WQ0036561_NOD-2021-PC-0417_20210811

ROY COOPER.
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
August 12, 2021
Mr. Alan Johnson, Director
Division of Water and Wastewater Management
City of Danville
279 Park Avenue
Danville, Virginia 24541
SUBJECT: Notice of Deficiency NOD-2021-PC-0417
Compliance Evaluation Inspection
City of Danville Residuals Land Application Program
Permit No. WQ0036561
Caswell County
Dear Mr. Johnson:
On August 5, 2021, Division of Water Resources staff person Caitlin Caudle conducted a
scheduled routine compliance inspection. Brent Collins of EMA Resources was present
during the entire inspection. A review of the storage facility, records, transport vehicles, and
application site was completed. This review reflected non-compliance with the subject permit.
The following deficiencies were noted:
1. Fields CS-14-01 and CS-14-02 were being applied on at the time of inspection. In a
review of the application area of CS-14-01, ponding and runoff from the application
area was noted in two separate locations.
The first location was where the landowner had cleared a portion of wooded land that
was not in the application area, and a ditch had developed in the cleared area.
Residuals were applied to the edge of the cleared area, with bare ground, as marked
on the maps in the permit. Residuals had ponded in a depression in the cleared area
and runoff from the application area was visible at least 50 feet to a stump pile.
The second area was below a drainage way that was not buffered as marked on the
maps. Ponding was visible in the application area and runoff could be tracked to the
beginnings of a field ditch, where residuals were carried at least 50 feet into a wooded
area by this ditch.
Per Permit Condition 111.1 "the residuals management program shall be properly
maintained and operated at all times," Permit Condition 111.9 "when the permittee land
applies bulk residuals, adequate measures shall be taken to prevent wind erosion and
NORTH
D E
Dopartmem of Envimnmomni au.i`
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office 1450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 I Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
336.776.9800

surface runoff from conveying residuals from the land application sites onto adjacent
properties or into surface waters," and Permit Condition III.11.c "if the land fails to
assimilate bulk residuals or the application causes contravention of surface water or
groundwater standards." The residuals applied at this site failed to assimilate. As
a result, the residuals ponded in and outside of the designated application area
and left the application area via runoff. At one location the residuals entered a
field ditch below a drainage way, and at the other entered an area of bare ground
with only broadleaf weeds present. Moving forward, please take all necessary
measures to ensure that ponding does not occur and no residuals runoff from
the application area.
2. As mentioned above, Field CS-14-01 did not have all buffered areas clearly marked
in the field as shown on the maps included in the permit. This resulted in residuals
being applied within 25 feet of a surface water diversion ditch. A ditch had also
developed in the newly cleared area where a buffer would have been appropriate.
Per Permit Condition 11.9 "land application areas shall be clearly marked on each site
prior to and during any residuals application event" and Permit Condition 11.8 "surface
water diversions (ephemeral streams, waterways, ditches) shall have a setback of 25
feet." Moving forward, please ensure that all buffers are clearly marked, and the
appropriate setbacks are met, whether marked on field maps or discovered
during pre -application inspections.
The following items of concern were noted:
A. Piping and a pump were present, but not operating, at the time of inspection. The
piping was coming from a manhole downslope of Basin B and emptying into Basin B.
Mr. Collins contacted the wastewater treatment facility and stated that the purpose of
the pump and piping was to lower wastewater levels in a lift station for the Southside
treatment plant to install a flow meter. The Southside treatment plant is not a permitted
source in the subject permit.
Food byproducts and waste are also being dumped into Basin B. There was evidence
on top of the embankment and on the concrete liner. Food packaging was visible. Mr.
Collin's facility contact stated there is no domestic wastewater included in the food
waste.
Please provide clarification for the purpose and the source of wastewater that
is entering Basin B through this piping and the food waste that is being dumped.
Immediately stop using the pump and piping if the wastewater is from a non -
permitted source per Permit Condition 11.3 within thirty (30) days of receipt of
this Notice. Immediately stop dumping food waste as it is not a permitted source
per Permit Condition 11.3. If you wish to keep dumping food waste a permit
modification application must be submitted to add the source to Attachment A.
B. Per Permit Condition V.2 "prior to each bulk residuals land application event, the
Permittee or his designee shall inspect the residuals transport and application facilities
LD_E
NORTH CAROLINA
gapartmeM of Environmental quaky
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality j Division of Water Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office 1450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 I Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
336.776.9800

