WQ0038695_Staff Report_20220218

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report
To: NPDESUnitNon-Discharge UnitApplication No.: WQ0038695
Attn: Lauren Plummer Facility name: OBX Waterpark Adventure WWTP

From: Randy Sipe
WashingtonRegional Office
Note: This form has been adapted from the non-discharge facilitystaff reportto 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: N/A
b.Site visit conducted by: N/A
c.Inspection report attached? Yes or No(From latest inspection 9/16/21)
d.Person contacted: N/Aand their contact information: () -ext.
e.Driving directions: No change since last permit was issued.
2.Discharge Point(s):N/A, non-discharge system.
Latitude:Longitude:
Latitude:Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:N/A, non-discharge system.
Classification:
River Basin and Subbasin No.
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
II.EXISTING FACILITIES:MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1.Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs)for the facility? Yes NoN/A
ORC: Jonathon CredleCertificate #:WW3/1007637Backup ORC: Irvin EdwardsCertificate #:WW4/9337
2.Arethe design, maintenance and operation of the treatment facilitiesadequate for the type of waste and disposal
system? Yes or No
If no, please explain:
Description of existing facilities:Amphidrome treatment system with a high-rate infiltration sand bed disposal
system.
Proposed flow:60,000 GPD
Current permitted flow:60,000 GPD
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.)WWTP only operates seasonally during the summer months when the waterpark is open.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14Page 1of 4

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 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/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? 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:
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? Yes No N/A
If no, please explain:
11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? Yes No N/A
If no, please complete the following (expand table if necessary):
Monitoring Well Latitude Longitude
!!!!!! -!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!! -!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!! -!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!! -!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!! -!!!!!!
!!!!!
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: Since 2019 there have been recurring effluent limit
violations and issuance of NOVs. WaRO believes that this is at least partially related to the seasonal nature of the
operation of the treatment system and a new, less experienced ORC taking over operation in 2019. WaRO
continues to work the ORC to bring the system into compliance.
Provide input to help the permit writer evaluate any requests for reduced monitoring, if applicable.
WaRO is unsure why the permit requires the effluent and groundwater lowering system be monitored for TRC. If
this is because of the potential chlorinated nature of influent from the waterpark, we have no issue with it. If it is
not related to this, we see no need for it given that the WWTP uses UV for disinfection.
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.)
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? See the comment under Item II.12 above.
Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit been satisfied? Yes No N/A
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 4

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: N/A, non-discharge system.
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): N/A, non-discharge system.
III. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? Yes or No
If yes, please explain: The add. info. requested below should be provided before issuance of a permit is
considered.
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
The monitoring wells listed in the application do not correspond to the
Application, Section VIII monitoring wells currently in the permit and onsite. The application should be
revised to reflect actual site conditions.

3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
WaRO is unsure why the permit requires the effluent and groundwater lowering
system be monitored for TRC. If this is because of the potential chlorinated
Attachment A, TRC
nature of influent from the waterpark, we have no issue with it. If it is not
monitoring
related to this, we see no need for it given that the WWTP uses UV for
disinfection.

4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition Reason

FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 4

5. Recommendation: Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office
Hold, pending review of draft permit by regional office
Issue upon receipt of needed additional information
Issue
Deny (Please state reasons: )
6. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date:
IV. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS

FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 4