WQ0037287_Staff Report_20240416

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.: WQ0037287
Attn: Zachary Mega Facility name: Pluris Hampstead WWTP

From: Bryan Lievre
Wilmington 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 appli cable.

I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? Yes or No
a. Date of site visit: 9/14/2023
b. Site visit conducted by: Bryan Lievre
c. Inspection report attached? Yes or No
d. Person contacted: Kristion King and their contact information: (714) 624 - 8670 ext.
e. Driving directions: 9795 Hogans Trail, Hempstead, Pender Co., NC. From Wilmington: Head north on US
Hwy 17, make left on Sidbury Rd., right on Hogans Trail
2. Discharge Point(s): N/A (non-discharge). NPDES permit (NC0089524) is available if needed but has not been
utilized to date. Preference is to use the high-rate infiltration basins.
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Associated with NPDES #NC0089524 - UT to Island Creek in the Cape
Fear River Basin
Classification: C,Sw
River Basin and Subbasin No. 03-06-23 HUC:03003007
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:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F88CCCB-EB7D-4103-A22D-4714083ACED0
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 6
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: Kristion King Certificate #:1002807 Backup ORC: William Andrews Certificate #:1005228
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: Current permit description is generally accurate with a 500,000 gpd wastewater
treatment system with tertiary membrane bioreactors, two (2) high-rate infiltration basins with surrounding
gravity flow drainage system and NPDES Permit NC0089524 to enable the system to discharge up to 0.25 mgd to
surface waters (although not used to date).
Proposed flow: 1.0 MGD (See Item V. for a list of proposed structures)
Current permitted flow: 0.5 MGD
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:
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: The size of the three MBR tanks was not specified in the permit (20,198 gal/tank).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F88CCCB-EB7D-4103-A22D-4714083ACED0
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 6
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
○ ′ ″ - ○ ′ ″
○ ′ ″ - ○ ′ ″
○ ′ ″ - ○ ′ ″
○ ′ ″ - ○ ′ ″
○ ′ ″ - ○ ′ ″
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: Since the issuance of the last permit (WQ0037287,
issued 8/2/2021) the facility has not had any violations issued. Most of the items identified within BIMS were
associated with late reports (likely mostly due to ORC changeover) and false frequency violations (associated
with holidays and split weeks).
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 No N/A
If yes, please explain:
16. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: None
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): N/A

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F88CCCB-EB7D-4103-A22D-4714083ACED0
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 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
Please refer to Item 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
Deny (Please state reasons: )
6. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F88CCCB-EB7D-4103-A22D-4714083ACED0
4/16/2024
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 6

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS

The modification of the existing permit is to enable the construction and operation of an additional wastewater treatment tra in at the
site. The new train is generally intended to mimic the existing system with the addition of:
- Two (2) 464 gpm at 18.6 ft TDH influent pumps;
- Two (2) rotary fine drum screens with 317 gal simplex grinder station and shaftless spiral screw compactor;
- One (1) 54,893 gallon concrete anoxic basin;
- Two (2) 63,303 gallon concrete aeration basins with two (1 duty & 1 common standby) 340 scfm blowers;
- One (1) 36,595 gallon post anoxic basin;
- Two (2) membrane bioreactors with:
o Three (2 duty & 1 standby) 386 gpm at 40 ft, TDH rotary lobe permeate pumps; and,
o Two 250 cfm blowers (membrane scour)
- 6,756 gallon effluent (Washwater) lift station with:
o A composite sampler;
o Two (2) 138 gpm at 78 ft TDH submersible centrifugal pumps (CIP -membrane cleaning, etc.); and,
o Two (2) 40 gpm at 210 ft TDH submersible pumps (CIP screens & yard hydrants).
- Four (2 duty and 2 standby) 1634 gpm at 16.1 ft TDH centrifugal RAS pumps;
- Two (2) 80 gpm at 40 ft TDH centrifugal rotary lobe WAS pumps;
- Eight (8) chemical metering systems with chemical storage tanks and:
o Two (1 duty & 1 standby) 4.17 gph alum peristaltic pumps;
o Two (1 duty & 1 standby) 4.17 gph NaOH (sodium hydroxide or caustic soda) peristaltic pumps;
o Two (1 duty & 1 standby) 17.2 gph carbon (or Micro C) injection peristaltic pumps; and,
o Two (1 duty & 1 standby) 2 gpd peracetic acid injection peristaltic pumps.
- One diesel powered generator; and,
- All associated valves, appurtenances and piping

Please respond to the following questions/comments:
1. HRIS 06-16 issues:
a. Item IV. 1. Most recent issuance date was 8/2/21 not 1/23/20
b. Item IV. 4. Collection System has not been approved, a permit application was requested to be submitted in
correspondence from WiRO dated 2/1/2024. Permit #WQ0037324 was issued 4/1/22 for a Fast Track Sewer
Extension Permit.
c. Item IV. 10. Please provide a copy of the well abandonment for monitoring well MW1.
d. Item V. f. includes 1 duty blower (and 1 standby blower) for the Pre -aeration Basin (as corroborated in the
Specifications and calculations); however, Plan Sheet C6.0 illustrates two duty blowers (and 1 standby blower).
Please revise Plan Sheet C6.0 or explain.
e. Item X. Groundwater Lowering System Design information was not provided. Item I. 2. of the existing permit
requires the Permittee to address the ability of the groundwater lowering system to han dle the proposed flow
increase.

2. The Geotechnical Engineering Report was not sealed by a North Carolina Professional Engineer. Also, the report did not
seem to make any mention of the borrow area located between monitoring wells MW1 and MW4 which typicall y contains
water. Discussion should be provided as to whether any structures are proposed in this area and provide specific
recommendations for this area.

3. The O&M Plan should be updated. The plan is dated 11/22/2014, when the facility was rated for 0.25 mgd and contained
different equipment as currently proposed. Also more than 3 contact numbers should be provided not just 911, ORC and
WiRO general number. Please update to include NCDEQ Environmental Emergency Contact (Non -Business Hours) 1-800-
858-0368, owner and regional contacts as well as any other you feel might be appropriate (e.g. poison control, etc.).

4. Proposed activities also include increasing the NPDES discharge from 0.25 mgd to 1.0 mgd. The additional flow could
originate from the groundwater lowering system and/or the wastewater system effluent. An additional outfall (i.e. Outfall
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F88CCCB-EB7D-4103-A22D-4714083ACED0
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 6 of 6
002) has been proposed to accommodate some of the additional flow. It is suspected that approval for these activities is
needed from the NPDES Permitting Group.

5. All reclaimed water piping, valves, outlets and other appurtenances should be colored -coded, taped, or otherwise marked to
identify the source of the water as being reclaimed water. Structures should be painted the color purple (i.e., Pantone 522)
and labelled as “Non-Potable Water – Do Not Drink” (reference 15A NCAC 02U 0.0403 and Recommended Standards for
Wastewater Facilities).

6. Although not required within this proposal, the system should consider the following items for future consideration:
a. The possible need to upgrade screening in the large EQ tank as debris must be manually removed from the static
screen and the removable trash rack and some large debris may actually escape their removal;
b. Odor control as wastewater odors are observed as you approach the entry gate to the wastewater facility; and,
c. Flies which have been abundant during recent site visits in the vicinity of the blower building and tanks . The last
two items may become increasingly problematic as development in the area increases.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F88CCCB-EB7D-4103-A22D-4714083ACED0