WQ0019907_Major Modification Staff Report_20230215

DocuSign Envelope ID: CDDF8B8D-CC5E-428C-849A-B848E17BCD8D
State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
March , 2023
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge Unit Application No.: WQ0019970
Attn: Erick Saunders Facility name: Southeast Regional WRF
From: Helen Perez, 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: 02/15/2023
b. Site visit conducted by: Helen Perez, Geoff Kegley, Mike Petrizzo
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No
d. Person contacted: Kart' Herndon and their contact information: (910) 650 - 7883 ext.
e. Driving directions:
2. Discharge Point(s):
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Classification:
River Basin and Subbasin 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:
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: CDDF8B8D-CC5E-428C-849A-B848E17BCD8D
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: Kart' Herndon Certificate #:1012918 Backup ORC: Mark Young Certificate #:1001105
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: 1 MGD with new facility
Current permitted flow: 224,673 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 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: CDDF8B8D-CC5E-428C-849A-B848E17BCD8D
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: NDMR/NDAR: 6/20, 2/21, 6/21 flow limit exceeded.
GW-59: No violations in last permit Ucle
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?
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:
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: CDDF8B8D-CC5E-428C-849A-B848E17BCD8D
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
See Narrative below
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
❑ DFny_kPj&gK§tate reasons: �7�
gned by:
6. Signature of report preparer:L_lD645MA39694BE_.
DocuSigned by
C01=515WB417Signature of regional supervisor:O L�G(k } M1ti
Date: 3/2/202 3 UABA14ACMC434...
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: CDDF8B8D-CC5E-428C-849A-B848E17BCD8D
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
This proposed permit modification is part of a regional project to increase the wastewater
treatment and disposal capacity of ONWASA's Southeast service Area. A new WWTP is
proposed with a capacity of 1 MGD with a future expansion to 1.5 MGD, and disposal via
26 new high -rate infiltration basins. The location of this new WWTF is at existing Holly
Ridge spray irrigation site.
The existing spray irrigation site currently has three separate spray irrigation fields, a
storage pond, and an irrigation pump station. The new WWTP will be a Sequencing Batch
Reactor (SBR) plant with treated effluent pumped to these new infiltration basins.
Groundwater lowering drains surround each infiltration basin (with proposed effluent
limits allowing for a 100-feet setback distance to subsurface groundwater lowering
drainage systems). These drains will connect and discharge by gravity to groundwater
lowering pump stations and then discharge the groundwater to a nearby ditch via shallow
swales and end rip rap sections. This ditch ultimately discharges to King's Creek
(classified as SC;Sw,HQW). Note, no modeling of potential impact to this creek was
performed.
Some notes based on our review of the application package and site visit:
• Sampling locations upstream and downstream of the groundwater discharge points are
recommended.
• The "existing drainage way" indicated on the site map appears to be <200 feet to some of
the proposed basins (#3 and #7). During the site visit this drainage way was observed in the
vicinity of MW-3 and appeared to be more of a surface water feature (200' setback) than a
surface water diversion (50' setback), see picture below.
• Drawing C200 contains a description of proposed monitoring wells with a total depth of
45.5 feet. The new monitoring wells should be installed much shallower and such that the
water level in the well is never above or below the screened portion of the well.
• In the project narrative (page 9) it states that the existing temporary wells and monitoring
wells will be "destroyed/removed during construction of the new infiltration basins." These
wells need to be properly abandoned by a certified well driller in accordance with 2C and a
well abandonment form submitted to the Division.
• The project proposes that treated effluent in the Storage Pond can be returned to the
WWTP for treatment through the headworks or for disposal in the basins, based on
water quality. If this storage pond is used for up -set situations or receives untreated
wastewater, any water pumped from this pond should enter at the headworks for retreatment
and not sent directly to the infiltration basins.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 6