WQ0029025_Staff Report_20200102

s
f f
State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
s
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report
To: Non -Discharge Unit
Attn: Chloe Lloyd
From: Joan Schneier
Raleigh Regional Office
December 27, 2019
Application No.: WQ0029025
Facility name: 586 McGhee Rd SFR
County: Chatham
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: 07/08/2019 and 12/05/2019
b. Site visit conducted by: J. Schneier
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No
d. Person contacted: n/a and their contact information: (_)
e. Driving directions: Were added to BIMS
2. Discharge Point(s):
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Classification:
River Basin and Subbasin No.
- ext.
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 Page 1 of 5

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: Roughly septic tank, subsurface sand filter, dosing tank with high water alarms,
tablet chlorinator and contact tank, drip field.
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow: 360 gpd
Explain anything observed during the site visit that needs to be addressed by the pernlit, 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. See discussion below
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:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0029025 Page 2 of 5

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
G , „
O , ,/
O , it
ff
o it
off
O , „
O , rr
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: n/a
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
❑ Notice(s) of violation
❑ Current enforcement action(s) ❑ Currently under JOC
❑ Currently under SOC ❑ Currently under moratorium
Please explain and attach any documents that may help clarify answer/continents (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: Not likely. The property is about '/ mile from Jordan Lake.
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0029025 Page 3 of 5

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
See discussion below
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
III.13 Property is not in 100 yr floodplain.
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
n/a
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:
Signatureofregional supery
/ Date: — 2 — 2.0
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0029025 Page 4 of 5

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
1- The house and system have not been built. The lot is too small for a drip system. See discussion below.
2- The facility lat-long falls within the lot and should be updated when the house is built.
3- The field lat-long is estimated at 35.8172,-79.0099, and should be updated when the field is built.
4- Although not sure if this true, I've been told that chlorine tablets do not go well with drip systems.
5- Although the permit was issued in 2014, I did not understand the original arrangement enough to tell whether it
was probably legal, so am re -sending my concerns. However, the permit was issued in 2005 and renewed in 2014.
Additional Comments on WQ0029025 from 07/18/2014 staff report (slightly edited for later events)
The system was originally permitted to Barbara Farrell on 12/20/2005. There was a proposed residential lot (parcel
19607) with preliminary treatment and a second and larger non -adjacent parcel (70486) with a house (built in 1973, either
not requiring or pre -dating one of our permits) to contain the drip field. An easement apparently covered the proposed
pipeline across the two intermediate parcels (Chatham Co. Book 1236, Page 907, filed 01/31/2006). One of these parcels
was bought by Sunil Kamerkar in June, 2014.
Barbara Ferrell sold the house lot to Radhika Kamerkar (Sunil's wife) Chatham Co. Book 1236, Page 918, recorded
01/31/2006. The larger lot, permitted for the spray field was foreclosed from Ms. Farrell and later transferred to Federal
National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Chatham Co. Deed Book 1711, page 725, on 09/30/2013. This parcel was
later sold to Hongsheng Wu and Xiaomei Kong, Chatham Co Deed Book 1812, page 901-902, recorded 8/14/2015.
In my opinion, the issues to be resolved are:
1- Does the easement allow the drip field to be built on the foreclosed property without more paperwork? If so, I
vr-
would see no reason not to re -issue the permit.
2- If not, Mr. Kamerkar would need an agreement with the new owners (Wu & Kong) to construct the drip field,
before issuing a permit.
6- If Mr. Kamerkar is unable to get an agreement he would need to find a new site for the drip field, which would
require a major permit modification. However, Since the owners also own the adjacent lot with a house and
county system (possibly an LPP), it is possible that they have other options.
Involved and Nearby Parcels
Chatham Co.
01/01/2014
Address on
Lot #
Acres
Permit
Comments
Parcel #
Owner
McGhee Rd
Plat
2001-
238
(98-19)
19607
Sunil & Radhika
586
3
0.67
WQ0029025
Proposed
Kamerkar
residential lot
70486
Hongsheng Wu &
460
(A)
Was
WQ0029025
Proposed drip field lot
Xiaomei Kong
13.57,
now
13.22
19603
Sunil Kamerkar
584
2
1.31
Intermediate lot
73958
Richard Stockmans
522
4
Was
WQ0014598
Intermediate lot
& Kathleen
8.67
Wallace
Now
10.26
89264
Karen Mattocks
0.35
Chunk sold from parcel
70486 in 2011, not near
proposed drip field
Attachments from the 2014 staff report were incorporated in the 2014 permit. An updated (2019) county GIS map is
attached.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0029025 Page 5 of 5

WQ0029025 Mop
�1213
445�.
19614
a
354 x
77726
,
a
19615
f
77726
7€�3�d6
r ,
501
7034T
F
5
e
4--
•4
f
ryi yip
<.
9gry
a
�\
x
{
1
924k
i
70486
:b
`
19601
460
£`
...
522
3
��
non
�
s
„_
74986
¢i>•
584
9603
586
73958
i
3
e
5
f a•
xa
x
E
e
s
a�
yam.,
77726
is
r c
e
j
2140
77726
i;
x
Service Layer Credits: Chatham County,
Chatham County GIS
0 0.0275
mi
0.055
N
rat.
OxrHAM COUNTY
Date: 12/27/2019
Time: 1:37:22 PM