WQ0035207_Review of 2020 Annual Report_20210331

DocuSign Envelope ID: F9D9D32E-8CC1-4201-AD1C-16D2F1BE1676
ROY COOPER
Governor
DIONNE DELLI-GATTI
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
March 31, 2021
Mr. Robert N. Roth, Technical Services Manager
Synagro Central, LLC
284 Boger Road
Mocksville, North Carolina 27028
Subject: Review of the 2020 Annual Report
Synagro Central, Distribution of Class A Residuals
Permit No. WQ0035207
Davie County
Dear Mr. Roth:
Staff of the North Carolina Division of Water Resources Winston-Salem Regional Office (DWR) has
completed a review of the 2020 Annual Report for the subject facility. This review was completed by
DWR staff person Patrick Mitchell. Review of the subject report reflects compliance with Permit
No. WQ0035207. However, the following item warrants your attention and action:
The 2020 Annual Report did not contain a Class A Annual Distribution & Marketing Certification and
Summary Form (DMSDF). In addition to the information that you provided in the 2020 Annual
Report, please submit a properly completed DMSDF form in all future annual reports for the
subject Class A permit. If necessary, please also include supplemental forms (DMSDF-Supp) to
provide information that will not fit on form DMSDF.
Please notify the Winston-Salem Regional Office prior to your next land application event that is
planned to occur within the Winston-Salem Region to allow for a routine compliance inspection.
Please refer to the enclosed compliance inspection report form for additional observations and comments.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Patrick Mitchell or me at the letterhead phone
number or address, or by email at [e-mail] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
,-DocuSiiggned by:by�
L-0", 1. t..JMltt-
---14 49 225 4EA.
Lon 1. Snider, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ — WSRO
enc: Compliance Inspection Report
cc: Laserfiche File WQ0035207
FRO WQROS (Electronic Copy)
MRO WQROS (Electronic Copy)
RRO WQROS (Electronic Copy)
WiRO WQROS (Electronic Copy)
WSRO Electronic Files
_1121,..„E\93
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office 1450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 3001 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
336.776.9800

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: WQ0035207 Effective: 03/10/21 Expiration: 01/01/27 Owner : Synagro Central LLC
SOC:
County: Davie
Region: Winston-Salem
Effective:
Contact Person: Gregory T Flory
Directions to Facility:
Expiration: Facility: Synagro Central DCAR
Title: Executive Director Phone: [phone]
System Classifications:
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
NCG590017 City of Greensboro - Lake Townsend WTP
NC0046345 City of Reidsville - Reidsville WTP
NC0075701 City of Albemarle - Tuckertown WTP
NC0087866 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority - John F. Kime WTP
NC0057533 Brunswick County - Hood Creek WTP
Inspection Date: 03/31/2021 Entry Time 08:30AM
Exit Time: 11:15AM
Primary Inspector: Patrick Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Annual Report Review
Permit Inspection Type: Distribution of Residual Solids (503)
Facility Status: Compliant 0 Not Compliant
Question Areas:
Miscellaneous Questions
(See attachment summary)

Permit: WQ0035207 Owner - Facility: Synagro Central LLC
Inspection Date: 03/31/2021 Inspection Type : Annual Report Review
Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
On March 31, 2021, WSRO staff conducted a review of the subject facility's 2020 Annual Report. No site visit was made as
part of this inspection event. The report reflects compliance with the subject permit.
However, the item listed below was found to be deficient.
- There was no Class AAnnual Distribution & Marketing Certification and Summary submitted in the report. Request the
Permittee submit properly completed DMSDF and DMSDR(Supp) forms in future annual reports for this Class A permit. A
Class B RLAP annual certification form was provided in the report and other info missing from the DMSDF form was provided
in other places in the report.
Below is a summary of other notes from this review.
• Report was found to be in good order and complete (with the exception of the above noted item).
• Eight of the permitted sources were reported as active in year 2020.
• All sources reported as active were found to be compliant with regulatory limits and also met the minimum testing
frequency requirements.
• Reported land application activities were found to be within agronomic loading limits.
• Lime amendment was reported as applied to fields with soil pH <6.0.
A routine compliance inspection is planned for this inspection year.

