WQ0001740_Appx-A Final Decision Granting Variance_20100115

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION FOR VARIANCE FROM
GROUND WATER REGULATIONS
15A NCAC 2L .0107(K)(3)(A) AND
15A NCAC 2L .0106(J) BY THE
CITY OF RALEIGH, NORTH
CAROLINA
BEFORE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
FINAL DECISION GRANTING
VARIANCE
THIS MATTER came before the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission at its meeting on 19 November 2009, in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Commissioners Kevin Martin, Les Hall and Donnie Brewer did not participate in the
consideration or determination of this matter. On June 26, 2009, the City of Raleigh
(Raleigh) applied for a variance to certain State groundwater rules - 15A NCAC 2L
.0107(k)(3)(A) and 15A NCAC 2L .01060). The purpose of the requested variance is to
allow Raleigh to implement a natural attenuation corrective action plan (CAP) pursuant
to 15A NCAC 2L .0106 for nitrate contamination in groundwater that has resulted from
the over application of residuals to fields at Raleigh's Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant. State groundwater rules do not allow natural attenuation as a
cleanup method for permitted facilities; therefore, Raleigh seeks a variance from those
rules.
A public hearing was noticed in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 143-215.3(e) and
15A NCAC 2L .0113(d) and held on 9 September 2009 in Raleigh. Having considered
the whole variance application and comments submitted during the public hearing
process, the hearing officers compiled a report and recommendation for presentation to
the Environmental Management Commission.
Based upon the request for the variance, the comments submitted during the
public hearing and comment period, and the presentations of the parties, the
Environmental Management Commission (the Commission) makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Raleigh owns and operates the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant in

2
southeastern Wake County (the treatment plant). The area for which the variance is
requested is land at and near the treatment plant consisting of approximately 1,466
acres of the treatment plant and 37 parcels of land adjacent to the property along Old
Baucom Road, Mial Plantation Road, Shotwell Road, and Battlebridge Road. Land
surrounding this site consists of residential properties, farmland, commercial property,
and state-owned forestland. The northern and eastern boundaries border a 3.6 -mile
section of the Neuse River which is classified as Class C NSW (nutrient sensitive
water).
2. The site is situated within the eastern Piedmont Physiographic Province of North
Carolina. Area topography consists of rolling hills dissected by narrow v -shaped
drainage ways and perennial streams that drain into the Neuse River. Localized steep
bluffs exist to the south along Beddingfield Creek and along the Neuse River to the
east and north. Localized bluffs in this area plateau to narrow bench cut alluvial
floodplains that are nearly flat with incised drainage ways to the Neuse River.
3. Land application operations at this facility are regulated by Biosolids Permit #
WQ0001730. The Permit allows for the application of 7,000 total dry tons of Class B
Biosolids per year on fields listed in the permit, subject to a condition added on October
15, 2004, that prohibits all biosolids application at the site until authorized by the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) via a permit modification.
4. Since 1980, application fields have been added and removed from the biosolids
application program. Several fields owned or formerly leased by Raleigh have been
converted into other uses.
5. Groundwater monitoring required under the Biosolids Permit revealed
exceedances of the groundwater standard for nitrate (10 mg/L nitrate as N), 15A NCAC
2L .0202, at numerous points along and beyond the compliance boundary of City -
owned biosolids application fields. Raleigh suspended the application of residuals on
their land in this area in September 2002.
6. As a result of over application of biosolids, nitrate in groundwater has exceeded
the 2L standard outside the permitted compliance boundary. In 2002, Raleigh sampled
thirty-nine private water supply wells located in the vicinity of the site. Analytical data
indicated that seven of those wells had nitrate concentrations in excess of 10 mg/L