... The Permittee shall maintain an inspection log..." Mr. Collins stated that the
application sites are inspected before any residuals are applied but no inspection log
is kept. Moving forward, please begin keeping an inspection log of all field
inspections prior to residuals application.
C. At the time of inspection, one of the field application vehicles was leaking from the rear
valve while the spreader was not in use. The vehicle operator removed a large piece
of trash while Ms. Caudle was on site and the rear valve began operating normally.
There was no floating trash on the surface of Basin A, but there was a large amount
of floating trash on Basin B. Please be mindful that trash and other debris in the
residuals can damage the equipment used to spread the residuals and impact
the quality of the residual to landowners.
D. CS-14-01 had a large amount of broadleaf weeds present. Per Permit Condition
111.10 "a suitable year round vegetative shall be maintained on land application sites
onto which residuals are applied." Moving forward, please review all application
sites to ensure that a suitable vegetative cover is present.
E. Several ground hog holes were located on the top of the basin embankments at the
time of inspection. These ground hog holes may serve as conduits for stormwater to
enter the basins and impact the structural integrity of the basins. Please remove the
animals and fill the holes.
Please take the appropriate corrective actions to address the above -described deficiencies
and concerns. Refer to the enclosed inspection report for additional comments and
observations. If you have any questions concerning this Notice, please contact me or Caitlin
Caudle at the letterhead address or phone number, or by email at
[e-mail] or lon.snider©ncdenr.gov.
Sincerely,
DocuSigned by:
L-on l . mdte
‘.--145B49 225C94EA...
Lon T. Snider, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ-WSRO
enc: Inspection Report
cc: Brent Collins, EMA Resources(brent.collins©emaresourcesinc.com)
Caswell County Environmental Health (dpowell©caswellnc.us)
WSRO Electronic Files
DWR Laserfiche File WQ0036561
LD_E
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental quaky
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality j Division of Water Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office 1450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 I Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
336.776.9800

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: WQ0036561 Effective: 08/31/18 Expiration: 07/31/23 Owner : City of Danville
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: City of Danville RLAP
County: Out of State 229 Northside Dr
Region: Winston-Salem
Contact Person: Charles Richard Overby
Directions to Facility:
Danville VA 24540
Title: Phone: [phone]
System Classifications: LA,
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 08/05/2021
Primary Inspector: Caitlin Caudle
Secondary Inspector(s):
Entry Time 01:12PM Exit Time: 03:45PM
Phone: [phone]
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit Inspection Type: Land Application of Residual Solids (503)
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant Not Compliant
Question Areas:
▪ Miscellaneous Questions
II Land Application Site
▪ Transport
(See attachment summary)
▪ Record Keeping
▪ Pathogen and Vector Attraction
▪ Sampling
▪ Storage
Page 1 of 6

