NCG551721_Staff Report_20170419

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources

Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report

FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 5

To: NPDES Unit Non-Discharge Unit Application No.: NCG551721
Attn: Sarah Phillips Facility Name: 43 Vision Rd.
County : Haywood
From: Mikal Willmer
Asheville 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: 03/30/2017
b. Site visit conducted by: Mikal Willmer & Tim Heim
c. Inspection report attached? Yes or No
d. Person contacted: Jeffrey Schandevel and their contact information: [phone] ext.
e. Driving directions:
2. Discharge Point(s):
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Beaverdam Creek
Classification: C
River Basin and Subbasin No.: French Broad -06010106
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: Flows to Pigeon River also Class C
II. PROPOSED FACILITIES: NEW APPLICATIONS
1. Facility Classification: Failing permitted subsurface septic system (Please attach completed rating sheet to be
attached to issued permit)
Proposed flow: 360 gpd
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: ARO did not evaluate
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:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 5
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. Sand filters within 50ft of property line.
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:
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:

FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 5
11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? Yes No N/A
If no, please complete the following (expand table if necessary):
Monitoring Well Latitude Longitude
○ ′ ″ - ○ ′ ″
○ ′ ″ - ○ ′ ″
○ ′ ″ - ○ ′ ″
○ ′ ″ - ○ ′ ″
○ ′ ″ - ○ ′ ″
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 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:
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):

FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 5

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
See inspection report for additional details.

EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Form Approved.
OMB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type
1 N 52 NCG551721 17/03/30 R S31112171819 20
21 66
Inspection Work Days Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA ----------------------Reserved-------------------
N67707172 73 74 75 80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
43 Vision Road
43 Vision Rd
Canton NC 28716
Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date
Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date
02:10PM 17/03/30
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
///
Other Facility Data
02:30PM 17/03/30
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Jeffrey Schandevel,43 Vision Rd Canton NC 28716//828-508-6192/Contacted
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Other
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s)Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
Timothy H Heim ARO WQ//828-296-4665/
Mikal Willmer ARO WQ//828-296-4686/
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#1
MW 04/19/2017
NPDES yr/mo/day
17/03/30
Inspection Type
R3111218
1
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
Mikal Willmer and Tim Heim with the Asheville Regional Office conducted a reconnaissance inspection
of the property located at 43 Vision Rd. on March 31, 2017. This inspection was conducted to further
determine site and stream suitability for a potential NPDES Discharge Permit. The owner, Jeffrey
Schandevel, was contacted before the inspection and inspectors met with Rhonda Schandevel on-site.
The property was very well maintained and Beaverdam Creek appeared free-flowing and free of visual
impairments. The property's subsurface septic system recently started showing signs of failure.
Owners noted ponding in their current drainage field. The previously allocated repair area was
determined unsuitable by the Haywood County Environmental Health Department due to a high water
table and location in flood zone. Septic system is currently comprised of a septic tank, pump tank (with
audio and visual alarms)and drainage field. Edge of property near the creek is located in the floodway
and the remainder of the property is in the 100 year flood zone. Noted on the system plans, the
proposed sand filters will be within 50 ft of the property line.

ARO would like additional information on alternative and innovative systems explored by engineer and
homeowner. Plans indicate the current septic tank and pump tank will be utilized. If it is being used,
NOI requires owners submit an invoice that the septic tank has been pumped or serviced within the
last 12 months.
NCG551721 17 (Cont.)
Page#2
Permit:NCG551721
Inspection Date:03/30/2017
Owner - Facility:
Inspection Type:
43 Vision Road
Reconnaissance
Other Yes No NA NE
This site visit was conducted as part of the permit application process. See summary for
details.
Comment:
Page#3