n ) D ncC/ 7 act( 4, ,,`-et"(C✓e
• Monitoring Frequency for Pathogen & Vector Attraction Reduction:tc V1
1. Class A Annual Distribution and Marketing/Surface Disposal Certification Form
• Was a certification form submitted?Y
• Was distribution conducted during the reported period? I t�'Yes
• How many dry tons were produced and distributed? LI i. t(?,'f
• Were the distributions with the permed amount?
• Were recipients information listed?
• Did it indicate compliance?
• Was form complete?
• Was it signed by the appropriate people?
Pr"(._,e
FIVes
2. Monitoring
• Were the analyses conducted at the required frequency? LI>J9s
• Was an analyses taken for each source that was distributed? [_`ys
• Were the metals analyses reported on the Residual Sampling Summary Form? IO'Y'es
• Were the results reported in mg/kg?ryes
• Were the pH's 6.0 or greater for each residual sample? > Yes
• Were the heavy metals within ceiling concentration permit limits? H s
o Were the lab analyses attached? ��� }T.1Yes
• Were all the required parameters tested? ers
• Was TCLP analysis conducted? s
• Were the TLCP contaminants within regulatory limits? 4Yes
• Was a corrosivity, ignitability, and reactivity analysis conducted? Ye
II
I
[I
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
0
No
No
No
No
No
No

3. Pathogen a Vector Attraction Reduction
• Was a signe opy of the Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction Form submitted? L]Yes I INo
• Did the form indi to the period of coverage, the residual class, and the pathogen reduction alternative
and the vector attra n reduction option used? ❑Yes No
• Was the appropriate doc entation to show pathogen and vector attraction reduction included in the
report? ❑Yes I INo
as pathogen and vector attra ion reduction demonstrated according to 40 CFR Part 503? Yes No
CI
ss A Pathogen Review
To b Class A, residuals shall meet either fecal Coliform density or salmonella density.
Feca Coliform density
• Was th sampling conducted at the required frequency?
• Were m Itiple samples taken?
• Was eac sample less than 1000 MPN/gram of total solids?
OR
Salmonell. density
• Was the sa
• Were multipl
• Was each sam
II
Yes
Yes
UYes
II
No
No
No
ing conducted at the required frequency? Yes FNo
samples taken? I )Yes No
le less than 3 MPN/4 grams of total solids? nYes No
To be Class A, re duals shall meet one of the following alternatives:
Alternative 1 — e/Temperature
• Were the residuals aintained for correct time and temperature?
• Were logs submitte• showing time and temperature?
• Were temperatures ithin range for complete time period?
Alternative 2 — Alkalin
• Were logs submitted sh
• Was the pH raised to 12
• Was the temperature 52°C
Treatment
ing time and temperature? Yes
greater and maintained for 72 hours or longer? Yes
126°F) for 12 hours or longer while the pH was 12 or greater?
Yes
time and pH? ❑Yes
to 25°C (77°F)? nYes
Yes I INo
Yes I 'No
Yes INo
II
• Were logs submitted showing
• Was the temperature correcte
Alternative 5 — Process To Further • educe Pathogens
PFRP Composting
• Were the within -vessel method or s .:tic aerated pile methods used? I IYes No
• Was the residuals temperature maint.ined at 55°C (131°F) or higher for three consecutive days or
longer in the within -vessel method or s .tic aerated pile method? Yes No
OR
• Was the windrow composting method us-d? Yes nNo
• 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? I IYes I INo
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? UYes 1 INo
• Did the temperature of the residuals or the of the wet bulb temperature of the gas in contact with the
residuals as the residuals leave the dryer exceed 80°C (1763F)? Yes I INo
No
No
No
No
No

Vector Attraction Reduction Review
• Wa the sampling conducted at the required frequency?
fOpti. 1 — 38% Volatile Solids Reduction
• Was the e 38% reduction?
• Were las sheets/calculations in report?
• Was the r: duction on volatile solids (not total solids)?
• Were the s• mples taken at beginning of digestion process and before
• Were calcula ons correct?
nOption 2 — 40-lay Bench Scale Test
• Were residuals fram anaerobically digested treatment (Inspection)?
• Were residuals an: erobically digested in lab?
• Was the test run fo 40 days?
• Was the test done b: tween 30°C (86°F) and 37°C (99°F)?
• Was the reduction of •n volatile solids (not total solids)?
• Was the reduction les than 17%?
• Were lab sheets/calcula ions in report?
• Were calculations corre ,?
nOption 3 — 30-Dav Bench tale Test
• Were residuals from aerobic.11y digested treatment (Inspection)?
• Were residuals aerobically diaested in lab?
• Were residuals 2% or less tot.:I solids?
• If not 2% total solids, was the est ran on a sample diluted to 2%
• Was the test run for 30 days?
• Was the test done at 20°C (68°F)
• Was the reduction of on volatile so .ds (not total solids)?
• Was the reduction Tess than 15%?
• Were lab sheets/calculations in repo
• Were calculations correct?
❑ Yes r1 No
❑Yes
['Yes
❑ Yes
application (Inspection)?
❑Yes
❑Yes
LJYes
Yes
❑ Yes
['Yes
❑Yes
❑ Yes
❑Yes
❑Yes
❑No
❑No
[No
I
No
No
❑No
❑No
❑No
❑No
❑No
No
LNo
No
II
II
❑Yes ❑No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Yes riNo
with unchlorinated effluent?
['Yes ❑ No
I (Option 4 — Specific Oxygen Uptake Rat- SOUR)
• Were residuals form aerobically digested t eatment (Inspection)?
• Were residuals 2% or less total solids (dry eight basis) (not diluted)?
• Was the test done between 10°C (50°F) an. 30°C (86°F)?
• Was the temperature corrected to 20°C (68° `7
• Was the SOUR equal to or less than 1.5 mg of
weight basis)?
• Was the sampling holding time two hours?
• Was the test started within 15 minutes of samplin
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)?
❑Yes
❑Yes
fYes
❑Yes
❑Yes
❑ Yes
II
II
No
No
❑No
No
No
L_INo
II
Yes ❑ No
['Yes No
❑Yes ❑No
['Yes No
xygen per hour per gram of total residual solids (dry
❑Yes ❑No
❑Yes ❑No
Yes ❑No
or aeration maintained?
I
['Yes
Yes
Yes
❑Yes
No
No
UNo
nNo

