NC0030422_Staff Report_20200227

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources

Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report

FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 4

To: NPDES Unit Non-Discharge Unit Application No.: NC0030422
Attn: Kristin Litzenberger Facility name: Green Valley MHP

From: Mikal Willmer
Asheville 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
1. Was a site visit conducted? Yes or No
a. Date of site visit: November 19, 2018
b. Site visit conducted by: Mikal Willmer & Bev Price
c. Inspection report attached? Yes or No (In LF)
d. Person contacted: Joedavid Hall and their contact information: (828) 586 - 5588 ext.
e. Driving directions: Take exit 98 off US 74W/19/23, take the first exit off the round about (hyatt creek rd). The
facility is approximately 1 mile on the left. The WWTP entrance is a dirt/gravel rd before you reach grapeleaf
dr.
2. Discharge Point(s): Outfall location in BIMS is inaccurate (see new coordinates below)
Latitude: 35.465461 Longitude: -83.023260
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Hyatt Creek
Classification: C
River Basin and Subbasin No.: French Broad River , Pigeon River Subbasin: 06010106
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: Hyatt Creek flows into Richland
Creek, a Class C waterbody that is currently on the State’s 303d list for fecal coliform.
II. 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:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9433654D-21F2-4E08-84C6-10862172351D
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 4
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate? Yes No N/A
If no, please explain:
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):

III. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? Yes No N/A
ORC: Joedavid Hall Certificate #: 993269 Backup ORC: David Helms Certificate #:1000269
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: Facility has the capacity to treat the incoming wastewater from the MHP; however,
the modification in 2010 may be having adverse impacts to system. It was noted, at the time of the
inspection, when the EQ basin pumps cycle on, they may be causing short circuiting through the package
plant. This should be further evaluated.
Description of existing facilities: An EQ basin with pumps and high -level alarm, 0.009 MGD extended air
package plant, chlorine contact basin with tablet chlorinator and dechlorinator and v-notch weir. Aerated
sludge holding tank.
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow:0.009 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.) Facility needs: See #2 above. Additionally, facility is showing age related wear. It is recommended the
structure of the package plant be assessed and painted to extend the life of the treatment units. Facility may
need to assess I&I into the deemed collection system.
3. Are the site conditions (e.g., soils, topography, depth to water table, etc) maintained appropriately and adequately
assimilating the waste? Yes or No N/A
If no, please explain: facility may have I&I; however, last discussions with the owner in 2017 indicated he
does not plan to expand or add any additional mobile homes .
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: Environmental Inc (contract operation firm) hauls solids from the WWTP when
needed.
6. Are the existing application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) still acceptable? Yes or No N/A
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:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9433654D-21F2-4E08-84C6-10862172351D
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 4
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: facility has an aerated sludge holding tank.
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
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: Facility had one violation for fecal coliform in
2018. No repeat violations noted.
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 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? Only one NOV for a weekly fecal coliform
exceedance. The facility is technically on a sewer line moratorium for reaching 80% of their hydraulic
capacity in 2012; however, the last three years of annual flow data show a decrease in total flow through
the facility. At the end of 2019, the facility was receiving 73% of their design capacity.
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: The flow moratorium should be addressed.
16. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: N/A
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):N/A

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9433654D-21F2-4E08-84C6-10862172351D
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 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
Collection system
information
Requesting information to show what steps have been taken to reduce flows
into the facility (2012 moratorium is still in place) and indicate long-term plans
for managing the facility and its deemed collection system.
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 (Please state reasons: )

6. Signature of report preparer:

Signature of regional supervisor:

Date:
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
Please see additional information request item listed above. Facility was placed on a moratorium in 2012. It
still appears to be in place. See inspection report (in Laserfiche) for specific site information and notes.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9433654D-21F2-4E08-84C6-10862172351D
3/2/2020