WQ0004910_Staff Report_20210523

ICState of North Carolina
Environmental
Quality
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report
To: ❑ NPDES Unit EJ Non -Discharge Unit Application No.: WQ0004910
Attn: Poonam Giri, Water Quality Permitting Section — ND Branch Facility name: Town of Woodland
From: Eric Rice
Raleigh 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: May 12, 2021
b. Site visit conducted by: E Rice
c. Inspection report attached? ® Yes or 0 No
d. Person contacted: Raymond Eaton and their contact information: [phone] ext.
e. Driving directions: See BIMS
II. PROPOSED FACILITIES: NEW APPLICATIONS
N/A
HI. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ® Yes ❑ No 0 N/A
ORC: Raymond Eaton Certificate #:1003144 Backup ORC: Chris Weller Certificate #:
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: Primary and secondary lagoon, lift station, surface irrigation
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow: 52 inches per year
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.)? I. or No
If yes, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 4

5. Is the residuals management plan adequate?
If no, please explain:
Yes or ❑ No Not Evaluated
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 0 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? 0 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 0 No 0 N/A Not evaluated
If no, please explain:
11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑ Yes 0 No 0 N/A Not evaluated
If no, please complete the following (expand table if necessary):
Monitoring Well
Latitude
O I II
Longitude
O I II
O 1 If
O I II
O 1 If
O I II
O I II
O 1 II
O 1 A
O I
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: 2L exceedance noted in MW-9 for TDS and Chloride
(2-11-21). Continued observation of GW concentrations necessary. Prior two GW-59 not located in file. Permittee
indicated copies to be submitted.
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? 0 Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
14. Check all that apply:
►;1 No compliance issues 0 Current enforcement action(s) 0 Currently under JOC
❑ Notice(s) of violation ❑ Currently under SOC 0 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?
Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit been satisfied? 0 Yes ❑ No 0 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:
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14
Page 2 of 4

N. 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
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
0 Deny (Please state reasons: )
6. Signature of report preparer: �-i e—DocuSIgned by:
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: 5/23/2021
VatALssa . M aktA t
'—B21316E6AB32144F...
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
1. The high water and visual alarm at lift station number one (1) was not working at the time of the inspection.
Permittee stated that a new unit has been ordered and would send confirmation to the RRO when installed.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14
Page 3 of 4

2. The GW-59s appear to have incorrect well construction data. Permittee was notified of the discrepancy and it
was stated that the form would be corrected for future submittals.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 4

Permit: WQ0004910
SOC:
County: Northampton
Region: Raleigh
Compliance Inspection Report
Effective: 10/07/16 Expiration: 09/30/21 Owner : Town of Woodland
Effective: Expiration: Facility: Town of Woodland WWTF
414 Jameson Ave
Woodland NC 278970297
Contact Person: Marshall E. Lassiter Title: ORC Phone: [phone]
Directions to Facility:
1-95 N to Rt 158 east towards Conway. Tum right onto Rt 258 south towards Woodland. Tum right on Rt 1557, lagoons and fields
are at the end of the road.
System Classifications: SI,
Primary ORC: Raymond Scott Eaton Certification: 1003144 Phone: [phone]
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 05/12/2021
Primary Inspector: Eric S Rice
Secondary Inepector(s):
Entry Time 11:OOAM
Reason for Inspection: Routine
Permit Inspection Type: Wastewater Irrigation
Facility Status: III Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
El Treatment Flow Measurement -Effluent
El Treatment Flow Measurement -Water
Use Records
II Record Keeping
II Treatment Influent Pump Station
El Storage
(See attachment summary)
•
•
•
•
Exit Time: 04:OOPM
Phone: [phone]
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Treatment Flow Measurement -Influent
Treatment
Treatment Lagoons
Treatment Disinfection
Standby Power
i♦
is
•
•
Miscellaneous Questions
Treatment Barscreen
End Use -Irrigation
Treatment Flow Measurement
Wells
Page 1 of 8

Permit WQ0004810 Owner - Facility; Town of Woodland
Inspection Date: 05/12/2021 Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Malt Routine
Inspection Summary:
System overall appears to be in good working order. High water and visual alarms noted to not be operating at LIft Station
#1. File is missing prior (2-11-21 in file) two gw analytical results. 2L exceedance noted in MV1r-9 for chloride and TDS.
Page 2 of 8

