City of Raleigh Corrective Action Variance Application (Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant) 06-26-2009

Groundwater Corrective Action Variance Application
US2000 11161288.13
City of Raleigh
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
June 26, 2009
I
Groundwater Corrective Action Variance Application
US200011161288.13
City of Raleigh
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
June 26, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Site Background and History ............................................................................................ 3
2.1 Site Description ...................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Site Physiography, Geology and Hydrogeology ................................................. .3
2.2.1. Regional Physiography ............................................................................. .3
2.2.2. Site Geology ................................................................................................ 4
2.2.3. Hydrogeology .............................................................................................. 4
3.0 Information Supporting Variance Request ..................................................................... 5
3.1 Resolution ............................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Description of Past/Existing/Proposed Sources of Groundwater
Contamination ........................................................................................................ 5
3.2.1. Water Supply Wells ................................................................................... 6
3.2.2. Groundwater Analytical Results .............................................................. 6
3.2.3. Surface Water Results ............................................................................... 7
3.2.4. Soil Sampling Results and PAN Evaluation ............................................ 7
3.3. Description of the Proposed Variance Area ........................................................ 8
3.4. Public Health and Safety ....................................................................................... 8
3.4.1. Groundwater .............................................................................................. 9
3.4.2. Surface Water ........................................................................................... 10
3.5. Best Available Technology Economically Reasonable ..................................... .12
3.6. Financial Hardship and Lack of Public Benefit.. .............................................. 15
3.7. Information Regarding Adjacent Property Owners ........................................ 16
4.0 Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................................. 16
5.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 17
uszooo 11161288.13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Private Well Nitrate Nitrogen Results and Water Supply/Service Status
Table 2: Groundwater Analytical Results -Compliance Monitoring Wells
Table 3: Groundwater Analytical Results -CSA/SSA/CAP Monitoring Wells
Table 4/4A: Surface Water Analytical Results
Table 5: Soil Analytical Results
Table 6: Description of Proposed Variance Areas
Table 7: Projected Debited Total Nitrogen Allocation
US2000 lll6l288.13
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Total Nitrogen Comparison forNRWWTP
Exhibit 2: Variance Resolution
Exhibit 3: Human Health Risk Assessment-ENSR Consulting and Engineering (NC), Inc.
Exhibit 4: Letter Report to Mr. Dale Crisp, City of Raleigh Public Utilities Director, from Mr.
Eric Lappala, Eagle Resources, P.A., dated April 17, 2009.
Exhibit 5: Letter to Mr. Dale Crisp, City of Raleigh Public Utilities Director, from Mr. Peter
Thibodeau and Mr. Bill Doucette, AECOM Environment dated June 24, 2009.
Exhibit 6: Ownership Information for Variance Parcels and Parcels Adjacent to Variance
Parcels
US200011161288.13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Nitrate Analytical Results
Figure 2: Proposed Remediation Plan and Variance Areas
Figure 3: Variance Areas by Zone
Figure 4: Private Wells within 0.5 miles of Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant Spray
Irrigation Areas
US2000 11161288.13
1.0 Introduction
The City of Raleigh (City) is submitting this variance application in connection with its Revised
Corrective Action Plan dated December 2005 (CAP) to address nitrate contamination in
groundwater at the biosolids application fields serving the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant (NRWWTP) in southeastern Wake County (Site ).1
As reflected in groundwater monitoring results and site investigation activities conducted by the
City, nitrate concentrations in groundwater at the Site exceed, and are predicted to exceed, the
Environmental Management Commission's (Commission) standard of 10 mg/L, 15A NCAC 2L
.0202(103), at numerous points along and beyond the Site's compliance boundary. As a result,
the Commission's rules require the City to prepare and implement a corrective action plan to
remedy such violations. The rules require that such a corrective action plan use "the best
available technology for restoration of groundwater quality to the level of the standards .... "
15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). In addition, the rules require the remediation of any groundwater
contamination that causes or is predicted to cause, a violation of any standard "in adjoining
classified groundwaters." 15A NCAC 2L .0107(k)(3)(A). Hydrogeologic modeling performed
by the City indicates that in several places exceedances of the groundwater standard for nitrate
have extended across the property boundary of the Site. For the reasons discussed below, the
City seeks a variance from these rules pursuant to G.S. § 143-215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2L .0113.
After performing a Comprehensive Site Assessment(CSA) (ENSR, 2002) and Supplemental Site
Assessment (SSA) (ENSR, 2003), which thoroughly investigated groundwater contamination at
the Site, the City developed a corrective action plan that would utilize "best available
technology" and that would actively remediate groundwater exceedances beyond the compliance
boundary for the Site. That plan would involve (i) the installation of approximately 380
groundwater extraction wells to hydraulically contain nitrate-impacted groundwater within the
compliance boundary, and (ii) enhanced in situ denitrification of groundwater beyond the
compliance boundary in areas where nitrate concentrations exceeded, or were predicted to
exceed, 10 mg/L. The City determined that the present net worth of capital and operation and
maintenance costs of this alternative over a thirty-year period would be nearly $81 million
dollars. The North Carolina General Statutes authorize the Commission to grant a variance from
its rules where (1) water or air contamination does not "endanger human health or safety" and (2)
"[ c ]ompliance with the rules ... cannot be achieved by application of best available technology
found to be economically reasonable at the time of application for [the variance], and would
produce serious hardship without equal or greater benefits to the public .... " G.S. § 143-
215.3(e). The Commission's procedures governing requests for a variance from its groundwater
rules are set forth in 15 NCAC 2L .0113.
The "best available technology" required to remediate groundwater contamination at the Site in
full compliance with the Commission's rules -the $81 million solution -is not needed to
protect public health or the environment, is not economically reasonable, and would impose
serious financial hardship on the City with minimal benefit to the public. The City is therefore
This variance request replaces and supersedes the variance request filed by the City on December 1, 2005, which is
hereby withdrawn.
1
US2000 11161288.13
seeking a variance to allow it to implement an alternative corrective action plan that fully
protects public health and safety in an economically reasonable manner without imposing a
serious hardship on the City. This alternative plan, which is already being successfully
implemented by the City with approval from the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), involves (i)
hydraulic containment of groundwater in the area with the highest density of existing residences
immediately downgradient of the Site and where some private wells had mean nitrate
concentrations in excess of 10 mg/L; and (ii) long-term groundwater monitoring and natural
attenuation of nitrate levels for the remainder of the Site. The cost of implementing this plan
over a thirty-year period is projected to be $6.3 million dollars.
In addition, the City has taken several other steps, enforceable through DWQ permit conditions,
to protect public health and the environment. First, the City has connected 39 neighboring
properties to the City's public water supply system and properly abandoned the water supply
wells serving those properties, even though (i) only sixteen of those wells had monitored or
predicted exceedances of the 2L standard for nitrate, and (ii) it was not clear that the elevated
concentrations in those wells were attributable to the migration of groundwater from the Site.
The capital cost of this program to date are $622,108. Second, the City has also agreed to a
condition in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES Permit) for
the NRWWTP that more than offsets any additional loading of nitrogen to the Neuse River
resulting from exceedances of the 2L standard for nitrate at the compliance boundary. (The City
has spent $2,250,000 on the addition of methanol to the effluent treatment system to further
reduce nitrogen loading to surface water from the NRWWTP beyond the limit contained in its
NPDES Permit.2) Third, the City has suspended all application ofbiosolids at the Site since
2002 and may resume application only with a permit modification approved by DWQ.3 (The
increased cost of alternative biosolids management since 2002 has been more than $7 million.)
Finally, although unrelated to 2L violations or to the requirements for a variance, the City has
agreed to provide additional on-site and off-site mitigation for nitrogen loading to surface water
in the interior of the Site.
Section 2.0 of this document provides background an~ historical information relating to the Site.
Section 3.0 provides the following information that is required for the variance request pursuant
to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c):
(1) A resolution of the City of Raleigh requesting the variance.
(2) A description of the past, existing or proposed activities or operations that have or
would result in a discharge of contaminants to groundwater.
(3) A description of the proposed area for which a variance is requested, including a
detailed location map, showing the orientation of the facility, potential for
-Exhibit 1 shows the dramatic reductions in nitrogen loadings to the Neuse River from the NRWWTP that have
been achieved by the City since 1997.
3 The City anticipates seeking a permit modification to allow a resumption oflimited and carefully controlled
biosolids application on certain fields. Many of the fields at the Site have received only limited historical biosolids
application and the crops being grown on those fields are nutrient deficient. Any future permitted applications
would be conducted in accordance with the City's nationally certified Environmental Management System for
biosolids management (the only such certified program in the state).
2
US2000 11161288.13
groundwater contaminant migration, as well as the area covered by the variance
request, with reference to at least two geographic references.
(4) Supporting information to establish that the variance will not endanger the public
health and safety, including health and environmental effects from exposure to
groundwater contaminants.
( 5) Supporting information to establish that requirements of Subchapter 02L cannot
be achieved by providing the best available technology economically reasonable,
including the specific technology considered, the costs of implementing the
technology, and the impact of the costs on the applicant.
( 6) Supporting information to establish that compliance would produce serious
financial hardship on the applicant without equal or greater public benefit.
(7) A list of the names and addresses of any property owners within the proposed area
of the variance as well as any property owners adjacent to the Site covered by the
vanance .
Section 4.0 provides a summary and conclusions . References are presented in Section 5.0.
2.0 Site Background and History
2.1. Site Description
The Site consists of approximately 1,466 acres of mostly contiguous farmland owned or leased
by the City and divided into numbered fields. Properties surrounding the Site consist of
residential properties, farmland, and state-owned forestland. The northern and eastern Site
boundaries border a 3 .6-mile section of the Neuse River. Beddingfield Creek bounds the Site to
the south. Topographically, the Site ranges in elevation from an approximate high of 270 feet
above mean sea level (ft msl) in upland areas to an approximate low of 140 ft msl at the Neuse
River (ENSR, 2002). A layout of the facility, associated biosolids application fields and the
current compliance boundary are depicted on Figure 1.
The Neuse River is classified as a Class C NSW (nutrient sensitive water) from the Falls Lake
Dam to the mouth of Beddingfield Creek. From the mouth of Beddingfield Creek to
approximately 0.2 miles downstream of Johnson County State Road 1700, the Neuse River is
classified as Water Supply V Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW). Beddingfield Creek is classified
as C NSW from the source to the Neuse River.
2.2. Site Physiography, Geology and Hydrogeology
2.2.1. Regional Physiography
The Site is situated within the eastern Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina. Area
topography consists of rolling hills dissected by narrow v-shaped drainage ways and perennial
streams that drain into Neuse River. Localized steep bluffs exist to the south along Beddingfield
Creek and along the Neuse River to the east and north of the Site (May and Thomas, 1965).
Localized bluffs in this area plateau to narrow bench cut alluvial floodplains that are nearly flat
with incised drainage ways to the Neuse River.
3
US2000 11161288.13
2.2.2. Site Geology
The Site is within the Raleigh Geologic Belt and the underlying bedrock consists of massive
granitic rock of the Rolesville series. The granitic bedrock is part of an intrusive series described
as megacrystic to equigranular and is dated between 270 and 320 million years old
(Pennsylvanian to Permian). Mafic dikes have been identified regionally and generally have a
northwest to southeast alignment. According to published literature, these dike features may be
up to 100 to 200 ft wide. Smaller dike splays may be 10 to 20 ft wide (Parker, 1979). Details of
the dikes and geologic maps can be found in the SSA (ENSR, 2003).
Li tho logic units identified at the Site are typical of local piedmont geology and include the
following:
• Topsoil and weathered parent rock material, referred to as saprolite tends to be
moderately thick in locations without visible rock outcropping. Site saprolite consists of
yellow brown to orange sandy silts (ML) to silty sands (SM) with the coarser material at
depth. Regionally, saprolite can vary in thickness from a few feet to up to hundreds of
feet. Saprolite typically contains relict structures and fabric from the parent rock from
which it has weathered. Saprolite thickness at the Site commonly ranges between 30 and
60 feet below surface grade (bsg).
• Partially weathered rock (PWR), often referred to as the transition zone between saprolite
and the parent unweathered bedrock, often exhibits the same properties as deeper
saprolitic soils (SM) but with higher occurrence of rock and rock fragments. PWR
thickness often ranges from 0 to 10 ft thick on ridges and uplands to 10 to 20 ft thick
along slopes and low-lying areas (Wilson and Carpenter, 1981).
• Bedrock in this area typically consists of granitic rock with fractures near the interface of
PWR and bedrock. The number and size of the fractures generally dissipate with depth
while voids and vugs are common in shallow rock zones when weak exfoliation soil
zones are encountered near PWR.
2.2.3. Hydrogeology
Hydro geologically, the Site is situated in a meta-igneous hydrostratigraphic unit of the eastern
Piedmont of North Carolina (Daniel and Payne, 1990). Two general hydrostratigraphic units
(saprolite and PWR/upper bedrock) characterize the regional hydrogeology. The upper saprolite
unit is an unconfined aquifer that transmits water downward to the lower semi-confined PWR
and fractured confined crystalline bedrock aquifer unit. Groundwater yields often range from 2
to 20 gallons per minute (gpm) within the unit (Daniel and Payne, 1990). Groundwater occurs
where saprolite and localized sedimentary/alluvial deposits along the Neuse River overlie
bedrock. Groundwater movement in the saprolite is topographically controlled by groundwater
divides associated with ridges and streams. Typically flow of groundwater occurs from upland
areas (ridgelines) to perennial streams. The underlying granitic rocks are known to have lower
hydraulic conductivities than either saprolite or PWR and controls deep groundwater or regional
groundwater flow conditions. The PWR lies between saprolite and bedrock units and
4
US200011161288.13
groundwater movement flows both within the material matrix and through fractures.
Groundwater movement in bedrock is restricted to intersecting sets of water-bearing fractures
and joints (Harned and Daniel, 1989).
Hydraulic properties of the saprolite and PWR zones were evaluated using rising and falling
head slug test methods. Hydraulic conductivity (K) values for the saprolite aquifer ranged from
1.3 x 1 o-6 to 6.4 x 10-3 centimeters per second (cm/sec). K values for PWR wells ranged from
4.4 x 10-5 to 1. 1 x 10-3 cm/sec. A transmissivity of 4.6 x 10-5 square centimeters per day
(cm2/day) (1.3 square feet per day [ft2/day]) was obtained for well MW-126d (ENSR, 2003).
Quantification of groundwater flow directions and rates has been provided by a calibrated, three-
dimensional groundwater flow model. Quantification of the movement and discharge locations
of nitrogen originating from the biosolids fields has been provided by a three-dimensional
transport model that uses the flow model to compute groundwater velocities. Both of these
models are documented in the Comprehensive Site Assessment and Supplemental Site
Assessment, and have been reviewed and approved by the Aquifer Protection Section.
3.0 Information Supporting Variance Request
3.1. Resolution
In accordance with 15A NCAC 02L .0113(c)(a), the Raleigh City Council (Council) has made
this request for a variance to the Commission's rules. A copy of the Council's resolution to this
effect is attached as Exhibit 2.
3.2. Description of Past/Existing/Proposed Sources of Groundwater
Contamination
The City has been operating the NRWWTP in southeastern Wake County since 1976. It began
land-applying biosolids in 1980 under a land application permit (Permit# WQ0001730)(the
Biosolids Permit) issued by DWQ. The current Biosolids Permit allows for the application of
7,000 total dry tons of Class B Biosolids per year on fields listed in the permit, subject to a
condition added on October 15, 2004 that prohibits any further biosolids application at the Site
until authorized by DWQ via a permit modification. Figure 1 depicts fields to which the City has
land-applied biosolids under the Biosolids Permit. Since 1980, fields have been added and
removed from the biosolids application program. For example, the City discontinued biosolids
application on Fields 1, 2 and 3 in 1998 and the City converted them into a police training
facility. Several fields (Fields 100, 101,102,200,201,500,512,513,522,523,524,600,601,
602, and 603) were formerly leased for biosolids application but are no longer leased for this
purpose. The property containing former leased Fields 100, 101, 102, 522, 523, and 524 is
currently owned by Waste Corporation of America and is used as a construction and demolition
landfill. The remaining fields shown on Figure l are owned by the City.
Groundwater monitoring required under the Biosolids Permit revealed exceedances of the
Commission's groundwater standard for nitrate (10 mg/L), 15A NCAC 2L .0202, in proximity to
5
US2000 11161288.13
the compliance boundary of City-owned biosolids application fields. The City suspendeq all
land application of biosolids in September 2002 (ENSR, 2003).
3.2.1. Water Supply Wells
In 2002, the City sampled thirty-nine private water supply wells located in the vicinity of the
Site. Analytical data indicated that seven of those wells had nitrate concentrations in excess of
10 mg/L (see Table 1). The source of nitrates detected in these wells was likely a combination of
septic systems, non-City fertilization, and biosolids application to upgradient fields. (ENSR, 2002)
The City subsequently initiated a quarterly sampling program of private water supply wells
located within a half of a mile of the biosolids application field boundaries. The City identified
forty-five private and/or community water supply wells and included them in the sampling
program. A summary of the wells identified within proximity of the Site and associated
analytical results (from the City's sampling program) are listed in Table 1.
The City subsequently connected thirty-nine of the properties included in the sampling program
to the City's public water supply system and decommissioned the wells consistent with the
Commission's requirements.4 The City acquired two additional properties in the residential well
sampling program and abandoned the wells without connecting them to its water supply system
because water supply is no longer needed at those properties. There are four private water
supply wells (identified as PW-6, PW-25, PW-42, and PW-43 in Table 1) that are still in use as
drinking water supplies. Nitrate concentrations for these currently active water supply wells
have been below 10 mg/Lin all sampling events (see Table 1). These wells are not in the
variance areas and are not likely receptors for nitrate-impacted groundwater migrating from the
Site.
3.2.2. Groundwater Analytical Results
Groundwater analytical data from the sixteen compliance monitoring wells included in the
Biosolids Permit and the 61 additional monitoring wells installed in connection with the CSA,
SSA and CAP are provided in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The groundwater analytical data are
depicted in Figure 1. The data indicated that nitrate exceeded the 2L groundwater standard at
locations near the compliance boundary in the areas of Fields 6, 12, 18, 19, 41, 47, 50, 60, 61, 62
63, 74, 100,201, 500, and 503. The deep saprolite well (MW-113d) and bedrock wells (MW-
lOld, MW-105d and MW-11 ld) also exceeded nitrate groundwater standard (ENSR, 2002).
Analytical results suggest a potential for nitrates from biosolids application in Field 50 to have
impacted groundwater on the residential property to the east and in the former private water
supply well (PW-22). Field 50 received biosolids routinely between 1982 and 2002 and has been
reported to have received excess PAN applications in eight of those years (ENSR, 2002).
4 The City connected all of these properties to its public water supply system at no cost to the property owner, even
though (i) groundwater in most of the wells did not exceed 10 mg/L, and (ii) nitrates present in the wells could have
been attributable to sources other than the City's biosolids land application program. The total capital cost to the
City for this connection program was $622,108. The City also agreed to provide water service to these properties
for twenty years at no cost to the property owner.
6
US200011161288.13
Results from assessment of Field 500 suggested a more limited potential for nitrate impacts from
biosolids application.
Off-site nitrate impacts to groundwater associated with biosolids application in the vicinity of the
intersection of Old Baucom Road and Mial Plantation Road do not appear to extend significantly
east of Shotwell Road or Mial Plantation Road. Nitrates in groundwater exceeded the nitrate
groundwater standard within .Field 500 in the vicinity of former private water supply wells PW-
8, PW-12, PW-30, and PW-36. The application history for Field 500 indicates that biosolids
application to Field 500 ceased in 1994 and that biosolids application rates were generally less
than other application fields such as Field 50. Field 500 apparently was cropped several years
before and after biosolids application. The SSA concluded that detected nitrates in groundwater
in Field 500 were not due to biosolids application alone (ENSR, 2003).