Permit: WQ0036561 Owner - Facility: City of Danville
Inspection Date: 08/05/2021 Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
On August 5, 2021 Division of Water Resources staff person Caitlin Caudle conducted a scheduled routine compliance
inspection. Brent Collins of EMA Resources was present during the entire inspection. A review of the storage facility,
records, transport vehicles, and application site was completed. This review reflected non-compliance with the subject
permit. The following deficiencies were noted:
1. Fields CS-14-01 and CS-14-02 were being applied on at the time of inspection. In a review of the application area of
CS-14-01, ponding and runoff from the application area was noted in two separate locations.
The first location was where the landowner had cleared a portion of wooded land that was not in the application area, and a
ditch had developed in the cleared area. Residuals were applied to the edge of the cleared area, with bare ground, as
marked on the maps in the permit. Residuals had ponded in a depression in the cleared area and runoff from the application
area was visible at least 50 feet to a stump pile.
The second area was below a drainage way that was not buffered as marked on the maps. Ponding was visible in the
application area and runoff could be tracked to the beginnings of a field ditch, where residuals were carried at least 50 feet
into a wooded area by this ditch.
Per Permit Condition 111.1 "the residuals management program shall be properly maintained and operated at all times,"
Permit Condition 111.9 "when the permittee land applies bulk residuals, adequate measures shall be taken to prevent wind
erosion and surface runoff from conveying residuals from the land application sites onto adjacent properties or into surface
waters," and Permit Condition 111.11.c "if the land fails to assimilate bulk residuals or the application causes contravention of
surface water or groundwater standards." The residuals applied at this site failed to assimilate. As a result, the residuals
ponded in and outside of the designated application area and left the application area via runoff. At one location the residuals
entered a field ditch below a drainage way, and at the other entered an area of bare ground with only broadleaf weeds
present. Moving forward, please take all necessary measures to ensure that ponding does not occur and no residuals runoff
from the application area.
2. As mentioned above, Field CS-14-01 did not have all buffered areas clearly marked in the field as shown on the maps
included in the permit. This resulted in residuals being applied within 25 feet of a surface water diversion ditch. A ditch had
also developed in the newly cleared area where a buffer would have been appropriate.
Per Permit Condition 11.9 "land application areas shall be clearly marked on each site prior to and during any residuals
application event" and Permit Condition 11.8 "surface water diversions (ephemeral streams, waterways, ditches) shall have a
setback of 25 feet." Moving forward, please ensure that all buffers are clearly marked and the appropriate setbacks are met,
whether marked on field maps or discovered during pre -application inspections.
The following items of concern were noted:
A. Piping and a pump were present, but not operating, at the time of inspection. The piping was coming from a manhole
downslope of Basin B and emptying into Basin B. Mr. Collins contacted the wastewater treatment facility and stated that the
purpose of the pump and piping was to lower wastewater levels in a lift station for the Southside treatment plant to install a
flow meter. The Southside treatment plant is not a permitted source in the subject permit.
Food byproducts and waste are also being dumped into Basin B. There was evidence on top of the embankment and on the
concrete liner. Food packaging was visible. Mr. Collin's facility contact stated there is no domestic wastewater included in
the food waste.
Please provide clarification for the purpose and the source of wastewater that is entering Basin B through this piping and the
food waste that is being dumped. Immediately stop using the pump and piping if the wastewater is from a non -permitted
source per Permit Condition 11.3. Immediately stop dumping food waste as it is not a permitted source per Permit Condition
11.3. If you wish to keep dumping food waste a permit modification application must be submitted to add the source to
Page 2 of 6

