Variance City of Raleigh Public Utilities dept. (CORPUD) Variance request for the neuse river wastewater treatment ( NRWWTP) 2009

VARIAN CE : C ity o f Raleig h
C it of Raleigh P ublic Utilities D epartment
(CORPUD) Variance Request for the Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant
(NRWWTP)
2009
Please let me know ifl can provide any additional information regarding this matter. I
apologize for any inconvenience this modification has caused
Sincerely yours,
Eric G. Lappala, P.E.
Attachment: Figure 1 (Revised)
CC Steve Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton
2
To: Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
From: Concerned Residents who live near the City of Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Facility
(Specifically Mial Plantation Road and Old Baucom Road)
This letter has been written to vehemently protest the variance request made by the City of Raleigh to
State Groundwater Standards, 15A NCAC 21.0107(K)(3)(A).
To allow the City of Raleigh to implement a natural attenuation corrective action plan would be even
more detrimental to the land, homes and residents who live in the area near the waste water treatment
facility. This City of Raleigh facility has already tainted our wells with high counts of nitrates and forced
us to abandon our wells which we paid for and were servicing us well. Now we are on city water for a
specific time frame which will eventually require residents whose wells were tainted by the city of
Raleigh to pay the city of Raleigh for water when we had perfectly good wells before the City of Raleigh
Waste Water Treatment Facility contaminated our wells.
The natural attenuation process for the soil contaminated by nitrates could take many years. In the
meantime, the value of our land (much of which is undeveloped), our homes and the quality of our lives
are being negatively affected. Does this mean that any new development must spend money to tap into the
City of Raleigh for water because the land is contaminated with nitrates??
Sometimes the smell of the stench from the Waste Water Treatment Facility is enough to make one
regurgitate. The stench invades our homes through the vents and other openings in our homes. Sometimes
it is impossible to be outside because of the stench.
There is a reason that this method is not the acceptable solution per DENR-DWQ standards, otherwise, a
variance would not be sought by the City of Raleigh. What type of variance will the City of Raleigh seek
next? I challenge those powers that be to put the next City of Raleigh Waste Water Facility in their
backyards and see how they like the stench,, the noise, the devaluation of their property, a lower quality
of life and the uncertainty of what is next. Whatever is next may not be known to the area residents until
it is too late to do anything about it.
We live where we live because we like it and do not want our quality of life disrupted by the City of
Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Facility as Raleigh continues to grow!!! Many ofus have lived in this
area before or as long as the wastewater treatment facility has been in this area.
The area residents ofMial Plantation Road and Old Baucom Road urge DENR-DWQ Planning to closely
consider the aforementioned reasons for concern and deny the City of Raleigh's request for a variance
from the already established procedure for such a problem as mentioned.
Sincerely,
Concerned residents who live near the City of Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Facility.
N~~ WwJolJJ.f)~
Address 3 CC8 D83})f\M HAQ M LN ( R.c:l P -03(.GZ.C:, Z-)
kA,LC\C.h 1JJ C'..., -Z.. 7 ~, u
To: Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-PlanninJ: Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
From: Concerned Residents who live near the City of Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Facility
(Specifically Mia) Plant1nion Road and Old Baucom Road)
PAGE. 1/ 2
TI1is Jetter hes hceJJ written co vehemently protest Ihe variance requtst made by the Cily of Raleigh to State
Groundwater Standards, ISA NCAC 2l.0107(K)(3)(A).
To allow the City of Raleigh to implement a natuml attcn.uaticn corrective action plan would be even more
detrimental to the lend, homes and resident, who live in the area near the waste water treatment facility. This City of
Raleigh facility has already blinted our we!Js with high counts of nitrates and forced us to abandon our wells which
we paid for and were servicing us well . Now we are on city water for a specific time frame which wiJJ eventually
require residents whose wells were tainted hy the city of Raleigh to pay the city of Raleigh for water when we had
perfectly good wells before the City of Raleigh Waste Water Treaunent Facility contaminated our wells .
The natural attenuation process for the soil contaminated by nitrates could take many years. In the meantime, the
value of our land (much of which is undeveloped), our homes and the quality of our lives are being negatively
affected. Does this mean that any new development mm,t spend money 10 mp into the City of Raleigh for water
because the land is conraminated with nitrates??
Sometimes the smelt of the ste.nch . from the Waste Water Treatment Facility is enough to make one regurgitate. The
Siench invades our homes through the venu and other openings in our homes. Sometimes it is impossible to be
outside because of the stench.
There is a reason that this method is not the acceptable solution per DENR-DWQ standatd.'i, othefWise, a variance
would not be sought by rhe City of Raleigh. What type of variance will the City of Raleigh seek next? I challenge
those powers that be to pUl the next City of Raleigh Waste Water Facility in their backyards and see how they like
the stench,. the noise, the devalUfllion of their property, a 1ower quality of life and the uncenainty of what is nexc.
Whlltever is next may not he known to the area residents until it is too late 'to do anything about it.
We live where we live because we like it and do not wanr our quality of life disrupted by the City of Raleigh Waste
Willet Treatment Facility e..1 Raleigh contin11es to grow!!! Many ofus have lived in rhis area before or as long a.,
the wastewater treatment facility has been in this area.
The area residenrs ofMial Plantation Road and Old Baucom Road urge DENR-DWQ Planning to closely consider
the aforenu,ntioned reasons for concem and deny the City of Raleigh's request for a variance from the already
established procedure for such a problem as mentioned.
Sincerely,
Concerned residents who live near the City of Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Facility and arc
against the approval of the variation for the Waste Water Facility fat the City of Raleigh.
To: Gary Kr~iser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Date ,ofi(of
From: Concerned Residents who live near the City of Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Facility
(Specifically Mial Plantation Road and Old Baucom Road)
This letter has been written to vehemently protest the variance request made by the City of Raleigh to State
Groundwater Standards, 15A NCAC 21.0107(K.)(3)(A).
To allow the City of Raleigh to implement a natural attenuation corrective action plan would be even more
detrimental to the land, homes and residents who live in the area near the waste water treatment facility. This City of
Raleigh facility has already tainted our wells with high counts of nitrates and forced us to abandon our wells which
we paid for and were servicing us well. Now we are on city water for a specific time frame which will eventually
require residents whose wells were tainted by the city of Raleigh to pay the city of Raleigh for water when we had
perfectly good wells before the City of Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Facility contaminated our wells.
The natural attenuation process for the soil contaminated by nitrates could take many years. In the meantime, the
value of our land (much of which is undeveloped), our homes and the quality of our lives is being negatively
affected. Does this mean that any new development must spend money to tap into the City of Raleigh for water
because the land is contaminated with nitrates??
Sometimes the smell of the stench from the Waste Water Treatment Facility is enough to make one regurgitate. The
stench invades our homes through the vents and other openings in our homes. Sometimes it is impossible to be
outside because of the stench.
There is a reason that this method is not the acceptable solution per DENR-DWQ standards, otherwise, a variance
would not be sought by the City of Raleigh. What type of variance will the City of Raleigh seek next? I challenge
those powers that be to put the next City of Raleigh Waste Water Facility in their backyards and see how they like
the stench,, the noise, the devaluation of their property, a lower quality of life and the uncertainty of what is next.
Whatever is next may not be known to the area residents until it is too late to do anything about it.
We live where we live because we like it and do not want our quality of life disrupted by the City of Raleigh Waste
Water Treatment Facility as Raleigh continues to grow!!! Many ofus have lived in this area before or as long as
the wastewater treatment facility has been in this area
The area residents ofMial Plantation Road and Old Baucom Road urge DENR-DWQ Planning to closely consider
the aforementioned reasons for concern and deny the City of Raleigh's request for a variance from the already
established procedure for such a problem as mentioned.
Sincerely,
Concerned residents who live near the City of Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Facility and are
against the approval of the variation for the Waste Water Facility for the City of Raleigh.
Name ~dkv6 (]~
.5 f::.'"" o 9 ,t'J 1,' c, I f' /;,.;le,.J.. ,-c,,--.-I( u
Address /..a,,,/ e--•·t{ N ~ _;).. "l C 10
Tax ID number: ---------------Tax ID number: ---------------
To: Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
161 7 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
From: Concerned Residents who live near the City of Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Facility
(Specifically Mial Plantation Road and Old Baucom Road)
This letter has been written to vehemently protest the variance request made by the City of Raleigh to State
Groundwater Standards, 15A NCAC 21.0107(K.)(3)(A).
To allow the City of Raleigh to implement a natural attenuation corrective action plan would be even more
detrimental to the land, homes and residents who live in the area near the waste water treatment facility. This City of
Raleigh facility has already tainted our wells with high counts of nitrates and forced us to abandon our wells which
we paid for and were servicing us well. Now we are on city water for a specific time frame which will eventually
require residents whose wells were tainted by the city of Raleigh to pay the city of Raleigh for water when we had
perfectly good wells before the City of Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Facility contaminated our wells.
The natural attenuation process for the soil contaminated by nitrates could take many years. In the meantime, the
value of our land (much of which is undeveloped), our homes and the quality of our lives are being negatively
affected. Does this mean that any new development must spend money to tap into the City of Raleigh for water
because the land is contaminated with nitrates??
Sometimes the smell of the stench from the Waste Water Treatment Facility is enough to make one regurgitate. The
stench invades our homes through the vents and other openings in our homes. Sometimes it is impossible to be
outside because of the stench.
There is a reason that this method is not the acceptable solution per DENR-DWQ standards, otherwise, a variance
would not be sought by the City of Raleigh. What type of variance will the City of Raleigh seek next? I challenge
those powers that be to put the next City of Raleigh Waste Water Facility in their backyards and see how they like
the stench,, the noise, the devaluation of their property, a lower quality oflife and the uncertainty of what is next.
Whatever is next may not be known to the area residents until it is too late to do anything about it.
We live where we live because we like it and do not want our quality of life disrupted by the City of Raleigh Waste
Water Treatment Facility as Raleigh continues to grow!!! Many ofus have lived in this area before or as long as
the wastewater treatment facility has been in this area.
The area residents of Mial Plantation Road and Old Baucom Road urge DENR-DWQ Planning to closely consider
the aforementioned reasons for concern and deny the City of Raleigh's request for a variance from the already
established procedure for such a problem as mentioned.
Sincerely,
Concerned residents who live near the City of Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Facility and are
against the approval of the variation for the Waste Water Facility for-the City of Raleigh.
To: Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Date: October 5, 2009
From: Concerned Residents who live near the City of Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Facility
(Specifically Mial Plantation Road and Old Baucom Road)
This letter has been written to vehemently protest the variance request made by the City of Raleigh to State Groundwater
Standards, 15A NCAC 21.0107(K)(3)(A).
To allow the City of Raleigh to implement a natural attenuation corrective action plan would be even more detrimental to the
land, homes and residents who live in the area near the waste water treatment facility. This City of Raleigh facility has
already tainted our wells with high counts of nitrates and forced us to abandon ow-wells which we paid for and were
servicing us well. Now we are on city water for a specific time frame which will eventually require residents whose wells
were tainted by the city of Raleigh to pay the city of Raleigh for water when we had perfectly good wells before the City of
Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Facility contaminated our wells.
The natural attenuation process for the soil contaminated by nitrates could take many years. In the meantime, the value of our
land (much of which is undeveloped), our homes and the quality of our lives is being negatively affected. Does this mean that
any new development must spend money to tap into the City of Raleigh for water because the land is contaminated with
nitrates??
Sometimes the smell of the stinch from the land along with the Waste Water Treatment Facility is enough to make one
regurgitate. The stinch invades our homes through the vents and other openings in our homes. Sometimes it is impossible to
be outside because of the stinch. Recently I installed a basketball goal outside for my teenage son and I to enjoy; however,
due to the foul odor that can arise; especially after there has been rain or early in the morning, sometimes it is impossible to
stay outside. Our fumes from outside were so bad recently that we had to leave our home most of the day as the smell from
the outside had infiltrated the inside of our home. A homeowner should not be made to be a prisoner in their own home.
There is a reason that this method is not the acceptable solution per DENR-DWQ standards, otherwise, a variance would not
be sought by the City of Raleigh. What type of variance will the City of Raleigh seek next? I challenge those powers that be
to put the next City of Raleigh Waste Water Facility in their backyards and see how they like the stench,, the noise, the
devaluation of their property, a lower quality of life and the uncertainty of what is next. Whatever is next may not be known
to the area residents until it is too late to do anything about it.
We live where we live because we like it and do not want our quality of life disrupted by the City of Raleigh Waste Water
Treatment Facility as Raleigh continues to grow!!! Many ofus have lived in this area before or as long as the wastewater
treatment facility has been in this area.
The area residents ofMial Plantation Road and Old Baucom Road urge DENR-DWQ Planning to closely consider the
aforementioned reasons for concern and deny the City of Raleigh's request for a variance from the already established
procedure for such a problem as mentioned.
Sincerely,
Concerned residents who live near the City of Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Facility and are against
the approval of the variation for the Waste Water Facility for the City of Raleigh.
Name: M&G Associates LL { c/o Jac queline Debnam-Baile , )/1 ~~-t,
Address: 5532 Mial Plantation Road. Rale iu h NC 27610 ~
Tax ID number: 0000017595
To: Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
From: Concerned Residents who live near the City of Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Facility
(Specifically Mial Plantation Road and Old Baucom Road)
This letter has been written to vehemently protest the variance request made by the City of
Raleigh to State Groundwater Standards, 15A NCAC 21.0107(K)(3)(A).
To allow the City of Raleigh to implement a natural attenuation corrective action plan would be
even more detrimental to the land, homes and residents who live in the area near the waste water
treatment facility. This City of Raleigh facility has already tainted our wells with high counts of
nitrates and forced us to abandon our wells which we paid for and were servicing us well. Now
we are on city water for a specific time frame which will eventually require residents whose
wells were tainted by the city of Raleigh to pay the city of Raleigh for water when we had
perfectly good wells before the City of Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Facility contaminated
our wells.
The natural attenuation process for the soil contaminated by nitrates could take many years. In
the meantime, the value of our land (much of which is undeveloped), our homes and the quality
of our lives are being negatively affected. Does this mean that any new development must spend
money to tap into the City of Raleigh for water because the land is contaminated with nitrates??
Sometimes the smell of the stench from the Waste Water Treatment Facility is enough to make
one regurgitate. The stench invades our homes through the vents and other openings in our
homes. Sometimes it is impossible to be outside because of the stench.
There is a reason that this method is not the acceptable solution per DENR-DWQ standards,
otherwise, a variance would not be sought by the City of Raleigh) What type of variance will the
City of Raleigh seek next? I challenge those powers that be to put the next City of Raleigh Waste
Water Facility in their backyards and see how they like the stench,, the noise, the devaluation of
their property, a lower quality of life and the uncertainty of what is next. Whatever is next may
not be known to the area residents until it is too late to do anything about it.
We live where we live because we like it and do not want our quality of life disrupted by the City
of Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Facility as Raleigh continues to grow!!! Many ofus have
lived in this area before or as long as the wastewater treatment facility has been in this area.
The area residents of Mial Plantation Road and Old Baucom Road urge DENR-DWQ Planning
to closely consider the aforementioned reasons for concern and deny the City of Raleigh's
request for a variance from the already established procedure for such a problem as mentioned.
Sincerely,
To: Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
161 7 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
From: Concerned Residents who live near the City of Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Facility
(Specifically Mial Plantation Road and Old Baucom Road)
This letter has been written to vehemently protest the variance request made by the City of
Raleigh to State Groundwater Standards, 15A NCAC 21.0107(K)(3)(A).
To allow the City of Raleigh to implement a natural attenuation corrective action plan would be
even more detrimental to the land, homes and residents who live in the area near the waste water
treatment facility. This City of Raleigh facility has already tainted our wells with high counts of
nitrates and forced us to abandon our wells which we paid for and were servicing us well. Now
we are on city water for a specific time frame which will eventually require residents whose
wells were tainted by the city of Raleigh to pay the city of Raleigh for water when we had
perfectly good wells before the City of Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Facility contaminated
our wells.
The natural attenuation process for the soil contaminated by nitrates could take many years. In
the meantime, the value of our land (much of which is undeveloped), our homes and the quality
of our lives are being negatively affected. Does this mean that any new development must spend
money to tap into the City of Raleigh for water because the land is contaminated with nitrates??
Sometimes the smell of the stench from the Waste Water Treatment Facility is enough to make
one regurgitate. The stench invades our homes through the vents and other openings in our
homes. Sometimes it is impossible to be outside because of the.stench.
There is a reason that this method is not the acceptable solution per DENR-DWQ standards,
otherwise, a variance would not be sought by the City of Raleigh. What type of variance will the
City of Raleigh seek next? I challenge those powers that be to put the next City of Raleigh Waste
Water Facility in their backyards and see how they like the stench,, the noise, the devaluation of
their property, a lower quality of life and the uncertainty of what is next. Whatever is next may
not be known to the area residents until it is too late to do anything about it.
We live where we live because we like it and do not want our quality of life disrupted by the City
of Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Facility as Raleigh continues to grow!!! Many ofus have
lived in this area before or as long as the wastewater treatment facility has been in this area.
The area residents of Mial Plantation Road and Old Baucom Road urge DENR-DWQ Planning
to closely consider the aforementioned reasons for concern and deny the City of Raleigh's
request for a variance from the already established procedure for such a problem as mentioned.
Sincerely,
Mr. Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ Planning Section
161 7 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Kreiser:
Ca:~-~ ~ (i;/I'J . _/ (Vay ~ t:7 (a✓~ll-
N orth Carolina
October 9, 2009
www.raleighnc.goi·
I am writing on behalf of the City of Raleigh (City) to submit a video recording of our
attorney, Steven J. Levitas of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, summarizing the City's variance request
and the compelling reasons that the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality should support and the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission should approve the City's Variance Application dated June 26, 2009
relating to the City's Corrective Action Plan or nitrate,.contaminated groundwater at the City's
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Thank you for your consideration of this important information.
cc: J. ·Russell Allen, City Manager
Robert Massengill, PE, Assistant Public Utilities Director
Kenneth R. Waldroup, PE, Assistant Public Utilities Director
Tim Woody, Reuse Superintendent
TJ Lynch, Wastewater Treatment Superintendent
ONE EXCHANGE PLAZA
1 EXCHANGE PLAZA
RALEIGH. NC 27601
CITY OF RALEIGH
POST OFFICE Box 590
RALEIGH, NC 27602-0590
(MAILING ADDRESS)
MUNICIPAL BUILDING
222 WEST HARGETT STREET
RALEIGH , NC 27601
October 9, 2009
Mr. Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Gity <9/ 'Raleigh
9/orth Garollu
Subject: City of Raleigh's Variance Application and Corrective Action Plan for Nitrate-
Contaminated Groundwater at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant Site
Dear Mr. Kreiser:
I am writing on behalf of the City of Raleigh (City) in support of the City's Variance
Application (Application) dated June 26, 2009 relating to its Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for
nitrate-contaminated groundwater at the City's Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
(NR WWTP) site. In the Application, the City has requested a variance from the Environmental
Management Commission's (EMC) groundwater rules, 15A NCAC 2L, to allow it to implement
a CAP that relies in part on monitored natural attenuation rather than best available technology.
The City has demonstrated in the Application that the statutory criteria for the issuance of a
variance have been met -i.e., that the nitrate contamination at the NR WWTP site (Site) does not
endanger public health or safety and that compliance with the 2L standard for nitrate cannot be
achieved by the application of economically reasonable technology and would produce serious
hardship to the City without equal or greater benefits to the public. See N.C.G.S. § 143.215.3(e).
We would like to take this opportunity to address certain comments that have been
submitted for the record and to make a few additional points as follows:
1. Comment of Mr. Thomas C. Worth, Jr., representing Edge of Auburn, LLC (EOA),
which owns approximately 400 acres of property about 1,500 feet upgradient from
the Site, and Auburn Associates by letter dated September 9, 2009. Mr. Worth
claims that the City has not predicted the plume with reasonable certainty,
implying that the EOA property is at risk from the contamination. He states that
EOA 's permission is needed to proceed with its CAP and has requested that the
City's variance be denied or that monitoring to protect EOA 's property be
required.
Mr. Gary Kreiser
October 9, 2009
Page2
Response: The City, in coordination and with the approval of the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), conducted extensive investigations of soil, groundwater,
and surface water as documented in the Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA)
dated December 2002 and the Supplemental Site Assessment (SSA) dated
September 2003. The results of the City's investigations and conservative
modeling indicate no potential risk to the EOA property under current conditions.
Although the City believes it is highly unlikely that the installation and operation
of one or more water supply wells on the EOA property would change the
analysis, it cannot be 100% certain of that fact without detailed information about
the location, depth, and pumping rates of the wells. The City has repeatedly
offered to Mr. Worth and his clients, both orally and by letter to Mr. Worth from
our counsel Mr. Steven J. Levitas dated October 30, 2008, (i) to provide EOA with
the hydrologic data and model for EOA to conduct its own analysis or
alternatively (ii) to update the City's analysis upon receipt from EOA of the
location and hydrogeological information for the proposed well or wells on the
EOA property. The City recently renewed its offer to Mr. Worth, as indicated in
the attached letter dated October 5, 2009, attached hereto as Exhibit A. However,
Mr. Worth and EOA have repeatedly declined these offers.
In the absence of detailed information from EOA, the City's consultant recently
performed a hydrogeological modeling run based on the City's best estimate of the
EOA well information. This analysis confirms that, based on the City's
assumptions, the EOA wells do not draw groundwater from the City property and
that there is thus no potential risk to such wells. See Exhibit B.
If the City's variance were denied in relevant part, 1 the City would be required (i)
to install groundwater extraction wells along some portion of the Site's southwest
compliance boundary, and (ii) to treat nitrate-contaminated groundwater beyond
the that portion of the compliance boundary by injecting a biodegradable carbon
electron donor to enhance degradation of the nitrates. In the absence of additional
hydrogeological evaluation based on the information the City has requested, it is
impossible to know for certain whether such measures are needed or would
provide any benefit whatsoever to the EOA property. All currently available
evidence suggests that such remedial action is not needed and would provide
absolutely no benefit to EOA. Similarly, it is not possible to know with certainty
where to monitor for the purpose of assessing potential risk to the EOA property
without additional hydrogeological evaluation based on the requested information.
Given EOA's repeated refusal to provide the requested information, it is our
opinion they should not be heard to complain of potential risk or to object to the
1 The City assumes that Mr. Worth and his clients only request that the variance be denied to the extent that they
contend it might adversely affect EOA's property.
Mr. Gary Kreiser
October 9, 2009
Page 3
variance request. Moreover, there is not basis in this record for granting EOA's
request and strong evidence that its request is unfounded.
2. Comment of Mike Bruff of 1312 Pine Trail, Clayton, NC 27520, by letter dated
September 9, 2009. Mr. Bruff lives south of one of the City's former application
fields and expressed concern that neither his nor his neighbors wells have been
tested and that this fact suggests that the City will not follow through with its
revised permit and cleanup plan.
Response: The results of the CSA, SSA and the City's voluntary monitoring of
one of Mr. Bruffs neighbors indicates that there is no potential risk to the Pine
Hollow subdivision from the City's biosolids application fields and that nitrate
levels in groundwater are significantly below the groundwater standard for nitrate
of 10.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L).
Mr. Bruff's property is located south of an approximately 5-acre application field
(Field 600) that is no longer in use and has not been for more than seven (7) years.
Both Mr. Bruff's property and Field 600 are south of Beddingfield Creek. Mr.
Bruff and other residents of Pine Hollow subdivision are located hydraulically
upgradient of Field 600. That is, groundwater beneath Field 600 flows away from
the Pine Hollow subdivision and toward Beddingfield Creek.
Field 600 did not receive significant quantities ofbiosolids even when it was in
use. The City applied biosolids on Field 600 from 1991-1994 and from 1998-
2002, typically at rates well below the permitted rate of 350 lbs/acre/year. The
application rate exceeded the permitted rate in only one time in the nine (9) active
years in which biosolids were actually applied to this field by the City under its
land application ofbiosolids permit and only one time in the past eighteen (18)
years since 1991. Groundwater monitoring data from MW-121, which is between
Field 600 and the Pine Hollow subdivision, indicated a concentration of 0.38 mg/L
of nitrate in June 2003, which is well below the groundwater standard of 10.0
mg/L for nitrate. Further, the City has regularly tested on at least an annual basis
since 2002 the well of one of Mr. Bruff's neighbors, Ms. Terri Hunter, whose
property is located immediately adjacent to former Field 600. The nitrate
concentrations in Ms. Hunter's well have ranged from less than the analytical
detection limit of 0.15 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L, which like MW-121, are far below 10.0
mg/L.
In addition, the hydrogeological modeling included in the CSA/SSA shows that
the nitrate contamination in the vicinity of Field 600, as one would expect, is
contracting rapidly over time. As reflected in Exhibit A, which includes a current
plume map generated from the model, the horizontal extent of exceedance of the
nitrate standard in the relevant area is almost 500 feet further away from the Pine
Hollow subdivision in 2009 than it was in 2002. Moreover, Exhibit A shows that
Mr. Gary Kreiser
October 9, 2009
Page4
Ms. Hunter's well, and by inference the other wells in her subdivision, including
Mr. Bruffs draw their groundwater from the opposite direction of the
contamination.
Because of the historically low application rate on Field 600 and the evidence that
nitrate concentrations in groundwater in the vicinity of Field 600 are significantly
below 10.0 mg/L, the City did not and does not believe it is necessary to conduct
further investigation in this area. However, the City has contacted Mr. Bruff and
has offered to test Mr. Bruffs well for nitrate as it has done voluntarily for any
other concerned citizens.
3. Comment of Charles W. Welby, by letter dated September 9, 2009. Mr. Welby
supports natural attenuation as the remedial alternative for the Site and also
opines that a hydraulic extraction system may not be the best use of society's
energy resources.
Response: The City estimates that operating the hydraulic extraction that would
be required in the absence of a variance would emit 156,651,000 more pounds of
carbon dioxide over 30 years than the City's chosen remedial alternative. This is
the equivalent of adding approximately 456 cars to the roads for thirty years. We
agree that the low likelihood of groundwater in the vicinity of the Site being used
for drinking water does not justify this additional environmental expense.
4. Comment of Tonya Debnam, by letter dated October 5, 2009. Ms. Debnam owns
two adjacent parcels of property in the vicinity of the NRWWTP; one parcel of
those parcels is located adjacent to a parcel of property for which the City has
requested a variance. Ms. Debnam expresses concern about nitrate
contamination in drinking water wells in the vicinity of her property.
Response: The results of the CSA, SSA and the City's monitoring of private water
supply wells in the vicinity of Ms. Debnam's property indicate that there is no
potential risk to Ms. Debnam's property from the City's biosolids application
fields. Ms. Debnam's properties are located hydraulically upgradient of the City's
nearest biosolids application field, Field 61. That is, groundwater flows from
beneath Ms. Debnam's properties toward Field 61.
While we are aware of no groundwater wells ( or other improvements) on Ms.
Debnam's property, the City has sampled fourteen wells along Mial Plantation
Road and within approximately 1500 feet of Ms. Debnam's properties. In eleven
of the fourteen wells, nitrate concentrations were consistently below the 10.0 mg/L
groundwater standard for nitrate during each sampling event. In the other three
wells, the nitrate concentrations slightly exceeded the groundwater standard in
Mr. Gary Kreiser
October 9, 2009
Page 5
samples taken during one single sampling event, which occurred in January 2003.
The nitrate levels declined to below the nitrate standard in all subsequent sampling
events. Because of the upgradient location of these water supply wells to Field 61,
the source of nitrates detected in these wells should not be attributed to the City's
application ofbiosolids in the area. As simply a precautionary good-faith measure,
the City offered water supply services to all fourteen of those properties at no cost
to the property owner for a twenty (20) year period and subsequently connected
those properties to its water supply system despite the fact only one sampling
event exceeded the nitrate standard. Two of these property owners who were offer
water supply service at no cost declined the City's water service. The City
continues to sample the wells of those property owners.
In addition, the City monitors well MW-46, which is cross-gradient of Ms.
Debnam's property and upgradient of Field 61 and about 2000 feet from Ms.
Debnam's properties. During every sampling event since the 2000, the nitrate
concentrations in MW-46 that the City has observed have been significantly below
the groundwater standard. Further, the hydrogeological modeling included in the
CSA/SSA shows that the nitrate contamination in the vicinity of Field 61 is
contracting rapidly over time.
5. Comment of Mr. Ken Rudo, toxicologist with the Occupational and
Environmental Epidemiology Branch (OEEB) of the North Carolina Department
of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, by electronic mail via
Jay Zimmerman dated October 8, 2009. OEEB supports the variance under the
condition that (i) additional monitoring wells are installed and sampled between
the NRWWTP property and certain residences near(x) the northern part of Mia!
Plantation Road and (y) the intersection of Old Baucom Road with Mia!
Plantation Road and (ii) nine of the closest private wells to the NRWWTP property
in these two areas are sampled semiannually.
Response: The City agrees to conduct a reasonable expansion of its monitoring
program that DWQ and OEEB deem necessary for the protection of human health.
As it has done voluntarily in the past, the City is amenable to the sampling of
private wells under the condition that the property owners request and consent to
such monitoring. The City does not intend to use its police powers to conduct any
monitoring of privately owned wells.
6. Comment of Mr. Thomas C. Worth, Jr., representing Edge of Auburn, LLC (EOA),
which owns approximately 400 acres of property about 1,500 feet upgradient from
the Site, and Auburn Associates by letter dated October 8, 2009. By this letter,
Mr. Worth also transmitted the comments of his client's consultant, Mr. Russell
Briggs, P.E. of P&F Consulting, dated October 7, 2009 and those of his client's
environmental legal counsel, Mr. Craig Bromby of Hunton & Williams dated
November 5, 2007 that were submitted regarding the City's 2007 Variance
Mr. Gary Kreiser
October 9, 2009
Page 6
Request. After reviewing the these documents and the comments of other
interested parties at the public hearing, Mr. Worth concludes that groundwater
monitoring is not sufficient to protect the EDA property and claims that EDA
cannot develop its property without public water. Mr. Briggs opines that based on
his review of the SSA, the EDA property is not hydraulically isolated from the
NRWWTP Site. Mr. Bromby claims that the City has failed to meet the EMC 's
requirements for an approvable CAP based on natural attenuation processes
because all sources of contamination for the site have not been removed or
controlled because the City intends to resume use of its land application fields.
Mr. Bromby also claims that the City has not met the other requirements for a
natural attenuation CAP (capacity for attenuation or degradation under site-
specific circumstances, prediction of time and direction of contamination with
reasonable certainty, protection of existing or foreseeable receptors from
contamination, and properties on which contamination may migrate must consent
to the CAP or be served by an existing water supply system) because the City's
studies and evaluations have not taken into account EDA 's plans for a 150,000
gallon per day community water system, a foreseeable receptor.
Response to Mr. Worth Comments: Please see the City's response to Mr. Worth's
earlier comment above. Because there is no demonstrated risk to EOA's property,
either through hydraulic modeling or actual groundwater monitoring, which the
City is continuing to perform pursuant to its approved CAP, the City believes that
remedial action, including the provision of water supply services to EOA's
property, is not necessary.
Further, EOA has an approved development plan through Wake County and the
City is not aware of any reason that EOA is incapable of developing its property in
the absence of a public water supply service.
Response to Mr. Brigg's Comments: Please see the response from our consultant,
Eric Lappala of Eagle Resources, attached hereto as Exhibit C, who indicates that
Mr. Brigg's has mischaracterized the results of the SSA. Mr. Lappala further
reports that between the groundwater divide that separates EOA's property from
the NR WWTP site and a mafic dike in the area and its associated fracture zones,
EOA's property is hydraulically isolated from any groundwater originating as
recharge to any of the NRWWTP fields.
Response to Mr. Bromby's Comments: The City has suspended all application of
biosolids at the NR WWTP Site since 2002 and may resume application only with
a permit modification approved by DWQ. The City anticipates seeking a permit
modification to allow a resumption of limited 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
Mr. Gary Kreiser
October 9, 2009
Page?
accordance with the City's nationally certified Environmental Management
System for biosolids management (the only such certified program in the state).
Regarding Mr. Bromby's claim that the City has not met the other requirements
for a natural attenuation CAP because the City's studies and evaluations have not
taken into account EOA's planned community water supply system, please see our
response to Mr. Worth's comments of September 9, 2009 above.
7. Mr. Frank J. Raggsdale, private citizen, and to the City's knowledge, the owner of
no property in the vicinity of the Site, made oral comments during the public
hearing on September 9, 2009 opposing the City's variance request, citing
concerns over a recent fish kills in the lower Neuse River Basin and the need/or a
basin-wide management plan for the Neuse.
Wastewater effluent discharge from the NRWWTP contains nitrogen
concentrations on the order of2.0 to 3.0 mg/L. NC State University researchers
have monitored nitrogen concentrations in the Neuse River in the area
immediately downstream of the wastewater effluent discharge point to the river.
Measured nitrogen concentrations in the Neuse River are approximately 0.5 mg/L
in the area downstream of the outfall and along the farm field property
boundaries. The Neuse River nitrogen concentrations in this area, as well as the
nitrogen concentrations in the effluent itself, are well within normal habitable
ranges for fish in rivers. Therefore, there is no merit to Mr. Raggsdale's
implication that effluent from the Neuse River wastewater treatment plant and/or
nitrogen contributions from stream and groundwater discharge from the property
are responsible for downstream fish kills.
As our counsel noted in his oral comments on September 9, 2009 during the public
hearing, DWQ has implemented a basin-wide nutrient management strategy for
the Neuse River for more than 10 years, which limits the City's nitrogen loading to
the Neuse River. The nitrogen discharge from the NRWWTP is about 40% of its
permitted loading rate and less than 60% of its permitted loading rate when
accounting for loading related to the City's over application of biosolids.
In conclusion, the City has demonstrated that it meets the requirements of the EMC's
rules for a variance and respectfully requests that the EMC grant its request. As explained
herein, requiring the City to implement a CAP that fully complies with the 2L rules is not needed
to protect public health, would impose a severe economic hardship on the City, and would not
produce public benefits commensurate with the extraordinary costs. Moreover, denial of the
variance request could actually have a detrimental effect by eliminating the debit in the City's
NPDES permit, which is conditioned on the EMC's approval of the City's variance request, and
by causing the City to divert resources from current and future projects designed to protect
surface water quality.
Mr. Gary Kreiser
October 9, 2009
Page 8
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions
regarding the information contained in this letter or that I have enclosed, please contact me,
Robert Massengill or Kenny Waldroup at (919)-857-4540.
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
Asst. Public Utilities Directors
Reuse Superintendent
Kilpatrick and Stockton
AECOM
Eagle Resources
Sincerely
,.
. Dale
Raleigh ies Director
•
Mr. H. Dale Crisp
Public Utilities Director
City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27606
October 5, 2009
Subject: Assessment of the potential for nitrogen in groundwater to move from NRWWTP-
impacted areas to private and semi-private water wells.
Dear Dale,
As requested in our meeting last week, I have completed the subject assessment. The analysis
comprised the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Expanding the groundwater flow model to include all areas that would include influence
zones from wells owned by Aqua North America. The same values for the number of
model layers, their hydraulic properties, and the presence of intrusive dikes and
associated fracture zones were used for the expanded model as in the SSA groundwater
flow and transport model.
Adding water wells to the expanded model as follows
o Aqua North America wells -locations, and average daily pumping rates as
furnished by Aqua to CORPUD in Table 1;
o Private domestic wells as reported as active from the latest variance analysis -
pumping rate assumed to be 400 gallons per day; and
o Four wells on Edge of Auburn property -locations selected to correspond
approximately with sell sites on Edge of Auburn site plan and likely fracture
zones associated with mapped intrusive dikes; flow rates of 32,130 gallons per
day each based upon 357 lots, 3 bedrooms per lot, 120 gallons per day per
bedroom (total flow of 128,500 gpd, or 32,130 gpd/well)
Checking the calibration of the expanded model to average water levels in observations
wells used in the CSA and SSA. The model calibration was essentially the same as the
CSA and SSA models (Normalized Root Mean Square Error between measured and
computed water levels of 6.6% vs 6.7%.
Running the flow model to obtain the steady-state head configuration in all four model
layers.
Using reverse particle tracking from each well to define the capture zones. Twenty
particles are assigned around the circumference of each well and the flow paths from
these locations to the point of recharge at the watertable are traced. The envelope of all
pathline endpoints comprises the capture zones.
Figure 1 shows the location of all modeled water wells shown in Table 1 and the associated
capture areas. As can be seen, with the exception of wells PW-24, PW-27, and PW-38, none of
the capture areas intersect or have the potential to intersect areas that modeled nitrogen in
groundwater exceeds the 2L standard of 10 mg/1. However, as reported in my letter to you dated
April 7, 2009, monitoring data shows that the average nitrate level in all of these wells is less
than the 2L standard.
Eagle Resources, P.A
4005 Lake Springs Court, Raleigh, NC 27613
215 W. Moore St., Southport, NC 28461
919.345.1013 / Fax: [phone] [e-mail]
To support this statement quantitatively, as documented in our letter to you of October 5, we ran
the groundwater flow model that includes both the aforementioned dike and wells located at the
center of the Edge of Auburn well sites as shown on their site plan. The model was used to
compute the maximum capture zones from which these wells could draw water. This modeling
methodology to define wellhead protection zones is recommended by both the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency and numerous state agencies in areas with geologic features
present such as the dikes and fracture zones that alter otherwise simple flow systems.
Sincerely yours,
Eric G. Lappala, P.E ., P .H .
2
~DUKE LAW Environmental Law & Policy Clinic
Box90360
Durham, NC 27708-0360
Ryke Longest, Director
October 9, 2009
Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-161
EMAILED TO: [e-mail]
RE: Comments on CORPUD's Variance Request
Dear Gary,
Telephone: [phone]
Toll Free: (8881 600-7274
Fax: [phone]
I am writing to you in response to the public notice on the City of Raleigh's
variance application. AE you may recall, we provided comments recommending against
granting a prior variance request on behalf of the Neuse RIVER.KEEPER® Foundation. I
would ask that you pass along the following to the Environmental Management
Commission along with my compliments on behalf of the Neuse RNERKEEPER®
Foundation. We do not oppose this variance request.
I. BACKGROUND OF VIOLATIONS
In the spring of 2002, a former City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department
(CORPUD) employee came forward to the former Upper Neuse RIVERKEEPER®
expressing his concerns about sludge handling and other issues at the Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). A subsequent investigation by the North Caro1ina
Department of EnVIronmental and Natural Resources (DENR) revealed violations of
CORPUD's permits. Thereafter, in 2002, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) issued CORPUD a Notice of Violation (NOV) for its over-application of plant
available nitrogen (PAN) to surrounding fields and later assessed CORPUD a civil
penalty in the amount of $72,500, which CORPUD paid in full.
CORPUD's land application ofbiosolids also resulted in exceedances of the
Environmental Management Commission's (EMC) groundwater standard for nitrate (10
mg/L) (15A NCAC 2L .202(g)(l 03). As a result, in 2002, the DWQ issued an NOV to
CORPUD relating to these exceedances and directed CORPUD to perform a
comprehensive site assessment (CSA) to delineate the groundwater co:ntamination and to
support the preparation of a groundwater corrective action plan (CAP) pursuant to EMC's
rules. COPRUD submitted a CSA as requested and DWQ requested that it perform a
supplemental site assessment (SSA). Thereafter, CORPUD submitted a revised 2L
Corrective Action Plan (RCAP) to DWQ. DWQ approved the RCAP with the condition ' r
I
DENR-Division of Water Quality
October 9, 2009
Page2
that CORPUD obtain a variance from certain EMC regulations. On December 1, 2005,
CORPUD filed its application for a variance from EMC regulations 1 SA NCAC .0106(k)
and 15A NCAC 02L .0107(k)(3)(A) (Variance Application). The Upper Neuse
RIVERK.EEPER® opposed this Variance Application by comments filed on November
5, 2007 .
II. FIRST VARIANCE RE QUEST AND THE NPDES DEBIT CONCEPT
Under the original variance, the City had proposed to offset the impacts of its
variance by reducing their permitted discharge from the wastewater treatment plant. This
reduction was a condition of the original variance request and was designed to account
for the extra loading of nitrate to surface waters in the Neuse Basin. Since the variance
request was first submitted, the City has made voluntary permit modifications to their
NPDES permit limit to debit their nitrogen limit by the amount of nitrate predicted to
leach from groundwater into the Neuse River. The debit is based on the results of a
conservative, modeled estimate of the amount of additional nitrogen loading to the Neuse
that would result from the variance requested. The debit concept does protect the Neuse
from additional nitrate loading in the future corning from the wastewater treatment plant.
Nevertheless, the Riverkeeper asked that the City consider doing more to offset the extra
nitrate, in addition to the debit.
III. NITROGEN REMEDIATION AND MITIGATION AGREEMENT
The City of Raleigh and the Ri verkeeper began discussing options for addressing
the Riverkeeper's unresolved concerns. Following very constructive negotiations,
CORPUD agreed to evaluate other options for addressing the increased nitrogen load to
surface waters, in addition to the debit concept. Raleigh hired ENSR Corporation to
prepare a new alternatives analysis report and a mitigation plan. ENSR's plan
recommended that CORPUD (1) create subsurface treatment wetlands on several streams
on the Site, and (2) acquire nitrogen offset credits from an off-site riparian buffer
restoration project. Together, these two initiatives are referred to as the Nitrogen