Analytical data from wells located across major streams such as Beddingfield Creek, as well as
hydro geologic modeling, ind,icated that migration of nitrate impacted groundwater under the
stream has not occurred and is not likely to do so (ENSR, 2003).
3.2.3. Surface Water Results
Surface water analytical results are tabulated in Tables 4 and 4A and depicted on Figure 1. The
surface water data from several samples collected in first order tributaries and seeps within the
application areas had nitrate concentrations above IO mg/L. Nitrate concentrations in surface
water suggests groundwater discharges to the streams and tributaries (ENSR, 2002). However,
nitrate levels in a number of the first order tributaries have declined significantly in recent years
(ENSR, 2008). Nitrate in samples collected from Beddingfield Creek and the Neuse River were
lower and did not exceed 10 mg/L.
3.2.4. Soil Sampling Results and PAN Evaluation
Analytical results of the soil samples collected from Fields 3, 100, and 500 are summarized on
Table 5. Concentrations of nitrate generally peaked in the 4 to 8 ft depth interval and peak
concentrations were expected to stay in approximately the same depth interval (ENSR, 2002).
Nitrates appear to have accumulated at the 4 to 8 ft depth interval through mechanisms such as
infiltration redistribution (some water takes a rather slow pathway through the soil) and anion
exchange (nitrate is an anion).
An incubation study was conducted ;:ts part of the SSA to estimate the amount of PAN in soils
from fields at the NR WWTP and the residual PAN for the 2003 growing season. The 2003 soil
PAN evaluation indicated that many of the fields in the study area could supply adequate to
excessive amounts of PAN for crop production. The evaluation indicated that approximately 38
fields would supply PAN in excess of the amount required for anticipated crop production in
2003 (ENSR, 2003). Since these fields have been cropped steadily since 2003 without
significant additional nutrient inputs, PAN levels have likely declined substantially, which
appears to be confirmed by declining yields in crop production.
7
US200011161288.13
3.3. Description of the Proposed Variance Areas
The areas proposed for a variance are depicted on Figure 2 with hatching or stippling. City
property is colored yellow; parcels not owned by the City that contain variance areas are colored
green and labeled as parcel numbers 1 through 3 7. The hatching depicts areas in which the
City's conservative modeling indicates that groundwater has the potential to exceed the 2L
groundwater standard. The stippling represents additional parcels within which a groundwater
sample from a well has exceeded the 2L groundwater standard. The current land uses for each
parcel are provided in Table 6. The variance areas have been grouped into the following zones
depicted on Figure 3:
Zone Description Parcel Nos.
No.
1 NRWWTP Site NIA
2 Waste Corporation of America 5, 18
Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill/
Common area of a residential subdivision
3 Progress Energy Substation/Portion of NRWWTP 3
Site
4 Clemmons State Forest 1, 7, 17, 32
5 Cemetery 26
6 Private Residences 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24,
25,27,28,29,36
7 Private Residences 2,22
8 Private Residence 12
9 Private Residences 13, 14, 31, 16, 35
10 Private Residences 21
11 Private Residence 23
12 Private Residence 30
13 Private Residences 33,34,35
All of the properties for which a variance is requested except Parcels 1, 7, 17, and 32 have public
water service or access to public water service should a residence or place of business be
constructed on the parcel. These properties comprise the Clemmons State Forest owned by the
State of North Carolina, which has been notified of the City's CAP and has given its consent to
the City's conditionally approved CAP as required by the Commission's corrective action rules
(see 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k)(3)).
3.4. Public Health and Safety
This section discusses the potential receptors and exposure routes at the Site and presents an
evaluation of the potential risks to public health and safety (including environmental effects)
under several conservative exposure scenarios. It also discusses the measures that the City has
taken to ensure that the variance will not endanger public health or safety.
8
US2000 11161288.13
3.4.1. Groundwater
The primary risk associated with the groundwater contamination at the Site is that groundwater
with nitrate l~vels in excess of 10 mg/L would be used for potable water. The vast majority of
the variance areas (Zones 1 though 5) are comprised of the NRWWTP property and other non-
residential parcels where there is no potential for the use of groundwater for potable purposes. In
addition, in 2002, the City instituted a testing program for nearby private water supply wells,
including all those that are or were in the variance areas.5 The City's extensive testing of these
wells detected exceedances of the standard in only sixteen wells. Of those sixteen wells, eight
wells had only one test result greater than the 10 mg/L 2L standard for nitrate. All of those
wells, as well as most others that did not show exceedances, have been abandoned and the
residences in question have been connected to the City's public water supply system (ENSR,
2005; ENSR, 2003).6 Although the City undertook the monitoring, connection and well
abandonment program (as well as the provision of bottled water prior to connection) on its own
initiative, implementation of the program was eventually incorporated into enforceable
conditions in the Biosolids Permit. As previously noted, four private water supply wells in the
sampling program are currently still in use, but monitored nitrate concentrations in those wells
have never exceeded, and are not predicted to exceed, the nitrate groundwater standard (see
Figure 1 ). The remaining wells shown on Figure 4 that were not part of the City's testing
program are at no risk from nitrate-contaminated groundwater as indicated by the City's
conservative groundwater models.
In addition, the City has installed the hydraulic containment system approved in its CAP in the
area shown on Figure 2. The groundwater extraction system has been operating continuously
since January 3, 2008. This system provides an additional, redundant layer of protection to the
most densely populated variance area where some wells had mean nitrate concentrations in
excess of 10 mg/L. Moreover, it is unlikely that Wake County would allow any new well to be
installed in any location where a risk exists that the well water would contain nitrates levels
above the standard.
5 All wells within a half-mile radius of the Site are shown on Figure 4. Private wells in this area are generally deep
bedrock wells to supply drinking water to private homes. The saprolite unit that extends from the surface to bedrock
is not suitable for water supply wells due to the poor hydraulic conductivity of the saprolite material. Typically,
these wells are 6-inch diameter wells with variable depths dependent on intervals of water-producing fractures.
Wells are only required to be grouted for the top 20 feet from the surface: the extents and depths of casing and
grouting may be variable at increasing depths for individual wells. While 15A NCAC 02L .0113 requires that the
well construction details for wells within a half-mile radius of the Site be provided here, the City has diligently
pursued this information through oral and written requests to Wake and Johnston Counties and DWQ as well as file
reviews of Wake and Johnston Counties and DWQ and has been unable to locate the relevant well construction
details. After reporting this to DWQ, DWQ requested that the City narrow its search to six properties in the vicinity
of the Site. The City mailed requests to the property owners for well construction information and received only one
response from a property owner whose well has since been abandoned. See Letter from Mr. Peter Thibodeau and
Mr. Bill Doucette, AECOM Environment, to Mr. Dale Crisp dated June 24, 2009 (Exhibit 5).
6 The City offered free connections and water service to all properties within its testing program, regardless whether
the well serving that property had experienced an exceedance of the groundwater standard and regardless whether
there was any evidence of or potential for contamination of the well by nitrate-contaminated groundwater emanating
from the City biosolids application fields.
9
US200011161288.13
As an additional precaution, ENSR prepared a baseline human health risk assessment on behalf
of the City to evaluate the potential risk to human health from nitrate-impacted groundwater at
the Site. A copy of this risk assessment is attached as Exhibit 3. To provide a conservative
estimate of potential risks, ENSR evaluated potential future use of downgradient groundwater by
considering a hypothetical future resident potentially exposed to nitrate in groundwater used as
drinking water. For non-potable uses, ENSR considered a hypothetical future resident using
groundwater for a swimming pool. The receptor evaluated was a young child (aged 0-6 years) as
a child is the most sensitive receptor for noncarcinogenic effects. ENSR considered both
ingestion and dermal routes of exposure. Further details of the methods and data used and
assumptions made are found in ENSR's report in Exhibit 3. After calculating the
noncarcinogcnic hazard indices (HI) and comparing it to the EPA index, ENSR found that there
were no unacceptable risks for exposure to groundwater used for a non-potable purpose
(swimming pool). The His also indicated that there were no unacceptable risks for using
groundwater for irrigation purposes. The His for potable use of groundwater indicated a
potentially unacceptable risk for Site groundwater if it were used as drinking water. However, as
previously noted, all existing residences in the City's sampling program have been connected to
the City's public water supply, and their wells abandoned, with the exception of four properties
that have never experienced, and are not expected to experience, an exceedance of the
groundwater standard.
For all of the foregoing reasons, granting the variance would not endanger public health via
potential exposure to contaminated groundwater.
3.4.2. Surface Water
An·additional consideration is that some portion of the nitrate-contaminated groundwater at the
Site ultimately reaches surface water. Granting the variance would potentially endanger public
health if it resulted in a concentration of nitrate in excess of 10 mg/L in a surface water body
used as a drinking water supply. However, nitrate concentrations in the Neuse River in the
vicinity of the NRWWTP have consistently been below 0.6 mg/L (Showers, 2008). Moreover,
the only surface water body in the vicinity of the NRWWTP that is classified and used as a
drinking water supply is the Neuse River below the mouth of Beddingfield Creek. Nitrate
concentrations at that location have consistently been below 0.6 mg/L (see id). Thus, granting
the variance would not endanger public health by creating a risk to surface waters used as water
supplies.
The ENSR risk assessment also evaluated the risk to human health and the environment based on
current nitrate levels in surface water at the Site. The Site is partially fenced, which may reduce
unauthorized access to impacted surface water. However, it is remotely possible that a trespasser
or nearby resident might wade in one of the tributaries to the Neuse River, located within the Site
or in Beddingfield Creek. To ensure a conservative risk assessment, the receptor was identified
as a child or teenager (aged 7 to 16 years) wading in the surface water. As with the non-potable
use of groundwater, ENSR found that there were no unacceptable human health risks for
exposure to surface water (see Exhibit 3).
10
US2000 11161288.13
In addition, granting the variance might be deemed to endanger the environment if it resulted in
significant increased nitrogen loading to the Neus·e River, which is classified as Nutrient
Sensitive Waters and is subject to a cap on nitrogen loading. The City's hydrogeologic
consultant, Eagle Resources, P.A., using conservative assumptions, has estimated that the
maximum total discharge of nitrogen to surface waters occurred in 2006 at the rate of 148,000
pounds per year via groundwater discharge from the Site. (See Letter to Dale Crisp, City of
Raleigh, from Eric Lappala, Eagle Resources dated April 17, 2009, attached hereto as Exhibit 4.)
Of this total, 34% or 50,000 pounds resulted from groundwater concentrations exceeding 10
mg/Lat the compliance boundary.7 The remaining nitrate discharge to surface water (due to
discharges (i) beyond the compliance boundary of groundwater with nitrate concentrations less
than 10 mg/L, or (ii) within the compliance boundary) does not constitute a violation of the 2L
rules and thus is not the subject of this variance request. Id.
Thus, the effect of the requested variance, without the mitigation discussed below, would be to
allow a maximum of 50,000 pounds per year of additional nitrogen to reach the Neuse River via
groundwater from the Site. (This number would go down over time as natural attenuation
occurs.) To mitigate for this potential impact, the City agreed with DWQ to modify the NPDES
permit for the NRWWTP to include a debit against the facility's nitrogen loading allocation
under the Neuse NSW management strategy. As previously noted and explained in Exhibit 4,
the debit is based on a conservative estimate of the amount of additional nitrogen loading to the
Neuse that is occurring and will occur in the absence of a fully compliant groundwater
remediation system. Moreover, the maximum debit amount of 123,000 pounds per year is
73,000 pounds per year greater than the amount of nitrogen loading to surface water that would
be eliminated in the absence of a variance. In fact, the majority of nitrogen loading to surface
water via groundwater is occurring in the interior of the Site and would not be reduced by a fully
compliant containment system at the compliance boundary. 8
The City has spent in excess of $40,000,000 on improvements to the NRWWTP to reduce
nitrogen loading to the Neuse River and to ensure that the NRWWTP will not exceed its NPDES
nitrogen allocation of 682,483 pounds even with the debit the City has accepted. The debit
provides complete assurance, with an ample margin of safety, that the nitrogen loading to surface
water via groundwater resulting from the variance will be offset several times over and thus not
endanger surface water quality.9
7 These figures do not account for denitrification of groundwater that may occur in riparian buffers at the Site, which
may substantially reduce the actual nitrogen loading to surface waters.
8 The debit condition in the City's NPDES permit requires the City to count toward its annually-reported amount of
discharged nitrogen not only the amount actually discharged by the NRWWTP, but also the annual amount the
City's hydrogeologic model predicts will be discharged to the Neuse River via groundwater as a result of
exceedances of the groundwater standard for nitrate at the Site. The model conservatively indicates that the amount
of this additional nitrogen discharge was approximately 123,000 pounds in 2006 and will decrease approximately
3,000 pounds per year. Table 7 illustrates the effect of this nitrogen debit over time. The debit can be adjusted to
reflect actual field conditions and will be eliminated whenever all monitoring wells come into compliance with the
standard. As a result of this condition, the City's wastewater treatment and 21 exceedances at the Site will never
contribute more nitrogen to the Neuse River than is currently allocated to the NRWWTP.
9 It should be noted that the Zone 6 groundwater extraction system discussed below has removed and treated
approximately 2,163 pounds of nitrogen since startup that would otherwise discharge to the Neuse River.
11
US2000 I I 161288.13
In the Fall of 2007, the Neu.se River Foundation (NRF), in commenting on the City's original
variance application, argued that the City should have to do even more to mitigate for the
potential impacts of nitrogen loading to surface water via groundwater at the Site. NRF
indicated that it opposed the issuance of a variance to the City unless this issue was addressed to
its satisfaction. Even though the NPDES Permit debit more than offsets the nitrogen loading to
surface water due to exceedances of the 2L standard for nitrate, the City has engaged in
extensive negotiations with NRF to address their concerns. During the course of these
negotiations the City evaluated both on-site and off-site nitrogen mitigation alternatives,
including stream impoundments, phytoremediation, subsurface flow treatment wetlands, and
riparian buffer restoration.
After evaluating each alternative for feasibility/reliability, potential efficacy, and potential for
consequential adverse affects, ENSR recommended a plan (1) to create subsurface treatment
_ wetlands on several streams on the Site and (2) to acquire nitrogen offset credits from an off-site
riparian buffer restoration project (the Nitrogen Mitigation Plan). The City has agreed to
construct subsurface treatment wetlands at three locations where nitrate concentrations in surface
water exceed 20 mg/L, which will, based on current nitrate concentrations, remove
approximately 28,500 to 42,800 pounds of nitrogen annually, assuming removal efficiencies of
50% to 75%. The off-site riparian buffer restoration project will be constructed on a segment of
Butlers Branch in Craven County and will remove approximately 4,000 pounds of nitrogen
annually. DWQ has conditionally approved the Nitrogen Mitigation Plan subject to the receipt
of proper permits and the development of an appropriate monitoring plan. The City submitted
the necessary permit applications for the subsurface wetlands on May 1, 2009. The City has
committed to implement the Nitrogen Mitigation Plan independently from the approval of this
variance request and has applied to modify the Biosolids Permit to make implementation of the
Nitrogen Mitigation Plan an enforceable condition of the permit. Based on these commitments,
NRF no longer opposes this variance request.
3.5. Best Available Technology Economically Reasonable
As noted above, the City developed a remedial alternative using best available technology to
achieve full compliance with the Commission's rules for groundwater corrective action. This
remedy would include both hydraulically containing nitrate-impacted groundwater within the
compliance boundary and denitrification of groundwater beyond the compliance boundary in
areas where nitrate concentration were predicted to exceed 10 mg/L. Monitoring to evaluate the
effectiveness of the system would occur for at least 30 years, the expected life of the project.
The capital and operation and maintenance costs of this alternative over a thirty-year period
would exceed $81 million dollars. A detailed description of the best available technology
alternative follows.
Extraction System Process (Entire Compliance Boundary). Based on hydrogeologic data and
results of groundwater flow modeling, it is anticipated that approximately 380 extraction wells
(approximatelylOO-ft spacing) would be required along the portions of the compliance boundary
where the nitrate groundwater standard has been exceeded and/or is estimated to be exceeded
based on groundwater modeling. The depth of extraction wells would be expected to vary in
12
US2000 11161288.13
different areas of the Site based on elevation and water table. For purposes of developing
probable costs, the average depth for the wells is assumed to be 70 ft below surface grade (bsg).
The average groundwater yield from these wells would be approximately 2 gpm (1,226,880
gallons per day) which would be pumped through a network of extraction piping to the
NRWWTP for treatment. The piping required to convey water to the NRWWTP is assumed to
be installed underground, in trenches, along the roads and fields. To monitor the effectiveness of
the extraction system along the compliance boundaries of the full compliance alternative, 88
extraction wells, 12 monitoring wells and 10 surface water samples would be sampled and
analyzed for nitrate triennially for the life of the project (30 years). The estimated costs,
including design, construction and startup, operation and maintenance, monitoring, and
decommissioning costs, associated with the groundwater extraction system is approximately
$51,125,400.
Enhanced Denitrification System Process. The enhanced denitrification process involves
injection (pressure or gravity feed) of biodegradable carbon electron donor (e.g., com syrup or
sodium lactate) via injection wells to create in situ anaerobic zones that would denitrify nitrate-
enriched groundwater in plumes situated beyond the compliance boundary across the Site. The
electron donor injection allows the populations of native microorganisms to multiply to the point
where microbial respiration consumes the available dissolved oxygen in groundwater. In the
absence of dissolved oxygen the microbes would use nitrate as an electron acceptor and produce
nitrogen gas, a process referred to as denitrification. Nitrate-impacted groundwater from the
application fields that migrates into the anoxic zone would be exposed to the denitrifying
bacteria and pass through the anoxic zone with little to no nitrate remaining in the water.
Prior to implementing a full-scale in-situ denitrification system, a pilot test would have to be
conducted to evaluate the effectiveness at the Site and to collect data for full-scale design.
Injection wells would be constructed in each of the thi.r:t:een zones where nitrate exceeds the 2L
groundwater standard beyond the compliance boundaries to reduce nitrate concentrations in the
impacted groundwater. ENSR estimated that approximately 5,760 injection wells would be
required to achieve this control. Injection wells would be properly spaced to allow establishment
of anaerobic zones to support denitrification. ENSR also anticipates that the injection wells
would be installed to depths ranging from 65 to 85 ft bsg using conventional drilling techniques.
This process would involve preparing the electron donor solution by mixing the required amount
of electron donor ( e.g., com syrup or sodium lactate) with appropriate amounts of potable water.
The electron donor solution would then be manually injected into injection wells by either
gravity feeding or pumping.
This remedy would require a field-scale pilot study to estimate the quantities of electron donor
solution and to determine the design parameters (e.g., area of influence, spacing and number of
injection wells/points, frequency of injection) prior to designing a full-scale system. For the
purpose of costing, ENSR estimated that electron donor solution would be injected quarterly for
two years.
To monitor effectiveness of the enhanced denitrification system of the full compliance
alternative, approximately 50 monitoring wells and 50 injection wells would be sampled for
nitrate three times a year for the first two years of implementation and 50 monitoring wells
13
US200011161288.13
would be sampled for one year following the injection period. In addition, 20 samples would be
analyzed annually for biogeochemical parameters (i.e., ferrous iron, total organic carbon etc.) to
evaluate denitrification/anaerobic conditions.10
ENSR determined that the probable costs for the denitrification portion of the full-compliance
alternative, including design services, capital costs, operation and maintenance, monitoring and
decommissioning would be $29,967,900.