Permit: WQ0036561 Owner - Facility: City of Danville
Inspection Date: 08/05/2021 Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit: Routine
Attachment A.
B. Per Permit Condition V.2 "prior to each bulk residuals land application event, the Permittee or his designee shall inspect
the residuals transport and application facilities ... The Permittee shall maintain an inspection log..." Mr. Collins stated that
the application sites are inspected before any residuals are applied but no inspection log is kept. Moving forward, please
begin keeping an inspection log of all field inspections prior to residuals application.
C. At the time of inspection, one of the field application vehicles was leaking from the rear valve while the spreader was not
in use. The vehicle operator removed a large piece of trash while Ms. Caudle was on site and the rear valve began operating
normally. There was no floating trash on the surface of Basin A, but there was a large amount of floating trash on Basin B.
Please be mindful that trash and other debris in the residuals can damage the equipment used to spread the residuals and
impact the quality of the residual to landowners.
D. CS-14-01 had a large amount of broadleaf weeds present. Per Permit Condition 111.10 "a suitable year round vegetative
shall be maintained on land application sites onto which residuals are applied." Moving forward, please review all application
sites to ensure that a suitable vegetative cover is present.
E. Several ground hog holes were located on the top of the basin embankments at the time of inspection. These ground
hog holes may serve as conduits for stormwater to enter the basins and impact the structural integrity of the basins. Please
remove the animals and fill the holes.
Other observations:
• As a reminder, per Permit Condition 11.11, PAN must be reduced by 25% if the application site is being grazed.
• As a reminder, per Permit Condition III.11.h, residuals may not be applied on land that does not have an established
vegetative cover unless the residuals are incorporated or injected within 24 hours of application.
• Robert Clifton is Mr. Collins contact at the Northside WWTP.
• Only a portion of CS-14-02 was being applied on, Mr. Collins stated that the field summary forms will reflect that
difference in acreage.
• The storage facility consists of two —4,000,000 gallon concrete lined basins, Basin A and Basin B. One basin is cleaned
out each year, meaning at any given time there is approximately one year of storage at this facility.
• Basin A was being emptied this year.
• Sludge is piped to this facility from the Northside WWTP when sludge needs to be wasted from the plant
• Mr. Collins stated that they try to rotate between application fields to avoid using the same fields year after year.
• Nutrients and metals were sampled on 4/13, 4/27, 5/10, and 5/24.
• 30 day bench scale test was sampled for on 6/14 and 6/22. Mr. Collins stated that he is waiting on the results from two
more tests. The 6/22 test was reviewed and reflected compliance with Class B requirements.
• Fecal samples were collected on 4/13, 4/27, 5/10, and 5/24. Seven fecal samples were collected on each day from the
individual catwalks that extend into the basin. Fecal samples reflect compliance with the Class B residuals requirement.
• Mr. Collins stated that samples are collected leading up to the haul event to ensure that all application rates are
appropriate. There is only one hauling event per year that lasts several weeks.
• Samples are pulled from each catwalk that extends into the basins and a composite sample is made.
• Mr. Collins stated that soil samples have been collected but the results are not back yet.
• All transport vehicles and application vehicles reviewed had a copy of the spill plan and at least one application vehicle
had a copy of the subject permit.
• Mr. Collins stated that he has an inhouse spreadsheet that he uses to calculate the PAN/gallon in order to determine
the application rate of residuals in loads/acre. He also uses this spreadsheet to determine the most limiting nutrient, which
is nitrogen with this facility.
• One of the application drivers keeps a record of the transfer vehicles as they haul throughout the day.
• Application was occurring at CS-14-01 and CS-14-02. CS-14-03 was applied on the previous day.
Page 3 of 6

Permit: WQ0036561 Owner - Facility: City of Danville
Inspection Date: 08/05/2021 Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit: Routine
Type
Distribution and Marketing
Land Application
Record Keeping
Is GW monitoring being conducted, if required?
Are GW samples from all MWs sampled for all required parameters?
Are there any GW quality violations?
Is GW-59A certification form completed for facility?
Is a copy of current permit on -site?
Are current metals and nutrient analysis available?
Are nutrient and metal loading calculating most limiting parameters?
a. TCLP analysis?
b. SSFA (Standard Soil Fertility Analysis)?
Are PAN balances being maintained?
Are PAN balances within permit limits?
Has land application equipment been calibrated?
Are there pH records for alkaline stabilization?
Are there pH records for the land application site?
Are nutrient/crop removal practices in place?
Do lab sheets support data reported on Residual Analysis Summary?
Are hauling records available?
Are hauling records maintained and up-to-date?
# Has permittee been free of public complaints in last 12 months?
Has application occurred during Seasonal Restriction window?
Comment:
Pathogen and Vector Attraction
a. Fecal coliform SM 9221 E (Class A or B)
Class A, all test must be <1000 MPN/dry gram
Geometric mean of 7 samples per monitoring period for class B<2.0*10E6 CFU/dry gram
Fecal coliform SM 9222 D (Class B only)
Geometric mean of 7 samples per monitoring period for class B<2.0*10E6 CFU/dry gram
b. pH records for alkaline stabilization (Class A)
c. pH records for alkaline stabilization (Class B)
Temperature corrected
d. Salmonella (Class A, all test must be < 3MPN/4 gram day)
Yes No NA NE
El
•
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
•
O 000
O 000
O 000
Page 4 of 6