Mitigation Plan. Based on the proposal for the Nitrogen Mitigation Plan and other
commitments, the Riverkeeper entered into an agreement with Raleigh. Under this
agreement, the City agreed to perform additional on-site remediation measures to reduce
the flow of nitrate off-site and to off-site mitigation to reduce the impact of nitrate on the
Neuse River Estuary. Under this agreement, the concerns of the Upper Neuse
RIVERK.EEPER® and Neuse RIVERKEEPER® Foundation have been addressed.
Details on the commitments are provided below:
A. On-site remediation
The City has agreed to construct subsurface treatment wetlands at three locations
where nitrate concentrations in surface water exceed 20 mg/L. Assuming removal
efficiencies of 70 percent, ENSR estimates that that the subsurface treatment wetlands
may remove 42,800 pounds of nitrogen annually. Even if the removal rate is closer to 50
t
DENR-Division of Water Quality
October 9, 2009
Page3
percent, these systems can remove an additional 28,500 pounds of nitrate annually. This
is a significant reduction, given that the entire nitrogen discharged for the Neuse WWTP
for 2008-2009 was around 288,000 pounds, far below their permitted limit. This
remediation system will provide treatment to remove nitrogen from a nonpoint source
which could be more than a 10% reduction in total nitrogen actually coming from the
plant's discharge.
B. Off-site Miti gation
The City has also agreed to adopt ENSR 's recommendation that the City acquire
nitrogen offset credits from an off-site riparian buffer restoration project. Restoration
Systems, LLC (Restoration Systems) identified a site that includes the restoration of
approximately 54 acres of riparian buffer habitat in the Neuse River basin to provide
nitrogen offsets for CORPUD. The Butlers Branch site is located in Craven County
approximately 17 miles east of the Town of Kinston.
The majority of the site surrounds an unnamed tributary that drains directly to the
Neuse River. The off-site mitigation for the Butlers Branch site will include headwater
riparian buffer restoration through the following activities: (1) eliminating crop farming
within riparian areas; (2) preventing the potential utility of these sites as animal waste
spray fields; (3) re-establishing riparian buffer forests up to 200 feet from each channel
margin; (4) intercepting and retaining nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment, and fecal colifirm
conveyed by runoff from drainage areas; and (5) eliminating agricultural production and
fertilization from within riparian buffer areas. Using DWQ methodology for calculating
nitrogen reductions, the analysis concluded that over 30 years the project would provide
2,273 pounds of nitrogen abatement per acre and 122,742 pounds of nitrogen offsets for
the whole site.
IV. IMPROVEMENTS BEYOND THE AGREEMENT
The City has initiated other improvements at the WWTP in recent years. Since
2002, the City has suspended all application ofbiosolids at the Site and may resume
application only with a permit modification approved by DWQ. 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. The City of Raleigh's Neuse
River Waste Water Treatment Plant received no violations from the DWQ for the
treatment of over 15 billion gallons of water during the past year. CORPUD earned the
plant a Platinum II Award issued by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies
for six consecutive years of excellent perfonnance. There were only four North Carolina
facilities honored at the Platinum level in 2008. Clearly the past years have seen a vast
improvement in operations at the plant by CORPUD.
DENR-Division of Water Quality
October 9, 2009
Page4
V. CONCLUSION
The City has committed to implement the Nitrogen Mitigation Plan independently
from the approval ofits variance request and has applied to modify the Biosolids Permit
to make the implementation of the Nitrogen Mitigation Plan an enforceable condition of
the permit. As a result of these commitments from the City, the Neuse RIVERKEEPER®
Foundation does not oppose the City's June 26, 2009 Groundwater Corrective Action
Variance Application. Thank you so much for your time and attention to this matter. If I
can provide you with any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the
contact number listed above.
Very Truly Yours,
~~
Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic
k:w~ey
Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic
f
!
f
l
THOMAS C. WORTH, JR.
Attorney
Certified Mediator
Professional Building
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Post Office Box 1799
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
October 8, 2009
Mr. Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
VIA E-MAIL to
gary [e-mail]
512 N. Salisbury Street, Suite 71 lD (27604)
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
and VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
and VIA HAND DELIVERY
RE: Opposition to City of Raleigh Variance Application
Public Hearing: September 9, 2009
Clients: Edge of Auburn LLC and Auburn Associates;
PINNos.1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086 and 1730975189
Dear Mr. Kreiser:
As you may be aware, I have represented in this matter the above referenced entities
which own approximately 400 acres of land located approximately 1,500 feet from the nearest
offsite contamination emanating from Raleigh's Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
(NRWWTP), since August, 2007 when they first received Notice of this contan;iination. I
enclose for the record the following:
1. A copy ofmy letter of September 9, 2009 pertaining to this Variance Application.
2. Original Statement dated October 7, 2009 from my clients' environmental
consultant, Mr. Russell Briggs, P .E. of B&F Consulting, Inc.
3. A copy of the Comments dated November 5, 2007 from my clients'
environmental legal counsel, Mr. Craig Bromby of Hunton & Williams. (Please
note that although these Comments were submitted in connection with Raleigh's
initial Variance Application, same are entirely applicable to the subject Variance
Application with qualifiers as follows:
My clients now have the first phase of their mixed-use community
approved by Wake County for 252 homes with withdrawal
Mr . Gary Kreiser -2-October 8, 2009
capacity now estimated to be between 70,000 gallons per day and
100,000 gallons per day. As Mr. Bromby notes on Page 3 of his
Comments, my clients' well( s) might function similarly to the
extraction-type corrective action system which Raleigh seeks to
avoid installing.)
After considering Mr. Briggs' Statement, Mr. Bromby's Comments and the comments of
various speakers at the Public Hearing, including without limitation the statements of Mr. Frank
J. Ragsdale, a property owner, and the statements of Mr. Steven J. Levitas, attorney for the City
of Raleigh, I have determined that from my clients' perspective, no solution other than access to
a public water supply will provide relief to them from the absolutely untenable position that this
massive protracted contamination by the City of Raleigh has visited upon them. It is now
obvious to me that monitoring wells, which would signal the advance of groundwater
contamination will not suffice in this matter to alleviate the problems of property owners in the
vicinity of the NRWWTP as they have already been damaged by this contamination through the
loss of development opportunities and the loss of opportunities for the sale of their properties.
Mr. Ragsdale demanded that Raleigh clean-up the contamination which it has generated,
while Mr. Levitas indicated that surface streams lying between the City's contaminated
properties and my clients' properties wo4ld serve as a barrier to migration of the contamination
to my clients' properties. Mr. Ragsdale's solution may not be economically feasible but Mr.
Levitas' statement is without technical merit as I am sure the DWQ Staff and Raleigh's
environmental consultant both know. Raleigh has already extended public water incrementally
to various individual properties where the wells thereon have been determined to be tainted, and
the extension of public water by Raleigh to the owners of properties determined by Raleigh and
DENR-DWQ to receive the Notices of public meeting and Public Hearing for August and
September, 2007 and the Notice of Public Hearing for September, 2009 is the only
comprehensive cost effective solution in this matter which in my opinion will comply with the
applicable Rules, Regulations and Statutes.
Rule ISA NCAC 02L.0106 "Corrective Action" Paragraph G) requires a comprehensive
corrective plan for the restoration of groundwater quality unless the applicant qualifies under an
exception as provided therein, as the City of Raleigh seeks to do. It is well established that the
burden of proof in this matter rests with Raleigh as the Applicant for the requested Variance.
15A NCAC 02L.0113 "VARIANCE" provides in Paragraph (c)(4) that the Applicant must
provide supporting information to establish that the variance will not endanger the public health
and safety and further that the location of wells and other water supply sources within one-half
mile of the site must be shown on the map (emphasis added).
Paragraph ( c )(9) further requires that the Applicant provide a list of the names and
addresses of any property owner within the proposed area of the variance as well as any property
owners ad jacent to the site covered b y the variance (emphasis added). Furthermore regarding
notice, 15A NCAC 02L.0114 entitled ''Notification Requirements" in Paragraph (b) thereof
requires that any person who submits a request under Rule .0106(k)(l) or (m) shall notify among
others " ... , all property owners and occupants within or contiguous to the area underlain by the
Mr. Gary Kreiser -3-October 8, 2009
contaminant plume, and under the areas where it is ex pected to mi grate ... " (emphasis added).
This Rule obviously applies to the City of Raleigh, hence the multiple notifications to my clients
and other adjacent property owners.
Under the provisions of Paragraph 15 NCAC 02L.0106 "Corrective Action" (k) Raleigh
must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of the Division of Environmental
Management Commission that (3) the contaminates have not and will not migrate onto adjacent
properties (emphasis added) or that in the alternative (A) such properties are served by an
existing public water supply system or hydraulically isolated groundwater or (B) that the owners
of such properties have consented in writing to the request. Not one of these three exceptions
apply to my clients.
Section (l)·of the Rule provides that the Applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Director of the Environmental Management Commission that among several requirements:
(3) requires that the time and direction of contaminate travel
can be predicted with reasonable certainty ( emphasis
added);
( 4) requires that contaminate migration will not result in any
violation of applicable groundwater standards at any
existing or foreseeable rece ptor ( emphasis added);
(5) thatthe contaminates have not and will not migrate unto
adjacent pro perties or that (A) public water supply or
hydraulically isolated groundwater or (B) consent apply,
which they do not ( emphasis added).
I am of the opinion that the Director of the Environmental Management Commission
cannot and will not be satisfied that Raleigh's proposed corrective action will meet the standards
of 15A NCAC 02L.0 106(k) and (1).
As I have indicated both publicly and privately, verbally and in writing since my clients'
first became aware of this contamination prospect by Notice dated August 21, 2007 from Mr.
H. Dale Crisp, P.E., Raleigh Public Utilities Director and the related undated Notice from Ms.
Coleen H. Sullins, Director, Division of Water Quality, giving notice to my clients and other
parties similarly located in proximity to the NR WWTP respectively, of the public meeting to be
held by Raleigh on August 30, 2007, and of the Public Hearing to be held by DENR-DWQ on
Raleigh's initial Variance Application on September 5, 2007, my clients and all other notice
parties for the public meeting of August 30, 2007 and the Public Hearing of September 5, 2007
and the Public Hearing of September 9, 2009, must notify all prospective purchasers of and
lenders upon their properties of this contamination prospect.
Mr. Gary Kreiser -4-October 8, 2009
In support of my position, I enclose for the record the following:
1. A copy of my letter dated October 4, 2007 to your predecessor, Mr. David A.
Hance.
2. A copy of my letter of March 11, 2008, to Mr. Thomas R. Miller, Legal Counsel
for the North Carolina Real Estate Commission to inquiring about my clients'
disclosure responsibilities.
3. A copy of Mr. Miller's response letter to me dated May 21, 2008. Be advised that
Mr. Miller's response did nothing to dissuade me from my position on the
disclosure question.
In sum, my clients cannot develop their properties without public water, the availability
for which they have agreed to pay. In my opinion, all property owners similarly placed will have
extreme difficulty in developing their properties or selling their properties for their fair market
value, if at all.
It is apparent from the Public Hearing Notice for the September 9, 2009 Hearing itself
and from comments at the Public Hearing by DENR-DWQ Staff, that Staff is in support of
Raleigh's latest Variance Application. There was in fact a certain euphoria apparent at the Public
Hearing which appeared to emanate from the agreement on the part of Raleigh to install
subsurface flow wetlands to reduce contamination of the Neuse River via several streams
discharging to the river. Additionally, active remediation apparently is now underway to treat
contaminated groundwater in an area which may be a future source of drinking water. While any
improvement in the situation involving the Neuse River and to an area which may be the source
of future drinking water , are meritorious objectives, neither improves the circumstances of those
owners whose properties are potentially affected by this massive contamination.
In closing, it is my position in behalf of my clients that the City of Raleigh has not
successfully carried its burden of proof as necessary to be granted the Variance it seeks in that its
proposed corrective action is insufficient to satisfy applicable legal standards of 15A NCAC
02L.0113 and 15A NCAC 02L.0106(1). I therefore request that Raleigh's Variance Application
be denied and that it be required to conduct active remediation of the contaminated groundwater
through extraction wells or other processes approved by the Director of the Environmental
Management Commission.
TCWjr/jwp
Enclosures
Sincerely,
THOMAS C. WORTH, JR.
Attorney
Certified Mediator
Professional Building
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Post Office Box 1799
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
September 9, 2009
Hearing Officer
DENR-DWQ
Archdale Building
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Public Hearing: September 9, 2009
Dear Sir:
Opposition to "Variance Request by City of Raleigh for
Groundwater Nitrate at Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant";
Clients: Edge of Auburn, LLC and Auburn Associates
In behalf of my above referenced clients who, as the owners of properties in the vicinity
of the City of Raleigh's Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP), are in receipt of
the Public Notice for this Public Hearing, I speak in opposition to the granting of the requested
variance. For your information and for the record, my clients are the owners of properties
comprising approximately 400 acres identified by the Wake County Revenue Department PIN
Nos. as follow: 1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086 and 1730975189, which include
property located approximately 1,500 feet from NRWWTP property.
I informed my clients over two years ago when they received notices from the City and
DENR for a public meeting to be held by the former on August 30, 2007, and for a Public
Hearing to be held by DENR on September 5, 2007 that they are both morally and legally bound
to disclose to all prospective purchasers within their proposed residential project of the potential
risk of contaminated groundwater if the project was not on public water. My position has not
changed.
I note that the City's variance request if granted must comply with ISA NCAC 2L.0106
(Corrective Action), Section (k). Under Subsections (2) and (3), the City must demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the Director among other requirements as follows:
(2) that the time and direction of contaminant travel can be
predicted with reasonable certainty;
Hearing Officer -2-September 9, 2009
(3) that contaminates have not and will not migrate onto adjacent
properties, or that:
(A) such properties are served by an existing public
water supply system dependent on surface waters
or hydraulically isolated groundwater, or
(B) the owners of such properties have consented
in writing to the City's request
My clients' properties are not now served by an existing public water supply system nor
have they consented in writing to the City's request. I am of the opinion that the City cannot
satisfy the requirements of Subsections (2) and (3).
My clients now have a governmental approval to build initially two hundred and fifty-two
(252) homes upon a portion of their properties, which initial phase upon build-out will require
approximately 70,000 gallons of groundwater per day and in their behalf I inquire as to how
DENR will respond to their proposed development to assure the quality of this groundwater.
At the very least, the City should be required by DENR to conduct engineering studies
which take into account the full development of my clients' properties. Sufficient monitoring
wells should be installed by the City and the monthly inspection of same should be mandated to
protect properly the people who will be utilizing this groundwater.
I now introduce Mr. Russell Briggs, P.E. of B&F Consulting who is serving as my
clients' environmental consultant and confirm that we will submit more detailed written
comments on or before October 9, 2009, as directed by your Public Notice.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Worth, Jr.
TCWjr/jwp
B&F CONSULTING , INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND PLANNING SERVICES
Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: Variance request by t~e City of Raleigh
Dear Mr. Kreiser:
October 7, 2009
On behalf of my clients, Edge of Auburn LLC, and Auburn Associates, I oppose
the granting of the variance that has been requested by the City of Raleigh. The
City is asking that the nitrates migrating off its property be permitted to abate
naturally over time, in lieu of installing a series of wells on the periphery of its
property which would extract the contaminated groundwater.
My clients were in the process of developing a significant mixed-use
development for properties that may be affected by this groundwater
contamination when they first learned of the problem in August 2007. This
mixed-use development will have a community water system using wells as the
water source. The extraction from their proposed well system will ultimately be
over one hundred thousand gallons per day. If the contaminates reach my
clients' wells the implicatiors would be enormous, both to my clients and,
ultimately, to the City of Raleigh and any permitting agencies . Due to
topographic and other constraints, I proposed these wells be located along my
clients' eastern property line (which is closest to the off-site contamination) long
before the Notice of Public H.earing was given in August 2007.
Specifically, my clients have asked that I review the a portion of the requirement
related to NCAC 2L.0106(k)(3)(A) The portion of the requirement that I reviewed ·
was the statement that the adjacent property be served either "by an existing
public water supply dependent on surface waters or hydraulically isolated
groundwater,"
Based on my review of the Supplemental Site Assessment prepared by
consultants for the City of Raleigh, the groundwater is certainly not isolated.
Section 2 (Background and Site History) and Section 3 (Investigation Methods)
B&F Consulting, Inc. -2 -October 7, 2009
repeatedly note the complex geology of the area. The exhibits included within
the report show mafic dikes and fractures which immediately discount the
"hydraulically isolated groundwater" argument. Specifically, Section 5
(Groundwater Flow Results) conclusions note that "a fractured bedrock unit that,
relatively speaking, is high yielding compared to the bedrock below it" and
"water recharged on the ridge tops tends to migrate downward through the
saprolite and then laterally along the top of an/or through the fracture bedrock."
Section 4.6 (Packer Testing Results) states "Similar nitrate concentrations in the ·
upper and lower samples may suggest a connection between fractures in the
shallow bedrock zone."
Thus, it is my conclusion that the affected property is not "hydraulically isolated"
and the water quality may be affected when significant withdrawals from any
fracture system occur from the well system proposed by my client.
The argument that the City puts forth that my clients' properties are down
gradient of the contamination does not provide assurance that the contamination
will always be down gradient. Once these wells on my clients' properties begin
production, the water table will be depressed near the wells -thus causing water
to flow into the wells via fissures or other geologic formations in the underlying
strata. The geologic formations cannot be known with certainty, and the City
cannot rule out the possibility that the cone of depression resulting from wells on
my clients' properties would cause the plume of contamination to reach these
wells. Indeed, my client's wells could end up functioning exactly like the system
the City is asking relief from installing and discharge the nitrate-laden
groundwater.
The Wake County parcel identification numbers (PIN) for my client's properties·
are 1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086 and 1730975189.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment in opposition to this requested
variance by the City of Raleigh. Obviously, my clients have extreme concerns
with the potential degradation of the groundwater due to the contamination
caused by the City of Raleigh.
Sincerely,
-~~r ·
Russell Briggs, P.E.
2805 TOBERMORY LANE • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA• 27606
RUSSELL BRIGGS, P.E.: PHONE: [phone] • FAX: [phone] • EMAIL: RBRIGGS fiZ'N C R R.COM
AMBER FARRELLY, P.E.: PHONE: [phone] • FAX: [phone] • EMAIL: AFARRE Y a NC RR.COM
Comments of Edge of Auburn, LLC
Request for Variance by City of Raleigh, NC
November 5, 2007
Edge of Auburn, LLC, ("Auburn") is a development company that owns a tract of land to
the southeast of the Raleigh land application site at which elevated nitrate levels have been
detected. For the reasons set forth below, Auburn objects to the requested variance unless the
City of Raleigh provides access to a public water supply system to all properties adjacent to a
property with off-site contamination, including that owned by Auburn.
Auburn has recently submitted to Wake County plans to develop a mixed use
development on this tract, with over 350 homes in the first phase. The Auburn development will
require its own source of water supply because, as the City of Raleigh is aware, the City of
Garner has no plans to extend public water service to that area in the foreseeable future.1
To address its need for a community water supply for a mixed use development with over
350 homes in the first phase, Auburn plans to install supply wells with a withdrawal capacity of
over 150,000 gpd. The well system is planned within a half-mile of the Raleigh land application
site. Due to topography and other constraints, the wells for the community water supply are
planned to be located at the eastern property line of the Auburn property. The eastern boundary
line is the area closest to the Raleigh land application sites and to the contaminated groundwater.
Topographically, the well system appears to be upgradient of the land application sites.
However, the wells will probably have to be installed in bedrock to produce a sufficient yield to
supply a sufficient supply of water to the community.
In order to be eligible for a variance, the City of Raleigh must show that compliance with
the rules would effect a financial hardship, and that public health and safety will be protected
under the alternative offered under the variance. 2 Raleigh has proposed a corrective action plan
based on natural processes of degradation and attenuation of contaminants.3 In essence, Raleigh
1 Auburn's plans have been complete for a considerable time, but submittal to Wake County was delayed until
recently pending discussions with the cities of Raleigh and Gamer pertaining to the availability of municipal water.
Those discussions with Raleigh and Gamer began in 2003, concluding unsuccessfully in 2007. As it became
apparent that municipal water would not be extended to Auburn's property in a reasonable time frame, Auburn
revised its plans to include a community water system which would use on-site wells as a source of potable water.
Auburn received a notice of the application for variance in September, 2007, well after the City of Raleigh was
aware of its need to proceed with a private community water supply.
2 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c). Auburn's comments do not address whether the City has provided information
sufficiently persuasive to show financial hardship and economic unreasonableness of the technology required to
comply with the requirements of the rule.
3 City of Raleigh, NC, Corrective Action V ariaoce Application (December 1, 2005), p . 1
Page 1 of5
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
seeks to have its permitted land application site to be treated as a non-permitted site.4 Therefore,
the Environmental Management Commission ("EMC") should examine, at a minimum, whether
its would be approvable if it were eligible under the rules to propose such a plan. Specifically,
the EMC should examine whether Raleigh seeks to be relieved of the expense to reasonably
assure the protection of public health from existing andforeseeable receptors.
According to the groundwater rules, operators of non-permitted sites may request
approval of a corrective action plan ("CAP") based on natural processes of degradation and
attenuation of contaminants.5 The City's request for variance is premised·on a proposed CAP
based on these natural processes. 6 There are several showings an applicant for a natural
attenuation CAP. The City has failed to make the required showings as described below:
• All sources of contamination from the site for which the variance is sought have been
removed or controlled. 7
The City of Raleigh intends to continue to use it land application fields. Therefore, the
source of contamination for which the variance is sought will neither have been removed nor
controlled to any greater extent than it has been previously. The City of Raleigh has a history
of noncompliance concerning exceedances in the application of plant-available nitrogen.
Thus, Raleigh has failed to show that all sources of contamination have been removed or
controlled.
• The contaminant has the capacity to degrade or attenuate under the site-specific conditions. 8
Scenarios modeled by the City of Raleigh's consultants have not taken in account Auburn's
planned 150,000 gpd well system. The uncertainties that the City's consultants have not
been able to account for include (i) the location of :fractures that could carry contaminated
groundwater, that has had little opportunity for degradation or attenuation, directly to the
Auburn community water supply wells, (ii) the effect of the mafic dikes on the transport of
contaminated groundwater vertically to the fractured bedrock, and (iii) the effect of the
pumping of the Auburn community well system on groundwater flow. Thus, Raleigh has not
shown that the nitrates will degrade or attenuate under predictable site-specific conditions.
According to the City's consultants, groundwater movement in bedrock is restricted to
4 See 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)
5 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1).
6 ENSR International, Corrective Action Plan --City of Raleigh, Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant, Raleigh
North Carolina. (February 2005), p. 2-11. (the CAP was revised in December 2005, but the revision did not alter the
proposal for monitoring natural attenuation).
7 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(1).
8 15A NCAC 2L .0106(IX2).
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
Page2 of5
intersecting sets of water bearing :fractures andjoints.9 Bedrock in the area of the land
application sites "typically consists of a granitic rock type with high degree of :fractures near
the interface of [partially weathered rock] and bedrock."10 Additionally, the consultants
reported that that rock formations known as mafic dikes occurred in the area 11 • The location
of all the dikes predicted to occur in the area could not be confirmed, and the consultants
reported that "the hydraulic influence of the dikes is difficult to fully characterize."12
However, the dikes apparently create :fracture zones in the bedrock in which they are
embedded.13
• The time and direction of contaminant travel can be predicted with reasonable certainty.14
The 150,000 gpd well system will draw water from water-bearing fractures in the bedrock.
When the wells are producing, the water table is depressed in response to pumping. This
depression is characterized as a "cone of depression." At a daily withdrawal of 150,000 gpd,
the wells would tend to reverse the gradient of groundwater for a substantial distance from
the wellhead. The consequence could be that contamination which under present
circumstances would tend to flow in an easterly direction, could be pulled instead in a
westerly direction and captured within the cone of depression of the Auburn water supply
well system. Similarly, contaminated groundwater already in a saturated :fracture zone could
move toward the wells. This depressive effect is true of all pumping wells, but the 40
existing wells accounted for in the consultants' report served individual residences, with the
exception of one community water supply well serving six residences. All of these wells
together would have a much lower production rate than the Auburn well system and thus
have a much less significant cone of depressio. Even collectively, the combined production
is considerably less than the production planned for the Auburn wells, plus the effect of even
all wells pumping at maximum capacity would be widely dispersed and thus not have the
drawing power of the Auburn wells. Ironically, the Auburn wells might function very
similarly to an extraction-type corrective action system of the type the City seeks to avoid
under the requested variance.
9 ENSR International, Supp lemental Site Assessment Report-City of Raleigh Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant Ralei gh. North Carolina (September 2003), p. 2-3 (hereinafter cited as "SSA Report").
10 SSA Report at p.2-2.
11 ENSR Consulting and Engineering, (NC) Inc .. Groundwater Flow Model Report. City of Ralei gh Neuse River
Waste Water Treatment Plant, Ralei gh , North Carolina (September 2003), p.2-6 (hereinafter cited as "GFM
Report").
12 GFM Report, p. 2-6.
13 GFM Report, p. 2-6.
14 I SA NCAC 2L .0106(1)(3).
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
Page 3 of 5
• Contaminant migration will not result in any violation of applicable groundwater standards at
any existing or foreseeable receptor.15
Under the facts pertinent to this variance request, the community water supply wells planned
by Auburn are a foreseeable receptor of contaminants, because the City was aware of
Auburn's requests for municipal water supply and the denial by the City of Garner of that
request. Studies done on behalf of The City of Raleigh have not accounted for the potential
for contaminants migration to community water supply wells on Auburn property, and the
nature of the geology and groundwater flow are such that contaminants may flow to the
Auburn community water supply wells without sufficiently degrading or attenuating.
• Contaminants will not migrate onto adjacent properties or, in the absence of written consent
by the owners to the variance request, such adjacent properties are served by an existing
public water supply system.16
Raleigh acknowledges that contaminants have migrated and will continue to migrate onto
adjacent properties. They have not accounted for the hydrogeologic effect of Auburn's
150,000 gpd community water system withdrawal. Raleigh has closed several wells on
adjacent and nearby properties and provided municipal water. A source of public water
supply should also be provided to the Auburn mixed use development where a much larger
population would be put at risk.
The Auburn well system could be accounted for in a hydrogeologic model to determine
the potential for migration of contaminated groundwater in response to the pressure exerted by
the high-production well system. That investigation would probably also require the installation
of monitoring additional wells into the bedrock where the Auburn well system will ultimately
have to find its source of water, and use of methods to determine the location of fractures and the
influence of mafic dikes on the vertical movement of contaminated groundwater to the bedrock.
The EMC should require as a prerequisite to a variance that the City of Raleigh provide
municipal water to the Auburn mixed use development. Failing that, the EMC must require the
City of Raleigh to conduct a detailed study which accounts for the community well system of the
Auburn mixed use development which properly assesses contaminant migration to foreseeable
receptors in accordance with the groundwater rules.
For these reasons, Auburn respectfully requests that the variance request be rejected for
the failure by the City of Raleigh to meet its burden of making the showings required at 1 SA
NCAC 2L .0113 and 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1). In addition, Auburn respectfully requests that the
comment period for the variance request be extended for an additional 60 days in order to allow
Auburn to engage the services of an expert hyrdogeologist to evaluate this request and the
information provided in support of the request. Auburn has had less than 60 days since learning
IS 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(4).
16 ISA NCAC 2L .0106(1)(5).
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
Page4 of5
of the request for variance to assess the effects that variance could have on its planned mixed use
development, and we have discovered the technical questions and issues of the groundwater to
be many and significant.
Page 5 of5
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
THOMAS C. WORTH, JR.
Attorney
Certified Mediator
Professional Building
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Post Office Box 1799
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
October 4, 2007
Mr. David A. Hance VIA E-MAIL to
[e-mail] Environmental Specialist
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
AND VIA FED EX EXPRESS
AND VIA HAND DELIVERY
RE: Opposition to City of Raleigh Variance Request; Request for
Extension of the Comment Period
Public Hearing: September 5, 2007
Clients: Edge of Auburn LLC and Auburn Associates·
Dear Mr. Hance:
I represent the above referenced entities which own properties in proximity to property
owned by the City of Raleigh which is the apparent source of nitrates which have migrated frofn
the City's property and contaminated the groundwater under adjacent properties. The properties
owned by my clients are identified by Wake County Revenue Department PIN Nos. as follows:
1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086 and 1730975189.
I was in attendance at the Public Hearing on September 5, 2007 and subsequently advised
my clients that, in my opinion, they could not proceed with their proposed development without
utilizing municipal utilities as their currently proposed utilization of wells to provide water to
their residents is far too risky under the present circumstances. My clients had no knowledge of
this contamination prospect until their representative received the Notice of Groundwater
Corrective Action Plan Under 15 NCAC 2L.0106(k) from Mr. H. Dale Crisp, P.E., Raleigh
Public Utilities Director, dated August 21, 2007 and the related undated Notice of Variance
Application and Hearing Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water
Quality from Coleen H . Sullins, Director, Division of Water Quality. Upon receipt of these
Notices, they ceased the field studies and preparation of documents for their plan approval
submission which were well underway (and for which they had already expended a significant
amount of money) and as indicated I now have advised them to proceed no further with their
plans pending the resolution of this matter.
As I have indicated to representatives of the City and to its counsel, my clients are
morally and legally required to disclose the prospect of tainted ground/well water up front to
developers, to their lenders and to all builders and homeowners and their respective lenders who
may develop, lend, build and live upon their properties. I have further indicated to the City
representatives, however, that the public should never be at risk because I do not believe that any
properly informed lender will provide to my clients a development loan for these properties. In
sum this situation and its resolution by the variance sought by the City of Raleigh place my
clients in a totally untenable position.
In closing, I confirm our intention to oppose vigorously the City of Raleigh's variance
request in this matter and furthermore I request in behalf of my clients that the Comment Period
be extended from and after October 5, 2007 for a minimum period of sixty (60) days to enable us
to review what I understand are extensive files in DENR's possession relative to this matter
which date back over a decade prior to the date of Mr. _Crisp's aforementioned letter of August
21, 2007.
TCWjr/jwp
cc: S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G.
NCDENR-Division of Water Quality
1628 Mail Service Center
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
(via E-mail and Fed Ex Express)
Sincerely,
THOMAS C. WORTH, JR.
Attorney
Certified Mediator
Professional Building
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Post Office Box 1799
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
curmudgtcw@earthlink..net
March 11, 2008
Mr. Thomas R. Miller
Legal Counsel
North Carolina Real Estate Commission
P.O. Box 17100
Raleigh, NC 27619-7100
RE: Edge of Auburn, LLC and Auburn Associates, LLC
Dear Mr. Miller:
I represent the above referenced entities which own properties here in Wake County
comprising approximately 400 acres. These properties are identified by Wake County Revenue
Department PIN Numbers as follows: 1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086. and
1730975189.
My clients have been working for several years to formulate plans for a mixed-use
development upon this property the major portion of which is planned to be developed with a
variety of residential products, predominately single-family detached homes with several price
points. My clients had long hoped to develop this project with municipal water and sewer.
however having met with no success in this endeavor, they had resigned themselves to utilizing
well water and a spray waste water facility.
Last August my clients' representative received the attached notices from the City of
Raleigh, dated August 21, 2007 for a public meeting to be held August 30, 2007 and from the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (undated) for a Public
Hearing to be held by DENR on September 5, 2007.
My clients have formally opposed the variance request of the City of Raleigh described in
these attachments, have been unsuccessful in continued efforts to secure at least municipal water
for their proposed development and are therefore proceeding forward at present with their plans
to commence the residential portion of their project utilizing well water and a spray waste \Vater
system as aforesaid.
Although there is no data which shows that the contaminants discharged to ground water
by the City of Raleigh have migrated beneath parcels 1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086,
and 1730975189, the attached notices, and the fact that same were sent to my clients, may
2
suggest that there is potential for such migration. Officials of the City of Raleigh have denied
that any such potential exists, and may be willing to state that denial in writing. Assuming that
no data has been collected which indicates the actual migration of contaminants to the
aforementioned parcels, what if any disclosure responsibility do my clients have to prospective
purchasers of lots subdivided from its parcels to disclose the potential for contamination of
ground water sources, based upon the kno'Wn contamination beneath parcels owned by, and
adjacent to parcels owned by, the City of Raleigh, which ground water sources my clients
propose to utilize in connection with the development of their properties? Does it make a
difference if Raleigh is willing to state for the record, based upon research and advice from its
consultants that no reasonable potential for migration of contaminants exists?
I and my clients have formulated our own answers to these questions, but your responses
to these questions in your capacity as Legal Counsel to the North Carolina Real Estate
Commission are earnestly requested.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. If you have questions, or
require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
TCWjr/jwp
Enclosure
Sincerely,
;£
Phillip T. Fisher
Executive Director
Thomas R. Miller
Special Deputy Attorney General
Lego.I Counsel
Miriam J . Baer
Asst. Dir., Lego.I Seroices
Legal Counsel
NORTH CAROLINA
REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
P.O. Box 17100 • Raleigh, N.C. 27619-7100
919/875-3700 • www.ncrec.state.nc.us
May 21, 2008
Mr. Thomas C. Worth, Jr., Attorney
Post Office Box 1799
Raleigh, NC 27602
RE: Edge of Auburn, LLC and Auburn Associates, LLC
Dear Mr. Worth:
Larry A. Outlaw
Director of Education & Licensing
Mary Frances Whitley
Director of Administration
Emmet R. Wood
Director of Audits & Investigations
In your March 11, 2008, letter to this office you state that your clients, Edge of Auburn,
LLC, and Auburn Associates, LLC, own parcels ofland in Wake County which they desire to
develop for residential uses. You explain that last year your clients were notified by the City of
Raleigh that the groundwater beneath land surrounding the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant, a city facility, is contaminated with nitrates above accepted levels and that the city has
applied to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources for a variance
from that department's rules to permit the city's chosen method of mitigation. Your clients
oppose the variance requested, presumably because they are dissatisfied with the city's chosen
mitigation plan.
In your letter you further state that your clients have no data which indicates the
contaminants have migrated to the groundwater beneath their parce]s and that City of Raleigh
officials believe that the risk of such migration is small or non-existent.
Concerning this situation you ask whether your clients will have any obligation to
disclose the contamination of groundwater near the treatment plant to potential purchasers of
your clients' property. Although you have not described facts which would allow me to conclude
that the sale of your clients' property would be governed by the North Carolina Real Estate
License Law, for the purposes of my response, I will assume such facts either currently exist or
will exist when the sale of the property is undertaken.
Section 93A-6(a)(l) of the North Carolina General Statutes requires licensed real estate
brokers to disclose material facts to the parties to real estate transactions. A fact is material if it
Mr. Thomas C. Worth, Jr., Attorney
May 21, 2008
Page Two
is one concerning the property or a party's ability to perform under a contract that an ordinary,
reasonable, and prudent person would want to know when making a decision to buy or sell. The
contamination or risk of contamination of groundwater beneath residential property would
certainly be material if the source of water for drinking and other household purposes would be
wells drawing from the groundwater.
The fact that your client has received a notice is an indicator that your clients' property
may be affected by the ground water contamination problem. I have made no study of the law or
rules governing the notice requirements which caused the City of Raleigh to send the notices in
question to your clients. Generally such laws and rules are designed to alert the public to threats
to safety and welfare and to threats to their legal and economic interests.
Geographic criteria for .distribution of notices are based upon a combination of an
empirical and a political assessment of the threats and interests affected. The circle enclosing the
persons to whom notices must be sent may or may not correspond with the circle of materiality
envisioned by the Real Estate License Law. Without information to indicate that the circles do
not correspond, I would advise a broker to assume that there is correspondence between receipt
of the notice and the properties materially affected by the subject of the notice. This would be
the safest course. If, however, the broker has reliable information to indicate that even though
the owner of the property in question received the notice, the property itself is not affected in a
material way by the threat or other matter contemplated in the notice, I would conclude that no
disclosure is required by the license law. In this situation, however, I would nevertheless
recommend that the broker disclose both the subject of the notice and the information that causes
him to believe that the subject property is not materially affected. Again, this would be the safest
course.
You did not indicate whether any sort ofindependent professional analysis of the threat to
the groundwater beneath your clients' property has been performed. You stated that you are
unaware of data to suggest that there is a risk. You also state that city officials do not believe
there is a risk. This information is insufficient to permit a broker to forego disclosure of the
subject of the notice to purchasers of the land. The absence of data of a problem when no testing
or analysis has been performed is not a reliable indication of the absence of a problem. Likewise,
the untested assurances of the city, even if put in writing, would not overcome the presumption
of the threat indicated by the notice.
The opinion expressed in this letter concerns the application of the Real Estate License
Law only. I have not considered disclosure requirements that may be imposed by other laws or
by the rules promulgated by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources or another
Mr. Thomas C. Worth, Jr., Attorney
May 21, 2008
Page Three
agency. To determine the real threat to the groundwater beneath your clients' property, you may
wish to communicate with the officials ofDEHNR.
I hope I have addressed your question in a way that is satisfactory to you.
TRM/si
Thomas R. Miller
Legal Counsel
THOMAS C. WORTH, JR.
Attorney
Certified Mediator
Professional Building
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Post Office Box 1799
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
October 8, 2009
Mr. Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
VIA E-MAIL to
[e-mail]
512 N. Salisbury Street, Suite 71 lD (27604)
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
and VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
and VIA HAND DELIVERY
RE: Opposition to City of Raleigh Variance Application
Public Hearing: September 9, 2009
Clients: Edge of Auburn LLC and Auburn Associates;
PIN Nos.1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086 and 1730975189
Dear Mr. Kreiser:
As you may be aware, I have represented in this matter the above referenced entities
which own approximately 400 acres of land located approximately 1,500 feet from the nearest
offsite contamination emanating from Raleigh's Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
(NRWWTP), since August, 2007 when they first received Notice of this contamination. I
enclose for the record the following:
I. A copy ofmy letter of September 9, 2009 pertaining to this Variance Application.
2. Original Statement dated October 7, 2009 from my clients' environmental
consultant, Mr. Russell Briggs, P .E. of B&F Consulting, Inc.
3. A copy of the Comments dated November 5, 2007 from my clients'
environmental legal counsel, Mr. Craig Bromby of Hunton & Williams. (Please
note that although these Comments were submitted in connection with Raleigh's
initial Variance Application, same are entirely applicable to the subject Variance
Application with qualifiers as follows:
My clients now have the first phase of their mixed-use community
approved by Wake County for 252 homes with withdrawal
Mr. Gary Kreiser -2-October 8, 2009
capacity now estimated to be between 70,000 gallons per day and
I 00,000 gallons per day. As Mr. Bromby notes on Page 3 of his
Comments, my clients' well(s) might function similarly to the
extraction-type corrective action system which Raleigh seeks to
avoid installing.)
After considering Mr. Briggs' Statement, Mr. Bromby's Comments and the comments of
various speakers at the Public Hearing, including without limitation the statements of Mr. Frank
J. Ragsdale, a property owner, and the statements of Mr. Steven J. Levitas, attorney for the City
of Raleigh, I have determined that from my clients' perspective, no solution other than access to
a public water supply will provide relief to them from the absolutely untenable position that this
massive protracted contamination by the City of Raleigh has visited upon them. It is now
obvious to me that monitoring wells, which would signal the advance of groundwater
contamination will not suffice in this matter to alleviate the problems of property owners in the
vicinity of the NR WWTP as they have already been damaged by this contamination through the
loss of development opportunities and the loss of opportunities for the sale of their properties.
Mr. Ragsdale demanded that Raleigh clean-up the contamination which it has generated,
while Mr. Levitas indicated that surface streams lying between the City's contaminated
properties and my clients' properties would serve as a barrier to migration of the contamination
to my clients' properties. Mr. Ragsdale's solution may not be economically feasible but Mr.
Levitas' statement is without technical merit as I am sure the DWQ Staff and Raleigh's
environmental consultant both know. Raleigh has already extended public water incrementally
to various individual properties where the wells thereon have been determined to be tainted, and
the extension of public water by Raleigh to the owners of properties determined by Raleigh and
