PREPARING FOR PROGRAM REVIEW W H A T I T I S T O D A Y, A N D C O M M O N I S S U E S

RE-ACCREDITATION 2017 ANSON CATAWBA CRAVEN GRANVILLE/VANCE HARNETT LENOIR MACON NASH STANLEY CASWELL FORSYTH MADISON MOORE NORTHAMPTON ONSLOW RANDOLPH TRANSYLVANIA WAYNE

PROGRAM REVIEW D O C U M E N T A T I O N R E V I E W / F I E L D W O R K

PROGRAM REVIEW-ONSITE DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR EACH REHS AUTHORIZED IN WASTEWATER (IF AVAILABLE): FIVE IP/CA PERMIT PACKETS* TWO OPERATION PERMIT PACKETS* TWO REPAIR PERMIT PACKETS * ONE PERMIT DENIAL PACKET* ONE PACKET RELATED TO RECONNECTION TO AN EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM ONE PACKET RELATED TO APPROVAL FOR A PROPERTY ADDITION (IF APPLICABLE)

PROGRAM REVIEW-WELLS DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR EACH REHS AUTHORIZED IN PRIVATE DRINKING WATER WELLS: FIVE WELL PERMIT PACKETS ** (FOR COMPLETED WELLS, IF POSSIBLE) ONE PERMIT PACKETS THAT REQUIRED A VARIANCE, IF AVAILABLE ONE REPAIR PERMIT PACKET, IF AVAILABLE**

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION COPIES OF ALL CURRENT FORMS (NOT INCLUDED IN THE PERMITTING PACKETS REQUESTED ABOVE) OPERATION & MAINTENANCE FORMS MIGRANT HOUSING FORMS SUSPENSION/REVOCATION LETTERS COMPLAINT LOG NOV DOCUMENTATION AND TRACKING FORMS RELATED TO ANY OTHER SERVICES PROVIDED

FIELD WORK TWO PERMITS SELECTED FROM THE 5 IP/CAS FOR EACH RS SITE VISIT AND SOIL WORK COMPLETED AT THESE TWO SITES FINAL INSPECTIONS ATTENDED IF AVAILABLE

County Permit Review Worksheet Rule or Law Permit Application 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.1937(d) Is the Application complete.1937(d) Is there a Site plan/plat with application.1937(d) Is the Facilityshown?.1937(d) Are appurtenances shown Site Evaluation Information.1939 (a)(1) Topography and Landscape Position Recorded?.1940 (a-g) Slope % Recorded?.1939 (a)(2) Texture Class Recorded?.1939 (a)(2) Structure type Recorded?.1939 (a)(2) Consistence Recorded?.1939 (a)(2) Mineralogy Recorded?.1939 (a)(3) Soil Wetness Condition Recorded? Soil Depth to Rock or Parent Material Recorded.1939 (a)(4) When Encountered? Depth to Restrictive Horizons Recorded When.1939 (a)(5) Encountered?.1939 (a)(6) Sufficient Available Space Recorded?.1937(m) Are the Profile Locations Shown?.1939(a) &.1945(b) Are the S/PS Profiles in system & in repair area? Number of auger borings made: Were sufficient auger borings made?.1939(d),.1955,.1956,.1957 LTAR.1956,.1955 LTAR within limits of soil group G.S. 130A-336(a) &.1937(g).1945(b) G.S. 130A-336(a)(3).1937(g) &.1945(b).1945(b).1937 (f)(g) IP/CA Proposed System Type stated-initial Proposed System Type stated-repair System location identifiable by setbacks - Initial System components shown - Initial Repair area shown Does System design match facility, flow & WW characteristics?.1937 (f)(g) Is System design consistent with soil/site conditions?.1937 (f)(g) Is the System located in the approved area? G.S. 130A-336(a) G.S. 130A-336(a).1937(g).1937(g).1937(g) G.S. 130A-336(a)(1) G.S. 130A-336(a)(1) G.S. 130A-336(a) Is the Design flow (gpd) indicated? Number of Bedrooms, employees, seats, etc. indicated? Trench depth indicated? Trench width indicated? Trench length indicated? Proposed/existing well shown? Property line lengths shown? Facility/appurtenance setbacks shown from fixed points?