Permit: WQ0036561 Owner - Facility: City of Danville
Inspection Date: 08/05/2021 Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit: Routine
e. Time/Temp on:
Digester (MCRT)
Compost
Class A lime stabilization
f. Volatile Solids Calculations
g. Bench -top Aerobic/Anaerobic digestion results
Comment:
Sampling
Describe sampling:
Samples are collected from each catwalk that extends into the basins and a composite sample is made.
Is sampling adequate?
Is sampling representative?
Comment:
Transport
Is a copy of the permit in the transport vehicle?
Is a copy of the spill control plan in the vehicle?
Is the spill control plan satisfactory?
Does transport vehicle appear to be maintained?
Comment:
Land Application Site
Is a copy of the permit on -site during application events?
Is the application site in overall good condition?
Is the site free of runoff/ponding?
If present, is the application equipment in good operating condition?
Are buffers being maintained?
Are limiting slopes buffered?
10% for surface application
18% for subsurface application
Are there access restrictions and/or signs?
Is the application site free of odors or vectors?
Have performance requirements for application method been met?
For injection?
For incorporation?
Does permit require monitoring wells?
Have required MWs been installed?
Are MWs properly located w/ respect to RB and CB?
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
Page 5 of 6

Permit: WQ0036561 Owner - Facility: City of Danville
Inspection Date: 08/05/2021 Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit: Routine
Are MWs properly constructed (including screened interval)?
Is the surrounding area served by public water?
If Annual Report indicates overapplication of PAN, are wells nearby that may be impacted?
Are soil types consistent w/ Soil Scientist report/evaluation?
Is the water table greater than 173' bls.
Is application occurring at the time of the inspection?
Comment: Ponding and runoff was present and a buffer was not flagged.
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
Page 6 of 6

Is a follow-up inspection necessary? E
Primary Inspector: Caitlin Caudle
Date of Inspection: cgJ 5I ZI.
CC ibitex\A--
WC\(\t MO
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Section
NON -DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT
CLASS B RESIDUALS LAND APPLICATION
General Information
Facility Name: Danville RLAP
Permit No.: W000 36561
Owner: Richard Alan Johnson
Plant ORC Name: Roy Whitaker ��� 6. apwO �C
LA ORC / Contract Compan rent Collins EM'A Resources
Other Contact(s):
Facility Locati n
)ve�rk dress, gpsrdr echons). h
'AI(6Yhit{( (I�1
County: Caswell
Permit Issuance Date: 08/31/2018
Permit Expiration Date: 07/31/2023
Telephone No.: 336-751-1441
Telephone No.:
Telephone No.:
229-Nortside Dr, Danville, VA, 24540
Reason for Inspection
[IX/ROUTINE ❑ FOLLOW-UP
COMPLAINT ❑ PERMITTING ❑ Other:
Comments (attach additional pages as necessary)
-High copper values in NC-C$-06-03 and NC-CS-06-02
A-a LaSI43 I -Pttakhe 190StlA,dUO5e si-VS (abo ayeev,
V O CMUtt C \Win t 6,6'W\5
VI GyeCVI
08 basin% �w nn O �loum-
t n(p�in 9-6.4th,te\ i8n) oksiik 13,ah&&,30mcrestamks a4 bo,vltca_c
06 e\8v �iZ wo's ilniI-
P I Pe �wtr C6`m%t M MOJA d\e IeAc1-tng t B asln`13, hab, von '&e
C'n ).(Ak,0)X. for SQ+>�t-cn Q1o`rt� l i kD ;me(' 1eAreAs fir, ,,
k\ ks i ( all Oh) to'(‘ WAX- 1 gov< PI and- deed s n o -1 vt. i dz
(Armes b) \ns w4'u\ AtAx\--t w %skc ovv pla.01-
41 ak,\9 we r\ eAds
�re tiuos \,eaA.i'Y 6 cot Of rea( vat, socvLe- FoonctAkcci, Rk o- F
A.61--i\A V Ave/ Soak basins <n lr�rrje a tck sn+M-
G
mzkalsS- 4tA-/\en�+s
5am4ed ",115)2 1H)2Mt ,e)ro)zI
Submit permit renewal by Jan 2023 sip-t Z(
Yes
Secondary Inspector:
Entry Time: 1 1 `Kp
13 Day5enckk,
co luisent IZVeZI til1311
400Jo mZI
°(tint
61I612I
Exit Time: 3=117_ p

