WQ0034102_Staff Report_20210311

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5764D89B-B782-44E9-8A80-91A66DAB85D4
,s State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge Unit
Attn: Chloe Lloyd
From: (name of Reviewer in Regional Office)
Washington Regional Office
Application No.: WQ0034102
Facility name: Town of Fremont WWTF
Note: This form has been adapted from the non -discharge facilily 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 (last Compliance Inspection)
a. Date of site visit: 9/17/20
b. Site visit conducted by: R. Sipe
c. Inspection report attached? ® Yes or ❑ No
d. Person contacted: Kenneth Stanley ORC) and their contact information: 919 738 - 2982 ext.
e. Driving directions: No change since last permit was issued.
2. Discharge Point(s): N/A, non -discharge system.
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: N/A, non -discharge system.
Classification:
River Basin and Subbasin 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
Kenneth Stanley Certificate #: SI/997045 Backup ORC: Joshua Pulley Certificate #:SI/1006255
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: facultative lagoons,pray irrigation.
Proposed flow: 91,629 GPD
Current permitted flow: 91,629 GPD
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.)
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5764D89B-B782-44E9-8A80-91A66DAB85D4
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: Attachment B should be revised so that for the period of December through March the
permittee can irrigate up to 50% of the systems daily flow rate, which is 45,815 GPD. During the SOC that was
recently place for the installation of the lagoon liners this irrigation schedule was performed for approximately
4 years, documenting that it can done while adequately maintainingthe he spray fields. Revising the permit in this
manner will allow the permittee much needed flexibility in managing sometimes high influent flows it receives
from the Town of Eureka.
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:
11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please complete the followina (expand table if necessarv):
Monitoring Well
Latitude
Longitude
o
o
o
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: Since the new synthetic liners were placed in the
lagoons in 2017 there have been occasional high BOD and TSS effluent values. These may be related to algal
buildup in the lagoons. Also, during this time frame there have been occasional elevated ammonia values in the
monitoring well MW-2, however, the effluent ammonia values reported during this time have been less than half
of those detected in MW-2 and the irrigation zone adjacent to this well only receives 20 inches or less of effluent
annually. It is suspected that the ammonia in this well may be influenced by the nearby. sip/wetland. WaRO
will continue to monitor both the BOD and TSS in the effluent and the ammonia in MW-2. We do not believe
that these issues should affect the renewal of the permit.
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.)
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5764D89B-B782-44E9-8A80-91A66DAB85D4
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? See the comment in Item 12 above.
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:
16. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: N/A, non -discharge system.
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): N/A, non -discharge system.
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. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
Attachment B should be revised so that for the period of December through
March the permittee can irrigate up to 50% of the systems daily flow rate,
which is 45,815 GPD. During the SOC that was recently in place for the
Attachment B
installation of the lagoon liners this irrigation schedule was performed for
approximately 4 years, documenting that it can done while adequately
maintaining the spray fields. Revising the permit in this manner will allow the
permittee much needed flexibility in managing sometimes high influent flows it
receives from the Town of Eureka.
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5764D89B-B782-44E9-8A80-91A66DAB85D4
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: Nw"b�� 4e
Signature of regional supervisor: RO" T""
Date: 3/11/2021
IV. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 4