COMMON ISSUES P R O C E D U R E S

COMMON ISSUES PROCEDURES 1. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS & INADEQUATE SITE PLANS

SITE PLANS

COMMON ISSUES PROCEDURES 1. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS & INADEQUATE SITE PLANS 2. APPLICANT SIGNING FOR RIGHT OF ENTRY WITHOUT DOCUMENTATION OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION

MEMORANDUM FROM: L. Layton Long, Jr., Environmental Health Section Chief TO: Environmental Health Supervisors Local Health Directors DATE: January 30, 2013 RE: Owners Legal Representative Documentation Recently an issue has been raised regarding situations where a person represents themselves to the health department as the legal representative of a property owner for the purpose of making a septic permit application. 15 NCAC 18A.1937 (d) requires the signature of the owner or owner s legal representative for the purposes of making an application for an improvement permit. In order to address this rule requirement, many health departments have developed legal representative forms as a means to document an individual as being the owner s legal representative. The issue at question is whether or not a health department can require or mandate the use of their form before accepting a septic application from someone other than the property owner. In 2011 the General Assembly enacted Session Law 2011-398 which amended GS 150B-18, which covers rulemaking, with the following language; An a agency shall not seek to implement or enforce against any person a policy, guideline, or other nonbinding interpretive statement that meets the definition of a rule contained in G.S. 150B-2(8a) if the policy, guideline, or other nonbinding interpretive statement has not been adopted as a rule in accordance with this Article. G.S. 150B-18 defines a rule as any agency regulation, standard, or statement of general applicability that implements or interprets an enactment of the General Assembly or Congress or a regulation adopted by a federal agency or that describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency In general this law prohibits a health department from using forms, procedures or policies, in the enforcement of a state rules authorized by General Statute, that establish additional requirements not spelled out in the rules or law. Although a health department cannot require a specific legal representative form in order for someone to submit a septic application it does not negate the clear requirement in the rule that the application be signed by the owner or the owner s legal representative. If the application is not signed by the owner, proof still needs to be provided that the person submitting the application is the owner s legal representative. There are several options available to the health department and the public in demonstrating this legal relationship between the property owner and the representative. Examples of acceptable documentation may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following; a power of attorney, court ordered guardianship, executor of an estate, bankruptcy trustee, or a real estate contract. Forms created by the health department to satisfy this requirement can still be offered as another option of providing proof they just cannot be required. If someone chooses not to use the form offered by the health department then the burden of proof falls back to the individual seeking to submit the application. C: Chris Hoke

Owner s Legal Representative Form -or- Power of Attorney -or- Real Estate Contract -or- Estate executor -or- Bankruptcy trustee -or- Court ordered guardianship

COMMON ISSUES PROCEDURES 1. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS & INADEQUATE SITE PLANS 2. APPLICANT SIGNING FOR RIGHT OF ENTRY WITHOUT DOCUMENTATION OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION 3. VOIDING A PERMIT WHEN CHANGES ARE REQUESTED

PIN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Permit Number IMPROVEMENT PERMIT/CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION IMPROVEMENT PERMIT A building permit cannot be issued with only an Improvement Permit ISSUED TO: PROPERTY LOCATION: New Repair Expansion Site Improvements required prior to Construction Authorization Issuance: Type of Structure: Proposed Wastewater System Type: Projected Daily Flow: GPD Number of bedrooms: Number of Occupants: Basement Yes No Pump Required: Yes No May be required based upon final location and elevations of facilities Type of Water Supply: Permit valid for: Five years No expiration Permit conditions: Authorized State Agent: Date: See Attached site sketch The issuance of this permit by the Health Department in no way guarantees the issuance of other permits. The permit holder is responsible for checking with appropriate governing bodies in meeting their requirements. This site is subject to revocation if the site plan, plat, or the intended use changes. The Improvement Permit shall not be affected by a change in ownership of the site. This permit is subject to compliance with the provisions of the Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal and to conditions of this permit. CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION (Required for Building Permit) The construction and installation requirements of Rules.1950,.1952,.1954,.1955,.1956,.1957,.1958,and.1959 are incorporated by reference into this permit and shall be met. Systems shall be installed in accordance with the attached system layout. ISSUED TO: PROPERTY LOCATION: Facility Type: New Expansion Repair Basement? Yes No Basement Fixtures? Yes No Type of Wastewater System** (Initial) Wastewater Flow: GPD (See note below, if applicable ) (Repair) Installation Requirements/Conditions Septic Tank Size: gallons Total Trench Length: feet Trench Spacing: Feet on Center Pump Tank Size: gallons Trenches shall be installed on contour at a Soil Cover: inches Maximum Trench Depth of: inches (Maximum soil cover shall not exceed Pump Requirements: ft. TDH vs. GPM (Trench bottoms shall be level to +/- ¼ 36 above the trench bottom) in all directions) Aggregate Depth: inches above pipe inches below pipe inches total Conditions: **If applicable: I understand the system type specified is different from the type specified on the application. I accept the specifications of this permit. Owner/Legal Representative Signature: Date: This Construction Authorization is subject to revocation if the site plan, plat, or the intended use changes. The Construction Authorization shall not be transferred when there is a change in ownership of the site. This Construction Authorization is subject to compliance with the provisions of the Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal and to the conditions of this permit. Authorized State Agent: Date of Issuance: See Attached site sketch Construction Authorization Expiration Date: PAGE 1 OF