nOption 6 — Alkaline Stabilization
• Was the pH of the residuals raised to 12 or higher by the addition of alkali? ❑Yes ❑No
• 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 without the
ddition of more alkali? ❑Yes ❑No
as the pH corrected to 25°C (77°F)? [Yes ❑No
ion 7 — D in. of Stabilized Residuals
• Does he residuals contain any unstabilized residuals?
• Were t e residuals mixed with any other materials?
• Were the esiduals dried up to 75% total solids?
O.tion 8 —
of Unstabilized Residuals
Were the resi. , als mixed with any other materials?
• Were the residus dried to 90% total solids?
O.tion 9 — In'ecti
Yes ❑ No
LiYes No
Yes No
Yes
LiYes
No
No
• Was there any signifi.ant 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 tim- 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 I INo
4. General
• Was the report in the proper form
• Was the annual report complete?
• Was the report submitted on time?
Pollutant
Ceiling
Concentration
Below
Limit
Cumulative
Pollutant
Loading Rate
Below
Limit
l�
Arsenic
75
✓✓
41
Cadmium
85
A✓✓
39
J
/✓Y
J
b%✓✓
Copper
4300
✓✓
1500
Lead
840
✓�✓ /
300
Mercury
57
�%
17
Molybdenum
75 -✓�
N/A
Nickel
420
J
420
L/1J
Selenium
100
�
100
Zinc
7500
2800
j
Does No
I )res n No
L f 1No

Parameter
Below
l„imit
Parameter
Below
Lymit
Parameter
Below
Lin i
Arsenic (5.0) CI"
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (7.5)
✓ j�/
Nitrobenzene (2.0)
IL./ \/�
Barium (100.0)
' ✓
1,2-Dichloroethane (0.5)
✓ V/
Pentachlorophenol (100.0)
y �/
Benzene (0.5)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (0.7)
✓
Pyridine (5.0)
/
Cadmium (1.0)
,4-Dinitrotoluene (0.13)
r�
Selenium (5.0)
✓ V
1/✓
Carbon tetrachloride (0.5)
Endrin
(0.02)
t� +�
Silver (5.0)
Chlorodane (0.03)
V v_A-lepatachlor
(and its
epoxide) (0.008)
✓ y'
Tetrachloroethylene (0.7)
,✓�
J/ V
✓
Chlorobenzene (100.0)
✓ ✓Hexachlorobenzene
(0.13)
t�v/
Toxaphene (0.5)
Chloroform (6.0)
�✓Hexachlorobutadiene
(0.5)
,/�
Trichloroethylene (0.5)
Chromium (5.0)
✓ . /
V
Hexachloroethane (3.0)
✓ ✓
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
(400.0)
Il�
m-Cresol (200.0)
��
Lead (5.0)
t.l
_ 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (2.0)
J ✓
o-Cresol (200.0)
tJ
Lindane (0.4)
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) (1.0)
✓
p-Cresol (200.0)
`'$;
Mercury (0.2)
Vinyl Chloride (0.2)
1/ t✓
Cresol (200.0)
Methoxychlor (10.0)
✓
2,4-D (10.0)
✓✓
Methyl ethyl Ketone (200.0)
/ �
VV
Residuals Analysis
Parameter
Analyzed For
Parameter
Analyze For
Parameter
Analyzed For
Aluminum
✓ t)
Mercury
._/ V
Potassium
c--'1--'
Ammonia
Nitrogen
✓ ‘.---/
Molybdenum
✓ /
Selenium
J
✓✓
Arsenic
'✓ ✓
Nickel
V
Sodium
Cadmium
Nitrate-
Nitrite
Nitrogen
✓
SAR
✓ ^
�/
"
Calcium
4/�/
% TS
✓k//
TKI
✓
Copper
>/ t/
pH
/
Zinc .,-\/
✓
Lead
V ✓/
Phosphorus
VMagnesium
t/ `�
PAN
ti% +L -)

for
•1
•
:P • "rr.
re;
er!
.1;