WQ0045733_Staff Report_20240923

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources

Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report

FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 3

To: NPDES Unit Non-Discharge Unit Application No.: WQ0045733
Attn: Elton Luong Facility name: 90 Anfield Rd.
SFR

From: Chris Smith
Raleigh 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: August 27, 2024 and September 3, 2024
b. Site visit conducted by: Chris Smith
c. Inspection report attached? Yes or No
d. Person contacted: and their contact information:
e. Driving directions:
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:
Docusign Envelope ID: 3AE6D197-4A66-4F90-9618-F962A2E217D3
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 3
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. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? Yes or No
If yes, please explain: See Additional Regional Staff Review Items
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

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
Docusign Envelope ID: 3AE6D197-4A66-4F90-9618-F962A2E217D3
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 3
Issue
Deny (Please state reasons: )
6. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date:
IV. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS

The Ksat data provided for this site is acceptable. The proposed drainage coefficient of 32% is higher than DWR staff
recommend, but there is currently nothing in DWR regulations preventing the applicant from using this value.

The soil descriptions provided for this site were field evaluated by DWR staff. Overall, the provided profile descriptions
were confirmed during the DWR site visits. At the nest 3 location DWR staff observed indicators (10YR 6/1 mottles) of
SHWT at approximately 15 inches below the surface. The provided profile description for this location states that 10YR
6/1 mottles were observed in the Bt horizon described from 20-30 inches and also states that the SHWT is perched at 13
inches. This description is self-conflicting and a corrected description should be provided.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3AE6D197-4A66-4F90-9618-F962A2E217D3
9/23/2024