NC0082376_Permit Modification_20050706

of WArF9
Q�,l�
NCDENR
o
Mr. H. Dale Crisp, P.E.
Public Utilities Director, City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Crisp:
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
July 6, 2005
Subject: Adjudicated Settlement and Issuance
NPDES Permit NCO082376
City of Raleigh — E.M. Johnson WTZ' ,
Wake County f
Attached to this letter is the final NPDES permit for the City of Raleigh's — E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant
(WTP), NPDES Permit No. NCO082376 (for the discharge of wastewater associated with the water treatment plant).
This permit has been updated to include modifications as discussed in the meeting held February 14, 2005 between the
City of Raleigh and the Division of Water Quality. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North
Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently amended).
In general terms, the modifications are as stated below.
■ The classification of the stream at Outfall 001 has been changed to WS-IV, NSW (this classification was
updated July 2004). The Division apologizes for the oversight.
■ Condition A.(2.) has been modified to specify the various wastewater sources contributing to Outfall 003.
Representative sampling under base flow conditions has also been stated within this condition. The City's
stormwater permit has been referenced in the document. After further discussion of the sources of wastewater
and conditions of discharge, the Division agreed to specify grab sampling in the permit for Outfall 003.
■ Due to the remote location of Outfall 001 in relation to a power source, and the infrequency of discharge from
this outfall, the Division has agreed to modify the sampling requirement to "grab" for all parameters for
Outfall 001 (although the sampling parameters shall remain the same as those for Outfall 002). Should the use
of this outfall become more continuous during this permit cycle, this decision may be reconsidered during the
next renewal.
■ The Division has agreed to extend the deadline for the flow characterization, Condition A.(6.), until December
31, 2005. This should allow the City time to implement the proposed effluent recycling and better characterize
the wasteflow from Outfall 002. The completed report of the flow characterization shall be submitted by
March 1, 2006.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1 NPDES Unit Phone: [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 fax: [phone]
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us DENR Customer Service Center:1800 623-7748

W. H Dale Crisp, P.E.
Adjudicated Settlement and Issuance
NPDES Permit No. Na082376
City of Raleigh - E.M. Johnson WTP
Page 2
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, 6714 Mad Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
6714. Unless such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may require
modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain
other permits that maybe required by the Division of Water Quality, the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area
Management Act, or any other federal or local governmental permit
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Susan A Wilson, P.E. at telephone number (919) 733-
5083, ext. 510.
Sincerely,
13*6 soiled
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: Raleigh Regional Office, Surface Water Protection
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Central Files
NPDES File
Donald W. Laton, NCDOJ, Environmental Division of Water Quality
Steven J. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LIP
John Garland, City of Raleigh
EPA Region IV, Roosevelt Childress
Dean Naujoks, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper
Neuse River Foundation
112 S. Blount St.
Raleigh, NC 27601

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 August 1, 2005.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on February 28, 2008.
Signed this day July 6, 2005.
i)" A. C- o�odrih
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., 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 (from Outfall 002), 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 filtrate pump station)
truck hauling and concrete pad for residuals
belt filter press washwater pumps
belt conveyors
♦ Sand drying beds (drainage to filtrate pump station)/ containment pad
♦ Refer to Permit No. WQ0008431 for components specific to the sludge disposal
facility
♦ Dechlorination and automatic pH control system
♦ Refer to Permit No. WQ0022036 for the bulk reclaimed water distribution program
(and associated approvals and components).
001- Discharge from reservoir and possible discharge of treated water/wastewater
(located across Falls of the Neuse Road from the water treatment plant).
002 - Discharge of wastewater associated with the treatment of water for drinking
purposes (main wastewater discharge).
003 - Discharge of stormwater and miscellaneous wastewater from the culvert directly
upstream of Outfall 002.
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 (across Falls of the Neuse Road from the treatment
plant) 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.
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-CA waters in the Neuse River Basin.

Permit NCO082376
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
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
Outfalls 001 (outfall located across Falls of the Neuse) and 002 (main wastewater outf'oll). Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic,,
Limits
Monitoring Requirements
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average 1
Daily
Maximum_;
Measuremenq
Frequency
Sample Type
Sample
Locationt
Flow
Continuous
Recording
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mgA
45.0 mgA
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Settleable Solids
0.1 ml/l
0.2 mlll
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Turbidity2
Weekly
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Total Residual Chlorine3
17 µgA
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
NH3-N (mgA)
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
TKN (mgA)
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
NO2-N + NO3-N (mg/1)
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
TN (mg(1)4
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Monthly Flow (MG)
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Calculated
Effluent
TN Loads
Monitor & Report
Annual Mass Loadin 6
( 9)
Monthly
Annually
Calculated
Calculated
Effluent
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
I Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Copper
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Iron
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Manganese
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
I Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Nickel
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxic' 7
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
H8
6-9
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
SAmPLE TYPE FOR OuTFALL 001: Due to the remote location of Outfall 001 and the infrequency of
discharge, the City may conduct grab samples for all parameters. The sample type for Outfall 002
shall be as listed above.
(Other requirements continued on the next page)

Permit NCO082376
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LBUTATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
(Continued)
NOTES:
1. Upstream at a feasible location above the discharge point; Downstream at a feasible location
below the discharge point.
2. The discharge shall not cause the turbidity of the receiving water to exceed 50 NTU. If the
turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural background conditions, the discharge level
cannot cause any increase in the turbidity in the receiving water.
3. The total residual chlorine limit shall be implemented three months from the effective date of
the permit.
4. 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.
5. TN Load is the mass load of TN discharged by the Permittee in a period of time. See Special
Condition A. (3.), Calculation of TN Loads.
6. Annual TN load must be reported. Annual TN load is not limited for this permit cycle. See
Special Condition A.(3.), Calculation of TN Loads.
7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia dubia) Monitoring at 90%: February, May, August, and
November [see Special Condition A.(4). 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. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge wastewater and other pollutants contained in raw water
reservoir overflow and drainage, treatment plant drainage, and clearwell drainage from Outfall
003 (drainage from the culvert above Outfall 002). Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic:
Limits
Monitoring Requirements
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample Type
Sample
Location
Flow
Weekly
Estimate
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
Monthly
Grab '
Effluent
Settleable Solids
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
NH3-N (mgll)
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
TN (mg4)
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron
Monthly
Grab
I Effluent
Total Manganese
Monthly
Grab
I Effluent
Total Aluminum
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Calcium
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead
Quartedy
Grab
Effluent
Total Magnesium
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc
Quarterly
I Grab
I Effluent
H8
Monthly
I Grab
I Effluent
NOTES:
All samples collected should be representative of the discharge from the sources identified above
under base flow conditions and, to the extent practical, should not include stormwater or other
discharges regulated by any applicable stormwater discharge permit.
Stormwater discharged through Outfall 003 shall continue to be permitted and regulated by the
Penmittee's NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit No. NCS000245, as renewed or modified.
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, other than waste or chemicals contained in stormwater or
other discharges regulated by any applicable stormwater discharge permit.

Permit NCO082376
A.(3.) CALCULATION OF TOTAL NITROGEN LOADS
a. The Permittee shall calculate monthly and annual TN Loads as follows:
L Monthly TN Load (lb/mo) = TN x TMF x 8.34
where:
IN = 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
H. 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.(4.) CHRONIC TOXICITY MONITORING (QUARTERLY)
The permittee shall conduct chronic toxicity tests using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Phase H 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, quarterly monitoring 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 Branch
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 Branch
no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.