The City submits that it is patently not "economically reasonable," particularly for a public
agency, to spend close to $81 million remediating groundwater where such remediation is not
necessary to protect public health or the environment.11 This is all the more so where the vast
majority of the cost would be incurred to remediate groundwater on (i) the City's own
wastewater treatment plant site, (ii) a construction and demolition landfill site, (iii) a remote and
largely inaccessible fringe of a State forest, and (iv) residential properties where the City has
already spent over $600,000 providing public water service.
There is no established test as to what constitutes "best available technology economically
reasonable" within the meaning of G.S. § 143-215.3(e).12 DWQ has taken the position that it is
economically reasonable to require the City to install and operate groundwater extraction wells
to prevent further migration of groundwater with elevated nitrate levels to Zone 6 of the
variance areas. Zone 6 consists of densely clustered residential properties several of which had
private wells (now abandoned) in which mean nitrate concentrations in excess of 10 mg/L were
recorded.13 Although the City did not necessarily agree that the cost of such a remedy was
"economically reasonable" given that it had already provided public water service to all the
properties in question, it has accepted DWQ's position that the installation and operation of the
extraction system in Zone 6 is economically reasonable and has been operating that system since
2008. This "best available technology economically reasonable" option consists of the following
components:
Groundwater Extraction (Zone 6). With DWQ's approval, the City has installed
appropriately-spaced extraction wells in Fields 50 and 500 at the southeast comer of the Site,
upgradient from the Zone 6 variance areas. The groundwater extraction (recovery) wells have
been installed within the compliance boundaries in these two fields to allow containment of the
dissolved nitrate plume exceeding nitrate groundwater standard. These extraction wells were
installed to depths ranging from 60 to 80 ft bsg. Based on hydrogeologic data and results of the
groundwater capture zone modeling, seven extraction wells were installed near the eastern
IO It should be noted that the City currently samples the compliance wells three times a year as part of the
compliance monitoring. Test well data would be used in evaluating the performance of this alternative, but have not
been included in these estimated costs.
11 To put this figure in perspective, it should be noted that the annual capital budget for the NRWWTP for 2009-
2010 is $26,450,000 and the annual operating budget is $22,432,323.
12 The Commission's May 8, 2003 variance from its 2L rules granted to Flynt Wansona Manufacturing
Corporation's for DWQ groundwater incident #14009, represents a finding by the Commission that corrective action
estimated to cost approximately $1,000,000 was not economically reasonable.
13 Zone 6 is the only zone in which there are a significant number of residential properties and in which there were
any private wells with mean nitrate concentrations in excess of 10 mg/L.
14
US2000 11161288.13
compliance boundary of Field 50 to a depth of approximately 80 ft bsg. In addition, 22
extraction wells were installed near the eastern compliance boundary of Field 500. The depth of
extraction wells in Fields 500 is approximately 60 ft bsg. Figure 2 presents a layout of the
extraction wells. Each well is yielding approximately 2 gpm. Approximately 83,520 gallons per
day of extracted groundwater is being pumped to the NRWWTP for treatment.
Ten monitoring wells (MW-105, MW-108, MW-109, MW-110, MW-111, MW-112, MW-117,
MW-118, MW-119, and MW-120) and two surface water locations (SW-20 and SW-22) are
being sampled triennially and analyzed for nitrate for the life of the project, in addition to the
monitoring wells that are monitored triennially pursuant to the Biosolids Permit. In addition, the
29 extraction wells will be sampled and analyzed for nitrates annually for the life of the project.
Groundwater data from these extraction wells, monitoring wells, and surface water samples will
be used to monitor the performance of this alternative. It should be noted that the City already
samples the compliance wells three times a year as part of the compliance monitoring pursuant to
the Biosolids Permit. Analytical data from these monitoring wells will be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of this alternative. For the purpose of costing and comparison, it was assumed that
the project life of this alternative is 30 years. The costs to monitor compliance wells as required
by the Biosolids Permit are not included in this estimate.
The total cost associated with the groundwater e.xtraction process, including design, construction
and startup, operating and maintenance, monitoring and decommissioning is estimated to be
$6,358,500.
3.6. Financial Hardship and Lack of Public Benefit
As discussed in detail in Section 3 .4 above, granting the variance on the terms requested would
not result in any significant adverse impacts to public health or the environment. Thus, requiring
the City to spend the vast sum of money associated with full compliance with the Commission's
rules would produce very limited, if any, public benefit. It would, however, create a serious
financial hardship on the City requiring that it spend approximately $75 million dollars beyond
the approximately $6.3 million that it will have to spend to implement the "best available
technology economically reasonable" alternative. Further, the immense expenditure required to
implement the full compliance alternative would provide little if any public benefit relative to the
more cost-effective and fully protective proposed remedy.
To illustrate the financial hardship that the full compliance alternative would cause, the City has
compared the its capital and operating budgets for the NRWWTP to the cost projections for the
full-compliance alternative. The operations budget for the NRWWTP and associated spray
irrigation is $22,432,323 for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Operations, maintenance, and monitoring
costs for the "best available technology" alternative is estimated to be $5,314,800 during the first
year of the project. The combined operation, maintenance, and monitoring costs of the full-
compliance alternative would account for almost a quarter of the City's expected total annual
utilities operations budget over the next year.
The projected capital costs (including design, construction and startup) of "best available
technology" alternative are predicted to be $34,212,800 which would have to be paid out by the
15
US200011161288.13
City over the first two years of CAP implementation. Because of the age of the facility and the
need for expansion to keep up with the growing population, the NRWWTP requires a number of
expensive improvements over the next several years. For example, the City's capital budget for
the NRWWTP for fiscal year 2009-2010 is $26,450,000. Assuming that the cost to the City of
the full compliance alternative would average more than $17,000,000 per year for the first two
years of the full compliance alternative, this sum would be approximately sixty-five percent of
its total capital budget in fiscal year 2009-2010. The City would be compelled to divert funds
allocated to the numerous and extensive capital improvements planned for the NRWWTP putting
the protection of water quality and the availability of high quality wastewater treatment service
to the area's growing population at risk. This would be a great detriment to public health and
outweigh the minimal benefits of this alternative. As noted, the full-compliance alternative
requires the expenditure of an extra $75 million dollars in a situation where no risk is presented
to public health or the environment and thus limit if any resulting public benefit. Moreover,
between the groundwater extraction system that the City has installed and natural attenuation,
groundwater will eventually return to 2L standards under the alternative CAP that would be
implemented pursuant to the requested variance.
Finally, the fully compliant CAP would have detrimental effects on the environment as the
remedy is very invasive, requiring the installation of approximately 380 pumping wells, each
installed at 100-foot intervals, along portions of the City's compliance boundary where
groundwater exceeds or is expected to exceed the nitrate groundwater standard. The hydraulic
barrier created by the extraction wells would result in reducing groundwater discharge and thus
stream baseflow to several streams in the area, particularly Beddingfield Creek. This reduced
flow would potentially be detrimental to the ecology of those streams. In addition, full-scale in
situ denitrification system implementation with 5,760 injection wells will require the disturbance
of significant riparian and wetlands areas around the site.
3.7. Information Regarding Adjacent Property Owners
The City obtained the names and address of those persons owning property within the proposed
variance area as well as property owners adjacent to the Site covered by the variance from the
Wake County Geographic Information System. A list of these names and addresses is provided
in Exhibit 6.
4.0 Summary and Conclusions
For the reasons discussed above, granting the requested variance will not endanger public health
or the environment. Specifically, (i) the City has provided city water service to all properties in
the area where there was any risk from using groundwater as a water supply; (ii) has agreed to
the inclusion of a debit in its NPDES permit that more than compensates for any nitrogen loading
to surface water that would result from granting the variance; (iii) cannot apply biosolids to the
fields except pursuant to a DWQ-approved permit modification; and (iv) has agreed to provide
additional on-site and off-site mitigation for nitrogen loading to surface water in the interior of
the Site. The City expects this variance to be conditioned on its compliance with the conditions
of its Biosolids Permit and NPDES Permit relating to the foregoing matters.
16
US2000 11161288.13
The remedial alternative that would fully comply with the Commission's rules is not
economically reasonable. It would cost in excess of $81,000,000 to remediate all areas where
the groundwater standard has been exceeded by installing and operating extraction wells around
the entire compliance boundary and implementing enhanced denitrification in area where nitrate
contamination has already migrated beyond the compliance boundary. Although the proposed
installation of a limited number of extraction wells is not strictly needed to protect public health
and the environment, it does provide a measure of additional benefit (by accelerating the time by
which off-site groundwater in the downgradient area could be used for human consumption in
the unlikely event that it were to be needed) at a much more reasonable cost (approximately
$6,300,000). The full compliance alternative would create a financial hardship on the City and
in particular would divert needed funds from the numerous and extensive capital improvements
planned for the NRWWTP in the near future to ensure the protection of water quality and the
availability of high quality wastewater treatment service to the area's growing population. Nor
would the immense expenditure required to implement the full compliance alternative result in
commensurate public benefit relative to the more cost effective and fully protective proposed
remedy. Moreover, the full compliance alternative would result in reducing groundwater
discharge and thus stream baseflow to several streams in the area, particularly Beddingfield
Creek, which would be potentially detrimental to the ecology of those streams as well as
significant disturbance of riparian buffers and wetlands at the Site.
5.0 References
ENSR, 2002, Comprehensive Site Assessment, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant, December.
ENSR, 2003, Supplemental Site Assessment, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant, December.
ENSR, 2005, Revised Corrective Action Plan, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant, December.
ENSR, 2008, Alternatives Analysis Report and Mitigation Plan for Addressing Increased
Nitrogen Loading to Surface Water at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant, Raleigh,
North Carolina" prepared by ENSR Corporation (currently known as AECOM Environment)
dated February 2008, as modified by correspondence from ENSR Corporation dated July 18,
2008, and by correspondence from AECOM Environment dated December 2, 2008 and April 6,
2009.
Showers, W., 2008, Evaluation and Remediation of Nitrate Flux from Biosolid Application
Fields to Surface Waters in the Neuse River Basin. Final Report for North Carolina Section 319
NPS Program, EW07015.
17
US200011161288.13
TABLE 1 (cont'd)
Private Well Nitrate Nitrogen Results and Water Supply/Service Status
Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Additional Private Wells Tested Beyond Quarterly Testing Area Near NRWWTP Oct. 02
OWNER'S NAME HOME# ADDRES S NO3 mqlL
1 Matt Sexton 550-4990 2001 Elaine Dr., Clayton 27520 0.1
2 Christopher & Anita Jones 807-3991 2025 Elaine Dr., Clayton 27520 0.1
3 Michell Sanders 553-9935 2661 Shotwell Rd., Clayton 27520 2.1
4 Timothy & Victoria Johnson 553-3359 2664 Shotwell Rd., Clayton 27520 2.1
5 Kelly Sara 359-1570 233 Ryan Lane, Clayton 27520 NIA
6 Rusty & Chris Rawls 359-0974 200 Ryan Lane, Clayton 27520 NIA
7 Resident 300 Ryan Lane, Clayton 27520 NIA
8 Griffin, D.H. 2600 Brown Field Road 2.4
Jul. 03 Oct. 03
NO3 mqlL NO3 mqlL
N/A NIA
N/A NIA
NIA NIA
NIA NIA
0.5 NIA
0.9 NIA
0.5 NIA
2.9 NIA
MW13 MW20 MW22
Nov2000 1.65 8.64 0.13
Mar 2001 0.20 7.74 0.08
Jul2001 2.48 9.08 0.19
Nov2001 2.1 5 10.74 0.42
Mar2002 0.11 1.73 0.19
Jul2002 2.95 2.29 0.30
Nov2002 2.12 8 .31 0.22
Mar2003 0.09 1.89 0.13
Jul 2003 3.40 2.15 0.21
Nov 2003 3.33 3.76 0.18
Mar2004 0.1 0 2.55 0.10
Jul2004 4.70 3.44 0.72
Nov 2004 1.86 9.29 0.10
Mar2005 0.1 0 1.74 0.10
Apr2005 n/s nls nls
Jul2005 3.82 3.70 0.14
Nov 2005 3.03 12.45 0.25
Mar2006 1.36 ORY ORY
Jul2006 1.39 12 .13 nla
Nov 2006 2.44 15.75 DRY
Mar2007 DRY 1.16 DRY
Jul2007 4.12 3.72 DRY
Nov 2007 DRY DRY DRY
Dec2007 nls n/s nls
Mar2008 0.10 ORY DRY
Jul2008 4.98 6.42 ORY
Nov 2008 0.11 6.24 DRY
Mar2009 DRY 4.89 ORY
Notes:
15A NCAC 2L Standard= 10 mW1-
Table2
Groundwater Analytical Results -Compliance Monitoring Wells
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)
MW41 MW42A MW44 MW45 MW46 MW47 MW48 MW49 MW50
51.48 96 .75 0.41 13.06 1.56 17.96 22 .19 0.268 17 .404
44 .61 88 .64 3.44 10.82 1.60 19.98 22.33 0.230 13 .080
47.36 96 .56 8.92 11.68 1.78 23.27 31 .14 0.212 10.115
51 .34 107.42 11 .83 26.89 1.73 23.31 30.33 0.240 12.817
52.98 101 .08 11 .80 14.56 1.60 26.71 32 .65 0.315 8.683
69.07 n/a 4.26 n/a 1.67 27.68 38 .93 0.305 24 .326
15.45 0.05 2.27 74.78 1.63 32 .23 51 .92 0.664 7.502
0.62 107.77 7.54 15.41 15.21 30 .85 50 .64 0.500 5.570
85.65 77.58 2.92 9.56 1.78 31 .50 41.07 0.390 34.900
78.31 100.86 6.09 10.43 1.60 34.83 57 .66 0.680 36.088
82.72 114.70 5.56 9.60 1.68 35 .30 56.78 1.445 31.194
86.02 116.27 4.80 21.21 3.97 35 .55 55 .54 4.171 34.719
77.33 112.88 4.97 29 .25 1.20 35 .01 53 .60 1.423 28.609
80 .08 125.10 6.32 9.17 1.16 31 .09 41.00 2.209 22.001
79.24 112.66 nls nls nls 35 .80 nls n/s 22 .551
75 .17 129.45 6.03 56.85 1.10 32 .52 37 .25 4.059 27.746
88 .45 143.23 1.54 54.88 5.59 25 .38 34.72 6.878 16.649
77.64 DRY DRY 16.13 1.20 35 .91 35.6 9 8.923 DRY
90.65 nla 0.94 8.51 1.07 32.20 43 .07 5.165 13.647
87.57 DRY 8.03 69.37 1.09 ORY 33 .1 9 15.317 29.554
96.00 DRY 0.20 10.13 1.16 31 .60 31 ,79 11.230 10.060
83.54 DRY DRY 64.60 1.01 20 .56 28 .96 8.460 27.820
82.52 DRY DRY DRY 2.34 26.11 27.13 DRY DRY
n/s n/s nls nls nls nls nls n/s nls
79.09 DRY 0.10 DRY 0.73 2202 28.03 14.050 11 .300
76.17 DRY 0.70 69.16 1.20 24.58 22.27 DRY DRY
65.91 DRY 3.69 61.34 1.13 20.60 22-70 ORY 16.770
50 .23 DRY 0.10 14.29 1.78 17.17 20 .09 10.810 5.220
PR = Less than three well volumes bailed, did not yeild a valid sample
nla = not applicable, there Is no data associated but the well was sampled
nls = no sample collected
Wells MW-51, MW-52, MW-53, and MW-54 were preViously identified es GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.
MW51 MW52 MW53 MW54
nls nls n/s n/s
n/s nls n/s nls
n/s nls n/s n/s
n/s nls n/s nls
n/s nls n/s n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s n/s n/s nls
n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s n/s nls n/s
nls n/s n/s n/s
104.59 77.69 80.34 70 .76
98.74 76.84 70.90 58 .09
79 .99 93 .12 59.40 42 .95
84.22 98 .58 10.23 46.03
77.13 76 .41 51 .86 50 .40
81.97 76.18 65.38 74 .74
68.15 72.25 65.49 49 .51
99.95 86.72 33.46 42 .08
DRY 87.27 39.85 31..61
DRY 91.76 39.64 DRY
DRY 80.48 33.80 22 .44
DRY nls 30.92 23 .37
nls 83.83 nls nls
DRY 88.25 32.47 23.71
65 .30 91.05 44 .79 23 .44
DRY 73.96 26 .40 23 .36
DRY 77.57 24 .03 DRY
Page 1 of7
MW201 MW202 MW203 TW1
Jun 2003 n/s n/s n/s 32 .00
Jul2003 n/s n/s nl s n/s
Nov2003 n/s n/s n/s 12 .0 3
Mar2004 n/s n/s n/s 38.52
Apr2004 n/s n/s n/S n/s
Jun 2004 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Mar2005 n/s n/s nls n/s
Apr2005 n/s n/s nls n/s
Mar2006 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Jun 2006 n/s n/s nls n/s
Jul 2006 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Oct2006 n/s n/s nls n/s
Nov 2006 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Dec2006 n/s n/s nls n/s
Feb 2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Mar2007 n/s n/s n/s DRY
Apr2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s
May 2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Jun 2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Jul2007 n/s n/s n/s DRY
Nov 2007 n/s n/s n/s DRY
Dec2007 n/s n/s rvs n/s
Mar2008 n/s n/s n/s DRY
Apr2008 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Jun 2008 No prior samples n/s
Jul 2008 40 .29 34 .03 14.27 DRY
Nov 2008 33 .29 23 .44 15.31 DRY
Dec2008 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Mar2009 35 .34 42 .96 24.84 DRY
Apr2009 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Notes:
15A NCAC 2L Standard= 10 mg/L
Table3
Groundwater Analytical Results -CSA/SSA/CAP Monitoring Wells
City of Raleigh , Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)
TW2 TW11 TW14 TW16 TW18 TW24 TW 25 TW30
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s 179 .50 n/s ri/s 5.80
13 .18 n/s 0 .45 6 .2 4 170.69 2.71 0.48 10.1 9
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s 16 1.83 n/s n/s 11 .03
0.25 n/s 0.48 6.22 nls 6.01 0.45 n/s
n/s nls n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 9.82
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 0.31 n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s 18 2.27 2.00 2.53 n/s
n/s 3.80 n/s n/s 141.32 n/s n/s 13.10
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 2.36 26.82 n/s
n/s 35.50 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 15.06
n/s n/s n/s n/s 172.13 3.36 1.04 n/s
20 .18 4.01 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s . n/s n/s n/s 161.46 n/s n/s n/s
DRY 3 .69 DRY DRY n/s 2 .64 0.86 14.16
n/s R n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s r n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s · COfl:, l'lJCIIOO n/s n/s nls n/s n/s n/s
DRY n/s DRY DRY 137.96 2.81 0.66 13.08
DRY n/s DRY DRY 153.34 n/s n/s n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 2.79 0.47 14.07
DRY n/s DRY DRY 132.61 n/s n/s 15.42
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 3.13 0.70 n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
DRY n/s DRY DRY 58 .34 3 .55 0 .94 17.66
DRY n/s DRY DRY ORY n/s n/s 19.22
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 4 .40 0 .70 n/s
DRY n/s DRY DRY n/s n/s n/s 16.36
n/s n/s n/s n/s 87.1 2 4 .80 1.03 n/s
P RY = Less than three well volumes bailed, did not yeild a valid sample
n/a = not applicable, there is no data associated but the well was sampled
n/s = no sample collected
Wells MW-51, MW-52, MW-53, and MW-54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.
