WQ0000795_Staff Report_20221215

DocuSign Envelope ID: C72A9187-6470-4B5C-B3F7-9296FOD6A8C6
State of North Carolina
®r'. Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
December 15, 2022
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge Unit Application No.: WQ0000795
Attn: Erick Saunders Facility name: Town of Surf City WWTF
From: Geoff Kegley
Wilmington Regional Office
Note: This form has been adapted from the non -discharge fg acili , 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: 12/14/2022
b. Site visit conducted by: lGeoff Kegley
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No Uploaded to Laser fiche
d. Person contacted: Zack Butler and their contact information: (910) 329 - 1011 ext.
e. Driving directions: 173 Sarge Martin Road, Holly Ridge NC
2. Discharge Point(s): N/A
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: N/A
Classification:
River Basin and Subbasin No.
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
II. PROPOSED FACILITIES: NEW APPLICATIONS - N/A
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:
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Pagel of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: C72A9187-6470-4B5C-B3F7-9296FOD6A8C6
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: Zack Butler Certificate #:'100366 Backup ORC: Steve Smith Certificate #:994884
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: Same as current permit.
Proposed flow: No new proposed flow.
Current permitted flow: Monthly Average: 1,100,000 GPD Annual Average: 767,800 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:
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:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: C72A9187-6470-4B5C-B3F7-9296FOD6A8C6
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
O l 11
O I //
O / //
O I It
O l lI
O I /I
O l lI
O I it
O l lI
O I II
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: During this cycle, one NOD was issued for
irrigation exceedances for one field on the Juniper Swamp site in 2/2019. GW 59s show some TDS and chloride
limit exceedances in MW #3 and #4 located on the Sarre Martin fields at plant site. MW#4 is loacted close to
wetted area of irrigation.
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. Has the RO been
working with the Permittee? Is a solution underway or in place? See Additional Regional Staff Review Items at
Lthe end of report.
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: N/A
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): N/A
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: C72A9187-6470-4B5C-B3F7-9296FOD6A8C6
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
❑ Issue upon receipt of needed additional information
® Issue
❑ Deny (Please state reasons: ) f—DocuSigned by:
6. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: 12/16/2022
M101%diA Sas d,3' K;
14AC7DC434...
C # k�j12/16/2022
5D3B417...
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: C72A9187-6470-4B5C-B3F7-9296FOD6A8C6
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
This staff report was prepared for a permit modification request for the Town of Surf City's Non -Discharge
Permit WQ0000795. The Town is proposing to add an additional residuals digester. This new parallel digester
should benefit the operation of the plant by providing operational flexibility and redundancy. No additional
flow is proposed.
A site visit to observe the proposed location of the new digester and a compliance inspection were performed on
December 13, 2022. No setback issues for the location of this proposed treatment unit were observed and the
site looks suitable for this digester. The WWTF is well run and the inspection was deemed compliant.
The WiRO has no objections to this proposed modification.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 5