3
nitrate as N likely resulting from a combination of septic systems, non -City fertilization,
and biosolids application to upgradient fields. Raleigh subsequently began a quarterly
sampling program of private water supply wells located within a half of a mile of the
biosolids application field boundaries and identified forty-five private and/or community
water supply wells.
7. The near -by residents with elevated nitrate in their water supply wells, as well as
a majority of other residents in Raleigh's sampling program, have been connected to
Raleigh's municipal water supply at no cost to the property owner for 20 years. The
private water supply wells have been abandoned consistent with the Commission's
rules, 15A NCAC 2C .0100, et seq. There are four private water supply wells that are
still in use as drinking water supplies. Nitrate concentrations for these currently active
water supply wells have been below 10 mg/L nitrate as N in all sampling events.
These wells are not in the areas for coverage by the variance as they are not likely
receptors for nitrate -impacted groundwater migrating beyond the compliance boundary.
8. Raleigh performed a Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) and a
Supplemental Site Assessment (SSA) of the groundwater contamination at the site.
Groundwater analytical data from the sixteen compliance monitoring wells included in
the Biosolids Permit and the 61 additional monitoring wells installed in connection with
the CSA, SSA and CAP indicated that nitrate exceeded the 2L groundwater standard
at locations near the compliance boundary in the areas of Fields 6, 12, 18, 19, 41, 47,
50, 60, 61, 62 63, 74, 100, 201, 500, and 503. The deep saprolite well (MW -113d) and
bedrock wells (MW -101d, MW -105d and MW -111d) also exceeded the nitrate
groundwater standard. Analytical results suggest a potential for nitrate from biosolids
application in Field 50 to have impacted groundwater on the residential property to the
east and in a former private water supply well. Off-site nitrate impacts to groundwater
associated with biosolids application in the vicinity of the intersection of Old Baucom
Road and Mial Plantation Road do not appear to extend significantly east of Shotwell
Road or Mial Plantation Road. Nitrate in groundwater exceeded the nitrate
groundwater standard within Field 500 in the vicinity of former private water supply
wells PW -8, PW -12, PW -30, and PW -36. Analytical data from wells located across
major streams such as Beddingfield Creek, as well as hydrogeologic modeling,

C!
indicated that migration of nitrate impacted groundwater under the stream has not
occurred and is not likely to do so.
9. Analytical results of surface water data from several samples collected in first
order tributaries and seeps within the application areas had nitrate concentrations
above 10 mg/L nitrate as N. The nitrate concentrations in surface water suggest
groundwater discharges to the streams and tributaries. However, nitrate levels in a
number of the first order tributaries have declined significantly in recent years and
nitrate in samples collected from Beddingfield Creek and the Neuse River were lower
and did not exceed 10 mg/L nitrate as N.
10. Analytical results of the soil samples collected from Fields 3, 100, and 500
reveal that concentrations of nitrate generally peaked in the 4 to 8 ft depth interval and
peak concentrations are expected to stay in approximately the same depth interval.
Nitrate appears to have accumulated at the 4 to 8 ft depth interval through mechanisms
such as infiltration redistribution (some water takes a rather slow pathway through the
soil) and anion exchange (nitrate is an anion).
11. An incubation study conducted as part of the SSA estimated the amount of plant
available nitrogen (PAN) in soils in the fields and the residual PAN for the 2003
growing season. The 2003 soil PAN evaluation indicated that approximately 38 fields
would supply PAN in excess of the amount required for anticipated crop production in
2003. Since these fields have been cropped steadily since 2003 without significant
additional nutrient inputs, PAN levels have likely declined substantially, which appears
to be confirmed by declining yields in crop production.
12. Raleigh developed a corrective action plan to achieve full compliance with the
Commission's rules for groundwater corrective action that would utilize "best available
technology" and would actively remediate groundwater exceedances beyond the
compliance boundary. That plan would involve (i) the installation of approximately 380
groundwater extraction wells to hydraulically contain nitrate -impacted groundwater
within the compliance boundary, and (ii) enhanced in situ denitrification of groundwater
beyond the compliance boundary in areas where nitrate concentrations exceeded, or
were predicted to exceed, 10 mg/L nitrate as N. Raleigh determined that the present
net worth of capital and operation and maintenance costs of this alternative over a