TW30.1 TW31A TW32 TW32A TW33
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
5 .80 33 .60 3 .80 15 .80 5 .80
5.74 35 .28 3 .16 16.95 5 .21
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
5.65 43.86 2.64 16.40 5.43
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
5.33 n/s 25.85 18.84 4.90
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
13.40 5.92 2.60 23.60 5 .30
n/s n/a n/s 23.00 7 .60
6.33 n/s 2 .98 n/s n/s
7.70 DRY 2.20 27.40 5 .70
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s nls
7 .27 63 .66 2 .60 28.27 5 .53
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
7.04 DRY 2 .54 23.81 4.83
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s DRY n/s n/s n/s
9 .05 n/s 2 .37 28.74 4.48
10 .21 DRY n/s n/s 4 .82
n/s n/s 2 .03 29.57 n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
11 .29 DRY 2 .09 31 .70 3 .24
11 .35 DRY 2 .08 29.46 4 .73
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
8 .66 40 .15 7.97 26.70 5 .18
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
Page 2 of7
Table 3
Groundwater Analytical Results -CSA/SSA/CAP Monitoring Wells
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)
TW34 TW35 TW36 TW37 TW45A TW641 TW642 MW100 MW1 01 MW101D MW102
Dec 2002 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 12.00 160.00 100.00 86.00
Jun 2003 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 15 .00 120.00 97.00 72.00
Jul 2003 49 .60 26.60 4 .30 2.40 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
Nov2003 62 .17 36.02 3.47 2.05 7.71 73.56 80.15 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Mar2004 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s nls n/s 15.14 164.10 n/s 96.07
Apr2004 64.77 37.35 3 .51 2.92 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
Jun2004 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 79.07 70.53 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Mar2005 n/s n/s 3 .48 1.89 9 .21 71.39 61.59 14.81 n/s 117.40 119.42
Apr2005 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
Mar2006 81.40 60.00 4 .90 2.10 n/s 83.68 86.35 18.60 19 7.30 124.70 145.70
Jun 2006 n/s n/s 4 .20 2 .70 4.77 n/s n/s 15.30 180.30 123.30 140.50
Jul 2006 75.80 61 .05 n/s n/s n/s 82.98 62 .49 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Oct2006 85 .70 73.80 6.30 3.30 DRY 82.61 56.16 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Nov2006 nls n/s n/s n/s n/s nls n/s 22 .2 1 178.12 125.34 142.52
Feb 2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 19.76 48.98 129.32 49.19
Mar2007 93 .95 68.42 6.20 6.37 6.84 86.76 46.83 n/s nls n/s n/s
Jun 2007 83 .92 65.80 4.65 2.46 DRY 76.55 48 .37 n/s n/s n/s 110.77
Jul2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s nls n/s n/s 17 .06 166.29 104.98 n/s
Nov2007 nls n/s n/s n/s DRY nls n/s 25 .98 n/s 99.38 109.03
Dec2007 87.33 74.01 6 .57 2.85 n/s 75.45 42.82 n/s 168.66 n/s n/s
Mar2008 83.44 68.89 5.96 2.10 n/s 75.54 32.18 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Apr2008 nls n/s n/s n/s 2 .79 n/s n/s 17 .06 157.32 101 .82 109.50
Jul 2008 88 .75 75.36 6.09 2.77 DRY 76.10 54 .35 18 .66 161.08 104.42 130.25
Nov2008 n/s n/s 7 .34 2 .57 DRY 69.49 32.70 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Dec 2008 77.23 67.87 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 14 .38 140.90 nla 82.07
Mar2009 85 .30 71.47 6.71 2.23 n/s 71.80 20.16 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Apr2009 n/S n/s n/s n/s 6.30 n/s n/s 19 .11 146.79 101 .57 89.58
Notes:
15A NCAC 2L Standard= 10 mg/L
pRY = Less than three well volumes balled , did not yeild a valid sample
n/a = not applicable, there is no data associated but the well was sampled
n/s = no sample collected
Wells MW-51, MW-52, MW-53, and MW-54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.
MW103 MW104
49.00 24.00
36.00 35.00
n/s n/s
n/s n/s
36.40 43.77
n/s n/s
n/s n/s
30.43 n/s
n/s 44.42
33.90 n/s
36.00 n/a
n/s n/s
25.10 46.90
n/s n/s
n/s 49.03
23.73 n/s
23.70 51 .78
n/s n/s
28.20 DRY
n/s n/s
n/s DRY
30.56 n/s
37.56 DRY
n/s DRY
32 .83 n/s
n/s n/s
46.60 DRY
Page 3 of7
Table 3
Groundwater Analytical Results • CSA/SSA/CAP Monitoring Wells
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)
MW 105 MW 105D MW106 MW107 MW108 MW109 MW110 MW111 MW 111D MW112 MW113D
Dec2002 11 .00 28.00 2.50 0.00 4.40 54.00 33.00 28 .00 18.00 15.00 21.00
Jun 2003 17 .00 23.00 17 .00 0.12 18.00 52 .00 29.00 17 .00 20.00 .11.00 53.00
Mar2004 .n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
Apr2004 n/s n/s n/s n/s 27.23 n/s 31.75 16.71 n/s 7.81 n/s
Jun 2004 52 .60 n/s 61 .57 n/s n/s 61 .57 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
Mar2005 49.92 50.29 25.23 n/s 7.52 45.15 29.96 19.55 n/s 11.11 n/s
Apr2005 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 24.24 n/s n/s
Mar2006 62 .70 53.30 n/s n/s 12.90 41.70 30.00 25 .90 21.80 19.20 n/s
Jun 2006 64 .50 51.60 30.30 n/s 10 .43 42.30 33.60 13 .90 23.10 18.20 n/a
Oct2006 55 .00 55.05 n/s n/s 17.30 39.20 n/s 25.70 20.70 16 .00 n/s
Nov2006 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 27 .91 n/s n/s n/s 71 .85
Dec2006 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
Feb 2007 88.34 n/s 35 .23 n/s 17.13 42.19 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
Mar2007 n/s 53.56 n/s n/s n/s n/s 26.65 19 .1 1 n/a 11.44 75.39
Jun 2007 79 .44 48.44 31 .21 n/s 13.81 37.62 23.00 8.50 19.41 12 .75 n/s
Jul2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 73.91
Nov2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
Dec2007 64 .00 48.43 n/s n/s 34.54 30.79 14.81 22 .47 18.30 14 .57 65.56
Mar2008 n/s n/s 27 .94 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 59.27
Apr2008 75 .72 52.34 n/s n/s 33 .67 33.65 22.90 24 .16 18.81 14 .16 n/s
Jul2008 72.59 48.33 46 .53 n/s 36.59 37 .23 22.80 24 .88 19.30 19 .63 62.64
Nov2008 DRY n/s n/s n/s DRY 32 .71 23.90 22 .45 18.17 17 .67 n/s
Dec 20 08 n/s 42.61 25 .80 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 48.97
Mar2009 n/s n/s 32 .71 n/s 36 .57 37.41 24 .96 7.84 16 .84 12 .45 n/s
Apr2009 66.36 46.51 n/s 0.82 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 44.74
Notes:
15A NCAC 2L Standard= 10 rng/L
ORY = Less than three well volumes balled, did not yeild a valid sample
n/a = not applicable , there is no data associated but the well was sampled
n/s = no sample collected
Wells MW-51, MW-52, MW-53, and MW-54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respecti vely .
MW114 MW115
n/s n/s
2.60 22.00
2.37 32.07
n/s n/s
n/s n/s
1.18 26.29
n/s n/s
1.80 26.60
1.40 30.90
3.00 31.90
n/s n/s
3 .04 n/s
0 .84 26.34
n/s n/s
2.42 21.70
n/s n/s
n/s n/s
3.42 27 .08
n/s n/s
0.35 23.82
2.01 23.26
n/s n/s
25 .25 23.75
n/s n/s
57 .04 22 .46
Page 4of7
MW116 MW117 MW121 MW 122
Dec 2002 n/s n/s nls n/s
Jun 2003 5.50 0.26 0.38 5.00
Jul2003 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Dec 2003 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Mar2004 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Apr2004 7 .90 n/s n/s n/s
Jun 2004 n/s 0.00 n/s 5 .65
Jul 2004 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Mar2005 2.86 0.94 n/s 4 .89
Apr2005 6.33 n/s n/s nls
Mar2006 9.70 n/s n/s 4.23
Jun 2006 6 .70 n/s n/s 3.93
Jul2006 n/s 0 .00 n/s nls
Oct2006 0.70 1.80 n/s 5.30
Nov 2006 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Feb 2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Mar2007 5.94 0.24 PRY 5.68
Jun 2007 4 .94 2.41 ORY n/s
Jul2007 nls n/s n/s 3.57
Nov 2007 nls nls n/s 2.49
Dec 2007 1.90 0.27 DRY n/s
Mar2008 n/s n/s ORY 2.61
Apr2008 4.30 0 .13 n/s n/s
Jul2008 2 .28 0 .34 DRY 3 .12
Nov 2008 n/s 0.67 n/s n/s
Dec2008 4.47 n/s DRY 2.43
Mar2009 4.65 0.95 DRY n/s
Apr2009 n/s n/s nls 3.29
Notes:
15A NCAC 2L Standard = 10 mg/L
Table 3
Groundwater Analytical Results -CSA/SSA/CAP Monitoring Wells
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)
MW 1230 MW124D MW125D MW126D GP1 GP3 GP5 GP8 GP-9
n/s n/s n/s n/s 22 .00 44.00 n/s 96.00 6.70
120.00 0.29 12.00 6.50 n/s nls 46.00 93.00 n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s 18.00 6.60 n/s n/s n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 167.36
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 55.50 42.31 24.70
69 .97 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s n/s 9.25 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s 1.00 n/s n/s n/s nls nls n/s n/s
0.55 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 17.00
n/s n/s 8.40 6.63 n/s n/s n/s n/s nls
72.20 2.93 n/s 8.50 n/s n/s n/s n/s 13.40
67.20 n/s n/s 9.10 n/s n/s n/s n/s 20.64
n/s 0.90 7.93 n/s nls n/s n/s n/s n/s
0.00 nls n/s n/s n/s nls n/s n/s n/s
n/s 1.27 n/s 9.29 n/s 11 .52 n/s n/s 9.62
n/s n/s n/s 10.42 n/s nls n/s n/s n/s
72.47 3.55 9 .80 n/s PRY PRY ORY DRY 11.55
54.92 DRY 6 .61 a.n n/s ORY ORY DRY n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s DRY nls n/s n/s 9 .86
52.18 DRY 8.39 n/s DRY ORY DRY DRY n/s
n/s n/s n/s 8.93 n/s n/s nls n/s ORY
56.88 DRY 13.44 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s n/s n/s 9.94 DRY DRY DRY DRY 1.n
56.12 4.63 8 .85 9.84 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/S n/s n/s
53.78 4.12 6.47 9.21 DRY DRY DRY DRY 6.58
n/s n/s 9.06 9.79 n/s n/s n/S n/s n/s
56.41 5.30 n/s n/s 1.38 DRY DRY 19.21 10.10
DRY = Less than three well volumes bailed, did not yeild a valid sample
n/a = not applicable, there is no data associated but the well was sampled
n/s = no sample collected
Wens MW-51, MW-52, MW-53, and MW-54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7 , GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.
GP10 GP12 GP-17 GP21 GP22
0.80 0.12 0.00 2.20 130.00
0.55 0.00 6.80 1.90 6.90
n/s n/s n/s n/s 4.30
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
0.39 0.20 n/s n/s n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s 0.19 4.32 8.61 30.80
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s n/s 6.99 1.80 41 .13
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s 2 .19 6 .90 n/s n/s
1.02 n/s 5.10 3 .00 35.90
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
n/s 1.48 DRY 6.10 n/s
n/s n/s n/s 6.10 n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
0.26 DRY 14.03 0.68 DRY
n/s n/s 0 .10 1.49 30 .13
PRY PRY n/s nls n/s
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
DRY DRY 0 .53 15.32 15.32
n/s n/s n/s 4.41 n/s
DRY PRY 0 .52 n/s DRY
DRY DRY DRY 2.26 18.06
n/s n/s DRY n/s n/s
DRY DRY n/s 7.32 DRY
n/s 0.47 0.59 4.26 22.70
0.78 n/s n/s n/s n/s
-
Page 5of7
SW #1 SW#2 SW#3
Nov2002 52.0 0.4 52.0
Jun 2003 49.0 13.0 50.0
Sep 2005 43.275 n/s n/s
Nov 2005 41 .043 5.64 55.034
Dec2005 n/s n/s n/s
Mar2006 64.586 10.159 81 .285
Jul 2006 50.25 12.284 55 .087
Nov2006 ORY 3.301 25 .665
Mar 2007 DRY B.9B 76.34
Jul 2007 ORY 11.12 DRY
Nov 2007 DPY 9.39 ORY
Mar2008 ORY 6.61 57.97
Jul2008 ORY 7.04 40.91
Nov2008 ORY B.33 49 .68
Mar2009 30.36 26.62 51 .03
Notes:
15A NCAC 2L Standard= 10 mg/L
Table 4
Surface Water Analytical Results
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate Concentration ( mg/L)
SW#4 SW#S SW#6 SW#7 SW##S SW#9 SW#10
54.0 0.7 54.0 77.0 1.2 34.0 48.0
47.0 2.0 46.0 83.0 1.6 36.0 19.0
77.919 n/s 70.439 97.593 n/s nls n/s
58.186 0.448 52.847 80.483 0.83"' 49.246 66.919
n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
76 .195 1.486 68 .885 94.086 1.534 62.057 78 .773
77.555 5.678 68.097 100.878 8.076 33.667 78.309
62.658 9.683 48.162 7 .833 42.126 50.817 68.117
74.42 1.550 68.590 101 .850 1.740 61 .99 0 81.990
74.99 4.470 65.350 96.030 10.030 62.580 77.590
n/a 1.360 64 .710 91 .920 ORY 64.420 73 .390
64.39 1.630 42.190 B7 .110 10.290 49.920 72.820
56.76 5.020 52.520 81.940 1.100 68 .270 65.210
6.1 7.900 57.630 7B.990 13.320 52.670 65.200
53.56 11.170 24.260 78.780 2.320 17 .570 21.410
DR = Less than three well volumes bailed, did not yeild a valid sample
n/a • not applicable, there is no data associated but the well was sampled
n/s = no sample collected
Wells MW-51, MW-52, MW-53, and MW-54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.
SW#11 SW#12 SW#13 SW#14
19.0 52.0 0.5 0.2
47.0 41.0 1.3 0.2
32.962 n/s n/s n/s
25.890 59.220 n/s n/S
n/s n/s 0.543 0.214
35.387 71 .531 0.479 0.000
68.484 73.148 5.719 0.201
35.977 54.992 7.583 1.493
35.B20 48.410 0.810 0.000
39.420 6B .010 6.190 0 .480
33.550 65.590 0.520 0.000
36.120 58.690 3.920 0.250
48.890 58.580 5.240 0.390
33.020 56.920 7.6B0 DRY
26.050 45.560 0.900 0.180
--
Page 6of7
Table 4
Surface Water Analytical Results
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)
SW#15 SW#16 SW#17 SW#18 SW#19 SW#20 SW#21 SW#22 SW#24 SW#25
Nov200; 20.0 1.7 5.5 3.0 16.0 3.8 0.2 0.3 0.5 NS
Jun 200~ 20.0 6.2 1.0 1.7 21 .0 3.3 0.2 1.S 0.5 4 .6
Sep2005 n/s n/s n/s n/s nls nls nls nls n/s n/s
Dec2005 36.2 10 3.680 5.068 4 .740 18.698 2.745 0.126 1.184 0.568 4.990
Mar2006 33 .35 1 6.699 0 .746 4.816 10.381 1.859 0.000 0.881 1.030 1.375
Jul 2006 39.820 6.838 DRY 4 .920 36.676 7.147 0.133 1.626 1.204 DRY
Nov2006 ORV 2.972 0.778 3.981 17.129 2.594 0.000 0.95 7 0.707 1.420
Mar 2007 ORY 7.630 0 .000 5.860 23.830 4.550 0.280 1.270 0.550 3.380
Jul 200 7 DRY 3.350 DRY 4 .420 37.280 7.740 0.640 1.670 0.740 DRY
Nov2007 ORY 3.040 DRY 4 .350 34.390 4.110 0.000 1.~o 0.480 DRY
Mar 2008 ORY 3.240 DRY 4.560 22.420 2.810 0.000 0.93 0 0.350 DRY
Jul 2008 ORY 2.400 DRY 4.610 37.050 2.360 0.170 0.710 0.350 DRY
Nov2008 ORY 1.930 DRY 4 .770 1.620 3.000 0.000 1.780 0.810 1.860
Mar 2009 ORY 4 .400 0.730 4 .870 16.670 2.940 2 .850 1.270 32.590 2.980
Notes :
15A NCAC 2L Standard= 10 mg/L
DRY = Less than three well volumes bailed, did not yeild a valid sample
nla = not applicable, there is no data associated but the well was sampled
n/s = no sample collected
Wells MW-51, MW-52, MW-53, and MW-54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.