Perm*: WO0004910 Owner - Facility:Town of Woodland
Inspection Date: 05/12/2021 inspection llyps ; Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit: Routine
Ape
Reuse (Quality)
Infiltration System
Recycle/Reuse
Activated Sludge Spray, LR
Activated Sludge Spray, HR
Activated Sludge Drip, LR
Single Family Spray, LR
Single Family Drip
Lagoon Spray, LR
Treatment
Are Treatment facilities consistent with those outlined In the current permit?
Do all treatment units appear to be operational? (if no, note below.)
Comment:
Yes No NA NE,
El
El
El
0
0
El
El
El
III
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑❑❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Treatment Influent Puma Station
Yes No NA NE
Is the pump station free of bypass lines or structures? •❑ ❑ ❑
Is the general housekeeping acceptable? MOOD
Are all pumps present? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are all pumps operable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are floats/controls operable? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are audio and visual alarms available? • 0
❑ ❑
Are audio and visual alarms operational? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
# Are SCADArTelemetry alarms required? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Are SCADA/Telemetry available? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Are SCADA/telemetry operational? ❑ ❑ . ❑
Comment: Hlah water and visual alarm not operating
Treatment Flow Measurement -Influent
Yee No NA NE
Is flowmeter calibrated annually? . ❑ ❑ ❑
Is flowmeter operating properly? 11000
Does flowmeter monitor continuously? . ❑ ❑ 0
Does flowmeter record flow? MOOD
Does flowmeter appear to monitor accurately? 111000
Comment:
Treatment Flow Measurement -Water Use Records
Yes No NA NE
Page 3 of 8

Parmlt: V 0004910 Owner- Faclllty:Town of Woodland
Inspection Date: 05/12/2021
Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation Reason for Wit: Routine
Is water use metered? ❑ ❑ . ❑
Are the daily average values properly calculated? 00110
Comment:
Treatment Flow Measurement -Effluent
Is flowmeter calibrated annually?
Is flowmeter operating properly?
Does flowmeter monitor continuously?
Does flowmeter record flow?
Does flowmeter appear to monitor accurately?
Comment:
Standby Power
Is automatically activated standby power available?
Is generator tested weekly by interrupting primary power source?
Is generator operable?
Does generator have adequate fuel?
Comment:
Treatment Barscreen
Is it free of excessive debris?
Is disposal of screenings in compliance?
Are the bars spaced properly?
Is the unit in good condition?
Comment
Yes No NA NE
▪ ❑❑❑
▪ ❑ ❑❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑❑❑
■ ❑❑❑
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑❑❑
• ❑❑❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yea No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
1 ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
Treatment Disinfection
Yes No NA NE
Is the system working? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Do the fecal conform results indicate proper disinfection? . ❑ ❑ ❑
Is there adequate detention time (>=30 minutes)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the system properly maintained? . ❑ ❑ ❑
If gas, does the cylinder storage appear safe? 0011110
Is the fan in the chlorine feed room and storage area operable? 001110
Is the chlorinator accessible? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
If tablets, are tablets present? 001110
Are the tablets the proper size and type? ❑ 0 . ❑
Is contact chamber free of sludge, solids, and growth? ❑ . ❑ ❑
If UV, are extra UV bulbs available? ❑ ❑ . ❑
If UV, is the UV intensity adequate? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Page 4 of 8

Permit WQ0004910 Owner - Facility: Town of Woodland
Inspection Date: 05/12/2021
Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine
# Is it a dual feed system? 0 0 ■
El
Does the Stationary Source have more than 2500 lbs of Chlorine (CAS No. 7782-50-5)? ❑ ❑ 111 ❑
If yes, then Is there a Risk Management Plan on site? 0
If yes, then what is the EPA twelve digit ID Number? (1000
If yes, then when was the RMP last updated?
Comment. Algae growth noted
Record Keening
Yes No NA NE
Is a copy of current permit available? •
EIDEI
Are monitoring reports present NDMR? ❑
NDAR? ■
Are flow rates less than of permitted flow? 0 ❑
Are flow rates less than of permitted flow? 0 II 0
Are application rates adhered to? ■ ❑ 0 0
Is GW monitoring being conducted, if required (GW-59s submitted)? II0 0
Are all samples analyzed for all required parameters?
Are there any 2L GW quality violations? ODO.
Is GW-59A certification form completed for facility? 0
Is effluent sampled for same parameters as GW? •
Do effluent concentrations exceed GW standards? ODOM
Are annual soil reports available? OEM
# Are PAN records required? ■
EIDEI
# Did last soil report indicate a need for lime?
If so, has it been applied? 0 ❑ ■ ❑
Are operational logs present? ■ El El 0
Are lab sheets available for review? . 0 0 ❑
Do lab sheets support data reported on NDMR? 0 0 0 ■
Do lab sheets support data reported on GW-59s?
Are Operational and Maintenance records present? �
Were Operational and Maintenance records complete?
Has pemiittee been free of public complaints in last 12 months? 0
El
Is a copy of the SOC readily available? El 0 El ■
No treatment units bypassed since last inspection?
Comment: Flow rates being Tess than permitted flow dependent on 1I.
End Use-IrripatIon
Yes No NA NE
Are buffers adequate? ■ 0
0 CI
Is the cover crop type specified in permit? .
LIDO
Page 5 of 8

