Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWQ0031314_Annual Report Review_20230821ROY COOPER Governor ELIZABETH S. BISER Secretary RICHARD E. ROGERS, JR. Director NORTH CAROLINA Environmental Quality August 21, 2023 Ms. Courtney Driver — Utilities Director Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utilities Commission P.O. Box 2511 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27107 Subject: 2022 Annual Report Review Swann WTP, Neilson WTP, and Thomas WTP Distribution of Class A Water Treatment Plant Residuals Permit No. WQ0031314 Forsyth County Dear Ms. Driver: On August 7, 2023, Division of Water Resources staff Jim Gonsiewski completed a review of the 2022 Annual Report. This review reflected compliance with the subject permit. Please refer to the enclosed inspection report for additional comments and observations. If you have any questions concerning this letter, you may contact Ms. Caitlin Caudle or me at (336) 776- 9800. Sincerely, Docu Siiggned by: L oti l . JMAts' 145B49E225CMEA... Lon T. Snider Regional Supervisor Water Quality Regional Operations Section Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ — WSRO enc.: Compliance Inspection Report cc: Bill Brewer — City of Winston-Salem (Electronic Copy) Christopher Triplett — City of Winston-Salem (Electronic Copy) Brent Collins — EMA (Electronic Copy) Forsyth County Environmental Health (Electronic Copy) WSRO Electronic Files Laserfiche Files DffNorth Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources oan caaouNn Winston-Salem Regional Office 1 450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300 I Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105 M336.776.9800 oep.m.m or em�nmen� Qualm Compliance Inspection Report Permit: WQ0031314 Effective: 11/18/20 Expiration: 08/31/27 Owner: Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utilities Commission SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utilities Commi: County: Forsyth Region: Winston-Salem Contact Person: William C Brewer Title: Phone: 336-727-8000 Directions to Facility: System Classifications: Primary ORC: Certification: Phone: Secondary ORC(s): On -Site Representative(s): Related Permits: NC0079821 City of Winston-Salem - R.A. Thomas WTP NC0086011 City of Winston-Salem - Neilson WTP Inspection Date: 08/07/2023 Entry Time 08:OOAM Primary Inspector: Jim J Gonsiewski Secondary Inspector(s): Exit Time: 11:30AM Phone: 336-776-9704 Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Annual Report Review Permit Inspection Type: Distribution of Residual Solids (503 Exempt) Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Question Areas: Miscellaneous Questions Record Keeping Treatment Sampling Pathogen and Vector Attraction Wells (See attachment summary) Page 1 of 4 Permit: WQ0031314 Owner - Facility: Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utilities Commission Inspection Date: 08/07/2023 Inspection Type: Annual Report Review Reason for Visit: Routine Inspection Summary: On August 7, 2023, Division of Water Resources staff Jim Gonsiewski completed a review of the 2022 Annual Report. This review reflected compliance with the subject permit. Observations: • At the Swann WTP annual residual sampling was completed from 9/27/22 to 11/28/22 and TCLP was last completed on 12/2/2020. At the Neilson WTP annual residual sampling was completed on 4/4/22 and TCLP was last completed on 1 /31 /2021. • 129.39 dry tons of residuals were applied from the Swann WTP. 475.54 dry tons of residuals were hauled to the Hanes Mill Road Landfill from the Thomas WTP. 645.5 dry tons of residuals were applied from the Neilson WTP. Page 2 of 4 Permit: WQ0031314 Owner - Facility: Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utilities Commission Inspection Date: 08/07/2023 Inspection Type: Annual Report Review Reason for Visit: Routine Type Yes No NA NE Distribution and Marketing ❑ Land Application ❑ Record Keeping Yes No NA NE Is GW monitoring being conducted, if required? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Are GW samples from all MWs sampled for all required parameters? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Are there any GW quality violations? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Is GW-59A certification form completed for facility? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Is a copy of current permit on -site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are current metals and nutrient analysis available? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are nutrient and metal loading calculating most limiting parameters? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ a. TCLP analysis? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ b. SSFA (Standard Soil Fertility Analysis)? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Are PAN balances being maintained? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are PAN balances within permit limits? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Has land application equipment been calibrated? ❑ ❑ ❑ Are there pH records for alkaline stabilization? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Are there pH records for the land application site? ❑ ❑ ❑ Are nutrient/crop removal practices in place? ❑ ❑ ❑ Do lab sheets support data reported on Residual Analysis Summary? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Are hauling records available? ❑ ❑ ❑ Are hauling records maintained and up-to-date? ❑ ❑ ❑ # Has permittee been free of public complaints in last 12 months? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Has application occurred during Seasonal Restriction window? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Pathogen and Vector Attraction Yes No NA NE a. Fecal coliform SM 9221 E (Class A or B) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Class A, all test must be <1000 MPN/dry gram ❑ Geometric mean of 7 samples per monitoring period for class B<2.0*10E6 CFU/dry gram ❑ Fecal coliform SM 9222 D (Class B only) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Geometric mean of 7 samples per monitoring period for class B<2.0*10E6 CFU/dry gram ❑ b. pH records for alkaline stabilization (Class A) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c. pH records for alkaline stabilization (Class B) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Temperature corrected ❑ d. Salmonella (Class A, all test must be < 3MPN/4 gram day) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 3 of 4 Permit: WQ0031314 Owner - Facility: Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utilities Commission Inspection Date: 08/07/2023 Inspection Type: Annual Report Review Reason for Visit: Routine e. Time/Temp on: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Digester (MCRT) ❑ Compost ❑ Class A lime stabilization ❑ f. Volatile Solids Calculations ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g. Bench -top Aerobic/Anaerobic digestion results ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Treatment Yes No NA NE Check all that apply Aerobic Digestion ❑ Anaerobic Digestion ❑ Alkaline Pasteurization (Class A) ❑ Alkaline Stabilization (Class B) ❑ Compost ❑ Drying Beds ❑ Other ❑ Comment: Sampling Yes No NA NE Describe sampling: TCLP, nutrients, and metals. Is sampling adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is sampling representative? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Page 4 of 4 Annual Report Review Class A Distribution Permit No. WQOO 31314 Reporting Period: 11/30/2022 Permit Details: • Is 503 ❑ OR 257 • Maximum Dry Tons Per Year: 4000 • Monitoring Frequency for TCLP: Once per permit cycle • Monitoring Frequency for Residuals Analysis: once per permit cycle • Monitoring Frequency for Pathogen & Vector Attraction Reduction: None 1. Class A Annual Distribution and Marketing/Surface Disposal Certification Form • Was a certification form submitted? ®Yes ❑No • Was distribution conducted during the reported period? ®Yes ❑No • How many dry tons were produced and distributed? 