Permit NCO082376
A.(4.) 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 Branch 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.(5.) SPILL RESPONSE AND PREVENTION PLAN
The City has three months from the effective date of the permit to submit a final SRPP for the
water treatment plant. One copy should be submitted to the Raleigh Regional Office and one
copy to the NPDES Unit (East) of the Surface Water Protection Section [the addresses are listed
in Condition A.K), Item No. 31.
A.(6.) FLOW CHARACTERIZATION
1. No later than December 31, 2005, the Permittee shall characterize the discharge at Outfall
002 and submit a written report of its findings to the Division's NPDES Unit, as described
below.

Permit NCO082376
FLOW CtIARACTERIZATION, continued
• The Permittee shall monitor the discharge through one continuous 7-day period
as follows:
Parameter
Monitoring
Frequency
Sample
Type I
Flow
1/ % hour
Instantaneous
Conductivity
1/ hour
Grab
Settleable Solids
1/ hour
Grab
Acute Toxicity
Once Z
Grab
Footnotes:
(1) Location: existing effluent monitoring point for
Outfall 002.
(2) Acute Toxicity, 48-hr LC50 test, Ceriodaphnia; grab
sample shall be taken during a representative peak flow
period. See Item No. 2 of this Special Condition, Acute
Twdcity Monitoring.
• The Permittee shall make a reasonable attempt to choose a study period that is
representative of facility operations and discharge. The study period shall
coincide with chronic toxicity monitoring at Outfall 002.
2. ACUTE TOXICITY MONITORING
The permittee shall conduct an acute toxicity test using protocols defined as definitive in
E.P.A. Document EPA/600/4-90/027F entitled "Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity
of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms." The monitoring shall be performed as a
Ceriodaphnia dubia 48 hour static test. Effluent samples for self -monitoring purposes must
be obtained during representative effluent discharge below all waste treatment. The tests
will be performed one time during the 7 day study.
The parameter code for this test is TAA3B. The toxicity testing result required as part of
this permit condition may be submitted as part of the special 7 day study. Additionally,
DWQ Form AT 1 (original), along with the 7 day study report, should be sent to the following
address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical
measurements performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response
data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported
if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any test data from either these monitoring requirements 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.

Permit NCO082376
FLOW CHARACTERIZATION, continued
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as
minimum control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall
constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing.
A North Carolina certified laboratory must be used for this test.
3. STUDY REPORT
The 7 day study report shall be completed by December 31, 2005 (as stated in Item No. 1,
above) and shall be compiled and submitted by March 1, 2006. The report shall be
submitted to:
NPDES Unit (East), Surface Water Protection Section, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
NC 27699-1617
Surface Water Protection, Raleigh Regional Office, 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC
27609
Environmental Sciences Section, Aquatic Toxicology Unit, 1621 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 (as listed in Item No. 2)
A.(7.) ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS REGARDING DISCHARGE MONITORING
REPORT (DMR) FORMS
1. The City must submit a DMR form for Outfall 001, whether a discharge occurs or does
not occur. If there is no discharge from Outfall 001 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).

OF WAR Michael F. Easley
�0\4 QG Governor
Gj r William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
> North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
a NINE., "< Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Water Quality Section/ NPDES Unit
FAX: [phone]
19219 05
FAX TO: Dean Naujoks, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper
Re.: City of Raletah WTP
FROM: Susan A. Wilson, P.E.
PHONE: [phone], ext. 510
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
Dean,
Division of Water Quality
FAX NUMBER: 919 866 1182
I wanted to give you an opportunity to look at this permit — it is not finalized yet. You may want to schedule a
meeting with me on this next week (thought I would get you the proposed permit first so we could discuss any
questions/concems you may have). The City of Raleigh adjudicated the EM Johnson WTP permit. We had a
discussion about some of their concerns — several of them we agreed to change, while a few we did not. The fact
sheet amendment explains the changes. When you get an opportunity — look this over and then give me a ring or
set up a meeting with me if you want to (I'm around next week — so that would be best for me). Thanks.
Susan
ST seov
`
Goe%�
p�PP 0-1 476
�1 Gc.oS ED
v cv,,jva, L&mC-rz
MomT
rAGT Strc-er Amra^»Me*J i

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET AMENDMENT, 4/11/2005
NPDES No. NC0082376, E.M. Johnson WTP (Raleigh)
Facility Information
Applicant/ FaciliName:
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
Variable (no limit); average, 2002 = 2.53 MGD
Type of Waste:
100% Non -domestic
Facility/Permit Status:
Renewal
County:
Wake
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
UT Honeycutt
Creek/arm of
Falls Lake (002
& 003)
UT Neuse River
(001)
Regional Office:
RRO
Stream Classification:
WS-IV NSW CA
(002 & 003)
WS IV NSW
(001)
Quad
D24NE
Wake Forest
303(d) Listed?:
No - TMDL in
lace
Permit Writer:
S. Wilson
Subbasin:
030402
Date:
Aril 11, 2005
Drainage Area (inf2):
Summer 7Q 10 (cfs)
0
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
-Average Flow (cfs):
IWC (n/o):
100%
Primary SIC Code:
BACKGROUND
The City of Raleigh brought up several issues after the revised permit was issued December 29,
2004. Due to the short time span left to resolve those issues - the City adjudicated the permit.
A meeting was held February 14, 2005 between the City, their attorney, and DWQ and their
attorneys.
The City's main concerns were:
• The waterbody for Outfall 001 was not correctly classified. (This has been corrected to WS IV
NSW, based on the reclassification in July 2004 for the potential Wake Forest water supply
downstream).
The City wished to have a longer time frame to complete the flow characterization study,
outlined in Part A. (6.). The study was originally due to be completed by June 1, 2005 (and
the report completed by August 1, 2005). The City requested a longer time frame because
the City is proposing to recycle as much water as possible back to the raw water reservoir;
they are waiting full permission from DEH/PWS to do this. The City contends that this
recycle may affect the variability of the treated wastewater and thinks a study will be better
representative of the discharge after the recycle is completed. DWQ agrees with this
contention and has granted an extension of the study until December 31, 2005 (with report
due March 1, 2006).
NCO082376
Fact Sheet Amendment - NPDES Renewal
Page 1

For Outfall 003, the City raised the issue that this outfall received stormwater which was
essentially covered by the City's stormwater permit NCS000245. Because DWQs main
concern with this outfall is the discharge from the cleanvell leakage (which contains
chlorinated potable water) and the potential discharge from the raw reservoir - DWQ had no
objections to clarifying the sampling requirement for this outfall. Outfall 003 sampling shall
be representative of base, f low conditions, exclusive of stormwater.
Also for Outfall 003, the City contended that an electrical box/outlet would have to be run
to Outfall 003 to comply with the composite sampling requirement at considerable expense.
The City requested elimination of this requirement or a schedule for
budgeting/implementing for an electrical source. DWQ agreed to modify the requirement for
003 and allow grab sampling - DWQ does not anticipate great variability of flow from Outfall
003, since the sampling will be conducted under base flow conditions (entirely dfferent from
the requirements for the treated wastewater outfall - which is potentially highly variable due
to the backw shing schedule).
For Outfall 001 (the outfall across Falls of the Neuse from the treatment plant, which is
rarely if ever used), the City also requested elimination of the composite requirement due to
the lack of an electrical source at that location. Because this outfall is rarely, if ever, used -
DWQ agreed to this request and will modsfy sampling to grab for Outfall 001 (but the outfall
will have the same sampling requirements as Outfall 002). Should the use of this outfall
become more continuous/discharge more frequently during this permit cycle - this decision
may be reconsidered.
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached revised permit,
please contact Susan Wilson, P.E. at [phone] ext. 510.
NCO082376
Fact Sheet Amendment - NPDES Renewal
Page 2