Non -Discharge Compliance Inspection Report
Residuals Generating Facility
Was the residuals generating facility inspected? ❑ Yes
Residuals Storage: t NII
Describe storage: 7, ij(hi s H, iD td; OCO
Number of days/weeks/months of storage: 'L I, ll f �j- % r) a(le i A mat V/ jl&
Residuals Sampling: 'V _I
Is s ling adequate and representative for each sample type?
Des i17` Sampling (Pn'oogens, VAR, Nputtrr,Sieenntts/ etalst TCLP): N�1 e,(oo lQ 1/µ�/ 1
Tr ns 11ort-'Vehtcle�,, 1 ° m P(% on co c C-1 V mG\ (�0 `JI G(p `(
Is transport occurring at time o
&Are necessary records (spill
f}.nspection?
/
n) present in vehicle? ID?/observed vehicte(s): i0L1k0f1.:
Record Keeping and Reporting Information:
s current permit and prior annual reports available upon request?
Has the facility been free of public complaints for the last 12 months?
TCLP analysis conducted and results available? Frequency? ® 1/yr or El1/permit cycle
Residuals metals and nutrient analysis conducted? Frequency? 4x year(See permit for frequency)
Nutrient and metals loading calculations? (to determine most limiting parameter)
Do lab sheets support data reported on Residuals Analysis Summary?
Are PAN balance records available and within permit limits?
Are there nutrient (crop) removal practices in place?
,,,Are hauling records available? (gal and/or tons haul d during calendar year to date)
"Are field loadin cords available?
Are field ins ions conducted and are rec s available? 1�.
Are soil sample results available? as*ILO\ r�Ew . r85vtt
Did soil results call for lime amendment? If so, are there records of application?
Soil results indicate that Cu & Zn indices are <3,000 (ideally <2,000)?
Soil results indicate Na <0.5 meq/100 cm', and Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP) <15%?
Does the permit require groundwater monitoring?
Are groundwater lab results present?
There are no 2L GW standard violations indicated in the lab results?
Path en and Vector Attraction Reduction Records
open Reduction
Zit Nos yenn
ich Alternative was used to demonstrate compliance?
Alternative 1 Fecal Coliform Density.
Were 7 samples collected and geometric mean <2 million mpn/cfu?
❑ Alternative 2 Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (5 options)
❑ Alternative 3 Use of Equivalent to RSRP (Not commonly used - See White House Manua
N NA NE
N
❑❑
Egi
Y N NA
❑ ❑
NE
NE
a me 2 was used, select which Option was utilized and complete the section below.
Y
Are to s-pr,sent showing time and temperature?
between 40 days at 68°F (20°C) and 60 days at 59° F (15°C)? ❑
Was the time
❑ Option 2 - Air Drying
ElOption 3 - Anaerobic Digestion
Are logs present showing time and temperature
Was the time & temp; between 15 days at 95° F —13' 5°-55° C) and
60 days at >68° F (20° C)?
❑ Option 4 — Composting (Not commonl ed - See White House Manual)
ElOption 5 - Lime Stabilizatio
Are logs preset -showing time and temperature?
Was t Ff raised to >12 after two hrs of contact?
as the temperature corrected to 25° C (77° F) (by calculation, NOT auto correct)?
Page 2 of 4
❑ ❑
NA NE