5
thirty-year period would be nearly $81 million dollars.
13. Raleigh also developed an alternative corrective action plan which involves (i)
hydraulic containment of groundwater in the area with the highest density of existing
residences immediately downgradient of the site and where some private wells had
mean nitrate concentrations in excess of 10 mg/L nitrate as N; and (ii) long-term
groundwater monitoring and natural attenuation of nitrate levels for the remainder of
the site. Raleigh projects the cost of implementing this plan over a thirty-year period to
be $6.3 million dollars.
14. The areas proposed for a variance are depicted on Attachment 1 which is
incorporated herein by reference. The variance areas are grouped into the following
zones:
Zone No.
Description
Parcel Nos.
1
NRWWTP Site
N/A
2
Waste Corporation of America
Construction and Demolition Debris
Landfill/Common Area of a Residential
Subdivision
5,18
3
Progress Energy Substation/Portion of
NRWWTP Site
3
4
Clemmons State Forest
1, 7, 17,32
5
Cemetery
26
6
Private Residences
4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 16, 19, 20,
24,25, 27, 28, 29, 36
7
Private Residences
2,22
8
Private Residences
12
9
Private Residences
13, 14, 31, 16, 35
10
Private Residences
21
11
Private Residences
23
12
Private Residences
30
13
Private Residences
33, 34, 35
15. All of the properties for which a variance is requested, except Parcels 1, 7, 17,
and 32, have public water service or access to public water service should a residence

or place of business be constructed on the parcel. The excepted properties comprise
the Clemmons State Forest owned by the State of North Carolina, which has been
notified of Raleigh's CAP and has given its consent to Raleigh's conditionally approved
CAP as required by the Commission's corrective action rules (see 15A NCAC 2L
.0106(k)(3)).
16. The primary risk associated with the groundwater contamination at the site is
that groundwater with nitrate levels in excess of 10 mg/L nitrate as N would be used for
potable water. The vast majority of the variance areas (Zones 1 though 5) are
comprised of the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant property and other
nonresidential parcels where there is no potential for the use of groundwater for
potable purposes. As noted above, Raleigh instituted a testing program for nearby
private water supply wells in 2002, including all those that are or were in the variance
areas. Testing of these wells detected exceedances of the standard in sixteen wells.
Of those sixteen wells, eight wells had only one test result greater than the mg/L nitrate
as N 2L standard for nitrate. All of those wells, as well as most others that did not
show exceedances, have been abandoned and the residences in question have been
connected to Raleigh's public water supply system. The monitoring, connection and
well abandonment program is incorporated into enforceable conditions in Biosolids
Permit No. WQ0001730. Four private water supply wells in the sampling program are
currently still in use, but monitored nitrate concentrations in those wells have never
exceeded, and are not predicted to exceed, the nitrate groundwater standard. Wells
that were not part of Raleigh's testing program are not at risk from nitrate -contaminated
groundwater as indicated by Raleigh's groundwater models. In addition, Raleigh has
installed the hydraulic containment system approved in its alternative corrective action
plan. The groundwater extraction system has been operating continuously since
January 3, 2008. This system provides an additional, redundant layer of protection to
the most densely populated variance area where some wells had mean nitrate
concentrations in excess of 10 mg/L nitrate as N.
17. Raleigh prepared a baseline human health risk assessment to evaluate the
potential risk to human health from nitrate -impacted groundwater at the site. The
assessment evaluated potential future use of downgradient groundwater and found