SW#26 SW#27 SW#28
NS NS NS
9.8 14.0 46.0
nls nls nls
DRY 3.866 nls
DRY 2.346 n/s
DRY DRY n/s
DRY 4.627 nls
4 .260 8.830 nls
DRY DRY n/s
DRY DRY nls
DRY 4.700 nls
DRY DRY nls
DRY DRY nls
2.760 5.460 61.5
Page 7of7
TABLE4A
Surface Water Analytical Results -Treatment Wetland Candidate Sites
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
l"hN hC I" Rae1 g , ort aroma
Nitrate (mg/L)
May 1, May 22, July 2, Aug 6, Aug 27, Sept 24, Oct. 21, Nov 13, Dec 10, Jan 7,
Location 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009
SW-AU 48.2 53.3 58.4 55.1 42.1 58 .5 56.7 58 .1 59.1 26 .2
SW-AD 48.3 52.4 57.8 44.7 49.5 57.6 59.4 22.2 56.5 15.8
SW-BU 4.5 6.8 9.5 7.8 5.3 9.6 9.2 8.9 7.8 3.9
SW-BD 4.6 18.6 9.3 8.2 5.4 9.5 9.2 9.6 9.5 8.0
SW-CU 28.5 32.1 35.5 NS 36.8 39.3 39.5 30.0 35.3 26.6
SW-CD 27.1 49.6 37.8 NS 40.1 39.3 39.0 32.7 37.8 26.2
SW-DU 3.0 4.0 3.0 NS 2.2 3.1 3.8 3.7 4.3 3 .2
SW-DD 3.1 5.2 3.0 NS 2.1 3.1 3.7 3.6 4.2 3.5
SW-EU 12.8 15.5 29.9 34.9 25.4 22.8 21.6 19.6 11.8 4.5
SW-ED 12.6 14.4 29.1 37.6 22.4 24.0 20.9 18.3 13.4 4.7
Notes:
mg/L -Milligrams per Liter
U -Upstream, D -Downstream
#11335482v1
Sample ID/ Field Sample
De ath Location Date
SB-1 0-7" Field 3 12/12/02
SS-1 0-4' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-1 4-8' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-1 8-12' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-1 12-16' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-1 16-22' Field3 11/14/02
SB-2 0-7" Field3 12/12/02
SS-2 0-4' Field3 11/14/02
SS-2 4-8' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-2 8-12' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-212-14' Field 3 11/14/02
SB-3 0-7" Field 100 12/12/02
5B3 0-4' Field 100 11/15/02
5B34-8' Field 100 11/15/02
5B3 8-12' Field 100 11/15/02
5B312-16' Field 100 11/15/02
SB3 16-20' Field 100 11/15/02
5B3 20-24' Field 100 11/15/02
SB-4 0-7" Field 100 12/12/02
5B40-4' Field 100 11/15/02
5B44-8' Field 100 11/15/02
5B4 8-12' Field 100 11/15/02
5B412-16' Field 100 11/15/02
5B416-20' Field 100 11/15/02
S B-5 0-7" Field 500 12/23102
5B5 0-4' Field 500 11115/02
5B5 4-8' Field 500 11/1 5/02
5B5 8-12' Field 500 11/15/02
S85 12-16' Field 500 11/15/02
5B5 16-24' Field 500 11/15/02
SB-6 0-7" Field 500 12/12/02
5B6 0-4' Field 500 11/15/02
5B6 4-8' Field 500 11/15/02
5B6 8-12' Field 500 11/15/02
D-5B6 8-12' Field 500 11/15/02
5B6 12-16' Field 500 11/15/02
5B6 16-20' Field 500 11/15/02
Field 17 Field 17
Field 18 Field 18
Field 19 Field 19
Field 22 Field 22
Field 27 Field 27
Field 28 Field 28
Field 33 Field 33
Field 35 Field 35
Field 36 Field 36
Field 37 Field 37
Field 38 Field 38
Field 39 Field 39
F ield 40 Field 40
Field 42 Field 42
F ield 43 Field 43
Field 45 Fie ld 45
field 49 Field 49
Field 50 Field 50
Field 73 Field 73
Field 511 Field 511
Notes:
TKN -Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TOC -Total Organic carbon
mg/kg -Milligrams per kilogram
J -Estimated value
NA -Not Analyzed
PAN Surf -Plant Available Nitrogen (Surface)
TABLES
Soil Analytical Results
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ammonia Nitrate Nitrite Solids TKN
fmo/k al lma/k cil fm11/k 11I !%) fmo/k11\
1.3 2.9 <1.0 82 1600
1.1 9 <1 80 920
<0.1 9.4 <1 82 14
0.14 16 <1 79 9.3
0.1 18 <1 90 5.1
<0.1 16 <1 89 2.2
1.1 4.1 <1.0 82 1800
0.6 7.9 <1 84 480
<0.1 24 <1 72 24
<0.1 8.1 <1 93 9.2
<0.1 5.9 <1 94 6.5
1.1 8.1 <1.0 81 1800
0.58 23 <1 81 80
0.43 58 <1 67 28
3.1 51 <1 77 27
0.32 24 <1 84 18
0.36 26 <1 86 8.8
0.29 17 <1 90 <0.06
2.2 5.6 <1.0 82 1600
1.1 26 <1 84 69
0.37 61 <1 75 32
0.94 30 <1 83 14
0.39 19 <1 72 9.2
<0 .1 27 <1 84 3.1
2.5 <1.0 <2.0 83 1800
0_67 3.5 <1 78 460
<0.1 25 <1 84 37
<0.1 8.9 <1 84 9.6
<0.1 14 <1 85 <0.06
<0.1 9.4 <1 80 <0.06
0.98 2.4 <1.0 88 650
0.6 5 <1 88 670
<0.1 16 <1 82 51
0.6 J 10 <1 82 20
0.23 J 9.9 <1 83 16
<0.1 11 <1 83 31
<0.1 12 <1 79 <0.06
36.2 9.1 NA 99 1389.1
79.1 24.2 NA 97 2051.1
45.3 12.4 NA 97 2530.1
48.3 6.7 NA 98 3229.0
31.8 6.7 NA 97 1485.3
32.6 3.3 NA 97 1273.9
22.0 5.0 NA 97 678.5
36.5 9.3 NA 97 1469.5
46.1 22.3 NA 97 1839.1
30.4 3.0 NA 84 1193.0
17.5 2.0 NA 84 1598.4
32.1 4.0 NA 86 905.7
28 .6 3.3 NA 85 497.5
25 .0 3.2 NA 84 1247.4
36 :1 13.6 NA 64 1461.6
20.6 4.0 NA 83 578.3
28.9 4.1 NA 63 1264.0
33.5 10.4 NA 83 1194.6
28.0 4.6 NA 90 1101.2
29.1 6.9 NA 98 705.3
PAN Sub -Plant Available NitrOQen (Subsurface )
TOC PAN -Surf PAN -Sut
lm11/k 11l m11/k 11 m11/k 11
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
870 NA NA
400 NA NA
8530 NA NA
400 NA NA
383 NA NA
296 NA NA
NA NA NA
2260 NA NA
209 NA NA
522 NA NA
31 30 NA NA
331 NA NA
NA NA NA
6310 NA NA
296 NA NA
278 NA NA
70 NA NA
90 NA NA
NA NA NA
3860 NA NA
783 NA NA
679 NA NA
278 NA NA
574 NA NA
350 NA NA
NA 433.1 451.2
NA 655.3 694.9
NA 780.5 803.1
NA 985.0 1009.1
NA 458.6 474.5
NA 392.0 408.3
NA 213.0 224.0
NA 457.4 475.7
NA 583.2 606.3
NA 367.0 382.2
NA 485.1 493.8
NA 282.1 298 .1
NA 158.3 172 .6
NA 382.4 394 .9
NA 459.3 477.4
NA 181.7 1920
NA 389.1 403 .6
NA 375.5 392 .2
NA 340.5 354 .5
NA 224.4 238.9
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
#11317126v1
TABLE 6
Description of Proposed Variance Areas
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Size of Parcel
PIN (acres) Actual Land Use
1740979732 52.6 Majority forested and small portion of agricultural
land
1740793487 20 Residence on agricultural and foresed land
1741657986 15.65 Forested land with a power substation
1751302126 1.0 Residence
1741639103 210.99 Majority forested and agricultural land and
contruction and debris landfill
1751404793 9.95 Forested with residence
1750174178 79.19 Forested land
1750389798 NA NA
1751630645 0.03 Vacant
1750397971 1.03 Residence
1751630713 0.56 Residence
1741805656 13.64 Forested with residence
1751108108 3.38 Residence and aoricultural
1751107691 1.08 Forested land with residence
1751304009 1.0 Vacant
1750481764 1.46 Residence
1740760858 259.22 Vacant, forested lot
1741533931 13.48 Vacant
1751305085 1.0 Residence
1751500467 30.75 Agricultural-farm, one home and several
outbuildinas
1751439727 19.5 Agricultural land
1740783586 8.16 Forested vacant land
1751736917 16.91 Forested land
1750481918 NA NA
1751400846 8.28 Residence
1751525610 1.6 Cemetery
1751300253 1.0 Vacant
1750491820 1.01 Residence
1751309180 3.44 Vacant, wooded lot
1751507920 8.1 Forested land
1751106682 1.07 Agricultural land
175000-14-9550 79.19 Forested land (continuation of Parcel 7 in
Johnston County}
175000-38-7096 0.49 Forested land
175000-37-6963 1.41 Forested land
175000-38-9108 1.33 Forested land
175000-48-5708 No information in Johnston County GIS (same as
16 -Wake Countvl
175000-48-0659 1.63 Residence
Residence?
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
NA
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
NA
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Year
ZUUb
ZUU/
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
· TABLE 7
Projected Debitted total Nitrogen Allocation
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
TN Allocation -
Allocation Debit Debit
(pounds) (pounds) (pounds) Remarks
6/b,4% ·1L3 ,UUU 553,496
6 /t>,496 120,000 556,496
682 ,483"' 117,000 745,483 * Allocation increased in NPDES
682,483 114 ,000 568,483 permit renewal of 7/14/2008
682,483 111,000 571,483
682,483 108,000 574,483
682,483 105,000 577,483
682,483 102,000 580,483
682,483 99,000 583,483
682,483 96,000 586,483
682,483 93,000 589,483
682,483 90,000 592,483
682,483 87,000 595,483
682,483 84,000 598,483
682,483 81,000 601,483
682,483 78,000 604,483
682,483 75,000 607,483
682,483 72,000 610,483
682,483 69,000 613,483
682,483 66 ,000 616 ,483
682,483 63,000 619,483
682,483 60,000 622,483
682,483 57,000 625,483
682,483 54,000 628,483
682,483 51,000 631,483
682,483 48,000 634,483
682,483 45,000 637,483
682,483 42,000 640,483
682,483 39,000 643 ,483
682,483 36,000 646,483
682,483 33,000 649,483
682,483 30,000 652,483
682,483 27,000 655,483
682,483 24,000 658,483
682,483 21,000 661,483
682,483 18,000 664,483
682,483 15,000 667 ,483
682,483 12,000 670,483
682,483 9,000 673,483
682,483 6,000 676,483
682,483 3,000 679,483
682,483 -682,483
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2
RESOLUTION 2009 -867
A RESOLUTION FOR A NEW VARIAN CE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE CITY OF
RALEIGH TO MEET THE CONDITIONS OF ITS CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR
THE NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the corrective action plan approved by the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ), for groundwater
contamination at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant site (NRWWTP Site), the City of
Raleigh is implementing hydraulic containment in select areas and monitored natural attenuation
for the remainder of the NRWWTP Site; and
WHEREAS, the City of Raleigh's corrective action plan is conditioned on the City of Raleigh's
receipt of a variance from certain rules of the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission (EMC); and
WHEREAS, the City of Raleigh has connected thirty-nine residences in the vicinity of the
NRWWTP Site to the City of Raleigh's public water supply system, at no cost to the property
owners, even though (i) the majority of those residences did not show signs of nitrogen pollution
in groundwater, and (ii) there was not conclusive evidence that the City of Raleigh's activities at
the NRWWTP Site were the primary cause of ~y private well contamination; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of supporting the City of Raleigh's variance request, DWQ requires
the City of Raleigh, upon the EMC's approval of the City of Raleigh's variance request, to debit
against the nitrogen discharge allocation in its wastewater permit an amount that represents an
extremely conservative estimate of the additional annual nitrogen loading to the Neuse River via
groundwater resulting from the exceedance of groundwater standards at the NRWWTP Site
("Nitrogen Debit"); and
W~REAS, the City of Raleigh's corrective action plan, taken together with the City of
Raleigh's provision of public water service to neighboring residences and the Nitrogen Debit,
ensure that EMC's granting of the variance will not adversely affect public health or the
environment; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of a corrective action plan in full compliance with the EMC's
rules of the would produce serious financial hardship to the City of Raleigh without equal or
greater benefit to public health or the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Raleigh adopted a resolution on November 15, 2005 requesting a
variance from certain rules of the EMC, which was submitted to the North Carolina Department
of Environment, Division of Water Quality (DWQ), on December 1, 2005 (the "Original
Variance Request"), and which was publicly .noticed for comment in July of 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Neuse River Foundation and the Upper Neuse.Riverkeeper (collectively
"NRF") submitted comments to DWQ on the variance request asking that additional steps be
taken to mitigate nitrogen loading to surface water via groundwater and the NRWWTP Site; and
US2000 113 lll 90.4
WHEREAS, following the public comment period, the staff of the City's Public Utilities
Department and its consultants negotiated with DWQ and NRF to develop a plan for both on-site
and off-site mitigation to offset the nitrogen load from the NRWWTP Site, which will be
implemented as a condition of the City's biosolids application permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Raleigh City Council hereby: (1) rescinds and
withdraws the Original Variance Request; (2) requests that the Environmental Management
Commission approve the City of Raleigh's new variance request pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143-
215.3(e) and North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A, Subchapter 2L, Section .0113 to
allow the City of Raleigh full approval its corrective action plan; and (3) authorizes the City
Manager to enter into the agreement with NRF attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Adopted: April 21, 2009
2
US2000 11311190.4
EXHIBIT 3
C ITY O F RALEI G H
Neuse River W aste W ater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Hu man Health Ris k Assess me nt
Prepared by:
INTERNATIONAL
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (NC), Inc.
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103
Raleigh, North Carolina 27616
November 2005
Ital .. ,.,,.
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Human Health Risk Assessment ........................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 Data Evaluation and Hazard Assessment .................................................................. 1-2
1.1.2 Toxicity Assessment. ................................................................................................... 1-2
1.1.3 Exposure Assessment ................................................................................................ 1-3
1.1.3.1 Receptors and Exposure Routes ................................................................ 1-3
1.1.3.2 Potential Exposure Doses ........................................................................... 1-3
1.1.3.3 Exposure Point Concentrations .................................................................. 1-6
1.1.4 Risk Characterization .................................................................................................. 1-6
1.1.5 Uncertainties ................................................................................................................ 1-7
1.1.6 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1-8
1.1. 7 References .................................................................................................................. 1-8
S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP
Work\Revised
CAP _NovOS\Rlsk_Assessment\111805-
November. 2005
Etal
MWIW&fM
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Chemical Specific Parameters
Table 2. Summary of Potential Exposure Assumptions -Child/Teenager, Wading in Surface Water
Table 3. Summary of Potential Exposure Assumptions -Resident
Table 4. Development of Exposure Point Concentrations for Nitrate in Groundwater
Table 5. Development of Exposure Point Concentrations for Nitrate in Surface Water
Table 6. Total Potential Hazard Index
S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP
Work\Revised
CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-
ii November, 2005
Ital -·
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Executive Summa ry
A baseline human health risk assessment {HHRA) was conducted for nitrate in surface water and
groundwater at the City of Raleigh, North Carolina's Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
{NRWWTP) site. Potential receptors were a child/teenage wader at Beddingfield Creek and the other
Neuse River tributaries and a hypothetical future resident using site groundwater for potable and/or
non-potable uses. Exposure assumptions were selected in accordance with USEPA guidance
{USEPA,1989; 1991; 1997; 2004b). Exposure point concentrations for surface water were selected as
the maximum detected concentration from the last three sampling events and the average
concentration (temporal and area). Noncarcinogenic Hazard Indices (His) were calculated for the
ingestion and dermal routes of exposure. There were no unacceptable risks for exposure to surface
water or for exposure to groundwater used for a non-potable p_urpose (swimming pool), based on
comparison of the His to the USEPA limit of 1.0. However, the His for potable use of groundwater
exceeded 1.0, indicating a potentially unacceptable risk-for site groundwater used as drinking water.
1.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
ENSR conducted this baseline HHRA to evaluate potential risks that may be posed by the
concentrations of nitrate in groundwater and surface water related to biosolids application at farm fields
located at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) in Raleigh, North Carolina. The
application areas are bounded to the north and east by the Neuse River and to the south by
Beddingfield Creek. The area of interest and sampling locations are presented in Figure 1-2 of the
revised Corrective Action Plan (CAP) (ENSR, 2005). Groundwater quality studies conducted as part of
the Comprehensive Site Assessment (ENSR, 2002) and the Supplemental Site Assessment (ENSR,
2003) indicated that, in some groundwater and surface water samples, concentrations exceeded the
USEPA Maximum Contaminant Limit (MCL) of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L (USEPA, 2002; 2004a).
The private water supply wells were later closed and. the properties connected to the municipal water
supply.
The HHRA was conducted consistent with USEPA guidance, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Volume 1 -Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Parts A, B, C) (USE PA, 1989; 1991 a);
• USEPA Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Bulletins -Supplement to RAGS
(USEPA, 2000b);
• Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance; Standard Default Exposure
Factors. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03 (USE PA, 1991 b ); and
S:\PUBS\PROJECnR\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-1
Etal ,,.,, ....
• Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997);
The baseline HHRA has been conducted in accordance with the four-step paradigm for human health
risk assessments developed by USEPA (USEPA, 1989). These steps are:
• Data Evaluation and Hazard Identification
• Toxicity Assessment
• Exposure Assessment
• Risk Characterization
1.1.1 Data Evaluation and Hazard Assessment
Groundwater samples were collected in ten sampling events between November 2002 and July 2005
and surface water samples were collected in four sampling events between November 2002 and
September 2005. All samples were analyzed for nitrate, which was detected in the majority of samples
collected from the over 90 groundwater monitoring wells and from the 28 surface water sampling
stations. Groundwater data are summarized in Tables 1-3 and 1-4 and surface water data are
summarized in Tables 1-5 of the CAP (ENSR, 2005). Nitrate is the only compound of potential
concern (COPC) for this HHRA.
1.1.2 Toxicity Assessment
The purpose of the dose-response assessment is to identify the types of adverse health effects a
chemical may potentially cause, and to define the relationship between the dose of a chemical and the
likelihood or magnitude of an adverse effect (response) (USEPA, 1989). Adverse effects are classified
by USEPA as potentially carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic (i.e., potential effects other than cancer).
Dose-response relationships are defined by USEPA for oral exposure and for exposure by inhalation.
Oral toxicity values are also used to assess dermal exposures, with appropriate adjustments, because
USEPA has not yet developed values for this route of exposure. Combining the results of the toxicity
assessment with information on the magnitude of potential human exposure provides an estimate of
potential risk.
The preferred source for dose-response values is the USEPA Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) database (USEPA, 2005). Nitrate has not been evaluated by USEPA for carcinogenicity, and
no carcinogenic dose-response values have been developed. The noncarcinogenic oral dose
response value for nitrate, the Reference Dose (RfD), is available on IRIS. The oral RfD is based on
infant methemoglobinemia associated with exposure to nitrate in drinking water used to prepare
infants' formula. The oral RID for nitrate is also used without adjustment as the dermal RID. The
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 200x) reports that oral absorption of
S:\PUBS\PROJECnR\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-2
Etal
IWMMiWM
nitrate is nearly 100%. Thus, it is not necessary to adjust the oral RfD to account for an absorbed dose.
The dose-response value for nitrate is presented in Table 1.
1.1.3 Exposure Assessment
The purpose of the exposure assessment is to predict the magnitude and frequency of potential
human exposure to the site COPCs. Potentially complete exposure pathways are based on an
evaluation of the physical conditions at the sit, the distribution of contaminants, and likely human
activity patterns.
1.1.3.1 Receptors and Exposure Routes
Nitrate was detected in Beddingfield Creek and in other tributaries to the Neuse River. The NRWWTP
site is partially fenced, which may reduce unauthorized access and use of the site. However, it is
possible that a trespasser or nearby resident might wade in one of the tributaries to the Neuse River,
located within the site or in Beddingfield Creek. For the purpose of the risk assessment, the receptor
was identified as a child or teenager (aged 7 to 16 years) wading in the surface water. For
noncarcinogenic effects (the only health effect evaluated for nitrate) a child is a more conservative
receptor than an adult, because estimated exposure doses are normalized over the lower body weight
for a child.
Potential exposure to groundwater is not complete at the site. The City of Raleigh has provided
municipal water to all landowners whose groundwater wells were impacted by, or potentially impacted
by, the nitrates contained in the biosolids applied at the site (ENSR, 2005; ENSR, 2003). To provide a
conservative estimate of potential risks, potential future use of site groundwater or downgradient
groundwater for potable or non-potable uses was evaluated. A hypothetical future resident potentially
exposed to nitrate in groundwater used as drinking water was considered. In addition, a hypothetical
future resident using groundwater for a swimming pool was also evaluated. The receptor evaluated is
a young child (aged 0-6 years). As stated for the child/teenage wader, a child is the most sensitive
receptor for noncarcinogenic effects.
The exposure assumptions used in this HHRA are derived mainly from USEPA guidance documents,
including USEPA Region 4 bulletins (USEPA, 2000), Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997) and
Human Health Exposure Manual (USEPA, 1991b). These assumptions are presented in Table 2.