129, 475, 645 • Were the distributions with the permitted amount? Yes • Were recipient's information listed? Yes • Did it indicate compliance? ®Yes ❑No • Was form complete? ®Yes ❑No • Was it signed by the appropriate people? ®Yes ❑No 2. Monitoring • Were the analyses conducted at the required frequency? ®Yes ❑No • Was an analyses taken for each source that was distributed? ®Yes ❑No • Were the metals analyses reported on the Residual Sampling Summary Form? ®Yes ❑No • Were the results reported in mg/kg? ®Yes ❑No • Were the pH's 6.0 or greater for each residual sample? ❑Yes ®No • Were the heavy metals within ceiling concentration permit limits? ®Yes ❑No o Were the lab analyses attached? ®Yes ❑No • Were all the required parameters tested? ®Yes ❑No • Was TCLP analysis conducted? ❑Yes ®No • Were the TLCP contaminants within regulatory limits? ❑Yes ❑No • Was a corrosivity, ignitability, and reactivity analysis conducted? ❑Yes ❑No 3. Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction • Was a signed copy of the Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction Form submitted? ❑Yes ❑No • Did the form indicate the period of coverage, the residual class, and the pathogen reduction alternative and the vector attraction reduction option used? ❑Yes ❑No • Was the appropriate documentation to show pathogen and vector attraction reduction included in the report? ❑Yes ❑No • Was pathogen and vector attraction reduction demonstrated according to 40 CFR Part 503?❑Yes❑No Class A Pathogen Review To be Class A, residuals shall meet either fecal Coliform density or salmonella density. ❑Fecal Coliform density Was the sampling conducted at the required frequency? ❑Yes ❑No Were multiple samples taken? ❑Yes ❑No Was each sample less than 1000 MPN/gram of total solids? ❑Yes ❑No OR ❑Salmonella density Was the sampling conducted at the required frequency? ❑Yes ❑No Were multiple samples taken? ❑Yes ❑No Was each sample less than 3 MPN/4 grams of total solids? ❑Yes ❑No To be Class A, residuals shall meet one of the following alternatives: ❑Alternative 1 — Time/Temperature Were the residuals maintained for correct time and temperature? ❑Yes ❑No Were logs submitted showing time and temperature? ❑Yes ❑No Were temperatures within range for complete time period? ❑Yes ❑No ❑Alternative 2 — Alkaline Treatment Were logs submitted showing time and temperature? ❑Yes ❑No Was the pH raised to 12 or greater and maintained for 72 hours or longer? ❑Yes ❑No Was the temperature 52°C (126°F) for 12 hours or longer while the pH was 12 or greater? ❑Yes ❑No Were logs submitted showing time and pH? ❑Yes ❑No Was the temperature corrected to 25°C (771F)? ❑Yes ❑No Alternative 5 — Process To Further Reduce Pathogens ❑PFRP Composting Were the within -vessel method or static aerated pile methods used? ❑Yes ❑No Was the residuals temperature maintained at 55°C (131°F) or higher for three consecutive days or longer in the within -vessel method or static aerated pile method? ❑Yes ❑No OR Was the windrow composting method used? ❑Yes ❑No Was the residuals temperature maintained at 55°C or higher for 15 consecutive days or longer in the windrow method, and the windrow turned a minimum of five times during this time? ❑Yes ❑No ❑PFRP Heat Drying Was the residuals dried by direct or indirect contact with hot gases and the moisture content of residuals reduced to 10% or lower? ❑Yes ❑No Did the temperature of the residuals or the of the wet bulb temperature of the gas in contact with the residuals as the residuals leave the dryer exceed 800C (1760F)? ❑Yes ❑No Vector Attraction Reduction Review • Was the sampling conducted at the required frequency? ❑Yes [:]No ❑Option 1 — 38% Volatile Solids Reduction Was there 38% reduction? ❑Yes ❑No Were lab sheets/calculations in report? ❑Yes ❑No Was the reduction on volatile solids (not total solids)? ❑Yes ❑No Were the samples taken at beginning of digestion process and before application (Inspection)? ❑Yes ❑No Were calculations correct? ❑Yes ❑No ❑Option 2 — 40-Day Bench Scale Test Were residuals from anaerobically digested treatment (Inspection)? ❑Yes [:]No Were residuals anaerobically digested in lab? ❑Yes ❑No Was the test run for 40 days? ❑Yes ❑No Was the test done between 300C (86°F) and 370C (990F)? ❑Yes [:]No Was the reduction of on volatile solids (not total solids)? ❑Yes ❑No Was the reduction less than 17%? ❑Yes ❑No Were lab sheets/calculations in report? ❑Yes ❑No Were calculations correct? ❑Yes ❑No ❑Option 3 — 30-Day Bench Scale Test Were residuals from aerobically digested treatment (Inspection)? ❑Yes ❑No Were residuals aerobically