DENR-DWQ to receive the Notices of public meeting and Public Hearing for August and
September, 2007 and the Notice of Public Hearing for September, 2009 is the only
comprehensive cost effective solution in this matter which in my opinion will comply with the
applicable Rules, Regulations and Statutes.
Rule ISA NCAC 02L.0106 "Corrective Action" Paragraph G) requires a comprehensive
corrective plan for the restoration of groundwater quality unless the applicant qualifies under an
exception as provided therein, as the City of Raleigh seeks to do. It is well established that the
burden of proof in this matter rests with Raleigh as the Applicant for the requested Variance.
ISA NCAC 02L.0I 13 "VARIANCE" provides in Paragraph (c)(4) that the Applicant must
provide supporting information to establish that the variance will not endanger the public health
and safety and further that the location of wells and other water supply sources within one-half
mile of the site must be shown on the map ( emphasis added).
Paragraph ( c )(9) further requires that the Applicant provide a list of the names and
addresses of any property owner within the proposed area of the variance as well as any property
owners adjacent to the site covered by the variance ( emphasis added). Furthermore regarding
notice, ISA NCAC 02L.0114 entitled "Notification Requirements" in Paragraph (b) thereof
requires that any person who submits a request under Rule .0106(k)(l) or (m) shall notify among
others " ... , all property owners and occupants within or contiguous to the area underlain by the
Mr. Gary Kreiser -3-October 8, 2009
contaminant plwne, and under the areas where it is exp ected to migrate ... " (emphasis added).
This Rule obviously applies to the City of Raleigh, hence the multiple notifications to my clients
and other adjacent property owners.
Under the provisions of Paragraph 15 NCAC 02L.0106 "Corrective Action" (k) Raleigh
must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of the Division of Environmental
Management Commission that (3) the contaminates have not and will not migrate onto adjacent
properties (emphasis added) or that in the alternative (A) such properties are served by an
existing public water supply system or hydraulically isolated groundwater or (B) that the owners
of such properties have consented in writing to the request. Not one of these three exceptions
apply to my clients.
Section (1) of the Rule provides that the Applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Director of the Environmental Management Commission that among several requirements:
(3)
(4)
(5)
requires that the time and direction of contaminate travel
can be predicted with reasonable certainty ( emphasis
added);
requires that contaminate migration will not result in any
violation of applicable groundwater standards at any
existing or foreseeable receptor ( emphasis added);
that the contaminates have not and will not migrate unto
adjacent properties or that (A) public water supply or
hydraulically isolated groundwater or (B) consent apply,
which they do not ( emphasis added).
I am of the opinion that the Director of the Environmental Management Commission
cannot and will not be satisfied that Raleigh's proposed corrective action will meet the standards
of ISA NCAC 02L.0106(k) and (1).
As I have indicated both publicly and privately, verbally and in writing since my clients'
first became aware of this contamination prospect by Notice dated August 21, 2007 from Mr.
H. Dale Crisp, P.E., Raleigh Public Utilities Director and the related undated Notice from Ms.
Coleen H. Sullins, Director, Division of Water Quality, giving notice to my clients and other
parties similarly located in proximity to the NRWWTP respectively, of the public meeting to be
held by Raleigh on August 30, 2007, and of the Public Hearing to be held by DENR-DWQ on
Raleigh's initial Variance Application on September 5, 2007, my clients and all other notice
parties for the public meeting of August 30, 2007 and the Public Hearing of September 5, 2007
and the Public Hearing of September 9, 2009, must notify all prospective purchasers of and
lenders upon their properties of this contamination prospect.
Mr. Gary Kreiser -4-October 8, 2009
In support of my position, I enclose for the record the following:
1. A copy of my letter dated October 4, 2007 to your predecessor, Mr. David A.
Hance.
2. A copy of my letter of March 11, 2008, to Mr. Thomas R. Miller, Legal Counsel
for the North Carolina Real Estate Commission to inquiring about my clients'
disclosure responsibilities.
3. A copy of Mr. Miller's response letter to me dated May 21, 2008. Be advised that
Mr. Miller's response did nothing to dissuade me from my position on the
disclosure question.
In sum, my clients cannot develop their properties without public water, the availability
for which they have agreed to pay. In my opinion, all property owners similarly placed will have
extreme difficulty in developing their properties or selling their properties for their fair market
value, if at all.
It is apparent from the Public Hearing Notice for the September 9, 2009 Hearing itself
and from comments at the Public Hearing by DENR-DWQ Staff, that Staff is in support of
Raleigh's latest Variance Application. There was in fact a certain euphoria apparent at the Public
Hearing which appeared to emanate from the agreement on the part of Raleigh to install
subsurface flow wetlands to reduce contamination of the Neuse River via several streams
discharging to the river. Additionally, active remediation apparently is now underway to treat
contaminated groundwater in an area which may be a future source of drinking water. While any
improvement in the situation involving the Neuse River and to an area which may be the source
of future drinking water , are meritorious objectives, neither improves the circumstances of those
owners whose properties are potentially affected by this massive contamination.
In closing, it is my position in behalf of my clients that the City of Raleigh has not
successfully carried its burden of proof as necessary to be granted the Variance it seeks in that its
proposed corrective action is insufficient to satisfy applicable legal standards of 15A NCAC
02L.0l 13 and ISA NCAC 02L.0106(1). I therefore request that Raleigh's Variance Application
be denied and that it be required to conduct active remediation of the contaminated groundwater
through extraction wells or other processes approved by the Director of the Environmental
Management Commission.
TCWjr/jwp
Enclosures
Sincerely,
.....
THOMAS C. WORffl, JR.
Attorney
Certified Mediator
Professional Building
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Post Office Box 1799
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
September 9, 2009
Hearing Officer
DENR-DWQ
Archdale Building
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Public Hearing: September 9, 2009
Dear Sir:
Opposition to "Variance Request by City of Raleigh for
Groundwater Nitrate at Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant";
Clients: Edge of Auburn, LLC and Auburn Associates
In behalf of my above referenced clients who, as the owners of properties in the vicinity
of the City of Raleigh's Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP), are in receipt of
the Public Notice for this Public Hearing, I speak in opposition to the granting of the requested
variance. For your information and for the record, my clients are the owners of properties
comprising approximately 400 acres identified by the Wake County Revenue Department PIN
Nos. as follow: 1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086 and 1730975189, which include
property located approximately 1,500 feet from NRWWTP property.
I informed my clients over two years ago when they received notices from the City and
DENR for a public meeting to be held by the former on August 30, 2007, and for a Public
Hearing to be held by DENR on September 5, 2007 that they are both morally and legally bound
to disclose to all prospective purchasers within their proposed residential project of the potential
risk of contaminated groundwater if the project was not on public water. My position has not
changed.
I note that the City's variance request if granted must comply with ISA NCAC 2L.0106
(Corrective Action), Section (k). Under Subsections (2) and (3), the City must demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the Director among other requirements as follows:
(2) that the time and direction of contaminant travel can be
predicted with reasonable certainty;
Hearing Officer -2-September 9, 2009
(3) that contaminates have not and will not migrate onto adjacent
properties, or that:
(A) such properties are served by an existing public
water supply system dependent on surface waters
or hydraulically isolated groundwater, or
(B) the owners of such properties have consented
in writing to the City's request
My clients' properties are not now served by an existing public water supply system nor
have they consented in writing to the City's request. I am of the opinion that the City cannot
satisfy the requirements of Subsections (2) and (3).
My clients now have a governmental approval to build initially two hundred and fifty-two
(252) homes upon a portion of their properties, which initial phase upon build-out will require
approximately 70,000 gallons of groundwater per day and in their behalf I inquire as to how
DENR will respond to their proposed development to assure the quality of this groundwater.
At the very least, the City should be required by DENR to conduct engineering studies
which take into account the full development of my clients' properties. Sufficient monitoring
wells should be installed by the City and the monthly inspection of same should be mandated to
protect properly the people who will be utilizing this groundwater.
I now introduce Mr. Russell Briggs, P .E. of B&F Consulting who is serving as my
clients' environmental consultant and confirm that we will submit more detailed written
comments on or before October 9, 2009, as directed by your Public Notice.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Worth, Jr.
TCWjr/jwp
B&F CONSULTING , INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND PLANNING SERVICES
Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: Variance request by t~e City of Raleigh
Dear Mr. Kreiser:
October 7, 2009
On behalf of my clients, Edge of Auburn LLC, and Auburn Associates, I oppose
the granting of the variance that has been requested by the City of Raleigh. The
City is asking that the nitrates migrating off its property be permitted to abate
naturally over time, in lieu of installing a series of wells on the periphery of its
property which would extract the contaminated groundwater.
My clients were in the process of developing a significant mixed-use
development for properties that may be affected by this groundwater
contamination when they first learned of the problem in August 2007. This
mixed-use development will have a community water system using wells as the
water source. The extraction from their proposed well system will ultimately be
over one hundred thousand gallons per day. If the contaminates reach my
clients' wells the implicatiors would be enormous, both to my clients and,
ultimately, to the City of Raleigh and any permitting agencies. Due to
topographic and other constraints, I proposed these wells be located along my
clients' eastern property line (which is closest to the off-site contamination) long
before the Notice of Public Hearing was given in August 2007.
Specifically, my clients have asked that I review the a portion of the requirement
related to NCAC 2l.0106(k)(3)(A) The portion of the requirement that I reviewed ·
was the statement that the adjacent property be served either "by an existing
public water supply dependent on surface waters or hydraulically isolated
groundwater, 11
Based on my review of the Supplemental Site Assessment prepared by
consultants for the City of Raleigh, the groundwater is certainly not isolated.
Section 2 (Background and Site History) and Section 3 (Investigation Methods)
B&F Consulting, Inc. -2-October 7, 2009
repeatedly note the complex geology of the area. The exhibits included within
the report show mafic dik~s and fractures which immediately discount the
"hydraulically isolated groundwater" argument. Specifically, Section 5
(Groundwater Flow Results) conclusions note that "a fractured bedrock unit that,
relatively speaking, is high yielding compared to the bedrock below it" and
"water recharged on the ridge tops tends to migrate downward through the
saprolite and then laterally along the top of an/or through the fracture bedrock."
Section 4.6 (Packer Testing Results) states "Similar nitrate concentrations in the•
upper and lower samples may suggest a connection between fractures in the
shallow bedrock zone."
Thus, it is my conclusion that the affected property is not "hydraulically isolated"
and the water quality may be affected when significant withdrawals from any
fracture system occur from the well system proposed by my client.
The argument that the City puts forth that my clients' properties are down
gradient of the contamination does not provide assurance that the contamination
will always be down gradient. Once these wells on my clients' properties begin
production, the water table will be depressed near the wells -thus causing water
to flow into the wells via fissures or other geologic formations in the underlying
strata. The geologic formations cannot be known with certainty, and the City
cannot rule out the possibility that the cone of depression resulting from wells on
my clients' properties would cause the plume of contamination to reach these
wells. Indeed, my client's wells could end up functioning exactly like the system
the City is asking relief from installing and discharge the nitrate-laden
groundwater.
The Wake County parcel identification numbers {PIN) for my client's properties·
are 1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086 and 1730975189.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment in opposition to this requested
variance by the City of Raleigh. Obviously, my clients have extreme concerns
with the potential degradation of the groundwater due to the contamination
caused by the City of Raleigh.
Sincerely,
-ji:;;$jr9 '
Russell Briggs, P.E.
2805 TOBERMORY LANE • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA• 27606
RUSSELL BRIGGS, P.E.: PHONE: [phone] • FAX: [phone] • EMAIL: [e-mail]
AMBER FARRELLY, P.E.; PHONE: [phone] • PAX: 919.467.8827 • EMAIL: [e-mail],COM
Comments of Edge of Au bum, LLC
Request for Variance by City of Raleigh, NC
November 5, 2007
Edge of Auburn, LLC, ("Auburn") is a development company that owns a tract of land to
the southeast of the Raleigh land application site at which elevated nitrate levels have been
detected. For the reasons set forth below, Auburn objects to the requested variance unless the
City of Raleigh provides access to a public water supply system to all properties adjacent to a
property with off-site contamination, including that owned by Auburn.
Auburn has recently submitted to Wake County plans to develop a mixed use
development on this tract, with over 350 homes in the first phase. The Auburn development will
require its own source of water supply because, as the City of Raleigh is aware, the City of
Garner has no plans to extend public water service to that area in the foreseeable future. 1
To address its need for a community water supply for a mixed use development with over
350 homes in the first phase, Auburn plans to install supply wells with a withdrawal capacity of
over 150,000 gpd. The well system is planned within a half-mile of the Raleigh land application
site. Due to topography and other constraints, the wells for the community water supply are
planned to be located at the eastern property line of the Auburn property. The eastern boundary
line is the area closest to the Raleigh land application sites and to the contaminated groundwater.
Topographically, the well system appears to be upgradient of the land application sites.
However, the wells will probably have to be installed in bedrock to produce a sufficient yield to
supply a sufficient supply of water to the community.
In order to be eligible for a variance, the City of Raleigh must show that compliance with
the rules would effect a financial hardship, and that public health and safety will be protected
under the alternative offered under the variance. 2 Raleigh has proposed a corrective action plan
based on natural processes of degradation and attenuation of contaminants.3 In essence, Raleigh
1 Auburn's plans have been complete for a considerable time, but submittal to Wake County was delayed until
recently pending discussions with the cities of Raleigh and Gamer pertaining to the availability of municipal water.
Those discussions with Raleigh and Gamer began in 2003, concluding unsuccessfully in 2007. As it became
apparent that municipal water would not be extended to Auburn's property in a reasonable time frame, Auburn
revised its plans to include a community water system which would use on-site wells as a source of potable water.
Auburn received a notice of the application for variance in September, 2007, well after the City of Raleigh was
aware of its need to proceed with a private community water supply.
2 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c). Auburn's comments do not address whether the City has provided information
sufficiently persuasive to show financial hardship and economic unreasonableness of the technology required to
comply with the requirements of the rule.
3 City of Raleigh, NC, Corrective Action Variance A pplication (December 1, 2005), p. I
Page 1 of5
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
seeks to have its permitted land application site to be treated as a non-permitted site. 4 Therefore,
the Environmental Management Commission ("EMC") should examine, at a minimum, whether
its would be approvable if it were eligible under the rules to propose such a plan. Specifically,
the EMC should examine whether Raleigh seeks to be relieved of the expense to reasonably
assure the protection of public health from existing and foreseeable receptors.
According to the groundwater rules, operators of non-permitted sites may request
approval of a corrective action plan ("CAP") based on natural processes of degradation and
attenuation of contaminants. 5 The City's request for variance is premised· on a proposed CAP
based on these natural processes. 6 There are several showings an applicant for a natural
attenuation CAP. The City has failed to make the required showings as described below:
• All sources of contamination from the site for which the variance is sought have been
removed or controlled. 7
The City of Raleigh intends to continue to use it land application fields. Therefore, the
source of contamination for which the variance is sought will neither have been removed nor
controlled to any greater extent than it has been previously. The City of Raleigh has a history
of noncompliance concerning exceedances in the application of plant-available nitrogen.
Thus, Raleigh has failed to show that all sources of contamination have been removed or
controlled.
• The contaminant has the capacity to degrade or attenuate under the site-specific conditions. 8
Scenarios modeled by the City of Raleigh's consultants have not taken in account Auburn's
planned 150,000 gpd well system. The uncertainties that the City's consultants have not
been able to account for include (i) the location of fractures that could carry contaminated
groundwater, that has had little opportunity for degradation or attenuation, directly to the
Auburn community water supply wells, (ii) the effect of the mafic dikes on the transport of
contaminated groundwater vertically to the fractured bedrock, and (iii) the effect of the
pumping of the Auburn community well system on groundwater flow. Thus, Raleigh has not
shown that the nitrates will degrade or attenuate under predictable site-specific conditions.
According to the City's consultants, groundwater movement in bedrock is restricted to
4 See 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)
5 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1).
6 ENSR International, Corrective Action Plan --City of Raleigh, Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant, Raleigh
North Carolina, (February 2005), p. 2-11. (the CAP was revised in December 2005, but the revision did not alter the
proposal for monitoring natural attenuation).
7 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(1).
8 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(2).
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
Page 2 of 5
intersecting sets of water bearing fractures and joints.9 Bedrock in' the area of the land
application sites ''typically consists of a granitic rock type with high degree of fractures near
the interface of [partially weathered rock] and bedrock."10 Additionally, the consultants
reported that that rock formations known as ma.fie dikes occurred in the area. 11 • The location
of all the dikes predicted to occur in the area could not be confirmed, and the consultants
reported that "the hydraulic influence of the dikes is difficult to fully characterize."12
However, the dikes apparently create fracture zones in the bedrock in which they are
embedded.13
• The time and direction of contaminant travel can be predicted with reasonable certainty.14
The 150,000 gpd well system will draw water from water-bearing fractures in the bedrock.
When the wells are producing, the water table is depressed in response to pumping. This
depression is characterized as a "cone of depression." At a daily withdrawal of 150,000 gpd,
the wells would tend to reverse the gradient of groundwater for a substantial distance from
the wellhead. The consequence could be that contamination which under present
circumstances would tend to flow in an easterly direction, could be pulled instead in a
westerly direction and captured within the cone of depression of the Auburn water supply
well system. Similarly, contaminated groundwater already in a saturated fracture zone could
move toward the wells. This depressive effect is true of all pumping wells, but the 40
existing wells accounted for in the consultants' report served individual residences, with the
exception of one community water supply well serving six residences. All of these wells
together would have a much lower production rate than the Auburn well system and thus
have a much less significant cone of depressio. Even collectively, the combined production
is considerably less than the production planned for the Auburn wells, plus the effect of even
all wells pumping at maximum capacity would be widely dispersed and thus not have the
drawing power of the Auburn wells. Ironically, the Auburn wells might function very
similarly to an extraction-type corrective action system of the type the City seeks to avoid
under the requested variance.
9 ENSR International, Supp lemental Site Assessment Report -City of Ralei gh Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant, Ralei gh, North Carolina (September 2003), p. 2-3 (hereinafter cited as "SSA Report").
10 SSA Report at p.2-2.
11 ENSR Consulting and Engineering, (NC) Inc .. Groundwater Flow Model Report, City of Ralei gh Neuse River
Waste Water Treatment Plant. Raleigh, North Carolina (September 2003), p.2-6 (hereinafter cited as "GFM
Report").
12 GFM Report, p. 2-6.
13 GFM Report, p. 2-6.
14 ISA NCAC 2L .0106(1)(3).
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
Page 3 of 5
• Contaminant migration will not result in any violation of applicable groundwater standards at
any existing or foreseeable receptor. 15
Under the facts pertinent to this variance request, the community water supply wells planned
by Auburn are a foreseeable receptor of contaminants, because the City was aware of
Auburn's requests for municipal water supply and the denial by the City of Garner of that
request. Studies done on behalf of The City of Raleigh have not accounted for the potential
for contaminants migration to community water supply wells on Auburn property, and the
nature of the geology and groundwater flow are such that contaminants may flow to the
Auburn community water supply wells without sufficiently degrading or attenuating.
• Contaminants will not migrate onto adjacent properties or, in the absence of written consent
by the owners to the variance request, such adjacent properties are served by an existing
public water supply system. 16
Raleigh acknowledges that contaminants have migrated and will continue to migrate onto
adjacent properties. They have not accounted for the hydrogeologic effect of Auburn's
150,000 gpd community water system withdrawal. Raleigh has closed several wells on
adjacent and nearby properties and provided municipal water. A source of public water
supply should also be provided to the Auburn mixed use development where a much larger
population would be put at risk.
The Auburn well system could be accounted for in a hydrogeologic model to determine
the potential for migration of contaminated groundwater in response to the pressure exerted by
the high-production well system. That investigation would probably also require the installation
of monitoring additional wells into the bedrock where the Auburn well system will ultimately
have to find its source of water, and use of methods to determine the location of fractures and the
influence of mafic dikes on the vertical movement of contaminated groundwater to the bedrock.
The EMC should require as a prerequisite to a variance that the City of Raleigh provide
municipal water to the Auburn mixed use development. Failing that, the EMC must require the
City of Raleigh to conduct a detailed study which accounts for the community well system of the
Auburn mixed use development which properly assesses contaminant migration to foreseeable
receptors in accordance with the groundwater rules.
For these reasons, Auburn respectfully requests that the variance request be rejected for
the failure by the City of Raleigh to meet its burden of making the showings required at 15A
NCAC 2L .0113 and 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1). In addition, Auburn respectfully requests that the
comment period for the variance request be extended for an additional 60 days in order to allow
Auburn to engage the services of an expert hyrdogeologist to evaluate this request and the
information provided in support of the request. Auburn has had less than 60 days since learning
15 ISA NCAC 2L .0106(1)(4).
16 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(5).
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
Page4of5
of the request for variance to assess the effects that variance could have on its planned mixed use
development, and we have discovered the technical questions and issues of the groundwater to
be many and significant.
Page 5 of 5
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
Mr. David A. Hance
Environmental Specialist
NCDENR
THOMAS C. WORTH, JR.
Attorney
Certified Mediator
Professional Building
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Post Office Box 1799
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
October 4, 2007
VIA E-MAIL to
[e-mail]
Division of Water Quality-Planning Section
161 7 Mail Service Center
AND VIA FED EX EXPRESS
AND VIA HAND DELIVERY
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Opposition to City of Raleigh Variance Request; Request for
Extension of the Comment Period
Public Hearing: September 5, 2007
Clients: Edge of Auburn LLC and Auburn Associates-
Dear Mr. Hance:
I represent the above referenced entities which own properties in proximity to property
owned by the City of Raleigh which is the apparent source of nitrates which have migrated frofn
the City's property and contaminated the groundwater under adjacent properties. The properties
owned by my clients are identified by Wake County Revenue Department PIN Nos. as follows:
1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086 and 1730975189.
I was in attendance at the Public Hearing on September 5, 2007 and subsequently advised
my clients that, in my opinion, they could not proceed with their proposed development without
utilizing municipal utilities as their currently proposed utilization· of wells to provide water to
their residents is far too risky under the present circumstances. My clients had no knowledge of
this contamination prospect until their representative received the Notice of Groundwater
Corrective Action Plan Under 15 NCAC 2L.0106(k) from Mr. H. Dale Crisp, P.E., Raleigh
Public Utilities Director, dated August 21, 2007 and the related undated Notice of Variance
Application and Hearing Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water
Quality from Coleen H. Sullins, Director, Division of Water Quality. Upon receipt of these
Notices, they ceased the field studies and preparation of documents for their plan approval
submission which were well underway (and for which they had already expended a significant
amount of money) and as indicated I now have advised them to proceed no further with their
plans pending the resolution of this matter.
As I have indicated to representatives of the City and to its counsel, my clients are
morally and legally required to disclose the prospect of tainted ground/well water up front to
developers, to their lenders and to all builders and homeowners and their respective lenders who
may develop, lend, build and live upon their properties. I have further indicated to the City
representatives, however, that the public should never be at risk because I do not believe that any
properly informed lender will provide to my clients a development loan for these properties. In
sum this situation and its resolution by the variance sought by the City of Raleigh place my
clients in a totally untenable position.
In closing, I confirm our intention to oppose vigorously the City of Raleigh's variance
request in this matter and furthermore I request in behalf of my clients that the Comment Period
be extended from and after October 5, 2007 for a minimum period of sixty (60) days to enable us
to review what I understand are extensive files in DENR's possession relative to this matter
which date back over a decade prior to the date of Mr. _Crisp's aforementioned letter of August
21,2007.
TCWjr/jwp
cc: S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G.
NCDENR-Division of Water Quality
1628 Mail Service Center
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
(via E-mail and Fed Ex Express)
Sincerely,
THOMAS C. WORTH, JR.
Attorney
Certified Mediator
Professional Building
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Post Office Box 1799
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
March 11, 2008
Mr. Thomas R. Miller
Legal Counsel
North Carolina Real Estate Commission
P.O. Box 17100
Raleigh, NC 27619-7100
RE: Edge of Auburn, LLC and Auburn Associates, LLC
Dear Mr. Miller:
I represent the above referenced entities which ovm properties here in Wake County
comprising approximately 400 acres. These properties are identified by Wake County ReYenue
Department PIN Numbers as follows: I 740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086, and
1730975189.
My clients have been working for several years to formulate plans for a mixed-use
development upon this property the major portion of which is planned to be developed with a
variety of residential products, predominately single-family detached homes with several price
points. My clients had long hoped to develop this project with municipal water and sewer.
however having met with no success in this endeavor, they had resigned themselves to utilizing
well water and a spray waste water facility.
Last August my clients' representative received the attached notices from the City of
Raleigh, dated August 21, 2007 for a public meeting to be held August 30, 2007 and from the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (undated) for a Public
Hearing to be held by DENR on September 5, 2007.
My clients have formally opposed the variance request of the City of Raleigh described in
these attachments, have been unsuccessful in continued efforts to secure at least municipal water
for their proposed development and are therefore proceeding forward at present with their plans
to commence the residential portion of their project utilizing well water and a spray waste ,vater
system as aforesaid.
Although there is no data which shows that the contaminants discharged to ground water
by the City of Raleigh have migrated beneath parcels 1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086,
and 1730975189, the attached notices, and the fact that same were sent to my clients, may
.,. 2
suggest that there is potential for such migration. Officials of the City of Raleigh have denied
that any such potential exists, and may be willing to state that denial in writing. Assuming that
no data has been collected which indicates the actual migration of contaminants to the
aforementioned parcels, what if any disclosure responsibility do my clients have to prospective
purchasers of lots subdivided from its parcels to disclose the potential for contamination of
ground water sources, based upon the kno\\<n contamination beneath parcels owned by, and
adjacent to parcels owned by, the City of Raleigh, which ground water sources my clients
propose to utilize in connection with the development of their properties? Does it make a
difference if Raleigh is willing to state for the record, based upon research and advice from its
consultants that no reasonable potential for migration of contaminants exists?
I and my clients have formulated our own answers to these questions, but your responses
to these questions in your capacity as Legal Counsel to the North Carolina Real Estate
Commission are earnestly requested.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. If you have questions, or
require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
TCWjr/jwp
Enclosure
Sincerely,
;£
Phillip T. Fisher
Executive Director
Thomas R. Miller
Special Deputy Attorney General
legal Counsel
Miriam J. Baer
Asst. Dir., Legal Services
legal Counsel
NORTH CAROLINA
REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
P.O. Box 17100 • Raleigh, N.C. 27619-7100
919/875-3700 • www.ncrec.state.nc.us
May 21, 2008
Mr. Thomas C. Worth, Jr., Attorney
Post Office Box 1799
Raleigh, NC 27602
RE: Edge of Auburn, LLC and Auburn Associates, LLC
Dear Mr. Worth:
S/2tc/ol?
Larry A. Outlaw
Director of Education & licensing
Mary Frances Whitley
Director of Administration
Emmet R. Wood
Director of Audits & Investigations
In your March 11, 2008, letter to this office you state that your clients, Edge of Auburn,
LLC, and Auburn Associates, LLC, own parcels ofland in Wake County which they desire to
develop for residential uses. You explain that last year your clients were notified by the City of
Raleigh that the groundwater beneath land surrounding the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant, a city facility, is contaminated with nitrates above accepted levels and that the city has
applied to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources for a variance
from that department's rules to permit the city's chosen method of mitigation. Your clients
oppose the variance requested, presumably because they are dissatisfied with the city's chosen
mitigation plan.
In your letter you further state that your clients have no data which indicates the
cont.aroinants have migrated to the groundwater beneath their parcels and that City of Raleigh
officials believe that the risk of such migration is small or non-existent.
Concerning this situation you ask whether your clients will have any obligation to
disclose the contamination of groundwater near the treatment plant to potential purchasers of
your clients' property. Although you have not described facts which would allow me to conclude
that the sale of your clients' property would be governed by the North Carolina Real Estate
License Law, for the purposes of my response, I will assume such facts either currently exist or
will exist when the sale of the property is undertaken.
Section 93A-6(a)(l) of the North Carolina General Statutes requires licensed real estate
brokers to disclose material facts to the parties to real estate transactions. A fact is material if it
Mr. Thomas C. Worth, Jr., Attorney
May 21, 2008
Page Two
is one concerning the property or a party's ability to perform under a contract that an ordinary,
reasonable, and prudent person would want to know when making a decision to buy or sell. The
contamination or risk of contamination of groundwater beneath residential property would
certainly be material if the source of water for drinking and other household purposes would be
wells drawing from the groundwater.
The fact that your client has received a notice is an indicator that your clients' property
may be affected by the ground water contamination problem. I have made no study of the law or
rules governing the notice requirements which caused the City of Raleigh to send the notices in
question to your clients. Generally such laws and rules are designed to alert the public to threats
to safety and welfare and to threats to their legal and economic interests.
Geographic criteria for .distribution of notices are based upon a combination of an
empirical and a political assessment of the threats and interests affected. The circle enclosing the
persons to whom notices must be sent may or may not correspond with the circle of materiality
envisioned by the Real Estate License Law. Without information to indicate that the circles do
not correspond, I would advise a broker to assume that there is correspondence between receipt
of the notice and the properties materially affected by the subject of the notice. This would be
the safest course. If, however, the broker has reliable information to indicate that even though
the owner of the property in question received the notice, the property itself is not affected in a
material way by the threat or other matter contemplated in the notice, I would conclude that no
disclosure is required by the license law. In this situation, however, I would nevertheless
recommend that the broker disclose both the subject of the notice and the information that causes
him to believe that the subject property is not materially affected. Again, this would be the safest
course.
You did not indicate whether any sort of independent professional analysis of the threat to
the groundwater beneath your clients' property has been performed. You stated that you are
unaware of data to suggest that there is a risk. You also state that city officials do not believe
there is a risk. This information is insufficient to permit a broker to forego disclosure of the
subject of the notice to purchasers of the land. The absence of data of a problem when no testing
or analysis has been performed is not a reliable indication of the absence of a problem. Likewise,
the untested assurances of the city, even if put in writing, would not overcome the presumption
of the threat indicated by the notice.
The opinion expressed in this letter concerns the application of the Real Estate License
Law only. I have not considered disclosure requirements that may be imposed by other laws or
by the rules promulgated by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources or another
Mr. Thomas C. Worth, Jr., Attorney
May 21, 2008
Page Three
agency. To determine the real threat to the groundwater beneath your clients' property, you may
wish to communicate with the officials ofDEHNR.
I hope I have addressed your question in a way that is satisfactory to you.
TRM/si
Thomas R. Miller
Legal Counsel
Kreiser, Gary
From: Zimmerman, Jay
Sent:
To:
Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:18 PM
Kreiser, Gary; Skidmore, Lori
Cc: Pitner, Andrew; Stecker, Kathy
Subject: FW: City of Raleigh Variance
Please note the following.
jay
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties.
From: Rudo, Ken
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 2:49 PM
To: Zimmerman, Jay
Subject: FW: City of Raleigh Variance
Mr.Zimmerman, This email is to confirm that my comments in the 8/15/07 memo should be considered still applicable for
the record for the current variance request. Sincerely, Kenneth Rudo, Ph.D, Toxicologist, OEEB
From: Zimmerman, Jay
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 1:37 PM
To: Rudo, Ken
Cc: Skidmore, Lori; Kreiser, Gary
Subject: City of Raleigh Variance
Dr. Rudo,
This email is intended to confirm the details of our telephone conversation yesterday, October 6, 2009. I briefed you
concerning the recent variance application submitted by the City of Raleigh and about the latest developments
regarding the construction of wetlands to mitigate surface water impacts. During our conversation, you indicated that
you had no other comments related to the City of Raleigh's most recent variance request and that your comments
expressed in a memo dated August 15, 2007, would still be applicable and should be considered for the record. Please
confirm that my understanding is correct or if not, please clarify.
Thanks
Jay
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized State
official. Unauthorized disclosure of juvenile, health, legally privileged, or otherwise confidential information, including confidential information relating to an ongoing
State procurement effort, is prohibited by law. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all records of this e-mail.
1
Dr. Ken Rudo
Variance Request, City of Raleigh, NC
Technical Evaluation
July 25, 2007
impacted or have the potential to be impacted in the future, were connected to Raleigh municipal
water and their former wells have been abandoned. The source for Raleigh municipal water is Falls
Lake, which is not threatened by the groundwater contamination from the CORPUD land application
fields.
On July 24, 2007, you and I conducted a site inspection to familiarize you with the area
surrounding the CORPUD facility including the location of nearby residents, locations of former
application fields in relation to these homes, area topography and discharge features. Private water
supply wells not connected to municipal water and that are adjacent to the area covered by the
proposed variance are located up gradient from and/or across one or more perennial drainage features.
As such, it is extremely unlikely that they would become impacted by groundwater contamination
from the current CORPUD biosolids application fields.
Staff from the APS-RRO have reviewed the variance application and supporting
documentation and have concluded that the proposed variance is appropriate, technically feasible,
and protective of human health and the environment. The RRO supports this variance on the
condition that the estimated flux of nitrate into the Neuse River, via groundwater discharge, is offset
by deducting the equivalent amount of nitrate from the NR WWTP' s permitted effluent outfall. The
RRO supports continuing research and monitoring at the site to improve the accuracy of determining
the groundwater nitrate flux into the river in order to evaluate the performance of the proposed
variance and the corrective action system.
In order to address concerns that you have expressed regarding the potential for
contamination to migrate across the hydro logic barriers in the southeastern portion of the site, the
RRO would support additional limited groundwater monitoring in these areas including the
installation of additional monitor wells, surface water sampling points and a limited number of
residential wells.
cc: Coleen Sullins -DWQ Director
Ted Bush -APS Section Chief
Alan Clark -DWQ Planning Section Chief
To: Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
October 5, 2009
From: Concerned Residents who live near the City of Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Facility
(Specifically Mial Plantation Road and Old Baucom Road)
This letter has been written to vehemently protest the variance request made by the City of Raleigh to State
Groundwater Standards, 15A NCAC 2l.0107(K.X3)(A).
To allow the City ofRaleigh to implement a natural attenuation corrective action plan would be even more
detrimental to the land, homes and residents who live in the area near the waste water treatment mcility. This City of
Raleigh mcility bas already tainted our wells with high counts of nitrates and forced us to abandon our wells which
we paid for and were servicing us well Now we are on city water for a specific time frame which will eventually
require residents whose wells were tainted by the city of Raleigh to pay the city of Raleigh for water when we had
perfectly good wells before the City of Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Facility contaminated our wells.
The natural attenuation process for the soil conumtlnated by nitrates could -take many years. In the meantime, the
value of our land (much of which is undeveloped), our homes and the quality of our lives is being negatively
affected. Does this mean that any new development must spend ntODey to tap into the City of Raleigh for water
because the land is contaminated with nitrates??
Sometimes the smell of the stench from the Waste Water Treatment Facility is enough to make one regurgitate. The
stench invades our homes through the vents a11d other openings in our homes. Sometimes it is impossible to be
outside because of the stench .
There is a reason that this method is not the acceptable solution per DENR-DWQ standards, otherwise, a variance
would not be sought by the City of Raleigh. What type of variance. will the City of Raleigh seek next? I challenge
those powers that be to put the next City of Raleigh Waste Water Facility in their backyards and see how they like
the stench, the noise, the devaluation of their property, a lower quality of life and the uncertainty of what is next.
Whatever is next may not be known to the area residents until it .is too late to do anythiug about il
We live where we live because we like it and do not want our quality of life disrupted by the City of Raleigh Waste
Water Treatment Facility as Raleigh continues to grow!!! Many of us have lived in this area before or as long as the
wastewater treatment fiu:ility has been in this area.
The area residents of Mial Plantation Road and Old Baucom Road urge DENR-DWQ Planning to closely consider
the aforementioned reasons for concern and deny the City of Raleigh's request for a variance ftom 1he aJready
established procedure for such a problem as mentioned.
~~-(q1C1) 4sL/-'-16J{CJ-U
Concemea residents who live near the City of Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Facility and are
against the approval of the variation for the Waste Water Facility for the City of Raleigh.
Name: Tonya Debnam
Address 3005 Debnam Fann Lane
3011 Debnam Farm Lane
Tax ID number: 0360264
Tax ID number: 0360263
From:
To: -
Subject: Ground Water
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:27:13 PM
Without clean water, there is no quality of life. I have experience so much
bad water in Raleigh in the last couple of years and h. plyoria. At times
this summer, I would open my freezer to get ice and the smell was rotten
vegetables ... lt has been horrible. I would empty my ice bucket and have to
continue to start again. I though what is this doing to me and that is the
reason I am always sick on my stomach. It has cleared up for awhile
now ... Please it is a necessity to spend what ever is necessary to clean the
ground.
September 9, 2009
Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: Variance Request by City of Raleigh for Groundwater Nitrate at Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Kreiser:
My name is Mike Bruff. I live in the Pine Hollow Subdivision at 1312 Pine Trail, Clayton, NC
27520. We have lived there since December, 1998. I have two young daughters and there are
over fifty children that live in the neighborhood. The neighborhood is in Wake County and has
approximately 150 single family homes. All are served by individual private wells. The
subdivision directly abuts the City of Raleigh owned land that has been used extensively for land
application ofbiosolids from the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) since
the plant opened in 1980. The city began its site assessment of nitrate exceedences in 2002.
Since then, the City has been slow to fully assess and mitigate the health effects to our
neighborhood caused by it's over application ofbiosolids. As an adjacent landowner who is
concerned for my family's health, I am opposed to the variance request.
Since the initiation of the site assessment (which we did not learn about until 2008), the City has
failed to test my well and others on my street that are directly adjacent to the disposal fields. I do
not believe they have adequately assessed the extent of the nitrate migration offsite. I also
believe that this shows that if the variance is granted, that they will not follow through with the
conditions of their revised permit which will include downgradient containment and long term
monitoring of nitrate levels in lieu of a full scale cleanup. The extant and duration of the land
application is such that natural attenuation and on-site mitigation is not an adequate or
satisfactory corrective action for the extent of the contamination. Furthermore, by installing a
series of extraction wells at the edge of their property, they recognize the fact that natural
attenuation is not a satisfactory solution to the problem that they, themselves have created.
Finally, I believe the only way to fully mitigate the environmental and health damage caused by
the city's actions, and minimize the effect of the contamination of adjacent private wells is to pay
for the abandonment of the remaining residential wells in the neighborhood per the state's well
construction rules in 15A NCAC 2C .0100 and pay for the hookup of these properties to the city
of Raleigh's municipal water system. This is consistent with actions taken by the City for other
private wells in the vicinity. In addition, due to possibility of nitrate contamination, the City has
recently provided water service to an adjacent new development upstream of their affected
property on Battle Bridge Road.
Thank you for your time. You may contact me via email at [e-mail], or at the
address above.
Sincerely,
Mike Bruff
Mr. Gary Kreiser
N. C. Department of Water Quality
161 7 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
805 Davidson St.
Raleigh, NC 27609-5544
September 9, 2008
RE: Public Hearing on Sept. 9, 2009, City of Raleigh Request for Variation
AtNRWWTP
Dear Mr. Kreiser:
Enclosed please find my comments related to the matter of the above-referenced hearing .
They formed the basis of my verbal comments at the hearing.
Very truly yours,
!t~!!;ft~
Enc.: Comment Notes
Notes from Mike Anderson's Masters Thesis, Department ofGeosciences,
NCSU. "The Hydrogeology of the Neuse Wastewater Treatment Site" 1975 .
1. Study shows complexity of movement of water after rainfall: (p.31) Description
of shallow water movement.
2. Well Distribution
A. Wooded Areas: Wells 1 to 20
B. Agricultural Fields: Wells 21 to 27
3. Wells 21 to 27 in the fields show elevated concentrations of Na, Cl, and NO3
compared with the wells in the wooded areas.
A. In wooded areas the concentrations are in the 1 to 2 epm range.
B. In fields the concentrations are in the 4 to 10 epm range.
C. Conclusion: Ground water is impacted by agricultural use.
