NCS000328_Emails RE eDMR Issue for Feb 2022 Report_20220627

Georgoulias, Bethany
From:
Georgoulias, Bethany
Sent:
Monday, June 27, 2022 2:13 PM
To:
[e-mail]
Cc:
Young, Brianna A; Tran, Kieu M
Subject:
RE: eDMR issue for NCS000328_Bestway South
Hi, James,
First, as far as the eDMR registration for Mr. Ford, you can always check in with our Administrative Assistant, Kieu Tran,
on the status. She has a lot of those to work through, and it could be a while before she's able to get to it. If the
appropriate person cannot electronically submit the eDMRs, then the fall back would be signing and mailing them to the
MRO (and uploading the copy through our website).
I do have an explanation for what is happening with the February eDMR. I understand there used to be daily max
numbers in our system to reflect the benchmarks, but that was not correct. Brianna Young corrected that in April of this
year (and removed them), but you are working on a report that was finalized and submitted for February, which
preceded that change. That means the eDMR system references what "limits" were present back then, and that's why
you're getting the errors/alerts.
Had the report for February not yet been submitted, you would be able to delete it and recreate it with the erroneous
limits absent (thereby preventing the warning messages). However, because that report was already submitted,
there's not really anything we can do about it now. I am not sure you even need to revise it with different units because
it won't make any difference — the flags for values over those "limits" will still happen. But if that is in process and you
want to proceed, you can go ahead.
The good news: It's not really a big deal. You can really just ignore those warnings about daily max being exceeded, and
future eDMR reports created for this permit should not trigger them.
Why ignore them? Because this is identified as a stormwater permit (and not a wastewater permit), those numbers are
not going to prompt compliance and enforcement actions in our system.
I hope this information helps.
Bethany Georgoulias (she/her)
Environmental Engineer
Stormwater Program, Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
919 707 3641 office
[e-mail]
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604 (location)
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1612 (mailing)
Website: htt12: //deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/stormwater
D_E Q

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
Based on the current guidance to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the Department of Environmental Quality has
adjusted operations to protect the health and safety of the staff and public. Many employees are working remotely or
are on staggered shifts. To accommodate these staffing changes, all DEQ office locations are limiting public access to
appointments only. Please check with the appropriate staff before visiting our offices, as we may be able to handle your
requests by phone or email. We appreciate your patience as we continue to serve the public during this challenging
time.
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 6:15 PM
To: Georgoulias, Bethany <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] eDMR issue for NCS000328_Bestway South
Importance: High
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Bethany,
Thank you for the timely response in returning my phone call today. Sorry for the late response in email but got
slammed earlier.
So as we discussed we were having issues with validating results after entering them in eDMR.
The first issue noticed for Individual permit NCS000328 (see attached COC & Analytical limits pages) in eDMR is it list
some of the limits in ug/L instead of mg/L. The permit list all benchmarks in mg/L.
I can change the units in eDMR to mg/L, but regardless of whether we use the ug/L or mg/L units and input the actual
data in mg/L or in ug/I it will return validation errors for the metal's numbers even if they don't exceed the benchmark
limits.
On the February sampling event we are aware that both Cu and TSS exceeded benchmarks, but neither As or Cr
exceeded. Yet no matter whether I enter mg/L or ug/L data numbers it will still return validation errors.
We did revise the February eDMR report using mg/L units and data entry in mg/L. Even though it returned a validation
error we still certified the report since I have permit in hand showing that numbers were within benchmarks.
We have attached several items for your review. I will be out of the office next week and will return on July 5t", 2022, so
you can follow up and we can discuss in more detail then.
The other item is that the new permit owner affiliate and signatory is Bill Ford, General Manger. We have submitted
that paperwork and eDMR registration for Mr. Ford.
We did include the former GM, Mr. Rick Petrovich as a Facility Manager, and certifier on the paperwork I believe but Mr.
Ford is the current GM and Signatory. That being the case we will submit DMRs the old way by uploading a signed DMR
and mailing copy to MRO until Mr. Ford gets his eDMR setup.
Anyways, if this is not clear we can further discuss when I return the week July 5t". And you will have some time to
review the information and what is in the system. Thank you for your time and assistance as always.
I hope you and your family have a blessed week and Independence Day Holiday.

James W. Willard II, CSP, CHMM, MESH
Vice President / Senior Consulting Project Manager
INENCO, Inc.
132 W. Statesville Ave.
Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Notice: The information contained in this communication is confidential and maybe legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use ofthe individual or entity to
whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
taking any action in reliance of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. INENCO, Inc. is liable for neither the proper and complete
transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank You.

Nre North Carolina (NC) eDMR Reports
Create Report eDMR Reports User Management
Home Report: NCS000328 V2.0 02-2022 Validated:Warnings Validation Report
Validation for Report: NCS000328 V2.0 02-2022 Validated: Warnings
Report Page:001-Effluent (See Data For All Weeks)
Welcome [e-mail]
Home My Reports Logout Help
Parameter: (C0530) Solids, Total Suspended - Concentration Frequency: Semi-annually Sampling Type: Grab
Daily Max Exceeded! on 2-3-2022
Parameter: (01002) Arsenic, Total (as As) Frequency: Semi-annually Sampling Type: Grab
Daily Max Exceeded! on 2-3-2022
Parameter: (C0034) Chromium, Total (as Cr) - Concentration Frequency: Semi-annually Sampling Type: Grab
Daily Max Exceeded! on 2-3-2022
Parameter: (C0042) Copper, Total (as Cu) - Concentration Frequency: Semi-annually Sampling Type: Grab
Daily Max Exceeded! on 2-3-2022
Copyright © 2007 CSC I All Rights Reserved
Please note that neither As nor Cr exceeded the benchmark values which are listed in mg/L in the permit which we have attached.
If we try to change the units from ug/L to mg/L it still does not recognize the correct benchmark limits noted in the individual
permit NCS000328.
We are aware that both Cu and TSS exceeded on this sample event, but why is it saying daily max exceeded? These are not
limits but benchmarks.