Permit WQ0004910 Owner - Facility:Town of Woodland
Inspection Date: 05/12t2021 Inspection type ;Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit: Routine
Is the crop cover acceptable?
Is the site condition adequate?
Is the site free of runoff / ponding?
Is the acreage specified in the permit being utilized?
Is the application equipment present?
Is the application equipment operational?
Is the disposal field free of limiting slopes?
Is access restricted and/or signs posted during active site use?
Are any supply wells within the CB?
Are any supply wells within 250' of the CB?
How close is the closest water supply well?
Is municipal water available in the area?
# Info only: Does the permit call for monitoring wells?
Are GW monitoring wells located properly w/ respect to RB and CB?
Are GW monitoring wells properly constructed, including screened interval?
Are monitoring wells damaged?
Comment No comment
STORAGE -
Storage
Storage Type?
Storage amount?
*At what point is side -stream wastewater returned to treatment?
Is there a Spill Control Plan?
Aerated or Mixed?
If aeration is present, is it adequate?
If present, are diffusers cleaned regularly?
Is influent structure acceptable?
Are banks/berms free of seepage and erosion?
Are banks/berms free of excessive vegetation?
Is pond lined?
Liner Type
Is liner acceptable?
Are baffles/curtains acceptable?
Does the pond have a freeboard marker?
Required freeboard?
• ❑ ❑ ❑
MI ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑❑❑
■ ❑❑❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑❑❑
IIICICIO
• ❑❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑❑■
❑ ❑ ❑•
EICIDIN
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑•❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
Lagoon
4
Acres
N/A
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑11❑
❑ ❑■❑
111000
•❑ ❑ ❑
111000
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Apron, concrete
▪ ❑❑❑
❑ ❑11❑
❑ ❑❑❑
Page 6 of 8

Are increments clearly marked on gauge at adequate intervals?
Has the water level gauge been surveyed w/ respect to lowest point on dike? wall?
No Evidence of overflow
Acceptable color
Floating mats
Excessive solids buildup
Penult: WQ0004910 Owner- Facility:Town of Woodland
Inspection Date: 05/12f2Q21 Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine
Actual freeboard?
Is there suitable grassed vegetation?
Is the vegetation maintained?
Is the area free of excessive weeds and/or woody species?
Is the area free from signs of overflow?
Is color acceptable?
Are floating mats acceptable?
No excessive buildup of solids?
Are aeratorshnixers acceptable?
Is effluent structure acceptable?
If present, is pond cover acceptable?
Comment: No comment
• ❑❑❑
▪ ❑ ❑❑
■ ❑❑❑
■ ❑❑❑
• ❑ ❑❑
❑ ❑■❑
❑ ❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑
•❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ N❑
PRIMARY -
Treatment Laaloons
Yes No NA NE
Lagoon Type None
Primary/Secondary Primary
Influent structure . ❑ ❑ ❑
Banks/berms (seepage and erosion) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Vegetation (excessive vegetation on banks/berms) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Liner ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Liner Type
Apron, concrete
Baffles/curtains ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Freeboard Marker ❑ ❑ . ❑
Required freeboard 2
Feet
Actual freeboard 2.5
Feet
El ONO
❑❑❑■
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑❑■
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ III ❑
Page 7 of 8

p.m*: W00004910 Owner. Facility:Town of Woodland
Inspection Date: 05/12/2021 Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit: Routine
Aerators/mixers
Effluent structure
Lagoon cover
Page 8 of 8