WQ0032723_2021 Annual Report Review_20220627

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
RICHARD E. ROGERS, JR.
Director
Ms. Summer Woodard
City of Reidsville
230 West Morehead Street
Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
June 27, 2022
Subject: 2021 Annual Report Review
City of Reidsville WTP
Distribution of Class A Water Treatment Plant Residuals
Permit No. WQ0032723
Rockingham County
Dear Ms. Woodard:
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) acknowledges receipt of your 2021 Annual Report for
the subject permit. A review of this report was conducted by Division of Water Resources
(Division) staff person Jim Gonsiewski. Review of the subject report reflects compliance with
Permit No. WQ0032723.
A routine compliance evaluation inspection is planned to occur within the next 12 months. If you
have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Jim Gonsiewski or me at the letterhead
address or phone number, or by email at [e-mail] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
CDocuSIgned by:
L-0. T. 5mi cs-
145B49E225C94EA...
Lon T. Snider
Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ — WSRO
encl: Compliance Inspection Report
cc: Brent Collins — EMA Resources, Inc. (Electronic Copy)
WSRO Electronic Files
Laserfiche Files
NCAROUNA
ORTHDeportment o,FMronmenlor ausBn V /
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office 1450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300 I Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
336.776.9800

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: WQ0032723 Effective: 01/01/22 Expiration: 06/30/28 Owner : City of Reidsville
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: Reidsville WTP
County: Rockingham 278 Reid Lake Rd
Region: Winston-Salem
Contact Person: R E Bobby Joyce
Directions to Facility:
Reidsville NC 27320
Title: ORC Phone: [phone]
System Classifications:
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
NC0046345 City of Reidsville - Reidsville WTP
Inspection Date: 06/24/2022
Entry Time 09 OOAM Exit Time: 01:15PM
Primary Inspector: Jim J Gonsiewski Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Annual Report Review
Permit Inspection Type: Distribution of Residual Solids (503 Exempt)
Facility Status: III Compliant Not Compliant
Question Areas:
III Miscellaneous Questions Treatment II Sampling
El Wells
(See attachment summary)
Page 1 of 3

Permit: WQ0032723 Owner - Facility: City of Reidsville
Inspection Date: 06/24/2022 Inspection Type : Annual Report Review
Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) received the 2021 Annual Report for the subject permit. A review of this report was
conducted by Division of Water Resources (Division) staff person Jim Gonsiewski. Review of the subject report reflects
compliance with Permit No. W00O32723.
A routine compliance evaluation inspection is planned to occur within the next 12 months.
Page 2 of 3

Permit: WQ0032723 Owner - Facility:City of Reidsville
Inspection Date: 06/24/2022 Inspection Type : Annual Report Review
Reason for Visit: Routine
Type
Distribution and Marketing
Land Application
Treatment
Check all that apply
Aerobic Digestion
Anaerobic Digestion
Alkaline Pasteurization (Class A)
Alkaline Stabilization (Class B)
Compost
Drying Beds
Other
Comment: Aluminum treatment
Sampling
Describe sampling:
TCLP, residuals
Is sampling adequate?
Is sampling representative?
Comment:
Yes No NA NE
111
Yes No NA NE
•
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑❑❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
Page 3 of 3

Annual Report Review Class
A�Distribution Permit No. WQ00 `3 --
Reporting Period: ao ri (
Permit Details:
• Is 503?0A f Yes No
• Class ZA or ❑B? _
• Maximum Dry Tons Per Year:10© C�
• Number of acres permitted:
• Number of fields in permit:'
• Counties that land is permitted for
• Monitoring Frequency for TCLP: 41f-\yvA41.
• Monitoring Frequency for Residuals Analysis: f
• Monitoring Frequency for Pathogen & Vector Attra ion eduction:
1. Class A Annual Distribution and Marketing/Surface Disposal Certification Form
• Was a certification form submitted?
• Was distribution conducted during the reported period?
• How many dry tons were produced and distributed? 1.1 yt
• Were the distributions with the permitted amount?
• Were recipients information listed? yeS
• Did it indicate compliance?
• Was Form complete?
• Was it signed by the appropriate people?
2. Monitoring
• Were the analyses conducted at the required frequency? O^,S�' es No
• Was an analyses taken for each source that was distributed? Lam. ❑No
• Were the metals analyses reported on the Residual Sampling Summary Form? 1es ❑No
• Were the results reported in mg/kg? {�Y ❑No
• Were the pH's 6.0 or greater for each residual sample? [lie ❑No
• Were the heavy metals within ceiling concentration permit limits? es ❑No
a Were the lab analyses attached? [es No
• Were all the required parameters tested? 'es LAW)• Was TCLP analysis conducted? es No
• Were the TLCP contaminants within regulatory limits? [��Y�,� UNo
Was a corrosivity, ignitability, and reactivity analysis conducted? L�"`res [iNo
Cs� ❑No
yet"—f 'No
❑ No
❑ No
❑No

