WQ0023693_Staff Report_20220615

DocuSign Envelope ID: EDA687C7-1589-4AD7-98AF-CEBB9D5EC90C
Environmental
Quality
State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge Unit Application No.: WQ0023693
Attn: Lauren Plummer
From: Helen Perez
Wilmington Regional Office
Facility name: West Brunswick Regional WRF
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: 05/18/2022
b. Site visit conducted by: Helen Perez
c. Inspection report attached? ['Yes or ® No (In Laserfiche)
d. Person contacted: Matthew Henry and their contact information: (910) 231 - 8646 ext.
e. Driving directions:
2. Discharge Point(s):
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Classification:
River Basin and Subbasin No.
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
II. PROPOSED FACILITIES: NEW APPLICATIONS
1. Facility Classification: (Please attach completed rating sheet to be attached to issued permit)
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow:
2. Are the new treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system? ['Yes or ❑ No
If no, explain:
3. Are site conditions (soils, depth to water table, etc) consistent with the submitted reports? ❑ Yes n No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
4. Do the plans and site map represent the actual site (property lines, wells, etc.)? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate? n Yes n No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: EDA687C7-1589-4AD7-98AF-CEBB9D5EC90C
6. Are the proposed application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) acceptable`? I I Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
7. Are there any setback conflicts for proposed treatment, storage and disposal sites? n Yes or ❑ No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
8. Is the proposed or existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
9. For residuals, will seasonal or other restrictions be required? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If yes, attach list of sites with restrictions (Certification B)
Describe the residuals handling and utilization scheme:
10. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
11. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
III. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
ORC: Matthew Henry Certificate #:998880 Backup ORC: Christian Coddington Certificate #:1010988
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: The description in the renewal application from the Permittee is an accurate
description of the current facility. The modification of installation of jet headers and removal of mixers was not
done and no plans are in place to do them in the future according to the Permittee. The Clemmons Tract high -rate
infiltration basins A and B are constructed and in use. The Permittee's description combines the original 2
oxidation ditches with the expansion 2 oxidation ditches because they share the headworks.
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow: 6 MG
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.)? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
5. Is the residuals management plan adequate? ® Yes or n No
If no, please explain:
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 ❑ No n 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? n 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: See #2 above.
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? ® Yes n No n N/A
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: EDA687C7-1589-4AD7-98AF-CEBB9D5EC90C
11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ® Yes n No ❑ N/A
If no, please complete the following (expand table if necessary):
Monitoring Well
Latitude
Longitude
O
,
11
0
I
I/
O
l
11
0
I
I/
O
I
11
0
/
ll
O
I
11
0
/
11
O
I
11
0
/
11
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: Permit cycle review:
4/18 NOD -daily ammonia, monthly TP
8/19 NOD -monthly TN
1/21 NOV-daily, monthly TSS
2/21 NOV-daily TSS, BOD & monthly TSS
7/21 CP-daily fecal, ammonia, TSS & monthly TN, TP
8/21 NOV-daily TSS, fecal, flow & monthly TN
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.)
The 2021 summer violations appeared to be caused by the County's lack of ability to dispose of biosolids over the
months leading up to July 2021 because of heavy rains. In addition, higher seasonal flows and warmer weather
caused a rapid increase in biomass. The issues have been resolved.
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? 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:
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: EDA687C7-1589-4AD7-98AF-CEBB9D5EC90C
IV. 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
n Issue upon receipt of needed additional information
Issue
n D o(Pl1,asebRtate reasons: )
6. Signature of report preparer:
•••-1D645B4A39694BE...
Signature of regional supervisor:
6/16/2022
Date:
1-DocuSigned by
tidul14 544,c4 . k 4
E3ABA14AC7DC434...
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14
Page 4 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: EDA687C7-1589-4AD7-98AF-CEBB9D5EC90C
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
This staff report was completed for the renewal of West Brunswick Regional WRF, WQ0023693. The ORC for the
WW-4 plant is Matthew Henry and the BORC is Christian Coddington, as listed in Section MA . For the SI
classification, Coddington is the ORC and Henry is the BORC. The description in the renewal package from the
Permittee is an accurate description of the current facility (Section 1II.2.) Monitoring Well #7 has been installed at the
Clemmons High -Rate Infiltration Tract as required and BIMS needs to be updated from "proposed" to "active" for
this well.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 5