9 S41 -
u s Ei°14
r�g�.n�.✓ D� J� s, o �
v.
y M
-WtC[Zz

F'wd: RE; Raleigh permit contested case (water plant)
Subject: F wd: RE: Raleigh permit contested case (water plant)
From: "Don Laton" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:03:57 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
Good Morning Susan!
Please see attached from Steve Levitas and let me know what your file reflects, at your
convenience.
Thanks,
Don
Donald W. Laton
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Division, RM 323A
Old Education Bldg.
114 W. Edenton Street
Raleigh, NC
919-716-6963, direct number
919-716-6766, fax number
[e-mail]
Subject: RE: Raleigh permit contested case (water plant)
From: "Levitas, Steve"<[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 07:50:01 -0400
To: "Don Laton" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Beverly Coats" <[e-mail]>,
Cooper" <[e-mail]>
"Janet Leach" <[e-mail]>, "Kathy
I am not aware of the permit having been issued. It has been promised for some time.
<http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com>
Steven J. Levitas
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Suite 400
3737 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27612
t 919 420 1707
f 919 510 6145
Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly
limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any
attachments, may contain confidential attorney -client privileged information and attorney
work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or
use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 919 420 1700, and
destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any
matter.
of 6/6/2005 9:38 AM

Fwd: RE:. Raleigh permit contested case (water plant)
-----Original Message -----
From: Don Laton [mailto:dlaton@ncdoj . com]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 1:45 PM
To: Levitas, Steve
Cc: Beverly Coats; Janet Leach; Kathy Cooper
Subject: Raleigh permit contested case (water plant)
Steve,
Did you receive the permit incorporating your last round of comments - - the ones that you
said you'd like to see in the document but could live without. If I am recalling correctly,
Susan was going to make all those changes and issue the permit. I also recall that Susan did
so but don't have a precise date.
Where are we on this one?
Thanks for your time.
Don
Donald W. Laton
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Division, RM 323A
Old Education Bldg.
114 W. Edenton Street
Raleigh, NC
919-716-6963, direct number
919-716-6766, fax number
[e-mail]
2 of 2 6/6/2005 9:38 AM

Case No. 05 EHR 0166
Subject: Case No. 05 EHR 0166
From: "Don Laton" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:46:54 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
CC:<[e-mail],<[e-mail]>, "Don Laton"
<[e-mail]>, "Janet Leach" <JLEACHQncdoj.com>, "Kathy Cooper"
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Vickey,
per our telephone conversation of earlier this morning, placed by you to me after receiving a
voice mail from Carolyn Bachl of Kilpatrick Stockton on behalf of the Petitioner City of
Raleigh:
The parties have settled this matter, a challenge by the City of Raleigh to NPDES Permit
NCO082376 - - E.M. Johnson WTP The drafting/mailing of the revised permit will take a few
days. Therefore, both Parties requested that no Prehearing Statement be filed. (The
Prehearing Statement is due on May 3, 2005 pursuant to a revised Scheduling Order.) You
informed me that this e-mail notice to you would be sufficient to document our request and
OAH's agreement with our request. As we discussed, Prehearing Statements need not be
filed. Therefore, the Parties will not file Prehearing Statements.
Petitioner's counsel has informed me that he will file a Withdrawal of Petition as soon as the
revised permit is received.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this regard.
Don
Donald W. Laton
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Division, RM 323A
Old Education Bldg.
114 W. Edenton Street
Raleigh, NC
919-716-6963, direct number
919-716-6766, fax number
[e-mail]
of 1 5/6/2005 3:37 PM

RE: City of Raleigh WTP Permit
Subject: RE: City of Raleigh WTP Permit
From: "Don Laton" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:25:58 -0400
To:<[e-mail]>
CC:<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Will do. Thanks Stevei
Donald W. Laton
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Division, RM 323A
Old Education Bldg.
114 W. Edenton Street
Raleigh, NC
919-716-6963, direct number
919-716-6766, fax number
[e-mail]
"Levitas, Steve"<[e-mail]> 04/26/05 05:07PM >>>
I agree that we should not file anything. I am prepared to tell OAH, by phone or letter, jointly
or from either one of us, that the case has been settled and that we will be withdrawing our
petition as soon as we receive a revised permit. I would appreciate your working with Carolyn
Bachl of my office (420-1702) to accomplish this however you think best as I am not very
available for the rest of the week. Thanks. Steve
-----Original Message -----
From: Don Laton [mailto:[e-mail])
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 4:36 PM
To: Levitas, Steve
Cc: Don Laton; [e-mail]
Subject: City of Raleigh WTP Permit
Steve,
Yesterday, by e-mail from Susan Wilson, I learned that she had been out of the office most of
last week. But, she told me that she will get back to me with a response on or before this
Friday.
Prehearing Statements are due next Tuesday, May 3rd. Given that you've agreed that
DWQ should proceed to reissue the permit, and since any remaining points as set forth in
your April 19, 2005 e-mail are suggestions, I don't think we should file the Prehearing
Statements. Maybe a joint call to OAH to advise of this I suppose we could just let the
deadline pass.
I expect that DWQ will adopt some or all of your suggestions in the final iteration. Could be
that making some of the suggested changes pose a problem time wise.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
Don
Donald W. Laton
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Division, RM 323A
Old Education Bldg.
114 W. Edenton Street
Raleigh, NC
of 2 5/6/2005 3:37 PM

City of Raleigh
Subject: City of Raleigh
From: "Don Laton" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:04:40 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
Susan,
What do you think about the latest comments from Steve Levitas. As I recall, he indicated
that the City would like to see some the changes but would not insist upon them. One
change was a typo of some sort that is an easy fix. Let me know. The sooner we can get
this case closed and off the May 23, 2005 hearing calendar, the better. Thanks.
Don
Donald W. Laton
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Division, RM 323A
Old Education Bldg.
114 W. Edenton Street
Raleigh, NC
919-716-6963, direct number
919-716-6766, fax number
[e-mail]
of 1 5/6/2005 3:38 PM

City of Raleigh Water Plant NPDES permit
Subject: City of Raleigh Water Plant NPDES permit
From: "Levitas, Steve"<[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:17:52 -0400
To: "Donald W. Laton \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Mary Penny Thompson \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>, "H. Dale Crisp
\(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>, "Jack Moyer \(E-mail\)"
<[e-mail]>, "John Garland \(E-mail\)"<[e-mail]>,
"Daniel F. McLawhorn \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>, "Susan A Wilson"
<[e-mail]>
Don -- The version of the Raleigh Water Plant permit you faxed to me on April 13, 2005 is acceptable to City, with the
following minor comments:
(1) The permit contains a typo in Condition A.(6.), item 3. As we have discussed and as reflected in the Fact Sheet
Amendment, the date for submittal of the report should be March 1, 2006, rather than March 1, 2005.
(2) We appreciate DWQ making the requested modification concerning sampling of Outfall 001. It might be a little
clearer if the note at the end of Condition A.(1.) dealing with this issue were actually a numbered footnote inserted in
the heading "Sample Type" in the table, but we will defer to DWQ on that.
(3) In the first sentence of the last version of the cover letter I saw (transmitted March 15, 2005), the permit is
described as one for the "treatment of wastewater." I would suggest that the word "treatment" be replaced with
"discharge," for two reasons. First, the discharges pursuant to the permit from Outfalls 001 and 003 are not treated. ✓
Second, a permit is not required to treat wastewater but to discharge it. This is not a sticking point for us, but I think it
is in both parties interest to make this change.
Subject to the typo being corrected (and DWQ deciding whether to make the changes suggested in items 2 and 3), we
agree that DWQ should proceed to reissue the permit. We will withdraw our petition for a contested case promptly
upon receipt of the revised permit. Thanks to you and DWQ for your help in getting this matter resolved.
Steve
K I LPATRICK
STOCKTON LLP
Attorneys at Law
Steven J. Levitas
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Suite 400
3737 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27612
t 919 420 1707
f 919 510 6145
Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission,
and any attachments, may contain confidential attomey-client privileged information and attorney work product.. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 919 420 1700, and destroy the original transmission
and its attachments without reading or saving in any matter.
of 1 5/6/2005 3:39 PM

