WQ0029893_Staff Report_20230202

;s State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge Unit
Attn: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Mooresville Regional Office
Application No.: WQ0029893
Facility name: 1125 Crowell Dairy Rd. SFR
County: Union
Note: This form has been adapted from the non -discharge facilily 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 1-10-2023. 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 & agwatammysanderskgmail.com
& Laura Haskin [phone] & ljhaskinkvt.edu.
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 toward Matthews, Take the Hwy 218 exit and turn Left, Continue & turn Right onto
Crowell Dairy / Noah Helms Road. 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 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:
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.
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 Single
family ystem — ORC not required, but owner contracts with AQWA for 22/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 ppears maintained. Some concerns noted with field site irrigation / assimilation. Very wet
conditions in half of the application field, some potentially from recent rain — see comments in inspection report,
available in BIMS and emailed separately to CO permit writer. Also, continued use of field for chickens and
planted fruit trees (food for chickens not people - per conversation with owner in 2021).
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.) At present MRO staff will work with owner and contractors on drip field conditions noted in inspection
report. MRO communicated in 2021 w/ CO on questions of the chickens and fruit trees. Rule language has not
changed since then, so unlikely CO can assist — but MRO is open to further suggestions to encourage drip field be
utilized for wastewater irrigation only.
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: Uncertain. Rain likely caused some of the wet conditions noted at the time of recent
inspection. MRO staff plans to follow-up w/next scheduled AQWA visit. The installation and placement of this
system is somewhat different than originally permitted, per historical files (in Laserfiche), but drip field
placement appears located in the area recommended by soil scientist.
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 ❑ N/A
If no, please explain: Uncertain - See notes in inspection report. MRO has advised owner to discuss with
contractors how to be manage so zones 2 & 3 can dry sufficiently between applications and / or after rain events.
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:
11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, please complete the following (expand table if necessary): I have no records that these MWs exist.
Monitoring Well
Latitude
Longitude
C , „
C ,
C , „
C , rr
C , „
rr
C ,
C
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: MRO staff will continue to work with owner and contractors to address field concerns.
❑ 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: Only spill or run-off from over -application (fecal, solids, etc.). ND
permit should not result in discharges to surface waters.
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:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 5

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
Does the 2018 Land survey map the Engineer referenced and submitted meet
Question about as -built
the definition of as -built? The area of tank locations and drip field appear
plans
accurate, but there are no details / measurements.
How are owners to "safely" meet weekly inspection requirement of UV unit?
MRO staff advises owners to consult with their maintenance contractor or
Question about waiver
system installer — but it is likely they are told not to open tanks, etc. and leave to
agreements
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? Can the language be updated? - This was asked by another permittee
at recent MRO inspection.
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
I.I. & 2.
Conditions satisfied and / or no longer applicable. If CO is okay with as -built
map engineer previously submitted.
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:
DocuSigned by:
2/2/2023
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 5

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
Irrigation field coordinates adjusted in BIMS. May not carry over to current permit — per BIMS typical warning.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 5