WQ0015931_Staff Report_20220915

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources

Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report

FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 5

To: NPDES Unit Non-Discharge Unit Application No.: WQ0015931
Attn: [e-mail] Facility name: TNGC – The Village at the Point
County: Iredell
From: [e-mail]
Mooresville Regional Office

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: 9-8-2022
b. Site visit conducted by: Maria Schutte and Melanie Kemp (ARO)
c. Inspection report attached? Yes or No, To be completed.
d. Person contacted: Brandon Long (ORC) and their contact information: (704) 351 - 4049 ext.
e. Driving directions: From MRO travel to Hwy 115S (Main St) and turn left; turn right onto Wilson Ave.;
Continue straight to Bawley School Road. Collection system is near 120 Meeting House Square (or Circle),
the WWTF is near 2003 Brawley School Road.
2. Discharge Point(s): NA – this is a non-discharge permit.
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Classification:
River Basin and Sub-basin 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 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:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 5
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate? Yes No N/A
If no, please explain:
6. Are the proposed application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) acceptable? Yes No N/A
If no, please explain:
7. Are there any setback conflicts for proposed treatment, storage and disposal sites? 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: Brian Stephens Certificate #: SI1008005 Backup ORC: Brandon Long Certificate #:
SI991385
2. Are the design, maintenance and operation of the treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal
system? Yes or No This modification is proposing full replacement due to age / corrosion of the
existing plant with a new Orenco package plant consisting of:
(1) OSI Advantex Model T-MAX275-42 Septic/Flow Equalization Tank
(2) OSI Advantex Model AX-MAX275-42 self-contained primary recirculating textile media filters
(1)OSI Advantex Model AX-MAX275-42 self-contained secondary recirculating textile polishing filter
(2) Pressure Dosed UV Disinfection Units in Series
(1)Turbidimeter with Controller (at Turbidity Measurement Chamber)

If no, please explain:
Description of existing facilities: Small, collection system at the club house (also serves another meeting facility),
a duplex pump station to the WWTF, with 6 drip application fields and 1 spray application field never used, a
wet-weather lagoon and 5-day upset pond, as is standard with reclaimed systems.
Proposed flow: Same
Current permitted flow: 25,000 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.)
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:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 5
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: The current WWTF components will remain until installation, but the proposed plant is an
Orenco, closed POD system and component language will need to be updated. The application sites will remain
the same. See comment under IV. 3. For requested change to Attachment B.
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: No significant compliance issues.
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.)
If the facility has had compliance problems during the permit cycle, please explain the status. Items noted in
previous deficiencies/violations have or are being addressed. Has the RO been working with the Permittee? Yes
Is a solution underway or in place? Yes, minor record keeping issues are being addressed.
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: NA
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):

FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 5
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
Correction to Plan page U-
1
The Grinder Pump Package will be removed. The approximately 65 gpd of
domestic waste from the WWTF office / maintenance building will be plumbed
by gravity flow directly to the 5-day upset pond, since it already has a pump to
return wasted and high-turbidity water back to head of plant for treatment. This
proposal reduces unnecessary expense of the grinder pump installation and
lifetime maintenance. MRO staff is okay with this plan and rationale if CO is.

3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
Correction to Attachment B
for the ONE Spray field
MRO staff requests the S-1 through S-17 “zones” be condensed to ONE spray
field as was originally permitted and MRO staff does not agree with the
separation. By layout of the spray zones assessment between them would be
too difficult for compliance and this is an unnecessary reporting complication
for the permittee. To date this area has not been utilized for application.

4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
Retain Deemed Collection
System Language either in
II.3. as with current permit
or via an Attachment as
done with WQ0023580
MRO was able to eliminate unnecessarily created deemed collection system
permit WQCSD00510 and extra workload for collection system staff by adding
this language – currently under II.3. The collection system will continue to be
inspected as part of this non-discharge permit and maintaining the standard CS
language in this ND permit will assist RO compliance efforts.

Same language was requested w/ renewal of WQ0023580 and at that time
Nathaniel Thornburg felt more comfortable adding it as an Attachment C to the
permit. MRO staff is okay with the approach CO is most comfortable with, as
long as the CS language is included.

FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 5
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: Maria Schutte 9-15-2022
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date:

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
This package plant design notes use of rubber chips – MRO staff expresses potential concern if rubber (tire?) chips are a
petroleum-based product.
9/15/2022