NC0082376_Permit Modification_20090126

W AT Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor pF
Dee Freeman, Secretary
rNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
p Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
January 26, 2009
Mr. J. Russell Allen
City Manager
City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Subject: Revised NPDES Permit
Permit No. NCO082376
E.M. Johnson WTP
Wake County
Dear Mr. Allen:
The City of Raleigh has adjudicated the recently renewed NPDES discharge permit for the E.M.
Johnson Water Treatment Plant. Negotiations involving staff of the City Public Utilities
Department, the Division of Water Quality, and EPA have led to the attached modified permit
containing a 36 month compliance schedule for the new manganese limits. The revised permit
effective date is March 1, 2009. The total manganese limit will go into effect on March 1, 2012.
Until that date, the facility should continue to monitor and report total manganese when
discharging. We trust that this adjudication will be withdrawn on issuance of this permit.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty
(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447. Unless
such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division of Water
Quality. Contact Division personnel in case of any change in.ownership or control of this'discharge.
The Division of Water Quality may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit.
Mailing Address Phone [phone] Locatione
n Carolina
1617 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] N. Salisbury St. awra !ff
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Raleigh, NC 27604
Internet: www.ncwatenuality.ora Customer Service 1-877-623-6748
An Equal OpportunftylAifirmaWe Acton Employer — W/o Recycled/1 O% Post Consumer Paper

This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by
the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal
Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be required. If
you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Jim McKay of my staff at telephone
number [phone].
Sincerely,
cc: NPDES Files
Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office/Surface Water Protection
Wake County Health Department
EPA Region 4

Permit NCO082376
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
City of Raleigh
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant (WTP)
10301 Falls of Neuse Road
Raleigh
Wake County
to receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary to the Neuse River (outfall 001) and
an unnamed tributary to Honeycutt Creek - arm of Falls Lake (Outfall 002 and Outfall 003) in
the Neuse River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set
forth in Parts I, II, III, and IV hereof.
The permit shall become effective_ March 1, 2009.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on February 28, 2013.
Signed this day January 26, 2009.
�Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NCO082376
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no
longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility
arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
The City of Raleigh is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to discharge treated filter backwash water and associated wastewater from
residuals processing, which includes the following components:
♦ Two backwash clarifiers
♦ Filtrate pump station
♦ Flow splitter box
♦ Three sludge thickeners
♦ Parshall flume
♦ Polymer and caustic feed systems
♦ Thickened sludge pump station
(with diversion to blending tanks or sludge disposal facility)
♦ Four sludge blending tanks
(residuals pumped to sludge disposal facility or filter presses)
♦ Three belt filter presses (drainage to sanitary sewer pump station)
truck hauling and concrete pad for residuals
belt filter press washwater pumps
belt conveyors
♦ Twelve sand drying beds (drainage to sanitary sewer pump station) / containment pad
♦ Refer to Permit No. WQ0008431 for components specific to the sludge disposal facility.
Decanted wastewater from the sludge disposal facility is directed to the sanitary sewer pump
station.
♦ Dechlorination and automatic pH control system
♦ Refer to Permit No. WQ0022036 for the bulk reclaimed water distribution program (and
associated approvals and components).
This facility is located at the E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant at 10301 Falls of Neuse Road
in Wake County.
2. Discharge from Outfall 001 at the location specified on the attached map into an unnamed
tributary of the Neuse River, classified as WS-IV NSW waters in the Neuse River Basin. 001
- Discharge from overflow from the east raw water reservoir and possible discharge of
treated water/wastewater (located across Falls of the Neuse Road from the water treatment
plant).
3. Discharge from Outfalls 002 and 003 at the locations specified on the attached map into an
unnamed tributary to Honeycutt Creek (arm of Falls Lake), classified as WS-IV NSW waters
in the Neuse River Basin. 002 - Discharge of wastewater associated with the treatment of
water for drinking purposes (main wastewater discharge), and leakage from the plant
clearwells. 003 - Discharge of stormwater and overflow from the west raw water reservoir
from the culvert directly upstream of Outfall 002

F_,
Outfall 002
UT Honeycutt Creek, arm of Falls
Lake, WS-IV NSW
350 54' 56- N, 78° 35" 59" W
439
Outfall003 \ \
UT Honeycutt Creek, WS-IV NSW ) J•
350 54' 56" N, 780 35" 58" W43
$
<z'
Outfall 001
UT Neuse River, WS-IV NSW
350 54' 38" N, 780 35" 25" W
5
1�1
VI
�• -••:/\.t�l: •' \ - t��-•�, ..'Ln9tc.lnci t/�I���J' IJ '� / :`l _1. -� e
River Basin: Neuse
Sub -Basin: 03-04-01 Facility
Location
Quad #: D24NE, Wake Forest
Permitted Flow: 8.8 MGD Outfalls 001, 002 and 003 Raleigh - E.M. Johnson WTP
North NC0082376

Permit NCO082376
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge wastewater associated with the water treatment plant from
Outfall 001 (outfall located across FaUs of the Neuse). Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteilstics
Limits
Monitoring Requirements
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum I
Measurement
Frequency
Sample Type1
Sample
Location
Flow
Weekly
Estimate
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 m
45.0 m L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine
17 A& 2
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
NH3-N (mg/1)
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
TKN (mg/1)
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
NO2-N + NO3-N (mg/I)
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
TN (mgA) 3
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Monthly Flow (MG)
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Calculated
Effluent
TN Load 4
Monitor & Report
(Annual Mass Loading) 5
Monthly
Annually
Calculated
Calculated
Effluent
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
2.0 mg/L (Quarterly Average) 6
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese 7
200 ug/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Aluminum
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Calcium
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Magnesium
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity 8
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Collorm
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
PH 9
Weekly
Grab
Effluent

Permit NCO082376
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LMTATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Continued)
NOTES:
1. Due to the remote location of Outfall 001 and the infrequency of discharge, the City may
conduct grab samples for all parameters at Outfall 001.
2. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 ug/l to be in
compliance with the permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit all
values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field certified), even if
these values fall below 50 ug/l.
3. TN means Total Nitrogen. For a given wastewater sample, TN is the sum of Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen and Nitrate -Nitrite Nitrogen: TN = TKN + NO2-N + NO3-N.
4. TN Load is the mass load of TN discharged by the Permittee in a period of time. See Special
Condition A.(4.), Calculation of TN Loads.
5. Annual TN load must be reported. Annual TN load is not limited for this permit cycle. See
Special Condition A.(4.), Calculation of TN Loads.
6. The quarterly average for total phosphorus shall be the average of composite samples
collected monthly during each calendar quarter (January - March, April - June, July -
September, October - December).
7. The limit for manganese goes into effect March 1, 2012. Monitoring shall continue from the
effective date of the permit. See Special Condition A.(8).
8. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphniac dubia) Monitoring at 90%: February, May, August, and
November [see Special Condition A.(5). Quarterly metals monitor shall coincide with
quarterly toxicity monitoring.
9. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
All samples collected should be representative of the discharge.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
There shall be no discharge of waste or chemicals that do not directly result from the
responsible treatment of raw water.

