DEQ-CFW_00004425

From: Reid, Dianne [/O=NCMA|L/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYD|BOHF2]SPDLT)/CN=REOP|ENTS/CN=D|ANNE.RE0]
Sent: 8/1/20II753:00PM
To: Brower, Connie [/b=NCMA]L/ou=ExchangeAdministrative Group
(FYD|8DHFZ33PDLT)/cn=Recipient$cn=connie.brower];5chimiociNikki [/o=NCW1A|L/ou=ExchangeAdministrative
Group (FYD|8OHF235PDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=nikkirem ington]
CC: Snyb,Julie [/o=NCK8A|L/ou=ExchangeAdministrative Group (FYD|8OHFI33PDLT)/cn=Redpient$cn=ju|ie.Xrn/b]
Subject: FVV: Fiscal Note evaluation NPDE5VVVVmetals
Attachments Fiscal Note eva|uadon-NPDE3VVVVmetals IO1I(ver6-Z-2O1I).doqTABLE A Active Individual Permits wastewoter(6-
2-2011).x|s;TABLE B NPDESEffluent Limits for Pretreatment POTVVsx|ox;TABLE F GxVnemediationfad|ities.x|rx;
Water Treatment P|ants.x|s;Fiscal Note eva|uation-NPDE5VVVVmetals 2011(ver6-2-2O1l).doc
TodayJulie indicated that she considered the attachments complete and ready for the formatting and inclusion intile
fiscal analysis. She indicated that the rnerging of the pretreatment and NPDES results into one report only involves
consolidation ofpretreatment with NPDE5permit impacts onmunis. You guys probably realize this. Ihadn't:thought it
out.
Dianne
Dianne K4,Reid
Classifications and Standards Unit Supervisor
Division ofWater Quality
Physical address: 512 N, Salisbury Street
Raleigh, 0[27G84
Mailing address: 1.627 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone]
Fax�919.8O7.G4B7
-- E-moil correspondence to ondfrom this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Low and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
To: Reid, Dianne; Brower, Connie
Cc: Poupart, 3eff; Matthews, Matt; Belnick, Tom
Subject: Fiscal Note evaluation - NPDES WW metals
Attached isthe latest version ofmyanalysis ofthe proposed regulation's impact onNPDESpermits.
I have inserted the industrial sections (majors & minors) directly into the body of the report. All the tables are attached
in this email as well. Connie, | tried to correct some of my numbers so that iswhy you will see some slight percentage
changes. I would be glad to tell you exactly how I made these calculations
Two points:
1) Jeff has discussed what isneeded from Pretreatment Pretreatment Permhteesimpacted atlOin-stream and
10 effluent hardness verses Pretreatment Permittees impacted at median in -stream and median effluent
hardness. | will insert that inmyreport when they are finished.
I) Dianne regarding Chuck's question on how my analysis would change if median hardness values were used. My
report isbroken into six sections asfollows:
Moni a|WW7Pe-205 (128Pretreatment POTVVa;121minor municipals; 40majors wiUhoutpmtnaaUnnntpmgramo)
Industrial WW'FPs major 66
Industrial W\y7laminor -|S}

Private 100%domestic WWTPs - 487
Groundwater rernediation discharges - 38
Water Treatment Plant discharges - 219
Just so everyone is clear - I did my review assuming a hardness value of 25 mg/L for all groups except Municipal majors
with Pretreatment Programs. For thePretreatment POTWs we were able to find enough effluent hardness values to
establish a 10% hardness and a median. I can certainly re-evaluate the 46 majors under both scenarios and extrapolate
to see if similar differences would change groundwater and WTP facility results. I will try to do this over the next 3-4
weeks.
If you have any questions on the attachments, please let me know.
Julie
Julie A. Grzyb, Environmental Engineer
NC DENR / Division of Water Quality / Surface Water Protection Section
NPDES Complex Permitting, Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
919/807-6389 (wk), 919/807-6495 (fax)
"Please note, my email address has changed to °ulie. r<. Ydncdenr.gov
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
DEQ-CFW 00004426