3. Pathogen and ector Attraction Reduction
• Was a signe copy of the Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction Form submitted? ❑Yes ❑No
• Did the form •ndicate the period of coverage, the residual class, and the pathogen reduction alternative
and the vecto attraction reduction option used? ❑Yes ❑No
• Was the appro late documentation to show pathogen and vector attraction reduction included in the
report? ❑Yes ❑ No
• Was pathogen an vector attraction reduction demonstrated according to 40 CFR Part 503?❑Yes❑No
Class A Pathogen '• eview
To be Class A, residushall meet either fecal Coliform density or salmonella density.
Fecal Coliform densi
• Was the sampling cond cted at the required frequency? ❑Yes ❑No
• Were multiple samples t. ken? ['Yes ❑No
• Was each sample Tess th. 1000 MPN/gram of total solids? [Dies ❑No
OR
[TiSaimonella density
• Was the sampling conducted .t the required frequency? ❑Yes FINo
• Were multiple samples taken? ❑Yes ❑ No
Was each sample less than 3 M• /4 grams of total solids? I IYes fNo
To be Class A, residuals shall meet • e of the fo/lowing alternatives:
f1Altemative 1—TimefTemperature
• Were the residuals maintained for cor -ct time and temperature? ['Yes ❑No
• Were logs submitted showing time and emperature? ❑Yes UNo
• Were temperatures within range for com•lete time period? ❑Yes ❑No
❑Alternative 2 — Alkaline Treatment
- Were logs submitted showing time and tem rature? fYes ❑No
• Was the pH raised to 12 or greater and maint fined for 72 hours or longer? ❑Yes ❑No
• Was the temperature 52°C (126°F) for 12 hou or longer while the pH was 12 or greater?
❑Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑No
❑Yes I INo
• Were logs submitted showing time and pH?
• Was the temperature corrected.to 25°C (77°F)?
Alternative 5 — Process To Further Reduce Pathogens
FPFRP Composting
• Were the within -vessel method or static aerated pile m thods used? ❑Yes LNo
• Was the residuals temperature maintained at 55°C (131 F) or higher for three consecutive days or
longer in the within -vessel method or static aerated pile m thod? ❑Yes 1 INo
OR
• Was the windrow composting method used? \ ❑Yes ❑No
Was the residuals temperature maintained at 55°C or higher for 15 consecutive days or longer in the
windrow method, and the windrow turned a minimum of five times during this time? [—Yes nNo
f-IPFRP Heat Drying
• Was the residuals dried by direct or indirect contact with hot gases and the moisture content of
residuals reduced to 10% or lower?
• ❑Yes No
• Did the temperature of the residuals or the of the wet bulb temperature of the gas in contact with the
residuals as the residuals leave the dryer exceed 80°C (176°F)? [Dies INo

Vector Attraction Reduction Review
• Were residuals fro
• Were residuals ana
• Was the test run for
Was the test done be
• Was the reduction of
• Was the reduction less
• Were lab sheets/calcula
• Were calculations corre
• Was the sampling conducted at the required frequency?
— 38% Volatile Solids Reduction
• Was then- 38% reduction?
• Were lab s -ets/calculations in report?
Was the red ction on volatile solids (not total solids)?
• Were the sam'iles taken at beginning of digestion process and before
• Were calculation correct?
O•tion 2 — 40-Dal Bench Scale Test
anaerobically digested treatment (Inspection)?
robically digested in lab?
40 days?
een 30°C (86°F) and 37°C (99°F)?
n volatile solids (not total solids)?
than 17%?
ions in report?
2
O.tion 3 — 30-Da Bench cale Test
• Were residuals from aerobi .ily digested treatment (Inspection)?
• Were residuals aerobically digested in lab?
• Were residuals 2% or Tess tot•Jsolids?
• If not 2% total solids, was the hst ran on a sample diluted to 2% with
❑Yes ❑No
❑Yes ❑No
❑Yes ❑No
❑Yes ❑No
application (Inspection)?
❑Yes U No
❑Yes n No
• 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%?
• Were lab sheets/calculations in report
• Were calculations correct?
❑Yes
❑Yes
❑Yes
Yes
Yes
❑Yes
❑Yes
❑Yes
FIND
❑No
❑No
ENo
❑No
❑No
❑No
!No
❑Yes U No
❑Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑No
unchlorinated effluent?
❑Yes ❑No
❑Yes L1No
❑Yes ❑No
_Yes ❑No
❑Yes El No
❑Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑No
(Option 4 — Specific Oxygen Uptake Rate(SOUR),
• Were residuals form aerobically digested treatment (Inspection)?
• Were residuals 2% or less total solids (dry '\`eight basis) (not diluted)?
• Was the test done between 10°C (50°F) and10°C (86°F)?
• Was the temperature corrected to 20°C (68°F)\
• Was the SOUR equal to or less than 1,5 mg of oxygen per hour per gram of
weight basis)?
• Was the sampling holding time two hours?
• Was the test started within 15 minutes of sampling or aeration maintained?
['Yes ❑No
❑Yes ❑No
❑Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑No
total residual solids (dry
❑Yes ❑ No
{—{Yes El No
❑Yes ❑No
(Option 5 — 14-Day Aerobic Process
• Were the residuals from aerobically digested treatment (Inspection)?
• Were the residuals treated for 14 days?
• Was the residuals temperature higher than 40°C (104°F) for a 14-day period?
• Was the average residuals temperature higher than 45eC (113°F)?
❑Yes
❑Yes
❑Yes
!,]Yes
❑No
❑No
LINO
❑ No

