WQ0039056_Staff Report_20190723

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
July 22,2019
To: Non-Discharge Unit Application No.: W00029056
Attn: Poonam Giri Facility name: 163 E Stone Rd SFR
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 INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or❑No
a. Date of site visit: 07/08/2019
b. Site visit conducted by: J.Schneier
C. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or®No
d. Person contacted: n/a and their contact information: (_) ext.
e. Driving directions: Were added 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:
11. 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 Pagel of5

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: Roughly: Septic tank, aeration chamber with Clearstream system and blower,
UV,pump tank and pump, 0.42 ac drip field, control panel, rain sensor.
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 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: See comment 6
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? ❑ Yes ❑No ®N/A
If no,please explain: .
FORM:WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0039056 Page 2 of 5

11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑ Yes ❑No ®N/A
If no,please complete the followin ex and table if necessary):
Monitoring Well Latitude Longitude
O , „ O ,
11
O , „ O , ,/
O , „ O ,
11
O , „ O ,
11
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: 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 permit cycle,please explain the status. Has the RO been
working with the Pemrittee? 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:Not likely.The proposed field will be about 120 ft upslope from a
wetlands and 200 ft from a pond,both on the same lot.
17. Pretreatment Program(POTWs only):
FORM:WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0039056 Page 3 of 5

IV.REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuanceirenewal 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
See comments 7 and 8
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 preparers
Signature of regional supervisor.
Date: - If If
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 W00039056 Page 4 of 5

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
1- The lot is undeveloped and the system has not yet been constructed.At this time, there are no plans for
development.
2- The lot is held by a family corporation, one of whom owns the adjacent lot and system, WQ0039055 at 165 E
Stone Rd,which is under construction.
3- The facility lat-long was tweaked in BIMS but should be updated whenever the house is built.
4- The estimated center of the proposed field is 35.776043, -79.011906, 1 sec, map interpretation,NAD83, and
should be updated whenever the system is built.This is only about 35 feet from the current lat-long in BIMS, so
either one could be used for now.
5- The plans were filed under the former address of 129 E Stone Rd and the adjacent lot used to be 127 E Stone Rd.
6- Please add to the facility description at the pump tank,"with audible and visual high water alarms".
7- The map in the current permit shows a well to be abandoned. This will not be an issue until the field is
constructed. A provision to cover this should be in the permit, and in my opinion,part of the engineer's
certification. I was unaware of this well and did not check for it in the site visit. It does not show up in the
Chatham GIS,which only has recent wells.
8- The application and RRO site assessment have some back and forth discussion of whether the drainage coefficient
was too optimistic and indicated a possible need for 6 inches fill in the field.It is not obvious (to me anyway) how
this was resolved. If extra fill is needed,that should be mentioned in the cover letter and/or permit.
FORM:WQROSSR 04-14 W00039056 Page 5 of 5

W00039056 Not I of--\
60518
60493 al° &a5 a dx `a
,
.�, -175H6
6. :{t
,..a f �,� ���µ�k }�r r. a6;. Y I f L Y?��e �. 'Y v. ,���'`� • :T-�! yuRa
pl
APA
1p
r
rA-t
F. 17616� .
.��
A..Lr •`.�{-fly � fir. 4 � jI j Y � � •,-cw .
+
��v 'x
re � � r
!,'xpj `b"�'d 1+ I,�y k+d �. �"✓ '�j*K"" a 0 CA225 OA45
+ , t �A `,p;i ,"` la '' t jriADk " - +i+"•. 'l" e* _ pY- '
Service Layer Credits:Chatham County,
Chatham County Tax Department
:77n6 ✓ �e ;n� E ® Es-h'mn* cep f 9 9P�ie1cL
ff _
,�F3a i 613
h
' CHATHAll COUNTY j
0• [ORYII.CAROLINA
fY
pA Date:7/22/2019 .
Time:9:21:47 AM
_t3 p

SIT PR. SETBACK
- rf� PROPOSED.-
7 PRO
ST^ .. P OPEI Y.LM _ �.�•�e�
�I�I� d•'"�:•'•d:e'� o J.�d°,•�'o��oJ�/f'.Ii/� �;.. ,.,.j ���/// I
OL
7- 7 PROPERTY IfMk I