4. Prediction from study and from bibliographic background, etc.
There will be enrichment ofNO3 and Cl over time. The rate will be affected by
the various other processes acting in the fields and the concentrations of the ions in
the biosolids and the volume/weight of biosolids applied and the timing of the
biosolids applications.
5. CWW comment: it was well known at the time that NO3 builds up from fertilizer
through application beyond what the plants can use and which can be removed when
the plants are harvested. Remnants of crops left in the field and plowed into the soil
can add NO3 to the soil also. When the fields are fallow and have excess NO3 in the
soils, the NO3 will move with the rainfall and with the melt water from snow and ice.
Recommendation
Given the complexity of the geology and therefore the hydro geology in the area, it
would seem that any attempt to design a well field or well fields to remove the ground
water and treat it for the nitrate and other associated compounds or ions that have
been derived from the biosolids application to the fields would be a project steeped
in frustration and excessive expense for the limited success that might be anticipated.
Therefore it seems that it would be best to let natural processes proceed to ameliorate
eventually the ground water quality at the site.
Further Note
Because of the state of the knowledge about nitrate movement into ground water from
agricultural fields and some other sludge application operations as described in the
literature at the time that the NRWWTP was designed and eventually put into
operation, it seems that the State bears some responsibility in what has happened and
that it should have recognized a high probability existed that nitrate would eventually
get into the ground water at some places in the site at least and possibly move off site.
Given the long term costs and their probable size; the state should recognize that a
natural attenuation of the nitrate is the most feasible method of solving the problem at
theNRWWTP.
Political Question Aspect
One can obviously argue ad infinitum over the next question or point. At what point
in time do we recognize that there is a limit to what the system can handle in terms of
the N03, or other chemicals or ions that affect the water quality, either ground water
or surface water or both? From the answer to this question we have to move to the
question of how much more growth can the region sustain and still handle its waste
water so that there are no ground water contamination or surface water contamination
issues? Part of the answer to this question is related to energy issues and the
availability of an adequate energy supply to treat the water appropriately for later re-
use. Also, there is associated with these questions the question of water supply both
in the short term and in the long term.
It would seem at this moment in time that letting natural processes clean up the
ground water beneath the NRWWTP site, if for no other reason than to use the energy
that might be utilized in pumping the ground water out for treatment for other
purposes of more immediate need. Economically, one might expect that a clean up
operation would add to the cost of the waste water treatment activity and thus to the
charges that the City of Raleigh has to make to support its water and waste treatment
programs.
. -.,
Hearing Officer
DENR-DWQ
Archdale Building
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
THOMAS C. WORTH, JR.
Attorney
Certified Mediator
Professional Building
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Post Office Box 1 799
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
September 9, 2009
RE: Public Hearing: September 9, 2009
Dear Sir:
Opposition to "Variance Request by City of Raleigh for
Groundwater Nitrate at Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant";
Clients: Edge of Auburn, LLC and Auburn Associates
In behalf of my above referenced clients who, as the owners of properties in the vicinity
of the City of Raleigh's Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP), are in receipt of
the Public Notice for this Public Hearing, I speak in opposition to the granting of the requested
variance. For your information and for the record, my clients are the owners of properties
comprising approximately 400 acres identified by the Wake County Revenue Department PIN
Nos. as follow: 1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086 and 1730975189, which include
property located approximately 1,500 feet from NRWWTP property.
I informed my clients over two years ago when they received notices from the City and
DENR for a public meeting to be held by the former on August 30, 2007, and for a Public
Hearing to be held by DENR on September 5, 2007 that they are both morally and legally bound
to disclose to all prospective purchasers within their proposed residential project of the potential
risk of contaminated groundwater if the project was not on public water. My position has not
changed.
I note that the City's variance request if granted must comply with 15A NCAC 2L.0106
(Corrective Action), Section (k). Under Subsections (2) and (3), the City must demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the Director among other requirements as follows:
(2) that the time and direction of contaminant travel can be
predicted with reasonable certainty;
Hearing Officer -2-September 9, 2009
(3) that contaminates have not and will not migrate onto adjacent
properties, or that:
(A) such properties are served by an existing public
water supply system dependent on surface waters
or hydraulically isolated groundwater, or
(B) the owners of such properties have consented
in writing to the City's request
My clients' properties are not now served by an existing public water supply system nor
have they consented in writing to the City's request. I am of the opinion that the City cannot
satisfy the requirements of Subsections (2) and (3).
My clients now have a governmental approval to build initially two hundred and fifty-two
(252) homes upon a portion of their properties, which initial phase upon build-out will require
approximately 70,000 gallons of groundwater per day and in their behalf I inquire as to how
DENR will respond to their proposed development to assure the quality of this groundwater.
At the very least, the City should be required by DENR to conduct engineering studies
which take into account the full development of my clients' properties. Sufficient monitoring
wells should be installed by the City and the monthly inspection of same should be mandated to
protect properly the people who will be utilizing this groundwater.
I now introduce Mr. Russell Briggs, P.E. of B&F Consulting who is serving as my
clients' environmental consultant and confirm that we will submit more detailed written
comments on or before October 9, 2009, as directed by your Public Notice.
Sincerely,
TCWjr/jwp
CORPUD 2L Variance Memo
07/30/2009
Page 2 of 3
quality exceedences. A Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) for the area affected by the nitrate
contamination was submitted on December 31, 2004. In order to address certain deficiencies in the
original CSA, a Supplemental Site Assessment report was prepared and submitted on September 13,
2003. A Corrective Action Plan (CAP) was submitted on February 8, 2005 and a revised CAP was
subsequently submitted on December 1, 2005. The CAP was designed to remediated nitrate impacted
groundwater in the vicinity of local residences, where it can be reasonably predicted that the groundwater
may be used as a future source for the residents. Conditional approval of the revised CAP was issued to
CORPUD on July 19, 2006 ..
The only current known receptor likely to be impacted by the continued migration of nitrate in
groundwater, from below the application fields onto which CORPUD previously applied residuals, is the
Neuse River and its local tributaries that are immediately adjacent to the application fields. All homes in
the area of the variance served by well water believed to have been impacted by nitrate-contaminated
groundwater, or that had the potential to be impacted in the future were connected to Raleigh municipal
water. The former residential wells have been abandoned. The source for Raleigh municipal water is
Falls Lake, which is not threatened by the groundwater contamination.
The APS-RRO has reviewed the information submitted and has determined that the variance application
is complete and complies with the requirements of ISA NCAC 2L .0113(c). Additionally, staff from the
RRO SWPS and the 401 Unit have reviewed and provided comments regarding the application and the
subsurface flow wetlands mitigation plan and concur that we can proceed with the public notice and
hearing. Specifically, the variance application includes:
1) A copy of the resolution ("Resolution 2009-867") passed by the Raleigh City Council on
April 21, 2009 that authorizes CORPUD to apply for a variance. A copy of this resolution is
included as "Exhibit 2" in the June 26, 2009 Variance Application.
2) A description of the past activities that resulted in a discharge of contaminants to the
groundwater is contained in the June 26, 2009 Variance Application (pages 5 and 6).
3) A description of the proposed area for which the variance is requested is contained on page 8
of the Variance Application. A detailed location map of the proposed area to be covered by
the variance is included in the Variance Application as Figure 2.
4) Supporting information intended to establish that the proposed variance will not endanger the
public health and safety, including health and environmental effects from the po ten ti al
exposure to groundwater contaminants is included in the Variance Application as "Exhibit 3."
This exhibit is a baseline human health risk assessment. The locations of wells within a one-
half mile radius of the site are included in Figure 4. The associated well construction
information is discussed in footnote 5 on page 9 and in the correspondence from AECOM
Environment to CORPUD dated June 24, 2009 ("Exhibit 5").
5) Supporting information to establish that the requirement of the rules cannot be achieved by
utilizing the best available technology economically reasonable is included in the Variance
Application on pages 12 through 15. This section of the Variance Application identifies
specific remedial alternatives and the costs associated with each alternative.
6) Suppo1iing information to establish that compliance would produce serious financial hardship
on the applicant is included in the Variance Application on pages 15 and 16.
7) Supporting information to establish that compliance would produce ~.crious linancial hardsiiilJ
without equal or greater public benefit is included in the Variance Application on page::-15
and 16.
8) There have been no Special Orders issued in connection with the contaminants in the
proposed area.
CORPUD 2L Variance Memo
07/30/2009
Page 3 of 3
9) A list of the names and addresses of property owners within the proposed area of the variance
and property owners adjacent to the land application fields is included in Figure 2 and
"Exhibit 6" of the Variance Application.
The RRO supports this variance with the following conditions:
1) The amount of nitrate from the NR WWTP 's permitted effluent outfall is offset by deducting
the estimated flux of nitrate into the Neuse River resulting from the discharge of
groundwater. Estimates of the nitrate flux into the Neuse River via groundwater discharge
have been computed by a groundwater flow and transport model, the results of which are
included in "Exhibit 4" of the June 26, 2009 Variance Application.
2) The inclusion of the alternative remediation of subsurface flow wetlands in the DWQ Permit
No. WQOOO 1730. The current variance application includes provisions for the establishment
of three subsurface flow wetlands to address nitrate-contaminated groundwater that is
impacting several streams on the subject property, and that discharge into the Neuse River.
3) The establishment of detailed monitoring plans for the subsurface flow wetlands, the area
covered by the variance pursuing natural attenuation, and the active remediation system.
Should you have any questions please contact me at your earliest convenience.
cc: Coleen Sullins
Chuck Wakild
Ted Bush
NA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Kathy Stecker
Andrew Pitner ~ ~
Coleen Sullin ~
Hearing Officer Designation
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
August10,2009
Dee Freeman
Secretary
I hereby designate you as a Hearing Officer for public hearing to be held for a variance
requested by the City of Raleigh (Raleigh) to the State's Groundwater Standards, 15A NCAC 2L
.0107(k). Raleigh has requested they be allowed to implement a natural attenuation corrective action
plan (CAP) per 15A NCAC 2L .0106 for nitrates that have migrated offsite from the Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP).
The hearing schedule is as follows:
RALEIGH
September 9, 2009
7:00 P.M.
Archdale Building -512 North Salisbury Street
Ground Floor Hearing Room
Thank you for your assistance and service.
cc: Alan Clark
Ted Bush
Jeff Manning
Gary Kreiser
Lois Thomas
Frances Candelaria
Hearing Record File
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Customer Service: Hl77-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity\ Affirmative Action Employer
Ni~hCarolina
)Vatura//!f
NA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Kathy Stecker
Andrew Pitner
Coleen Sullin $
Hearing Officer Designation
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
August 10, 2009
Dee Freeman
Secretary
I hereby designate you as a Hearing Officer for public hearing to be held for a variance
requested by the City of Raleigh (Raleigh) to the State's Groundwater Standards, 15A NCAC 2L
.0107(k). Raleigh has requested they be allowed to implement a natural attenuation corrective action
plan (CAP) per 15A NCAC 2L .0106 for nitrates that have migrated offsite from the Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP).
The hearing schedule is as follows:
RALEIGH
September 9, 2009
7:00 P.M.
Archdale Building -512 North Salisbury Street
Ground Floor Hearing Room
Thank you for your assistance and service.
cc: Alan Clark
Ted Bush
Jeff Manning
Gary Kreiser
Lois Thomas
Frances Candelaria
Hearing Record File
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] I FAX: [phone] I Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportun ity\ Affirmative Action Employer
Nirth Carolina
Naturall!I
WRITTEN COMMENTS SHOULD BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS THAT rs SHOWN
IN THE PUBLIC NOTICE AND rs AS FOLLOWS:
Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
IT IS THE DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION TO ALWAYS ACT IN THE BEST
POSSIBLE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC. THEREFORE, PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE RULE MAKING
PROCESS. WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THE
HEARING AND OFFERING YOUR COMMENTS.
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENT; WE WILL ALLOW
ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS AS TIME PERMITS. WHEN YOUR
NAME IS CALLED, PLEASE COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND
STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND ANY AFFILIATION. ALL
COMMENTS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO MATTERS THAT ARE RELEVANT
TO THE PROPOSED 1\:DOFT10N OF THIS VARIANCE. :PLEASE 1~0 fE -
THAT THRRF :UITLL BE A SEPARATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCE~$
fOR TIIE CO~CTIVE ACTION PLAN (is ~~ c9~ct ant:l v.,~ holds it?)~F
YOUR COMMENTS ARE LONGER THAN THREE MINUTES, WE
REQUEST THAT THEY BE SUBMITIED IN WRITING. THE HEARING
OFFICERS MAY QUESTION SPEAKERS IF THE NEED SHOULD ARISE IN
ORDER TO CLARIFY COMMENTS THAT ARE MADE.)
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STAFF WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO
ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AFTER THE COMMENT PORTION OF THE
HEARING TONIGHT. I WOULD NOW LIKE TO CALL [first speaker].
[ speakers ... ]
(the hearing officer, referring to TIIE REGISTRATION CARDS, calls each speaker to the microphone
in tum)
HEARING OFFICER KATHY STECKER: THANK YOU [last speakerJ. ARE THERE
ANY MORE COMMENTS? SINCE THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS, I
DECLARE THE HEARING CLOSED. THE HEARING RECORD WILL REMAJJN
--t"L-l(lA
OPEN ~IL 12:00 MlDNlOM'f ON OCTOBER 9,2009, ANYONE WISHING TO
SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY DO SO UNTIL THAT DATE. Af"fn
----~::su..VRz::r.uJcg;JftI"'f'f'flTI~vff!"l!,:"""'fffMflt!~C~;Of)'Trolvf~Tv111IE~l"lC'iT~~:-,wmtu'JJ:1, B1°'iE:f, MWAj'°D>FEnP57A\l'.Rrlfi'7o~FP""' T'l'A'A'R'E1iPTI0~B:t:LTI'.IC~---
RECOR D AND \1/E SHA LL MA.KE RECOMMENDATIONS TOJHE
'-ENVIR:ON'MENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION.
WRITTEN COMMENTS SHOULD BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS THAT IS SHOWN
IN THE PUBLIC NOTICE AND IS AS FOLLOWS:
Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
IT IS THE DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION TO ALWAYS ACT IN THE BEST
POSSIBLE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC. THEREFORE, PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION JS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE RULE MAKING
PROCESS. WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THE
HEARING AND OFFERING YOUR COMMENTS.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
t f • r
[DENR.DWQ.EMCContacts] Notice of Public Hearing for Variance Request
Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:01:58 PM
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the NC Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) EMCContacts Listserver.
Page 1 of2
Public Hearing
Variance Request by City of Raleigh for Groundwater Nitrate at Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant
PUBLIC NOTICE OF VARIAN CE APPLICATION HEARING HELD BY DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER QU~ITY (DENR-
DWQ) FOR VARIANCE REQUEST BY CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
FOR THE NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (NRWWTP) AT 8500 BATTLE
BRIDGE ROAD, RALEIGH, NC 27610
DATE, TIME AND
LOCATION FOR
PUBLIC HEARING
A hearing for the purpose of
collecting public comments
on this specific variance
request will be held by the
DENR DWQ for the
Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) on:
September 9, 2009
7:00P.M.
Ground Floor Hearing Room,
Archdale Building
512 North Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604
INFORMATION REQUEST
Additional information is on
file with the DENR-DWQ
Director and can be inspected
at any time during normal
working hours by
contacting:
Lori Skidmore
DENR-DWQ
Raleigh Regional Office,
Aquifer Protection Section
3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC
27609
Phone: [phone]
Hours: 8 A.M. -5 P.M.
Copies may be obtained at this
location at the cost of 10 cents
per page for any number of
copies over 25 pages.
COMMENT SUBMISSIONS
Comments must be received by
October 9, 2009 and should be
submitted or emailed to:
Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
NC 27699-1617
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Hearing officers will accept comments at the hearing. A written copy of all oral comments is requested. Oral
statements may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officer in order to allow all interested parties time to
speak. All comments received within 30 days following the date of the public hearing will be made part of the
variance application file and will be considered prior to taking final action on the application.
After considering all comments submitted, the hearing officers, on behalf of the DENR-DWQ will make
a recommendation to the EMC on the variance request. The EMC will take final action on the variance
application.
BACKGROUND
The City of Raleigh (Raleigh) has applied for a variance to State Groundwater Standards, 15A NCAC
2L .0107(k)(3)(A). Raleigh has requested they be allowed to implement a natural attenuation corrective
action plan (CAP) per 15A NCAC 2L .0106 for nitrates that have migrated offsite from the
NR WWTP. State groundwater rules do not allow natural attenuation as a cleanup method used by
pennitted facilities, therefore a variance is being sought. Land application operations at this facility are
regulated by Permit # WQ000l 730. Raleigh is responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has migrated
outside the permitted compliance boundary. DENR-DWQ recommends that natural attenuation with
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Gary _ Kreiser\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Co... 8/5/2009
Page 2 of2
groundwater containment is appropriate based on information contained in the variance request and
technical review by DWQ staff.
The area for which the variance is requested is land at the NRWWTP in the southeast portion of Wake
County consisting of approximately 1,466 acres and 37 parcels of land adjacent to the property along
Old Baucom Road, Mial Plantation Road, Shotwell Road, and Battlebridge Road. The City of Raleigh
Public Utility Department (CORPUD), One Exchange Plaza, Suite 620, Raleigh, NC, used its land to
apply wastewater treatment plant residuals. CORPUD has currently suspended the application of
residuals. Properties surrounding this site consist of residential properties, farmland, commercial, and
state-owned forestland.
Nearby private wells that were impacted by nitrate associated with the over-application ofresiduals have
either been abandoned per the state's well construction rules in 15A NCAC 2C .0100 or are no longer in
use as a source of drinking water supply. Downgradient private well owners with abandoned wells are
now served by water from Raleigh.
If granted, the variance will require implementation of corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k)
and will lead to changes in the permit including downgradient containment and long term monitoring of
nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup. The proposed variance request will not change the standard for
nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. No other
substance monitored at this facility is under consideration. As proposed, the variance implements on-site
mitigation (installation of three subsurface flow wetlands) to address nitrate-contaminated groundwater
that is impacting several streams that discharge into the Neuse River. Active remediation has been
initiated to treat contaminated groundwater near the intersection of Mial Plantation Road and Baucom
Roads, areas where groundwater may be restored as a future source of drinking water. The alternative
remediation of streams through the use of subsurface flow wetlands and the active groundwater
remediation system will be included in the DWQ Permit# WQ000l 730.
A link to the DWQ Calendar webpage, including this announcement, is located here:
http ://h2o.enr .state. nc.us/ad min/ pu binfo/DWQPubl nfoCa lenda r .htm
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Gary _ Kreiser\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Co... 8/5/2009
Public Hearing
Variance Request by City of Raleigh for Groundwater Nitrate at Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
PUBLIC NOTICE OF VARIAN CE APPLICATION HEARING HELD BY DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DMSION OF WATER QUALITY (DENR-DWQ) FOR
VARIAN CE REQUEST BY CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT FOR THE NEUSE
RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (NRWWTP) AT 8500 BATTLE BRIDGE ROAD,
RALEIGH, NC 27610
DATE, TIME AND
LOCATION FOR
PUBLIC HEARING
A hearing for the purpose of
collecting public comments on
this specific variance request will
be held by the DENR DWQ for
the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) on:
September 9, 2009
7:00 P.M.
Ground Floor Hearing Room,
Archdale Building
512 North Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604
INFORMATION REQUEST
Additional infonnation is on file
with the DENR-DWQ Director
and can be inspected at any time
during normal working hours by
contacting:
Lori Skidmore
DENR-DWQ
Raleigh Regional Office,
Aquifer Protection Section
3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh,
NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
Hours: 8 AM. - 5 P.M.
Copies may be obtained at this
location at the cost of 10 cents
per page for any number of
copies over 25 pages.
COMMENT SUBMISSIONS
Comments must be received by
October 9, 2009 and should be
submitted or emailed to:
Gary Kreiser
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Hearing officers will accept comments at the hearing. A written copy of all oral comments is requested. Oral
statements may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officer in order to allow all interested parties time to
speak. All comments received within 30 days following the date of the public hearing will be made part of the
variance application file and will be considered prior to taking final action on the application.
After considering all comments submitted, the hearing officers, on behalf of the DENR-DWQ will make a
recommendation to the EMC on the variance request. The EMC will take final action on the variance
application.
BACKGROUND
The City of Raleigh (Raleigh) has applied for a variance to State Groundwater Standards, I SA NCAC 2L
.0107(k)(3 )(A). Raleigh has requested they be allowed to implement a natural attenuation corrective action
plan (CAP) per 15A NCAC 2L .0106 for nitrates.that have migrated offsite from the NRWWTP. State
groundwater rules do not allow natural attenuation as a cleanup method used by permitted facilities, therefore
1
a variance is being sought. Land application operations at this facility are regulated by Permit# WQ000 173 0.
Raleigh is responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has migrated outside the permitted compliance boundary.
DENR-DWQ recommends that natural attenuation with groundwater containment is appropriate based on
information contained in the variance request and technical review by DWQ staff.
The area for which the variance is requested is land at the NR WWTP in the southeast portion ofW ake County
consisting of approximately 1,466 acres and 37 parcels ofland adjacent to the property along Old Baucom
Road, Mial Plantation Road, Shotwell Road, and Battlebridge Road. The City of Raleigh Public Utility
Department (CORPUD), One Exchange Plaza, Suite 620, Raleigh, NC, used its land to apply wastewater
treatment plant residuals. CORPUD has currently suspended the application of residuals. Properties
surrounding this site consist of residential properties, farmland, commercial, and state-owned forestland.
Nearby private wells that were impacted by nitrate associated with the over-application of residuals have
either been abandoned per the state's well construction rules in 15A NCAC 2C .0100 or are no longer in use
as a source of drinking water supply. Downgradient private well owners with abandoned wells are now served
by water from Raleigh.
If granted, the variance will require implementation of corrective action under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) and
will lead to changes in the permit including downgradient containment and long term monitoring of nitrate in
lieu of a full scale cleanup. The proposed variance request will not change the standard for nitrate of 10
milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. No other substance monitored at
this facility is under consideration. As proposed, the variance implements on-site mitigation (installation of
three subsurface flow wetlands) to address nitrate-contaminated groundwater that is impacting several streams
that discharge into the Neuse River. Active remediation has been initiated to treat contaminated groundwater
near the intersection of Mial Plantation Road and Baucom Roads, areas where groundwater may be restored as
a future source of drinking water. The alternative remediation of streams through the use of subsurface flow
wetlands and the active groundwater remediation system will be included in the DWQ Permit# WQ000l 730.
2
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality• Planning Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
0 N ~ r;--~ ~ "'-.ri-\1'l
.... <::) ~
l. V) ~ ...,
~ ~ It)
(\
0 ~ J-
}.j -... ~ ~ --....
'
n. ---~
RETURN SERVIC E REGUES~ED
TIPPETTS CHAPEL ORIGINAL
RR 1
KNIGHTDALE NC 27545-9801
2i'S OE 1
016H26507020
~(Y1 ?t:;7 ~ J~ • .,J""-·-
0£!05.:2009
Maitecl From 2'7607
US POSTAGE
.RETURN TO SENDER
:INSUFFJ:C::tE:N1" AOORE:SS
UNA6~E TO FORWARb
l n L ll 1, ,.I, I l 11 I, I, ,hi 11,,, Jl,I I 111, 1 ll I 111 I l I l,, LI,, 1 l,, JI
O\\TNER NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE ZIP
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT
COMPANY ATTNWHKEITHCXlG
PO BOX 14042
SAINT PETERSBURG FL 33733-4042
PERKINS, MARVIN CLAUDE & SUSAN
J
6200 MIAL PLANTATION RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
DUNN, PHYLLIS DEBNAM
29"16 OLD MILBURNIE RD
RALEIGH NC 27604-9655
COWING, BETTY B
8100 OLD BAUCOM RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9258
BROWN, SHERRY ADAMS &STEPHEN
DALE
135 RIDGE WAY LN
CLAYTON NC 27520-8084
PBR GROUP LLC
2400 BRANCH RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9208
DUNN, PHYLLIS DEBNAM
2916 OLD MILBURNIE RD
RALEIGH NC 27604-9655
NO INFORMATION IN WAKE COUNTY
GIS
ADAMS, BRENDA DIANNE¾ D M
ADAMS JR
8513 OLD BAUCOM RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
NC STATE OF
1321 MAIL SERVICE CTR
RALEIGH NC 27699-1300
ADAMS, JERRY WA YNEADAMS,
BRENDA DIANNE
8513 OLD BAUCOM RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF STATE
PROPERTY OFFICE ..,
116 W JONES ST
RALEIGH NC 27603-1300
YOUNG, EVELYN C
8537 OLD BAUCOM RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
ADAMS, PAUL M HEIRSC/O WANDA S
ADAMS EXECUTRIX
8404 OLD BAUCOM RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9264
NO INFORMATION IN WAKE COUNTY
GIS -SAME AS #37 IN JOHNSTON
COUNTY
BROWN, SYBLE B
8529 OLD BAUCOM RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
BAUCOM, JOHN R JR
2829 OLD BAUCOM RD
RALEIGH NC 27610
HASH, DAVID WHASH, LINDA B
6216 MIAL PLANTATION RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
HILLMAN, JENNIFERLUNA, RELIO
MARTINEZ
8549 OLD BAUCOM RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
BAUCOM, WILLIAM B & ANN R
7920 OLD BAUCOM RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9254
MATERIAL RECOVERY LLC
421 RALEIGH VIEW RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-4623
NO INFORMATION IN WAKE COUNTY
GIS
DANIELS, EARL & JOELINE Y
5717 MIALPLANTATIONRD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8529
NICHOLSON, CHEYNEY A
PO BOX 33065
RALEIGH NC 27636-3065
NC ST ATE OFC/O PROPERTY
CONTROL OFFICE
9001 MAIL SERVICE CTR
RALEIGH NC 27699-9000
RHODES, WILLIAM T & GWYN K
3751 E GARNER RD
CLAYTON NC 27520-6541
HINTON, JAMES E
333 LAFAYETTE AVE APT 121
BROOKLYN NY 11238-1337
TIPPETTS CHAPEL ORIGINAL
RR 1
KNIGHTDALE NC 27545-9801
HASH, DAVID W & LINDA B
6216 MIAL PLANTATION RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
WHEELER, PAMELA ANN GUNTER,
BRIAN KEITH
6029 MIAL PLANTATION RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8534
JOHNSON, DAVID IRA & JOHNSON,
MARNIE
5009 COVERED BRIDGE RD
CLAYTON, NC 275200000
RA YO, JESUS B & ESPINOZA, MARIA
G
68 JAMISON DR
RALEIGH, NC 276100000
SEA WELL, VIRGINIA D
5529 MIALPLANTATIONRD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8526
NASH, STEPHEN JOHN & APRIL A
7020 F ARMDALE RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
FRANKLIN, PATRICIA A
3435 DEER TRACE LN
CLAYTON NC 27520-5931
DEBOCK, RICHARD M & JOANNE
1320 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
LANDON HOMES INC
2018 BRILLIANT DR
RALEIGH NC 27616-7217
ADAMS, DALTON HICKMANADAMS,
GEORGIA M COOPER
8401 OLD BAUCOM RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9265
LEE, W GATTIS
POBOX72
CLAYTON, NC 275200000
BLOWE, GAIL ROSS
2853 SHOTWELL RD
RALEIGH, NC 276108541
BAUCOM, CLIFTON P
3005 HICKORY TREE PL
RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
BELL, IAN &ELMA C
1308 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27 520-9324
MARRINER, LOUIS & FRANCES
OWENS
1125 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
HINZ, KYLE D & KAREN K
3401 DEER RACE LA
CLAYTON NC 27520
TERRY, AMANDA & RY AN GROULX
1109 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
NC CONSERVATION &
DEVELOPMENT
JOHNSON, CLARENCE & JOHNSON,
BILLIE
201 MEADOW RUN
KNIGHTDALE, NC 275450000
DEBNAM, HENRY W
1501 CHURCHILL DOWNS DR
WAXHAW NC 28173-6610
JASB CO INC THE
15 S BUFFALO ST
WENDELL NC 27591-8972
ROPER, SUSAN JONES &ROY
7011 F ARMDALE RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
GARRETT, DARYL J &RAMONA C
7027 FARMDALE RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
MCLEAN, ROBERT S & JOHNNIE F
1333 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9345
D'ALLAIRD, DANIEL & EMMA
2436 NEUSEHILL LN
RALEIGH NC 27610-9102
LANDON HOMES INC
2018 BRILLIANT DR
RALEIGH NC 27616-7217
HOLLAND, STEPHEN.
DANEHOLLAND, KRISTINE ANNE
13310 46TH CTN
ROYAL PALM BEACH FL 33411-8476
WATTS, CATHERINE M &RY AN
ALLEN
4704 PRESERVE RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9407
MALARKEY, WILLIAM J & CECELIA
GALE
1325 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9345
LEHOCKY, RICHARD D & BETTY A
1336 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
NOBLES, RONNIE LEE & SALY H
7023 F ARMDALE RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
BAUCOM, JOHN R JR & MARIE A
7829 OLD BAUCOM RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9253
JOHNSON, ANDRE L & CRYSTAL M
3433 GRIFFICE MILL RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8637
MCKINNON, SW ANOLA DEBNAM
5708 MIAL PLANTATION RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8528
MIESCH, JOHN F &LINDA T
3420 E GARNER RD
CLAYTON NC 27520-9307
BRUFF, MICHAELS & KIMBERLY B
1312 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
UNDERHILL, RIEV AP
7015 FARMDALE RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
CHAVEZ, CLIFFORD T & VICKIE L
1009 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9358
BENNETT, MARK D & RHONDA M
2708 EMMETT CREST CT
CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
OKAMOTO, ERIC B & JUDITH F
1113 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
NORTH CAROLINA STATE OFSTATE
PROPERTY OFFICE
116 W JONES ST
RALEIGH NC 27603-1300
WHITE, DENNIS C & RUTH H
1324 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
HAWLEY, WILLIAMJ &ROBERTAL
2709 EMMETT CREST CT
CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
WOO, HEA K & CHUN I
3425 DEER TRACE LN
CLAYTON NC 27520-5931
DEBNAM, SHIRLEY H
5700 MIAL PLANTATION RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8528
QUINN, POLLY S
PO BOX 132
HINESBURG VT 05461-0132
FREEMAN, DANNA F
1101 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
CHIPOURAS, GEORGE L & MARY
LYNN
2658 QUEEN ANNE CIR
ANNAPOLIS MD 21403-4221
MORGAN, ELIZABETH B
POBOX4721
CHAPEL HILL NC 27515-4721
PBR GROUP LLC
2400 BRANCH RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9208
NO INFORMATION IN WAKE COUNTY
GIS
SLAVIN, JAMES A & MARYE
1205 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9361
BALL, DOUGLAS
1401 AVERSBORO RD STE 206
GARNER NC 27529-3980
BEAVERS, RICHARD W &SHARON
ROSE
1005 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9358
BAKER, LULA ANNEBAKER,
TIMOTHY JOEL
3345 STONEY CREEK DR
CLAYTON NC 27520-5958
BROADWELL, BOBBY H & PAMELA S
1328 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
LESKY, BRIAN P & ELIZABETH ANNE
1304 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
JVCHOMESINC
PO BOX 1108
WAKE FOREST NC 27588-1108
PRICE, RALPH L &BEVERLY W
1201 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9361
DONATI, BRIAN C & DEBORAH M
1316 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
KOVAR, JEROME J &CHERYLL
3409 GRIFFICE MILL RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8637
DOUGLAS, PHILLIP N & BARBARA S
413 HARDWOOD RIDGE CT
CLAYTON NC 27520-8603
BAUCOM, JULIAN & MARLENE
3021 HICKORY TREE PL
RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
DEBNAM, TONY AC
2205 CARTHAGE CIR
RALEIGH NC 27604-3868
PBR GROUP LLC
2400 BRANCH RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9208
KELLY, JOSEPH A & JOAN B
1332 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
NORTH CAROLINA STATE OFSTATE
PROPERTY OFFICE
116 W JONES ST
RALEIGH NC 27603-1300
HUNTER, TERI FULK TRUSTEE
1340 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
RICKETTS, BARBARA W & DAVIDE
2700 EMMETT CREST CT
CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
SLADE, FATRESS L II
3413 GRIFFICE MILL RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8637
BARBOUR, JOHN T
3720 E GARNER RD
CLAYTON NC 27520-6540
AUTON, SUSAN M & JERRY L
3524 BALLOT RD
CLAYTON NC 27520-9301
HUDSON, LEIGH S & HELEN B
7021 F ARMDALE RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
TANKARD, ANNE MMCINNES,
CORNELIA & STEW ART C MCINNES
8419KALBRD
RICHMOND VA 23229-4133
BAUCOM, WILLIAM BYRD
7920 OLD BAUCOM RD ·
RALEIGH NC 27610-9254
SCANLON, ERIC MARK &MELISSA
MARIE
3421 GRIFFICE MILL RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8637
MCCLUNG, DOUGLAS E & AMYE
420 HARDWOOD RIDGE CT
CLAYTON NC 27520-8603
BROWN, JAMES F & CINDY ROSS
7019 FARMDALE RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
PBR GROUP LLC
2400 BRANCH RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9208
NEIDITCH, JON A & MARY ANNE
HUGHES
3829 FALLS RIVER AVE
RALEIGH NC 27614-7415
SMITH, THOMAS &JAN
3621 GRIFFICE MILL RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8639
SARROCCO, NICHOLAS A & EUGENIA
s
7820 OLD BAUCOM RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9252
WRIGHT, MARK DOUGLAS & JEANNE
3425 GRIFFICE MILL RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8637
HEDRICK, ROBERT ALFRED
TRUSTEEHEDRICK, PATRICIA OWEN
TRUSTEE
4704 STILLER ST
RALEIGH NC 27609-5640
BAUCOM, JULIAN M
3021 HICKORY TREE PL
RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
TALTON,MARGARETB
2728 BRANCH RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9214
GAZDA, SHANEGAZDA,
MARGERY CARNEY
2704 EMMETT CREST CT
CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
AMPLE LENDING GROUP LLC
PO BOX 1457
SMITHFIELD NC 27577-1457
ADAMS, JIMMY C & TONDRA E
8428 OLD BAUCOM RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9264
OSBORN, ARNOLD L JR
6208 MIAL PLANTATION RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
ELPHICK PROPERTIES LLC
1000 CCC DRIVE
CLAYTON, NC 275200000
FLEMING, JANET LYNN
2004 FOREST DR
CLAYTON, NC 275208811
KAND K ASSOCIATES OF NC INC
505 P ARKWOOD LANE
GOLDSBORO, NC 275300000
JOHNSON, TONY LEE & JOHNSON,
MARTHAP
2008 ELIZABETH CT
CLAYTON, NC 275200000
MCCARDLE, VAN R & CHERYL M
1105 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
CHRIS WATT BUILDING CORP
3750 VALLEY PINE CT
WENDELL NC 27591-7425
PARSON, MARCELL A &KARA L
3609 GRIFFICE MILL RD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8639
RHODES, WILLIAM T &GWYN K
3751 E GARNER RD
CLAYTON NC 27520-6541
NO INFORMATION IN WAKE
COUNTYGIS-MAYBEPARTOF
#148 IN JOHNSTON COUNTY
BOLEN, HOW ARD B & BOLEN,
MELISSAK
2016 RIDGE CT
CLAYTON, NC 275200000
STRICKER, RALPH MICHAEL &
STRICKER, SONDRA
2024 ELIZABETH CT
CLAYTON, NC 275208818
BENSON, IRENE P
2501 OLD US 70 W
CLAYTON, NC 275206520
WILLIAMS, DONALD K &
WILLIAMS, VIRGINIA L
2013 VALLEY CT
CLAYTON, NC 275208804
SWINDELL, CHARLES A & RONDA E
10809 RONDEAU WOODS CT
RALEIGH NC 27614-9411
BIDDIX, THOMAS L & DEBORAH
w
111 7 PINE TRL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
EDGE OF AUBURN LLC
PO BOX 19808
RALEIGH NC 27619-9808
GILBERT, JENNIFERP
273C BLUE POND RD
CLAYTON NC 27520-7493
WAY OF LIFE BAPTIST CHURCH
·1..1t10 fkr~1n'J Cf
Llc.1 +,,.,., Nt: 'l. ?ntJ
JOHNSON, ROY S & JOHNSON,
CHARLOTTEM
2008 RIDGE CT
CLAYTON, NC 275208809
JENKINS, GARY L & JENKINS,
JANETH
2012 ELIZABETH CT
CLAYTON, NC 275200000
WAUGH, DONALD FRED &
WAUGH,JEAN
2010 RIDGE CT
CLAYTON, NC 275208809
SMITH, SANDY M & SMITH,
MATIHEWW
2007 PINEBARK LANE
CLAYTON, NC 275200000
RUSSELL, TRAVIS E & RUSSELL, JOHNSON, MALCOM DEWITT & BENSON, IRENE P
DEBRAL JOHNSON,CAROLJEAN 2501 OLD US 70 W
121 PEBBLE DR PO BOX 966 CLAYTON, NC 275206520
CLAYTON, NC 275208042 CLAYTON, NC 275200966
JODIE T STAMEY REVOCABLE SHREVE, JAMES DANIEL &
TRUST & STAMEY, JODIE T SHREVE, MITSY R STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
TRUSTEE 2000 PINE BARK LN
2000 ELIZABETH COURT CLAYTON, NC 275200000
CLAYTON, NC 275208818
JEWELL, GARY A&JEWELL, BENSON, IRENE P JONES, CHRISTOPHER & JONES,
RHONDA 2501 OLD US 70 W ANITA A
2003 PINEBARK LN CLAYTON, NC 275206520 2025 ELAINE DR
CLAYTON, NC 275200000 CLAYTON, NC 275208212
STRICKER, WILLIAM MICHAEL RUSSELL, TIMOTHY JOHN & ETTRIDGE, JAMES F & ETTRIDGE,
2004 ELIZABETH COURT RUSSELL, PAMELA COBLE JUDITHL
CLAYTON, NC 275200000 2004 PINE BARK LANE 2020 ELIZABETH COURT
CLAYTON, NC 275200000 CLAYTON, NC 275200000
PRIVETTE, WILLIS E & PRIVETTE, MUNT, HERBERT Fill GRANT, LONNIE G & GRANT,
JANICE 2017 VALLEY COURT PATTIEM
1925 OLD U S 70 W CLAYTON, NC 275200000 2021 VALLEY COURT
CLAYTON, NC 275200000 CLAYTON, NC 275200000
SAFLEY, TIMOTHY L & SAFLEY, BENSON, IRENE LF EST & STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA THE
KARENB BENSON, STEVEN RMNDRMN C/O STATE PROPERTY
125 PEBBLE DRIVE 2501 OLD US 70 WEST 116 W JONES STREET
CLAYTON, NC 275200000 CLAYTON, NC 275206520 RALEIGH, NC 276030000
MORRIS, SONDRA STRICKER & SCHULMAN, JEREMY L & KAND K ASSOCIATES OF NC INC
MORRIS, GARY SUTTON-SCHULMAN, TERESSA 505 P ARKWOOD LANE
2016 ELIZABETH CT RENEE GOLDSBORO, NC 275300000
CLAYTON, NC 275200000 2001 ELIZABETH COURT
CLAYTON, NC 275200000
STOUT, BRADLEY H & STOUT, BROGNA, NICHOLAS D & STEVENSON, JOHN &
JESSICA E BROGNA, CAROL ANN STEVENSON,HEATHER
438 JAMESON DR 294AVENUEC 919 CARROLL AVE
RALEIGH, NC 276100000 RONKONKOMA, NY 117791922 LAUREL, MD 207073503
GROFF, SCOTT GREGORY & BELVIN, JUDITH W & BELVIN, LEE, W GATTIS
GROFF, SHANNON JOHNSON LARRYE POBOX72
455 JAMISON DR 321 EMAIN ST CLAYTON, NC 275200000
RALEIGH, NC 276108621 CLAYTON, NC 275202463
HODGES, MICHAELS & HODGES, GONZALEZ, CINDY A & KING, RONALD VILAS JR
JOYCEN GONZALEZ, STEPHEN J 2834 SHOTWELL RD
108 JAMISON DRIVE 140 JAMISON DRIVE RALEIGH, NC 276100000
RALEIGH, NC 276100000 RALEIGH, NC 276100000
KING, WILLIE DAPHENE
2013 SMITH DR
CLAYTON, NC 275200000
Alissa Bierma Upper Neuse River
Keeper
112 S. Blount St. Suite 103
Raleigh, NC 27601
Ryke Longest, Director
Environmental Law & Policy Clinic
Duke University School of Law
PO Box 90360
Durham NC 27708-0360
Larry Baldwin
Lower Neuse RiverKeeper
1307 Country Club Road
New Bern, NC 28562
Dr. Marilyn Pearson, Director
Johnston County Health Department
51 7 North Bright Leaf Boulevard
Smithfield
NC 27577
J Russell Allen, City Manager
City of Raleigh
City Manager Department 222 West
Hargett Street Raleigh
NC27602
Terry Pierce, Director
Division of Environmental Health
1630 Mail Service Center Raleigh
NC 27699-1601
Ramon Rojano, Director
Wake County Human Services
P.O. Box 46833 Raleigh
NC 27610
David Cooke, County Manager
Wake County
PO Box 550 Suite 1100 Raleigh
NC 27602
The Honorable Charles C Meeker
Mayor
City of Raleigh
PO Box 590 Raleigh
NC27602
Rick Hester County Manager
Johnston County
PO Box 1049 Smithfield
NC 27577
Public Hearin!! Re gistration Form
Hearing: Variance Req uest by Ci ty of Ralei gh for the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
September 9, 2009, 7:00 pm
Raleigh, NC
Please furnish the information requested below and indicate whether you wish to be heard during this public hearing.
This information is necessary in order that you be given an opportunity to speak and so that your name and affiliation will
be correctly entered in the hearing record. Please print legibly.
Name=---~~z,...;_(.e.-_C_n'-_ .. _____ Title: pcJo(~c..Ui~l:~(~ ~\~r
Employer/Representing: __ e;~ .... -~--t-r-o_· __ RJ __ e_~-r)-k __ P._~_b_\ }_c.._~-~-(-~(.;_·. \_e_s. _______ _
Mailing Address: y>. D, ~~ sq 0 --~---,,------------------------------
City and State: __ ~--~-j ...... l_,_\J_·_• ~-' _______ _
Do you wish to register to speak tonight? Yes ~
Zip Code: __ 7/ __ "_o_z.__
How did you hear about this hearing? legal section of the newspaper; other newspaper ad; email; webpage; lett~
Division of Water Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Public Hearin g Re gistration Form
Hearing: Variance Request by City of Raleig h for the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
September 9, 2009, 7:00 pm
Raleigh,NC
Please furnish the information requested below and indicate whether you wish to be heard during this public hearing.
This information is necessary in order that you be given an opportunity to speak and so that your name and affiliation will
be correctly entered in the hearing record. Please print legibly .
Name: \°'::)c>v i. "'-ec.l v ------=--_____ __,,_ _________ _ Title: ------------
Employer/Representing: ______________________________ _
Mailing Address: ___ '-1__,2'-0--~-"~---'w--"-~-'----"-J ___ , it. ______________ _
City and State: ____ d=-"-'-_._L~l,J'-"----'-------------Zip Code:_--=-:>7.-----=~'--0 __ _
Do you wish to register to speak tonight? Yes ~
How did you hear about this hearing? legal section of the newspaper; other newspaper ad; email; webpage; ~other
Division of Water Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Public Hearing Registration Form
Hearing: Variance Request by Ci ty of Raleig h for the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
September 9, 2009, 7:00 pm
Raleigh,NC
Please furnish the information requested below and indicate whether you wish to be heard during this public hearing.
This information is necessary in order that you be given an opportunity to speak and so that your name and affiliation will
be correctly entered in the hearing record. Please print legibly.
Name: Eo( \--\QJA...r-1 c, \J e .r Title: -------------
Employer/Representing: ______________________________ _
Mailing Address: l e,cr2 J)0\"".1 "l...\JJ Dr-l~
City and State: H l \ k,. .Po......, ~ j ~ Zip Code: .1. 9:J. b -r--
Do you wish to register to speak tonight? Yes £
How did you hear about this hearing? legal section of the newspaper; othe r. ~ef d; e~il; webpage; letter; other
'--.
Division of Water Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Public Hearing Registration Form
Hearing: Variance Request bv Ci tv of Ralei gh for the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
September 9, 2009, 7:00 pm
Raleigh, NC
Please furnish the information requested below and indicate whether you wish to be heard during this public hearing.
This information is necessary in order that you be given an opportunity to speak and so that your name and affiliation will
be correctly entered in the hearing record. Please print legibly.
Name: C; L ) -I=" J l A) P. lsA U( !) rn Title: ----~~~--------
Employer/Representing: ___ S~o~/~f ......... ________________________ _
Mailing Address: ~ 0 () S-tf ( ( f D ! '1 \~ -( t
City and State: R ~(,e ( C, /, I N c_ Zip Code: 2 21:> / D
Do you wish to register to speak tonight? Yes @
How did you hear about this hearing? legal section of the newspaper; other newspaper ad;eebpage; 8 other
Division of Water Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Public Hearing Re gistration Form
Hearing: Variance Request by Citv of Raleigh for the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
September 9, 2009, 7:00 pm
Raleigb,NC
Please furnish the information requested below and indicate whether you wish to be heard during this public hearing.
This information is necessary in order that you be given an opportunity to speak and so that your name and affiliation will
be correctly entered in the hearing record. Please print legibly.
Name:._____.____,/{~~~~~/J=----=rai=r=------Title: Ass~--1: Pubic /)J,~tk D~ce
Employer/Representing: Cif-u £-' f~fe ic,R \1tb\.c. U.fij~ it:S::> v J
Mailing Address: _________________________________ _
City and State: ____________________ _ Zip Code: _______ _
Do you wish to register to speak tonight? Yes {§;2
How did you hear about this hearing? legal section of the newspape@ewspaper ad; email; webpage; letter; other
Division of Water Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Public Hearing Registration Form
Hearing: Variance Req uest by Ci ty of Raleigh for the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
September 9, 2009, 7:00 pm
Raleigh, NC
Please furnish the information requested below and indicate whether you wish to be heard during this public hearing.
This information is necessary in order that you be given an opportunity to speak and so that your name and affiliation will
be correctly entered in the hearing record. Please print legibly.
Name: __ l<------'--"'e"-----=fA'-'--'---C3-=---.,,,,+--.. --ft+-+------Title: ________ _
Employer/Representing: __ VV_o._w_s.,,.,__& __ -.cO=--.,.N....,,__~-~-"---------------
Mailing Address: _________________________________ _
City and State: ____________________ _ Zip Code: _______ _
Do you wish to register to speak tonight? Yes €)
How did you hear about this hearing? legal section of the newspaper; other newspaper ad; email; webpage; letter; other
Division of Water Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Public Hearing Re gistration Form
Hearing: Variance Request by City of Raleig h for the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
September 9, 2009, 7:00 pm
Raleigh,NC
Please furnish the information requested below and indicate whether you wish to be heard during this public hearing .
This information is necessary in order that you be given an opportunity to speak and so that your name and affiliation will
be correctly entered in the hearing record. Please print legibly .
Name : Oa ra~" &<:.ik \ Title: __ A __ ~_r ~f':UA~~------
Employer/Representing:_--i::...,_-'--+"'.Jt.:...._____,_,'""'C'---=-'------"-----'-"='-=-=...lc.=..'-----------1......,,--------
Mailing Address: ___ k "----"-~--'3:'--'3=--7:J-_,______,,("""-:,--'-\ e,t\"""-'-_v...).;:;_o=-C'l=C"""'!-'-------'f---'---=u-e:.......=.._ _ __,_.k'--"--='~o.~'-(-'-"-0 _<._) ______ _
City and State: __ W-'------=="'--' _' _.."1 _____ ____.!..__\._C.,=------Zip Code : 2..3: 0 f -~~-~---
Do you wish to register to speak tonight? Yes@
How did you hear about this hear ing? legal section of the newspaper; other newspaper ad ; email; webpage; letter; other
Division of Water Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Public Hearin g Re gistration Form
Hearing: Variance Request by City of Raleigh for the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
September 9, 2009, 7:00 pm
Raleigh, NC
Please furnish the information requested below and indicate whether you wish to be heard during this public hearing.
This information is necessary in order that you be given an opportunity to speak and so that your name and affiliation will
be correctly entered in the hearing record. Please print legibly .
Name: l o ~~t-:\-(\t'\ l'4 ,S Title: ------------" '. I \ J
Employer/Representing:_----=C---','--'--~~r--~--'-\ _.o,.,_\-'--~~•----T'\'-~_,___-p__._"""'"v-----"-\-"'-----------
)
Mailing Address: -"Ro . '1.2-J -f. , ou
City and State: ::)2c ., \ v, ~ \, kJ (__.,
)
Do you wish to register to speak tonight? Yes V Zip Code: -Z. t (o D L,
How did you hear about this hearing? legal section of the newspaper; other newspaper ad; email; webpage; letter; other
K.'97 d ~C:>± ~<
Division of Water Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Document #
10724-005
CITY OF RALEIGH
Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina

Human Health Risk Assessment

Prepared by:

ENSR Consulting and Engineering (NC), Inc.
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103
Raleigh, North Carolina 27616

November 2005
INTERNATIONAL

November, 2005 iS:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP
Work\Revised
CAP_Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-
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

November, 2005 iiS:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP
Work\Revised
CAP_Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-
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
Etat.
ttU¥nt@t@@

S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP_Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Executive Summary
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 purpose (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) (USEPA, 1989; 1991a);
• 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 (USEPA, 1991b); and

S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP_Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-2
• 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 RfD for nitrate is also used without adjustment as the dermal RfD. The
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 200x) reports that oral absorption of

S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP_Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-3
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
1-4
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):
BWxAT
EDxAAFxEFxIRxCWADD=
where:
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)
CW = Water concentration (mg/L)
IR = Water ingestion rate (L/day)
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (year)
AAF = Absorption Adjustment Factor (unitless)
BW = Body weight (kg)
AT = Averaging time (days)
Average Daily Dose (Lifetime and Chronic) Following Dermal Contact with Water (mg/kg-day):
BWxAT
CFxEDxEFxETxAAFxKxSAxCWADDP=
where:
ADD = Average daily dose (mg/kg-day)
CW = Water concentration (mg/L)
SA = Exposed skin surface area (cm2)
Kp = Dermal permeability constant (cm/hr)
AAF + Absorption Adjustment Factor (unitless)
ET = Exposure time (hours/day)
EF = Exposure frequency (day/year)
ED = Exposure duration (year)

S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP_Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-5
CF = Unit conversion factor (L/103cm3)
BW = Body weight (kg)

Two chemical-specific factors, the permeability constant (Kp) and absorption adjustment factor (AAF)
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/cm2/hr) equals the
permeability constant (kp, cm/hr) multiplied by the concentration difference of the solute across the
membrane (mg/cm3). 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 AAF 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 AAF 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 AAFs for nitrate are presented in Table 1.