(Option 6 — Alkaline Stabilization
• Was the pH of the residuals raised to 12 or higher by the addition of alkali? ❑Yes ❑No
• Did the pHof residuals remain at 12 or higher for two hours without the addition of more alkali?
['Yes LNo
• Did the pH oNesiduals remain at 11.5 or higher for an additional twenty-two hours without the
addition of more tali? ['Yes No
Was the pH correcte to 25°C (77°F)? ❑Yes ❑No
[1Option 7 — Drying of bilized Residuals
• Does the residuals contai \�any unstabilized residuals? ❑Yes ❑No
• Were the residuals mixed wiany other materials? ❑Yes ❑No
• Were the residuals dried up t 75% total solids? ❑Yes ❑No
nOption 8 — Drying of Unstabilized\Residuals
• Were the residuals mixed with any other materials?
• Were the residuals dried to 90% total solids?
(Option 9 — Injection
• Was there any significant amount of residuals en land surface one hour after injection (Inspection)?
❑Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑No
❑Yes jNo
❑Yes ❑ No
❑Yes f l No
• Was injection done on pasture or hay field?
• Was injection done at time that crop was growing?
• If Class A with respect to pathogen, were residuals injected with eight hours after discharge from
pathogen treatment?
4. General
• Was the report in the proper format?
• Was the annual report complete?
• Was the report submitted on time?
Pollutant
Ceiling
Concentration
Below
Limit
Cumulative
Pollutant
Loading Rate•
Below
Limit
Arsenic
75
'-- //
41
1.---
Cadmium
85
V
39
�'.
Copper
4300
✓/
1500
Lead
840
L/
300
Mercury
57
1-
17
V
s-�
Molybdenum
75
vj
N/A
Nickel
420
420
Selenium
100
✓
/
100
Zinc
7500
✓
2800
nYes ENo
Pies FNo
HNo
Yes ENo

TCLP
Parameter
Below
L .lit
Parameter
Below
Limit
Parameter
Below
Limit
✓
✓
t�
>�
17
'
Arsenic (5.0)
✓
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (7.5)
Nitrobenzene (2.0)
Barium (100.0)
✓
1,2-Dichloroethane (0.5)
✓
Pentachlorophenol (100.0) ,\✓
(5.0)
Benzene (0.5)
✓
1,1-Dichloroethylene (0.7)
VPyridine
Cadmium (1.0)
Vf
2,4-Dinitrotoluene (0.13)
Selenium (5.0)
Carbon tetrachloride (0.5)
L✓
Endrin (0.02)
�✓
Silver (5.0)
Chlorodane (0.03)
/
V
Hepatachlor (and its
epoxide) (0.008)
Tetrachloroethylene (0.7)
Chlorobenzene (100.0)
Hexachlorobenzene (0.13)
✓
Toxaphene (0.5)
\-
Chloroform (6.0)
,✓Hexachlorobutadiene
(0.5)
✓
Trichloroethylene (0.5)
1/
Chromium (5.0)
✓
Hexachloroethane (3.0)
✓
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ��
(400.0)
m;Cresol (200.0)
l:✓
Lead (5.0)
V/
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (2.0)
L/
o-Cresol (200.0)
V
Lindane (0.4) •
v
2,4,5-TP (Siivex) (1.0)
/
p-Cresol (200.0)
l.✓
Mercury (0.2)
Vinyl Chloride (0.2)
L/
Cresol (200.0)
1.✓
Methoxychlor (10.0)
2,4-D (10.0)
Methyl ethyl Ketone (200.0)
✓
Residuals Analysis
Parameter
Anal ze or
Parameter
Analy d For
Parameter
Analysed For
Aluminum
Mercury
Potassium
l,✓
Ammonia-
Nitrogen
i_------
Moiybdenum
✓
Selenium
Arsenic
✓
Nickel
✓
Sodium
V/
Cadmium
�✓
Nitrate
Nitrite
Nitrogen
✓
`
SAR
/
\.,/
Calcium
✓
% TS
i/
TKN
✓
Copper
✓
pH
raj
Zinc
Lead
Phosphorus
'1 //
Magnesium
✓
PAN
�/