WQ0016247_Report of Non Discharge RLAP Inspection_20211209

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH NORTH CAROLINA
Director Environmental Quality
December 9, 2021
Mr. Jamie Whitten
Suez
2625 Neudorf Road
Clemmons, North Carolina 27012
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Town of Mayodan, Residuals Land Application Program
Permit No. WQ0016247
Rockingham County
Dear Mr. Whitten:
On November 16, 2021 staff of the North Carolina Division of Water Resources Winston-
Salem Regional Office (DWR) performed an announced routine compliance inspection of the
Town of Mayodan's residuals land application program. This inspection was conducted by
DWR staff member Jim Gonsiewski. Mr. Ryan Copeland of Synagro was present during this
inspection. The inspection reflects compliance with the permit.
Please refer to the enclosed inspection report for additional observations and comments. If you
have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Jim Gonsiewski or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
SI n.d by:
tbou
�L o 1 . SM2CP
Lont.Snider-
Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ — WSRO
enc.: Compliance Inspection Report
cc: Nadine Blackwell — Suez (Electronic Copy)
Ryan Copeland - Synagro (Electronic Copy)
Rockingham County Environmental Health (Electronic Copy)
WSRO Electronic Files
Laserfiche Files
Deouiaeni �Fm%t�e�vnartW OWrtry
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office 1450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 I Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
336,776.9800

1:
r,
z _ zrist
LI
•
1 7-• r
/..'fthP r"
_440•!-'• :!
!
iffr7: . .
e
: 1 Ey I r:
z-zisz
_1
: l'1 — Z:
?.z4Tiair /-)`_
-;" — - - • • —
•‘-''
1 1 I_ 1711—L — -1 — '
•
•-• r 'r _ z. " ji NA" - T. - Et
_1 I _ I • rti rj 1• I I ',I I 1 _Z1
L = .=t1 *Et,- • 71.L'i = _ix 1 it 33
- 1 L I 14 11 11' • — C1
z I z 41
• •
••11.0 1 •L - 1 1 11 1- -1 1 1 ,
:(•
I
..1111•111
• • 1I1,1511
1
.r'.11 11
.
-1tte —4.-1.1
:4!" I• I I Z,V:
' 1,11 J,
1 :
1 41
,7z
_1 I
TI
: 9

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: WQ0016247 Effective: 11/05/21 Expiration: 10/31/22 Owner : Synagro Central LLC
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: Synagro Western Piedmont Class B Residuals
County: Alexander 284 Boger Rd
Region: Mooresville
Mocksville NC 27028
Contact Person: Alex Fox
Directions to Facility:
System Classifications: LA,
Primary ORC: Robert Nathaniel Roth
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Title: Phone: [phone]
Certification: 1001672 Phone: [phone]
NC0020591 City of Statesville - Third Creek VW TP
NC0043532 Stanly County - West Stanly WWTP
NC0031836 City of Statesville - Fourth Creek WWTP
NC0088722 Lincoln County - Killian Creek WWTP
NC0021873 Town of Mayodan - Mayodan WWTP
NC0021890 Town of Granite Falls - Granite Falls WWTP
NC0021636 Harnett County - North Harnett Regional WWTP
NC0021369 Town of Columbus - Columbus VVWTP
NC0026441 Town of Siler City - Siler City VVWTP
NC0021628 Town of Norwood - Norwood VVWTP
Inspection Date: 11/16/2021 Entry Time 10:50AM Exit Time: 12:20PM
Primary Inspector: Jim J Gonsiewski Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s):
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 Record Keeping Sampling
• Land Application Site 1. Transport
(See attachment summary)
Page 1 of 4

Permit: WQ0016247 Owner - Facility:Synagro Central LLC
Inspection Date: 11/16/2021 Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
On November 16, 2021 staff of the North Carolina Division of Water Resources Winston-Salem Regional Office (DWR)
performed an announced routine compliance inspection of the Town of Mayodan's residuals land application program This
inspection was conducted by DWR staff member Jim Gonsiewski. Mr. Ryan Copeland of Synagro was present during this
inspection. Loading operations at the Town of Mayodan WWTP and field application of residuals were observed.
The inspection reflects compliance with the permit.
Page 2 of 4