Raleigh WTP NPDES permit
Subject: Raleigh WTP NPDES permit
From: "Levitas, Steve"<[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 06:57:37 -0500
To: "Susan A Wilson" <[e-mail]>, "Donald W. Laton \(E-mail\)"
<[e-mail]>, "Mary Penny Thompson \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>
CC: "H. Dale Crisp \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>, "Jack Moyer \(E-mail\)"
<[e-mail]>, "John Garland \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>,
"Daniel F. McLawhom \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>
Dear Susan -- Our team has reviewed the lastest draft of the NPDES for the Raleigh WTP and
generally agrees that it satisfactorily addresses all of the issues we have raised. We have just
two additional points.
First, on the issue of the timing of the flow characterization and associated acute toxicity
testing, we failed to catch that on the last page of the permit item #3 (Study Report) requires
that the acute toxicity testing results be submitted by August 1, 2005, while on the previous
page, based on our discussions and negotiations, the deadline for completion of the flow
characterization testing as a whole has been extended to 12/31/05. We hope you agree that y
this was just an oversight on all out parts and that the August 1, 2005 date should be deleted p�
and the language revised to require submittal of results 60 days after 12/31 /05.
The seond issue is a new one, which, unfortunately we failed to identify previously, but which
we hope you will view as non -controversial. With all our focus on outfalls 002 and 003, we
neglected to notice that we have the same problem with the monitoring methodology on 001
that we did with 003. The City does not have the capability to do continuous flow monitoring
nor perform composite sampling currently on this discharge pipe. This has not been an issue
to date because it has had no discharge from this pipe, but if it ever does (accidental overflow
or draining of the east reservoir for maintenance), it would not be able to comply with these
requirements since it can only estimate flow and perform grab sampling. The flow monitoring
and sampling type for pipes 003 and 001 should really be the same. Does that make sense to
you?
I apologize for not catching these items before now, but if these two issues can be addressed
we are good to go on the permit. If we need to discuss, I'll be back in the office on Tuesday.
Steve
col ­7 Po ti2'16 7
ent r, W I -F4 7XeAk bo 1AI5- g12_1}13
Go ( .
zykkv Mom+ ►, Zoo(
1 of 1
3/28/2005 9:38 AM

E. M. Johnson WTP NPDES Permit
Subject: E. M. Johnson WTP NPDES Permit
From: "Levitas, Steve"<[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:05:58 -0500
To: "Susan A Wilson" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Dave Goodrich" <[e-mail]>, "Mary Penny Thompson \(E-mail\)"
<[e-mail]>, "H. Dale Crisp \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>,
"Jack Moyer \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>, "John Garland \(E-mail\)"
<John. [e-mail]>
Dear Susan — Thanks very much for taking the time to meet with us last week concerning the NPDES wastewater
permit for the City of Raleigh's E.M. Johnson Water Plant. It was obviously a very productive meeting and we hope
that we have resolved all outstanding issues in a manner that will allow for a mutually agreeable modification of the
permit and dismissal of the City's contested case. Here is my understanding of the conceptual agreements we
reached last week, along with some suggested language for accomplishing the revisions:
✓(1) Paragraph 2 on the page entitled "Supplement to Cover Sheet" and ftqa " ocation map n the next page of ✓
the permit will be modified to reflect that Outfall 001 discharges to water classified as WS- - -CA. j
(2) Condition A.(2.) will be modified as follows:
(a) The discharge permitted by this permit through this outfall and for which monitoring is required shall be the base
flow only (i.e. exclusive of stormwater). The stormwater discharge through this outfall will continue to permitted and
regulated by the City's NPDES stormwater permit. To accomplish this objective, we suggest the following
modifications to this condition: (i) Rewrite the first sentence of the condition to read " ... the permittee is authorized to
/ discharge wastewater and other pollutants contained in raw water reservoir overflow and drainage, treatment plant
✓ drainage, and clearwell drainage from Outfall 003 (the culvert above Outfall 002)." (ii) Rewrite the first note in the
condition to read "All samples collected should be representative of the discharge from the sources identified above
under base flow conditions and, to the extent practical, should not include stormwater or other discharges regulated by
any applicable stormwater discharge permit." (iii) Add a new note that reads: "Stormwater discharged through
Outfall 003 shall continue to be permitted and regulated by the Permittee's NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit
No. NCS000245, as renewed or modified."
/(b) The sampling type for all parameters (with the exception of flow, which is an estimate) will be grab rather than
V composite.
(c) The last note in this condition will be modified to address the fact that stormwater is discharged through Outfall
003. We would suggest the following language: 'There shall be no discharge of waste or chemicals that do not
directly result from the responsible treatment of raw water, other than waste or chemicals contained in stormwater or mW
other discharges regulated by any applicable stormwater discharge permit."
A3) Paragraph 1 of Condition A.(6.) will be rewritten to read "No later than December 31, 2005, the Permittee shall
✓/ characterize the discharge ..." We are hopeful that this extended deadline will allow sufficient time for the City to ofi:_
resolve and implement plans for recycling effluent from Outfall 002 so that the flow characterization will be —
representative of operating conditions during the life of the permit.
I hope the foregoing accurately summarizes our conceptual agreements and that the specific language we have
proposed is agreeable to DWQ. Thanks again for working with us on this. We look forward to hearing from you.
Steve
KILPA'TRICK
STOCKTON LLP
Arturacy5 at Law
Steven J. Levitas
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Suite 400
1 of 2 2/22/2005 12:19 PM

E. M. Johnson WTP NPDES Permit
3737 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27612
t 919 420 1707
f 919 510 6145
Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission,
and any attachments, may contain confidential attomey-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 919 4201700, and destroy the original transmission
and its attachments without reading or saving in any matter.
2 of 2 2/22/2005 12:19 PM

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: E. M. Johnson WTP NPDES Per...
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: E. M. Johnson WTP NPDES Permit]]
From: Judy Garrett <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:04:02 -0500
To: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
CC: Ken Schuster <[e-mail]>
Susan,
I've reveiwed the proposed changes and they are as we agreed, to my memory.
Thanks,
Judy
Susan Wilson wrote:
Judy/Ken - haven't heard from you guys on this .... I'm assuming it's OK with you guys? Let
me know when you get a chance - I'm ready to get this one out of here. Thanks much!
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: E. M. Johnson WTP NPDES Permit]
Date:Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:03:41 -0500
From:Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
To:Ken Schuster <[e-mail]>, Judy Garrett
<Judy. Garrett@ncmail. net>
CC:Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Judy/Ken,
I looked over this - sounds exactly like what we agreed on in the meeting 2/ 14. I'm going to
start revising the permit accordingly. Let me know if you guys have any concerns. I'll
probably try and get something back to Steve by mid -next week. Thanksl
------ Original Message--------
Subject:E. M. Johnson WTP NPDES Permit
Date:Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:05:58 -0500
From:Levitas, Steve<[e-mail]>
To:Susan A Wilson <[e-mail]>
CC:Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>, Mary Penny Thompson (E-mail)
<[e-mail]>, H. Dale Crisp (E-mail)
<[e-mail]>, Jack Moyer (E-mail)
<[e-mail]>, John Garland (E-mail)
<[e-mail]>
Dear Susan -- Thanks very much for taking the time to meet with us last week concerning the NPDES wastewater
permit for the City of Raleigh's E.M. Johnson Water Plant. It was obviously a very productive meeting and we hope
that we have resolved all outstanding issues in a manner that will allow for a mutually agreeable modification of the
permit and dismissal of the City's contested case. Here is my understanding of the conceptual agreements we
reached last week, along with some suggested language for accomplishing the revisions:
(1) Paragraph 2 on the page entitled "Supplement to Cover Sheet" and the Facility Location map on the next page
of the permit will be modified to reflect that Outfall 001 discharges to water classified as WS-IV-NSW-CA.
(2) Condition A.(2.) will be modified as follows:
of 2 3/9/2005 4:30 PM

