WQ0006028_Tax Certification_20190715

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report
To: ❑NPDES Unit®Non-Discharge Unit Application No.: (W00006028)
Attn: (Erick Saunders) Facility name: Parcel No.201 Stoneybrook
Road SFR
Orange County
From: (Gary Kreiser)
Choose an item. 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: 03/05/2019 and 7/1/2019
b. Site visit conducted by: Gary Kreiser
C. Inspection report attached? ❑Yes or®No
d. Person contacted: Brant Morefield and their contact information: (910)228- 7524 ext.
e. Driving directions:
2. Discharge Point(s):
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Classification:
River Basin and Sub-basin No.
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
IL 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:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 5

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
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 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 1 II O ,
11
O , II O 1 11
O , „ O ,
11
O , „ O , II
O , „ 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:
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 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
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
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(Pleas state reaso s: )
6. Signature of report prepare.:
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 5

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
A site inspection was performed on March 5,2019 for a change of ownership. Staff would like to thank Mr.
Morefield who helped during the inspection. A previous inspection on November 20, 2018 was performed and the
system was in good operational order.
The chlorinator had the correct chlorine tablets present. The previous owner had installed a wooden lid on the
chlorinator since the concrete lid was cracked and is hard to access the chlorinator. The chlorinator tubes are below
grade and to reach the tubes you must lay or kneel on the ground. It was discussed if he wanted to make it easier to
put in tablets that he could extend the tubes a foot or so. I told Mr. Morefield to make sure he did not put too many
tablets in the chlorinator at a time as they might swell up and not contact the water.
The pump tank was accessed, and the floats were pulled to trigger the alarm. There is a visual alarm on the control
panel. The audible alarm is in the house but could also be triggered on the outside. The irrigation system was turned
on and the spray field was inspected.
Currently, there is a two-strand bard wire fence around the spray field. Mr. Morefield asked if it had to be bard-wire
and I indicated that it only had to be two-strand. During the inspection of the spray field one of the spray heads was
not secured to the wooden post and was wobbling. I told Mr. Morefield it would be good to secure the riser to try to
prevent a break in the pipe from the wobbling. Additionally, one of the spray heads stopped rotating during the
inspection. Mr.Morefield was going to check to see if there was a blockage and either fix or replace the one spray
head.
During the inspection the setbacks to neighboring homes was discussed. I told Mr. Morefield that according to the
previous owner(Mr.Adkins)that setback waivers had been granted. Below is an excerpt from the November 20,
2018 inspection.
"During the inspection the setbacks to neighboring homes was discussed. The house to the south(109 Stoneybrook)
was built in 1975 and according to Mr.Adkins the owner of that house granted himself a waiver to build the house at
201 Stoneybrook. It appears that the irrigation area is approximately 200 away from 109 Stoneybrook. The house to
the north (203 Stoneybrook)was built in 1983 and Mr. Adkins stated that he believed that this property granted a
waiver when this system was permitted.The irrigation area is approximately 200 feet away from this house."
The approximate location of the Sprayfield is 35.910, -79.109. Overall,the system is well maintained and operational.
An additional site visit was performed on July 1, 2019 to better determine location of sprayfield and the distance to
the house to the north(203 Stoneybrook). The spray risers were GPS and had the following coordinates:
35.90979,-79.10841
35.90986,-79.10862
35.90982,-79.10877
35.90982,-79.10995
During this visit options were discussed about possibly moving the sprayfield or shutting down spray heads. Based
on setback requirements it appears that the location of the sprayfield is in the location that has the maximum distance
from the house to the north,property line to the west and the house to the south. There is no other location to move
the field in such a way that it wouldn't be too close to the property line to the west or the adjoining houses.
FORM:WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 5