WQ0035595_Staff Report_20200214

�1
State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Ftivironmental Staff Report
Quality
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge Unit
Attn: Ranveer Katyal
From: Rick Trone
Choose an itein. Re Tonal Office
Permit No.: (WQ0035595)
Facility name: Granville Farms RLAP
Edgecombe County
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
I . Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or ❑ No
a. Date of site visit: 6/25/19
b. Site visit conducted by: Rick Trone
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No
d. Person contacted: Mr. Drew Matthews and their contact information: 2( 52} 883-9301 ext.
e. Driving directions:
2. Discharge Point(s):
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Classification:
River Basin and Sub -basin No.
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
II. PROPOSED FACILITIES: NEW APPLICATIONS
1. FaciIity CIassification:
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow:
?. 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 ❑ NIA
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: WQROSSR04-14 Page 1 of

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.
S. Is the proposed or existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA
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: Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
III. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
ORC: Jason A. Smith Certificate #: LA/13266 Backup ORC: Bryan A. Smith Certificate #:LA/13265
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: See permit
Proposed flow: NA
Current permitted flow:
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:
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.
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 ® NIA
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 5

11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® NIA
If no. please complete the following (exnand table if necessary) -
Monitoring Well
Latitude
Longitude
o I rr
� r rr
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: None
13. Provide input to help the permit writer evaluate any requests for reduced monitoring, if applicable. NA
14. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
I5. Check all that apply:
❑ No compliance issues ❑ Current enforcement action(s) ❑ Currently under JOC
® Notice(s) of violation ❑ CurrentIy under SOC ❑ Currently under moratorium
Please explain and attach any documents that may help clarify answerrcomments (i.e., NOV, NOD, etc.) See
Laserfiche
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? NOV-2019-PC-0223 was issued for accepting
residuals from an unpermitted source (Birchwood RV Park) and improper storage. Birchwood RV Park is
a proposed source in this modification. The improper storage issue was verified and does not appear to be
an issue. This NOV was closed out in July 2019.
Have all compliance dates. conditions in the existing permit been satisfied? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N.-'A
If no, please explain:
16. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
❑ Yes ®No❑NrA
If yes, please explain:
17. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
18. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 page 3 of 5

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
Site maps show Fields 1, 2, 3 and 5 as being part of application area. However,
Revised site maps
these fields are not part of permit application. Field 5 is also listed in table.
Any reference to these fields needs to be removed from the site maps
Field 10 is mapped as mostly Rains series. Soil Scientist indicated that
Additional soil information
drainage ditches have lowered existing water table. Need more information
why that determination was made.
Portion of Field 9 is mapped as Rains. No soil boring was performed in this
Additional soil information
area to verify if this area is suitable. Either provide soil boring information or
take Rains area out of application. area.
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued: NONE
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 (Please state reaso s: )
6. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: _Zlolkla
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 5

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
Site visit was not performed for the new fields. These comments are based off the submitted application. The site
maps are confusing. Fields 1, 2, 3 and 5 are shown as part of the application area but are not part of the permit
request. If maps are not changed there is the potential that these areas could be considered approved application areas.
The table that list the fields and net acres references field 5. This table should be updated to remove reference to field
5. The map is labeled as EB fields 5 & 7-10. Field 5 should be removed from label.
Soil scientist report states that Field 10 is mostly the Rains soil series. Rains have a SHWT less than 12 inches
typically from November to April. It is noted in the boring logs that the drainage ditches have lowered the SHWT for
this field. However, there is no indication as to why this determination was made. Is there evidence that the
redoximorphic features are relict? Additional information is needed. Field 9 has a portion of the filed mapped as
Rains, no borings were performed in this area. This area will need to be excluded unless a boring indicates that this
soil has the required depth to SHWT.
Further discussion is needed to determine if the areas mapped as Rains is drained and meets the required SHWT or
these areas would only be seasonally suitable.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 page 5 of 5