WQ0000672_Staff Report_20230118

;s State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge Unit
Attn: Zachary Mega
From: Tony Honeycutt
Fayetteville Regional Office
Application No.: WQ0000672
Facility name: City of Lumberton RLAP
Note: This form has been adapted from the non -discharge facilily 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: 12/5/2023
b. Site visit conducted by: Tony Honeycutt
c. Inspection report attached. ® Yes or ❑ No
d. Person contacted: Paul Ivey and their contact information: 910 774 - 2299 ext.
e. Driving directions: From Fayetteville take I-95 south to Hwy 211 (exit 920). Turn left at top of exit and proceed
approx. 4 miles. At the intersection of Hwy 211 and Hwy 72 proceed on Hwy 72 and turn right onto Saxon Ave. At
the Saxon Ave. and Lafayette St. intersection turn left and proceed into the Lumberton WWTP property.
2. Discharge Point(s): N/A
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: N/A
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 1 of 4

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: Matthew Markus Certificate #:LA-1010549 Backup ORC: Paul Ivey Certificate #:LA-1011842
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: Municipal wastewater treatment facility that receives domestic, commercial and
industrial wastewater.
Proposed flow: 2000 DTs/year (permitted sludge volume)
Current permitted flow: 1500 DTs/year
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.) N/A
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: New fields have been added.
5. Is the residuals management plan adequate? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain: Lumberton is currently permitted for 1500 DTs/yearn and has asked for an increase to 2000
DTs/yr. The Lumberton program has both row crop farmland and Bermuda pasture/hay land so year-round
application can take place as necessary. With the addition of the new fields the request to add the additional DTs
should not be an issue.
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. See section V, additional regional staff review items.
9. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit, correct? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 4

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
N/A
° ' "
-
o
o
o
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: Reviewed the last three annual reports. Dry tons
applied are below permitted amounts.
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. N/A Has the RO
been working with the Permittee? N/A Is a solution underway or in place? N/A
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
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
N/A
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 4

3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
N/A
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
N/A
5. Recommendation:
6. Signature of report
❑ 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
e jg& state reasons:
►n.�y��e�y 1/9/2023�
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: 1/18/2023
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
89C2D3DD5C42B...
The regional office recommends issuing the permit once all items on the additional information request have been submitted and the
following iyems have been addressed.
Page 330 of the renewal /modification application for permit wg0000672 shows the site map for field NC-RO-20, 19-21.
Item 1. Looking to the right of field NC-RO-21, just below mid field is a house that appears occupied. (Lights were on and cars
parked outside.) Verify correct buffers.
Item 2. Looking to the right of field NC-RO-21, the upper portion of the field shows a clear grassy lot. A mobile home has been
moved onto this lot. It looks to be an old structure. I could not tell if it is hooked up to utilities or occupied. The disposition of the
mobile home needs to be verified and if necessary, boundaries addressed.
I asked Mr. Paul Ivey with Enviro-Choice to investigate the ownership of these structures and if necessary have the buffer map for
NC-RO-21 amended. If changes are required, he was asked to have these changes submitted along with the items of the additional
information request.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 4