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: E. M. Johnson WTP NPDES Per...
(a) The discharge permitted by this permit through this outfall and for which monitoring is required shall be the
base flow only (i.e. exclusive of stormwater). The stormwater discharge through this outfall will continue to
permitted and regulated by the City's NPDES stormwater permit. To accomplish this objective, we suggest the
following modifications to this condition: (i) Rewrite the first sentence of the condition to read " ... the permittee is
authorized to discharge wastewater and other pollutants contained in raw water reservoir overflow and drainage,
treatment plant drainage, and clearwell drainage from Outfall 003 (the culvert above Outfall 002)." (ii) Rewrite the
first note in the condition to read "All samples collected should be representative of the discharge from the
sources identified above under base flow conditions and, to the extent practical, should not include stormwater or
other discharges regulated by any applicable stormwater discharge permit." (iii) Add a new note that reads:
"Stormwater discharged through Outfall 003 shall continue to be permitted and regulated by the Permittee's NPDES
Stormwater Discharge Permit No. NCS000245, as renewed or modified."
(b) The sampling type for all parameters (with the exception of flow, which is an estimate) will be grab rather than
composite.
(c) The last note in this condition will be modified to address the fact that stormwater is discharged through Outfall
003. We would suggest the following language: 'There shall be no discharge of waste or chemicals that do not
directly result from the responsible treatment of raw water, other than waste or chemicals contained in stormwater
or other discharges regulated by any applicable stormwater discharge permit."
(3) Paragraph 1 of Condition A.(6.) will be rewritten to read "No later than December 31, 2005, the Permittee shall
characterize the discharge ..." We are hopeful that this extended deadline will allow sufficient time for the City to
resolve and implement plans for recycling effluent from Outfall 002 so that the flow characterization will be
representative of operating conditions during the life of the permit.
I hope the foregoing accurately summarizes our conceptual agreements and that the specific language we have
proposed is agreeable to DWQ. Thanks again for working with us on this. We look forward to hearing from you.
Steve
K r LPATRICK.
h STOCKTON LLP
Attwncc)i at Law
Steven J. Levitas
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Suite 400
3737 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27612
t 919 4201707
f 919 510 6145
Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission,
and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney -client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission
is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 919 4201700, and destroy the original
transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any matter.
of 2 3/9/2005 4:30 PM

2/14/05 CORPUD MEETING WITH DWQ STAFF ON NPDES PERMIT
NC0082376
The issues which we are concerned about in the EMJWTP NPDES permit are
the following:
1) The final renewed permit incorrectly identifies the classification of the
stream which the 001 outfall pipe discharges as C-NSW, when the stream is
actually classified WS-IV-NSW. t/ No thOg
2) The final permit contains conflicting language regarding whether
stormwater is permitted to be discharge from outfall pipe 003 at the EMJWTP.
Stormwater is currently discharged from this 003 outfall pipe and DWQ and
EPA are aware of the stormwater discharge from this pipe, therefore the
language in the final renewed permit should consistently indicate that
stormwater is permitted. (8*9
3) The final permit contains an unusual condition that was not included in the
original draft permit submitted to the City from DWQ. The City was not given
an opportunity to review and comment on the permit condition which requires
additional, intense wastewater monitoring for a specific period of time from
the 002 outfall pipe. The need to perform this work should be explained to the
City and the associated cost of the work justified by DWQ.
4) The monitoring requirements for the 003 outfall pipe in the final permit
require many of the samples to be collected as flow -paced, composite
samples. We currently do not have the ability to collect a flow -paced
composite sample for the 003 outfall pipe. The permit is set to be effective
February 1, 2005 and we do not believe we can install flow -paced composite
sampling equipment in this short time period. The City had originally
requested that the requirement for this sampling be removed from the final
permit when the draft permit was reviewed. If the monitoring requirement can
not be removed altogether, then we would like DWQ to permit grab sampling
or constant -time composite sampling to be performed until flow -paced
sampling can be accommodated.

C— (L-(i To
Wowt_iL- Z_ � S r J w4f C4 r s RAAJ NhTc:;?-
VA.wy — of ----
r Orr c ib
ear
sN © t� G L�
'o R6c&,Tr- r P1aLUA5 5co t1 3+-e4f 7; �uT
DOfi --q W1 e�Q�4��taw �Ca%xc�R'1
` l.row.pwp Sb+rf.� u�5

•
spa 5`G_..,aE Q�if,�y`i
/"'r"�'�(F� i/��� �, ro ���,✓�7 rd
0
Of tnf 614f L u7 Gk
SON `1%r/11�Ni5
lU7 5' IUon/7L -
Fit
o A A- S`7 i} — AAAYv aT
/
1
To Gom&-P, u! To
TiE:Pr
/Lo /C %� onf r o /A/ c -h /u(t i 6
pQ NloN ON
t( gpo(TNE
CrC I (�z r c A oMirl f;Ao N- i� L
(� (.oNirl iv2 C G
loo�O bvw ^. fit. -Cis t% 63� a1
Np1:1
Aae ' f� s pec,<rc 7 /\

-
--
— — - -- -- - — Spy.
--
VIA—
Qb
,� S 9a7?--oqTt� --(bx r557-
C�/Lfh�l — Cer N r Vl{g4(L-
-#A5 Awp v-r a ! Giµtr on 06j

�����6�
� �'� LCSo
j�,-�}(L
�� ��

�/7�s .�� Mt�iA'�s onlcr� tiJc4cn1 t7tS�M�4� —
s2,

iLG�b-7n.;YVT 0�-'
lM
CA4,1 �� �r
0 � /J

Raleigh WTP (EM Johnson WTP, NC0082376)
Notes for City of Raleigh Meeting
2/14/05
Here are the basic issues of contention that I know about with regard to the WTP
permit:
Outfall 001- that's actually supposed to be WS IV or WS V (I have it in the permit as C-
NSW); I just need to look into this and correct if necessary.
Outfall 003 (A.(2.)) - they do not care for the language at the bottom of that page -
'oI'here shall be no discharge of waste chemicals that do not directly result from the
responsible treatment of raw water." They don't like this language because there is a
stormwater component to this outfall (my understanding is runoff from the general site
area around the WTP) - so it may contain other elements besides chemicals due to
water treatment - like oils from cars, etc. (understood - we can work with them on this
and either eliminate this language or modify).
They are also not happy with the monitoring requirement for this outfall. However -
they can beef up the monitoring and give us at least 8 -12 data points so that we can
evaluate reasonable potential - and then we could possibly reduce the monitoring (my
conversations with Steve L. indicated that they may be able to live with that - but Dale
may think elsewise now). I think the requirements are fairly minimal to characterize
the wastestream - and we'd be happy to reduce if the data indicates such.
They have brought up a concern about the composite sampling for 003. They
apparently cannot get a permanent composite sampler installed there without some
effort/time (need to run electrical out there). We can either give them time to install one
or have them do composited grab samples until they can install one (Ken/Judy - need
some help/advice on this one).
With re. to the SW issues that Dan McLawhorn brought up for 003 - I HAVE NO IDEA
what he's talking about. That outfall encompasses some SW, but it also encompasses
some leakage of chlorinated, potable water from the nearby clearwell, and some water
from a "French -drain" type system around the raw reservoir (and that raw reservoir can
contain recycled potable water). The first I'd heard of his concerns on this were through
the e-mail Dan Oakley sent around 1/26/05., Steve L. never discussed this until that
time and Raleigh had never brought up this issue during their public comments or in
the year afterwards. So, this is an unknown factor to me and one we'll need more
information on. (Mike/Ken - need your expertise on this one - they're bringing up
requirements of Phase I/Phase II, etc.)
So - that's all I know with this one.
We could have easily resolved this one prior to adjudication had Dan L. not brought up
these unknown SW issues.