Permit NCO082376
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge wastewater associated with the water treatment plant from
OutfaUs 002 (main wastewater outfalO. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the
Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Limits
Monitoring Requirements
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum 1
Measurement
Frequency
Sample Type
Sample
Location
Flow
8.8 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 m L
45.0 m
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine
17 1
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
NH3-N (mgA)
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
TKN (mg/l)
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
NO2-N + NO3-N (mg/1)
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
TN (mg/l) 2
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Monthly Flow (MG)
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Calculated
Effluent
TN Load 3
Monitor & Report
(Annual Mass Loading) 4
Monthly
Annually
Calculated
Calculated
Effluent
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
2.0 mg/L
(Quarterly Average) 5
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Copper
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Iron
Weekly
composite
Effluent
Total Manganese 6
200 ug/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Aluminum
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Barium
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Calcium
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Lead
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Magnesium
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Nickel
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity 7
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
PH 8
Weekly
Grab
Effluent

Permit NCO082376
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Continued)
NOTES:
1. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 ug/1 to be in
compliance with the permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit all
values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field certified), even if
these values fall below 50 ug/1.
2. TN means Total Nitrogen. For a given wastewater sample, TN is the sum of Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen and Nitrate -Nitrite Nitrogen: TN = TKN + NO2-N + NO3-N.
3. TN Load is the mass load of TN discharged by the Permittee in a period of time. See Special
Condition A.(4.), Calculation of TN Loads.
4. Annual TN load must be reported. Annual TN load is not limited for this permit cycle. See
Special Condition A.(4.), Calculation of TN Loads.
5. The quarterly average for total phosphorus shall be the average of composite samples
collected monthly during each calendar quarter (January - March, April - June, July -
September, October - December).
6. The limit for manganese goes into effect March 1, 2012. Monitoring shall continue from the
effective date of the permit. See Special Condition A.(8).
7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia dubia) Monitoring at 90%: February, May, August, and
November [see Special Condition A.(5). Quarterly metals monitor shall coincide with
quarterly toxicity monitoring.
8. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
All samples collected should be representative of the discharge.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
There shall be no discharge of waste or chemicals that do not directly result from the
responsible treatment of raw water.

Permit NCO082376
A. (3.) EFFLUENT L13UTATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge wastewater associated with overflow from the west raw
water terminal reservoir from Outfa11003 (drainage from the culvert above Outfaii 002). Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below only for water
associated with overflow of the west raw water terminal reservoir. Stormwater discharged
through Outfall 003 will continue to be permitted and regulated by NPDES Stormwater
Discharge Permit NCS000245
Effluent Characteristics
Limits
Monitoring Requirements
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum 1
Measurement
Freguency
Sample Type
Sample
Location
Flow
Weekly
Estimate
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
NH3-N (mgll)
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
TN (mg/l)
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
2.0 mg/
L (Quarterly Average)1
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Iron
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Manganese 2
200 ug/ L
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Aluminum
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Barium
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Calcium
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Lead
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Magnesium
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Nickel
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
PH 3
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
NOTES:
1. The quarterly average for total phosphorus shall be the average of composite samples
collected monthly during each calendar quarter (January - March, April - June, July -
September, October - December).
2. The limit for manganese goes into effect March 1, 2012. Monitoring shall continue from the
effective date of the permit. See Special Condition A. (8) .
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
All samples collected should be representative of the discharge.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
There shall be no discharge of waste or chemicals that do not directly result from the
responsible treatment of raw water.

Permit NCO082376
A.(4.) CALCULATION OF TOTAL NITROGEN LOADS
a. The Permittee shall calculate monthly and annual TN Loads as follows:
i. Monthly TN Load (lb/mo) = TN x TMF x 8.34
where:
TN = the average Total Nitrogen concentration (mg/L) of the composite samples
collected during the month
TMF = the Total Monthly Flow of wastewater discharged during the month (MG/mo)
8.34 = conversion factor, from (mg/L x MG) to pounds
ii. Annual TN Load (lb/yr) = Sum of the 12 Monthly TN Loads for the calendar year
b. The Permittee shall report monthly Total Nitrogen results (mg/L and lb/mo) in the
discharge monitoring report for that month and shall report each year's annual results
(lb/yr) in the December report for that year.
A.M.) CHRONIC TOXICITY MONITORING (QUARTERLY)
The permittee shall conduct chronic toxicity tests using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure", Revised February 1998 or
subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration defined as the Instream Waste Concentration (IWC) shall be 90%.
The chronic value will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest concentration
having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that
does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable
impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are
described by the document referenced above.
The' permit holder shall perform at a minimum, guarterimonitoring using these procedures to
establish compliance with the permit condition. The tests will be performed during the months
of February, May, August, and November. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be
performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the
Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR 1) for the months in which tests were performed,
using the parameter code THP3B. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the
following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Section
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section
no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.

Permit NCO082376
A.(5.) CHRONIC TOXICITY MONITORING (QUARTERLY) - Continued
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate
signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if
chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity
monitoring is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the
aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number,
county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of
the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Section at the address
cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate
environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up
testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial
monitoring.
A.(6.) ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS REGARDING DISCHARGE MONITORING
REPORT (DMR) FORMS
1. The City must submit a DMR form for Outfall 001 and Outfall 002, whether a discharge
occurs or does not occur. If there is no discharge from Outfall 001 or from Outfall 002
during a month, the monthly report must be submitted with the notation "No Flow".
2. For Outfall 003, the City should state whether a discharge has occurred from the
overflow of the raw water reservoir (this may be submitted as a notation on the DMR or
as an appendix to the DMR).
A.(7.) ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS REGARDING DISCHARGE TIMING
In order to minimize effects of future nutrient discharges on algal blooms, The City shall make
all reasonable efforts so that any future discharges occur during the months of December,
January, February, or March. If Public Water Supply requires discharge any other time of the
year, the facility must comply with the requirements of PWS.

Permit NCO082376
A.(8) Manganese Limit Compliance Schedule
The limit for total manganese will not become effective until March 1, 2012. The facility shall
monitor and report manganese concentrations during this interim period at the intervals shown
on EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS A. (1), A. (2) and A. (3) during
discharge only. The 36 month compliance schedule is intended to allow the City time to
evaluate alternative discharge options or technology, obtain funding, design, procure and install
facilities.
The following compliance schedule has been agreed upon based on negotiations between the
City Public Utilities Department and the Division of Water Quality. The City shall report to the
NPDES Program every six months regarding the status of the project. Activities may run
concurrently:
Activity
Alternatives Evaluation:
Capital Funding Request:
Engineering Design:
Public Water Supply/ DWQ Permitting:
Construction:
Manganese limit takes effect:
Start Date Completion Time
March 1, 2009 12 months
Within 6 months of 6 months
Permit Effective Date (Concurrent with
Alternatives
Evaluation)
Completion of Testing 9 months
Completion of Design 3 months
Issuance of PWS Permit 12 months
March 1, 2012

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0082376, E.M. Johnson WTP (Raleigh)
Facility Information
Applicant Facility Name:
City of Raleigh/ E.M. Johnson WTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 590, Raleigh, NC 27602
Facility Address:
10301 Falls of the Neuse Road
Permitted Flow
8.8 MGD
Type of Waste:
100% Non -domestic from drinking water treatment plant
Facility/ Permit Status:
Modification
County:
Wake
The City of Raleigh submitted a permit renewal application for the E.M. Johnson water
treatment plant (WTP) on August 22, 2007 (the previous permit was issued after adjudication
July 6, 2005 with an expiration date of February 28, 2008). The WTP treats surface water from
Falls Lake for distribution as drinking water to the City of Raleigh and several surrounding
towns. Wastewater from this process is generated from the backwashing of the filters at the
water treatment plant [frequent backwashing is required by the Division of Environmental
Health to ensure drinking water safety]. Residual solids from the water treatment process are
also separated and treated through the wastewater treatment system.
The City of Raleigh treats the backwash water and solids from the water treatment process
through a series of solid/liquid separators [ref. Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet as well as
flow chart with permit application for list of treatment units].
There are three outfalls associated with this permit. The City currently recycles 100% of the
wastewater back to the raw water reservoirs, with no discharge. When the City began
recycling WTP wastewater in 2005, Public Water Supply rules required that recycling be
stopped for two weeks each quarter in order to flush out the reservoirs and treatment plant due
to concerns over buildup of parasites that are not controlled by chlorination. Ultraviolet (UV)
light treatment was added to disinfect the recycle water. As drought conditions developed and
worsened, the requirement to discharge was reduced to two weeks per year, then eventually
dropped altogether. If drinking water quality declines, the City may again be required to
discharge from Outfall 002.
NCO082376
NPDES Revision 12, 2008
Page 1