Permit: WQ0016247 Owner - Facility: Synagro Central LLC
Inspection Date: 11/16/2021 Inspection Type :Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit: Routine
Type
Land Application
Distribution and Marketing
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:
Yes No NA NE
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑•❑
O 01110
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
111000
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑•
■ ❑❑❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
O 0011
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑•
■ ❑❑❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑❑❑
Sampling Yes No NA NE
Describe sampling:
TCLP, metals, nutrients.
Is sampling adequate? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Is sampling representative? • ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Transport Yes No NA NE
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? MOOD
Page 3 of 4

Permit: WQ0016247 Owner - Facility: Synagro Central LLC
Inspection Date: 11/16/2021 Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit: Routine
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?
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 1'/3' bls.
Is application occurring at the time of the inspection?
Comment: No monitoring wells are required.
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑❑❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑•❑
❑ ❑ U ❑
■ ❑❑❑
❑ ❑■❑
❑ ❑ U ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑■❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ • ❑
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑ •
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page 4 of 4

North Carolina Department of Environmental Qual ity
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Section
NON -DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT
CLASS B RESIDUALS LAND APPLICATION
General Information
Facility Name: Town of Mayodan VWVTP County: Rockingham
Permit No.: WQ00 16247 Permit Issuance Date: 3/3/20
Owner: Town of Mayodan
Permit Expiration Date: 8/31/26
Plant ORC Name: Jamie Whitten Telephone No.: 336-427-5733
LA ORC / Contract Company: Nate Roth, Synagro Telephone No.: 336-403-4324
Other ContaCt(S): Ryan Copeland, Synagro Telephone No.: 336-607- 4494
Facility Location (address, gps or directions): 293 Cardwell Road, Mayodan
Reason for Inspection
® ROUTINE ❑ FOLLOW-UP ❑ COMPLAINT ❑ PERMITTING ❑ Other:
Comments (attach additional pages as necessary)
Arrived at Mayodan WWTP at 10:50AM. Ryan Copeland with Synagro was at the facility. Discussed operations at the WWTP. Two 6,200
gallon tankers were transporting residuals to the application field. There was one 5,000 gallon spreader truck at the application field. Truck
loading was good with no spillage noted at the VVWTP or the exit from the facility. Left WWTP at 11:15 AM for the application field (RC-49-1).
Arrived at 11:35 AM.
Inpected the field. The terrain was relatively flat with slopes ranging from 3% to 6%. The solids content of the residuals was 2.35%.
The field was properly flagged. No runoff or ponding of residuals from spreading was observed. One tanker truck was applying residuals.
The O&M plan and the permit were present. The plan was adequate. All trucks had O&M plans and maps. The residual spreading was good.
No additional runoff or ponding was observed. Buffers were properly maintained.
Left application field at 12:20 PM.
Is a follow-up inspection necessary? ❑ Yes 71 No
Primary Inspector: Jim Gonsiewski
Date of Inspection: 11/16/21
Secondary Inspector:
Entry Time: 10:50 AM Exit Time. 12:20 PM