VA
that there were no unacceptable risks for exposure to groundwater used for a non -
potable purpose (swimming pool) and that there were no unacceptable risks for using
groundwater for irrigation purposes. The assessment found a potentially unacceptable
risk for site groundwater if it were used as drinking water.
18. Some portion of the nitrate -contaminated groundwater at the site ultimately
reaches surface water and, if it resulted in a concentration of nitrate in excess of 10
mg/L nitrate as N in a surface water body used as a drinking water supply, there could
be an effect on public health. However, nitrate concentrations in the Neuse River in
the vicinity of the treatment plant have consistently been below 0.6 mg/L nitrate as N
and the Neuse River below the mouth of Beddingfield Creek is the only surface water
body in the vicinity that is used as a drinking water supply. Nitrate concentrations at
that location have consistently been below 0.6 mg/L nitrate as N. Thus, granting the
variance would not endanger public health by creating a risk to surface waters used as
water supplies. In addition, the risk assessment determined there were no
unacceptable human health risks for body exposure to surface water on the site.
19. A hydrogeologic study of the site conducted for Raleigh estimated that the
maximum total discharge of nitrogen to surface waters occurred in 2006 at the rate of
148,000 pounds per year via groundwater discharge. Of this total, 34% or 50,000
pounds resulted from groundwater concentrations exceeding 10 mg/L nitrate as N at
the compliance boundary. The remaining nitrate discharge to surface water from
discharges (i) beyond the compliance boundary of groundwater with concentrations
less than 10 mg/L nitrate as N, or (ii) within the compliance boundary are not relevant
to the variance request. Thus, the effect of the requested variance, without any
mitigation, would be to allow a maximum of 50,000 pounds per year of additional
nitrogen to reach the Neuse River via groundwater from the site. This number will go
down over time as natural attenuation occurs.
20. To mitigate for this potential impact, Raleigh has agreed with DWQ to modify the
NPDES permit for the treatment plant to include a debit against the facility's nitrogen
loading allocation cap (682,483 pounds) under the Neuse NSW management strategy
based on an estimate of the amount of additional nitrogen loading to the Neuse River
that is occurring and will occur in the absence of a fully compliant groundwater

remediation system. The maximum debit amount of 123,000 pounds per year is
73,000 pounds per year greater than the amount of nitrogen loading to surface water
that would be eliminated in the absence of a variance.
21. Raleigh also evaluated both on-site and off-site nitrogen mitigation alternatives,
including stream impoundments, phytoremediation, subsurface flow treatment
wetlands, and riparian buffer restoration. Raleigh proposes to construct subsurface
treatment wetlands on streams at three locations on the site where nitrate
concentrations in surface water exceed 20 mg/L nitrate as N, which will, based on
current nitrate concentrations, remove approximately 28,500 to 42,800 pounds of
nitrogen annually, assuming removal efficiencies of 50% to 75%. Raleigh also
proposes to acquire nitrogen offset credits by constructing an off-site riparian buffer
restoration project on a segment of Butlers Branch in Craven County that will remove
approximately 4,000 pounds of nitrogen annually. Raleigh has committed to implement
these mitigation measures irrespective of the approval of this variance request and
DWQ has modified the Biosolids Permit to make implementation of the mitigation
measures an enforceable condition of the permit.
22. Implementation of the corrective action plan utilizing "best available technology"
to achieve full compliance with the Commission's rules for groundwater corrective
action would employ an extraction system process requiring approximately 380
extraction wells along the portions of the compliance boundary where the nitrate
groundwater standard has been exceeded and/or is estimated to be exceeded, in
addition to piping installed underground, in trenches, along the roads and fields, to
convey the water to the treatment plant. The extraction wells, 12 monitoring wells and
10 surface water samples would be sampled and analyzed for nitrate triennially for the
life of the project (30 years) at an estimated cost of approximately $51,125,400.
23. Application of "best available technology" in the corrective action plan to achieve
the full -compliance alternative would also require the denitrification of the impacted
groundwater beyond the compliance boundaries by the use of approximately 5,760
injection wells constructed in the thirteen zones where nitrate exceeds the 2L standard.
The probable costs for the enhanced denitrification process component, including
design services, capital costs, operation and maintenance, monitoring and

