WQ0039996_Staff Report_20230524

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge Unit Application No.: WQ0039996
Attn: [e-mail] Facility name: 8314 Foxbridge Dr. SFR
County: Union
From: [e-mail]
Mooresville Regional Office
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 applicable.
I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or ❑ No
a. Date of site visit: Last site visit was on 4-5-2023. Routine inspection coordinated with their contractor,
AQWA.
b. Site visit conducted by: Maria Schutte
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No
and to be uploaded to Laser Fiche.
CO staff copied in separate email. Available in BIMS
d. Person contacted: Tammy (Sanders) Riggan — Scheduling coordinator for AQWA technicians.
tsanderskawga.net & agwatamMsanderskgmail.com
& Rebecca Champlin [phone] & rebeccachamplin(cr�,gmail.com.
e. Driving directions: From the MRO travel Center Ave to Hwy 3 and turn RT.; Cont. to Odell School Rd. take
1st Right off traffic circle; Cont. to Poplar Tent Rd. Turn Rt & follow signs for U-turn to I-85 S, Cont. on I-85
S- & take I-485 Exit 52 to E. John Street Matthews; Take exit and turn Left; Turn Right onto Potters Road, Rt
onto Forest Lawn Dr.. Rt onto Fox Bridge Road (per Gooele maps — but shows as Foxbrdge Dr. in Union Co.
GIS,). Property is on the left.
2. Discharge Point(s): NA
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: NA
Classification:
River Basin and Sub -basin 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:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Pagel 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:
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:
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.
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 Single
family system— ORC not required, but owner contracts with AQWA for 2x/yr. maintenance plus emergency repairs.
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: Treatment should be adequate. Analyses are not required of this single-family
system. System is only a couple years old, with residents in home last year and appears well maintained. Some
wet soil conditions in NE part of the application field. Cont. to observe, if persists or worsens recommend owner
discuss with Soil Scientist &/or installer for recommendations - adjustment to application rate in that area and / or
additional soils build-up, etc. Inspection report available in BIMS and emailed separately to CO permit writer.
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: See III.2. above.
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 ❑ N/A
If no, please explain: With portion of application field to be monitored over time. See notes in inspection report
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 5

& III.2. above. MRO recommends owner (and MRO staff will) continue to monitor for pattern, and potentially
discuss with contractors for best approach to correct.
7. Is the existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program: Currently groundwater
monitoring is not required under this permit.
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:
I t . Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, please complete the following ex and table if necessary): I have no records that these MWs exist.
Monitoring Well
Latitude
Longitude
O / //
O / 11
O / //
O / //
O I //
O I /I
O I //
O I II
O / //
O / //
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: NA for this single-family permit.
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: Yes, if CO okay with items noted in IV.3. (below).
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: Unlikely — Only if run-off from significant, over -application (fecal,
nutrients, etc.). Application field surveyed by contractor to meet setback from ephemeral stream.
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:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 5

Item
Reason
Can the language be updated? - Asked by this permittee at MRO Jan. 2023,
inspection.
MRO staff recently stated the following in a different SFR renewal:
How are owners to "safely" meet weekly inspection requirement of LTV unit?
MRO staff advises owners to consult with their maintenance contractor or
system installer — but it is likely they are told not to open tanks, etc. and leave to
Question about owner
agreements — weekly UV
inspection
experts to change / clean bulbs and don't worry because unit is connected to
telemetry — so is it possible for owners to meet this request as currently
worded?
Recent CO staff response to this question is that "UV unit" connection to
telemetry satisfies weekly inspection requirement; however, the owner
agreement does not state that which creates confusion. And, if telemetry
applies to weekly UV than it also applies to the monthly pump inspection
question. Leaving the application site as the only item for the permittee to
inspect.
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
I.I. & 2.
MRO will forward Jan. 2023, email from contractor that states no changes to
original design, so no as -built map. And I.1. was addressed in Dec. 2021, email
to CO staff, with soils letter and engineer's certification.
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: )
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 5

6. Signature of report preparer: Maria Schutte May 24, 2023
_ DocuSigned by:
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: 5/24/2023
F161FB69A2D84A3...
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 5