WQ0013502_Staff Report_20190625

STATE
srj j
ROerna a'
Governor
9 I F� Q,
MICHAEL S.REGAN 1\ /2
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER NORTH CAROLINA
Director Environmental Quality
June 25, 2019
To: Water Quality Permitting Section Central Office Application No.: W00013502
Attn: Tray Doby Permittee: Tower Apartments
Regional Log-in
No.:
From: Ray
Milosh
Raleigh Regional Office
Chatham County
1. GENERAL SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or❑ No
a. Date of site visit: June 17, 2019
b. Site visit conducted by: Ray Milosh
c. Inspection report attached? ®Yes or❑ No
d. Person contacted: Randall laarrell and their contact information: [phone] ext.
e. Driving directions:
11. FACILITY AND APPLICATION FOR NEW AND MODIFICATION APPLICATIONS
1. Facility Classification: Is this correct? ❑ Yes ❑ No
If no,please explain:
2. Are the new treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If no, please 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, acreage, wells, etc.)?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
�� Noah Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 1 Divisiunof Water Resources
�� Raleigh Regional Office 1 3800 Barrett Drive I Raleigh,North Carolina 27609
��+ a�•^�^"�� /�'� 919.791.4200

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 setbacks conflicts for proposed treatment, storage and disposal sites? ❑
Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
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)
Ill. EXISTING FACILITIES FOR MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ®Yes ❑ No
❑ N/A
ORC: Randall Jarrell Certificate#: Backup ORC: Chad Leinbach 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 below in Section IV.
Review Items
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 below in Section IV.Review Items
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 below in Section IV.Review Items
S. Is the residuals management plan adequate? ®Yes or❑ No- If no,please explain below
in Section IV. Review Items
6. Are the existing application rates (e.g.,hydraulic,nutrient) still acceptable? ®Yes or❑ No
- If no,please explain below in Section IV.Review Items
7. Is the existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ®Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program below
in Section IV.Review Items
8. Are there any setback conflicts for existing treatment,storage and disposal sites? ❑Yes or
® No
If yes,provide comments below 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 below in Section IV. Review Items

10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? ®Yes❑ No ❑ N/A If no,
please explain below in Section IV. Review Items.
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 , i,
o r n o , rr
o r „ o , o
o 1 u o , u
o r r, o , rr
12. Has a review of all self-monitoring data been conducted (e.g., NDMR, NDAR,GW)? ®Yes
❑ No or❑ N/A
Please summarize any findings resulting from this review below in Section IV.Review
Items.
13. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? ❑Yes
or® No
If yes,please explain below in Section IV. Review Items.
14. Check all that apply:
®No compliance issues ❑ Current enforcement ❑ Currently under JOC
action(s)
❑Notice(s) of violation ❑ Currently under SOC ❑ Currently under
❑Notice(s) of deficiency moratorium
Please explain and attach any documents that may help clarify answer/comments (i.e.,NOV,
NOD,etc.)
15. Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit been satisfied? ®Yes❑ No
❑ N/A
If no,please explain below in Section IV. Review Items.
16. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before
issuing this permit?
❑Yes® No ❑ N/A
If yes,please explain below in Section IV. Review Items.
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 Central Office to obtain through an additional information
request:
Item Reason

3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
15 References 2T setbacks, not 2H setbacks
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the
permit when issued:
Condition Reason
15 reference setbacks in place when permit was issued in 1997.
NCAC 02H .0219 ' 5
S. 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 st^ate reasons: )
6. Signature of report preparer. ��L
Signature of APS regional supe -sor:
Date:
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
Staff of the NC Division of Water Resources(DWR),Water Quality Regional Operations Section
inspected the subject wastewater drip irrigation system on June 17, 2019. I wish to thank you and Randall
Jarrell for your help during the inspection. The purpose of the visit was to conduct a compliance inspection
of the system prior to renewing the permit.
The system averages 100-400 gallons per day(gpd)of the 1080 gpd permitted.
The ORC stated that the septic tank was last checked in 2018. There were no signs of failure of
the sand filter. The chlorinator was stocked with tablets and the dosing chamber was in good condition.
The pump, panel, alarm and pump tank were all in working order. A new pump is on order and was to be
installed on June 18.

The monitoring well was in good condition and locked. Monitoring data has been complete and
on time and shows no signs of groundwater problems.
The wetland cell and the four discharge ditches to which the effluent gravity feeds were all in good
order. The level control tank was in good condition and contains clear odorless effluent. Effluent samples
are collected from this tank. Records have been submitted complete and on time and indicate good effluent
quality.
The ORC reports that the effluent from the wetland cell is diverted to one of the four infiltration
fields at a time and that the flow is switched to another every three months. A splitter box between the
wetland cells and the infiltration galleys was recently repaired after root intrusion caused problems.
The infiltration galleys were in good condition and are reportedly receiving 22 to 35"per year of
the 150"permitted.
The water meter on the water supply well is used to estimate flow to the septic system,however it
is likely an over estimation,as some water used outside for car washing, etc.,never enters the system.
At the time the permit was issued, NCAC 02H .0219 0) (5) (J) ii required treatment works and
disposal systems(other than spray systems),meet a 50 foot setback from property lines. The wetland cell,
piping and all infiltration trenches are over 50 feet from the property lines.
On the day of the inspection the facility appeared to be operating in compliance with permit
conditions.