Non -Discharge Compliance Inspection Report
Vector Attraction Reduction:
Select which Option was used to demonstrate compliance and complete answer associated questions.
Option 1 - 38% Volatile Solids Reduction Y _.N— --CA NE
sults and calculations present? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the reductio ile solids (not total solids)?
Were samples collected at correc '. +s9
(beginning of digestion process & before lan
Was there a >38% reduction?
❑ Option 2 - 40-Day Bench Scale Te
Were residuals from ..+ : aerobic digester with average temp. 30°C — 40°C?
Are lab resul
Was
calculations present?
st anaerobically digested in lab, and test run for 40 days?
as the lab bench -scale test done between 30°C (86°F) and 37°C (99°F)?
Was the reduction of on volatile solids (not total solids)?
Was the reduction less than 17%?
® Option 3 - 30-Day Bench Scale Test l tj 117.111 "
Were residuals from aerobic digestion?
Are lab results and calculations present?
Were residuals 2% or less total solids?
If not 2% total solids, was the test ran on a sample diluted to 2%
with unchlorinated effluent?
Was the test run for 30 days?
Was the test done at 20°C (68°F)?
Was the reduction of on volatile solids (not total solids)?
Was the reduction less than 15%?
❑ Option 4 - Specific Oxygen Uptake Rate (SOUR Test)
Were residuals from aerobic digestion?
ere residuals <2% total solids (dry weight basis) (not diluted)?
the test done between 10°C (50°F) and 30°C (86°F)?
Was th- emperature corrected to 20°C (68°F)?
Was the sa .ling holding time <2 hours?
Was the test st. -d within 15 minutes of sampling or aeration maintained?
Was the SOUR equ: o or less than 1.5 mg of oxygen per hour per gram of
total residual solids (dry ;ight basis)?
❑ Option 5 - 14-Day Aerobic Process
Were the residuals from aerobic dig ion?
Was the average residuals temperature ''•herthan 45°C (113°F
Were the residualstreated for 14 days and te-'..erature mai a"ed higher
than 40°C (104°F) for the 14-day period?
❑ Option 6 - Alkaline Stabilization
Was the pH of the residuals raised to >12 maintained fo o hours
without addition of more alkali?
Did the pH of residuals remain11.5 an additional twenty-two hd
(i.e. 24 hours total) withou t1Th addition of more alkali?
Was the pH corrected 5°C (77°F) (by calculation, NOT auto correct)?
❑ Option 7 - Drying of ilized Residuals
The residu do not contain unstabilized residuals?
Were t residuals mixed with any other materials?
W the residuals dried >75% total solids?
❑❑❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
NA NE
❑ ❑
❑ ■�❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ DOD
DODO
N NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑❑❑ ❑ ❑❑
❑ ❑ ,LE ❑
LIODE
❑ ❑go on
❑
Y N NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
0 O ❑❑/u
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Y N NA NE
LI0 ODE
DODO
Y N NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
DODO
Y N NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
000
LI
❑ O•bn 8 - Drying ofUnstabilized Residuals Y NA NE
Were the residuals mixed with any other materials? ❑ ❑ ❑
Were the residuals dried >90% total solids? ❑ ❑\ ❑ ❑
❑ Option 9/10 — Injection/ Incorporation of Residuals (Not commonly used - See White House Manual)
Page 3 of 4