Outfall 001 - Discharge from overflow from the east raw water reservoir and possible discharge
of treated water/wastewater (located across Falls of the Neuse Road from the water
treatment plant). Discharge is to an unnamed tributary of the Neuse River, classified as WS-
IV-NSW. There has been no discharge from Outfall 001 for the past two permit cycles (10
years).
Outfall 002 - Discharge of wastewater associated with the treatment of water for drinking
purposes (main wastewater discharge), and leakage from the plant clearwells. Discharge is
to an UT to Honeycutt Creek - arm of Falls Lake, classed as WS-IV-NSW. There has been
no discharge from Outfall 002 since August 2006.
Outfall 003 - Discharge of stormwater and overflow from the west raw water reservoir from the
culvert directly upstream of Outfall 002. Discharge is to an UT to Honeycutt Creek - arm of
Falls Lake, classified as WS-IV-NSW. There has been no discharge from Outfall 003 since
January 2007 except for stormwater, which is permitted and regulated by Stormwater
Discharge Permit NCS000245.
All three outfalls discharge to subbasin 03-04-01 in the Neuse River Basin. In this subbasin,
the Neuse River is listed on the 2008 draft 303 (d) list of impaired waters due to chlorophyll a.
A TMDL and nutrient rules are being developed for Falls Lake. However, due to chlorophyll -a
standard violations in the estuary, nutrient impacts (total nitrogen) on the Neuse River Basin
are a concern. A TMDL for total nitrogen has been developed for the Neuse River Basin.
Nutrient monitoring has been required with this permit in accordance with nutrient
management strategy. Because nutrient discharges cause more algae growth during warm
months, the Planning Section has requested that the City try to make any future discharges
only in winter months.
A benthic study was conducted in January 2006 on the main unnamed tributary that Outfall
002 discharges to (at the behest of DWQ). Upstream and downstream sampling had been
conducted in August 2002 and August 2005. In addition to the discharge, this area is
subjected to urban development. The summary of the report stated:
Conditions downstream of Raleigh's Johnson WTP (on UT Falls Lake) have declined
considerably in the past five months, and are similar to those seen in 2002. The
remnant aquatic community found downstream of the Plant is less diverse, much less
dense and more pollution tolerant than both the August 2005 sampling below the Plant,
and to current conditions at an upstream control site.
Based on this information - chronic toxicity monitoring will continue to be required for Outfall
002 (and 001) with this permit.
TOXICITY TESTING:
Current Requirement: Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing with Ceriodaphnia dubia
Monitoring at 90%.
The facility failed several WET tests through mid -year 2005. Toxicity screening revealed that a
polymer added as a sludge conditioning agent in the belt filters was causing the toxicity. A new
sanitary sewer pump station was installed so that the belt filter filtrate, drainage from the sand
filter beds, and water decanted from the sludge storage area are all sent to the sanitary sewer.
The facility has passed WET tests since this change was made.
No toxicity monitoring is recommended for Outfall 003 at this time.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY:
There have been no NOVs issued in the current permit cycle.
NCO082376
NPDES Revision 12, 2008
Page 2

INSTREAM MONITORING:
The requirement for upstream and downstream monitoring for turbidity has been removed in
accordance with the Division's Permitting Strategy for Conventional Water Treatment Plants. A
review of instream turbidity from 2005 through the end of discharge in August 2006 shows low
turbidity upstream and downstream of the discharge point. Upstream turbidity ranged from a
minimum of 0.48 NTU to a maximum of 8.79 NTU. Downstream turbidity ranged from a
minimum of 0.96 NTU to a maximum of 7.07 NTU. On 50% of the data set, downstream
turbidity was lower than upstream turbidity.
RESONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS:
A Reasonable Potential to Exceed Water Quality Standards Analysis was conducted in
accordance with EPA requirements. Iron and manganese both showed potential to exceed WQ
standards, and DMR data show both exceeding the WQ standards several times. Iron is an
Action Level standard. As the plant is passing WET testing, no iron limit will be added at this
time. Monitoring will remain at the same frequency (weekly) as the last permit cycle. A new
limit of 200 ug/ L has been added for manganese as a weekly average as discussed below. The
limit was set at the instream standard because there is no dilution factor. Sampling frequency
of weekly is retained.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
Many of the proposed changes have been discussed in the text above. Changes, by Outfall
number, are discussed below:
At the request of Public Water Supply (PWS), weekly monitoring for fecal coliform has been
added to all 3 outfalls. The concern is that the discharge is upstream of the intake, and is less
than five miles upstream. Monitoring will only be required when the facility is discharging.
At the request of the Planning unit, a special condition (A. (7)) has been added to the permit to
restrict future discharges to winter months unless PWS requires a discharge during another
time. PWS requirements have to be followed by the facility.
Based on discussions with Mike Templeton, a limit of 2.0 mg/ L Total Phosphorus has been
added to the permit.
Outfall 001— This outfall has not been used during the last two permit cycles. The City wishes
to retain this outfall for future use. This outfall and Outfall 002 have identical requirements,
except that Outfall 001 can use grab samples instead of composite. Outfall 002 - current
treated effluent discharge. Outfall 002 has not discharged since August of 2006. Changes are
outlined below.
Outfalls 001 and 002
Parameter
Action
Basis
Flow
Monthly average limit of
In accordance with Permitting
8.8 MGD was added
Strategy for Conventional WTPs.
The renewal application lists 8.8
MGD as the design rate.
Settleable Solids
Limits and monitoring
In accordance with Permitting
removed
Strategy for Conventional WTPs
Upstream and
Monitoring requirement removed
In accordance with Permitting
Downstream monitoring
Strategy for Conventional WTPs
of turbity
Total Phosphorus
A limit of 2.0 mg/L was added as a
In accordance with Neuse River
quarterly average
Nutrient Strategy.
Total Manganese
Weekly average limit of 200 ug/ L
DMR data indicate that the
added
instream standard has been
exceeded
Fecal coliform
Weekly monitoring only
Requested by PWS
NCO082376
NPDES Revision 12, 2008
Page 3