/V C_�Q2376
- -- -pgor e5- ferrzor i ID,SUC sfto-5 �,VrfiJ. to.5'r✓ e169
zoo
FLu-5 -o[2otj, c -i-k1c 2Equ, rr .0 �5
1`+ ©A4-"96�c
�`J' Atu4rk 4 _,Poor[ 0�6
sen_ln,oJr�++rs .T6 Y� C�a�+.
G�«D
Ao53rPonlPi . 7 7�!/'S—��2 ��� - URAC-
=Cy- --
r

p
cis t r U-417(AA ro4 7 DAy PAP40k-7-
rY c� �N' � �I�� �.� � �r T�ls c� � y�,,✓E
l wo�3 4L -� FFc���� cHtncR�sLiff ,I,4!5� SW
176R- Row - WT!> Corot?
flA%hC 9AO kkW A9A,c Look- 47-
il���CDNoicA-n/T �pM.�osr r
5;�pv--Nl
/N Q6l r[ pz. TA+/u Z 416N
I4AC' e4pt, s
10 uMCOn+T2oLc (c S VJ
a 6C5- a Cc c,7- A. To 94,w 0S56z%jot 2)— - -
-- bus -r A- Phi4 69 Z4-w (6sz2vwt R-)
d4u Tbr,- DfalNS HRoa ua Joc 2-
it ti�ti-c DRAt,us AV-0uN,� Cc�� - VZ-LL
T,W gLe- _(No W,14
Cok,eert rj(V.ALC uR.-s /: L;rAwS �o 1PSrorV. �t �ITs . fc- CI G
(( CrIwR-
r-

O
�61"v)
jPi!5-raAJr( mN' Fs ("i Ffq-LA.-j T-11).
_�it FGoW 4 wi— - C� A GE � �� -�7 I ✓c'rL�O_!.!L
�� _7tai-FfiM �- -�_Cr✓ � 8�- Cr77 , Sw eoL.c``
PJ Kam --ore- 7A KZ ,-tm
0 Cr (At
u�✓ - $N/ fit^ f -7
(Dp"Ifnli a. OF
-�7
Im
-C�tll---
i
v 4ou A�oam-

�1 2,, ' i
!�✓ C Li ptv 7- / P7��O�le
05-� %
ten- P.W ett r<
y6,AvJ�/6(.�`TrT%� O�/1-.M,t7 / /KrQ'1" ,vA�i4- -F'ti'l R6�/�.S�T "��'✓
No' A;" (Fc c MaY�i� ! i oe v7W-&L CcC�
i
(pplG. dew-.

Ok
3� Etrp -ate 79' Y94qP-
-€ ma's
f-
�frv,-JE ou�f irk gs� �i5
v�
�3

-
�'u s�nl
-
WI �So,J
iii'
-- — IVo
nP � '' 233 -So8 3 wrs(o
sY✓C
a rCA-
/iNT
>1 S/
�u c�
aY►'ef�_Li
1? - -70

M 1 tct PAtJ. A L-L-- DU1 GZ S W U
> oR L ATolQ �l /�¢_G
!�(US
733-SoBS
�r� 6963
7icl--66 ?/

CITY OF RALEIGH
E.M. JOHNSON WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Special Effluent Sampling — Outfall 003
Date of Collection: 1/21/05
Parameter
Units
Result
WQ Standard
Total Suspended Solids
m /L
<1
30
Settleable Solids
mUL
<0.1
0.1
Total Residual Chlorine
m /L
<0.0012
0.017
Ammonia Nitrogen
m /L
0.07
N/A
Total K'eldahl Nitrogen
m /L
<0.25
N/A
Nitrate -Nitrite -Nitrogen
m /L
0.12
10
Total Nitrogen
m /L
0.12
N/A
Total Phosphorus
m /L
0.07
N/A
Copper
m /L
<0.010
0.007 AL
Iron
m /L
0.097
1 AL
Manganese
m /L
0.138
0.2
Aluminum
m /L
10.027
N/A
Barium
m /L
0.020
1
Calcium
m /L
7.22
N/A
Lead
m /L
<0.005
0.025
Magnesium
m /L
3.22
N/A
Nickel
m /L
<0.010 ♦
0.025
Zinc
m /L
<0.010 ♦
0.05 AL
N/A = Not applicable.
AL = Action level.
Monthly average effluent limit for Outfall 002.
2 Standard applicable to WS waters.
3 Other requirements for dischargers that are out of compliance with whole
effluent toxicity testing requirements.
/10 Ig 1NG4 P""
RALEIGH EMJohnson Outfall 003 data

2B .0300
.0315 NEUSE RIVER BASIN -
Name of Stream Descnplion class
Date Index No.
Cedar Creek
Cedar Creek
Jennys Branch
Honeycutt Creek
Honeycutt Creek
Unnamed Tributary at
Camp New Life
Unnamed Tributary at
Camp New Life
Unnamed Tributary at
Camp New Life
NEUSE RIVER
Richland Creek
Hattles Branch
Richland Creek
NEUSE RIVER
NEUSE RIVER
Smith Creek
Smith Creek (Wake
Forest Reservoir)
Smith Creek
Austin Creek (Mitchell
Pond)
Matters Branch
Spring Branch
Sanford Creek
Toms Creek (Mill Creek)
Perry Creek (Greshams
Lake)
Perry Creek
Unnamed Tributary near
Neuse
Unnamed Tributary near'
Neuse
Harris Creek (Peeples
Creek) (Wake Crossroads
Lake)
Hodges Mill Creek
(Lake Mirl)
Hodges Mill Creek
Seaverdam Creek (west
side of Neuse River)
From source to a point 0.2 mile downstream
WS-IV NSW
of Wake County SR 2005
From a point 0.2 mile downstream of Wake
WS-1V NEW CA
County SR 2005 to Falls Lake, Meuse River
From source to Falls Lake, Neuse River
WS-IV NSW CA
From source to a point 0.8 mile upstream
WS-IV NSW
of Wake County SR 2002
From a point 0.8 mile upstream of Wake
WS-IV NSW CA
County SR 2002 to Falls Lake, Neuse River
From source to dam at Camp New Life Lake
WS-NSB NSW
From dam at Camp New Life to a point 0.3
WS-IV NSW
mile upstream of Wake County SR 2002
From a point 0.3 mile upstream of Wake
WS-1V NSW CA
County SR 2002 to Falls Lake, Neuse River
From dam at Falls Lake to a point 0.5
WS-IV NEW
mile -upstream of Town of Wake Forest
proposed water supply intake (Former
water supply for Burlington Mills Wake
Finishing Plant)
From source to Wake -Franklin County Line
C NEW
From source to Richland Creek
C NSW
From Wake -Franklin County Line to Meuse
WS-IV NSW
River
From a point 0.5 mile upstream of Town of
WS-IV NEW CA
Wake Forest proposed water supply intake
to Town of Wake Forest proposed water
Supply intake (490,4e Lts 1)
From Town of Wake Forest proposed water' _
C NSW
supply intake to mouth of Beddingfield
Creek
8/1/98 27-18-(1)
8/1198 27-18-(2)
8/3/92 27-19
8/1/98 27-20-(1)
8/1/98 27-20-(2)
8/3/92 27-20.5-(1)
8/l/98 27-20.5-(2)
8/1/98 27-20.5-13) s�2
7/1104 27-(20.7)�/
5/1/88
27-21-(0.5)
5/1/88
27-21-1
7/l/04
27-21-(1.5)
7/l/04
27-(22)
8/3/92
27-(22.5)
From source
to a point 0.3 mile down-
WS-II HQW NEW
8/3/92
27-23-(1)
stream of Franklin -Wake County Line
From a point 0.3 mile downstream of
WS-II HQW NSW CA
8/3/92
27-23-(1.5)
Franklin -Wake County Line to dam at Wake
Reservoir
From dam at
Wake Forest Reservoir to
C NSW
5/1/88
21-23-(2)
Neuse River
From source
to Smith Creek
C NEW
7/l/96
27-23-3
From source
to Smith Creek
C NSW
5/1/88
27-23-4
From source
to Hatters Branch
C NEW
5/1/88
27-23-4-1
From source
to Smith Creek
C NSW
5/1/88
27-23-5
From source
to Neuse River
C NSW
5/1/88
27-24
From source
to dam at Greshams Lake
B NSW
5/1/88
27-25-(1)
From dam at
Greshams Lake to Neuse River
C NSW
5/1/88
27-25-(2)
From source
to dam at Camp Durant
B NSW
5/l/88
27-25-3-(1)
From dam at
Camp Durant to Perry Creek
C NSW
5/1/88
27-25-3-(2)
From source
to Neuse River
C NSW
5/1/88
27-26
From source
to water intake at Lake Mirl
B NSW
5/1/88
27-26-1-(1)
From water intake at Lake Mirl to Harris
C NSW
511/88
27-26-1-(2)
Creek
From source
to Neuse River
C NSW
5/l/88
27-27
7