1.1.3.2 Potential Exposure Doses
To estimate the potential risk to human health that may be posed by the presence of COPCs in
environmental media in the study area, it is first necessary to estimate the potential exposure dose of
each COPC for each receptor. The exposure dose is estimated for each chemical via each exposure
route/pathway by which the receptor is assumed to be exposed. Exposure dose equations combine
S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-3
Ital
U#UMtifM
the estimates of chemical concentration in the environmental medium of interest with assumptions
regarding the type and magnitude of each receptor's potential exposure to provide a numerical
estimate of the exposure dose. The exposure dose is defined as the amount of COPC taken into the
receptor and is expressed in units of milligrams of COPC per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg-
day). The exposure doses are combined with the toxicity values to estimate potential risks and
hazards for each receptor. Both potential ingestion and dermal exposures to nitrate in groundwater
and surface water were considered. The exposure dose equations are as follows:
Average Daily Dose (Lifetime and Chronic) Following Ingestion of Water (mg/kg-day):
where:
ADD =
cw =
IR =
EF =
ED =
AAF =
BW =
AT =
ADD = CW xlR x EF x EDxAAF
BWxAT
Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)
Water concentration (mg/L}
Water ingestion rate (Uday)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (year)
Absorption Adjustment Factor (unitless)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
Average Daily Dose (Lifetime and Chronic) Following Dermal Contact with Water (mg/kg-day):
where:
ADD =
cw =
SA =
Kp =
AAF +
ET =
EF =
ED =
ADD= CWxSAxKpxAAFxET.x EFxEDxCF
BWxAT
Average daily dose (mg/kg-day)
Water concentration (mg/L}
Exposed skin surface area (cm 2)
Dermal permeability constant (cm/hr)
Absorption Adjustment Factor (unitless)
Exposure time (hours/day)
Exposure frequency (day/year)
Exposure duration (year)
S:IPUBS\PROJECnRIRaleigh_City of\CAP Wor1<\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessmenl\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc
1-4
November, 2005
Etat
Uffiifi&IM
CF = Unit conversion factor (U103cm 3 )
BW = Body weight (kg)
Two chemical-specific factors, the permeability constant (Kp) and absorption adjustment factor (MF)
are used in the exposure dose equations.
The estimation of exposure doses resulting from incidental dermal contact with groundwater and
surface water requires the use of a dermal permeability constant (Kp) in units of centimeters per hour
(cm/hr}. This method assumes that the behavior of compounds dissolved in water is described by
Fick's Law. In Fick's Law, the steady-state flux of the solute across the skin (mg/cm 2/hr) equals the
permeability constant (kp, cm/hr} multiplied by the concentration difference of the solute across the
membrane (mg/cm 3). This approach is discussed by USEPA (USEPA, 1989; 2004b).
The estimate of toxicity of a compound, termed the toxicity value, can be derived from human
epidemiological data, but it is most often derived from experiments with laboratory animals. The
toxicity value can be calculated based on the administered dose of the compound (similar to the
human exposure dose) or, when data are available, based on the absorbed dose, or internal dose, of
the compound.
In animals, as in humans, the administered dose of a compound is not necessarily completely
absorbed. Moreover, differences in absorption exist between laboratory animals and humans, as well
as between different media and routes of exposure. Therefore, it is not always appropriate to directly
apply a toxicity value to the human exposure dose. In many cases, a correction factor in the
calculation of risk is needed to account for differences between absorption in the toxicity study and
absorption likely to occur upon human exposure to a compound in an environmental medium. Without
such a correction, the estimate of human health risk could be over-or under-estimated.
The MF is used to adjust the human exposure dose so that it is expressed in the same terms as the
doses used to generate the dose-response curve in the dose-response study. The AAF is the ratio
between the estimated human absorption for the specific medium and route of exposure, and the
known or estimated absorption for the laboratory study from which the dose-response value was
derived (USEPA, 1989, 2004b). The route of exposure for the toxicity study (oral ingestion of water) is
the same as the oral route evaluated in the HHRA (oral ingestion of surface water, potable water, or
swimming pool water). Therefore an oral MF of 1 is used. It is assumed that dermal absorption is
similar to oral absorption; therefore, a default value of 1 was used for dermal absorption.
The Kp and MFs for nitrate are presented in Table 1.
S:\PUBS\PROJECnR\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _NovOS\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment:doc November, 2005
1-5
Ital ewtt e
1.1.3.3 Exposure Point Concentrations
Exposure points are located where potential receptors may contact COPCs at or from the Site. The
concentration of COPCs in the environmental medium that receptors may contact, referred to as
exposure point concentrations (EPCs), must be estimated in order to determine the magnitude of
potential exposure.
The November 2004, March 2005, and July 2005 groundwater data, representing three recent
sampling events, were used to develop exposure point concentrations (EPCs) for groundwater. In
order to estimate the EPCs, results for duplicate samples were averaged. The maximum detected
value over the three sampling events was then selected as the EPC representing "worst case"
conditions. In addition, a temporal average for each well over the three sampling events was
calculated; the temporal averages by well were then averaged to estimate an area average. The
temporal/area average is representative of chronic exposure to water from a future private supply well,
because concentrations may vary seasonally and because an actively pumping supply well would
draw from a larger area than an individual monitoring well. Nitrate was detected in all of the wells used
for developing the average EPC; therefore, data for "non-impacted" wells were not used for calculating
averages. Selection of the EPCs for groundwater is presented in Table 3.
For surface water, the exposure point concentrations are the maximum detected concentrations in
Beddingfield Creek and in the other tributaries to the Neuse River. All of the surface water data
(November 2002 through September 2005) were used in order to provide a conservative estimate of
potential exposures. Selection of surface water EPCs is presented in Table 4.
1.1.4 Risk Characterization
The potential risk to human health associated with potential exposure to COPC in environmental
media at the site is evaluated in this step of the risk assessment process. Risk characterization is the
process in which the quantitative estimates of human exposure derived in the exposure assessment
are integrated with the dose-response information. The result is a quantitative estimate of the
likelihood that humans will experience any adverse health effects given the exposure assumptions
made.
The potential for exposure to a chemical to result in adverse noncarcinogenic health effects is
estimated for each receptor by comparing the CADD for each COPC with the RID for that COPC. The
resulting ratio, which is unitless, is known as the Hazard Quotient (HQ) for that chemical. The HQ is
calculated using the following equation:
The potential for exposure to a chemical to result in adverse noncarcinogenic health effects is
estimated for each receptor by comparing the ADD for each COPC with the RID for that COPC. The
S:\PUBS\PROJECTIR\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November. 2005
1-6
Ital ew,,.,,e
resulting ratio, which is unitless, is known as the Hazard Quotient (HQ) for that chemical. The HQ is
calculated using the following equation:
HQ = ADD(mg I kg-day)
RJD(mg/ kg-day)
The target HQ is defined as an HQ of less than or equal to one (USEPA, 1989). When the HQ is less
than or equal to 1, the RfD has not been exceeded, and no adverse noncarcinogenic effects are
expected. If the HQ is greater than 1, there may be a potential for adverse noncarcinogenic health
effects to occur; however, the magnitude of the HQ cannot be directly equated to a probability or effect
level. The total HI is calculated for each exposure pathway by summing the HQs for each individual
chemical. In this HHRA, in which there is only one COPC, the HQ is equal to the HI.
A summary of the His for the receptors is presented in this section and compared to the USEPA's
target HI of 1. The His are presented in Table 5.
• Child/Teenage Wader-the HI for the child/teenage wader in Beddingfield Creek is 0.0004 and
the HI for the child/teenage wader in the other tributaries to the Neuse River is 0.002. Neither
of these His exceed the HI limit of 1.0. Therefore, there are no unacceptable risks for this
receptor.
• Hypothetical Future Resident, Potable Water Use -The HI for the hypothetical future resident
using the maximum detected concentration as the EPC is 5.2 and the HI using the average
concentration as the EPC is 1.6. Because the His exceed 1, the potential risk for potable use
of groundwater by a hypothetical future resident is unacceptable.
• Hypothetical Future Resident, Non-potable Water Use (Swimming Pool) -The HI for the
hypothetical future resident is 0.02 using the maximum detected concentration as the EPC and
0.007 using the average concentration as the EPC. Therefore, there are no unacceptable risks
for the hypothetical future resident by the non-potable water pathway.
1.1.5 Uncertainties
The His presented in this HHRA are estimates of potential risk that are useful in regulatory decision
making. It is improper to consider these values as representing actual risk to exposed individuals
because there is an unquantifiable uncertainty associated with them. Numerous assumptions must be
made in each step of the risk characterization process. Some of the assumptions have a firm scientific
S:\PUBS\PROJECnRIRaleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _NovOS\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-7
( EN:ll
ririiWitM
basis, while others do not. Some level of uncertainty is introduced into the risk characterization every
time an assumption is made.
In regulatory risk characterization, the methodology dictates that the analyst err on the side of
overestimating human risk whenever there is a question concerning the appropriate value to assume
for any given parameter. The effect of using numerous parameters that each overestimate the actual
or realistic value is that the risk characterization produces an exaggerated estimate of human risk.
Such an analysis is useful for regulatory decision making, but it does not provide a realistic estimate of
the potential health impacts at commercial or industrial sites. Any one person's potential exposure and
subsequent risk are influenced by many variable parameters, which differ for individuals and
compounds.
Although average concentrations better represent exposure potential over time, the maximum detected
concentration in surface water was used as the EPC. This has the effect of increasing the estimate of
potential risks. Both the maximum and average concentrations in groundwater were used for
evaluation of potential risks posed by groundwater.
The most recent groundwater data (2004 and 2005) were used to develop groundwater EPCs to
evaluate potential future risks from use of the groundwater as a potable or non-potable water source.
However, it is likely that the nitrate concentrations will diminish over time. Therefore, potential future
risks may be overestimated.
1.1.6 Summary
A baseline HHRA was conducted for nitrate in surface water and groundwater at the City of Raleigh
Wastewater Treatment Plant site. Potential receptors were a child/teenage wader at Beddingfield
Creek and the other Neuse River tributaries and a hypothetical future resident using site groundwater
for potable and/or non-potable uses. Exposure assumptions were selected in accordance with USEPA
guidance (USE PA, 1989; 1991; 1997; 2004b ). EPCs for surface water were maximum detected
concentration from the last three sampling events and the average concentration (temporal and area).
Noncarcinogenic His were calculated for the ingestion and dermal routes of exposure. Based on
comparison of the His to the USEPA limit of 1.0, there were no unacceptable risks for exposure to
surface water or for exposure to groundwater used for a non-potable purpose (swimming pool).
However, the His for potable use of groundwater exceeded 1.0, indicating a potentially unacceptable
risk for site groundwater used as drinking water.
1.1. 7 References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2005. URL:
http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/.
S:IPUBSIPROJECTIR\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _NoV05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-8
Ital ·····-
ENSR, 2005. Revised Corrective Action Plan, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina.
EN$R, 2003. Supplemental Site Assessment, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina.
ENSR, 2002. Comprehensive Site Assessment, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina.
USEPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I. Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A). Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA 540/1-89/002.
USEPA. 1991a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I. Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals). Interim. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
9285. 7-01 B, December.
USE PA. 1991 b. Human Health Exposure Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Standard Default
Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive No. 9285.6-03. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volumes I, II and Ill. EPAf600/P-95/002F. Office of
Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2000. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Human Health Risk
Assessment. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. Waste Management
Division. Atlanta, GA. Update 05/01/2000. [URL:
http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/oftecser/healthbul.htm]
USEPA. 2002. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. EPA-822-R-02-047. November 2002.
USEPA. 2004a. 2004 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. EPA 822-R-04-005. Winter 2004.
USEPA. 2004b. Risk Assessment Guidance For Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Final. EPAf540/R/99/005.
July 2004.
USEPA. 2005. Integrated Risk Information System. URL: http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html.
Accessed November 16, 2005.
S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-9
TABLE 1
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, RALEIGH, NC
HUMAN HEAL TH RISK ASSESSMENT
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC PARA METERS FOR NITRATE Value
Reference Dose 1.6.E+00
Absorption Adjustment Factor (Oral and Dennal) 1.E+00
Penneability Coefficient 1.E-03
Notes :
Units REFERENCE/NOTES
mg/kg-clay USEPA. 2005. Integrated Risk lnfonnation Sysb
http ://www.epa .gov/iris/subsUindex.html
unilless Assumed value. ASTOR (2005) indicates that or
absorption of nitrate is nearly 100%.
cm/hour USEPA. 2005. Risk Assessment Guidance for~
Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Pa
Supplemental Guidance for Dennal Risk Assess
Default value for inorganics. Exhibit 3-1.
S :\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City ot\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessment\TABLES.xls
I
11/18/2005
TABLE2
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS -CHILD/TEENAGER, WADING IN SURFACE WATER
HUMAN HEAL TH RISK ASSESSMENT
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Child/Teenager
Wading in Surface Water
Parameter (7to 16 yrs)
Parameters Used in the Surface Water Pathway -Wading
Exposure Frequency (EF) (days/year) 45
Exposure Duration (ED) (yr) 10
Surface Water Ingestion Rate (IR) (I/hour) O.D1
Skin Contacting Medium (SA) (cm"2) 1975
Body Weight (BW) (kg) 45
Exposure Time (ET) (hr/day) 1
Notes:
(a) - 1 day per week for 39 weeks (9 warmest months) of the year, and 2 days per month for the 3 coldest months of the year.
This is also the USEPA Region 4 default for swimming.
(b) -Wader is assumed to range in age froin 7 to 16 (USEPA, 2000). Therefore, total exposure duration is 10 years.
(c) -USE PA, 2000. USEPA Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance. Default value.
(d) -USEPA, 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. Average surface area of feet and one-quarter legs of males and females aged 7 to 16,
listed in EFH Tables 6-6 to 6-8.
(e) -USEPA, 2000. US EPA Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance. Default value.
(f) -Best professional judgment.
S:\PUBS\PROJEC"T\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessment\TABLES.xls
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
November, 2005
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS -RESIDENT
HUMAN HEAL TH RISK ASSESSMENT
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Parameter
Parameters Used in the Groundwater as Swimming Pool Water Pathway
Exposure Frequency (EF) (days/year)
Exposure Duration (ED) (yr)
Water Ingestion Rate (IR) (I/day)
Exposure Time Swimming (hour/event)
Skin Contacting Medium (cm2)
Body Weight (BW) (kg)
Parameters Used in the Groundwater as Drinking Water Pathway
Exposure Frequency (EF) (days/year)
Exposure Duration (ED) (yr)
Water Ingestion Rate (IR) (I/day)
Exposure Time Bathing (hour/event)
Skin Contacting Medium (cm2)
Body We ight (BW) (kg)
Notes:
Resident
Child (0 to 6 yrs )
90
6
0.01
1
6600
15
350
6
1
1
6600
15
(a) - 2 day per week for 39 weeks (9 warmest months) of the year, and 4 days per month for the 3 coldest months of the year.
This is also the USEPA Region 4 default value for a swimming pool.
(b) -USEPA, 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. Recommended average for time residing in a household, Table 1-2. (9 years total,
assuming 7 years as an adult and 2 as a child -assumes that the 2 years as a child can occur anywhere between the ages of
0 to 6. · Therefore, exposure factors for a O to 6 year old child are employed).
(c) -USEPA, 2000. USEPA Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance. Default value.
(d) -Best professional judgment.
(e) -USEPA, 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. PartE.
Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. Default Value. Bathing exposure time is Reasonable
Maximum Exposure value.
(f)-USEPA, 1991. Standard Default Exposure Factors.
S:\PUBS\PROJEC"T\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessment\TABLES.xls
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(f)
(b)
(f)
(e)
(e)
(f)
November, 2005
TABLE4
Development of Exposure Point Concentrations for Nitrate in Groundwater
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate Concentration (m g/L
Average for
Each Well
Over Time
Sam ple ID Field ID November 2004 March 2005 July 2005 (2004-2005)
TestWell 13 Field 42 1.9 0.05 U* 3.82 1.9
TestWell 20 Field 20 9.3 1.74 3.70 4.9
TestWell 22 Field 16 0.05 U* NS 0.14 0.10
TestWell 41 Field 3 77.4 D* 80.08 75.17 77.5
TestWell 42A Field 18/19 113.4 D* 125.10 12 9.45 122.7
TestWell 44 Field 26 5.0 6.32 6.03 5.8
TestWell 45 Field 47 29.3 D* 9.17 56 .85 31.8
TestWell46 Field 61 1.2 1.16 1.10 1.2
TestWell47 Field 61 35.0 D* 31.09 32 .52 32.9
TestWell48 Field 60 53.6 D* 41.00 37.25 44.0
TestWe1149 Field 74 1.4 2.21 4.06 2.6
TestWell 50 Field 75 28.6 D* 22.00 27.75 26.1
Test Well 51 (1) Field 12 98.8 D* 79.99 77.13 85.3
Test Well 52 (1) Field 41 76.8 D* 93.12 76.41 82.1
Test Well 53 (1) Field 62 71.0 D* 59.40 51.86 60.7
Test Well 54 (1) Field 503 58.2 D* 42.95 50.40 50.5
Maxim1,.1m Detect, bv Month 113.4 125.1 129.45
Maximum Detect, November 2004-July 2005 129.45 39.37
Notes:
1) Test Wells 51, 52 , 53 , 54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-1 1, and GP-20, respectively .
mg/L - Milligrams per Liter
NS -Not Sampled
U* -Reported as not detected. One-half the sample quantitation limit is shown.
D* -Concentration shown is the average of duplicates.
TABLES.xls\4
I
Average for All
Sampled Wells
I
Page 1 of 1
TABLES
Development of Exposure Point Concentrations for Nitrate in Surface Water
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate (m :1 /L)
Location November 2002 June2003 May/June 2004 Se ptember 2005
Bettin gfield Creek
SW-19 16 21 NS NS
SW-20 3.8 3.3 NS NS
SW-20 dup 3.5 NS NS NS
SW-20, du plicate averag e 3.65 3.3 NS NS
SW-21 0.15 0.18 NS NS
SW-22 0.25 1.5 NS NS
SW-24 0.53 0.52 NS NS
Maximum Concentration , All Bettin gfjeld Creek Sampling Stations
Other Tributaries, Neuse Ri ver
SW-1 52 49 NS 43
SW-2 0.39 13 NS NS
SW-3 52 50 NS d ry
SW-4 54 47 NS 78
SW-5 0.69 2 NS NS
SW-6 54 46 NS 70
SW-7 77 83 NS 98
SW-8 1.2 1.6 NS NS
SW-9 34 36 NS NS
SW-10 48 19 NS NS
SW-11 19 47 NS 33
SW-12 52 41 NS NS
SW-13 0.46 1.3 NS NS
SW-14 0.21 0.16 NS NS
SW-15 20 20 NS NS
SW-16 1.7 6.2 NS NS
SW-17 5.5 0.97 NS NS
SW-18 3 1.7 NS NS
SW-23 0.72 NS NS NS
SW-25 NS 4.6 NS NS
SW-26 NS 9.8 9.2 # d ry
SW-27 NS 14 22.9 # d ry
SW-28 NS 46 NS NS
Maximum, Other Tributaries S amp lin g Stations
Notes:
mg/L -Milligrams per Liter
NS -Not Sampled
Dup. -Duplicate sample
Maximum
Concentration
21
--
--
3.65
0.18
1.5
0.53
21
5 2
13
52
78
2
70
98
1.6
36
48
47
52
1.3
0.21
20
6.2
5.5
3
0.7
4.6
9.8
22.9
46
98
#-Samples were collected May 9, 14, 18, 20, 24, and 26 and June 7 and 9, 2004. The concentrations shown are
averages of the concentrations reported for these multiple sampling events.
TABLES.xls\5 Page 1 of 1
TABLES
TOTAL POTENTIAL HAZARD INDEX
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Chemical
Nitrate
Notes :
Ing/Demi • Ingestion/Dermal Contact.
EPC -Exposure Point Concentration
Surface Water -Child/Teenager
other Neuse River Potable Water •
Bettlngfield Creek Tributaries MaxlmumEPC
Ing/Denn. Ing/Denn. Ing/Denn.