Annual Report Review Class A Distribution
Reporting Period: 2.07,0
Permit Details:
• Is 503? We
- Class A or B?
• Maximum Dry Tons Per Year:
Number of acres permitted: '—
• Number of fields in permit:
Counties that land is permitted for: —,
• Monitoring Frequency for TCLP: V yr• afrI7 b yr.
Monitoring Frequency for Residuals Analysis: Vyr, - 4/yr. - 1/.00144,f
• Monitoring Frequency for Pathogen & Vector Attraction Reduction: 1,/R
1. Class A Annual Distribution and Mar Disposal ertification Form ,
� - Was a certification form submitted? [J p� q R�l A cetarl'rr.�Ftir, was Stiff M
Was distribution conducted during the reported period? 1
How many dry tons were produced and distributed? 1‘)a1- (err _rot"'
•
. Ac wAmx/
C
• Were the distributions with the permitted amount?
`1
�n r,
• Were recipients information listed? N d,
• Did it indicate compliance?
Was form complete?
• Was it signed by the appropriate people?
WQ0035267
nw• ry DcAk
3/3//Z
f 3Dn„ - I ► : oo.,
l 8 soyrce kU/,/ (1V,g�' c/A„/y
l�J ro.3 M
5ce "2d2D A-cmlC 4 TABS Af°vt
2. Monitoring / 2_, 3,
- Were the analyses conducted at the required frequency? "S i
• Was an analyses taken for each source that was distributed? Yes,
• Were the metals analyses reported on the Residual Sampling Summary Form? YeS = J, Z, 3,,11, Si fie,
Were the results reported in mg/kg? %Qss 1, Z, 3, L/ S, , r
- Were the pH's 6.0 or greater for each residual sample? 7Q5= / 3/r/ 7, - Z C (o,
• Were the heavy metals within ceiling cone ntration permit limits? CS = 123/' '77r vol, �pP)40
Were the lab analyses attached? S Z 3 `� ��,7 ,;� �" `6.
[AMC!) A •Y
r � i / i , ..�tc Ids o% � I°
- Were all the required parameters te��s d? yes j 2. 3, q 57C/►`l, 8
• Was TCLP analysis conducted? 7 of - 27/3, 5�, 4/`7'f$ 3 ,� r-- (! •7 1'
• Were the TLCP contaminants within regulatory limits? 7-es j2i / / / i
- Was a corrosivity, ignitability, and reactivity analysis conducted? Y,es 7 1/ 2, 3i j /�i
3�athogen and Vector Attraction Reduction
• Was -signed copy of the Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction Form_su miffed?
- Did the fortm�ndicate the period of coverage, the residual class, and pathogen reduction
alternative and the ve or -a. action reduction option used?
- Was the appropriate documenta + • o show pathogen • • d vector attraction reduction included
in the report?
• Was pathogen and vector attraction redu n dem• .ted according to 40 CFR Part 503?
Class A Pathogen
To be s A, residuals shall meet either fecal Coliform density or salmonel .: si

Opti 7 — Drying of Stabilized Residuals
• Does e residuals contain any unstabili -d residuals?
• Were the esiduals mixed with any . er materials?
• Were the re *duals dried up to 75o total solids?
Option 8 — Drying
• Were the residuals
• Were the residuals
f Unsta
Option 9 — lnje. ton
• Was there . y significant amou of residuals on land surface one hour after injection
(Inspecti. ?
• Was jection done on pasture or hay - Id?
• W injection done at time that crop was ewing?
Class A with respect to pathogen, were resi. ..ls injected with eight hours after
discharge from pathogen treatment?
ized Residuals
with any other materials?
to 90% total solids?
4.General
Was the report in the proper format? I
Alf • Was the annual report complete? Ni 6
• Was the report submitted on time?
y2S,
57 (�,v;1 J
Our
1G,t�f r�✓d kip;)i%M/)3 . 11