digested in lab? ❑Yes ❑No Were residuals 2% or less total solids? ❑Yes ❑No If not 2% total solids, was the test ran on a sample diluted to 2% with unchlorinated effluent? ❑Yes ❑No Was the test run for 30 days? ❑Yes ❑No Was the test done at 200C (680F)? ❑Yes ❑No Was the reduction of on volatile solids (not total solids)? ❑Yes ❑No Was the reduction less than 15%? ❑Yes ❑No Were lab sheets/calculations in report? ❑Yes ❑No Were calculations correct? ❑Yes ❑No ❑Option 4 — Specific Oxygen Uptake Rate (SOUR) Were residuals form aerobically digested treatment (Inspection)? ❑Yes ❑No Were residuals 2% or less total solids (dry weight basis) (not diluted)? ❑Yes [:]No Was the test done between 100C (50°F) and 300C (860F)? ❑Yes ❑No Was the temperature corrected to 200C (680F)? ❑Yes ❑No Was the SOUR equal to or less than 1.5 mg of oxygen per hour per gram of total residual solids (dry weight basis)? ❑Yes ❑No Was the sampling holding time two hours? ❑Yes ❑No Was the test started within 15 minutes of sampling or aeration maintained? ❑Yes ❑No ❑Option 5 — 14-Day Aerobic Process Were the residuals from aerobically digested treatment (Inspection)? ❑Yes [:]No Were the residuals treated for 14 days? ❑Yes ❑No Was the residuals temperature higher than 400C (104°F) for a 14-day period? ❑Yes ❑No Was the average residuals temperature higher than 45°C (1131F)? ❑Yes [:]No ❑Option 6 — Alkaline Stabilization Was the pH of the residuals raised to 12 or higher by the addition of alkali? ❑Yes ❑No Did the pH of residuals remain at 12 or higher for two hours without the addition of more alkali? ❑Yes ❑No Did the pH of residuals remain at 11.5 or higher for an additional twenty-two hours without the addition of more alkali? ❑Yes ❑No Was the pH corrected to 250C (770F)? ❑Yes ❑No ❑Option 7 — Drying of Stabilized Residuals Does the residuals contain any unstabilized residuals? ❑Yes ❑No Were the residuals mixed with any other materials? ❑Yes ❑No Were the residuals dried up to 75% total solids? ❑Yes ❑No ❑Option 8 — Drying of Unstabilized Residuals Were the residuals mixed with any other materials? ❑Yes ❑No Were the residuals dried to 90% total solids? ❑Yes ❑No ❑Option 9/10 — Injection/Incorporation Was there any significant amount of residuals on land surface one hour after injection (Inspection)? ❑Yes ❑No Was injection done on pasture or hay field? ❑Yes ❑No Was injection done at time that crop was growing? ❑Yes ❑No If Class A with respect to pathogen, were residuals injected with eight hours after discharge from pathogen treatment? ❑Yes ❑No Was incorporation done six hours after application (Inspection)? ❑Yes ❑No 4. General • Was the report in the proper format? ®Yes ❑No • Was the annual report complete? ®Yes ❑No • Was the report submitted on time? ®Yes ❑No Pollutant Limits Pollutant Ceiling Concentration Below Limit Cumulative Pollutant LoadingRate Below Limit Arsenic 75 x 41 x Cadmium 85 x 39 x Copper 4300 x 1500 x Lead 840 x 300 x Mercury 57 x 17 x Molybdenum 75 x N/A x Nickel 420 x 420 x Selenium 100 x 100 x Zinc 7500 x 2800 x TCLP Parameter Below Limit Parameter Below Limit Parameter Below Limit Arsenic 5.0 14-Dichlorobenzene 7.5 Nitrobenzene 2.0 Barium 100.0 1 2-Dichloroethane 0.5 Pentachloro phenol 100.0 Benzene 0.5 1,1-Dichloroeth lene 0.7 Pyridine 5.0 Cadmium 1.0 2 4-Dinitrotoluene 0.13 Selenium 5.0 Carbon tetrachloride 0.5 Endrin 0.02 Silver 5.0 Chlorodane (0.03) Hepatachlor (and its epoxide) 0.008 Tetrachloroethylene (0.7) Chlorobenzene 100.0 Hexachlorobenzene 0.13 Toxa hene 0.5 Chloroform 6.0 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.5 Trichloroeth lene 0.5 Chromium (5.0) Hexachloroethane (3.0) 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 400.0 m-Cresol 200.0 Lead 5.0 2 4 6-Trichloro henol 2.0 o-Cresol 200.0 Lindane 0.4 2,4,5-TP Silvex 1.0 -Cresol 200.0 Mercury 0.2 Vinyl Chloride 0.2 Cresol 200.0 Methox chlor 10.0 2,4-D 10.0 Methyl ethyl Ketone 200.0 Residuals Analysis Parameter Analyzed For Parameter Analyzed For Parameter Analyzed For Aluminum x Mercury x Potassium x Ammonia- Nitrogen X Molybdenum X Selenium x Arsenic Nickel x Sodium x Cadmium x Nitrate- Nitrite Nitrogen X SAR X Calcium x % TS x TKN x Copper x pH x Zinc x Lead x Phosphorus x Magnesium x PAN x