WQ0031598_Staff Report_20191118

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge Unit
Attn: (Ashley Kabat)
From: (Gary Kreiser)
Choose an item. -Regional Office
Application No.: (WQ00315984)
Facility name: 156 Lexington Dr. SFR
Chatham County
Note: This form has-been adapted from the non -discharge facility staff report to document the review of both non -
discharge and NPDES nermit applications and/or renewals. Please com lete 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: 04'24!2019
b. Site visit conducted by: Gary Kreiser
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No
d. Person contacted:
e. Driving directions:
2. Discharge Point(s):
Latitude:
Latitude:
and their contact information: (_)
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Classification:
River Basin and Sub -basin No.
Longitude:
Longitude:
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
II. PROPOSED FACILITIES: NEW APPLICATIONS
ext.
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 ❑ Ne"A
If no, please explain:
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR04-14 Pagel of5

6. Are the proposed application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) acceptable? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ NrA
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:
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:
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:
S. 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):
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 5

Monitoring Well
Latitude
Longitude
O I 11
O 1 if
O 1 /1
6 1 If
O f 11
O 1 of
O
O f If
O 1 1/
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 ❑ MA
If no, please explain:
15. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA
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 issuancerrenewal of this permit? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
?. 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
® Issue
❑ Deny (Please state reasons:
6. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: 1/ '5 120117
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 5

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
The permit modification references a flow reduction from 480 gpd to 360 gpd. From the project narrative I don't see that it mentions
shifting the permit drain field. Staff from RRO meet on 4. 24' 19 with Ricky Pontello (soil scientist) to discuss the potential to move
the permitted drip field. Below is what was submitted to RRO regarding shifting the drip field. It appears that this revised drip field is
consistent with what has been submitted in the modification application. Note that the house has been shifted closer in the application
than depicted below.
The site was walked and features discussed regarding the movement of the proposed drip field. During the original permit process, a
6-inch cap was brought in for a portion of the drip field. Ricky provided a copy of this report to RRO. RRO asked Ricky to GPS the
drainage feature located on the eastern edge of property to ensure that the drip field is at the required setback. On the application site
map, the ephemeral feature is now depicted and it appears that the revised drip field is 25 feet away from the feature. RRO also asked
for a letter from Ricky stating that site conditions have not changed since the original fieldwork was performed in 2007. That letter
has been provided and included in the permit modification
FORM; WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 5