C
decommissioning, over the life of the project would be approximately $29,967,900.
24. Raleigh's alternative corrective action plan involves the installation and
operation of groundwater extraction wells to prevent further migration of groundwater
with elevated nitrate levels to Zone 6 of the variance areas. Zone 6 consists of densely
clustered residential properties several of which had private wells (now abandoned) in
which mean nitrate concentrations in excess of 10 mg/L nitrate as N were recorded.
Raleigh has installed appropriately -spaced groundwater extraction (recovery) wells
within the compliance boundaries of Fields 50 and 500 at the southeast corner of the
site, upgradient from the Zone 6 variance areas to allow containment of the dissolved
nitrate plume exceeding the nitrate groundwater standard. The extracted groundwater
is being piped to the Neuse River Treatment Plant for treatment. The extraction and
monitoring wells and surface waters will be sampled and analyzed for nitrate as
required by a monitoring plan approved by the DWQ.
25. The total cost associated with the alternative corrective action plan groundwater
extraction process, including design, construction and startup, operating and
maintenance, monitoring and decommissioning is estimated to be $6,358,500.
26. Raleigh's full compliance with the Commission's rules for groundwater
remediation would require that it spend approximately $75 million dollars beyond the
approximately $6.35 million that it will have to spend to implement the "best available
technology economically reasonable" alternative. The majority of the cost to implement
the corrective action plan utilizing "best available technology" to achieve full
compliance with the Commission's rules for groundwater corrective action would be
incurred to remediate groundwater on (i) Raleigh's own wastewater treatment plant
site, (ii) a construction and demolition landfill site, (iii) a remote and largely inaccessible
fringe of a State forest, and (iv) residential properties where Raleigh has spent over
$600,000 providing public water service.
27. According to Raleigh's economic analysis of the costs of the full compliance
plan and the alternative groundwater extraction and natural attenuation alternative
plan, the former could require Raleigh to divert funds allocated to the numerous capital
improvements planned for the treatment plant, thus potentially putting the protection of
water quality and the availability of high quality wastewater treatment service to the

10
area's growing population at risk. This would be a detriment to public health and
outweigh the benefits of the full compliance alternative, relative to the more cost-
effective and more protective proposed remedy. The expenditure required to
implement the full compliance alternative would provide little if any public benefit
beyond that of the alternative plan.
28. The fully compliant corrective action plan could have detrimental effects on the
environment by requiring the installation of approximately 380 pumping wells along
portions of the compliance boundary where groundwater exceeds or is expected to
exceed the nitrate groundwater standard. The hydraulic barrier created by the
extraction wells could result in reducing groundwater discharge and thus stream
baseflow to several streams in the area, particularly Beddingfield Creek. This reduced
flow could be detrimental to the ecology of those streams. In addition, full-scale in situ
denitrification system implementation with 5,760 injection wells will require the
disturbance of significant riparian and wetlands areas around the site.
29. Edge of Auburn, LLC and Auburn Associates (collectively Auburn), who propose
to develop a residential community to the southwest of the wastewater treatment plant
site, have alleged that water supply wells they propose to install would be at risk of
becoming contaminated by nitrate in groundwater emanating from the site. However,
in its comments and submissions during the public comment period, Auburn provided
no evidence to support this allegation. The evidence in the record clearly supports the
conclusion that nitrate from the Raleigh site will not migrate to or cause exceedances
of the 2L standard on the Auburn property.
30. Granting the requested variance, with the conditions described below, will not
endanger human health or safety.
31. Compliance with the rules, standards, and limitation from which this variance is
sought cannot be achieved by application of best available technology that is
economically reasonable, and such compliance would produce serious hardship
without equal or greater benefits to the public.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Environmental Management
Commission makes the following:

11
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Raleigh is subject to the requirements of State groundwater rule 15A NCAC 2L
.0106 for nitrate and has exceeded the State standard beyond the compliance
boundary at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant. This rule provides in
relevant part:
(a) Where groundwater quality has been degraded, the goal of any required
corrective action shall be restoration to the level of the standards, or as closely
thereto as is economically and technologically feasible. In all cases involving
requests to the Director for approval of corrective action plans, or termination of
corrective action, the responsibility for providing all information required by this
Rule lies with the person(s) making the request.
(d) Any person conducting or controlling an activity which is conducted under the
authority of a permit issued by the Division and which results in an increase in
concentration of a substance in excess of the standards:
(1) at or beyond a review boundary, shall demonstrate, through predictive
calculations or modeling, that natural site conditions, facility design and
operational controls will prevent a violation of standards at the compliance
boundary; or submit a plan for alteration of existing site conditions, facility design
or operational controls that will prevent a violation at the compliance boundary,
and implement that plan upon its approval by the Director, or his designee.
(2) at or beyond a compliance boundary, shall assess the cause, significance and
extent of the violation of standards and submit the results of the investigation, and
a plan and proposed schedule for corrective action to the Director, or his
designee. The permittee shall implement the plan as approved by and in
accordance with a schedule established by the Director, or his designee. In
establishing a schedule the Director, or his designee shall consider any
reasonable schedule proposed by the permittee.
Q) A corrective action plan prepared pursuant to Paragraph (c) or (d) of this Rule
must be implemented using the best available technology for restoration of