0.0004 0 .002 5.2
S:\PUBS\PROJECnRIRaleigh_City ol\CAP Work\Revised CAP _NoV05\Rlsk_Assessmenl\TABLES.xts/6
Groundwater -Resident (Young Childl
Potable Waler -Swimming Pool -Swimming Pool -
Average EPC MaxlmumEPC Average EPC
Ing/Denn. lng/Derm. Ing/Denn.
1.6 0.02 0.007
January, 2005
EXHIBIT 4
2002. The rates of groundwater recharge were computed using a site-specific water bala,n.ce
model using a daily time step with inputs oflocal precipitation, site soils and topography, and
crops grown on the CORPUD fields. These recharge rates were multiplied by annually-
varying concentrations of nitrogen moving below the root zone to compute the nitrogen source
concentrations entering the groundwater under each field.
The nitrogen moving below the root zone and hence present in the recharge water was
modeled as the 100% of the difference between the sum of plant available nitrogen (PAN)
derived from mineralization of biosolids applied in each year plus PAN carryover from
previous years minus an agronomic nitrogen uptake rate of 140 lb/acre/yr. Carryover of PAN
retained in the root zone was considered by using the median value of 166 lb/acre measured in
the upper one foot of soil in the fields by NC State University in 2002. Model analyses using
50% of the excess PAN as the nitrogen in recharge showed that the peak rate of nitrogen flux
to the Neuse River and tributaries would have been 50% of the values for TL actually used.
Using 100% of the excess PAN as nitrogen transported in recharge to groundwater was
therefore conservative because it underestimates the amount of PAN that is likely retained in
the root zone.
Using these conservative methods and assumptions, the modeled TL increased annually from
1979 until the cessation ofbiosolids application in 2002. The maximum value of TL thus
determined with the model was 148,000 pounds of nitrogen per year (Lb NNr) which
occurred in 2006. TL then declined to approximately 25,000 LB NNr by 2048 as a result of
using a constant value ofN in modeled groundwater recharge equal to the 2L standard of 10
mg/1 from 2003 through 2050.
Compliance Loading (CL)
We next used tl).e model to calculate the Compliance Loading (CL)-the amount ofloading
that would occur beyond the compliance boundary if full compliance had been historically
achieved and would continue to be achieved past 2002. This loading was computed by
assigning a constant concentration of nitrogen in groundwater recharge equal to the 2L
standard of 10 mg/1 for each field for every year beginning in 1979. After approximately 20
years, a steady state condition was achieved and the rate of nitrogen flux crossing the
compliance boundary and discharging to surface water as the CL was a constant value of
15,000 pounds of nitrogen per year (Lb NN r).
CITY OF RALEIGH_ Letter Report RE Flux to Neuse 041709.DOC 3
Interior Loading (IL)
The Interior Loading (IL) -the amount ofloading that occurs in the interior of the property
that is not subject to remediation under the 2L rules -was also calculated using the model. IL
occurs only via discharge of nitrogen-bearing groundwater to drainages within the compliance
boundary and was computed by subtracting out the nitrogen loading rate to these drainages
from the total discharge ofN to all surface waters in the model. Using this methodology, the
peak value ofIL was computed as 56% of TL, or 83,000 Lb NNr.
Using the same methodology, we also calculated the amount of interior loading that would
occur if the 2L standard for niµ-ate (10 mg/L) were met everywhere at the NRWWTP site.
That amount, referred to as IL/10, is 10,000 Lb N/yr.
Variance Loading (Debit Amountl
Using equation (1) and the values for the variables described above, we calculated the required
maximum debit amount for calendar year 2006 as follows:
For the more conservative amount using IL/10:
TL -(CL+ IL/10) = VL, or 148,000 -(15,000 + 10,000) = 123,000 Lb NNr.
For the more reasonable amount using IL:
TL-(CL+ IL)= VL, or 148,000 -(15,000 + 83,000) = 50,000 Lb NNr.
As shown above, using IL/10 produces a value for VL that is 2.46 times greater than if IL is
used. As an extra measure of conservatism, we used the former (123,000 Lb NNr) in deriving
the NPDES permit debit amounts. Figure 1 shows the declining values for VL based on
modeling runs through 2050. Based on the average slope of the curve shown in Figure 1,
Table 7 from the Variance Application which is attached to this report shows VL declining by
3000 pounds per year until 2047 at which time the full allocation amount of 682,483 Lb NNr
is restored.
Conclusion
As explained above, the NPDES permit debits amounts contained in Table 7 offset, with a
very substantial margin of safety, the increased loading of nitrogen to surface water that will
occur at the Neuse River WWTP site if nitrate in groundwater is not remediated in full
compliance with the 2L standards.
CITY OF RALEIGH_ Letter Report RE Flux to Neuse 041709.DOC 4
If you have questions regarding this report please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Eric G. Lappala, P.E.
Enclosures: Table 7 and Figure 1.
CITY OF RALEIGH_ Letter Report RE Flux to Neuse 041709.DOC
EXHIBIT 5
AECOM Environment
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103, Raleigh, NC 27616-3013
T 919.872.6600 F 919.872.7996 www.aecom.com
June 24, 2009
Mr. Dale Crisp, P.E.
Director, City of Raleigh Public Ublities Department
1 Exchange Plaza
Suite 620
219 Fayetteville Street Mall
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
'AECOM
Subject: Summary of Private Well Information for Area Surrounding Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina
AECOM Project No. 10724-006
Dear Mr. Crisp,
This letter provides a summary discussion of efforts taken by AECOM North Carolina, Inc. (AECOM) to
obtain information on private wells located within 0.5 miles of the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant (NRWWTP) site in Raleigh, North Carolina in connection with the City of Raleigh's variance
request. This work was conducted in 2006 and documented in correspondence with the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) (i.e., September 26, 2006 letter from ENSR to DWQ}. The EMC's rules require
that an applicant for a variance locate on a map all wells and other water supply sources with a 1/2 mile
of the site and include the details of well construction. See 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(4).
AECOM staff contacted DWQ, the Wake County Health Department, and the Johnston County Health
Department, and reviewed public databases in an effort to obtain private well construction records for
parcels located within the identified and mapped 0.5-mile radius of the NRWWTP site. As noted in the
CAP application process, information for these wells was not available. Without records of private wells
within that radius, AECOM conducted a windshield survey of the area in an effortto identify homes
served by private wells. To be conservatively protective, homes located within the 0.5-mile radius of the
site that were not served by City water were assumed to be served by private wells. The location of
these wells is shown of Figure 4 of the City's variance request, but AECOM was not able to locate the
well construction details for these wells. Per DWQ's request, AECOM sent letters with well survey
forms to six property owners identified by DWQ requested the details of construction of their wells.
AECOM received only one response to this request for information; however, the well in question has
recently been abandoned.
Private wells in this area are generally deep bedrock wells, to supply drinking wa.ter to private homes.
The saprolite unit that extends from the surface to bedrock is not suitable for water supply wells due to
the poor hydraulic conductivity of the saprolite material. Typically, private water supply wells are 6-inch
diameter wells with variable depths dependent on presence of water-producing fractures. Wells are
only required to be grouted for the top 20 feet from the surface: the extents .and depths of casing and
grouting may be variable at increasing depths for individual wells. There is no information available to
determine further details on construction details for these wells.
AECOM Environment
US2000 I 1402l3S.I
Mr: Dale Crisp, P .E.
Page2
It is our position that this level of information represents a reasonable level of effort to obtain private well
information and is consistent with communication from DWQ (i.e., July 20, 2006 e-mail
correspondence).
This information was submitted previously to DWQ on September 28, 2006 and did not produce a
request for further information. Please feel free to contact either Dr. Peter Thibodeau or Dr. Bill
Doucette with any questions at (919} 872-6600.
Yours sincerely,
~~
Peter M. Thibodeau, Ph.D., P.G ., P.H .
Program Manager
AECOM Environment
US2000 11402335.1
William H . Doucette, Ph .D., P .G.
Senior Regional Program Manager
EXHIBIT 6
PRIVATE WELLS SAMPLED IN VICINITY OF NRWWTP
OWNER'S NAME
1 Adams. Dalton
2 Adams Diane
3 Adams , Jimmy
4 Adams, Shirley
5 Baucom , Julian / Clifton
6 Baucom, William
7 Belvin , Dannv
8 Blowe, Bobby
9 Brown S ybil
10 Carroll Kathv
11 Clark, John
12 Ross, Clee
13 Cowino, Bettv
14 Daniels Earl
15 Debnam, Catherine
16 Debnam Clarence
17 Debnam , Judson &Shirley
18 Debnam , Renella
19 Debnam, Retha
20 Dunstan , Ollie
21 Frison, Brenda
22 Hash, David
23 Hop kins John
24 Howell, Kenny
25 Hunter, Teri
26 McKinnon, Charles
City of Raleigh (formerly
27 owned b v L11r.v Moore)
28 Perkins, Marvin
29 Rhodes , William
30 .
31 .
"
32 "
33 Debman, Marda
34 Seawell Vira inia
35 Wheeler, Pamela
36 Youna , Evely n
37 Belvin, Larry
City of Raleigh (formerly
38 owned b y Lucy Moore)
39 HEATER UTILITIES
Mattress, Albert
Wood Wendy & Genv
Doremus Stanley & Joan
Mcfarlina , Mike & Beth
Norbera. Eric & Linda
Allemand Carlton & Lisa
40 Henderson Shanon
41 Coward, Shirlev & Bill
42 Hiah, Johnnie
43 Walkins Glenda
44 Kina. Ronald
45 Debnam Renella
~
N03 Nitrate
mglL milligrams per liter
Address
8401 Old Baucom Rd
8513 Old Baucom Rd
8428 Old Baucom Rd
8404 Old Baucom Rd
3021 / 3005 Hickorv Tree Pl
7920 Old Baucom Rd
8004 Old Baucom Rd
6208 Mial Plantation Rd
2853 Shotwell Rd
8529 Old Baucom Rd
8500 Old Baucom Rd
8416 Old Baucom Rd
2823 Shotwell Rd
8100 Old Baucom Rd
5716 Mial Plantation Rd
5717 Mial Plantation Rd
5525 Mial Plantation Rd
5700 Mial Plantation Rd
5616 / 5620 Mial Plant Rd
5600 Mial Plantation Rd
5520 Mial Plantation Rd
8549 Old Baucom Rd
6216 Mial Plantation Rd
8321 Old Baucom Rd
2820 Brown Field
1340 Pine Trail
5708 Mial Plantation Rd
8208 Old Baucom Rd
6200 Mial Plantation Rd
6205 Firecracker
6309 Mial Plantation
6317 Shotwell/ Mial Plant.
2862 Shotwell Rd
4608 Rds Hill
5532 Mial Plantation
5529 Mial Plantation Rd
6029 Mial Plantation Rd
8537 Old Baucom Rd
2757 Shotwell Rd
8232 Old Baucom Rd
St JAMES SUBDIVISION
119 Jamison Dr Ral
127 Jamison Dr Ral
143 Jamison Dr
165 Jamison Dr
186 Jamison Dr
269 Jamison Dr
2750 Shotwell Rd
5509 Mial Plantation Rd
5409 Mial Plantation Rd
5115 Mial Plantation Rd
2834 Shotwell Rd
5605 Mial Plantation Rd
Private water supply wells currently active
Bold text indicates results above the 2L standard of 1 Omg/L for N03
11311215_1.XLS
Aug. '02 Aug. '02 Sep. '02 Jan '03
(DWQ)
N03 mg/L N03 mg/L N03 mgll N03 mgll
3.8 6.3
1.5 3
1 0.9
4.4 10.9
0 .1 0 .5
2.6 6
2.6 6
4.1 3.9 7.5
20.9 21 20 23.4
2.1 2.1 5
0.1 0.5
1.6 1.7
24 23 23.5 52.9
0.7 0.5
2.8 5.9
2 .7 6 .4
1.7 2.1
4.7 10.3
4.6 8.4
7 .1 7 15
2.5 1.9
5.2 5.2 13.5
12.4 9.7 11.6 16.2
1.3
13 8 .9 20.5
0.3 0 .6
4.7 9.6
0 .5
6 .3 5 .8 13.3
4.1 4.1 8 .7
15.4 18 17.2 37.4
7.6 7.8 13.9 . " . ..
5.5 5.3 14.1
4.3 10.8
3.1 6
5.8 5.2 15.1
17.8 16 15.1 38.5
31.8 3.2 2.8 2
1.5 2.2 2
16.7
5.3
3.2
6.4
6.4
5
TABLE 1
Private Well Nitrate Nitrogen Results and Water Supply/Service Status
Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
c~,A,"h , •--+'-r.,,.,, ''"~
Feb'03 Apr'03 Jul'03 Oct 03 Jan '04 Apr'04 Jul '04 Oct'04
N03 mg/L N03 mg/L N03 mg/L N03 mgll N03 mg/L N03 mg/L N03 mg/L N0 3 mg/L
3.4 N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A NIA
1.4 1.6 1.6 NIA NIA N/A N/A
1.0 NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA
4 .3 4.4 4 .8 NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA
0.5 0 .5 0.5 0 .5 0.5 N/A N/A
2.4 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.5 1.3
2.4 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.5 1.3
3.7 3.8 4.1 5.7 4.2 NIA NIA
19.7 20,3 19.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
2.2 2.4 2.3 NIA NIA NIA NIA
0.5 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA
1.4 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A
20.3 23.1 20.3 NIA NIA NIA N/A
0.5 0.9 NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A
2.5 3 .1 3.2 3.5 3.2 NIA N/A
3 .1 3 .3 3 .9 3.9 3.7 3 .7 6.4
2.1 2 .1 2.1 2.3 2 2.1 2.4
4.4 4.7 4.7 5 .1 5.6 5.4 4.5 2.1
3.8 4.6 3.9 3.7 4.4 3.9 2.9 1.0
6.2 7.3 6.6 5.7 7.2 6.5 7.4 7.3
2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.9 4.9 4.1
6.5 7.4 7.7 6.9 NIA N/A NIA NIA
15.2 14.4 18.0 N/A NIA N/A NIA
7.4 2.6 2.9 NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A
6.9 8 .5 8.7 8.7 7.8 4.4 6.1
0 .5 0.5 0 .5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0 .5
5 4.3 5 .5 5.5 5.4 5.4 7.2 4.8
0.5 0 .5 0.5 0.5 0 .5 0.5 0.5
10.8 11.2 12.5 13.8 14.2 12.1 13.9 NIA
4 .1 4.2 5 .0 5.5 5.9 6.6 N/A NIA
18.4 21.3 NIA N/A NIA NIA NIA
7 4.8 8 .5 N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A . . N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA
4.8 5.3 5.7 6.3 5.9 5.1 NIA NIA
4.1 5.4 4.8 4.4 5.3 5.0 NIA N/A
3.7 3 .3 3.0 3.1 3.7 4.1 0.6
7.7 8.5 11.5 11.9 14.5 15.0 NIA N/A
12.5 18.4 18.5 NIA N/A NIA NIA
4.7 2 .7 2.2 NIA NIA NIA NIA
1.8 0 .5 1.1 1.0 0 .6 2.6 1.2
8.1 8 .0 N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA
0.5 0.5 N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA
6.2 10.417.1 5.2 4.3 NIA NIA
3 .6 3.5 4.0 4.8 7.5 3.7
2 .6 2.6 3.2 3.3 2.5 1.9
5 .6 5.0 5.6 5 .9 2.7 NIA
4.4 NIA NIA NIA
Jan/Feb Apr'05 Aug '05 Jan '06 Apr'07 July 'OB
'05
N03 mg/L N03 mgll N03 mg/L N03Ievel N03 mg/L N03 mglL STATUS
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA aoreement rec 4/22, CONNECT 6/10103
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA aoreement rec 7/17, CONNECT 10/14/03
NIA N/A N/A NIA NIA NIA aoreement rec 4/25, CONNECT 6/10103
N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A NIA agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 10/1103
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA aQree,r,ent rec 12/29103, CONNECT6/22/04
NIA NIA NI A NIA N/A NIA 7920 and 8004 shared a well; declined service for 7920
NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA aci reement rec 4116/04, CONNECT 9128104
NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA agreement rec 12/20103, CONNECT 6/1104
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA agreement rec 7124, CONNECT 10/21103
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A aoreement rec 10128 CONNECT 11118103
NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA NIA aci reement rec 4125, CONNECT 5129/03
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Cltv orooertv. CONNECT 5129103
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA agreement rec 7124, CONNECT 10121103
NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA NIA ai:i rwnient rec 4130, CONNECT 7114/03
NIA NIA N/A NIA NIA NIA aci reement rec 12/31/03, CONNECT 6/2/04
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA aoreement rec 9/13/04 CONNECT 10113/04
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA aareement rec 9/20/04, CONNECT 10119/04
N/A NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA agreement rec 9/13/04,CONNECT 10/12/04
N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA aci reement rec 9/20/04, CONNECT 10/20104
N/A NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA agreement rec 9113/04, CONNECT 10112104
0.5 NIA N/A NIA NIA NIA agreement rec 11129104 CONNECT 1114/05
N/A NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 10122103
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 12/2103
N/A NIA NIA N/A N/A NIA aci reement rec 5/14 , CONNECT 8113103
3.4 8 NIA NIA NIA acireem ent rec 3/8105 CONNECT 4111/05
0 .7 0 .7 <0 .05 0.7 0 .15 0 .67 not aoolicable • water service not available
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA ag reement rec 9/20104 CONNECT 11/16/04
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA declined service 511103 Cltv aco . 418105
NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA agreement rec 6/10/04, CONNECT 9/16/04
NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA aoreement rec 12/07/03, CONNECT 5/28/04
NIA NIA N/A NIA N/A NIA agreement rec 6/9, CONNECT 814/03
NIA NIA NIA N/A N/A NIA agreement rec 6/9, CONNECT 6/7/03
NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA served by 6317, CONNECT 817/03
NIA NIA N/A NIA N/A NIA agreement rec 12/07/03, CONNECT 5/25/04
NIA NIA N/A NIA N/A NIA aQreement rec 3111104, CONNECT 6/4/04
N/A NIA N/A NIA NIA N/A aareement rec 718104, CONNECT 9124104
N/A NIA N/A NIA N/A N/A agreement rec 12/30103, CONNECT 619/04
NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA agreement rec 8121, CONNECT 10121/03
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA agreement rec 8114, CONNECT 10/22/03
N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA declined service 5/1/03 Cltv aca. 4/8/05
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA agreement rec 4/12, CONNECT 4125103
NIA see above
NIA see above
NIA see above
NIA see above
N/A see above
N/A see above
NIA NIA N/A NIA NIA NIA aa reement rec 519, CONNECT 8/14/03
