WQ0001489_Staff Report_20190319

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge Unit
Attn: Troy Doby
From: Will Hart
Washington Regional Office
Application No.: WQ0001489
Facility name: US MCAS Cherry Point RLAP
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 gpplicable.
I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or ❑ No
a. Date of site visit: March 14, 2019
b. Site visit conducted by: Will Hart
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No
d. Person contacted: Timothy Lawrence and their contact information: [phone] ext.
e. Driving directions:
2. Discharge Point(s): N/A
Latitude:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: N/A
Classification:
River Basin and Subbasin No.
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
II. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
ORC: Patricia T Davis Certificate #: LA/27654 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:
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow:
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.)
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Pagel of 3

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: Permitte requests removal of Site 9 from the permt due to construction on part of the field,
rendering the rest of the field unusable. According to Mr Lawrence historical application records indicate that Site
9 has not been utilized in the land application program.
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:
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
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: 2018 Residuals Annual Summary was reviewed on
3/19/2019 as well as triennial groundwater monitoring reports (Form GW-59). Two site monitoriong wells
routinely report concentrations of ammonia nitrogen that exceed the IMAC for NH3. We believe the occurrence
to be somewhat natural.
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: N/A
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): N/A
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 3

III. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
2. 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: )
3. Signature of report preparer:
MV H4.z
Signature of regional supervisor: Z" gya T""
Date: March 19, 2019
IV. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
The permittee has requested removal of Site 9 from the permit due to construction on a portion of the field. Records
indicate that Site 9 was never used for application of biosolids. Ongoing violations of Groundwater Quality Standard
for ammonia nitrogen (NH3,) are reported by BIMS; we believe the occurrence of ammonia to be natural.
Prior to submitting the renewal application Mr Lawrence contacted the regional office for guidance on how to proceed
with a calculated Sodium Absorption Ratio greater than 10. The facility was able to resample and calculate SAR
below 10.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 3