WQ0019965_Staff Report_20200212

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
s
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
n li"nor { "e"n 1(d Staff Report
February 10, 2020
To: Non -Discharge Unit
Attn: Chloe Lloyd
From: Joan Schneier
Raleigh Regional Office
Application No.: WQ0019965
Facility name: 4700 Norbury PI
County: Wake
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: 02/07/2020
b. Site visit conducted by: J. Schneier, C. Smith, C. Lloyd, V. Zhong
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No
d. Person contacted: Tammy Sanders (AQWA) and their contact information: (252) 242 - 7693 ext.
e. Driving directions: Were tweaked in RIMS.
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 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, 2 Advantex filter pods, Recirc tank, UV, Pump Tank, high
water alarms, rain sensor, 0.36 ac drip field
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow: 600 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:
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: Slight tweak, see comment 3
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0019965 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
O I „
O / it
O I it
O I /I
O / „
O / //
O I if
O l 11
G I it
O I 11
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/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: Not likely but the system is on a ridge between Ragsdale Pond — 110 ft
to the north and Honeycutt Branch, —330 ft away to the south at the closest points.
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0019965 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:
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
III.12 System is not on 100 year 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:
Signature of regional supervi
Date: t
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0019965 Page 4 of 5

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
1- The facility lat-long is correct in BIMS.
2- The center of the field was found from the centroid of GPS fence shots, with some point averaging, 35.921090,
-78.617218. It should be updated on the permit and BIMS. This point was only moved about 70 ft north from the
current permit. However, the diagram (map 1) should be used for the overall shape and location of the field.
3- Please add to the facility description, after recirculating tank "and pump".
4- The diagram (map 1) shows the fence as several feet outside the drip lines.,
5- This system is maintained 4 tunes a year by AQWA, which is twice more than usual.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0019965 Page 5 of 5

z
Oz
w

Al"