Notice of Intent to SUSPEND/REVOKE Improvement Permit/Construction Authorization (Date) Owner: Address: Subject: Notice of Intent to Revoke/Suspend (specify name/location) Improvement Permit/Construction Authorization Dear : (Owner s Name) The health department inspected the site for the on-site wastewater system located at (physical address) for compliance with the Laws (Article 11 of Chapter 130A of the North Carolina General Statutes), Rules (15A NCAC 18A.1900 et seq.), and Improvement Permit/Construction Authorization (specify type and number) conditions. As a result of this inspection, the Department has determined the following violations: INTENT TO REVOKE Violation Law or Rule Citation [Example #1-18 inches of soil removed from site in violation of NCGS 130A-335(f), Rule.1937(g), Rule.1943, Rule.1947(c), and IP Condition No. 2.] [Example #2 - Nitrification trenches installed at a depth of 30 inches in violation of Rule.1955 (m) and CA Condition No. 2.] This is to notify you that based on these violations, the Department intends to suspend/revoke (specify) your Improvement Permit/Construction Authorization (specify) 30 days from the date of this notice. If the health department determines that all of the violations have been corrected before thirty (30) days expire, the suspension/revocation (specify) will not go into effect. [Insert for suspension] If the permit is suspended, the health department must determine that the violations have been corrected before the suspension will be lifted. [Insert for revocation] If the permit is revoked, you must apply for a new Improvement Permit/Construction Authorization and meet the requirements of the current laws and rules necessary to obtain a new IP/CA. You have a right to an informal review of this decision. You may request an informal review by the environmental health supervisor at the local health department. You may also request an informal review by the NC Department of Health and Human Services Regional Soil Scientist. A request for informal review must be made in writing to the local health department.

VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL RIGHTS Date prepared: Owner(s): Mailing Address: Property location/site legal description: Original Improvement Permit (IP) # Original Authorization to Construct (AC) # Date issued: _Date issued: I, (print full name), voluntarily relinquish my rights to pursue a formal appeal through the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings pursuant to NC General Statute 130A-24 and 150B-23 and all other applicable provisions of Chapter 150B for the above referenced permit(s) (which includes the IPs and ACs) in order for the authorized agent/local health department to issue the applicable permit (new IP and/or CA) for the site. I understand by completing this form that the permit(s) for a (System description) will be revoked immediately by the authorized agent/local health department. VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL RIGHTS I understand that the local health department s revocation of a permit can be appealed to the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings within 30 days of the revocation pursuant to the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act. I understand that in order for the local health department to issue another IP and AC that the current IP and AC must be revoked. I understand that the local health department s revocation of an IP or CA is not effective until 30 days from the revocation or, if the revocation is appealed, at the time that the Office of Administrative Hearings issues a final decision. I understand that by signing this form and relinquishing my right to appeal the permit revocation at the Office of Administrative Hearings that the local health department s permit revocation will become effective immediately. I understand and agree that the revocation of a permit that takes effect immediately is in my best interest. I understand that by signing this form that I agree that I do not want to appeal the permit revocation. I understand that I am not required to relinquish my appeal rights but that this is an option available to me so I do not have to wait 30 days for the revocation of the permit to take effect. Signature of Property Owner: Date signed:

COMMON ISSUES D O C U M E N T A T I O N

COMMON ISSUES SITE EVALUATION/IP/CA 1. USE OF OLDER FORMS

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION ON-SITE WATER PROTECTION BRANCH SOIL/SITE EVALUATION for ON-SITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM (Complete all fields in full) Sheet of PROPERTY ID #: COUNTY: OWNER: APPLICATION DATE ADDRESS: DATE EVALUATED: PROPOSED FACILITY: PROPOSED DESIGN FLOW (.1949): PROPERTY SIZE: LOCATION OF SITE: PROPERTY RECORDED: WATER SUPPLY: Private Public Well Spring Other EVALUATION METHOD: Auger Boring Pit Cut TYPE OF WASTEWATER: Sewage Industrial Process Mixed P R O F I L E #.1940 LANDSCAPE POSITION/ SLOPE % HORIZON DEPTH (IN.) SOIL MORPHOLOGY (.1941).1941 STRUCTURE/ TEXTURE.1941 CONSISTENCE/ MINERALOGY.1942 SOIL WETNESS/ COLOR OTHER PROFILE FACTORS.1943 SOIL DEPTH.1956 SAPRO CLASS.1944 RESTR HORIZ PROFILE CLASS & LTAR 1 2 3 4 DESCRIPTION INITIAL SYSTEM REPAIR SYSTEM OTHER FACTORS (.1946): Available Space (.1945) SITE CLASSIFICATION (.1948): System Type(s) Site LTAR EVALUATED BY: OTHER(S) PRESENT: COMMENTS:

Site Sketch PIN Improvement Permit Permit Number Construction Authorization Applicant s Name Authorized State Agent Subdivision/Section/Lot Number Date System components represent approximate contours only. The contractor must flag the system prior to beginning the installation to ensure that the proper grade is maintained. Scale =

COMMON ISSUES SITE EVALUATION/IP/CA 1. USE OF OLD/OUTDATED FORMS 2. INCOMPLETE SITE EVALUATION FORMS

COMMON PROBLEMS SITE EVALUATION/IP/CA 1. USE OF OLD/OUTDATED FORMS 2. INCOMPLETE SITE EVALUATION FORMS 3. FAILURE TO DOCUMENT BORING LOCATIONS

COMMON PROBLEMS SITE EVALUATION/IP/CA 1. USE OF OLD/OUTDATED FORMS 2. INCOMPLETE SITE EVALUATION FORMS 3. FAILURE TO DOCUMENT BORING LOCATIONS 4. INSUFFICIENT MEASUREMENTS TO LOCATE APPROVED SOIL AREA/WELL AREA

OTHER ISSUES FAILURE TO DOCUMENT DISCUSSIONS WITH OWNER/APPLICANT PROCESSING REPAIR REQUESTS WITHOUT AN APPLICATION PERMITTING A REPAIR WITHOUT DOCUMENTING A SOIL/SITE EVALUATION FAILURE TO DOCUMENT/ACCOUNT FOR SLOPE SWC WITHOUT MUNSELL DESIGNATION STANDARD LOADING RATES /TRENCH DEPTHS ADJACENT SOIL AREAS WITH VARYING TRENCH DEPTHS

OTHER ISSUES SOIL WORK DOES NOT JUSTIFY TRENCH DEPTH

LOCAL REVIEW/QA 1. Did the owner sign the application, or is there verification of the applicant to sign on their behalf? 2. Is the soil sheet complete? 3. Can the location of the auger borings be duplicated based on the information provided? 4. Does the flow permitted match the application? 5. Can the location and dimensions of the approved soil area be duplicated based on information on the permit? 6. Can the facility location and dimensions be duplicated based on the permit? 7. Is the loading rate appropriate for soil/site conditions? 8. Is the trench depth justified by the soil notes? 9. Does the permit account for driveways, waterlines, wells, etc.?

CONTACT INFO T E R E S A D A V I S ( 9 1 0 ) 9 7 4-0 4 4 4 T E R E S A L. D A V I S @ D H H S. N C. G O V