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
.0315 NEUSE RIVER BASIN
2B .0300
Classification
Name of Stream Description Class Date Index No.
Mud Branch
From dam at Camp Kanata to a
WS-IV;NSW
08/01/98
27-17-1-(2)
point 0.4 mile upstream of
mouth
Mud Branch
From a point 0.4 mile
WS-IV;NSW,CA
08/01/98
27-17-1-(3)
upstream of mouth to Horse
Creek
Horse Creek
From a point 0.1 mile
WS-IV;NSW,CA
08/01/98
27-17-(2)
downstream of Wake County SR
1923 to Falls Lake, Neuse
River
Cedar Creek
From source to a point 0.2
WS-IV;NSW
08/01/98
27-18-(1)
mile downstream of Wake
County SR 2005
Cedar Creek
From a point 0.2 mile
WS-IV;NSW,CA
08/01/98
27-18-(2)
downstream of Wake County SR
2005 to Falls Lake, Neuse
River
Jennys Branch
From source to Falls Lake,
WS-IV;NSW,CA
08/03/92
27-19
Neuse River
Honeycutt Creek
From source to a point 0.8
WS-IV;NSW
08/01/98
27-20-(1)
mile upstream of Wake County
SR 2002
Honeycutt Creek
From a point 0.8 mile
WS-IV;NSW,CA
08/01/98
27-20-(2)
upstream of Wake County SR
2002 to Falls Lake, Neuse
River
Unnamed Tributary at Camp
From source to dam at Camp
WS-IV,B;NSW
08/03/92
27-20.5-(1)
New Life
New Life Lake
Unnamed Tributary at Camp
From dam at Camp New Life to
WS-IV;NSW
08/01/98
27-20.5-(2)
New Life
a point 0.3 mile upstream of
Wake County SR 2002
Unnamed Tributary at Camp
From a point 0.3 mile
WS-IV;NSW,CA
08/01/98
27-20.5-(3)
New Life
upstream of Wake County SR
2002 to Falls Lake, Neuse
River
NEUSE RIVER
From dam at Falls Lake to
WS-IV;NSW
07/01/04
27-(20.7)
a point 0.5 mile upstream of
Town of Wake Forest proposed
water supply intake
(Former water supply
intake for Burlington
Mills Wake Finishing Plant)
Richland Creek
From source to Wake -Franklin
C;NSW
05/01/88
27-21-(0.5)
County Line
Hattles Branch
From source to Richland
C;NSW
05/01/88
27-21-1
Creek
10

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
.0315 NEUSE RIVER BASIN
2B .0300
Classification
Name of Stream Description Class Date Index No.
Richland Creek
From Wake -Franklin County
WS-IV;NSW
07/01/04
27-21-(1.5)
Line to Neuse River
NEUSE RIVER
From a point 0.5 mile
WS-IV;NSW,CA
07/01/04
27-(22)
upstream of Town of Wake
Forest proposed water supply
intake to Town of Wake
Forest proposed water supply
intake
NEUSE RIVER
From Town of Wake Forest
C;NSW
08/03/92
27-(22.5)
proposed water supply intake
to mouth of Beddingfield
Creek
Smith Creek
From source to a point 0.3
WS-II;HQW,NSW
08/03/92
27-23-(1)
mile downstream of
Franklin -Wake County Line
Smith Creek (Wake Forest
From a point 0.3 mile
WS-II;HQW,NSW
08/03/92
27-23-(1.5)
Reservoir)
downstream of
,CA
Franklin -Wake County Line to
dam at Wake Reservoir
Smith Creek
From dam at Wake Forest
C;NSW
05/01/88
27-23-(2)
Reservoir to Neuse River
Austin Creek (Mitchell Pond)
From source to Smith Creek
C;NSW
07/01/96
27-23-3
Hatters Branch
From source to Smith Creek
C;NSW
05/01/88
27-23-4
Spring Branch
From source to Hatters
C;NSW
05/01/88
27-23-4-1
Branch
Sanford Creek
From source to Smith Creek
C;NSW
05/01/88
27-23-5
Toms Creek (Mill Creek)
From source to Neuse River
C;NSW
05/01/88
27-24
Perry Creek (Greshams Lake)
From source to dam at
B;NSW
05/01/88
27-25-(1)
Greshams Lake
Perry Creek
From dam at Greshams Lake to
C;NSW
05/01/88
27-25-(2)
Neuse River
Unnamed Tributary near Neuse
From source to dam at Camp
B;NSW
05/01/88
27-25-3-(1)
Durant
Unnamed Tributary near Neuse
From dam at Camp Durant to
C;NSW
05/01/88
27-25-3-(2)
Perry Creek
Harris Creek (Peeples Creek)
From source to Neuse River
C;NSW
05/01/88
27-26
(Wake Crossroads Lake)
Hodges Mill Creek (Lake
From source to water
B;NSW
05/01/88
27-26-1-(1)
Mirl)
intake at Lake Mirl
Hodges Mill Creek
From water intake at Lake
C;NSW
05/01/88
27-26-1-(2)
Mirl to Harris Creek
Beaverdam Creek (west side From source to Neuse River C;NSW 05/01/88 27-27
of Neuse River)
Rocky Creek From source to Neuse River C;NSW 05/01/88 27-28
11