Outfall 003 - (the culvert prior to 002). It contains some stormwater, groundwater,
and potentially overflow from the west raw water reservoir. It used to receive
leakage from clearwell finish water; this is now captured and routed to Outfall 002.
Similar constituents as Outfalls 001 and 002 (except that toxicity testing is not
included). Sampling is required monthly (except Al, Cd, Cr, Pb are required
quarterly, as with 002). The same new limits as for Outfall 002 have been added -
2.0 mg/L TP as a quarterly average, and 200 ug/L manganese weekly average.
Weekly monitoring for fecal colifform was added at the request of PWS. Monitoring
and limits apply only for water discharged from overflow of the raw water reservoir.
Stormwater continues to be permitted and regulated by Stormwater Discharge
Permit NCS000245.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
During the Public Notice period, comments were received from four people, all requesting a
Public Hearing. Based on recommendations from staff, the Director has decided that a Public
Hearing will not be held for this permit renewal.
Draft Permit to Public Notice: April 9, 2008
Permit Issue: September 5, 2008
Permit Effective Date: October 1, 2008
Permit Expiration Date: February 28, 2013.
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Jim McKay at [phone].
CORRESPONDANCE:
Staff report received March 27, 2008. Major comments:
➢ Resolve the issue of manganese limits. Response: a limit of 200 ug/L has been
added as a weekly average to Outfalls 001, 002 and 003.
➢ Clearwell leakage into Outfall 003 has been removed and directed to Outfall 002.
Update the permit language to reflect this. Response: this has been done.
POST ISSUANCE CHANGES:
The City adjudicated the permit on October 3, 2008, wanting a 36 month compliance schedule
for the new manganese limit. Negotiations between the City and DWQ resulted in the Division
adding a 36 month compliance schedule and reissuing the permit. In return the City will
withdraw its legal challenge to the permit. In keeping with EPA requirements for compliance
schedules over 12 months, a list of milestones and dates has been included.
/VA
Regional Office Comments
NAME: DATE:
SUPERVISOR:
-.2-Ga
NCO082376
NPDES Revision 12, 2008
Page 4

Re: Modification to Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP Permit
Subject: Re: Modification to Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP Permit
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:12:08 -0500
To: James Mckay <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail]
Based on your proposed changes that we discussed by phone, EPA has no
comments on this modification.
1 of 1 1/7/2009 11:26 AM

RE: [Fwd:,Re: Modification to Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP Permit]
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: Modification to Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP Permit]
From: "Waldroup, Kenneth" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:37:45 -0500
To: "'James Mckay .. <[e-mail]>
The suggested 6-month reports are not a problem. Thanks Jim.
-Kenny
Kenneth R. Waldroup, PE
Assistant Public Utilities Director
CORPUD
Post Office Box 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
(919)-857-4540
-----Original Message -----
From: James Mckay [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 4:27 PM
To: Waldroup, Kenneth
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Modification to Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP Permit]
Thank you Ken. I had a telephone discussion with Marshall Hyatt last
Friday. His main concern seemed to be appearance to others, not the
details of the compliance schedule. He is on vacation until early
January, but I feel that he will accept your suggestions. I will make
the changes and email him a copy for review when he returns. Once I have
his agreement, I will have the permit issued to you.
From discussions with Gil Vinzani, we will mainly be concerned about
meeting the final 36 month deadline, not the details, but Marshall has
suggested that we request 6 month progress reports instead of milestone
notification letters.
Happy Holidays to you and your family too.
Jim McKay
Waldroup, Kenneth wrote:
Jim,
Thanks for the follow up. I understand Marshall's concerns and can
offer the following suggested modifications.
Event Start Date Completion Time
Alternatives Evaluation: Permit effective Date 12 months
Capital Funding Request: Permit Effective Date 6 months
Engineering Design: Completion of testing 9 months
Public Water Supply/ DWQ Permitting: Completion of Design 3 months
Construction: Issuance of PWS Permit 12 months
Subtotal: 36 months
The Capital Funding Request would run concurrent with the alternatives
evaluation. Every preliminary evaluation that I have now say that I
need */more/* than 36-months so cannot commit to a 33-moth timeframe.
I have modified the Alternatives Evaluation to last 12-months. The CIP
funding request would be a benchmark within the schedule but would
1 of 3 1/7/2009 11:35 AM

RE: [Fwd: Re: Modification to Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP Permit]
occur within the same timeframe as the alternatives evaluation. Design
would begin after the last testing within the Alternatives Evaluation
would end and permitting would begin after design. This gives
12-months + 9-months + 3-months of permitting and 12-months of
construction result in a 36-month compliance schedule. To make this
schedule work we will need to start working on several possible
solutions at once to guarantee that we meet the schedule. I have
already authorized this approach, knowing that it may ultimately cost
more money until a single solution works itself out. Please let me
know if Marshall needs further information and we will be glad to
comply. Thanks and happy holidays.
-Kenny
Kenneth R. Waldroup, PE
Assistant Public Utilities Director
CORPUD
Post Office Box 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
(919)-857-4540
-----Original Message -----
From: James Mckay [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 3:02 PM
To: Waldroup, Kenneth
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Modification to Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP Permit]
Ken:
I was out of the office this morning for a quarterly Point Source Branch
meeting. Please review the attached email from EPA Region 4 regarding
the compliance schedule.
Can you help me to adjust the time frame for the different elements so
that they add up to 36 months? Marshall Hyatt is taking more of a hard
line on compliance schedules than he has in the past. If possible to
meet 33 months, that would make it easier to get EPA's approval, which
we have to get in order to issue the permit.
Have a Great Christmas
Jim McKay
Subject.
Re: Modification to Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP Permit
From:
"[e-mail]"<[e-mail]>
Date:
Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:40:28 -0500
To:
James Mckay <[e-mail]>
2 of 3 1/7/2009 11:35 AM

RE: [Fwd:.Re: Modification to Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP Permit]
To:
James Mckay <[e-mail]>
CC:
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Jim:
sorry you are out of the office today, but wanted to pass on these
thoughts on the 36-month compliance schedule that you negotiated after a
permit appeal before we're out for the rest of the year.
1. In reviewing the A(8) permit provision, we are very glad the
language says that activities can run concurrently. However, it is not
entirely clear how the 36 month schedule was obtained because the total
of all activities adds up to more than that and how the 36-month
schedule represents "as soon as possible".
2. It is difficult for us to accept/approve a schedule that includes a
specific line item of 3 months for contingencies. I understand why
there is a desire to include that, but that does not represent "as soon
as possible" to us.
3. We also recommend including a requirement for reports of progress
every six months, especially since there may be more than one year
between activities.
will be back in the office on Jan 5 and will be glad to discuss this
further with you.
thanks.
Marshall
"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 by an authorized
City or Law Enforcement official."
"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 by an authorized City or Law
Enforcement official."
Content -Type: text/plain
!Part 1.2
` Content -Encoding: quoted -printable
3 of 3 1/7/2009 11:35 AM

RE: Manganese Compliance Schedule
Subject: RE: Manganese Compliance Schedule
From: "Waldroup, Kenneth" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:47:39 -0500
To: "James Mckay" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Gil Vinzani" <[e-mail]>, "McLawhorn, Dan"
<[e-mail]>, "Crisp, Dale" <[e-mail]>, "Wheeler, Whit"
<[e-mail]>, "Allen, Perry" <[e-mail]>, "Garland, John"
<John. [e-mail]>
Jim,
We have been struggling with suggested language because we have several
options to solve the manganese discharge problem. We have tried to make
the language broad enough to allow for selection of any one of the
options. In reality we may pursue two options stimulatingly for a period
of time to allow us some flexibility in meeting the timeframe. Please
consider the attached language. If acceptable to you, we are happy and
we will accept its terms. If you have questions or concerns or would
like to meet with me on short notice please feel free to call me at
369-3240. Thanks!
-Kenny
Kenneth R. Waldroup, PE
Assistant Public Utilities Director
CORPUD
Post Office Box 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
(919)-857-4540
-----Original Message -----
From: James Mckay [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 4:18 PM
To: Waldroup, Kenneth
Cc: Gil Vinzani
Subject: Manganese Compliance Schedule
Ken:
Attached is my first pass at the compliance schedule for manganese at
the E.M. Johnson WTP. Once we agree on the language, I will add this to
the permit as a special condition and send you a copy of the permit for
review prior to issuing it. I will add a footnote to the Limits and
Monitoring page stating that the limit does not take effect for 36
months and reference the special condition. No further changes will be
made to the permit. When the permit is ready for issue, I will add
actual calendar dates instead of "X"months.
The compliance schedule with milestone dates is an EPA requirement for
all compliance schedules longer than 12 months.
If we can reach agreement next week, I would like to issue the permit
effective on January 1, 2009. If it takes longer the permit would be
effective February 1, 2009. The effective date is always at least 2
weeks after the issue date. As agreed, the permit will not be posted
for public notice in accordance with the Director's decision.
Thanks for your help.
Jim McKay
FCompliance Schedule (Alternative Language).doc Content -Description: Compliance Schedule
1 of 2 1/7/2009 11:38 AM