S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP_Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-6
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 RfD 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 RfD for that COPC. The

S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP_Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-7
resulting ratio, which is unitless, is known as the Hazard Quotient (HQ) for that chemical. The HQ is
calculated using the following equation:

)/(
)/(
daykgmgRfD
daykgmgADDHQ−
−=

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\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP_Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-8
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 (USEPA,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:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP_Nov05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-9
ENSR, 2005. Revised Corrective Action Plan, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina.
ENSR, 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.
9285.7-01B, December.
USEPA. 1991b. 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 III. EPA/600/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. EPA/540/R/99/005.
July 2004.
USEPA. 2005. Integrated Risk Information System. URL: http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html.
Accessed November 16, 2005.
TABLE 1CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC PARAMETERSNEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, RALEIGH, NCHUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTCHEMICAL-SPECIFIC PARAMETERS FOR NITRATE ValueUnitsREFERENCE/NOTESReference Dose1.6.E+00mg/kg-dayUSEPA. 2005. Integrated Risk Information Systehttp://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/index.htmlAbsorption Adjustment Factor (Oral and Dermal) 1.E+00 unitlessAssumed value. ASTDR (2005) indicates that or absorption of nitrate is nearly 100%. Permeability Coefficient 1.E-03 cm/hourUSEPA. 2005. Risk Assessment Guidance for SVolume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. PaSupplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk AssessDefault value for inorganics. Exhibit 3-1. Notes:S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP_Nov05\Risk_Assessment\TABLES.xls11/18/2005I
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS - CHILD/TEENAGER, WADING IN SURFACE WATER
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Child/Teenager
Wading in Surface Water
Parameter
Parameters Used in the Surface Water Pathway - Wading
Exposure Frequency (EF) (days/year) 45 (a)
Exposure Duration (ED) (yr) 10 (b)
Surface Water Ingestion Rate (IR) (l/hour) 0.01 (c)
Skin Contacting Medium (SA) (cm^2) 1975 (d)
Body Weight (BW) (kg) 45 (e)
Exposure Time (ET) (hr/day) 1 (f)
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 from 7 to 16 (USEPA, 2000). Therefore, total exposure duration is 10 years.
(c) - USEPA, 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.
(7 to 16 yrs)
S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP_Nov05\Risk_Assessment\TABLES.xls November, 2005
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Resident
Parameter Child (0 to 6 yrs)
Parameters Used in the Groundwater as Swimming Pool Water Pathway
Exposure Frequency (EF) (days/year) 90 (a)
Exposure Duration (ED) (yr) 6 (b)
Water Ingestion Rate (IR) (l/day) 0.01 (c)
Exposure Time Swimming (hour/event) 1 (d)
Skin Contacting Medium (cm2) 6600 (e)
Body Weight (BW) (kg) 15 (f)
Parameters Used in the Groundwater as Drinking Water Pathway
Exposure Frequency (EF) (days/year) 350 (f)
Exposure Duration (ED) (yr) 6 (b)
Water Ingestion Rate (IR) (l/day) 1 (f)
Exposure Time Bathing (hour/event) 1 (e)
Skin Contacting Medium (cm2) 6600 (e)
Body Weight (BW) (kg) 15 (f)
Notes:
(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 0 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. Part E.
Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. Default Value. Bathing exposure time is Reasonable
Maximum Exposure value.
(f) - USEPA, 1991. Standard Default Exposure Factors.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS - RESIDENT
S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP_Nov05\Risk_Assessment\TABLES.xls November, 2005
TABLE 4Development of Exposure Point Concentrations for Nitrate in GroundwaterCity of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment PlantRaleigh, North CarolinaSample ID Field ID November 2004 March 2005 July 2005Average for Each Well Over Time (2004-2005)Test Well 13 Field 421.90.05 U* 3.821.9Test Well 20 Field 209.31.743.704.9Test Well 22 Field 160.05 U* NS0.140.10Test Well 41 Field 377.4 D* 80.0875.17 77.5Test Well 42A Field 18/19 113.4 D* 125.10129.45 122.7Test Well 44 Field 265.06.326.035.8Test Well 45 Field 4729.3 D* 9.1756.85 31.8Test Well 46 Field 611.21.161.101.2Test Well 47 Field 6135.0 D* 31.0932.52 32.9Test Well 48 Field 6053.6 D* 41.0037.25 44.0Test Well 49 Field 741.42.214.062.6Test Well 50 Field 7528.6 D* 22.0027.75 26.1Test Well 51 (1) Field 1298.8 D* 79.9977.13 85.3Test Well 52 (1) Field 4176.8 D* 93.1276.41 82.1Test Well 53 (1) Field 6271.0 D* 59.4051.86 60.7Test Well 54 (1) Field 50358.2 D* 42.9550.40 50.5Maximum Detect, by Month113.4125.1129.45Maximum Detect, November 2004-July 2005 129.4539.37Average for All Sampled WellsNotes:1) Test Wells 51, 52, 53, 54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.mg/L - Milligrams per LiterNS - Not SampledU* - Reported as not detected. One-half the sample quantitation limit is shown. D* - Concentration shown is the average of duplicates.Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)TABLES.xls\4Page 1 of 1
TABLE 5
Development of Exposure Point Concentrations for Nitrate in Surface Water
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
November 2002 June 2003 May/June 2004 September 2005
Maximum
Concentration
Bettingfield Creek
SW-19 16 21 NS NS 21
SW-20 3.8 3.3 NS NS --
SW-20 dup 3.5 NS NS NS --
SW-20, duplicate average 3.65 3.3 NS NS 3.65
SW-21 0.15 0.18 NS NS 0.18
SW-22 0.25 1.5 NS NS 1.5
SW-24 0.53 0.52 NS NS 0.53
Maximum Concentration, All Bettingfield Creek Sampling Stations 21
SW-1 52 49 NS 43 52
SW-2 0.39 13 NS NS 13
SW-3 52 50 NS dry 52
SW-4 54 47 NS 78 78
SW-5 0.69 2NS NS 2
SW-6 54 46 NS 70 70
SW-7 77 83 NS 98 98
SW-8 1.2 1.6 NS NS 1.6
SW-9 34 36 NS NS 36
SW-10 48 19 NS NS 48
SW-11 19 47 NS 33 47
SW-12 52 41 NS NS 52
SW-13 0.46 1.3 NS NS 1.3
SW-14 0.21 0.16 NS NS 0.21
SW-15 20 20 NS NS 20
SW-16 1.7 6.2 NS NS 6.2
SW-17 5.5 0.97 NS NS 5.5
SW-18 3 1.7 NS NS 3
SW-23 0.72 NS NS NS 0.7
SW-25 NS 4.6 NS NS 4.6
SW-26 NS 9.8 9.2 # dry 9.8
SW-27 NS 14 22.9 # dry 22.9
SW-28 NS 46 NS NS 46
Maximum, Other Tributaries Sampling Stations 98
Notes:
mg/L - Milligrams per Liter
NS - Not Sampled
Dup. - Duplicate sample
# - 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.
Location
Nitrate (mg/L)
Other Tributaries, Neuse River
TABLES.xls\5 Page 1 of 1
TABLE 6TOTAL POTENTIAL HAZARD INDEXNEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTRALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINABettingfield CreekOther Neuse River TributariesPotable Water - Maximum EPCPotable Water - Average EPCSwimming Pool - Maximum EPCSwimming Pool - Average EPCChemicalIng/Derm.Ing/Derm.Ing/Derm.Ing/Derm.Ing/Derm.Ing/Derm.Nitrate0.00040.0025.21.60.020.007Notes:Ing/Derm - Ingestion/Dermal Contact.EPC - Exposure Point ConcentrationSurface Water -Child/TeenagerGroundwater - Resident (Young Child)S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP_Nov05\Risk_Assessment\TABLES.xls/6January, 2005
Year
TN
Allocation
(pounds)
Debit
(pounds)
Allocation -
Debit
(pounds)
2006 676,496 123,000 553,496
2007 676,496 120,000 556,496
2008 682,483*117,000 745,483
2009 682,483 114,000 568,483
2010 682,483 111,000 571,483
2011 682,483 108,000 574,483
2012 682,483 105,000 577,483
2013 682,483 102,000 580,483
2014 682,483 99,000 583,483
2015 682,483 96,000 586,483
2016 682,483 93,000 589,483
2017 682,483 90,000 592,483
2018 682,483 87,000 595,483
2019 682,483 84,000 598,483
2020 682,483 81,000 601,483
2021 682,483 78,000 604,483
2022 682,483 75,000 607,483
2023 682,483 72,000 610,483
2024 682,483 69,000 613,483
2025 682,483 66,000 616,483
2026 682,483 63,000 619,483
2027 682,483 60,000 622,483
2028 682,483 57,000 625,483
2029 682,483 54,000 628,483
2030 682,483 51,000 631,483
2031 682,483 48,000 634,483
2032 682,483 45,000 637,483
2033 682,483 42,000 640,483
2034 682,483 39,000 643,483
2035 682,483 36,000 646,483
2036 682,483 33,000 649,483
2037 682,483 30,000 652,483
2038 682,483 27,000 655,483
2039 682,483 24,000 658,483
2040 682,483 21,000 661,483
2041 682,483 18,000 664,483
2042 682,483 15,000 667,483
2043 682,483 12,000 670,483
2044 682,483 9,000 673,483
2045 682,483 6,000 676,483
2046 682,483 3,000 679,483
2047 682,483 - 682,483
* Allocation increased in NPDES
permit renewal of 7/14/2008
Remarks
TABLE 7
Projected Debitted total Nitrogen Allocation
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina

Eagle Resources, P.A.
4005 Lake Springs Court  Raleigh, NC 27613-1525  Phone: [phone] Fax [phone]
Email:[e-mail]  www.eagleresources.com

Mr. H. Dale Crisp
Public Utilities Director
City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27606

April 17, 2009

Subject: Debit Against NRWWTP Nitrogen Loading Allocation

Dear Dale:

As you know, the City of Raleigh has agreed to the inclusion of a debit in the NPDES permit
for the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) to offset nitrogen loading to
surface water at the NRWWTP site due to exceedences of the state groundwater standard for
nitrate (10 mg/L) at the facility compliance boundary. The purpose of this letter is to provide a
description of the methodology used to establish the debit amount and to explain why the debit
amount is extremely conservative relative to the actual nitrogen loading in question. The term
“conservative” is used in this letter to mean that the methods and data used are likely to have
produced a debit amount that significantly exceeds the actual loading for which an offset is
required.

The purpose of the debit is to offset nitrogen loading to the Neuse River that would occur as a
result of the variance being granted and thereby ensure that the variance does not result in an
adverse impact to surface water quality.

We refer to the amount of nitrogen loading that is to be offset via the debit as the Variance
Load (“VL”). VL does not equal the total nitrogen loading (“TL”) to surface water via
groundwater at the NRWTTP site because in the case of denial of the variance and full
compliance with the Environmental Management Commission’s groundwater (2L) rules
nitrogen loading to surface water would still occur via two pathways. The first pathway is
discharge of nitrogen bearing groundwater to surface water outside the compliance boundary.
Such discharge would continue to contain nitrogen at concentrations less than or equal to than
the 2L standard of 10 mg/l. We refer to this continuing, compliant loading as the Compliance
Load (“CL”).

The second pathway is discharge of nitrogen-bearing groundwater to surface water within the
facility compliance boundary. Such discharge is not regulated because the 2L rules do not
require a permittee to comply with groundwater standards, or to perform corrective action to
address exceedences, within its compliance boundary. We refer to this continued, unregulated
loading as the Interior Load (“IL”). Using the foregoing definitions of the components
comprising nitrogen loading to surface water, we use the following formula to compute VL:

VL = TL – (CL + IL) (1)
Advocacy➔Sound Science➔lnnovation "+ Solutions

CITY OF RALEIGH_ Letter Report RE Flux to Neuse 041709.DOC

2
The following paragraphs describe the methodology and degree of conservatism used to
compute the components of VL, and the amount to be debited against the current permitted
loading rate of 682,483 Lb N/Yr.

Total Loading (TL)

In order to develop a conservative value for VL, or the amount to be debited, we began by
using a calibrated three-dimensional groundwater flow and transport model, as documented in
the Supplemental Site Assessment prepared by ENSR to calculate the Total Load or TL1. The
model was used to assess likely past and future transport of nitrogen in groundwater to and
through the groundwater system beneath and in the vicinity of the CORPUD fields. Biosolids
were applied to these fields from 1979 until 2002 when such application ceased in response to
requirements imposed by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR).

Comparison of modeled nitrogen concentrations in groundwater for the period 1979 through
2002 to values measured in 105 monitoring wells in and around the CORPUD fields showed a
degree of qualitative and quantitative agreement that has been considered acceptable by
NCDENR. No adjustments to the parameters that describe nitrogen transport within the
groundwater system or to the modeled nitrogen source terms were made to improve the fit
between modeled and observed values.

There are two principal reasons why the modeled value for TL is conservative:

1. Modeled N concentrations in zones that discharge to surface water for the 1979 to 2002
period were generally greater than measured values.

Although the nitrogen transport model simulated historical measured concentrations in
groundwater that were considered acceptable, the modeled concentrations in the saprolite and
weathered bedrock layers that are in direct hydraulic connection with the Neuse River and its
tributaries were generally greater than observed values. The concentration of nitrogen in
groundwater discharged to the Neuse River and its tributaries is a direct function of the
concentrations in groundwater upgradient of the discharge locations. Consequently, the
modeled nitrogen loading to all surface waters used for the computation of TL was greater
than if a better fit to the observed concentrations had been modeled.

2. The nitrogen source term used for the model used overestimates of the amount of N
mobilized from the root zone for the 1979 through 2002 period.

The modeled concentrations in groundwater and therefore nitrogen loading to the Neuse and
its tributaries are also conservative because of assumptions used to establish the nitrogen
source term for the model analyses. The nitrogen source term comprised nitrogen dissolved in
groundwater recharge beneath each field at rates that were varied annually from 1979 through

1 Eagle Resources, 2003. Simulation of Nitrate Transport in Groundwater, City of Raleigh Biosolids
Application Fields. Appendix G in: ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Inc. 2003. Supplemental Site
Assessment Report, City of Raleigh Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant.

CITY OF RALEIGH_ Letter Report RE Flux to Neuse 041709.DOC

3
2002. The rates of groundwater recharge were computed using a site-specific water balance model using a daily time step with inputs of local 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 of biosolids application in 2002. The maximum value of TL thus
determined with the model was 148,000 pounds of nitrogen per year (Lb N/Yr) which
occurred in 2006. TL then declined to approximately 25,000 LB N/Yr by 2048 as a result of
using a constant value of N in modeled groundwater recharge equal to the 2L standard of 10
mg/l from 2003 through 2050.
.
Compliance Loading (CL)

We next used the model to calculate the Compliance Loading (CL) – the amount of loading
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/l 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 N/Yr). t ~ f ij

CITY OF RALEIGH_ Letter Report RE Flux to Neuse 041709.DOC

4
Interior Loading (IL)

The Interior Loading (IL) – the amount of loading 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 of N to all surface waters in the model. Using this methodology, the
peak value of IL was computed as 56% of TL, or 83,000 Lb N/Yr.

Using the same methodology, we also calculated the amount of interior loading that would
occur if the 2L standard for nitrate (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 Amount)

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 N/Yr.

For the more reasonable amount using IL:

TL – (CL + IL) = VL, or 148,000 – (15,000 + 83,000) = 50,000 Lb N/Yr.

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 N/Yr) 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 N/Yr
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
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.

Figure 1.-- Modeled Total Nitrogen Loading to Surface Water Computed Using Equation 1: VL = TL - (CL + IL/10)-20,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000140,0001980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Variance Load, VL, Lb N/ YearTotal N LoadingDebit Reduction Curve (-3000 Lb N/Yr)Peak TotalLoading Rate in 2006123,000 Lb/Yr I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I -I •
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 Utilities Department
1 Exchange Plaza
Suite 620
219 Fayetteville Street Mall
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
I 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 effort to 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 DWO'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 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, 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 11402335.1
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 [phone].
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
BATTLE
ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING
DIESEL
FUELING
STATION
W/CONTAINMENTFARM
CHEMICAL
STORAGE
BLDG.
W/CONTAINMENT HAY BARN
FARM BLDG.
TERRAGATOR/VEHICLE
WASH BAY
ROAD
L.P. GAS
TANK
GRAIN
STORAGE ULTR-VIOLET
RADIATION
BASIN
RECLAIMBASINFILTER
BLDG
AERATION
BASIN
#6
AERATION
BASIN
#5
CLARIFIER
#10
CLARIFIER
#11
CLARIFIER
#12
ALKALINE
SLUDGE
STORAGE
AREA
ALKALINE
SLUDGE
STORAGE
AREA
DEWATERING
BLDG
SLUDGE
STORAGE
TANK #4
2.5 M GAL
SLUDGE
STORAGE
TANK #3
2.5 M GAL
#2#1
CLARIFIER
#8
CLARIFIER
#9
AERATION
BASIN
#4
AERATION
BASIN
#3
AERATION
BASIN
#2
CLARIFIER
#2
CLARIFIER
#3
CLARIFIER
#4
CLARIFIER
#5
CLARIFIER
#6
CLARIFIER
#7
AEROBIC
DIGESTER
#2
AEROBIC
DIGESTER
#3
AEROBIC
DIGESTER
#4
DAF
BLDG
THICKENINGBLDGSLUDGE
STORAGE
TANK #1
2.5 M GAL
SLUDGE
STORAGE
TANK #2
2.5 M GAL
BLOWER
BLDG
INFLUENTLIFTSTATIONPRIMARY
BLDG
SEPTAGE
RECEIVING
STATION
ODOR
SCRUBBER
W/CONTAINMENT
CLARIFIER
#1
AERATION
BASIN
#1
CAUSTIC
TANK FARM
24,000 GAL
BATTLEBRIDGE
ROAD
BROWNFIELDROAD!(Ó
!(Ó
!(Ó
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A!A
!A
!A
!A!A
!A
!A
!A
!A!A
!A!A
!A !A
!A
!A
!A!A
!A
!A
!A!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A!A
!A!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A!A
!A!A
!A
+U
+U
+U
+U
!A!A
!A
!A!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A!A
!A
!A
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*WAKE COUNTYJOHNSTON COUNTYSW-21
3/2009 2.9
SW-24
3/2009 32.6
SW-23
11/2002 0.72
SW-28
3/2009 61.5
TW-35
3/2009 71.5
SW-BD
1/2009 8.0
SW-BU
1/2009 3.9
SW-AD
1/2009 15.8
SW-AU
1/2009 26.2
SW-CD
1/2009 26.2
SW-CU
1/2009 26.6
SW-DU
1/2009 3.5
SW-DD
1/2009 3.2
SW-EU
1/2009 4.5
SW-ED
1/2009 4.7
TW-27
FIELD 1
FIELD 2
FIELD 3
FIELD 9
FIELD 8
FIELD 7
FIELD 4
FIELD 6
FIELD 15
FIELD 14
FIELD 10
FIELD 16FIELD 13
FIELD 12
FIELD 18FIELD 17 FIELD 20
FIELD 22
FIELD 21FIELD 23
FIELD 19
FIELD 27
FIELD 25
FIELD 26
FIELD 28
FIELD 29
FIELD 32
FIELD 30
FIELD 31
FIELD 35FIELD 36
FIELD 34
FIELD 33
FIELD 38
FIELD 37
FIELD 41FIELD 42 FIELD 40 FIELD 39
FIELD 70
FIELD 44
FIELD 43
FIELD 48
FIELD 46
FIELD 47
FIELD 45
FIELD 49
FIELD 50
FIELD 63
FIELD 62
FIELD 60
FIELD 61
FIELD 74
FIELD 75
FIELD 73
FIELD 72
FIELD 71
FIELD 519
FIELD 102
FIELD 100
FIELD 101
FIELD 524
FIELD 522FIELD 523
FIELD 520
FIELD 511
FIELD 512
FIELD 513FIELD 202
FIELD 600
FIELD 601
FIELD 602
FIELD 602
FIELD 501
FIELD 502
FIELD 503
FIELD 200
FIELD 201
FIELD 500
SG-5
SG-6
SG-8SG-7
GP-9
4/2009 10.1
GP-8
4/2009 19.2
GP-6
6/2003 35
GP-5
3/2004 55.5
GP-3
11/2006 11.5
GP-1
4/2009 1.4
TW-9
7/2003 168.6
TW-8
TW-7
TW-6
TW-5
TW-3
3/2004 ND (0.1)
TW-2
12/2006 20.2
TW-1
3/2004 38.5
TW-34
3/2009 85.3
TW-23
11/2003 12.8
TW-37
3/2009 2.2
GP-22
3/2009 22.7
GP-21
3/2009 4.3
GP-18
11/2002 0.87
GP-17
3/2009 0.59
GP-16
11/2002 60
GP-12
3/2009 0.47
GP-10
4/2009 0.78
MW-50
3/2009 5.2
MW-48
3/2009 20.1
MW-47
3/2009 17.2
MW-46
3/2009 1.8
MW-45
3/2009 14.3
MW-44
3/2009 0.1
TW-43
11/2003 3.5
TW-42
MW-41
3/2009 50.2
TW-40
TW-36
3/2009 6.7
TW-31
3/2004 0.2
TW-30
3/2009 16.4
TW-29
7/2003 21.8
TW-28
MW-113 TW-26
TW-25
4/2009 1.03
TW-24
4/2009 4.8
MW-22
11/2005 0.25
TW-21
MW-20
3/2009 4.89
TW-19
TW-18
4/2009 87.1
TW-17
TW-16
6/2004 6.2
TW-15
11/2003 27.8
TW-14
6/2004 0.48
MW-13
11/2008 0.11
TW-11
3/2007 3.7
TW-10
MW-42a
11/2005 143.2
TW-45A
4/2009 6.3
TW-31A
3/2009 40.2
MW-127
6/2003 ND (0.05)
MW-122
4/2009 3.3
MW-121
6/2003 0.38
MW-120
3/2004 0.4
MW-119
5/2004 3.1
MW-118
7/2003 0.26
MW-117
3/2009 0.95
MW-116
3/2009 4.7
MW-115
4/2009 22.5
MW-114
4/2009 57.0
MW-112
3/2009 12.5
MW-111
3/2009 7.8
MW-108
3/2009 36.6
MW-106
3/2009 32.7
MW-104
6/2007 51.8
MW-103
4/2009 46.6
MW-102
4/2009 89.6
MW-101
4/2009 146.8
MW-100
4/2009 19.1
TW-30.1
3/2009 8.7
MW-126D
3/2009 9.8
MW-125D
3/2009 9.1
MW-123D
4/2009 56.4
MW-113D
4/2009 44.7
GP-19
11/2002 ND (0.1)
MW-49
3/2009 10.8
TW-33
3/2009 5.2
TW-32
3/2009 8.0
MW-124
TW-32A
3/2009 26.7
MW-110
3/2009 25.0
MW-109
3/2009 37.4
MW-107
4/2009 0.82
MW-105
4/2009 66.4
TW-642
3/2009 20.2
TW-641
3/2009 71.8
MW-124D
4/2009 5.3
MW-122D
6/2003 1.7
MW-111D
3/2009 16.8
MW-105D
4/2009 46.5
MW-101D
4/2009 101.6MW-52 (GP-7)
3/2009 77.6
MW-51 (GP-2)
7/2008 65.3
MW 54 (GP-20)
11/2008 23.4
MW-53 (GP-11)
3/2009 24.0
SW-22
3/2009 1.3
SW-19
3/2009 16.7
SW-20
3/2009 2.9
SW-15
7/2006 39.8
SW-17
3/2009 0.73
SW-16
3/2009 4.4
SW-18
3/2009 4.9
SW-27
3/2009 5.5
SW-26
3/2009 2.8
MW-1
7/2003 2.2
MW-5
6/2003 0.1
SW-13
3/2009 0.9
SW-14
3/2009 0.18
MW-3
6/2003 53
SW-9
3/2009 17.6
SW-8
3/2009 2.3
SW-5
3/2009 11.2
SW-4
3/2009 53.6
SW-2
3/2009 26.6
SW-1
3/2009 30.4
SW-3
3/2009 51.0
SW-6
3/2009 24.3
SW-7
3/2009 78.8
SW-11
3/2009 26.1
SW-10
3/2009 21.4
SW-12
3/2009 45.6
SW-25
3/2009 3.0
MW-203
3/2009 24.8
MW-202
3/2009 43.0
MW-201
3/2009 35.3
TW-4
7/2003 0.6
TW-61B
7/2003 2.2 TW-61C
7/2003 3.5
Legend
!A Compliance Well
!A Active Monitoring Well
!A Inactive Monitoring Well
+U Stream Gauge
#*Surface Water Sample Location
Paths
Fields
Biosolids Application Area
External Compliance Boundary
Internal Compliance Boundary
.SCALE:DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:
June 2009 10724-005-0005
Nitrate Analytical Results (Milligrams per liter)
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of Raleigh - Raleigh, NC
AECOM NORTH CAROLINA INC7041 OLD WAKE FOREST ROAD, SUITE 103RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27616PHONE: [phone]FAX: [phone]WEB: WWW.AECOM.COM
FIGURE NUMBER:
1
Z:\GIS\Projects\R\Raleigh_City_of_10724\MXD\Variance_Request_08\Nitrate Results.mxd
0 1,000 2,000 3,000500
Feet
See Scale Bar
Notes:
Test wells TW-51, TW-52, TW-53, and TW-54 were previously
identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20 respectively.
Nitrate analytical results given in milligrams per liter (mg/L).
)
-----~-?;::--_~-~------------1-__,,_
-~
i , I I • . I I. ___ _
I
I)
(\
l.___\
AECOM
' (
f
'
)
. I
! , I I ,
C:J
' \ ~
L_____f.-"' \
-~
~
I
--~-~
~
(
US

