WQ0003442_Staff Report_20230515

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources

Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report

FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 6

To: NPDES Unit Non-Discharge Unit Application No.: WQ0003442
Attn: Leah Parente Facility name: Wesser Ruby Mine

From: Melanie Kemp
Asheville 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: May 5, 2023
b. Site visit conducted by: Melanie Kemp
c. Inspection report attached? Yes or No In LF
d. Person contacted: Nathan Maddox and their contact information: 828-421-1305 ext.
e. Driving directions: From Asheville, follow I-40 west ~ 15 miles to Rt. 19 west. Follow Rt. 19 west ~ 25
miles, through Collins Gap. The mine is on the right, approx. one mile east of the Town of Wesser.
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:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 69431AC9-6B87-4AFA-BFE7-1C8375F939AD
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 6
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: Certificate #: Backup ORC: Certificate #:
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:
115, 200 gallon per day (GPD) wastewater treatment and closed- loop recycle facility consisting of two 50
foot long tourist gem mine sluices (each with a separate 3 horsepower pump and 1. 5 -inch water lines from
an existing make-up water pond to the top of the sluice); one 20 foot by 40 foot sedimentation pond with a
protective 2 foot berm (collecting the water from the foot of both sluices); a separate 3 hp pump and water
line for returning water back to the top of each sluice; and all associated piping, valves, controls, and
appurtenances
Proposed flow:
115,200
Current permitted flow: Same as above
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
Permit description has changed slightly (see above for updated version). The berm separating two settling
ponds was removed and now there is one large settling pond. The facility contact has also been updated.
Nathan Maddox, the son of the mine operator/owner, is now the contact for the facility.
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: See summary above.
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:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 69431AC9-6B87-4AFA-BFE7-1C8375F939AD
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 6
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:
See updated description above.
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? Yes No N/A
If no, please explain:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 69431AC9-6B87-4AFA-BFE7-1C8375F939AD
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 6
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 monitoring reporting requirements for this facility.
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.)
An NOD was issued at the last inspection, as the facility needs to install a freeboard marker in the settling
pond and keep maintenance logs on site in order to be compliant with the permit.
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?
ARO has had difficulty contacting the owner for many years, and a thorough inspection hadn’t been
performed since 2017. The new contact (Nathan Maddox) plans on installing a freeboard marker and
keeping maintenance logs.
Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit been satisfied? Yes No N/A
If no, please explain: There is no freeboard marker in the settling pond. There is no maintenance log on site.
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):

DocuSign Envelope ID: 69431AC9-6B87-4AFA-BFE7-1C8375F939AD
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 6
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
Facility Description See updated description above. The facility only has one settling pond now.

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: )
6. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 69431AC9-6B87-4AFA-BFE7-1C8375F939AD
5/15/2023
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 6 of 6

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
None.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 69431AC9-6B87-4AFA-BFE7-1C8375F939AD