WQ0002712_Staff Report_20191108

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge Unit Application No.: WQ0002712
Attn: (Erick Saunders Central Office Permitting Group)
Facility name: City of Lincolnton RLAP
From: (Edward Watson in MRO)
Choose an item. Regional Office
Note: This form has been adapted from the non -discharge fg acili , 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
a. Date of site visit: 11/06/2019
b. Site visit conducted by: Inspection report attached? ® Yes or ❑ No
c. Person contacted: Don Burkey and their contact information: (704) 736 - 8960 ext.
e. Driving directions:
2. Discharge Point(s): No Discharge Points.
Latitude:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: No discharge to surface waters.
Classification:
River Basin and Sub basin No.
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
II. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
ORC: Mike Cox Certificate #:LA 13191 Backup ORC: Robert Roth Certificate #:LA 1001672
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: Lincolnton Municipal WWTP
Current permitted flow: 6.0 MGD. Current avg. daily flow of 2.1 MGD
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.)
3. 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:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 4

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:
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.
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:
Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
11. 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: No significant compliance issues
Provide input to help the permit writer evaluate any requests for reduced monitoring, if applicable.
12. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
13. Check all that apply:
® No compliance issues ❑ Current enforcement action(s) ❑ 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 ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
14. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
❑ Yes ®No❑N/A
If yes, please explain:
15. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: As a non -discharge system, the residuals should not enter surface
waters. If there's a spill or improper application there may be a threat of nutrient & inorganics loading.
16. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): N/A
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 4

III. 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
3. 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 (see below for missing soils data
and modified maps)
❑ Issue
❑ Deny (Please state reasons: )
4. Signature of report preparer: Edward Watson 11-08-2019.
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: 11.8.19
Docu Signed by:
p44" H P44-
F161 FB69A2D84A3...
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 4

IV. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
The following seven fields are being removed from the RLAP permit.• Jeff Carpenter; CL-02- 97.0 acres, Jeff Carpenter LT-25 — 81.5
acres, Leon Leonhardt CL-05 — 217.7 acres, Darrell Propst 26.9 acres, LT-07, Ruby Stegall, LT-39- 41.3 acres, James Houser LT-40
— 39.2 acres, and Nick Woodruff, LT-122- 46.2 acres for a total of 549.80 acres being removed from the Lincolnton RLAP permit.
The following field are being added: Randy Leatherman 93.3 acres LT-47, Mike Davis LT-48, 87.9 acres; Mike Davis, CA-24, 19.4
acres, Mickey Wesson, 51.0 acres, and Mike Davis CA-48 35.6 acres, totaling 287.2 acres.
Including the application field acreage changes, the new total acreage in the City of Lincolnton's RLAP permit will be
681.60 acres.
Missing Soil Reports have been requested from Synagro for fields NC-LT-49-3 and NC-CA-24-9.
Additionally, Fields NC-LT-49-1 has a surface drainage feature created by an erosion feature that generated a
preferential flow path cutting through the field and enters a wash -out gully. Standing water was observed in the wash -out
gully during the site visit. Field NC-LT-48-8 has a similar surface drainage feature on the SW corner of the left finger of
this field. However, no water was observed in the erosional feature during the site visit. Field NC-LT-48-5 borders a
wetland on the SW side of the field that will require buffering. Modified maps were requested of Synagro with appropriate
buffers.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 4