WQ0013398_Staff Report_20200422

DocuSign Envelope ID: 903EOA7C-41E4-45BF-B146-4OCO2C962D61
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.: WQ0013398
Attn: Tessa Monday Facility name: Sandpiper Bay WWTF
From: Dean Hunkele
Wilmington 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: last visited 8-16-2019 for partial inspection; Covid virus prevented current & full
inspection
b. Site visit conducted by: Dean Hunkele
c. Inspection report attached? ® Yes or ❑ No Most recent visits
d. Person contacted:
e. Driving directions:
2. Discharge Point(s):
Latitude:
Latitude:
and their contact information: (_)
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Classification:
River Basin and Subbasin No.
Longitude:
Longitude:
- ext.
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
11. 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 Pagel of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 903EOA7C-41 E4-45BF-B146-4OCO2C962D61
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: Sunny Wright Certificate #: 28813 Backup ORC: Wilburn Williams Certificate #:10330
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:
a. There is an influent pump station on -site not listed in the permit; it is connected to the on -site generator
and believed to be 275-y m with telemetry & A/V alarms, but need confirmation. It needs new pump
rails and mounts (see 8-16-2019 visit report). Should add effluent meter & recorder, turbidity meter &
recorder, and composite sampler to system description.
b. Existing permit lists 2 manual bar screens, but only has 1; lists the clarifiers twice; it also lists both
biological reactors and aeration basins, but both unlikely exist — need confirmation.
c. Existing 5-Day pond should be listed with the WWTF description, but it is not 2.76 MGD (this is the
expansion size). It is believed the existing 5-Day pond is 756,500-gallon taken from the expansion plans
in RO files.
d. The existing irrigation storage pond is not 2.13 MGD; that volume is part of the expansion to a total of
3.89 MGD. The existing pond is 762,500 gallons.
e. Expansion permit likely not needed or at least not to that degree; should inquire if they want it still
listed as likely design would change anyway. If included, expansion description needs updating to
include construction of a new 2.76 MGD 5-Day upset and conversion of the existing 5-Day pond to
expanded irrigation storage along with construction of a new 2.13 MGD irrigation pond to bring total
to 3.89 MGD.
f. Irrigation description doesn't list any details on the irrigation pond transfer pump station. Per old
plans it pumps to another existing irrigation system pump station that also can pump from a
freshwater pond. Need to confirm this is the set-up and get pumping rates for both stations.
g. May need to review older versions of permit for clarification of the currently installed WWTF
equipment; it appears the description started developing issues in the 7-2004 issuance
Description of existing facilities:
Proposed flow:
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:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 903EOA7C-41 E4-45BF-B146-4OCO2C962D61
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:
Are there any setback conflicts for existing treatment, storage and disposal sites? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas. Unknown, but several different property owners are adiacent to
the WWTF site and irrigation on golf course holes
9. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit correct? ❑ Yes or ® No
If no, please explain: See Item 2
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 l lI
O I II
O l lI
O I II
O / //
O I it
O / //
O I it
O / //
O / //
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 has been nearly compliant for the entire
period with only 2 NDMR violations since 6-2015.
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?
Some O&M issues have been detected on several of the last insuections or site visits esuecially the main
WWTF control panel. Supposedly this is related to lack of adequate funds being generated by the current
customer rate. The Utility has had issues obtaining a better rate due to its arrangement of being charged by
the different golf course owner to dispose of the wastewater applied to the course which is unusual. Some
of the issues are discussed in a PE report updated in 5-2019 and provided to the permit writer.
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:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 903EOA7C-41 E4-45BF-B146-4OCO2C962D61
16. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
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
Influent PS
There is an influent pump station on -site not listed in the permit; it is
connected to the on -site generator and believed to be 275-p2m with
telemet & A/V alarms but need confirmation.
Aeration
lists both biological reactors and aeration basins, but both unlikely exist —
need confirmation; See Item ILL.
Expansion?
Expansion permit likely not needed or at least not to that degree; should
in uire if they want it still listed as likely design would change gp2yay.
Irrigation PS
Irrigation description doesn't list any details on the irrigation pond
transfer pump station. Per old plans it pumps to another existing
irrigation system pump station that also can pump from a freshwater
pond. Need to confirm this is the set-up and get pumping rates for both
stations.
Main Control Panel
Status of Replacement; been mentioned going back to 2013 visit
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
II.5
Doesn't apply since it's a Utility
II.8
All Conditions related to wells and compliance/review boundaries don't apply
III.8
Indicates 2 effluent irrigation ponds, but only I is present. Also, neither the
irrigation nor 5-Day pond's gauge meets the requirement but most don't I have
seen; it is marked in 1-foot increments
IV.6
Indicates 2 effluent irrigation ponds as well
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 903EOA7C-41 E4-45BF-B146-4OCO2C962D61
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: April 22, 2020
DocuSigned by:
E1D9294C4D3746E...
DocuSigned by:
E3ABA14AC7DC434...
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 5