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

7
0 MIAL PLANTATION RDSHOTWELL RD
OLD B
A
L
C
U
M

R
DBROWN FIELD RDBATTLE BRIDGE RD
NEUSE RIVER
32
32
36
37
34
35
33
122
70
109
56
78
44 104
53
72
57
105
65
82
42
40
125
113
112
87
47
74
89
114
88
38
58
50
76
92 69
39
64
96
49
80
102
98
59
116
55
117
83
106
126
79
108
93
61
43
46
110
94
124
63
75
115
45
68
62
81
73
67
66
52
85
84
90
48
123
95
99
91
41
119
103
127
5
17
7
1
2
3
20
6
21
23
12
18
25 30
22
2913
8
4
26
16
19
28
31 14
10
27
15
24
11
146
149
153
158
129
161
128
143
132
160
131
157 148 136
155
152
151
144
133
37
140
137
154
147 130145
166
150
134
138
139
159
167
135
169
142
141
156
165
168
164
163
54
60
86
51
97
107
120
111121
101
118
77 100
100
71
9
162
171170
.SCALE:DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:
June 2009 10724-005-0004
Proposed Remediation Plan and Variance Areas
Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
City of Raleigh - Raleigh, NC AECOM NORTH CAROLINA INC7041 OLD WAKE FOREST ROAD, SUITE 103RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27616PHONE: [phone]FAX: [phone]WEB: WWW.AECOM.COM
FIGURE NUMBER:
2
Z:\GIS\Projects\R\Raleigh_City_of_10724\MXD\Variance_Request_08\Parcel Information.mxd
0 1,600 3,200 4,800 6,400800
Feet
Legend
&(Existing Extraction Wells
MR Compliance Boundary
External Compliance Boundary
Internal Compliance Boundary
Biosolids Application Area
Variance Area: Parcel with measured NO3 > 10 mg/L
Variance Area: Parcel with modeled and/or measured NO3 > 10 mg/L
Parcels Adjacent to Variance Request Parcels
Wake County Parcels
City of Raleigh Property
Variance Request Parcels not owned by the City of Raleigh
See Scale Bar
Wake County Variance Request ParcelsNUMBER 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, JERRY WAYNEADAMS, 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 6200 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 DUNN, PHYLLIS DEBNAM 2916 OLD MILBURNIE RD RALEIGH NC 27604-9655
10 1750397971 YOUNG, 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 8100 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9258
13 1751108108 ADAMS, PAUL M HEIRSC/O WANDA S ADAMS EXECUTRIX 8404 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9264
14 1751107691 NICHOLSON, CHEYNEY A PO BOX 33065 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 9001 MAIL SERVICE CTR RALEIGH NC 27699-9000
18 1741533931 PBR GROUP LLC 2400 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9208
19 1751305085 BROWN, SYBLE B 8529 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
20 1751500467 RHODES, WILLIAM T & GWYN K 3751 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 12I 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 M ADAMS 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, DALTON HICKMANADAMS, GEORGIA M COOPER 8401 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9265
Johnston County Variance Request ParcelsNUMBER NCPIN OWNER NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE ZIP
32 175000-14-9550 NC CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT
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 BOX 72 CLAYTON, NC 275200000
35 175000-38-9108 JOHNSON, CLARENCE & JOHNSON, BILLIE 201 MEADOW RUN KNIGHTDALE, 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
Wake County Parcels Adjacent to Variance Request ParcelsNUMBER NCPIN OWNER NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE ZIP
38 1751742007 DEBNAM, HENRY W 1501 CHURCHILL DOWNS DR WAXHAW NC 28173-6610
39 1751742617 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 1741535717 JASB CO INC THE 15 S BUFFALO ST WENDELL NC 27591-8972
42 1741524454 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, ROBERT S & 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 HOLLAND, STEPHEN DANEHOLLAND, KRISTINE ANNE 13310 46TH CT N ROYAL PALM BEACH FL 33411-8476
58 1741433146 UNDERHILL, RIEVA P 7015 FARMDALE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
59 1740754440 FREEMAN, DANNA F 1101 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
60 1741532734 WATTS, CATHERINE M &RYAN ALLEN 4704 PRESERVE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9407
61 1740753260 CHAVEZ, CLIFFORD T & VICKIE L 1009 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9358
62 1741544088 CHIPOURAS, 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 BENNETT, MARK D & RHONDA M 2708 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
65 1740689448 MORGAN, ELIZABETH B PO BOX 4721 CHAPEL HILL NC 27515-4721
66 1750075290 LEHOCKY, RICHARD D & BETTY A 1336 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
67 1740757791 OKAMOTO, ERIC B & JUDITH F 1113 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
68 1741530726 PBR GROUP LLC 2400 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9208
69 1741531093 NOBLES, RONNIE LEE & SALY H 7023 FARMDALE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
70 1740953031 NORTH 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 WHITE, DENNIS C & RUTH H 1324 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
74 1740952898 SLAVIN, JAMES A & MARY E 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 2709 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
77 1740451603 BALL, DOUGLAS 1401 AVERSBORO RD STE 206 GARNER NC 27529-3980
78 1751445156 MCKINNON, SWANOLA DEBNAM 5708 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8528
79 1740450446 WOO, 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
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 3413 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 &CHERYL L 3409 GRIFFICE MILL RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8637
100 1740856690 BARBOUR, JOHN T 3720 E GARNER RD CLAYTON NC 27520-6540
101 1741434516 SMITH, 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 BAUCOM, 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 TANKARD, ANNE MMCINNES, CORNELIA & STEWART C MCINNES 8419 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 LLC 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 RHODES, 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, ARNOLD L JR 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 County Parcels Adjacent to Variance Request ParcelsNUMBER NC PIN OWNER NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE ZIP
128 175000-01-6476 WAY OF LIFE BAPTIST CHURCH
129 175000-00-3044 ELPHICK PROPERTIES LLC 1000 CCC DRIVE CLAYTON, NC 275200000
130 175000-33-3740 BOLEN, HOWARD B & BOLEN, MELISSA K 2016 RIDGE CT CLAYTON, NC 275200000
131 175000-34-2226 JOHNSON, ROY S & 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 JENKINS, GARY L & JENKINS, JANET H 2012 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON, NC 275200000
135 175000-10-9383 K AND K ASSOCIATES OF NC INC 505 PARKWOOD LANE GOLDSBORO, NC 275300000
136 165905-19-4777 BENSON, IRENE P 2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON, NC 275206520
137 175000-33-1993 WAUGH, DONALD FRED & WAUGH, JEAN 2010 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 WILLIAMS, 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 RUSSELL, TRAVIS E & RUSSELL, DEBRA L 121 PEBBLE DR CLAYTON, NC 275208042
142 175000-22-5144 JOHNSON, MALCOM DEWITT & JOHNSON, CAROL JEAN P O BOX 966 CLAYTON, NC 275200966
143 165905-09-6974 BENSON, IRENE P 2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON, NC 275206520
144 175000-35-0927 JODIE 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 174004-92-5770 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
147 175000-23-9722 JEWELL, GARY A & JEWELL, RHONDA 2003 PINEBARK LN CLAYTON, NC 275200000
148 165905-19-1892 BENSON, IRENE P 2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON, NC 275206520
149 175000-26-8950 JONES, CHRISTOPHER & JONES, ANITA A 2025 ELAINE DR CLAYTON, NC 275208212
150 175000-35-1726 STRICKER, WILLIAM MICHAEL 2004 ELIZABETH COURT CLAYTON, NC 275200000
151 175000-23-5518 RUSSELL, 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 PRIVETTE, WILLIS E & PRIVETTE, JANICE 1925 OLD U S 70 W CLAYTON, NC 275200000
154 175000-22-4755 MUNT, HERBERT F III 2017 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 BENSON, 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 MORRIS, SONDRA STRICKER & MORRIS, GARY 2016 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON, NC 275200000
160 175000-36-2148 SCHULMAN, 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 STOUT, BRADLEY H & STOUT, JESSICA E 438 JAMESON DR RALEIGH, NC 276100000
163 175000-49-8013 BROGNA, NICHOLAS D & BROGNA, CAROL ANN 294 AVENUE C RONKONKOMA, NY 117791922
164 175000-49-9363 STEVENSON, JOHN & STEVENSON, HEATHER 919 CARROLL AVE LAUREL, MD 207073503
165 175000-49-9157 GROFF, SCOTT GREGORY & GROFF, SHANNON JOHNSON 455 JAMISON DR RALEIGH, NC 276108621
166 175000-48-1367 BELVIN, JUDITH W & BELVIN, LARRY E 321 E MAIN ST CLAYTON, NC 275202463
167 175000-48-1162 LEE, W GATTIS P O BOX 72 CLAYTON, NC 275200000
168 175000-48-6697 HODGES, MICHAEL S & HODGES, JOYCE N 108 JAMISON DRIVE RALEIGH, NC 276100000
169 175000-48-6594 GONZALEZ, CINDY A & GONZALEZ, STEPHEN 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 KING, WILLIE DAPHENE 2013 SMITH DR CLAYTON, NC 275200000
D
0
D
AECOM
t==~======~===~~IL __ _J~~=====-------
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 6
Zone 9
Zone 1A
Zone 7
Zone 8
Zone 1C
Zone 10
Zone 1A
Zone 11
Zone 12
Zone 1B
Zone 5
Zone 1B
Zone 13
.SCALE:DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:
June 2009 10724-005-0004
Variance Areas by Zone
Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
City of Raleigh - Raleigh, NC
FIGURE NUMBER:
3
N:\PUBS\GIS\R\Raleigh_City_of_10724\MXD\Variance_Request_08\Zones.mxd
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500
Feet
Legend
MR Compliance Boundary
External Compliance Boundary
Internal Compliance Boundary
Biosolids Application Area
Parcel Boundary
Variance Areas
Parcel with Modeled N03 >10 mg/L
Parcel with Measured NO3 >10 mg/L
Zones
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
Zone 7
Zone 8
Zone 9
Zone 10
Zone 11
Zone 12
Zone 13
See Scale Bar
AECOM NORTH CAROLINA INC7041 OLD WAKE FOREST ROAD, SUITE 103RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27616PHONE: [phone]FAX: [phone]WEB: WWW.AECOM.COM
AECOM
SCALE:DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:
February 2009 10724-005-0004
Private Wells within 0.5 miles of
Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant Spray Irrigation Areas
City of Raleigh - Raleigh, NC AECOM NORTH CAROLINA INC7041 OLD WAKE FOREST ROAD, SUITE 103RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27616PHONE: [phone]FAX: [phone]WEB: WWW.AECOM.COM
FIGURE NUMBER:
4
Z:\GIS\Projects\R\Raleigh_City_of_10724\MXD\Variance_Request_08\Private_Wells-07-07.mxd
0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200650
Feet
Legend
Private Wells
0.5 mile Radius
Internal Compliance Boundary
External Compliance Boundary
MR Compliance Boundary
Waste Application Areas
See Scale Bar
Private well locations are estimated based on a previously conducted windshield survey.Wake CountyJohnston County' I
I
I
I
' ' ' '
I
I
I
I
__ I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
' --
1
I
' I
I '
I
I / _,
1,-
1 I
I I I
' I I
L_, I
___j
I
I r---_I
I I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
--~
! I ___ _.1_
,--\
\ \
--\ " \
', I I \ ,;-_J_,..,-< __ ,,
\\ \ \
·-,.
---1 --/
·1-----~
■ .. _ ■ -...... --
.,
1~,
I I
-f;I --~:-: __ ~__j~!,,......---'------= ..... .-1,---:=___J·-'------::,ccc-7"✓
, __ ''---, --('-;· ' /k~1•---_,,,_
L ~ / ', Y/"-/ -----I
rT--:;· '-, . j__ __j : : =:J I
------' --
'
~
tj s::2 /'1
·-/
,/
I .,
I
l-J
\ __ _I
I
' ' ---.J_
' :
' I
-.I__
,-/
I ' / / )/
' ' __ J_ __ /
/
AECOM
'/--
' '__)/
f
\
\
\
' I
' !
' ' !
' I
L
0
~-./,~•--•········ -/ /4--~ --""'~"'""~---::;,'[
/ ·-, --
---------y----
A ·."
/\ \ ~-
/ 1 ---
/ I ;\
' ~-\: --
-----
-I
I _,
l
I
r
N
w E
s
MW13 MW20 MW22 MW41 MW42A MW44 MW45 MW46 MW47 MW48 MW49 MW50 MW51 MW52 MW53 MW54Nov 2000 1.65 8.64 0.13 51.48 96.75 0.41 13.06 1.56 17.96 22.19 0.268 17.404 n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2001 0.20 7.74 0.08 44.61 88.64 3.44 10.82 1.60 19.98 22.33 0.230 13.080 n/s n/s n/s n/sJul 2001 2.48 9.08 0.19 47.36 96.56 8.92 11.68 1.78 23.27 31.14 0.212 10.115 n/s n/s n/s n/sNov 2001 2.15 10.74 0.42 51.34 107.42 11.83 26.89 1.73 23.31 30.33 0.240 12.817 n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2002 0.11 1.73 0.19 52.98 101.08 11.80 14.56 1.60 26.71 32.65 0.315 8.683 n/s n/s n/s n/sJul 2002 2.95 2.29 0.30 69.07 n/a 4.26 n/a 1.67 27.68 38.93 0.305 24.326 n/s n/s n/s n/sNov 2002 2.12 8.31 0.22 15.45 0.05 2.27 74.78 1.63 32.23 51.92 0.664 7.502 n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2003 0.09 1.89 0.13 0.62 107.77 7.54 15.41 15.21 30.85 50.64 0.500 5.570 n/s n/s n/s n/sJul 2003 3.40 2.15 0.21 85.65 77.58 2.92 9.56 1.78 31.50 41.07 0.390 34.900 n/s n/s n/s n/sNov 2003 3.33 3.76 0.18 78.31 100.86 6.09 10.43 1.60 34.83 57.66 0.680 36.088 n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2004 0.10 2.55 0.10 82.72 114.70 5.56 9.60 1.68 35.30 56.78 1.445 31.194 n/s n/s n/s n/sJul 2004 4.70 3.44 0.72 86.02 116.27 4.80 21.21 3.97 35.55 55.54 4.171 34.719 104.59 77.69 80.34 70.76Nov 2004 1.86 9.29 0.10 77.33 112.88 4.97 29.25 1.20 35.01 53.60 1.423 28.609 98.74 76.84 70.90 58.09Mar 2005 0.10 1.74 0.10 80.08 125.10 6.32 9.17 1.16 31.09 41.00 2.209 22.001 79.99 93.12 59.40 42.95Apr 2005 n/s n/s n/s 79.24 112.66 n/s n/s n/s 35.80 n/s n/s 22.551 84.22 98.58 10.23 46.03Jul 2005 3.82 3.70 0.14 75.17 129.45 6.03 56.85 1.10 32.52 37.25 4.059 27.746 77.13 76.41 51.86 50.40Nov 2005 3.03 12.45 0.25 88.45 143.23 1.54 54.88 5.59 25.38 34.72 6.878 16.649 81.97 76.18 65.38 74.74Mar 2006 1.36DRY DRY77.64DRY DRY16.13 1.20 35.91 35.69 8.923DRY68.15 72.25 65.49 49.51Jul 2006 1.39 12.13 n/a 90.65 n/a 0.94 8.51 1.07 32.20 43.07 5.165 13.647 99.95 86.72 33.46 42.08Nov 2006 2.44 15.75DRY87.57DRY8.03 69.37 1.09DRY33.19 15.317 29.554DRY87.27 39.85 31.61Mar 2007DRY1.16DRY96.00DRY0.20 10.13 1.16 31.60 31.79 11.230 10.060DRY91.76 39.64DRYJul 2007 4.12 3.72DRY83.54DRY DRY64.60 1.01 20.56 28.96 8.460 27.820DRY80.48 33.80 22.44Nov 2007DRY DRY DRY82.52DRY DRY DRY2.34 26.11 27.13DRY DRY DRYn/s 30.92 23.37Dec 2007 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 83.83 n/s n/sMar 2008 0.10DRY DRY79.09DRY0.10DRY0.73 22.02 28.03 14.050 11.300DRY88.25 32.47 23.71Jul 2008 4.98 6.42DRY76.17DRY0.70 69.16 1.20 24.58 22.27DRY DRY65.30 91.05 44.79 23.44Nov 2008 0.11 6.24DRY65.91DRY3.69 61.34 1.13 20.60 22.70DRY16.770DRY73.96 26.40 23.36Mar 2009DRY4.89DRY50.23DRY0.10 14.29 1.78 17.17 20.09 10.810 5.220DRY77.57 24.03DRYCity of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment PlantRaleigh, North CarolinaWells MW-51, MW-52, MW-53, and MW-54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)n/s = no sample collectedn/a = not applicable, there is no data associated but the well was sampledDRY = Less than three well volumes bailed, did not yeild a valid sample15A NCAC 2L Standard = 10 mg/LNotes:Table 2Groundwater Analytical Results - Compliance Monitoring WellsPage 1 of 7
MW 201 MW 202 MW 203 TW1 TW2 TW 11 TW 14 TW 16 TW18 TW24 TW 25 TW30 TW30.1 TW 31A TW32 TW32A TW33 Jun 2003 n/s n/s n/s 32.00 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/sJul 2003 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 179.50 n/s n/s 5.80 5.80 33.60 3.80 15.80 5.80Nov 2003 n/s n/s n/s 12.03 13.18 n/s 0.45 6.24 170.69 2.71 0.48 10.19 5.74 35.28 3.16 16.95 5.21Mar 2004 n/s n/s n/s 38.52 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/sApr 2004 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 181.83 n/s n/s 11.03 5.65 43.86 2.64 16.40 5.43Jun 2004 n/s n/s n/s n/s 0.25 n/s 0.48 6.22 n/s 6.01 0.45 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2005 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 9.82 5.33 n/s 25.85 18.84 4.90Apr 2005 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 0.31 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2006 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 182.27 2.00 2.53 n/s 13.40 5.92 2.60 23.60 5.30Jun 2006 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 3.80 n/s n/s 141.32 n/s n/s 13.10 n/s n/a n/s 23.00 7.60Jul 2006 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 2.38 26.82 n/s 6.33 n/s 2.98 n/s n/sOct 2006 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 35.50 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 15.06 7.70DRY2.20 27.40 5.70Nov 2006 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 172.13 3.38 1.04 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sDec 2006 n/s n/s n/s 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 n/sFeb 2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 161.46 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2007 n/s n/s n/sDRY DRY3.69DRY DRYn/s 2.64 0.86 14.16 7.27 63.66 2.60 28.27 5.53Apr 2007 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 n/s n/sMay 2007 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 n/s n/sJun 2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 7.04DRY2.54 23.81 4.83Jul 2007 n/s n/s n/sDRY DRYn/sDRY DRY137.96 2.81 0.66 13.08 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sNov 2007 n/s n/s n/sDRY DRYn/sDRY DRY153.34 n/s n/s n/s n/sDRYn/s n/s n/sDec 2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 2.79 0.47 14.07 9.05 n/s 2.37 28.74 4.48Mar 2008 n/s n/s n/sDRY DRYn/sDRY DRY132.61 n/s n/s 15.42 10.21DRYn/s n/s 4.82Apr 2008 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 3.13 0.70 n/s n/s n/s 2.03 29.57 n/sJun 2008 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/sJul 2008 40.29 34.03 14.27DRY DRYn/sDRY DRY58.34 3.55 0.94 17.66 11.29DRY2.09 31.70 3.24Nov 2008 33.29 23.44 15.31DRY DRYn/sDRY DRY DRYn/s n/s 19.22 11.35DRY2.08 29.46 4.73Dec 2008 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 4.40 0.70 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2009 35.34 42.96 24.84DRY DRYn/sDRY DRYn/s n/s n/s 16.36 8.66 40.15 7.97 26.70 5.18Apr 2009 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 87.12 4.80 1.03 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sCity of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment PlantRaleigh, North Carolinan/s = no sample collectedWells MW-51, MW-52, MW-53, and MW-54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)RemovedforconstructionNo prior samplesTable 3Groundwater Analytical Results - CSA/SSA/CAP Monitoring WellsNotes:15A NCAC 2L Standard = 10 mg/LDRY = Less than three well volumes bailed, did not yeild a valid samplen/a = not applicable, there is no data associated but the well was sampledPage 2 of 7
TW34 TW35 TW36 TW37 TW 45A TW 641 TW 642 MW100 MW101 MW101D MW102 MW103 MW104 Dec 2002 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 12.00 160.00 100.00 86.00 49.00 24.00Jun 2003 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 15.00 120.00 97.00 72.00 36.00 35.00Jul 2003 49.60 26.60 4.30 2.40 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sNov 2003 62.17 36.02 3.47 2.05 7.71 73.56 80.15 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2004 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 15.14 164.10 n/s 96.07 36.40 43.77Apr 2004 64.77 37.35 3.51 2.92 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sJun 2004 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 79.07 70.53 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2005 n/s n/s 3.48 1.89 9.21 71.39 61.59 14.81 n/s 117.40 119.42 30.43 n/sApr 2005 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 44.42Mar 2006 81.40 60.00 4.90 2.10 n/s 83.68 86.35 18.60 197.30 124.70 145.70 33.90 n/sJun 2006 n/s n/s 4.20 2.70 4.77 n/s n/s 15.30 180.30 123.30 140.50 36.00 n/aJul 2006 75.80 61.05 n/s n/s n/s 82.98 62.49 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sOct 2006 85.70 73.80 6.30 3.30DRY82.61 56.16 n/s n/s n/s n/s 25.10 46.90Nov 2006 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 22.21 178.12 125.34 142.52 n/s n/sFeb 2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 19.76 48.98 129.32 49.19 n/s 49.03Mar 2007 93.95 68.42 6.20 6.37 6.84 86.76 46.83 n/s n/s n/s n/s 23.73 n/sJun 2007 83.92 65.80 4.65 2.46DRY76.55 48.37 n/s n/s n/s 110.77 23.70 51.78Jul 2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 17.06 166.29 104.98 n/s n/s n/sNov 2007 n/s n/s n/s n/sDRYn/s n/s 25.98 n/s 99.38 109.03 28.20DRYDec 2007 87.33 74.01 6.57 2.85 n/s 75.45 42.82 n/s 168.66 n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2008 83.44 68.89 5.96 2.10 n/s 75.54 32.18 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sDRYApr 2008 n/s n/s n/s n/s 2.79 n/s n/s 17.06 157.32 101.82 109.50 30.56 n/sJul 2008 88.75 75.36 6.09 2.77DRY76.10 54.35 18.66 161.08 104.42 130.25 37.56DRYNov 2008 n/s n/s 7.34 2.57DRY69.49 32.70 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sDRYDec 2008 77.23 67.87 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 14.38 140.90 n/a 82.07 32.83 n/sMar 2009 85.30 71.47 6.71 2.23 n/s 71.80 20.16 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sApr 2009 n/s n/s n/s n/s 6.30 n/s n/s 19.11 146.79 101.57 89.58 46.60DRYNotes:Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment PlantRaleigh, North CarolinaTable 3Groundwater Analytical Results - CSA/SSA/CAP Monitoring WellsWells MW-51, MW-52, MW-53, and MW-54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.15A NCAC 2L Standard = 10 mg/LDRY = Less than three well volumes bailed, did not yeild a valid samplen/a = not applicable, there is no data associated but the well was sampledn/s = no sample collectedPage 3 of 7
MW 105 MW105D MW106 MW 107 MW108 MW109 MW 110 MW 111 MW 111D MW 112 MW 113D MW 114 MW 115 Dec 2002 11.00 28.00 2.50 0.00 4.40 54.00 33.00 28.00 18.00 15.00 21.00 n/s n/sJun 2003 17.00 23.00 17.00 0.12 18.00 52.00 29.00 17.00 20.00 11.00 53.00 2.60 22.00Mar 2004 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 2.37 32.07Apr 2004 n/s n/s n/s n/s 27.23 n/s 31.75 16.71 n/s 7.81 n/s n/s n/sJun 2004 52.60 n/s 61.57 n/s n/s 61.57 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2005 49.92 50.29 25.23 n/s 7.52 45.15 29.96 19.55 n/s 11.11 n/s 1.18 26.29Apr 2005 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 24.24 n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2006 62.70 53.30 n/s n/s 12.90 41.70 30.00 25.90 21.80 19.20 n/s 1.80 26.60Jun 2006 64.50 51.60 30.30 n/s 10.43 42.30 33.60 13.90 23.10 18.20 n/a 1.40 30.90Oct 2006 55.00 55.05 n/s n/s 17.30 39.20 n/s 25.70 20.70 16.00 n/s 3.00 31.90Nov 2006 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 27.91 n/s n/s n/s 71.85 n/s n/sDec 2006 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 3.04 n/sFeb 2007 88.34 n/s 35.23 n/s 17.13 42.19 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 0.84 26.34Mar 2007 n/s 53.56 n/s n/s n/s n/s 26.65 19.11 n/a 11.44 75.39 n/s n/sJun 2007 79.44 48.44 31.21 n/s 13.81 37.62 23.00 8.50 19.41 12.75 n/s 2.42 21.70Jul 2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 73.91 n/s n/sNov 2007 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/sDec 2007 64.00 48.43 n/s n/s 34.54 30.79 14.81 22.47 18.30 14.57 65.56 3.42 27.08Mar 2008 n/s n/s 27.94 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 59.27 n/s n/sApr 2008 75.72 52.34 n/s n/s 33.67 33.65 22.90 24.16 18.81 14.16 n/s 0.35 23.82Jul 2008 72.59 48.33 46.53 n/s 36.59 37.23 22.80 24.88 19.30 19.63 62.64 2.01 23.26Nov 2008DRYn/s n/s n/sDRY32.71 23.90 22.45 18.17 17.67 n/s n/s n/sDec 2008 n/s 42.61 25.80 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 48.97 25.25 23.75Mar 2009 n/s n/s 32.71 n/s 36.57 37.41 24.96 7.84 16.84 12.45 n/s n/s n/sApr 2009 66.36 46.51 n/s 0.82 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 44.74 57.04 22.46Notes:Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment PlantTable 3Raleigh, North CarolinaGroundwater Analytical Results - CSA/SSA/CAP Monitoring Wells15A NCAC 2L Standard = 10 mg/LDRY = Less than three well volumes bailed, did not yeild a valid samplen/a = not applicable, there is no data associated but the well was sampledn/s = no sample collectedWells MW-51, MW-52, MW-53, and MW-54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.Page 4 of 7
MW 116 MW 117 MW 121 MW 122 MW 123D MW 124D MW 125D MW 126D GP 1 GP 3 GP 5 GP 8 GP-9 GP10 GP 12 GP-17 GP21 GP22 Dec 2002 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 22.00 44.00 n/s 96.00 6.70 0.80 0.12 0.00 2.20 130.00Jun 2003 5.50 0.26 0.38 5.00 120.00 0.29 12.00 6.50 n/s n/s 46.00 93.00 n/s 0.55 0.00 6.80 1.90 6.90Jul 2003 n/s n/s n/s 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 4.30Dec 2003 n/s 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/sMar 2004 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 55.50 42.31 24.70 0.39 0.20 n/s n/s n/sApr 2004 7.90 n/s n/s n/s 69.97 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/sJun 2004 n/s 0.00 n/s 5.65 n/s n/s 9.25 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 0.19 4.32 8.61 30.80Jul 2004 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 1.00 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2005 2.86 0.94 n/s 4.89 0.55 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 17.00 n/s n/s 6.99 1.80 41.13Apr 2005 6.33 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 8.40 6.63 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2006 9.70 n/s n/s 4.23 72.20 2.93 n/s 8.50 n/s n/s n/s n/s 13.40 n/s 2.19 6.90 n/s n/sJun 2006 6.70 n/s n/s 3.93 67.20 n/s n/s 9.10 n/s n/s n/s n/s 20.64 1.02 n/s 5.10 3.00 35.90Jul 2006 n/s 0.00 n/s n/s n/s 0.90 7.93 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sOct 2006 0.70 1.80 n/s 5.30 0.00 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 1.48DRY6.10 n/sNov 2006 n/s 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 6.10 n/sFeb 2007 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 10.42 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sMar 2007 5.94 0.24DRY5.68 72.47 3.55 9.80 n/sDRY DRY DRY DRY11.55 0.26DRY14.03 0.68DRYJun 2007 4.94 2.41DRYn/s 54.92DRY8.61 8.77 n/sDRY DRY DRYn/s n/s n/s 0.10 1.49 30.13Jul 2007 n/s n/s n/s 3.57 n/s n/s n/s n/sDRYn/s n/s n/s 9.88DRY DRYn/s n/s n/sNov 2007 n/s n/s n/s 2.49 52.18DRY8.39 n/sDRY DRY DRY DRYn/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/sDec 2007 1.90 0.27DRYn/s n/s n/s n/s 8.93 n/s n/s n/s n/sDRY DRY DRY0.53 15.32 15.32Mar 2008 n/s n/sDRY2.61 56.88DRY13.44 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 4.41 n/sApr 2008 4.30 0.13 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 9.94DRY DRY DRY DRY7.77DRY DRY0.52 n/sDRYJul 2008 2.28 0.34DRY3.12 56.12 4.63 8.85 9.84DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY2.26 18.06Nov 2008 n/s 0.67 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/sDRYn/s n/sDec 2008 4.47 n/sDRY2.43 53.78 4.12 6.47 9.21DRY DRY DRY DRY6.58DRY DRYn/s 7.32DRYMar 2009 4.65 0.95DRYn/s n/s n/s 9.06 9.79 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 0.47 0.59 4.26 22.70Apr 2009 n/s n/s n/s 3.29 56.41 5.30 n/s n/s 1.38DRY DRY19.21 10.10 0.78 n/s n/s n/s n/sNotes:City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment PlantRaleigh, North Carolinan/a = not applicable, there is no data associated but the well was sampledn/s = no sample collectedWells MW-51, MW-52, MW-53, and MW-54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.15A NCAC 2L Standard = 10 mg/LDRY = Less than three well volumes bailed, did not yeild a valid sampleNitrate Concentration (mg/L)Table 3Groundwater Analytical Results - CSA/SSA/CAP Monitoring WellsPage 5 of 7
SW #1 SW #2 SW #3 SW #4 SW #5 SW #6 SW #7 SW #8 SW #9 SW #10 SW #11 SW #12 SW #13 SW #14Nov 2002 52.0 0.4 52.0 54.0 0.7 54.0 77.0 1.2 34.0 48.0 19.0 52.0 0.5 0.2Jun 2003 49.0 13.0 50.0 47.0 2.0 46.0 83.0 1.6 36.0 19.0 47.0 41.0 1.3 0.2Sep 2005 43.275 n/s n/s 77.919 n/s 70.439 97.593 n/s n/s n/s 32.962 n/s n/s n/sNov 2005 41.043 5.64 55.034 58.186 0.448 52.847 80.483 0.834 49.246 66.919 25.890 59.220 n/s n/sDec 2005 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s 0.543 0.214Mar 2006 64.586 10.159 81.285 76.195 1.486 68.885 94.086 1.534 62.057 78.773 35.387 71.531 0.479 0.000Jul 2006 50.25 12.284 55.087 77.555 5.678 68.097 100.878 8.076 33.667 78.309 68.484 73.148 5.719 0.201Nov 2006DRY3.301 25.665 62.658 9.683 48.162 7.833 42.126 50.817 68.117 35.977 54.992 7.583 1.493Mar 2007DRY8.98 76.34 74.42 1.550 68.590 101.850 1.740 61.990 81.990 35.820 48.410 0.810 0.000Jul 2007DRY11.12DRY74.99 4.470 65.350 96.030 10.030 62.580 77.590 39.420 68.010 6.190 0.480Nov 2007DRY9.39DRY n/a1.360 64.710 91.920DRY64.420 73.390 33.550 65.590 0.520 0.000Mar 2008DRY6.61 57.97 64.39 1.630 42.190 87.110 10.290 49.920 72.820 36.120 58.690 3.920 0.250Jul 2008DRY7.04 40.91 56.76 5.020 52.520 81.940 1.100 68.270 65.210 48.890 58.580 5.240 0.390Nov 2008DRY8.33 49.68 6.1 7.900 57.630 78.990 13.320 52.670 65.200 33.020 56.920 7.680DRYMar 2009 30.36 26.62 51.03 53.56 11.170 24.260 78.780 2.320 17.570 21.410 26.050 45.560 0.900 0.180Notes:City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment PlantRaleigh, North Carolinan/s = no sample collectedWells MW-51, MW-52, MW-53, and MW-54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.DRY = Less than three well volumes bailed, did not yeild a valid samplen/a = not applicable, there is no data associated but the well was sampled15A NCAC 2L Standard = 10 mg/LNitrate Concentration (mg/L)Table 4Surface Water Analytical ResultsPage 6 of 7
SW #15 SW #16 SW #17 SW #18 SW #19 SW #20 SW #21 SW #22 SW #24 SW #25 SW #26 SW #27 SW #28Nov 2002 20.0 1.7 5.5 3.0 16.0 3.8 0.2 0.3 0.5 NS NS NS NSJun 2003 20.0 6.2 1.0 1.7 21.0 3.3 0.2 1.5 0.5 4.6 9.8 14.0 46.0Sep 2005 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/sDec 2005 36.210 3.680 5.068 4.740 18.698 2.745 0.126 1.184 0.568 4.990DRY3.866 n/sMar 2006 33.351 6.699 0.746 4.816 10.381 1.859 0.000 0.881 1.030 1.375DRY2.346 n/sJul 2006 39.820 6.838DRY4.920 36.676 7.147 0.133 1.626 1.204DRY DRY DRYn/sNov 2006DRY2.972 0.778 3.981 17.129 2.594 0.000 0.957 0.707 1.420DRY4.627 n/sMar 2007DRY7.630 0.000 5.860 23.830 4.550 0.280 1.270 0.550 3.380 4.260 8.830 n/sJul 2007DRY3.350DRY4.420 37.280 7.740 0.640 1.670 0.740DRY DRY DRYn/sNov 2007DRY3.040DRY4.350 34.390 4.110 0.000 1.460 0.480DRY DRY DRYn/sMar 2008DRY3.240DRY4.560 22.420 2.810 0.000 0.930 0.350DRY DRY4.700 n/sJul 2008DRY2.400DRY4.610 37.050 2.360 0.170 0.710 0.350DRY DRY DRYn/sNov 2008DRY1.930DRY4.770 1.620 3.000 0.000 1.780 0.810 1.860DRY DRYn/sMar 2009DRY4.400 0.730 4.870 16.670 2.940 2.850 1.270 32.590 2.980 2.760 5.460 61.5Notes:City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment PlantRaleigh, North CarolinaNitrate Concentration (mg/L)15A NCAC 2L Standard = 10 mg/LDRY = Less than three well volumes bailed, did not yeild a valid samplen/a = not applicable, there is no data associated but the well was sampledn/s = no sample collectedWells MW-51, MW-52, MW-53, and MW-54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.Table 4Surface Water Analytical ResultsPage 7 of 7
We appreciate your time and attention to this important matter. If you have any
immediate questions regarding our Variance Application , please do not hesitate to
contact me or Robert Massengill, P.E. at 857-4540.
Director
Enclosures
cc: Robert Massengill
T.J. Lynch
Tim Woody
Steven J. Levitas
Peter Thibodeau
ublic Utilities
OFFICES H 222 WEST HARGETT STREET H POST OFFICE BOX 590 H RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
TABLE 4ASurface Water Analytical Results - Treatment Wetland Candidate SitesCity of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment PlantRaleigh, North CarolinaNitrate (mg/L)May 1, 2008May 22, 2008July 2, 2008Aug 6, 2008Aug 27, 2008Sept. 24, 2008Oct. 21, 2008Nov 13, 2008Dec 10, 2008Jan 7, 2009SW-AU 48.2 53.3 58.4 55.1 42.1 58.5 56.7 58.1 59.1 26.2SW-AD 48.3 52.4 57.8 44.7 49.5 57.6 59.4 22.2 56.5 15.8SW-BU 4.5 6.8 9.5 7.8 5.3 9.6 9.2 8.9 7.8 3.9SW-BD 4.6 18.6 9.3 8.2 5.4 9.5 9.2 9.6 9.5 8.0SW-CU 28.5 32.1 35.5 NS 36.8 39.3 39.5 30.0 35.3 26.6SW-CD 27.1 49.6 37.8 NS 40.1 39.3 39.0 32.7 37.8 26.2SW-DU 3.0 4.0 3.0 NS 2.2 3.1 3.8 3.7 4.3 3.2SW-DD 3.1 5.2 3.0 NS 2.1 3.1 3.7 3.6 4.2 3.5SW-EU 12.8 15.5 29.9 34.9 25.4 22.8 21.6 19.6 11.8 4.5SW-ED 12.6 14.4 29.1 37.6 22.4 24.0 20.9 18.3 13.4 4.7Notes:mg/L - Milligrams per LiterU - Upstream, D - DownstreamLocation
TABLE 6
Description of Proposed Variance Areas
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Number PIN
Size of Parcel
(acres) Actual Land Use Residence?
1 1740979732 52.6
Majority forested and small portion of agricultural
land No
2 1740793487 20 Residence on agricultural and foresed land Yes
3 1741657986 15.65 Forested land with a power substation No
4 1751302126 1.0 Residence Yes
5 1741639103 210.99
Majority forested and agricultural land and
contruction and debris landfill Yes
6 1751404793 9.95 Forested with residence Yes
7 1750174178 79.19 Forested land No
8 1750389798 NA NA NA
9 1751630645 0.03 Vacant No
10 1750397971 1.03 Residence Yes
11 1751630713 0.56 Residence Yes
12 1741805656 13.64 Forested with residence Yes
13 1751108108 3.38 Residence and agricultural Yes
14 1751107691 1.08 Forested land with residence Yes
15 1751304009 1.0 Vacant No
16 1750481764 1.46 Residence Yes
17 1740760858 259.22 Vacant, forested lot No
18 1741533931 13.48 Vacant No
19 1751305085 1.0 Residence Yes
20 1751500467 30.75
Agricultural-farm, one home and several
outbuildings Yes
21 1751439727 19.5 Agricultural land No
22 1740783586 8.16 Forested vacant land No
23 1751736917 16.91 Forested land No
24 1750481918 NA NA NA
25 1751400846 8.28 Residence Yes
26 1751525610 1.6 Cemetery No
27 1751300253 1.0 Vacant No
28 1750491820 1.01 Residence Yes
29 1751309180 3.44 Vacant, wooded lot No
30 1751507920 8.1 Forested land Yes
31 1751106682 1.07 Agricultural land No
32 175000-14-9550 79.19
Forested land (continuation of Parcel 7 in
Johnston County)No
33 175000-38-7096 0.49 Forested land No
34 175000-37-6963 1.41 Forested land No
35 175000-38-9108 1.33 Forested land No
36 175000-48-5708
No information in Johnston County GIS (same as
16 - Wake County)
37 175000-48-0659 1.63 Residence Yes
#11317126v1
TABLE 5
Soil Analytical Results
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Sample ID / Field Sample Ammonia Nitrate Nitrite Solids TKN TOC PAN - Surf PAN - Sub
Depth Location Date (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (%) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) mg/kg mg/kg
SB-1 0-7" Field 3 12/12/02 1.3 2.9 <1.0 82 1600 NA NA NA
SS-1 0-4' Field 3 11/14/02 1.1 9 <1 80 920 NA NA NA
SS-1 4-8' Field 3 11/14/02 <0.1 9.4 <1 82 14 NA NA NA
SS-1 8-12' Field 3 11/14/02 0.14 16 <1 79 9.3 NA NA NA
SS-1 12-16' Field 3 11/14/02 0.1 18 <1 90 5.1 NA NA NA
SS-1 16-22' Field 3 11/14/02 <0.1 16 <1 89 2.2 NA NA NA
SB-2 0-7" Field 3 12/12/02 1.1 4.1 <1.0 82 1800 NA NA NA
SS-2 0-4' Field 3 11/14/02 0.6 7.9 <1 84 480 NA NA NA
SS-2 4-8' Field 3 11/14/02 <0.1 24 <1 72 24 NA NA NA
SS-2 8-12' Field 3 11/14/02 <0.1 8.1 <1 93 9.2 NA NA NA
SS-2 12-14' Field 3 11/14/02 <0.1 5.9 <1 94 6.5 NA NA NA
SB-3 0-7" Field 100 12/12/02 1.1 8.1 <1.0 81 1800 NA NA NA
SB3 0-4' Field 100 11/15/02 0.58 23 <1 81 80 870 NA NA
SB3 4-8' Field 100 11/15/02 0.43 58 <1 67 28 400 NA NA
SB3 8-12' Field 100 11/15/02 3.1 51 <1 77 27 8530 NA NA
SB3 12-16' Field 100 11/15/02 0.32 24 <1 84 18 400 NA NA
SB3 16-20' Field 100 11/15/02 0.36 26 <1 86 8.8 383 NA NA
SB3 20-24' Field 100 11/15/02 0.29 17 <1 90 <0.06 296 NA NA
SB-4 0-7" Field 100 12/12/02 2.2 5.6 <1.0 82 1600 NA NA NA
SB4 0-4' Field 100 11/15/02 1.1 26 <1 84 69 2260 NA NA
SB4 4-8' Field 100 11/15/02 0.37 61 <1 75 32 209 NA NA
SB4 8-12' Field 100 11/15/02 0.94 30 <1 83 14 522 NA NA
SB4 12-16' Field 100 11/15/02 0.39 19 <1 72 9.2 3130 NA NA
SB4 16-20' Field 100 11/15/02 <0.1 27 <1 84 3.1 331 NA NA
SB-5 0-7" Field 500 12/23/02 2.5 <1.0 <2.0 83 1800 NA NA NA
SB5 0-4' Field 500 11/15/02 0.67 3.5 <1 78 460 6310 NA NA
SB5 4-8' Field 500 11/15/02 <0.1 25 <1 84 37 296 NA NA
SB5 8-12' Field 500 11/15/02 <0.1 8.9 <1 84 9.6 278 NA NA
SB5 12-16' Field 500 11/15/02 <0.1 14 <1 85 <0.06 70 NA NA
SB5 16-24' Field 500 11/15/02 <0.1 9.4 <1 80 <0.06 90 NA NA
SB-6 0-7" Field 500 12/12/02 0.98 2.4 <1.0 88 650 NA NA NA
SB6 0-4' Field 500 11/15/02 0.6 5 <1 88 670 3860 NA NA
SB6 4-8' Field 500 11/15/02 <0.1 16 <1 82 51 783 NA NA
SB6 8-12' Field 500 11/15/02 0.6 J 10 <1 82 20 679 NA NA
D-SB6 8-12' Field 500 11/15/02 0.23 J 9.9 <1 83 16 278 NA NA
SB6 12-16' Field 500 11/15/02 <0.1 11 <1 83 31 574 NA NA
SB6 16-20' Field 500 11/15/02 <0.1 12 <1 79 <0.06 350 NA NA
Field 17 Field 17 36.2 9.1 NA 99 1389.1 NA 433.1 451.2
Field 18 Field 18 79.1 24.2 NA 97 2051.1 NA 655.3 694.9
Field 19 Field 19 45.3 12.4 NA 97 2530.1 NA 780.5 803.1
Field 22 Field 22 48.3 6.7 NA 98 3229.0 NA 985.0 1009.1
Field 27 Field 27 31.8 6.7 NA 97 1485.3 NA 458.6 474.5
Field 28 Field 28 32.6 3.3 NA 97 1273.9 NA 392.0 408.3
Field 33 Field 33 22.0 5.0 NA 97 678.5 NA 213.0 224.0
Field 35 Field 35 36.5 9.3 NA 97 1469.5 NA 457.4 475.7
Field 36 Field 36 46.1 22.3 NA 97 1839.1 NA 583.2 606.3
Field 37 Field 37 30.4 3.0 NA 84 1193.0 NA 367.0 382.2
Field 38 Field 38 17.5 2.0 NA 84 1598.4 NA 485.1 493.8
Field 39 Field 39 32.1 4.0 NA 86 905.7 NA 282.1 298.1
Field 40 Field 40 28.6 3.3 NA 85 497.5 NA 158.3 172.6
Field 42 Field 42 25.0 3.2 NA 84 1247.4 NA 382.4 394.9
Field 43 Field 43 36.1 13.6 NA 84 1461.6 NA 459.3 477.4
Field 45 Field 45 20.6 4.0 NA 83 578.3 NA 181.7 192.0
Field 49 Field 49 28.9 4.1 NA 83 1264.0 NA 389.1 403.6
Field 50 Field 50 33.5 10.4 NA 83 1194.6 NA 375.5 392.2
Field 73 Field 73 28.0 4.6 NA 90 1101.2 NA 340.5 354.5
Field 511 Field 511 29.1 6.9 NA 98 705.3 NA 224.4 238.9
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)
PAN Sub - Plant Available Nitrogen (Subsurface)
#11335482v1
TABLE 1Private Well Nitrate Nitrogen Results and Water Supply/Service StatusNeuse River Waste Water Treatment PlantRaleigh, North CarolinaAug. '02 Aug. '02 (DWQ)Sep. '02 Jan '03 Feb '03 Apr '03 Jul '03 Oct '03 Jan '04 Apr '04 Jul '04 Oct '04 Jan/Feb '05Apr '05 Aug '05 Jan '06 Apr '07 July '08OWNER'S NAMEAddressNO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/LNO3 levelNO3 mg/L NO3 mg/LSTATUS1Adams, Dalton8401 Old Baucom Rd3.86.33.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 4/22, CONNECT 6/10/032Adams, Diane8513 Old Baucom Rd1.531.4 1.6 1.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 7/17, CONNECT 10/14/033Adams, Jimmy8428 Old Baucom Rd10.91.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 4/25, CONNECT 6/10/034Adams, Shirley8404 Old Baucom Rd4.410.94.3 4.4 4.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 10/1/035Baucom, Julian / Clifton 3021 / 3005 Hickory Tree Pl0.1 0.50.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 12/29/03, CONNECT6/22/047920 Old Baucom Rd2.662.4 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.5 1.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7920 and 8004 shared a well; declined service for 79208004 Old Baucom Rd2.662.4 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.5 1.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 4/16/04, CONNECT 9/28/047Belvin, Danny6208 Mial Plantation Rd4.13.9 7.53.7 3.8 4.1 5.7 4.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 12/20/03, CONNECT 6/1/048Blowe, Bobby2853 Shotwell Rd20.9 21 20 23.419.7 20.3 19.5N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 10/21/039Brown, Sybil8529 Old Baucom Rd2.12.1 52.2 2.4 2.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 10/28, CONNECT 11/18/0310Carroll, Kathy8500 Old Baucom Rd0.10.50.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 4/25, CONNECT 5/29/0311Clark, John8416 Old Baucom Rd1.61.71.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A City property, CONNECT 5/29/0312Ross, Clee2823 Shotwell Rd24 23 23.5 52.920.3 23.1 20.3N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 10/21/0313Cowing, Betty8100 Old Baucom Rd0.70.50.5 0.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 4/30, CONNECT 7/14/0314Daniels, Earl5716 Mial Plantation Rd2.85.92.5 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 12/31/03, CONNECT 6/2/0415Debnam, Catherine 5717 Mial Plantation Rd2.76.43.1 3.3 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.7 6.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 9/13/04, CONNECT 10/13/0416Debnam, Clarence5525 Mial Plantation Rd1.72.12.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2 2.1 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 9/20/04, CONNECT 10/19/0417Debnam, Judson &Shirley 5700 Mial Plantation Rd4.710.34.4 4.7 4.7 5.1 5.6 5.4 4.5 2.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 9/13/04,CONNECT 10/12/0418Debnam, Renella5616 / 5620 Mial Plant Rd4.68.4 3.8 4.6 3.9 3.7 4.4 3.9 2.9 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 9/20/04, CONNECT 10/20/0419Debnam, Retha5600 Mial Plantation Rd7.17156.2 7.3 6.6 5.7 7.2 6.5 7.4 7.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 9/13/04, CONNECT 10/12/0420Dunstan, Ollie5520 Mial Plantation Rd2.51.92.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.9 4.9 4.1 0.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 11/29/04, CONNECT 1/14/0521Frison, Brenda8549 Old Baucom Rd5.25.213.56.5 7.4 7.7 6.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 10/22/0322Hash, David6216 Mial Plantation Rd12.4 9.7 11.6 16.215.2 14.4 18.0N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 12/2/0323Hopkins, John8321 Old Baucom Rd1.37.4 2.6 2.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 5/14, CONNECT 8/13/0324Howell, Kenny2820 Brown Field138.920.56.9 8.5 8.7 8.7 7.8 4.4 6.1 3.4 8 N/AN/A N/A agreement rec 3/8/05 CONNECT 4/11/0525Hunter, Teri1340 Pine Trail0.30.60.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 <0.05 0.7 0.15 0.67 not applicable - water service not available26McKinnon, Charles5708 Mial Plantation Rd4.79.6 5 4.3 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4 7.2 4.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 9/20/04, CONNECT 11/16/0427City of Raleigh (formerly owned by Lucy Moore)8208 Old Baucom Rd0.50.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A declined service 5/1/03 City acq. 4/8/0528Perkins, Marvin6200 Mial Plantation Rd6.35.813.3 10.8 11.2 12.5 13.8 14.2 12.1 13.9N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 6/10/04, CONNECT 9/16/0429Rhodes, William6205 Firecracker4.14.1 8.7 4.1 4.2 5.0 5.5 5.9 6.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 12/07/03, CONNECT 5/28/0430"6309 Mial Plantation15.4 18 17.2 37.418.4 21.3N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 6/9, CONNECT 8/4/0331"6317 Shotwell / Mial Plant.7.67.813.97 4.8 8.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 6/9, CONNECT 8/7/03"2862 Shotwell Rd""""" " N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A served by 6317, CONNECT 8/7/0332"4608 Rds Hill5.55.314.14.8 5.3 5.7 6.3 5.9 5.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 12/07/03, CONNECT 5/25/0433Debman, Marda5532 Mial Plantation4.310.84.1 5.4 4.8 4.4 5.3 5.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 3/11/04, CONNECT 6/4/0434Seawell, Virginia5529 Mial Plantation Rd3.163.7 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.7 4.1 0.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 7/8/04, CONNECT 9/24/0435Wheeler, Pamela6029 Mial Plantation Rd5.85.215.17.7 8.511.5 11.9 14.5 15.0N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 12/30/03, CONNECT 6/9/0436Young, Evelyn8537 Old Baucom Rd17.8 16 15.1 38.512.5 18.4 18.5N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 8/21, CONNECT 10/21/0337Belvin, Larry2757 Shotwell Rd31.83.2 2.8 24.7 2.7 2.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 8/14, CONNECT 10/22/0338City of Raleigh (formerly owned by Lucy Moore)8232 Old Baucom Rd1.52.2 21.8 0.5 1.1 1.0 0.6 2.6 1.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A declined service 5/1/03 City acq. 4/8/0539HEATER UTILITIES St JAMES SUBDIVISION16.78.1 8.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 4/12, CONNECT 4/25/03 Mattress, Albert119 Jamison Dr RalN/Asee above Wood, Wendy & Gerry 127 Jamison Dr RalN/Asee above Doremus, Stanley & Joan 143 Jamison DrN/Asee above Mcfarling, Mike & Beth 165 Jamison DrN/Asee above Norberg, Eric & Linda 186 Jamison DrN/Asee above Allemand, Carlton & Lisa 269 Jamison DrN/Asee above40Henderson, Shanon 2750 Shotwell Rd5.30.5 0.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 5/9, CONNECT 8/14/0341Coward, Shirley & Bill 5509 Mial Plantation Rd3.26.210.4/7.1 5.2 4.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 12/30/03, CONNECT 6/9/0442High, Johnnie5409 Mial Plantation Rd6.43.6 3.5 4.0 4.8 7.5 3.7 N/A 1.8 4.3 6.8 4.4 7.043Watkins, Glenda5115 Mial Plantation Rd6.42.6 2.6 3.2 3.3 2.5 1.9 N/A 2.7 2.81.73 2.544King, Ronald2834 Shotwell Rd55.6 5.0 5.6 5.9 2.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 1/21/04, CONNECT 9/2/0445Debnam, Renella5605 Mial Plantation Rd4.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agreement rec 9/20/04, CONNECT 10/21/04NOTES:NO3Nitratemg/L milligrams per literPrivate water supply wells currently activeBold text indicates results above the 2L standard of 10mg/L for NO3PRIVATE WELLS SAMPLED IN VICINITY OF NRWWTP6Baucom, WilliamUS2000_11311215_1.XLS1 of 3-
Additional Private Wells Tested Beyond Quarterly Testing Area Near NRWWTPOct. 02 Jul. 03 Oct. 03HOME# NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L1550-4990 2001 Elaine Dr., Clayton 275200.1 N/A N/A2807-3991 2025 Elaine Dr., Clayton 275200.1 N/A N/A3553-9935 2661 Shotwell Rd., Clayton 275202.1 N/A N/A4553-3359 2664 Shotwell Rd., Clayton 275202.1 N/A N/A5359-1570 233 Ryan Lane, Clayton 27520N/A 0.5 N/A6359-0974 200 Ryan Lane, Clayton 27520N/A 0.9 N/A7300 Ryan Lane, Clayton 27520N/A 0.5 N/A82600 Brown Field Road2.4 2.9 N/ARusty & Chris RawlsOWNER'S NAMEMatt SextonChristopher & Anita JonesResidentGriffin, D.H.ADDRESSTABLE 1 (cont'd)Private Well Nitrate Nitrogen Results and Water Supply/Service StatusNeuse River Waste Water Treatment PlantRaleigh, North CarolinaKelly SaraTimothy & Victoria JohnsonMichell Sanders

