WQ0003271_Staff Report_20230717

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE5A521A-3A81-42E9-99A6-74BDOA 17CFOB
State of North Carolina
®r- Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge Unit Application No.: WQ0003271
Attn: Leah Parente Facility name: Hestron Park WWTF
From: Helen Perez
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: 07/11/2023
b. Site visit conducted by: Helen Perez
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No Can be found on LF
d. Person contacted: Anthony Futrell and their contact information: (312) 965 - 3728 ext.
e. Driving directions: 216 NC 24
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 Pagel of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE5A521A-3A81-42E9-99A6-74BDOA17CFOB
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: Stacy Goff Certificate #:998882 Backup ORC: Anthony Futrell Certificate #:1013266
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:
A 67, 000 gallon per day (GPD) wastewater collection, treatment, and high -rate infiltration facility consisting of:
approximately 1, 065 linear feet (LF) of 8- inch gravity sewer; approximately 2, 300 LF of 4- inch force main;
a bar screen; a flow splitter box; a dual path treatment plant each containing a 50,000-gallon aeration basin
and an 8,400-gallon clarifier; two 402 cubic foot per minute (CFM) blowers; a 7,500-gallon aerated sludge
holding tank; a 2,800-gallon chlorine contact tank; two tertiary filters each six feet in diameter; a 4,935-gallon mud well; a
4,241-gallon clear well; a 0.36-acre high -rate infiltration area with two 7,854-square foot rotary distributors; a 100
kilowatt (kW) automatically self -activated standby power unit.
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow: 67,000 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: See summary below.
8. Are there any setback conflicts for existing treatment, storage and disposal sites? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE5A521A-3A81-42E9-99A6-74BDOA17CFOB
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:
11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please complete the following ex and table if necessary):
Monitoring Well
Latitude
Longitude
O / //
O , 11
O / //
O , 11
O / //
O / //
O l lI
O I II
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: A review of records for the permit cycle shows 3
NOVs issued for BOD limit exceedances and 1 ammonia limit exceedance. The GW-59s show Nitrate and
chloride exceedances in MW-4 almost every sampling event during the permit cycle. TDS had sporatic hits in all
the monitoring wells, but TDS and chlorides were found to be high in the influent in the past. The facility was
constructed in 1985 and is not desianed to denitrify.
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 ❑No0N/A
If yes, please explain:
16. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE5A521A-3A81-42E9-99A6-74BDOA17CFOB
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
Per 15A NCAC 02L .0106
(d) (2), the permittee shall
submit a plan for alteration
of existing site conditions,
facility design, or
Continued, persistent groundwater exceedances in site monitoring wells.
operational controls that
will prevent a violation at
the compliance boundary.
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: )
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: EE5A521A-3A81-42E9-99A6-74BDOA 17CFOB
— ID_ocnu_Siig neydd by:
6. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: 7/17/2023
M
E3ABA14AC7DC434...
This staff report is being prepared for the renewal of Hestron Park WWTF, WQ0003271. This facility was originally
permitted in 1985. It is not designed to denitrify and is only required to monitor effluent nitrate.
MW#4 has had continuous nitrate limit exceedances during the permit cycle and in previous cycles(see attached
graph). It is located approximately 40 feet from high -rate infiltration Field #1 and approximately 50 feet from the
property boundary. The region recommends adding a permit condition with a compliance schedule to address the
goundwater impacts, per 15A NCAC 02L .0106 (d) (2).
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 5