WQ0002001_Staff Report_20210720

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.: (WQ0002001)
Attn: (Poonam Giri) Facility name: Water's Edge Subdivision
From: (Edward Watson)
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
Date of site visit: 11/23/2020
Site visit conducted by: Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No
a. Person contacted: A Lynn Aldridge and their contact information: (704) 431 - 5266 ext.
e. Driving directions:
2. Discharge Point(s): N/A
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: This is a non -discharge permit. There is no outfall associated with this
permit.
Classification: N/A
River Basin and Subbasin No. N/A
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: N/A
II. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
ORC: A. Lynn Aldridge Certificate #:993778 Backup ORC: Matthew Steven Sechler Certificate #:1001758
2. Is 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: Community WWT and Spray Irrigation, the description in the permit is correct.
Proposed flow: The system is permitted for 24,900 GPD WWT and Irrigation. Flow to the irrigation field is
monitored by a manual flow meter. System flow is kept record of in the ORC's O&M Logbook. Application
monthly rates are recorded and reported on NDAR-1 record sheets submitted to the RO. Influent flow to the
system is not on a flow meter as flow to the WWT system is not at or above 10,000 GPD.
Current permitted flow: 24,900 GPD.
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
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 3

Are the site conditions (e.g., soils, topography, depth to water table, etc.) maintained appropriately and adequately
assimilating the waste? ® Yes or n No
If no, please explain:
3. 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:
4. Is the residuals management plan adequate? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
5. Are the existing application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) still acceptable? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
6. Is the existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program: GW Data indicates MW-3
has reported to be dry for the last four sampling events. This well may need to be repaired or replaced (see
comments below).
7. Are there any setback conflicts for existing treatment, storage and disposal sites? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
8. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit correct? ® Yes or n No
If no, please explain:
9. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
10. 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.
11. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain: N/A
12. Check all that apply:
n No compliance issues n Current enforcement action(s) n 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? The RO regularly monitors the facility. Recently, an NOD was issued for failure to
report data as required. Is a solution underway or in place? The RO has been in communication with the ORC
and the ORC admits that the sampling event was missed. The ORC has assured the RO that better tracking will
be performed so sampling events are not missed.
Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit been satisfied? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
13. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
❑ Yes ®No❑N/A
If yes, please explain:
14. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: No, provided system is operated as a non -discharge system.
15. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): N/A
REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14
Page 2 of 3

2. 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
n Deny (Please state reasons: )
3. Signature of report preparer: Edward Watson, Hydrogeologist 19 July 2021.
Docu Signed by:
44.014cw H P •N.
F161FB69A2D84A3...
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: 7.20.21
ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
1. There is the possibility that wells MW-1 and MW-3 may need to be repaired or replaced. However, these wells
have a history of being periodically dry because of seasonal water table fluctuations.
The MRO would like to have the permittee check MW-1 and MW-3 for integrity to see if the wells have become
backfilled with sediment. The well depth for MW-1 is 34.0 ft. bls. The well depth for MW-3 is 17.50 ft. bls. If the
wells are measured not to be at construction depth, the wells may need to be flushed to clear backfilled sediments.
However, if there is excessive sediment in the wells, the backfill material may be because of a failed well jacket
and the wells would require replacement.
During the next sampling event, if the wells are found to be to depth and the well remains dry; the RO would
suggest that the well be replaced and drilled to a depth that would have sufficient water in the well so the well
does not go dry during seasonal water level fluctuation.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 3