Non -Discharge Compliance Inspection Report
Residuals Generating Facility
Was the residuals generating facility inspected?
Residuals Storage:
Describe storage: Digester #1 - 400,000 gallons
Yes ❑ No
Number of days/weeks/months of storage: 6-0 months
Residuals Sampling:
Is sampling adequate and representative for each sample type?
Describe Sampling (Pathogens, VAR, Nutrients/Metals, TCLP): Pathogens, Nutrients/Metals, TCLP
Y N NA NE
V DOD
Transport Vehicle: Y N NA
Is transport occurring at time of inspection? ❑ ❑
Are necessary records (spill plan) present in vehicle? ID of observed vehicle(s): 52 021p, 52 0231, 52 0226 ® ❑ ❑
Record Keeping and Reporting Information: Y N NA
Is current permit and prior annual reports available upon request? ▪ ❑ ❑
Has the facility been free of public complaints for the last 12 months? DO
TCLP analysis conducted and results available? Frequency? ❑ 1/yr or ® 1/permit cycle ODD
Residuals metals and nutrient analysis conducted? Frequency? (See permit for frequency) ® ❑ ❑
Nutrient and metals loading calculations? (to determine most limiting parameter) ❑ ❑ ❑
Do lab sheets support data reported on Residuals Analysis Summary? ODD
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 hauled during calendar year to date) ® ❑ ❑
Are field loading records available? ® ❑ ❑
Are field inspections conducted and are records available? ® ❑ ❑
Are soil sample results available? ❑ ® ❑
Did soil results call for lime amendment? If so, are there records of application? ODD
Soil results indicate that Cu & Zn indices are <3,000 (ideally <2,000)? ❑ ❑ ❑
Soil results indicate Na <0.5 meq/100 cm3, and Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP) <15%? ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the permit require groundwater monitoring? ❑
Are groundwater lab results present? D ❑ I(]
There are no 2L GW standard violations indicated in the lab results? ❑ ❑
Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction Records
Pathogen Reduction:
Which 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 Manual)
If Alternative 2 was used, select which Option was utilized and complete the section below.
❑ Option 1 - Aerobic Digestion
Are logs present showing time and temperature?
Was the time & temp. between 40 days at 68°F (20°C) and 60 days at 59° F (15°C)?
❑ Option 2 - Air Drying
❑ Option 3 - Anaerobic Digestion
Are logs present showing time and temperature?
Was the time & temp. between 15 days at 95° F — 131° F (35°-55° C) and
60 days at >68° F (20° C)?
❑ Option 4 — Composting (Not commonly used - See White House Manual)
❑ Option 5 - Lime Stabilization
Are logs present showing time and temperature?
Was the pH raised to > 12 after two hrs of contact?
Was the temperature corrected to 25° C (77° F) (by calculation, NOT auto correct)?
Page 2 of 4
❑ ®a®❑❑❑❑❑❑®®❑❑❑❑4 ❑❑4
Y N NA NE
Y N NA NE
DODO
❑ ❑
DODO
DODD
O LIO ❑