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
February 7, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To: Jim Gulick
Senior Deputy Attorney General
From: Dan Oakley'P t,b
General Counsel
Re: Petition for a Contested Case Hearing;
City of Raleigh vs. DENR, Division of Water Quality
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
w
V
Attached please find a Petition for a Contested Case Hearing, served on the Office
of General Counsel by the City of Raleigh, involving the Division of Water Quality.
Please assign an attorney to represent the Division. Thanks.
DO:np
Attachment
cc: Alan Klimek (w/ attachment)
F E g 1 4 2005
I
J
-- I
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled \ lo% Post consumer Paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE FILED
31
CITY OF RALEIGH 1005 JAr� P 2=
PETITIONER, ) .
Q OCE O
V. wDrdi_�1• TRAT1.!E
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND11Vi? 1' S
NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
}
RESPONDENT. )
IN THE OFFICE OF
L:3 ,? 26UMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
.:./►-
SOURCES
PETITION
R.
FORA • `�:
CONTESTED CASE HEARING
I hereby ask IT a contested case hearing as provided for by North Carolina General Statute § 150B-23 because the Respondent has:
Issued the renewal of an NPDES permit which contains 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) duplicative and/or inconsistent
with other regulatory requirements that have already been placed on the Petitioner, (iii) imposed without complying with the applicable predicate
procedures for imposing the conditions and (iv) inconsistent with the legal authority to impose conditions by means of an NPDES permit.
(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 other%vise 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: January 31, 2005 (6) Your phone number: [phone] (Levitas) [phone] (McLawhorn)
(7) Print your full address: 3737 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400, Raleigh, N.C. 27612 (Levitas)
One Exchange Plaza, Suite 1020, 219 Fayetteville Street Mall, Raleigh, N.C. 27601 (McLawhom)
(8) Print your names:
(9) Your siS- atures:
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:
(1o)Daniel C. Oakley, Esq. (11) N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(12)1601 Mail Service Center
(13) This the e7day of Anuairy
(14)
2005.
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
(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)

r
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FORM H-06
"PETITION FOR A CONTESTED CASE" AND "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE"
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY OR TYPE
FILL IN BLANKS:
Fill in your county of residence (1), print your name on line (2), and the name of the agency or board
about which you are complaining on line (3). Be sure to briefly state the facts about your case. Check
all of the items that apply in section (4). Enter the date on line (5), your telephone number on line (6),
your address on line (7), print your name on line (8), and sign your name on line (9).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:
You must mail or deliver a copy of your completed petition to the agency or board named on line (3)
and complete the "certificate of service" section on your petition, entering the name of the person to
whom you mailed or delivered the petition on line (10). You should contact the agency or board to
determine the name of the person to be served. Print the name of the state agency involved on line (11),
the address of the agency or board on line (12), the date on line (13), and sign your name on line (14).
FILING YOUR PETITION WITH THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS:
Your contested case will commence as soon as you file your completed original petition, along with a
copy properly signed, with the Office of Administrative Hearings. Below are the mailing and physical
addresses:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
Office of Administrative Hearings
424 North Blount St.
Raleigh, NC 27601-2817
If you mail this form, the case commences when it is received and filed in this office.
You may file your petition by fax during normal business hours by faxing the petition to the Clerk's
Office at [phone].
You may file your petition by electronic mail by an attached file either in PDF format or a document
that is compatible with or convertible to the most recent version of Word for Windows by sending the
electronic transmission to [e-mail]. Electronic mail without attached file shall not
constitute a valid filing.
OAH must receive the original signed document and one copy within seven business days following
the fax or electronic transmission for the petition to be deemed "filed" on the fax or electronic
transmission date.
H-06 instructions (5/04)

Re: [Fwd: Stormwater vs NPDES]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Stormwater vs NPDES]
From: Dan Oakley <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:59:54 -0500
To: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
CC: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>, "Mary P. Thompson"
<[e-mail]>, Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Thanks for the update. You probably don't need me, but keep MPT on your invite list.
Susan Wilson wrote:
You know - I'm working with Steve L., as he and I discussed Monday - to schedule a
meeting with various parties and resolve this. I've sent potential meeting dates to Mary
Penny (Steve's suggestion), Bradley, Ken S., and Dave. There is some misinformation in
Dan's note - the issue in regard to SW was brought up for the first time on Monday (not at
all in the comments to the draft permit and not at all part of the discussions I had with
Steve a couple of weeks ago). This is not an issue that can be resolved prior to them
exercising their right to adjudicate - so I told Steve, and he knows, they should adjudicate
and we believe we can resolve the issues once we can get various parties together. I'd be
happy to discuss his concerns in the meeting I hope to be able to schedule in a couple of
weeks (as Steve and I discussed). I cannot get various parties together (nor do I have time
to speak with them) prior to their adjudication deadline.
As I discussed with Steve, and don't feel like repeating myself to Dan Mc. - there are several
flow contributions to that outfall - if they can demonstrate that our original information was
incorrect - we'd be happy to work with them to modify the permit if possible. (and that's
what our meeting in a couple of weeks should take care ofl. Since my knowledge of SW is
very limited - I won't even try to answer those questions without consulting Bradley or his
folks.
He does bring up a good point and one that I'll make in our meeting - if they provide the
necessary information and we modify the permit that much - it will likely have to go out to
notice again since that would not fall under "minor" modification. Must give the public
another opportunity to comment ......... again - these SW issues were never, ever raised
during the comment period or at any other time during the year they had to bring it up
again (until issuance). The other issues Steve and I talked about were not errors, but could
likely be easily resolved (and likely be done as a minor mod).
Sorry - didn't mean to shoot the messengerI I'd be happy to speak with you in person
about this Dan - I'm around this afternoon and tomorrow afternoon - then I'm swamped for
the next 2 weeks. We're trying to shoot for a meeting Feb. 9, 10, or 11.
Susan
Dan Oakley wrote:
Can you give me some feedback on this matter? thx
Subject:
Stormwater vs NPDES
From:
"McLawhorn, Dan"<[e-mail]>
of 3
1 /27/2005 4:08 PM

Re: [Fwd: Stormwater vs NPDESj
Date:
Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:40:23 -0500
To: "Dan Oakley" <[e-mail]
It seems our schedules won't provide a chance to discuss my questions by phone, so
here's a stab at them in writing.
Raleigh is about to contest the renewal of its NPDES for its water treatment plant. Steve
Levitas and I are working on it. Steve talked with Coleen and then Susan Wilson about
possible resolution of our issues. Several seem to be the result of errors that should be
corrected. Susan told Steve that at least some of the items should be able to be fixed.
Susan has not been able to arrange a meeting with the Raleigh Regional Office, so it
does not appear we can fix the problems so as to avoid filing a contested case petition to
keep the issues alive.
I wanted to discuss with you an issue regarding Outfall 003 — a new outfall to be added to
the renewal permit. I don't find any ready answer to the questions and they involve the
interplay between the Stormwater NPDES permit and other NPDES permits. The
questions generally are:
1. Can more than one NPDES permit be required for an outfall? We contend this
outfall is already included in our Phase I stormwater permit and that as it is
covered, it is not appropriate for addition to another NPDES permit. The Outfall is
for a pipe which starts as the outlet for a stormwater retention pond for Falls Road
and toe drains for the dam, collects clear well leakage of potable water and plant
leakage, more dam leakage and parking lot stormwater from the plant before it
discharges as the "headwaters" of the receiving stream. The dam holds the
untreated raw water.
2. Can an outfall in another NPDES permit be removed and added to a different
NPDES permit without going through the permit modification procedures, i.e. 60
days notice and adequate supporting reasons? To my knowledge, DWQ has not
provided a reason for adding the outfall to our plant NPDES permit that comports
with the reasons permit modification is allowed under Federal and State rules.
This is important to us for several reasons, and perhaps mostly importantly from having a
source that is mostly stormwater subjected to water quality standards. Also, the Falls
Road stormwater will be included in the pending DOT General Permit for stormwater. Of
course, we have no capacity to force DOT to treat this water, which is the vast majority of
the stormwater input. This potentially leaves us holding the bag to treat the stormwater to
water quality standards, something not required if it stays as outfall in our Stormwater
NPDES permit. As you may know, fecal and copper in stormwater are typically recorded
at many times the water quality standard. Technically, we also have an issue about how
to take an acceptable sample for a source that fluctuates greatly in its volume depending
entirely on rainfall.
I hope that by our interaction I could understand why our initial thinking on these issues
could be flawed and whether we should be able to settle all the permit issues. Is there
any chance for you, Steve and me to discuss this?
of 3 1/27/2005 4:08 PM