WQ0042646_Staff Report_20210729

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources

Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report

To: NPDES Unit Non-Discharge Unit Application No.: WQ0042646
Attn: [e-mail] Facility name: 8508 Foxbridge Rd. SFR
County: Union
From: [e-mail]
Mooresville 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 applicable.
I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? Yes or No
a. Date of site visit: 7/26/2021.
b. Site visit conducted by: Maria Schutte.
c. Inspection report attached? Yes or No, NA new facility.
d. Person contacted: The contract engineer Kevin Davidson, P.E. (AWT, Agri-Waste Technology, Inc.) and
their contact information: [phone] (cell) or [e-mail]. Was responded to by, and
met with Trevor Hackney (AWT) and their contact information: [e-mail].
e. Driving directions: From MRO travel NC3 north to Odell School Rd to Poplar Tent Road to I-85 South to I-
485 toward Matthews. Take exit 52 to E John St Matthews; turn left onto E. John St; Right onto Potters Road;
Right onto Forest Lawn Dr.; Left onto Forest Ridge Rd; Left onto Foxbridge Rd. Site is on the left between
8304 and 8508 Foxbridge Dr., Mathews, NC 28104. NOTE: This property is not assigned a street # yet
e he attempts to acquire one.
2. Discharge Point(s): NA this is a non-discharge permit.
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:
II. PROPOSED FACILITIES: NEW APPLICATIONS
1. Facility Classification: SFR not applicable. (Please attach completed rating sheet to be attached to issued
permit)
Proposed flow: 4 Bedroom home = 480 gpm.
Current permitted flow:
2. Are the new treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system? Yes or No
If no, explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 5

3. Are site conditions (soils, depth to water table, etc.) consistent with the submitted reports? Yes No N/A
If no, please explain: Per Soil Scientists evaluation and site conversation with the Mr. Hackney, areas of the
application field will require additional soils (build-up) to meet SHWT separation requirement.
Mr. Hackney (and coworker, Mclean Davis) hand augered many boreholes during the inspection. The SE corner
of the proposed drip field appeared to be sl. restrictive, with minor auger resistance at about 10 inches deep. The
shallowest borehole, by wetness was only deep, and located on the West/NW side of the drip field, in a small
depression near a tree. When MRO staff expressed concern of potential ponding, Mr. Hackney stated the area
will need fill anyway to bring to proposed grade, but also suggested they can utilize short dripline dry-runs (as
needed) that may reduce ponding and gn. Several trees are requested to be kept by the
owner, which would make this a mostly forested (part grass) drip field.
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: SFR will use typical septic tank cleanout guidelines.
6. Are the proposed application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) acceptable? Yes No N/A
If no, please explain: Verify if local weather station data alters climate and/or precipitation data. Application
utilized data from Chapel Hill area.
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: None if operated as a non-discharge system.
11. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): n/a
III. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS N/A
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? Yes No N/A
WWTP ORC: SI 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.)
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:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 5

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
!!!!!! -!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!! -!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!! -!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!! -!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!! -!!!!!!
!!!!!
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 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:
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):

FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 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
The Precipitation Request local weather data be utilized for calculations and clarify is date range
worksheet shows Annual most current (2018 & 2020 wettest on record for this area per recent Annual
Evapotranspiration and Drought meeting for the Catawba River Basin), as CO deems necessary.
Rainfall using Chapel Hill
Weather station data from MRO staff discussed during site visit. Did not research nearest weather station,
1987 2016. but Charlotte Airport came to mind.
The proposed O&M
schedule is included
The O&M plan would be best as a single page document, for the owner to keep
with the blue prints on
with the permit. This comment is at CO discretion if deemed necessary.
page WW-10

Permit
Accurate Address
next-door neighbor) address. Will need to correct on final as built plans.

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: )
th
6. Signature of report preparer: Maria Schutte July 29, 2021
Signature of regional supervisor:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 5

Date:

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 5