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 NA NE
Are lab results and calculations present? DODO
Was the reduction on volatile solids (not total solids)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Were samples collected at correct locations? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
(beginning of digestion process & before land application)
Was there a >38% reduction? ❑ DOO
['Option 2 - 40-Day Bench Scale Test Y N NA NE
Were residuals from an anaerobic digester with average temp. 30°C — 40°C? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are lab results and calculations present? ❑ ODD
Was the test anaerobically digested in lab, and test run for 40 days? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Was 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 Y N NA NE
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? ❑ DOO
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) Y N NA NE
Were residuals from aerobic digestion? lZi ❑ ❑ ❑
Were residuals <2% total solids (dry weight basis) (not diluted)? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the test done between 10°C (50°F) and 30°C (86°F)? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the temperature corrected to 20°C (68°F)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the sampling holding time <2 hours? V ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the test started within 15 minutes of sampling or aeration maintained? EDED
Was the SOUR equal to or less than 1.5 mg of oxygen per hour per gram of
total residual solids (dry weight basis)? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ Option 5 - 14-Day Aerobic Process Y N NA NE
Were the residuals from aerobic digestion? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the average residuals temperature higher than 45°C (113°F)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Were the residuals treated for 14 days and temperature maintained higher
than 40°C (104°F) for the 14-day period? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ Option 6 - Alkaline Stabilization Y N NA NE
Was the pH of the residuals raised to >12 and maintained for two hours
without addition of more alkali? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Did the pH of residuals remain at >11.5 an additional twenty-two hours
(i.e. 24 hours total) without the addition of more alkali? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Was the pH corrected to 25°C (77°F) (by calculation, NOT auto correct)? DODD
❑ Option 7 - Drying of Stabilized Residuals Y N NA NE
The residuals do not contain unstabilized residuals? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Were the residuals mixed with any other materials? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Were the residuals dried >75% total solids? DODO
❑ Option 8 - Drying of Unstabilized Residuals Y N NA NE
Were the residuals mixed with any other materials? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Were the residuals dried >90% total solids? DODO
❑ 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(s)
Were application site(s) inspected? If so, please list Site ID(s) below. ® Yes ❑ No
Application Site ID(s): NC-RC-49-1
Is application occurring at the time of inspection? ® Yes ❑ 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 ❑ Cloudy ❑ Overcast ❑ Stormy
0 Windy (wind direction: ) ❑ Breeze ® Calm
® No Precipitation ❑ Drizzle ❑ Rain ❑ Cloudburst (If applicable, precipitation measurement:
Is there a rain gauge onsite? ® Yes 0 No
)
Weather Notes (i.e. Significant Changes, Forecasts, etc):
Temp. (° F): ❑ <32 ❑ 32 — 40 ❑ 40 — 60 0 60 — 80 ❑ >80
Permit and Spill Plan onsite during application? ® Yes 0 No
Application Observations: [Type of application: 0 Liquid ® Cake 0 Other
Application Site —Field ID(s): NC-RC-49-1
Intended Crop: Fescue, pasture PAN Requirement: 156 lbs/ac
Application Rate (tons or gallons/acre): 12,000 gallons/acre
Nutrient Content: 18 Ibs PAN/6200 gallons
% of total field area utilized or anticipated for this event? 100
Application occurring at time of visit: ® Yes ❑ No
Application Method: ® Surface 0 Incorp/Injection
Incorporation/Injection during visit: ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
Vegetative Buffer description: ❑None ®Grass 0Crop 0 Shrub
®Tree ❑ Other
Current Field Conditions:
❑ Bare 0 Stubble ❑ Planted (crop)
Soil Condition:
0 Dry 0 Moist 0 Wet ❑ Saturated
❑ Not -Frozen 0 Frost 0 Frozen 0 Snow -Covered
Slope: ❑ 0-3% ® 3-6% 0 6-10% 0 10-18% ❑ >18%
Odor: ® None ❑ Mild 0 Moderate ❑ Strong
Vectors: ® 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>I0% 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 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?
® Pasture
l N NA NE
O ❑ ❑ ❑
O 000
❑❑❑
is❑❑❑
§000
❑ ❑ D
O 000000
❑ ❑Gan
O 000
Y N NA NE
MODE
VI
✓ ODO
❑❑❑
• On ❑
Y N NA NE
V ❑ D ❑
Wood
Application Site —Field ID(s):
Intended Crop: PAN Requirement:
lbs/ac
Application Rate (tons or gallons/acre):
Nutrient Content:
% of total field area utilized or anticipated for this event?
Application occurring at time of visit: ❑ Yes 0 No
Application Method: 0 Surface ❑ Incorp/Injection
Incorporation/Injection during visit: 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
Vegetative Buffer description: :None ['Grass ['Crop 0 Shrub
❑Tree ❑ Other
Current Field Conditions:
0 Bare 0 Stubble 0 Planted (crop) 0 Pasture
Soil Condition:
❑ Dry ❑ Moist ❑ Wet 0 Saturated
❑ Not -Frozen 0 Frost 0 Frozen 0 Snow -Covered
Slope: 0 0-3% ❑ 3-6% 0 6-10% 0 IO-18% 0 >18%
Odor: ❑ None 0 Mild 0 Moderate 0 Strong
Vectors: 0 None ❑ Few ❑ 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 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
❑ ❑❑D
❑ ❑❑❑
Y N NA NE
O 000
O 000
O 000
O 000
O 000
Y N NA NE
O 000
O D DO
O 000
❑ ❑❑a
Page 4 of 4