RE: NPDES Permit #0082376 - compliance timeframe request
Subject: RE: NPDES Permit #0082376 - compliance timeframe request
From: "Waldroup, Kenneth" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:36:03 -0500
To: "James Mckay" <[e-mail]>, "Gil Vinzani" <[e-mail]>
CC: "McLawhorn, Dan"<[e-mail]>, "Wheeler, Whit"
<[e-mail]>, "Wang, Michael" <[e-mail]>
Jim,
Please see the attached technical memorandum concerning the project
timeframes anticipated from the various options considered to address
our new Manganese limit within permit #0082376. Although all
alternatives have timeframes that extend beyond 36-months we are
committed to completing all necessary project steps within the agreed
36-month period.
Thank you for working with the City to resolve this issue.
-Kenny
Kenneth R. Waldroup, PE
Assistant Public Utilities Director
CORPUD
Post Office Box 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
(919)-857-4540
-----Original Message -----
From: Waldroup, Kenneth
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 7:28 PM
To: 'James Mckay'; Gil Vinzani
Cc: McLawhorn, Dan; Wheeler, Whit; 'Wang, Michael'
Subject: RE: NPDES Permit #0082376 - compliance timeframe request
Jim,
I we finished reviewing the technical memo concerning timeframes today
and we expect our consultants with Hazen & Sawyer to provide an
electronic copy today or tomorrow.
We received notice from the AG's office that we were proceeding with the
mediation meeting at OAH on Friday (now rescheduled to Monday). Anita
LeVeaux contacted our office and she seemed unaware of our agreement
with Coleen. Please give me a call at 369-3240 if you are able,
otherwise we will likely see you Monday at the Mediation meeting. I will
send over the Technical Memo in electronic form tomorrow or Friday. It
support my earlier e-mail to you (see below).Thanks!
-Kenny
Kenneth R. Waldroup, PE
Assistant Public Utilities Director
CORPUD
Post Office Box 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
(919)-857-4540
-----Original Message -----
From: James Mckay [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 8:24 AM
To: Waldroup, Kenneth; Gil Vinzani
Subject: Re: NPDES Permit #0082376 - compliance timeframe request
1 of 3 11/21/2008 8:26 AM

RE: NPDES Permit #0082376 - compliance timeframe request
Thank you Ken.
Jim McKay
Waldroup, Kenneth wrote:
Jim,
Thank you for the phone call today. As we discussed, we are working on
the documentation to our support compliance timeframe request. This
summer during the permit review process we commissioned Hazen & Sawyer
to evaluate potential engineered solutions to comply with a potential
manganese limit. The results of this study were not available for
consideration during the permit review process but we should have a
technical memorandum (TM) available within the next four (4) weeks. I
have instructed our consultants to provide an abbreviated synopsis of
our findings to date. That synopsis should be available within a week
or two.
From my own review of the draft technical memo I can share that we are
looking at several likely solutions to addressing manganese in our
discharge within permit #NC0082376. As you are aware, we normally do
not have to discharge at this location (002) because we recycle our
treated filter backwash water and associated industrial wastewater (a
very strong word for chemically influenced mud) from the residuals
process back through the water treatment plant (WTP) via our raw water
reservoirs. Concentrate from the residuals process is discharged to
the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) via a sanitary sewer
collection system with limited hydraulic capacity. A condition of our
WTP operational permit requires the discontinuation of this recycling
program for two weeks a year and the manganese content in our recycle
water prevents our compliance with the proposed permit limit.
Some of the possible solutions to this problem include water treatment
plant operational process changes, the addition of greensand filters
at the residuals treatment unit within E.M. Johnson water treatment
plant, securing a new discharge location below Falls Lake and the
water supply watershed of Richland's creek or re-routing the discharge
to the City of Raleigh's sanitary sewer collection system for
treatment at the Neuse River WWTP. Each of these potential solutions
will have multiple "pros" and "cons" that must be evaluated.
An example of which would be a process chemical change that would
preclude or reduce the introduction of manganese in the form of KMn04
(potassium permanganate) into the water treatment process. Although
alternative oxidation methods exist, those methods would have to be
studied in depth and pilot tested to determine the impact of the
change on the water treatment process. One oxidation method may
decrease the manganese in the industrial wastewater stream but may
allow total organic carbon (TOC) to increase in the finished (potable)
water or may decrease the ability of the entire WTP to process
finished (potable) water. Public Health must be assured before any
process chemical change could be selected and new bulk chemical
storage and feed systems may be required.
2 of 3 11/21/2008 8:26 AM

r
k& NPDES Permit #0082376 - compliance timeframe request
Another example would be the selection of alternative NPDES discharge
locations, which would involve tremendous preliminary engineering work
to prepare support documentation for a new NPDES discharge permit
application, significant land acquisition costs and could run afoul of
organized opposition at the new point of discharge.
A third alternative would allow for the discharge of all industrial
wastewater into the sanitary sewer collection system but would require
a new conveyance system to a point in the existing collection system
that is capable of handling additional flows and an evaluation of the
impact of the new flows on the collection system and the Neuse River
WWTP.
Some or all possible solutions would require lengthy vetting through
the NCEPA (SEPA) process (6-months to +1 year), possible 401/404
permitting, land/easement acquisition (6-months to +1 year), NCDOT or
national railway encroachment agreements, soil and erosion control
permits, Public Water Supply Section operational permit modifications
and/or entirely new NPDES permit applications. All solutions will
require engineering design and construction (6-months to +1 year again
after selection of the solution and possibly after NCEPA approval).
None of the potential solutions have a funding source within the
City's Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) plan. The result is a
series of hurdles that would conceivably extend past the 36-month
threshold we are willing to commit to within our renewed permit.
A more through description of our difficulties will follow shortly
from our consultant. Yet, we recognize that a solution must be chosen
and completed... and we will accomplish this solution within the
36-month window we have requested. Thank you for understanding our.
difficulties and granting the timeframe needed to accomplish our goal.
-Kenny
//Kenneth R. Waldroup, PE//
Assistant Public Utilities Director
CORPUD
Post Office Box 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
(919)-857-4540
Content -Description: TM_Mn_Schedule 11 20 08.pdf
TM Mn Schedule 1120 08.pdf I Content -Type: application/octet-stream
Content -Encoding: base64
3 of 3 11/21/2008 8:26 AM