12
groundwater quality to the level of the standards, except as provided in
Paragraphs (k), (1), (m), (r) and (s) of this Rule.
2. Raleigh is subject to the requirements of State groundwater rule 15A NCAC 2L
.0107(k)(3)(A) which provides in relevant part:
(K) The Director shall require:
(3) that a violation of standards within the compliance boundary resulting from
activities conducted by the permitted facility be remedied through clean-up,
recovery, containment, or other response when any of the following conditions
occur:
(A) a violation of any standard in adjoining classified groundwaters occurs or
can be reasonably predicted to occur considering hydrogeologic conditions,
modeling, or other available evidence; and 15A NCAC 2L .01060).
3. The State groundwater standard for nitrate is 10 mg/L nitrate as N, 15A NCAC
2L .0202(103), and has been exceeded in the groundwaters at and beyond the
compliance boundary at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant. In the absence
of a variance, Raleigh must implement a corrective action plan to remedy exceedence
of the standard beyond the compliance boundary using "the best available technology"
for restoration of groundwater quality to the level of the standards. 15A NCAC 2L
.0106(J).
4. State groundwater rules 15A NCAC 2L .0107 and 15A NCAC 2L .0106 do not
allow natural attenuation as a cleanup method for permitted facilities, including the
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant.
5. The Commission may issue a variance from its rules, standards, or limitations
for a fixed or indefinite period of time upon finding that:
(1) The discharge of waste . . . occurring or proposed to occur do(es) not
endanger human health or safety; and
(2) Compliance with the rules, standards, or limitations from which variance is
sought cannot be achieved by application of best available technology found to
be economically reasonable at the time of application for such variance, and
would produce serious hardship without equal or greater benefits to the public,
provided that such variance shall be consistent with the provisions of the

13
Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended ....
N.C.G.S. § 143-215.3(e).
6. The Commission, pursuant to a request under N.C.G.S. § 143-215.3(e), may
grant a variance to the groundwater classification and standards set forth in
Subchapter 2L of its rules. 15A NCAC 2L .0113.
7. Implementation by Raleigh of the corrective action plan utilizing "best available
technology" to achieve restoration of groundwater quality at this site and relevant
property to the level of the 10 mg/L nitrate as N nitrate standard within and beyond the
compliance boundary is not economically reasonable at this time.
8. In this limited situation, compliance with the rule that does not allow natural
attenuation as a cleanup method for permitted facilities would produce financial
hardship to Raleigh's wastewater treatment utility without equal or greater benefits to
the public or the environment.
9. The variance requested by Raleigh is consistent with the provisions of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
10. The Commission concludes that Raleigh has met the criteria for a variance
established by N.C.G.S. § 143-215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The requested
variance allows for the implementation of a corrective action plan reflecting utilization of
the best available economically reasonable technologies available to Raleigh. The
Commission further concludes that continued application of the existing technologies
and resulting reduction of nitrates in the groundwater do not endanger human health or
safety, and are economically reasonable and will not cause unnecessary economic
disruption to Raleigh's capital needs of this wastewater treatment facility.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Raleigh's request for a variance is GRANTED, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2L .0113, as a variance to rules 15A NCAC 2L .0106 and 2L
.0107 to allow the implementation of the corrective action plan utilizing natural
attenuation with groundwater containment with conditions as described below.
2. The conditions described below shall be incorporated into permits that Raleigh
currently holds, as noted below, and, within 60 days, Raleigh shall formally seek