US2000 11161288.13

Groundwater Corrective Action Variance Application

City of Raleigh
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina

June 26, 2009

US2000 11161288.13

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

US2000 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 11161288.13

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1: Total Nitrogen Comparison for NRWWTP
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

US2000 11161288.13

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

1

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
_________________
1 This variance request replaces and supersedes the variance request filed by the City on December 1, 2005, which is
hereby withdrawn.

2

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 of biosolids 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 and 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
_________________
2 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 of limited 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).

3

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
variance.

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.

4

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).

Lithologic 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

Hydrogeologically, 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

5

US2000 11161288.13

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 10-6 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 1 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

6

US2000 11161288.13

the compliance boundary of City-owned biosolids application fields. The City suspended 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/L in 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-
101d, MW-105d and MW-111d) 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.

7

US2000 11161288.13

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
hydrogeologic modeling, indicated 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 10 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 as part of the SSA to estimate the amount of PAN in soils
from fields at the NRWWTP 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.

8

US2000 11161288.13

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 37. 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
No.
Description Parcel Nos.
1 NRWWTP Site N/A
2 Waste Corporation of America
Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill/
Common area of a residential subdivision
5, 18
3 Progress Energy Substation/Portion of NRWWTP
Site
3
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.

9

US2000 11161288.13

3.4.1. Groundwater

The primary risk associated with the groundwater contamination at the Site is that groundwater
with nitrate levels 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.

10

US2000 11161288.13

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
noncarcinogenic 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).

11

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 Neuse 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/L at 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 2L 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.

12

US2000 11161288.13

In the Fall of 2007, the Neuse 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
(approximately100-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

13

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., corn 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 thirteen 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., corn 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

14

US2000 11161288.13

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 corner 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
_________________
10 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.

15

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 extraction 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

16

US2000 11161288.13

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.

17

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.
EXHIBIT 6: OWNERSHIP INFORMATION FOR VARIANCE PARCELS AND PARCELS ADJACENT TO VARIANCE PARCELSWake County Variance Request ParcelsNUMBER NCPIN OWNER NAMEADDRESS CITY, STATE ZIP1 1740979732 NC STATE OF1321 MAIL SERVICE CTR RALEIGH NC 27699-13002 1740793487 BAUCOM, WILLIAM B & ANN R 7920 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-92543 1741657986 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATTN W H KEITH CX1G PO BOX 14042 SAINT PETERSBURG FL 33733-40424 1751302126 ADAMS, JERRY WAYNEADAMS, BRENDA DIANNE 8513 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-92675 1741639103 MATERIAL RECOVERY LLC 421 RALEIGH VIEW RD RALEIGH NC 27610-46236 1751404793 PERKINS, MARVIN CLAUDE & SUSAN J 6200 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-96437 1750174178 NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF STATE PROPERTY OFFICE 116 W JONES ST RALEIGH NC 27603-13008 1750389798 NO INFORMATION IN WAKE COUNTY GIS 9 1751630645 DUNN, PHYLLIS DEBNAM 2916 OLD MILBURNIE RD RALEIGH NC 27604-965510 1750397971 YOUNG, EVELYN C8537 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-926711 1751630713 DANIELS, EARL & JOELINE Y 5717 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-852912 1741805656 COWING, BETTY B8100 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-925813 1751108108 ADAMS, PAUL M HEIRSC/O WANDA S ADAMS EXECUTRIX 8404 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-926414 1751107691 NICHOLSON, CHEYNEY A PO BOX 33065 RALEIGH NC 27636-306515 1751304009 BROWN, SHERRY ADAMS &STEPHEN DALE 135 RIDGE WAY LN CLAYTON NC 27520-808416 1750481764 NO INFORMATION IN WAKE COUNTY GIS - SAME AS #37 IN JOHNSTON COUNTY 17 1740760858 NC STATE OFC/O PROPERTY CONTROL OFFICE 9001 MAIL SERVICE CTR RALEIGH NC 27699-900018 1741533931 PBR GROUP LLC2400 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-920819 1751305085 BROWN, SYBLE B8529 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-926720 1751500467 RHODES, WILLIAM T & GWYN K 3751 E GARNER RD CLAYTON NC 27520-654121 1751439727 DUNN, PHYLLIS DEBNAM 2916 OLD MILBURNIE RD RALEIGH NC 27604-965522 1740783586 BAUCOM, JOHN R JR 2829 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 2761023 1751736917 HINTON, JAMES E333 LAFAYETTE AVE APT 12I BROOKLYN NY 11238-133724 1750481918 NO INFORMATION IN WAKE COUNTY GIS 25 1751400846 HASH, DAVID WHASH, LINDA B 6216 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-964326 1751525610 TIPPETTS CHAPEL ORIGINAL RR 1 KNIGHTDALE NC 27545-980127 1751300253 ADAMS, BRENDA DIANNE% D M ADAMS JR 8513 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-926728 1750491820 HILLMAN, JENNIFERLUNA, RELIO MARTINEZ 8549 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-926729 1751309180 HASH, DAVID W & LINDA B 6216 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-964330 1751507920 WHEELER, PAMELA ANNGUNTER, BRIAN KEITH 6029 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-853431 1751106682 ADAMS, DALTON HICKMANADAMS, GEORGIA M COOPER 8401 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9265Johnston County Variance Request ParcelsNUMBER NCPIN OWNER NAMEADDRESSCITY, STATE ZIP32 175000-14-9550 NC CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENTNO INFORMATION IN WAKE CO. GIS 33 175000-38-7096 JOHNSON, DAVID IRA & JOHNSON, MARNIE 5009 COVERED BRIDGE RD CLAYTON, NC 27520000034 175000-37-6963 LEE, W GATTISP O BOX 72 CLAYTON, NC 27520000035 175000-38-9108 JOHNSON, CLARENCE & JOHNSON, BILLIE 201 MEADOW RUN KNIGHTDALE, NC 27545000036 175000-48-5708 RAYO, JESUS B & ESPINOZA, MARIA G 68 JAMISON DR RALEIGH, NC 27610000037 175000-48-0659 BLOWE, GAIL ROSS2853 SHOTWELL RD RALEIGH, NC 276108541#11317130v1
EXHIBIT 6: OWNERSHIP INFORMATION FOR VARIANCE PARCELS AND PARCELS ADJACENT TO VARIANCE PARCELSWake County Parcels Adjacent to Variance Request ParcelsNUMBER NCPIN OWNER NAMEADDRESSCITY, STATE ZIP38 1751742007 DEBNAM, HENRY W1501 CHURCHILL DOWNS DRWAXHAW NC 28173-661039 1751742617 SEAWELL, VIRGINIA D5529 MIAL PLANTATION RDRALEIGH NC 27610-852640 1740699714 BAUCOM, CLIFTON P3005 HICKORY TREE PLRALEIGH NC 27610-853941 1741535717 JASB CO INC THE15 S BUFFALO STWENDELL NC 27591-897242 1741524454 NASH, STEPHEN JOHN & APRIL A7020 FARMDALE RDRALEIGH NC 27610-973243 1750065189 BELL, IAN &ELMA C1308 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-932444 1740582739 ROPER, SUSAN JONES &ROY7011 FARMDALE RDRALEIGH NC 27610-973245 1740359285 FRANKLIN, PATRICIA A3435 DEER TRACE LNCLAYTON NC 27520-593146 1740854712 MARRINER, LOUIS & FRANCES OWENS1125 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-936047 1741534091 GARRETT, DARYL J &RAMONA C7027 FARMDALE RDRALEIGH NC 27610-973248 1750065779 DEBOCK, RICHARD M & JOANNE1320 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-932449 1740356989 HINZ, KYLE D & KAREN K3401 DEER RACE LACLAYTON NC 2752050 1750071189 MCLEAN, ROBERT S & JOHNNIE F1333 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-934551 1741544862 LANDON HOMES INC2018 BRILLIANT DRRALEIGH NC 27616-721752 1740756710 TERRY, AMANDA & RYAN GROULX1109 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-936053 1751841120 D'ALLAIRD, DANIEL & EMMA2436 NEUSEHILL LNRALEIGH NC 27610-910254 1741543523 LANDON HOMES INC2018 BRILLIANT DRRALEIGH NC 27616-721755 1750065398 BRUFF, MICHAEL S & KIMBERLY B1312 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-932456 1741416454 QUINN, POLLY SPO BOX 132HINESBURG VT 05461-013257 1740596158 HOLLAND, STEPHEN DANEHOLLAND, KRISTINE ANNE13310 46TH CT NROYAL PALM BEACH FL 33411-847658 1741433146 UNDERHILL, RIEVA P7015 FARMDALE RDRALEIGH NC 27610-973259 1740754440 FREEMAN, DANNA F1101 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-936060 1741532734 WATTS, CATHERINE M &RYAN ALLEN4704 PRESERVE RDRALEIGH NC 27610-940761 1740753260 CHAVEZ, CLIFFORD T & VICKIE L1009 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-935862 1741544088 CHIPOURAS, GEORGE L & MARY LYNN2658 QUEEN ANNE CIRANNAPOLIS MD 21403-422163 1750061986 MALARKEY, WILLIAM J & CECELIA GALE1325 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-934564 1740964328 BENNETT, MARK D & RHONDA M2708 EMMETT CREST CTCLAYTON NC 27520-932265 1740689448 MORGAN, ELIZABETH BPO BOX 4721CHAPEL HILL NC 27515-472166 1750075290 LEHOCKY, RICHARD D & BETTY A1336 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-932467 1740757791 OKAMOTO, ERIC B & JUDITH F1113 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-936068 1741530726 PBR GROUP LLC2400 BRANCH RDRALEIGH NC 27610-920869 1741531093 NOBLES, RONNIE LEE & SALY H7023 FARMDALE RDRALEIGH NC 27610-973270 1740953031 NORTH CAROLINA STATE OFSTATE PROPERTY OFFICE116 W JONES STRALEIGH NC 27603-130071 1750481527 NO INFORMATION IN WAKE COUNTY GIS 72 1741600646 BAUCOM, JOHN R JR & MARIE A7829 OLD BAUCOM RDRALEIGH NC 27610-925373 1750065899 WHITE, DENNIS C & RUTH H1324 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-932474 1740952898 SLAVIN, JAMES A & MARY E1205 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-936175 1741542455 JOHNSON, ANDRE L & CRYSTAL M3433 GRIFFICE MILL RDRALEIGH NC 27610-863776 1740969621 HAWLEY, WILLIAM J & ROBERTA L2709 EMMETT CREST CTCLAYTON NC 27520-932277 1740451603 BALL, DOUGLAS1401 AVERSBORO RD STE 206GARNER NC 27529-398078 1751445156 MCKINNON, SWANOLA DEBNAM5708 MIAL PLANTATION RDRALEIGH NC 27610-852879 1740450446 WOO, HEA K & CHUN I3425 DEER TRACE LNCLAYTON NC 27520-593180 1740753006 BEAVERS, RICHARD W &SHARON ROSE1005 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-935881 1740851782 MIESCH, JOHN F &LINDA T3420 E GARNER RDCLAYTON NC 27520-930782 1751637897 DEBNAM, SHIRLEY H5700 MIAL PLANTATION RDRALEIGH NC 27610-852883 1740440973 BAKER, LULA ANNEBAKER, TIMOTHY JOEL3345 STONEY CREEK DRCLAYTON NC 27520-5958#11317130v1
EXHIBIT 6: OWNERSHIP INFORMATION FOR VARIANCE PARCELS AND PARCELS ADJACENT TO VARIANCE PARCELS84 1750065989 BROADWELL, BOBBY H & PAMELA S1328 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-932485 1750075089 KELLY, JOSEPH A & JOAN B1332 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-932486 1741544723 SCANLON, ERIC MARK &MELISSA MARIE3421 GRIFFICE MILL RDRALEIGH NC 27610-863787 1750055903 LESKY, BRIAN P & ELIZABETH ANNE1304 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-932488 1740955541 NORTH CAROLINA STATE OFSTATE PROPERTY OFFICE116 W JONES STRALEIGH NC 27603-130089 1740649813 MCCLUNG, DOUGLAS E & AMY E420 HARDWOOD RIDGE CTCLAYTON NC 27520-860390 1741533762 JVC HOMES INCPO BOX 1108WAKE FOREST NC 27588-110891 1750076209 HUNTER, TERI FULK TRUSTEE1340 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-932492 1741437173 BROWN, JAMES F & CINDY ROSS7019 FARMDALE RDRALEIGH NC 27610-973293 1740859754 PRICE, RALPH L &BEVERLY W1201 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-936194 1740966624 RICKETTS, BARBARA W & DAVID E2700 EMMETT CREST CTCLAYTON NC 27520-932295 1741535973 PBR GROUP LLC2400 BRANCH RDRALEIGH NC 27610-920896 1750065681 DONATI, BRIAN C & DEBORAH M1316 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-932497 1741545911 SLADE, FATRESS L II3413 GRIFFICE MILL RDRALEIGH NC 27610-863798 1740543866 NEIDITCH, JON A & MARY ANNE HUGHES3829 FALLS RIVER AVERALEIGH NC 27614-741599 1741555072 KOVAR, JEROME J &CHERYL L3409 GRIFFICE MILL RDRALEIGH NC 27610-8637100 1740856690 BARBOUR, JOHN T3720 E GARNER RDCLAYTON NC 27520-6540101 1741434516 SMITH, THOMAS &JAN3621 GRIFFICE MILL RDRALEIGH NC 27610-8639102 1740646608 DOUGLAS, PHILLIP N & BARBARA S413 HARDWOOD RIDGE CTCLAYTON NC 27520-8603103 1740444950 AUTON, SUSAN M & JERRY L3524 BALLOT RDCLAYTON NC 27520-9301104 1740680862 SARROCCO, NICHOLAS A & EUGENIA S7820 OLD BAUCOM RDRALEIGH NC 27610-9252105 1740695134 BAUCOM, JULIAN & MARLENE3021 HICKORY TREE PLRALEIGH NC 27610-8539106 1741439035 HUDSON, LEIGH S & HELEN B7021 FARMDALE RDRALEIGH NC 27610-9732107 1741543682 WRIGHT, MARK DOUGLAS & JEANNE3425 GRIFFICE MILL RDRALEIGH NC 27610-8637108 1751741393 DEBNAM, TONYA C2205 CARTHAGE CIRRALEIGH NC 27604-3868109 1740546242 TANKARD, ANNE MMCINNES, CORNELIA & STEWART C MCINNES8419 KALB RDRICHMOND VA 23229-4133110 1750061777 HEDRICK, ROBERT ALFRED TRUSTEEHEDRICK, PATRICIA OWEN TRUSTEE4704 STILLER STRALEIGH NC 27609-5640111 1741438632 PBR GROUP LLC2400 BRANCH RDRALEIGH NC 27610-9208112 1741609431 BAUCOM, WILLIAM BYRD7920 OLD BAUCOM RDRALEIGH NC 27610-9254113 1740699230 BAUCOM, JULIAN M3021 HICKORY TREE PLRALEIGH NC 27610-8539114 1741608848 TALTON, MARGARET B2728 BRANCH RDRALEIGH NC 27610-9214115 1740754673 MCCARDLE, VAN R & CHERYL M1105 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-9360116 1741435174 SWINDELL, CHARLES A & RONDA E10809 RONDEAU WOODS CTRALEIGH NC 27614-9411117 1740963527 GAZDA, SHANEGAZDA, MARGERY CARNEY2704 EMMETT CREST CTCLAYTON NC 27520-9322118 1741542326 CHRIS WATT BUILDING CORP3750 VALLEY PINE CTWENDELL NC 27591-7425119 1740759781 BIDDIX, THOMAS L & DEBORAH W1117 PINE TRLCLAYTON NC 27520-9360120 1741542238 AMPLE LENDING GROUP LLCPO BOX 1457SMITHFIELD NC 27577-1457121 1741439638 PARSON, MARCELL A &KARA L3609 GRIFFICE MILL RDRALEIGH NC 27610-8639122 1740470086 EDGE OF AUBURN LLCPO BOX 19808RALEIGH NC 27619-9808123 1751204103 ADAMS, JIMMY C & TONDRA E8428 OLD BAUCOM RDRALEIGH NC 27610-9264124 1751501169 RHODES, WILLIAM T &GWYN K3751 E GARNER RDCLAYTON NC 27520-6541125 1750593945 GILBERT, JENNIFER P273C BLUE POND RDCLAYTON NC 27520-7493126 1751402057 OSBORN, ARNOLD L JR6208 MIAL PLANTATION RDRALEIGH NC 27610-9643127 1750371830 NO INFORMATION IN WAKE COUNTY GIS - MAY BE PART OF #148 IN JOHNSTON COUNTY Johnston County Parcels Adjacent to Variance Request ParcelsNUMBER NC PIN OWNER NAMEADDRESSCITY, STATE ZIP128 175000-01-6476 WAY OF LIFE BAPTIST CHURCH NO INFORMATION IN WAKE CO. GIS 129 175000-00-3044 ELPHICK PROPERTIES LLC1000 CCC DRIVE CLAYTON, NC 275200000#11317130v1
EXHIBIT 6: OWNERSHIP INFORMATION FOR VARIANCE PARCELS AND PARCELS ADJACENT TO VARIANCE PARCELS130 175000-33-3740 BOLEN, HOWARD B & BOLEN, MELISSA K 2016 RIDGE CT CLAYTON, NC 275200000131 175000-34-2226 JOHNSON, ROY S & JOHNSON, CHARLOTTE M 2008 RIDGE CT CLAYTON, NC 275208809132 175000-34-2695 FLEMING, JANET LYNN2004 FOREST DR CLAYTON, NC 275208811133 175000-34-4898 STRICKER, RALPH MICHAEL & STRICKER, SONDRA 2024 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON, NC 275208818134 175000-35-1496 JENKINS, GARY L & JENKINS, JANET H 2012 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON, NC 275200000135 175000-10-9383 K AND K ASSOCIATES OF NC INC 505 PARKWOOD LANE GOLDSBORO, NC 275300000136 165905-19-4777 BENSON, IRENE P2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON, NC 275206520137 175000-33-1993 WAUGH, DONALD FRED & WAUGH, JEAN 2010 RIDGE CT CLAYTON, NC 275208809138 175000-35-1650 JOHNSON, TONY LEE & JOHNSON, MARTHA P 2008 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON, NC 275200000139 175000-22-4580 WILLIAMS, DONALD K & WILLIAMS, VIRGINIA L 2013 VALLEY CT CLAYTON, NC 275208804140 175000-33-1406 SMITH, SANDY M & SMITH, MATTHEW W 2007 PINEBARK LANE CLAYTON, NC 275200000141 175000-21-6707 RUSSELL, TRAVIS E & RUSSELL, DEBRA L 121 PEBBLE DR CLAYTON, NC 275208042142 175000-22-5144 JOHNSON, MALCOM DEWITT & JOHNSON, CAROL JEAN P O BOX 966 CLAYTON, NC 275200966143 165905-09-6974 BENSON, IRENE P2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON, NC 275206520144 175000-35-0927 JODIE T STAMEY REVOCABLE TRUST & STAMEY, JODIE T TRUSTEE 2000 ELIZABETH COURT CLAYTON, NC 275208818145 175000-23-7707 SHREVE, JAMES DANIEL & SHREVE, MITSY R 2000 PINE BARK LN CLAYTON, NC 275200000146 174004-92-5770 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA NO INFORMATION IN WAKE CO. GIS147 175000-23-9722 JEWELL, GARY A & JEWELL, RHONDA 2003 PINEBARK LN CLAYTON, NC 275200000148 165905-19-1892 BENSON, IRENE P2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON, NC 275206520149 175000-26-8950 JONES, CHRISTOPHER & JONES, ANITA A 2025 ELAINE DR CLAYTON, NC 275208212150 175000-35-1726 STRICKER, WILLIAM MICHAEL 2004 ELIZABETH COURT CLAYTON, NC 275200000151 175000-23-5518 RUSSELL, TIMOTHY JOHN & RUSSELL, PAMELA COBLE 2004 PINE BARK LANE CLAYTON, NC 275200000152 175000-35-2077 ETTRIDGE, JAMES F & ETTRIDGE, JUDITH L 2020 ELIZABETH COURT CLAYTON, NC 275200000153 175000-20-7955 PRIVETTE, WILLIS E & PRIVETTE, JANICE 1925 OLD U S 70 W CLAYTON, NC 275200000154 175000-22-4755 MUNT, HERBERT F III2017 VALLEY COURT CLAYTON, NC 275200000155 175000-23-4197 GRANT, LONNIE G & GRANT, PATTIE M 2021 VALLEY COURT CLAYTON, NC 275200000156 175000-21-5916 SAFLEY, TIMOTHY L & SAFLEY, KAREN B 125 PEBBLE DRIVE CLAYTON, NC 275200000157 165905-09-9808 BENSON, IRENE LF EST & BENSON, STEVEN RMNDRMN 2501 OLD US 70 WEST CLAYTON, NC 275206520158 175000-04-3337 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA THE C/O STATE PROPERTY 116 W JONES STREET RALEIGH, NC 276030000159 175000-35-2362 MORRIS, SONDRA STRICKER & MORRIS, GARY 2016 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON, NC 275200000160 175000-36-2148 SCHULMAN, JEREMY L & SUTTON-SCHULMAN, TERESSA RENEE 2001 ELIZABETH COURT CLAYTON, NC 275200000161 165905-19-9980 K AND K ASSOCIATES OF NC INC 505 PARKWOOD LANE GOLDSBORO, NC 275300000162 175000-48-6829 STOUT, BRADLEY H & STOUT, JESSICA E 438 JAMESON DR RALEIGH, NC 276100000163 175000-49-8013 BROGNA, NICHOLAS D & BROGNA, CAROL ANN 294 AVENUE C RONKONKOMA, NY 117791922164 175000-49-9363 STEVENSON, JOHN & STEVENSON, HEATHER 919 CARROLL AVE LAUREL, MD 207073503165 175000-49-9157 GROFF, SCOTT GREGORY & GROFF, SHANNON JOHNSON 455 JAMISON DR RALEIGH, NC 276108621166 175000-48-1367 BELVIN, JUDITH W & BELVIN, LARRY E 321 E MAIN ST CLAYTON, NC 275202463167 175000-48-1162 LEE, W GATTISP O BOX 72 CLAYTON, NC 275200000168 175000-48-6697 HODGES, MICHAEL S & HODGES, JOYCE N 108 JAMISON DRIVE RALEIGH, NC 276100000169 175000-48-6594 GONZALEZ, CINDY A & GONZALEZ, STEPHEN J 140 JAMISON DRIVE RALEIGH, NC 276100000170 175000-48-4457 KING, RONALD VILAS JR2834 SHOTWELL RD RALEIGH, NC 276100000171 175000-48-4504 KING, WILLIE DAPHENE2013 SMITH DR CLAYTON, NC 275200000#11317130v1

US2000 11311190.4
RESOLUTION 2009 - 867

A RESOLUTION FOR A NEW VARIANCE 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 any 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

WHEREAS, 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
2

US2000 11311190.4

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

Chart2 (2)Page 1TOTAL NITROGEN COMPARISON FOR NRWWTP1,316,9391,438,1371,580,326950,718592,053540,663492,815422,814443,114400,139357,399313,138233,061296,544276,000682,483 1,316,939 0200000400000600000800000100000012000001400000160000018000001995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009DATEPOUNDSSeries2Actual PoundagePermit LimitBenchmark Limitn ~ ~ ,-,-- ------------1---
Chart1Page 2TN COMPARISON DATA FOR NRWWTP-200,000400,000600,000800,0001,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001,600,0001,800,0001995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002YEARPOUNDSActual PoundagePermit Limit-
1995 1,316,939 676,496
1996 1,438,137 676,496
1997 1,580,326 676,496
1998 811,367 676,496
1999 592,053 676,496
2000 540,663 676,496
2001 492,815 676,496
2002 427,362 676,496
Chart2Page 4TOTAL NITROGEN COMPARISON FOR NRWWTP1,316,9391,438,1371,580,326950,718592,053540,663492,815422,814443,114400,139357,399313,138233,061296,544276,000682,483 1,316,939 0200000400000600000800000100000012000001400000160000018000001995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009DATEPOUNDSSeries2Actual PoundagePermit LimitBenchmark Limitn ~ ,_ ,_ -~ -----------1---
1995 1,316,939 682,483 1,316,939
1996 1,438,137 682,483 1,316,939
1997 1,580,326 682,483 1,316,939
1998 950,718 682,483 1,316,939
1999 592,053 682,483 1,316,939
2000 540,663 682,483 1,316,939
2001 492,815 682,483 1,316,939
2002 422,814 682,483 1,316,939
2003 443,114
2004 400,139
2005 357,399
2006 313,138
2007 233,061
2008 296,544
2009 276,000