NC0023353_Site Visit_20160920

To: ® NPDES Unit ❑ Non -Discharge Unit Application No.: NCO023353
Attn: Sonia Gregory Facility name: White Lake WWTP
From: Johnathan C. Watts
Fayetteville 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 RECOVE®INCDEQs WR
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or ❑ No SEP 2 ® 2016
a. Date of site visit: 08/29/2016 Water Quality
Permitting Section
b. Site visit conducted by: Johnathan Watts/Mark Brantley
c. Inspection report attached? ® Yes or ❑ No
d. Person contacted: Bill Stafford and their contact information: (910) 862 - 4800 ext. NA
e. Driving directions:
2. Discharge Point(s):
Latitude: 34°37'40" Longitude: 78°27"29"
Latitude: Longitude:
Comments: Latitude and Longitude on facility details link listed incorrect in BIMS.,
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Classification: C;Sw
River Basin and Subbasin No. cpf20(03-06-201
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
H. 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:
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:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 4

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):
M. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
ORC: William E. Stafford Certificate #: WW2/15904 Backup ORC: Timothy F. Frush Certificate #: WW 1/986976
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: The White Lake WWTP, located at 90 East William St. Elizabethtown NC,
produces discharge of treated effluent from a biological water treatment system, which consists of a
Lagoon divided into 4 cells.
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow: 800000 GPD
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.) As stated from previous inspection on August 8, 2013, "During the inspection of the chlorine contact
chamber, a hole was noted in the baffle wall just before the effluent weir. This hole could allow some short
circuiting." It is strongly recommended that a timeline and plan of action be submitted to perform repairs
on chlorine contact chamber, as baffles are critical for the efficient performance in improving the amount
of chlorine contact time with fecal coliforms and possible contamination with pathogens. Restoring the
chlorine contact chamber could reduce operation and maintenance activities and may ultimately increase
reliability for achieving permit compliance.
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:
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
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
If no, please explain:
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.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 4

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:
11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, please complete the following (expand table if necessary):
Monitoring Well
Latitude
Longitude
O 1 it
O 1 //
O I //
_ O 1 II
O / it
O ,
O l II
O 1 I/
O 1 I/
O 1 11
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: Weekly sample records were examined from
March 2016 to April 2016. All effluent data appeared to correspond with DMR's and comply with
standards as indicated in the permit.
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
❑ Notice(s) of violation
❑ Current enforcement action(s) ❑ Currently under JOC
❑ 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:
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): None
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 4

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
s
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 Wlease state reasons: )
6. Signature of report preparer: �-
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date:
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 4