WQ0023999_Staff Report_20230530

;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.: WQ0023999
Facility name: 84 Winding Trail Ln. SFR
County: Cabarrus
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: 5-24-2023. Inspection for this Permit Renewal was coordinated with their contractor
AQWA to coincide with their routine maintenance visit.
b. Site visit conducted by: Maria Schutte
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No BIMS to be updated with inspection shortly_
d. Person contacted: Tammy (Sanders) Riggan — Scheduling coordinator for AQWA technicians.
tsanders&awga.net & agwatammysanders&gmail.com
& Mr. Lee Spencer [phone] or Lspencer900kgmail.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 Hwy 73. Turn Lt & follow signs for U-turn to Kannapolis Pkwy, Turn Rt
onto Kannapolis Pkwy: Turn Right onto Roberta Road:: Left onto Blackwelder Road becomes Pharr Mill
Road., turn Left onto Rocky River Rd. and quick Right onto Lower Rocky River Road, Turn Left onto Pine
Grove Church Road: Right onto Flowes Store Road: Right onto Winding Trail Lane. Property is on the Right.
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 system — ORC not required, but owner contracts with AQWA for 22i/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. This is a SFR drip system with UV and 1 application field divided into 3 zones. Email communication
from CO staff about as -built designs per last permit and staff report request from MRO. CO staff also requested
Property Line setback assessment from drip field.
MRO communicated w/owner, who checked records but did not locate the as -built map. Owner will follow-up
with Engineer. While on -site last week MRO staff attempted (through woods, vegetation and limited line of
sight between objects) to measure distance between drip -fields' fence post and shed on neighbor property at PL.
MRO staff, best GUESS is the fence post is at least 75 feet from the PL (and drip -field further away). However,
MRO staff requests as -built design (or surveyorp) to satisfy Permit Condition, original request and alleviate
any CO concern of PL setback encroachment. BIMS to be updated for site visit last week.
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: PL setback not believed to be an issue — but as -built or surveyorp will alleviate concern.
(Noted in III and IV)
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:
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: Location of tanks is to side of home, not directly behind as original proposed design shows.
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
o
o
o
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: Missing as -built site map as noted in sections III and IV.
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.).
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
Can the language be updated?
MRO staff recently stated the following in a different SFR renewal:
How are owners to "safely" meet weekly inspection requirement of UV 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
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?
inspection
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.
As -built (or surveyor map)
MRO communicating w/owner and / or engineer for as -built plans (if exist).
— Also noted in IVA.
MRO staff is okay with a surveyor's map (if CO is), whichever is most feasible
below.
for owner.
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
MRO staff requests as -built
design (or surveyor map) to
satisfy Permit Condition,
per recent email communication / request from CO. See comments in IIL2.
original request and
above.
alleviate any CO concern
of PL setback
encroachment.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 5

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: Maria Schutte May 30, 2023
/—DocuSigned by:
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: 6/ 2/202 3 `F161 FB69AWMA3...
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
None.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 5