WQ0016500_Staff Report_20181211

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
December 12,2018
To: Non-Discharge Unit Application No.: W00016500
Attn: Sonia Graves Facility name: 1433 Lutterloh Rd
County:Chatham
From: Joan Schneier
Raleigh 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 WFORNMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or❑No
a. Date of site visit: 11/08/2018
b. Site visit conducted by: J. Schneier
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or®'No
d. Person contacted: Jerry Brandon and their contact information: [phone] ext.
e. Driving directions: Are correct in BIMS
2. Discharge Point(s):
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Classification:
River Basin and Subbasin No.
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
H. 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:
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:
FORM: WQROSSR04-14 Page 1 of

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):
M.EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ❑Yes ❑ No ®N/A
ORC: Certificate M Backup ORC: Certificate M
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: Roughly, Septic tank with filter, distribution box, sub-surface sand filter, tablet
chlorinator,pump tank and pump, six spray heads,high water alarms,rain sensor, etc.
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow: 480 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.)
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 a 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. (see comments 3 &4)
9. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit correct? ❑.Yes or®No
If no,please explain: See comment 5
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? ❑ Yes ❑No ®N/A
If no,please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0016500 Page 2 of 5

11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑ Yes❑No ®N/A
If no,please complete the following ex and table if necessary):
Monitoring Well Latitude Longitude
O , „ O 1
11
O , „ O , , „
O , „ O ,
11
O , „ O ,
11
O 1 „ O ,
11
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: n/a
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 pennit 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 compliancelenforcement that should be resolved before issuing this•pennit?
❑ Yes ®No ❑N/A
If yes,please explain:
16. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: Highly unlikely
17. Pretreatment Program(POTWs only):
FORM:WQROSSR 04-14 W00016500 Page 3 of 5

IV. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ❑ Yes or® No
If yes,please explain:
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
n/a
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
n/a
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
n/a
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 prepares:
Signature of regional superviso .
Date:
FORM:WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0016500 Page 4 of 5

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
1- The facility lat-long is correct in BIMS.
2- The center of the field was GPSed by point averaging at 35.80582,-79.23338, 1/10 sec,navigation grade GPS,
NAD83.
3- This was Lot 8 (parcel#76320) of 10 permitted by Purvis Land and.Timber in 1999,with the lots sold later and
systems and houses constructed by the new owners. Setback waivers were recorded by Purvis at the time of
permitting, although not with specific distances.
4- This field was listed for three waivers—Lot 7 (WQ0016499, 76318)to the north,Lot 6 (WQ0016498, 76317)to
the northeast, and the Edna Webster property to the east (69363) (see Maps 1&3). Since that time,Lutterloh Rd
(60 ft right of way) on the east boundary has been expanded and/or made public, so it is possible that the two
waivers to the east are no longer needed.The field is close to the north boundary line fence, so that one is
necessary. The waivers are referenced in the deed at Book 809 Page 657,recorded 11/10/1999.
5- There is an undescribed lift pump and tank with high water alarms,near the house. This is between the septic tank
and sand filter.Also on the original facility description, a typo error left a space in"78"foot diameter spray
heads,which should be fixed to avoid confusion.
6- The CmB (Cid-Lignum, 2-6%) soils described in Table 11.4.were confirmed by checking the site-specific soil
report.
FOFLM: WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0016500 Page 5 of 5

Map I Cf-3
WQ0016500
i
w
- 621
P
}Vx
76318 t
1.. 68932
� eta�
76317
1 v s
ti 1 t
76320 68939
^¢33 14 1
I . E
N j
{ i kas� 69363 Ip
I
' 76321
i $5654
r I
x e as crow.�`e� Service Layer Credits: Chatham County,
Chatham County GIS
F
tid�dR�?Cteep mi
0 0.0275 0.055
OO� Creek N
ON' norm+ <rtt xrtr
Date: 12/10/2018
Time:3:45:24 PM �"—

S>01 sg,
`1� � F
4z v��Q seAce r= sa`
IOOf�
�5 0
4 �
C ) ELEV.460'•
_ 2 STRANDS BARE
W FENCE MOUND I
TREATED 2X4 PG
m 50.00'
PROPOSED 1200 GALLON m ti SS S09'28.5'W
CONTRACTOR SHALL PROPOSED EFFLUENT _.Z S
SEPTIC TANK.
TIE TO PLUMBING PUMPING CHAMBER
�°•Fj• 6�,
STB-175 OR EOOAL c�j 1P
FROM HOUSE SEE X 511 5�GALLON / 4/N m
SEE DETAIL (G/// 230.15'
SHEET /3 E SEE
- SEE DETAIL °3 'W Nj
SHEET 13
( 7 ;
L
'ELEV.49Y
If PVC SEWER SERVICE LOCATION OF
m MANUAL /z'PVC GATE VALVE
POINT
AT
PROPOSED LOW PO/NT WX VALVE BOX
L y , DISTRIBUTION BOX 1TYP.0F681'
145'X 4_59

ff
— Lo+s -
purvU 1a��4Tiir+bH^
�wQ001(o90J ttw000IMrs
m
m
websFer <
It i
NOTES.
1. SPRAY FIELD TO REMAIN WOODED UNLESS RUTTTING REQUIRES
THAT THE SITE BE GRADED. IF GRADING IS REQUIRED
THE WETTED AREA SHALL BE GRADED TO A SMOOTH AND
' C//CNT1V !`/lAA/GV C//OC MC"