Non -Discharge Compliance Inspection Report
Land Application Site(a)
Were application site(s) inspected?III so, le se list Site ID(s) below.
Application Site ID(s): (5- 1)1 VI6/ 6 W2-
Is application occurring at the time of inspection?
❑ Yes ❑ No
No If no, note the date of the last event:
Was the Division notified of the application event(s)? 'Yes ❑ No
Weather Conditions:
Sunny ❑ Partly Cloudy
❑ Windy (wind direction:
❑ Cloudy
Breeze
❑ No Precipitation [s] Drizzle ❑ Rain
Is there a rain gauge onsite?
rYes ❑ No 0 1A
Weather Notes (i.e. Significant Changes, Forecasts, etc):
Temp. (° F): ❑ <32 ❑ 32 - 40 ❑ 40 - 60 60 - 80 ❑ >80
Yes ❑ No
Application Observations: e of lication: uid ❑ Cake ❑ Other
❑ Overcast
❑ Calm
❑ Stormy
Permit and Spill Plan onsite during application?
(Typ
Application Site -Field ID(s): fat - L./CA QL
Intended Crop: 9 kiikArt PAN Requirement: Ibs/ac
Application Rate (tons or gallons/acre):
Nutrient Content:
a
pp
❑ Cloudburst (If applicable, precipitation measurement:
41440 5
i
Bq
% of total field area utilized or anticipated for this event?
Application occurring at time of visit: Ye$ 0 No
Application Method: Surface 0 I Corp/Injection
Incorporation/Injection during visit: 0 Yes ❑ No N/A
Vegetative Buffer description: ❑None Grass Crop 0 Shrub
0Tree ❑ Other
Current Field Conditions: �,..,j
❑ Bare 0 Stubble 0 Planted (crop) [�y,Pasture
gCondition:
Dry 0 Moist 0 Wet 0 Saturated-3 fr mil•
Not -Frozen ❑,GFrost 0 Frozen 0 Snow -Covered
Slope: 0 0 3-6% 6-10% 0 10-18% 0 >18%
Odor: J�'A ne ❑ Mild 0 Moderate 0 Strong
Vectors: one 0 Few 0 Many ❑ Excessive
Application Details:
Application areas clearly marked?
Application within authorized area?
Application method appropriate?'
Application is even (no ponding)?
Sufficient setbacks from wells/residences?
Sufficient setbacks from surface waters?
Slopes > 10% avoided (Surface App.) ?
Slopes >18% avoided (Incorp/Inject) ?
Incorp./Injection within time -frame?
Biosolids visible on surface?
Site Restrictions
Public access is restricted / Signage present?
Grazing restrictions are met?
Transfer ofbiosolids is in permitted area?
No evidence of shallow GW?
Sufficient timing for harvest restrictions?
Off Site Transport
Tracking is prevented?
Bios ids run-off is prevented?
W dblown biosolids prevented?
getative buffers exist?
Y,N NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
Dn o ❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑Soo iYN NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Y N NA NE
C❑❑❑
❑ 0
o D O
Application Site -Field ID(s): .4 " 4- , 2.1230A t
Intended Crop:Oc PAN Requirement: Ibs/ac
Application Rate (tons or gallons/acre):
Nutrient Content:
% of total field area utilized or anticipated for this event?
Application occurringsss at time of visit: pQ Yes 0 No
Application Method: Surface 0 Incorpfnjection
Incorporation/Injectiion during visit: 0 Yes 0 No/A
Vegetative Buffer description: ❑None
DTree ❑ Other
Current Field Conditions:
❑ Bare 0 Stubble 0 Planted (eronl Pasture
Soil Condition:
❑ Dry 0 Moist 0 Wet 0 Saturated
❑ Not -Frozen 0 Frost 0 Frozen 0 Snow -Covered
Slope: 0 0-3% 3-6%6-10% 0 10-18% 0 >18%
Odor: 0 None 0 ild 0 Moderate -❑ Strong
Vectors: 0 None 0 Few 0 Many 0 Excessive
Application Details:
Application areas clearly marked?
Application within authorized area?
Application method appropriate? -
Application is even (no ponding)?
Sufficient setbacks from wells/residences?
Sufficient setbacks from surface waters?
Slopes > 10% avoided (Surface App.) ?
Slopes > 18% avoided (Incorp/Inject) ?
Incorp./Injection within time -frame?
Biosolids visible on surface?
Grass ['Crop 0 Shrub
Site Restrictions
Public access is restricted / Signage present?
Grazing restrictions are met?
Transfer of biosolids is in permitted area?
No evidence of shallow GW?
Sufficient timing for harvest restrictions?
Off Site Transport
Tracking is prevented?
Biosolids run-off is prevented?
Windblown biosolids prevented?
Vegetative buffers exist?
Y N NA NE
O 000
O 000
O 000
O 000
O 000
O 000
O 000
O 000
O 000
DODO
Y N NA NE
O 000
DODO
O 000
O 000
O 000
Y N NA NE
O 000
O 000
O 000
O 000
Xway&r
‘Qo \JQ Sb\ek, b
R 041^2le yt es wVwre aa74- sal i}5
ed1 flan a1k' (\A 0,�'thc i elf�,(k \� uu�
rill c rrecl� r s6 v t Pied c� I t Ines 1 �m��( Wok

FieldTotal Acres % Applicable Acres
3 8.26 6.38 ...
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
1" = 440'
07-27-21
-..Re ources, Inc.
MY% Friglirmq
• Off Site Dwelling
Stream
Buffer
Field Boundary
•e®e®a
Lent Property Boundary
City of Danville
Land Application Program
NC-CS-14
David Sartin
FIGURE NO.

Field Total Acres Applicable Acres
1 81.65 72.36
2 35.32 32.63
SCALE:
1 "=660'
DATE
07-27-21
DRAWN BY:
BC
PROJECT NO:
..E�VIA
--Re ources, Inc.
■
■
Y/A
On Site Dwelling
Off Site Dwelling
Stream
Buffer
Field Boundary
Pond
poses®.
LEWD"Property Boundary
City of Danville
Land Application Program
NC-CS-14
David Sartin
FIGURE NO.
2
C\Usersgetsg\DocumenBWmGIS\GIS Data\Danvlle\Maps\CS14-(2).mxtl