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM -
Minimum Schedule to Comply with
Impending NPDES Permit Manganese
Limit
From: Hazen and Sawyer
Prepared by: Michael Wang, Bob Berndt and Frank Qiao
Date: November 20, 2008
This technical memorandum (TM) is written to evaluate the minimum schedule required
by the City of Raleigh to comply with an impending manganese limit in the NPDES
permit for the E.M. Johnston Water Treatment Plant (EMJWTP). This NPDES permit is
obtained by the City to allow for the lawful discharge of spent filter backwash water
supernatant (or recycle water) with an elevated concentration of manganese into a
branch of Honeycutt Creek near the water treatment plant. This TM is intended as a
planning tool to assist the City to implement, in an orderly and expeditious manner, one
of the various alternatives laid out in our previous memorandum dated September 25,
2008.
The City of Raleigh is committed to finding a cost-effective solution to the manganese
issues associated with the spent filter backwash water discharge. Hazen and Sawyer,
P.C. was retained to prepare a technical memorandum to summarize possible
alternatives, of which pros and cons are carefully compared and costs are evaluated.
Alternatives under consideration include the selection of an alternative NPDES
discharge location to waters not classified as WS-IV, the conveyance of spent filter
backwash water to the City's wastewater collection system in the Richland Creek Basin,
and advanced treatment of the filter backwash water to achieve a lower level of
manganese by chemical addition and enhancement of solids removal. All of the options
under consideration, similar to other capital improvement projects, entail numerous
necessary steps, including regulatory review, preliminary engineering studies, capital
improvement funding allocation, land/easement acquisition, detailed design and
construction.
Option 1
As discussed in the previous memorandum, the first option, the selection of an
alternative NPDES discharge location, is expected to be the most costly one. It involves
Page t of 4 HAZEN MD5AWM

significant preliminary engineering work to prepare support documentation for a new
NPDES discharge permit application and significant land acquisition costs, and could
face organized opposition at the new point of -discharge. The total time required for its
completion is expected to be more than five years, as indicated in Table 1.
Table 1: Steps and Estimated Time Required for Alternative NPDES Discharge Point
Steps
Time for Completion
months
New'NPDE peYinrt�froznN: I epartmentsof Env�xanment and
.e.
18
Capital Funding Allocation
6
Perrriits= f
12 .�
Construction Permit from NC Division of Water Quality
Erosion Control Permit
Land Acquisition, Encroachment Permit from NCDOT
Prelm�na �En `ee.n 8i es
`9
Construction
24
T�otaLEstin'ated�TeRe".wa
�69(5! 75, eaxs
tion 2
The second option, the conveyance of spent filter backwash water to the wastewater
collection system in the Richland Creek Basin, will require a detailed study to address
the route of the proposed 16" pipe, modified operation for solids treatment at the
EMJWTP, and identification of an appropriate discharge location on the Richland Creek
Interceptor. The Richland Creek Interceptor currently does not possess extra capacity
under wet weather conditions. A detailed hydraulic analysis using a dynamic model is
necessary to design a proper operational protocol for coordination between water
treatment plant operation and the wastewater collection system. The total time required
for this alternative, summarized in Table 2, is estimated at approximately 3 years and 6
months.
Page 2 of 4 MZTNAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Sclentists

Table 2: Steps and Estimated Time Required for Conveyance to the Wastewater
Collection System in the Richland Creek Basin
Steps
Time for Completion
months
Funding Allocation
6
-Capital
Permits
12
Construction Permit from NC Division of Water Quality
Erosion Control Permit
Land Acquisition, Encroachment Permit from NCDOT
Preliminary Engineering & Design
9
Detailed Hydraulic Analysis
9
Construction
12
Total Estimated Time Required
42 (3.5 years)
Option 3
The third option involves use of advanced treatment for the reduction of manganese in
the spent filter backwash water to a concentration less than 200 ug/L. It is recommended
that the City perform bench -scale testing and seasonal pilot testing to explore the option
of chemical addition and ensuing improvement in manganese oxidation. If testing
indicates that chemical addition alone is not feasible, additional solids removal using
greensand filters may be necessary. The lead time required for greensand filters may
render the total time for implementation to as high as 39 months (see Table 3).
Table 3: Steps and Estimated Time Required for Advanced Treatment of Manganese
Steps
Time for Completion
months
Capital FundinAllocation
6
Bench -scale and Pilot Testing
9
Preliminary Engineering & Design
9
Permit from Public Water Supply Section
3
Construction (including equipment such as greensand filter
lead time
12
Total Estimated Time Re uired
39 (3.25 years)
Summary
Among the available options, the first option is expected to entail the longest schedule
and the highest cost. A comparison of the estimated time requirements for the three
options is presented in Table 4. The third option requires the shortest schedule, of a little
more than 3 years. On the basis of this evaluation, the minimum schedule for the City of
Raleigh to comply with the impending manganese limit in the NPDES permit for the
EMJWTP is estimated at three years from the date of authorization.
Page 3 of 4 E�EN AND �s�R

Table 4: Comparison of Times Required for Implementation
Opfion I Time a for Completion (months)
1. Selection of an alternative NPDES 69
discharge location
2. Conveyance to the wastewater collection 42
system in the Richland Creek Basin
3. Advanced treatment for the reduction of
Page 4 of 4
39
MZENMD SAWYER
E•.il..... I.I a Sclenll•�s

City of Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP Permit adjudication
Subject: City of Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP Permit adjudication
From: James Mckay <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:57:19 -0500
To: [e-mail]
CC: Gil Vinzani <[e-mail]>
Anita,
15A NCAC .02H .0114 (b) (7) states that modifications determined by the Director to
be minor do not require public notice. It is Paul Rawls and my understanding that
this gives Coleen authority to declare that the modified permit does not have to go
back to Public Notice.
I have spoken with Ken Waldroup, he is having an employee work on a justification for
a compliance schedule longer than 12 months, and a list of milestone events and dates
that I can insert into the revised permit. This is required by EPA Region 4 who will
review the permit prior to reissue.
I understand that the mediation scheduled for this Friday, November 21, has been
canceled and the legal challenge will be withdrawn by the City.
Thank you for all of your help!
Jim McKay
Jim McKay <James.McKay(@,ncmail.net>
Environmental Engineer
Eastern NPDES Program
NC Division of Water Quality
1 of 1 1/7/2009 11:40 AM

Re: You caught me by surprise.... tell me how DENR is able to make th...
Subject: Re: You caught me by surprise.... tell me how DENR is able to make this modification.....
From: James Mckay <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:49:29 -0500
To: "LeVeaux, Anita" <[e-mail]>
Coleen Sullins, the Director of DWQ was talking with the Raleigh PUD staff Tuesday
about some other issues when the E.M. Johnson WTP issue came up. She told them that
in order to settle the case, we can modify the permit to give them a compliance
schedule without having to public notice it. She then came to my office and told me
to contact Ken Waldroup to discuss the issue. Tuesday night I walked out with Dave
Goodrich, who was the Point Source Branch supervisor for several years, and he told
me the same thing.
I have talked with Marshall Hyatt of EPA Region 4 about the compliance schedule
plan. He is requiring us to put language in the Fact Sheet explaining the reason for
a 3 year compliance schedule, and a list of milestone dates and events in the permit
regarding the compliance schedule. Today I talked with Ken Waldroup. He is having
an engineer draw up the details for me. We have agreed that they will withdraw the
case and I will issue the revised permit.
Apparently DWQ has done this in the past.
Jim McKay
LeVeaux, Anita wrote:
You caught me by surprise.... tell me how DENR is able to make this
modification.....919-716-6967
Jim McKay <James.McKay([e-mail]>
Environmental Engineer
Eastern NPDES Program
NC Division of Water Quality
1 of 1 1/7/2009 11:41 AM

RE: City of Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP permit adjudication, NCO082376
Subject: RE: City of Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP permit adjudication, NCO082376
From: "LeVeaux, Anita" <ALEVEAUX@ncdoj .gov>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:37:04 -0400
To: "James Mckay" <[e-mail]>
Oh, James it's just two of you guys. Just come on over around 11 AM;
I'm in 320; Old Education Bldg. Thanks; I'll see you at 11.-Anita
-----Original Message -----
From: James Mckay [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:41 PM
To: LeVeaux, Anita
Subject:. Re: City of Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP permit adjudication,
NCO082376
Anita,
My supervisor, Gil Vinzani and I are available to meet with you tomorrow
at 11:00 AM. I have reserved the 91th floor conference room for our
meeting.
Jim McKay
LeVeaux, Anita wrote:
IThanks James. We may need to sit down and discuss this more
thoroughly
Iwith all those from DENR who wish to have some input. Are you
available
tomorrow at 11AM? -Anita
-----Original Message -----
From: James Mckay [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:30 PM
To: LeVeaux, Anita
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP permit adjudication,
NCO082376
Anita:
Please refer to Dan McLawhorn's email to you on 10/28. In it he
states
that the City does not want the permit reopened as it opens it up to
other changes. He also protests the fee. I did not think that the
adverse public comments were important when we first talked. We got a
detailed, 4 page email from one person with a lot of demands and
requests, including a request for a hearing. Two other people
forwarded
her email saying they agreed with her. A fourth send an email
requesting a lot of environmental monitoring for manganese. I sent
detailed replies out to each person, but the one regarding manganese
testing was returned as a bad email address. After careful review of
the public comments, DWQ staff recommended to Coleen that no public
hearing be held, and she agreed. The City did ask for no manganese
limit, and then they asked for the limit to go into effect in the next
permit cycle. We rejected both of these requests, but did not view
either as a request for a compliance schedule.
1 of 3 10/31/2008 9:58 AM

RE: City of Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP permit adjudication, NC0082376
Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
Jim McKay
LeVeaux, Anita wrote:
James,
I am sorry if I was not clear, the mediation with the ALJ is not an
informal mediation; it is a formal mediation. The mediator can
facilitate and accommodate our discussions but cannot make any
mandates,
particularly when they are contrary to law. I suggested an informal
mediation, in part, to get the very information you've acquired in
your
conversations with the City: first, I didn't know that the City was
opposed to reopening the permit because it allowed other changes to
be
made; Second, I didn't know that that there were adverse public
comments, and Third, I didn't know that they objected to pay the
modification fee. I too believe that the addition of a compliance
schedule constitutes a major modification; I don't think that there's
anyway to avoid public notice. James, did you get a copy of Dan
McLawhorn's letter, it looks to me like they did object to the
manganese
limit. We need to talk about that. I don't believe that we can give
the city what they want, but I am still unclear on exactly what they
want. --Anita
-----Original Message -----
From: James Mckay [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:44 PM
To: LeVeaux, Anita; [e-mail]
Subject: City of Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP permit adjudication,
NCO082376
Anita and Mary Penny:
The City of Raleigh has contested the recently renewed NPDES
discharge
I
Ipermit for the E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant. The main issue is
Ithat we added a new limit for manganese, but did not give a
I
compliance
I I
schedule. They want a compliance schedule, which DWQ is perfectly
willing to grant, up to 36 months.
My question concerns the process of granting the compliance schedule.
2 of 3
10/31/2008 9:58 AM

RE: City of Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP permit adjudication, NCO082376
We have offered to reopen the permit and add a compliance schedule.
But
we would then have to repost public notice because this would be a
major
modification. The City objects to having the permit reopened because
it
allows other changes to be made, and they object to another public
notice because of the fear of adverse public comments. (We did get
objections and requests for a public hearing during the original
public
notice period, although a public hearing was not held at the I
lecision
I I)
of the Director.) They also object to having to pay a major permit
modification fee. They want an informal mediation with an ALJ
mediator.
To satisfy Raleigh's request, can we add the compliance schedule
without
reopening the permit, and without public notice? Can we do so if
directed by a mediator?
when I discussed this matter with Paul Rawls today, he offered three
routes:
1. Reopen the permit, with a public notice
2. SOC
3. JOC. Paul is against this route.
Thank you for your help!
Jim McKay
Eastern NPDES Program
[phone]
[e-mail]
3 of 3 10/31/2008 9:58 AM

City of Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP NPDES Permit
Subject: City of Raleigh E.M. Johnson WTP NPDES Permit
From: James Mckay <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:55:02 -0400
To: "Leach, Janet" <[e-mail]>
CC: Gil Vinzani <[e-mail]>, "frances.candelaria >> Frances Candelaria"
<Frances. [e-mail]>
Janet:
I just received the email concerning the City of Raleigh contesting the NPDES permit
for the E.M. Johnson WTP. My supervisor, Gil Vinzani and I knew this was coming. We
have discussed the issue with Mr. Kenneth Waldroup of the City of Raleigh Utilities
staff. _*We are in agreement with allowing a 36 month compliance schedule for the
manganese limit*_, which is what Mr. Waldroup originally requested. The new limit of
200 mg/L for manganese was in the draft permit submitted for review. The city
requested no limit, or no limit for the new permit cycle, but we told them that the
limit was necessary. On September 28, 2006, Judy Garrett of the Raleigh Regional
Office sent a memo (attached) to Mr. H. Dale Crisp, Public Utilities Director. The
memo addresses the need for a manganese limit of 200 mg/L, so they -had two years
advance knowledge that the limit was going to be added to their permit.
To reopen the permit and add the compliance schedule will be considered a major
modification, and will require another public notice.
The text of Special Condition A.(7) is:
*A.(7.) ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS REGARDING DISCHARGE TIMING*
In order to minimize effects of future nutrient discharges on algal blooms, The City
shall make all reasonable efforts so that any future discharges occur during the
months of December, January, February, or March. If Public Water Supply requires
discharge any other time of the year, the facility must comply with the requirements
of PWS.
I am surprised at the objection to Special Condition A.(7). It was not in the draft,
but was added at the request of the Planning Department during the review period. I
discussed a more stringent version verbally with Mr. Waldroup and he did not indicate
any concerns. The original version consisted of the first sentence only. When I
wrote the final permit, I softened the requirements by adding the second sentence
about complying with PWS requirements. Public Water Supply does have the right to
require the facility to discharge treated waste water if there is a Public Safety
concern. As an aside, the facility currently does not discharge at all, but recycles
waste water back to the raw water reservoirs. The last discharge was in August of
2006.
What should I do now?
Jim McKay
Environmental Engineer
Eastern NPDES Program
[phone]
Jim McKay <James.McKay(a-),ncmail.net>
Environmental Engineer
Eastern NPDES Program
NC Division of Water Quality
Content -Type: application/pdf
;Memo to Dale Crisp.pdf Content -Encoding: base64 I
1 of 2 10/9/2008 10:55 AM

City of Raleigh v. DWQ
Subject: City of Raleigh v. DWQ
From: Phoenix Coleman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:32:03 -0400
To: Amanda Foster <[e-mail]>, Janet Leach <[e-mail]>, Kathy Cooper
<[e-mail]>, Ed Hardee <[e-mail]>, Frances Candelaria
<[e-mail]>
CC: Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>, TED BUSH <[e-mail]>, Mary P
Thompson <[e-mail]>
Good Afternoon:
Please find attached a Petition for a Contested Case Hearing served on the Office of
General Counsel in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources involving the
Division of water Quality. Please assign an attorney to represent the division and
notify me of the assignment. If you have questions or concerns please feel free to
contact me directly at "[e-mail]" or via telephone at (919)
715-4142. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
**NOTE TO DIVISION CONTACT: Please send action document, supporting documents and a
list of potential witnesses to Janet Leach in the Attorney General's Office at
"[e-mail]" upon receipt of this message.
Sincerely,
Phoenix
Tracking # 00310200802789
Phoenix Coleman <[e-mail]>
Legal Assistant
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Office of General Counsel and Executive Offices
..;City of Raleigh v. DWQ.pdf
1 of 1 10/8/2008 1:41 PM