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A aoreement rec 12/30/03, CONNECT 619104
NIA 1.8 4.3 6.8 4.4 7.0
NIA 2 .7 2.8 1.73 2.5
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA ooreement rec 1121104, CONNECT 9/2/04
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA agreement rec 9/20/04, CONNECT 10121/04
1 of 1
EXHIBIT 6: OWNERSHIP INFORMATION FOR VARIANCE PARCELS AND PARCELS ADJACENT TO VARIANCE PARCELS
Wake County Variance Request Parcels
NUMBER NCPIN OWNER NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE ZIP
1 1740979732 NC STATE OF 1321 MAIL SERVICE CTR RALEIGH NC 27699-1300
2 1740793487 BAUCOM, WILLIAM B & ANN R 7920 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9254
3 1741657986 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATTN W H KEITH CX1G PO BOX 14042 SAINT PETERSBURG FL 33733-4042
4 1751302126 ADAMS, JERRYWAYNEADAMS, BRENDA DIANNE 8513 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
5 1741639103 MATERIAL RECOVERY LLC 421 RALEIGH VIEW RD RALEIGH NC 27610-4623
6 1751404793 PERKINS, MARVIN CLAUDE & SUSAN J 620 0 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
7 1750174178 NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF STATE PROPERTY OFFICE 116 W JONES ST RALEIGH NC 27603-1300
8 1750389798 NO INFORMATION IN WAKE COUNTY GIS
9 1751630645 D UNN, PHYLLIS DEBNAM 2916 OLD MILBURNIE RD RALEIGH NC 27604-9655
10 1750397971 Y OUNG, EVELYN C 8537 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
11 1751630713 DANIELS, EARL & JOELINE Y 5717 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8529
12 1741805656 COWING, BETTY B 8 100 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9258
13 1751108108 A DAMS, PAUL M HEIRSC/O WANDA S ADAMS EXECUTRIX 840 4 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9264
14 1751107691 NICHOLSON, CHEYNEY A PO BOX33065 RALEIGH NC 27636-3065
15 1751304009 BROWN, SHERRY ADAMS &STEPHEN DALE 135 RIDGE WAY LN CLAYTON NC 27520-8084
16 1750481764 NO INFORMATION IN WAKE COUNTY GIS -SAME AS #37 IN JOHNSTON COUNTY
17 1740760858 NC STATE OFC/O PROPERTY CONTROL OFFICE 900 1 MAIL SERVICE CTR RALEIGH NC 27699-9000
18 1741533931 P BR GROUP LLC 240 0 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9208
19 1751305085 B ROWN, SYBLE B 8529 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
20 1751500467 R HODES, WILLIAM T & GWYN K 37 51 E GARNER RD CLAYTON NC 27520-6541
21 1751439727 DUNN, PHYLLIS DEBNAM 2916 OLD MILBURNIE RD RALEIGH NC 27604-9655
22 1740783586 BAUCOM, JOHN R JR 2829 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610
23 1751736917 HINTON, JAMES E 333 LAFAYETTE AVE APT 121 BROOKLYN NY 11238-1337
24 1750481918 NO INFORMATION IN WAKE COUNTY GIS
25 1751400846 HASH, DAVID WHASH, LINDA B 6216 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
26 1751525610 TIPPETTS CHAPEL ORIGINAL RR 1 KNIGHTDALE NC 27545-9801
27 1751300253 ADAMS, BRENDA DIANNE% D MADAMS JR 8513 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
28 1750491820 HILLMAN, JENNIFERLUNA, RELIO MARTINEZ 8549 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
29 1751309180 HASH, DAVID W & LINDA B 6216 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
30 1751507920 WHEELER, PAMELA ANNGUNTER, BRIAN KEITH 6029 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8534
31 1751106682 ADAMS, DAL TON HICKMANADAMS, GEORGIA M COOPER 8401 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9265
Johnston Countv Variance Reguest Parcels
NUMBER NCPIN OW NER NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE ZIP
32 17 5000-14-9550 NC CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT NO INFORMATION IN WAKE CO. GIS
33 175000-38-7096 JOHNSON, DAVID IRA & JOHNSON, MARNIE 5009 COVERED BRIDGE RD CLAYTON , NC 275200000
34 175000-37-6963 LEE, W GATTIS P O BOX72 CLAYTON , NC 275200000
35 175000-38-9108 JOHNSON, CLARENCE & JOHNSON, BILLIE 20 1 MEADOW RUN KNIGHTDA LE, NC 275450000
36 175000-48-5708 RAYO, JESUS B & ESPINOZA, MARIA G 68 JAMISON DR RALEIGH, NC 276100000
37 175000-48-0659 BLOWE, GAIL ROSS 2853 SHOTWELL RD RALEIGH, NC 276108541
#11317130v1
EXHIBIT 6: OWNERSHIP INFORMATION FOR VARIANCE PARCELS AND PARCELS ADJACENT TO VARIANCE PARCELS
Wake Cou ntv Pa rcels AdJacent to Variance Recru est Parcels
NUMBER NCPIN OWNER NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE ZIP
38 175 1742007 DEBNAM , HENRY W 1501 CHURCHILL DOWNS DR WAXHAW NC 28173-6610
39 175 1742617 SEAWELL , VIRGINIA D 5529 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8526
40 1740699714 BAUCOM , CLIFTON P 3005 HICKORY TREE·PL RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
41 174 1535717 JASB CO INC THE 15 S BUFFALO ST WENDELL NC 27591-8972
42 174 1524454 NASH, STEPHEN JOHN & APRIL A 7020 FARMDALE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
43 1750065189 BELL, IAN &ELMA C 1308 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
44 1740582739 ROPER , SUSAN JONES &ROY 7011 FARMDALE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
45 1740359285 FRANKLIN , PATRICIA A 3435 DEER TRACE LN CLAYTON NC 27520-5931
46 1740854712 MARRINER, LOUIS & FRANCES OWENS 1125 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
47 1741534091 GARRETT, DARYL J &RAMONA C 7027 FARMDALE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
48 1750065779 DEBOCK, RICHARD M & JOANNE 1320 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
49 1740356989 HINZ , KYLE D & KAREN K 3401 DEER RACE LA CLAYTON NC 27520
50 1750071189 MCLEAN , ROBERTS & JOHNNIE F 1333 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9345
51 1741544862 LANDON HOMES INC 2018 BRILLIANT DR RALEIGH NC 27616-7217
52 1740756710 TERRY, AMANDA & RYAN GROULX 1109 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
53 1751841120 D'ALLAIRD , DANIEL & EMMA 2436 NEUSEHILL LN RALEIGH NC 27610-9102
54 1741543523 LANDON HOMES INC 2018 BRILLIANT DR RALEIGH NC 27616-7217
55 1750065398 BRUFF , MICHAEL S & KIMBERLY B 1312 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
56 1741416454 QUINN, POLLY S PO BOX 132 HINESBURG VT 05461-0132
57 1740596158 HO LLAND, STEPHEN DANEHOLLAND , KRISTINE ANNE 13310 46TH CTN ROYAL PALM BEACH FL 33411-8476
58 1741433146 UN DERHILL, RIEVA P 7015 FARMDALE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
59 1740754440 FR EEMAN, DANNA F 1101 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
60 1741532734 W ATTS, CATHERINE M &RYAN ALLEN 4704 PRESERVE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9407
61 1740753260 CH AVEZ, CLIFFORD T & VICKIE L 1009 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9358
62 1741544088 C HIPOURAS, GEORGE L & MARY LYNN 2658 QUEEN ANNE CIR ANNAPOLIS MD 21403-4221
63 1750061986 MALARKEY, WILLIAM J & CECELIA GALE 1325 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9345
64 1740964328 BENNE TT, MARK D & RHONDA M 2708 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
65 1740689448 MO RGAN, ELIZABETH B P O BOX4721 CHAPEL HILL NC 27515-4721
66 1750075290 LE HOCKY, RICHARD D & BETTY A 1336 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
67 1740757791 O KAMOTO , ERIC B & JUDITH F 1113 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
68 1741530726 PB R GROUP LLC 2400 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9208
69 1741531093 NO BLES, RONNIE LEE & SAL Y H 7023 FARMDALE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
70 1740953031 NO RTH CAROLINA STATE OFSTATE PROPERTY OFFICE 116 W JONES ST RALEIGH NC 27603-1300
71 1750481527 NO INFORMATION IN WAKE COUNTY GIS
72 1741600646 BAUCOM, JOHN R JR & MARIE A 7829 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9253
73 1750065899 WH ITE, DENNIS C & RUTH H 1324 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
74 1740952898 SLAVIN, JAMES A & MARYE 1205 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9361
75 1741542455 JOHNSON, ANDRE L & CRYSTAL M 3433 GRIFFICE MILL RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8637
76 1740969621 HAWLEY, WILLIAM J & ROBERTA L 27 09 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
77 1740451603 BA LL, DOUGLAS 1401 AVERSBORO RD STE 206 GARNER NC 27529-3980
78 1751445156 MC KINNON, SWANOLA DEBNAM 5708 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8528
79 1740450446 WO O, HEA K & CHUN I 3425 DEER TRACE LN CLAYTON NC 27520-5931
80 1740753006 BEAVERS , RICHARD W &SHARON ROSE 1005 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9358
81 1740851782 MIESCH, JOHN F &LINDA T 3420 E GARNER RD CLAYTON NC 27520-9307
82 1751637897 DEBNAM, SHIRLEY H 5700 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8528
83 1740440973 BAKER, LULA ANNEBAKER, TIMOTHY JOEL 3345 STONEY CREEK DR CLAYTON NC 27520-5958
#11317130v1
EXHIBIT 6: OWNERSHIP INFORMATION FOR VARIANCE PARCELS AND PARCELS ADJACENT TO VARIANCE PARCELS
84 1750065989 BROADWELL , BOBBY H & PAMELA S 1328 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
85 1750075089 KELLY , JOSEPH A & JOAN B 1332 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
86 1741544723 SCANLON , ERIC MARK &MELISSA MARIE 3421 GRIFFICE MILL RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8637
87 1750055903 LESKY , BRIAN P & ELIZABETH ANNE 1304 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
88 1740955541 NORTH CAROLINA STATE OFSTATE PROPERTY OFFICE 116 W JONES ST RALEIGH NC 27603-1300
89 1740649813 MCCLUNG, DOUGLAS E & AMY E 420 HARDWOOD RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8603
90 1741533762 JVC HOMES INC PO BOX 1108 WAKE FOREST NC 27588-1108
91 1750076209 HUNTER.TERI FULK TRUSTEE 1340 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
92 1741437173 BROWN , JAMES F & CINDY ROSS 7019 FARMDALE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
93 1740859754 PRICE, RALPH L &BEVERLY W 1201 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9361
94 1740966624 RICKETTS, BARBARA W & DAVID E 2700 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
95 1741535973 PBR GROUP LLC 2400 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9208
96 1750065681 DONATI , BRIAN C & DEBORAH M 1316 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
97 1741545911 SLADE , FATRESS L II 34 13 GRIFFICE MILL RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8637
98 1740543866 NEIDITCH, JON A & MARY ANNE HUGHES 3829 FALLS RIVER AVE RALEIGH NC 27614-7415
99 1741555072 KOVAR , JEROME J &CHERYLL 3409 GRIFFICE MILL RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8637
100 1740856690 BARBOUR , JOHN T 3720 E GARNER RD CLAYTON NC 27520-6540
101 1741434516 SM ITH, THOMAS &JAN 3621 GRIFFICE MILL RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8639
102 1740646608 DOUGLAS , PHILLIP N & BARBARA S 413 HARDWOOD RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8603
103 1740444950 AUTON , SUSAN M & JERRY L 3524 BALLOT RD CLAYTON NC 27520-9301
104 1740680862 SARROCCO , NICHOLAS A & EUGENIA S 7820 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9252
105 1740695134 BAU COM, JULIAN & MARLENE 3021 HICKORY TREE PL RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
106 1741439035 HUDSON , LEIGH S & HELEN B 7021 FARMDALE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
107 1741543682 WRIGHT , MARK DOUGLAS & JEANNE 3425 GRIFFICE MILL RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8637
108 1751741393 DEBNAM , TONYA C 2205 CARTHAGE CIR RALEIGH NC 27604-3868
109 1740546242 TAN KARD , ANNE MMCINNES , CORNELIA & STEWART C MCINNES 84 19 KALB RD RICHMOND VA 23229-4133
110 1750061777 HEDRICK , ROBERT ALFRED TRUSTEEHEDRICK, PATRICIA OWEN TRUSTEE 4704 STILLER ST RALEIGH NC 27609-5640
111 1741438632 PBR GROUP LLC 2400 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9208
112 1741609431 BAUCOM , WILLIAM BYRD 7920 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9254
113 1740699230 BAUCOM, JULIAN M 3021 HICKORY TREE PL RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
114 1741608848 TALTON, MARGARET B 2728 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9214
115 1740754673 MCCARDLE, VAN R & CHERYL M 1105 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
116 1741435174 SWINDELL, CHARLES A & RONDA E 10809 RONDEAU WOODS CT RALEIGH NC 27614-9411
117 1740963527 GAZDA, SHANEGAZDA, MARGERY CARNEY 2704 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
118 1741542326 CHRIS WATT BUILDING CORP 3750 VALLEY PINE CT WENDELL NC 27591-7425
119 1740759781 BIDDIX, THOMAS L & DEBORAH W 1117 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
120 1741542238 AMPLE LENDING GROUP L LC PO BOX 1457 SMITHFIELD NC 27577-1457
121 1741439638 PARSON, MARCELL A &KARA L 3609 GRIFFICE MILL RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8639
122 1740470086 EDGE OF AUBURN LLC PO BOX 19808 RALEIGH NC 27619-9808
123 1751204103 ADAMS, JIMMY C & TONDRA E 8428 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9264
124 1751501169 RHO DES , WILLIAM T &GWYN K 3751 E GARNER RD CLAYTON NC 27520-6541
125 1750593945 GILBERT , JENNIFER P 273C BLUE POND RD CLAYTON NC 27520-7493
126 1751402057 OSBORN ,ARNOLDLJR 6208 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
127 1750371830 NO INFORMATION IN WAKE COUNTY GIS -MAY BE PART OF #148 IN JOHNSTON COUNTY
Johnston Countv Parcels Adlacent to Variance Request Parcels
NUMBER NCPIN OWNER NAME ADDRESS C ITY, STATE ZIP
128 175000-01-6476 WAY OF LIFE BAPTIST CHURCH NO INFORMATION IN WAKE CO. GIS
129 175000-00-3044 EL PHICK PROPERTIES LLC 1000 CCC DRIVE CLAYTON, NC 275200000
#11317130v1
\ EXHIBIT 6: OWNERSHIP INFORMATION FOR VARIANCE PARCELS AND PARCELS ADJACENT TO VARIANCE PARCELS
130 175000-33-3740 BO LEN, HOWARD B & BOLEN, MELISSA K 20 16 RIDGE CT CLAYTON , NC 275200000
131 175000-34-2226 JOHNSON, ROYS & JOHNSON, CHARLOTTE M 2008 RIDGE CT CLAYTON , NC 275208809
132 175000-34-2695 FLEMING, JANET LYNN 2004 FOREST DR CLAYTON, NC 275208811
133 175000-34-4898 STRICKER, RALPH MICHAEL & STRICKER, SONDRA 2024 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON , NC 275208818
134 175000-35-1496 JE NKINS, GARY L & JENKINS, JANETH 2012 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON, NC 275200000
135 175000-10-9383 K AND K ASSOCIATES OF NC INC 505 PARKWOOD LANE GOLDSBORO, NC 275300000
136 165905-19-4 777 BENS ON, !RENE P 2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON, NC 275206520
137 17 5000-33-1993 WAUGH, DONALD FRED & WAUGH, JEAN 20 10 RIDGE CT CLAYTON , NC 275208809
138 175000-35-1650 JOHNSON, TONY LEE & JOHNSON, MARTHA P 2008 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON , NC 275200000
139 175000-22-4580 WI LLIAMS, DONALD K & WILLIAMS, VIRGINIA L 2013 VALLEY CT CLAYTON , NC 275208804
140 175000-33-1406 SMITH, SANDY M & SMITH, MATTHEW W 2007 PINEBARK LANE CLAYTON , NC 275200000
141 175000-21-6707 RU SSELL, TRAVIS E & RUSSELL, DEBRA L 121 PEBBLE DR CLAYTON , NC 275208042
142 175000-22-5144 JO HNSON, MALCOM DEWITT & JOHNSON , CAROL JEAN P O BOX966 CLAYTON , NC 275200966
143 165905-09-697 4 BE NSON, IRENE P 2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON, NC 275206520
144 175000-35-0927 JO DIE T STAMEY REVOCABLE TRUST & STAMEY, JODIE T TRUSTEE 2000 ELIZABETH COURT CLAYTON, NC 275208818
145 175000-23-7707 SHREVE, JAMES DANIEL & SHREVE, MITSY R 2000 PINE BARK LN CLAYTON , NC 275200000
146 17 4004-92-5770 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA NO JNFORMATION IN WAKE CO. GIS
147 175000-23-9722 JEWELL, GARY A & JEWELL, RHONDA 2003 PINEBARK LN CLAYTON , NC 275200000
148 165905-19-1892 BEN SON, IRENE P 250 1 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON, NC 275206520
149 175000-26-8950 J ON ES, CHRISTOPHER & JONES, ANITA A 2025 ELAINE DR CLAYTON , NC 275208212
150 17 5000-35-1726 ST RIC KER, WILLIAM MICHAEL 2004 ELIZABETH COURT CLAYTON , NC 275200000
151 17 5000-23-5518 RU SSELL, TIMOTHY JOHN & RUSSELL, PAMELA COBLE 2004 PINE BARK LANE CLAYTON , NC 275200000
152 175000-35-2077 ETTRIDGE, JAMES F & ETTRIDGE, JUDITH L 2020 ELIZABETH COURT CLAYTON , NC 275200000
153 175000-20-7955 PR IVETTE, WILLIS E & PRIVETTE, JANICE 192 5 OLD U S 70 W CLAYTON , NC 275200000
154 175000-22-4755 MUNT, HERBERT F Ill 201 7 VALLEY COURT CLAYTON, NC 275200000
155 175000-23-4197 GRANT, LONNIE G & GRANT , PATTIE M 2021 VALLEY COURT CLAYTON , NC 275200000
156 175000-21-5916 SAFLEY, TIMOTHY L & SAFLEY, KAREN B 125 PEBBLE DRIVE CLAYTON , NC 275200000
157 165905-09-9808 BEN SON, IRENE LF EST & BENSON, STEVEN RMNDRMN 2501 OLD US 70 WEST CLAYTON , NC 275206520
158 175000-04-3337 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA THE C/O STATE PROPERTY 116 W JONES STREET RALEIGH, NC 276030000
159 175000-35-2362 MO RRIS, SONDRA STRICKER & MORRIS, GARY 2016 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON, NC 275200000
160 17 5000-36-2148 SC HULMAN, JEREMY L & SUTTON-SCHULMAN, TERESSA RENEE 2001 ELIZABETH COURT CLAYTON, NC 275200000
161 165905-19-9980 K AND K ASSOCIATES OF NC INC 505 PARKWOOD LANE GOLDSBORO, NC 275300000
162 175000-48-6829 STO UT, BRADLEY H & STOUT, JESSICA E 438 JAMESON DR RALEIGH, NC 276100000
163 175000-49-8013 BROGNA, NICHOLAS D & BROGNA, CAROL ANN 294AVENUE C RONKONKOMA , NY 117791922
164 175000-49-9363 STEVE NSON, JOHN & STEVENSON, HEATHER 919 CARROLL AVE LAUREL, MD 207073503
165 175000-49-9157 GRO FF, SCOTT GREGORY & GROFF, SHANNON JOHNSON 45 5 JAMISON DR RALEIGH, NC 276108621
166 175000-48-1367 BELVIN, JUDITH W & BELVIN, LARRY E 32 1 E MAIN ST CLAYTON, NC 275202463
167 17 5000-48-1162 LE E, W GATTIS PO BOX 72 CLAYTON, NC 275200000
168 175000-48-6697 HO DGES, MICHAEL S & HODGES, JOYCE N 108 JAMISON DRIVE RALEIGH, NC 276100000
169 175000-48-6594 GO NZALEZ, CINDY A & GONZALEZ, STE.PH EN J 140 JAMISON DRIVE RALEIGH, NC 276100000
170 175000-48-4457 KING, RONALD VILAS JR 2834 SHOTWELL RD RALEIGH, NC 276100000
171 175000-48-4504 KIN G, WILLIE DAPHENE 2013 SMITH DR CLAYTON , NC 275200000
#11317130v1