WQ0044258_Staff Report_20230504

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3343CAF0-99B5-401A-87D2-2EC14C73EA58
State of North Carolina
®r- Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
May 4, 2023
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge Unit Application No.: WQ0044258
Attn: Erick Saunders Facility name: Micro Land Group LLC
From: Geoff Kegley, Chad Coburn, Helen Perez, Mike Petrizzo
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: 5/2/2023
b. Site visit conducted by: Geoff Kegley, Chad Coburn, Mike Petrizzo
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No
d. Person contacted: Gus Simmons and their contact information: (910) 619 - 0072 ext.
e. Driving directions: 135 Carter Best Road, Warsaw, NC
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: Unknown, no treatment currently proposed. (Please attach completed rating sheet to be
attached to issued permit)
Proposed flow: 332,562 GPD
Current permitted flow: Current flow goes to Town of Warsaw's WWTF.
2. Are the new treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system? ❑ Yes or ® No
If no, explain: The applicant wishes to install a wastewater irrigation to manage the process wastewater
resulting from their meat processing f�ty with no additional wastewater treatment process other than a drum
screen that screens the process water from the facilitv for solids and debris. Lagoons are proposed. but thev are
not treatment units and are only provided for storage of effluent for irrigation onlE.
3. Are site conditions (soils, depth to water table, etc) consistent with the submitted reports? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain: The soil map provided in the application is not consistent with the Duplin County soil
survey nor the 2007 USDA/NRCS soil survey
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3343CAF0-99B5-401A-87D2-2EC14C73EA58
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: The applicant is seeking this wastewater irrigationystem permit without a requirement for
residuals storage.
6. Are the proposed application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) acceptable? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain: The proposed nutrient loading for the site is not acceptable. The Soil Scientist Evaluation
Report states that total annual Plant Available Nitrogen loading at the site would be 518 lb. PAN/acre/year. This
is above the nitrogen uptake rates for the proposed cover crops. In addition, the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)
was calculated at 32.0. This high level will cause issues for crop health, soil permeability and infiltration of
irrigated wastewater. The Soil Scientist Evaluation Report recommends further treatment to reduce the SAR
values, which is not provided in the application. Furthermore, the effluent sampling results contain high
concentrations of nutrient levels which could impact groundwater without further treatment.
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: The application mentions
MW-1, MW-2 and MW-3, but no details were provided for this groundwater monitoring program. Three
monitoring wells will likely be insufficient for groundwater monitoring of a 120.67 acre irrigation s, sue.
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):
2. Are the design,
the tfeatment facilities for the type disposal
stem?
main4enanee and operation of adequate of waste and
n Yes or -
if no, please
r
Explain anything obsefved "r-ing the site visit that needs to be addressed by the pefmit, of tha4 may be impei4apA
for- the pemait writer- to know (i.e., equipment eendition, ftmetion, maifftenanee, a eha-age in f4eility ,
MIMI
ifBe, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3343CAF0-99B5-401A-87D2-2EC14C73EA58
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3343CAF0-99B5-401A-87D2-2EC14C73EA58
Monitoring
Latitude
Lffligitude
.1'R.. S�T.fITSlR9 - !/Sf!f .
�•
MAN
Nil= MIN
15. Afe thef 4ated te eemplianee/eafer-eement tha4 should be Feselved before issuing this permit?
if yes, please »�lain.:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3343CAF0-99B5-401A-87D2-2EC14C73EA58
IV. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ® Yes or ❑ No
If yes, please explain: See items II.2. — 8. above and narrative below.
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 in Part V.
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
DocuSigned by:
ElD a);a :state reasons: ) DocuSigned bQy/:�Q r(w �b '
6. Signature of report preparer DocuSigned by: 1 - � (% 8_37 G6H}FGG4A3
1D645-4A39694BE...
Signature of regional supervisorcol7Ezs15D3B4n... 'Tug 'Chi �, uti
5/4/2023 7F141E73B6F3456...
Date:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3343CAF0-99B5-401A-87D2-2EC14C73EA58
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
This review was conducted for a permit application for a new wastewater spray irrigation facility to serve The
Pork Company a.k.a. Villari Foods — a meat processing facility. A site visit to the proposed irrigation fields was
performed on May 2, 2023. The site soils and proposed irrigation area generally appear to be a good receiver
site for the irrigation of wastewater. Some modifications to the fields are planned (clearing, grading, etc.). No
setback issues were apparent. However, the application proposes no treatment of the wastewater stream
before disposal. Additional information and modifications to the proposed system are necessary, see
comments below:
2. The applicant wishes to install a wastewater irrigation system to manage the process wastewater
resulting from their meat processing facility with no additional wastewater treatment process other than
a drum screen that screens the process water from the facility for solids and debris. Lagoons are
proposed, but they are not treatment units and are only provided for wet weather storage of effluent prior
to irrigation. Effluent sampling indicates high strength wastewater not appropriate for disposal without
further treatment.
3. The proposed nutrient loading for the site is not acceptable. The Soil Scientist Evaluation Report states
that total annual Plant Available Nitrogen loading at the site would be 518 lb. PAN/acre/year. This is
above the nitrogen uptake rates for the proposed cover crops. In addition, the sodium adsorption ratio
(SAR) was calculated at 32.0. This high level will cause issues for crop health, soil permeability and
infiltration of irrigated wastewater. The Soil Scientist Evaluation Report recommends further treatment
to reduce the SAR values, which is not provided in the application. Furthermore, the high concentrations
of nutrient levels listed in WWIS 06- 16 Item V.1. will likely impact groundwater without further
treatment.
4. The soils map included in the soil scientist report does not match the Duplin County Soil Survey map.
5. The application mentions MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3, but no details were provided for this groundwater
monitoring program. Three monitoring wells will likely be insufficient for groundwater monitoring of a
120.67 acre irrigation system.
6. Residuals storage is not provided as required by 15A NCAC 02T .0505 (o).
7. The chemical analysis of the typical wastewater to be irrigated was missing some constituents required
by 15A NCAC 02T .0504 (h).
8. Flow equalization is not provided as required by 15ANCAC 02T .0505(i).
9. The application states the "Nationwide 12 / Section 404: Potential impacts avoided, no impact." and
"Section 404: Potential impacts avoided, no impact." Please provide documentation.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 6 of 6