N
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRA TJYE HEARINGS
CITY OF RALEIGH, •
PETITIONER,
n
PETITIO
l 7�
V. } FORA
CONTESTED CASE H
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND )
NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY }
RESPONDENT. )
)
Petitioner hereby petitions for a contested case hearing as provided by North Carolina General Statute § 150B-23 because the
Respondent issued the renewal of NPDES Permit No. NCO082376 with new and additional conditions which require modification,
correction, and/or removal. The Permit contains conditions that are (i) unnecessary, arbitrary and capricious, and/or impossible to
comply with; (ii) imposed without complying with the applicable predicate procedures for imposing the conditions; and (iii)
inconsistent with the legal authority to impose conditions by means of an NPDES permit. Permit Condition A.(I.) as regards the total
manganese limits is (A) an abuse of discretion under 15A NCAC 2H .0112 in that Petitioner showed it is impossible immediately to
meet this newly imposed standard and the Director, in an arbitrary and capricious manner, failed to provide Petitioner with a timetable
for compliance as the rule allows and (B) arbitrary and capricious as the monitoring requirement is different for the 3 outfalls with no
reasonable basis. Permit Condition A.(7.) is premature and not supported by a water quality standard. To the extent a future agency
decision may impose nutrient limits on the time of future nutrient discharges, it is premature and in excess of the Respondent's
authority to impose the condition in this Permit. In addition, Permit Condition A.(7.) was added after the draft Permit was noticed and
the Petitioner had no opportunity to comment or otherwise show why the condition was unlawful, thus the condition was imposed
without complying with the applicable notice requirements.
(4) Because of these facts, the State agency or board has: (check at least one from each column)
deprived me of property; x exceeded its authority or jurisdiction;
ordered me to pay a fine or civil penalty; or _x acted erroneously;
x otherwise substantially prejudiced my rights; AND ,x failed to use proper procedure;
x_acted arbitrarily or capriciously; or
x failed to act as required by law or rule.
(5) Date: October 3, 2008
(6) Your phone number: [phone]
(7) Print your full address: One Exchange Plaza, Suite 1020, 219 Fayetteville Street Mail, Raleigh, N.C. 27601
(8) Print your name: Daniel . McLawhorn
(9) Your signature: /�►�
You must mail or deliver a COPY of this Petition to the State agency or board named on line (3) of this form. You should contact the agency or
board to determine the name of the person to be served.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that this Petition has been served on the State agency or board named below by depositing a copy of it with the United States Postal Service
with sufficient postage affixed OR by delivering it to the named agency or board:
(10) Mary Penny Thompson, Esq. (11) N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(12)1617 Mail Service Center
(13) This the 3rd day
(14)
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
0CT �08
• (your signature) - -
When you have completed this form, you MUST mail or deliver the ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714.
H-06 (11/99)

Correspondence Profile Cover Sheet
Page 1 of 1
D NR
Correspondence Tracking System
00310200802789
Summary
Petition for a Contested Case Hearing: City of Raleigh v. DWQ
Received 10/03/2008 via Letter
Legal issue for Mary Penny Thompson
Issued 10/03/2008 by Daniel F. McLawhorn of City of Raleigh
* * For Recipient Use Only
To:
Date:
Respond By:
Please: Prepare a rep y m I for signature
P y and return to me.
Reply, noting the letter was referred to you by me. *
Prepare a reply for the Governor's signature and return to me.
Reply, noting the letter was referred to you by the Governor.
For your information.
Take appropriate action
Note and file.
Note and return to me.
Note and see me about this.
Your continents and/or recommendations.
'Copy to Secretary's Office
Remarks
httpJ/ibeam.enr.state.nc.us/os/dts/print.do?dispatch=crsdProfile&id=2789
10/7/2008

Re: Pemiit for E.M. Johnson WTP (NC0082376)
Subject: Re: Permit for E.M. Johnson WTP (N00082376)
From: Susie Meadows <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:12:39 -0400
To: James Mckay <[e-mail]>
Actually, after your explanation, I don't believe you need to change anything. I will
change Outfall 002 from a Grab to a Composite in our database.
Thanks.
Susie
James Mckay wrote:
Susie:
For this renewal, I did not change the WET testing language, the footnote or the
special condition from what was in the old permit. Whatever was in the old one is
the same in the new. One change we did make was to have separate Limits pages for
outfall 001(A(1)) and for 002 (A(2)). Previously they had been combined on one
sheet with a footnote stating that Outfall 002 required composite samples for
certain parameters, and 001 could have all grab samples. Composite samples for
the WET test was in the old permit for 002. This was done in order to make the
differences between 001 and 002 more clear. It is mainly a paper exercise as
outfall 001 has not been used for over 10 years. Outfall 002 has not discharged
since August of 2006. The city does not plan to discharge from 002 unless made to
do so by Public Water Supply requirements.
I have been informed that the city is going to contest the permit, but I have not
seen any paperwork for that yet. If they do adjudicate it, we might have an
opportunity to make any changes to the WET testing section while the permit is
reopened. Please help me understand what should be changed.
Jim McKay
Susie Meadows wrote:
Hi Jim,
I was looking over the Issued Permit for E.M. Johnson WTP (NC0082376) and
wondered if, for Outfall 002, the Chronic Cerio Full Range
(Multi -Concentration) test for toxicity was supposed to change to a Cerio
Chronic PF as indicated in A.(5.)? And also for Outfall 002, is it supposed to
change from a "Grab" to a "Composite?" - A.(2.)
Thank you for your time.
Susie
Susan Meadows, Environmental Biologist
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
DWQ/Environmental Sciences Section
4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, NC 27607
[e-mail]
t: [phone] -
f : [phone]
1 of 1 10/3/2008 3:27 PM

Re: Permit for E.M. Johnson WTP (NC0082376)
Subject: Re: Permit for E.M. Johnson WTP (NC0082376)
From: James Mckay <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:11:34 -0400
To: Susie Meadows <[e-mail]>
Susie:
For this renewal, I did not change the WET testing language, the footnote or the
special condition from what was in the old permit. Whatever was in the old one is
the same in the new. One change we did make was to have separate Limits pages for
outfall 001(A(1)) and for 002 (A(2)). Previously they had been combined on one sheet
with a footnote stating that Outfall 002 required composite samples for certain
parameters, and 001 could have all grab samples. Composite samples for the WET test
was in the old permit for 002. This was done in order to make the differences
between 001 and 002 more clear. It is mainly a paper exercise as outfall 001 has not
been used for over 10 years. Outfall 002 has not discharged since August of 2006.
The city does not plan to discharge from 002 unless made to do so by Public Water
Supply requirements.
I have been informed that the city is going to contest the permit, but I have not
seen any paperwork for that yet. If they do adjudicate it, we might have an
opportunity to make any changes to the WET testing section while the permit is
reopened. Please help me understand what should be changed.
Jim McKay
Susie Meadows wrote:
Hi Jim,
I was looking over the Issued Permit for E.M. Johnson WTP (NC0082376) and wondered
if, for Outfall 002, the Chronic Cerio Full Range (Multi -Concentration) test for
toxicity was supposed to change to a Cerio Chronic PF as indicated in A.(5.)? And
also for Outfall 002, is it supposed to change from a "Grab" to a "Composite?" -
A. (2 . )
Thank you for your time.
Susie
Jim McKay <James.McKay a ncmail.net>
Environmental Engineer
Eastern NPDES Program
NC Division of Water Quality
1 of 1 10/2/2008 11:44 AM