14
amendment of the permits to incorporate conditions set forth herein.
3. NPDES Permit No. NCO029033:
Implementation of the Total Nitrogen debit to the facility's nitrogen loading
allocation cap (682,483 pounds) under the Neuse NSW management strategy
established in the NPDES Permit No. NC0029033. The Total Nitrogen debit may
be revisited at a frequency as determined necessary by the DWQ and modified
upon the review of sufficient information to support such modification.
4. Non -discharge Permit No. WQ0001730:
(a) Continued operation of the active corrective action system, designed to
remediate Nitrate — Nitrogen contaminated groundwater near the intersection of
Mial Plantation Rd and Baucom Rd. The pump and treat system shall operate
until such time as DWQ determines, based on monitoring data that indicates
restoration of groundwater has occurred to the level of the standards for
Nitrate -Nitrogen, referenced at 15A NCAC 2L .0202, for all areas outside of the
Compliance Boundary associated with Fields 50 and 500. Any modification to
the active corrective action system designed to enhance the system
effectiveness, proposed by Raleigh or requested by the DWQ, shall be
implemented upon approval by the DWQ.
(b) Complete installation and operation of the agreed upon subsurface flow (SSF)
constructed wetlands as proposed in the report titled "Proposed Subsurface
Flow Constructed Wetlands, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Raleigh, NC," received January 23, 2009, and as modified or otherwise
approved by the DWQ.
(c) Implementation of the agreed upon riparian buffer restoration work associated
with Butler's Branch in Craven County, as approved by the DWQ.
(d) Implementation of a groundwater and surface water monitoring plan sufficient
to evaluate the effectiveness of the natural attenuation of Nitrate -Nitrogen
originating from the former residuals application fields, the effectiveness of the
SSF wetlands' removal of Nitrogen from surface waters, and the effectiveness
of the pump and treat corrective action systems' restoration of Nitrate—Nitrogen
impacted groundwater. Groundwater and surface water monitoring shall be

15
conducted at the locations and frequency specified by the DWQ in Attachment
"2." Any proposed changes to the monitoring plan shall be submitted with
justification to the DWQ for approval.
(e) Installation of additional monitor wells as specified in Attachment 2 to address
concerns expressed by Auburn and the NC Department of Public Health, to
replace monitoring points determined to be insufficient as not having shown
sufficient groundwater to enable collection of a sample, and to address gaps in
the monitor well network. The Division of Water quality (DWQ) will work with
the City of Raleigh to identify for additional sampling private well owners in the
area south of Beddingfield Creek and west of Mial Plantation Road/Shotwell
Road.
(f) Beginning in January 2014 and every five years thereafter, Raleigh shall
evaluate the effectiveness of the overall remediation strategy required herein to
determine if new or additional treatment technologies exist that could be
implemented cost-effectively while maintaining safety of human health and the
environment. These evaluations and reports shall also include review of
modeling results against observed data. Collection of additional data and
information to improve model calibration or to better evaluate potential
treatment technologies may be requested by the DWQ.
(g) These five-year evaluations shall be reported to the DWQ Raleigh Regional
Office APS one year prior to expiration of Non -discharge Permit No.
WQ001730. The first report shall be due March 31, 2014. The DWQ will report
results of the five year evaluation to the Commission every five years beginning
in 2014.
(h) Specific monitoring and reporting requirements are further detailed in
Attachment 2 which may be modified by DWQ as necessary to implement this
variance.
5. The Commission, at request of the DWQ or upon its own initiative, may reopen
this variance to address potential changes to its terms or conditions in light of new
information or changed circumstances.

16
day of January, 2010.
This the �1
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
� T
t
i
eph ,n T. Smith, Chairman

17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that this day the undersigned served a copy of the foregoing
FINAL DECISION GRANTING VARIANCE upon the City of Raleigh and the Division of
Water Quality in the manner indicated below. A copy of the foregoing FINAL
DECISION GRANTING VARIANCE also was served upon Edge of Auburn, LLC and
Auburn Associates in the manner indicated below.
Steven J. Levitas, Esq.
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
3737 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, N. C. 27612
Counsel for the City of Raleigh
Ms. Coleen Sullins
Director Division of Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27602
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT
[Electronic Delivery]
HAND DELIVERY
[Electronic Delivery]
Thomas C. Worth, Jr., Esq. CERTIFIED MAIL
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500 RETURN RECEIPT
Raleigh, N. C. 27602 [Electronic Delivery]
Counsel for Edge of Auburn, LLC
and Auburn Associates
This the I S4.L'day of January, 2010.
ROY COOPER
Attorney General
Francis W. Crawley
Special Deputy Attorney General