WQ0030257_Staff Report_20200806

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ®Lion -Discharge Unit Application No.: WQ0030257
Attn: Chloe Lloyd Facility name: Parcel 20148 Eagle Drive
County: Chatham
From: Jane R. Bernard
Raleigh Regional Office
Note: This fQrm has been-adal2ted from facility review
non -
discharger renewal5,applicable.
I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ❑ Yes or ® No
a. Date of site visit:
b. Site visit conducted by:
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No
d. Person contacted: and their contact information: O-ext.
e. Driving directions:
2. Discharge Point(s):
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Classification:
River Basin and Sub -basin No.
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
11. 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:
QE�✓A North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality i Division of Water Resources
Raleigh Regional Office 3800 Barrett Drive I Raleigh. North Carolina 27609
0 ....raw, /', n1o7a1,nnn

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 0RC: 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.)
3. Are the site conditions (e.g., soils, topography, depth to water table, etc.) maintained appropriately and
adequately assimilating the waste? Lj Yes or ❑ No ® N/A
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:
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
O / /1
- O I r1
O r Ir
O I II
O I of
O / II
D ! of
O I rr
O I of
I Ir
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:
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:
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
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.
Item Reason
4. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason

S. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when
issued:
Condition Reason
6. 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: )
7. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of regional supervis
Date: 8/6/2020
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
!irm.. .. .. . .. . . • !.1 .. •.
IN11,11,11111 M. M.
UM1111� !

AVVr
Land Development Division
5400 Etta Burke Court
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.awtlanddevelopment.com
October 9, 2007
Robert T. Fisher
50004 Brogden
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Dear Mr. Fisher,
U,16)C)C)30 a.!5_7
Ciao{�' co,
CaR
LESS O . J_*'
��..0F
4 SEAL :.
='29424 =
-61
I am pleased to report that I inspected the surface drip irrigation system installed at your future
residence on Eagle Drive in Chatham County on October I, 2007. Also present at the inspection were
Kevin Davidson (AWT), Brooks Kaplan (BB Hobbs) and Retrac Lewis (Jimmy Lewis & Sons
Contracting, Inc.). I inspected the pump, floats, controls, tankage, chlorinator, headworks, supply and
return lines and drip irrigation tubing configuration. Preliminary pressure testing was performed and
pressures fell within the appropriate range. There were field adjustments made to the drip tubing layout
that varied from the plans submitted to the state in order to account for on -site conditions. However, all
changes were appropriate and all design requirements were still met (design drain field area was
maintained). I also obtained a bill of sale verifying appropriate sand was installed in the sand filter. I
plan to be present for the final testing of the system. At that time, I will issue a final certification.
However, the system is presently installed according to the intent of the design.
Sincerely,
Chris Mosley, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer