NCG240012_COMPLETE FILE - HISTORICAL_20141106

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
NCG PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
�V �� 01 U 0 la
DOC TYPE
HISTORICAL FILE
❑ MONITORING REPORTS
DOC DATE
❑ �� I I 1 O `°
YYYYMMDD

NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Land Quality Section Pat McCrory, Governor
Tracy E. Davis, PE, CPM John E. Skvarla, III, Secretary
Director
November 6, 2014
CERTIFIED MAIL #7012 1640 0001.9605 7843
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Frederick D. Battle
City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services
900 New Hope Road
Raleigh, NC 27602
Subject: Notice of Deficiency
NOD-2014-PC-0200
City of Raleigh Yardwaste Center
NPDES Stormwater Permit NCG2300 4� D 1 a
Wake County (r
Dear Mr Battle:
On October 20, 2014, Dave Parnell, from the Raleigh Regional Office of the North Carolina Division of
Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR) conducted a compliance evaluation inspection (CEI) at the
referenced facility, located at 900 New Hope Road, Raleigh, North Carolina. The facility lies in the
watershed of an unnamed tributary (UT) to Crabtree Creek, Class WS-Il; HQW, NSW waters, in the Neuse
River Basin.
The following observations were noted during the DEMLR inspection and file review.
This is an on -site composting and mulching facility, which has no on -site tanks requiring secondary
containment. Mr. Edward Wright, Operations Manager, was on site during the inspection and provided
valuable assistance to DEMLR staff.
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1628
Location: 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 One
Phone: [phone] FAX:[phone] NorthCarolina
Internet: hftpOpportunity
k Affirmative
ActionlE �1aturallff
An Equal OpportunitylAtfrmative Action Employer J�/

Stormwater run-off generated at this facility is regulated by a general NPDES stormwater permit. The
DEMLR Stormwater Permitting Program has issued certificate of coverage (COC) NCG240012. The
permit was on site and current. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP) was reviewed by
DEMLR staff. The SPPP satisfied most of the requirements of the permit. The plan lacked the following:
documentation of annual employee training.
The monitoring reports were reviewed during the inspection. Qualitative monitoring is required
quarterly, but has not been conducted. Although limited, the data from the analytical monitoring reports,
makes it difficult to determine if advancing to elevated Tiers is warranted. There was some discrepancy
as to the number of Stormwater Discharge Outfall (SDO) to be monitored, though the SPPP denotes two.
Monitoring has being done periodically at SDO #2.
Requested response: You are directed to respond to this letter in writing to DEMLR at the address
provided below within 30 days of receipt Please address the following items noted in bold:
• Please fully develop the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan by placing documentation of
annual employee stormwater and spill response training.
Please begin qualitative monitoring and provide the latest report to this office as soon as
possible.
A review of analytical monitoring reports, indicate benchmarks have may been exceeded. Please
adhere to the requirements of the NPDES permit with respect to the Tier program. Indicate
the tier level at the time of your response.
Please respond to:
Dave Parnell
NCDENR/DEMLR
Raleigh Regional Office
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1628
Location: 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 One
Phone: 919-791A2001 FAX: 919-571A718 NorthCarolina
Internet: Opportunity
LAfrr ative AbonE/ Naturally
An Equal Oppodunity lAffirmative Action Employer ��/ `Kl "

Should you have questions regarding these matters, please contact Dave Parnell at [phone].
Sincerely,
ohn L. Holley, ee P CPESC
Regional Engineer
Raleigh Regional Office
cc: Stormwater Permitting Program Files - with attachment
DEMLR Raleigh Regional Office Files - with attachment
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1628
Location: 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 One
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] No^rthCarohna
Internet http:pnily\Ac Affirmative
ActionlE (/ Y h ally
An Equal Oppotlunity\Atfirrnativa Action Employer K K` `

J
Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: NCG240012 Effective: 12/13/12 Expiration: 09/30/16 Owner: City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services
Department
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: City of Raleigh Yardwaste Center
County: Wake 900 New Hope Rd
Region: Raleigh
Raleigh NC 27602
Contact Person: Frederick D Baffle Title: Phone: [phone]
Directions to Facility:
1-440 Exit US 64 Business East - 1.2 mi right turn onto New Hope Rd - Facility is 0.8 mi on left
System Classifications:
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(a):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 10/20/2014 Entry Time: 09:30AM Exit Time: 11:OOAM
Primary Inspector: David R Parnell Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit Inspection Type: Compost Operations Stonnwater/Wastewater Discharge CDC
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
Storm Water
(See attachment summary)
Page: 1

Permit: NCG240012 Owner - Facility: City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services Department
Inspection Date: 10/20/2014 Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit Routine
Inspection Summary:
Page: 2

I
Permit: NCG240012 Owner - Facility: City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services Department
Inspection Date: 10/20/2014 Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit. Routine
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Yes No NA NE
Does the site have a Stonnwaler Pollution Prevention Plan? ® ❑ ❑
# Does the Plan include a General Location (USGS) map? ® ❑ ❑
# Does the Plan include a "Narrative Description of Practices"? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Does the Plan include a detailed site map including outfall locations and drainage areas?
®
❑ ❑ ❑
# Does the Plan include a list of significant spills occurnng during the past 3 years?
N
❑ ❑ ❑
# Has the facility evaluated feasible altemafives to current practices?
■
11 ❑ El
# Does the facility provide all necessary secondary containment?
❑
11 0 ❑
# Does the Plan include a BMP summary?
E
❑ ❑ ❑
# Does the Plan include a Spill Prevention and Response Plan (SPRP)?
0
❑ ❑ ❑
# Does the Plan include a Preventative Maintenance and Good Housekeeping Plan?
E
❑ ❑ ❑
# Does the facility provide and document Employee Training?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
# Does the Plan include a list of Responsible Party(s)?
0
❑ ❑ ❑
# Is the Plan reviewed and updated annually?
E
❑ ❑ ❑
# Does the Plan include a Stormwater Facility Inspection Program?
Has the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan been implemented?
N
❑ Q ❑
Comment: No liquids that require secondary containment. No employee training being conducted
Qualitative Monitoring
Yea No NA NE
Has the facility conducted its Qualitative Monitoring semi-annually?
❑
0 ❑
Comment: Discussed with Edward Wright methods for visual monitoring.
Analytical Monitoring
Yes No NA NE
Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring?
❑
E Q ❑
# Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring from Vehicle Maintenance areas?
❑
❑ N ❑
Comment: Infrequent sample results are for outfall 2 only. No results for outfall 1. Difficult to determine
which Tier they fall upon. Zinc appears to be exceeding benchmark but asked for clarification
from lab.
Permit and Outfalls Yes No NA NE
# Is a copy of the Permit and the Certificate of Coverage available at the site? 0 ❑ Q El
# Were all outfalls observed during the inspection? 0 ❑ ❑
# If the facility has representative outfall status, is it property documented by the Division? 0 ❑ ❑
# Has the facility evaluated all illicit (non stonnwater) discharges? 0 ❑ ❑
Comment:
Page: 3

A� r
NCDENR
Yon// Snnn�i tl
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Land Quality Section
Tracy E. Davis, PE, CPM Pat McCrory, Governor
Director John E. Skvarla, III, Secretary
November 4, 2013
Mr. Mike Santowasso
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4011 WestChase Blvd., Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27616
Subject: NPDES Stormwater Permit COC #NCG240012
Raleigh Yardwaste Center
Advance comments on H&S permit compliance plan
Dear Mr. Santowasso:
We appreciate the time you made available to us at the Yardwaste Center on Wednesday, October
23, 2013. Thank you for asking for our advance comments on your in -progress stormwater control
plan for the City of Raleigh Yardwaste Center. Raleigh is ultimately required to submit a finished
plan in accordance with our stormwater General Permit, NCG240000.
We have considered the elements of the stormwater control plan that have been presented to us in
several ways, so far:
• The October 23, 2013 H&S Technical Memorandum, stamped "DRAFT", and verbally
indicated to be an in -progress document, and handed to us during our site visit at the
Yardwaste Center;
• Five half-size drawings of the proposed construction at the Yardwaste Center, dated
September 2013, but not yet stamped, approved, nor issued, and also acknowledged as
still preliminary at this point; also handed to us during our site visit;
• Our recollection of our verbal conversations on site on October 23, 2013, and later follow-
up conversations and emails between us;
• Your minutes of the on -site meeting, received the following day on October 24, 2013;
• In addition, we have considered the provisions of our General Permit, NCG240000 for
composting activities.
Thank you for being clear that the H&S Technical Memorandum and drawings are preliminary and
incomplete. Consequently, we view our comments here not as a DEMLR review of final documents,
but instead as a technical assistance consultation on the general direction for improved stormwater
pollution control at the site. The General Permit ultimately requires the City to present a finished
plan to the DEMLR Raleigh Regional Office (John Holley's group) for their approval. However, for
this present technical assistance consultation, I have gathered comments from John and other
NCDENR folks to respond to your request for comments. Our comments are based on what we
understand of the currently incomplete description of the plan of action for the Yardwaste Center.
Comments
1. I am able to report to you that at some point along its run, the central north -to -south
drainage feature on the site becomes a surface water of the state, and it is not a ditch.
Danny Smith has shown me both a USGS topo map, and an SCS Wake County soils map
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 • Telephone [phone] / FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 • Internet: http:/Iportal.ncdenr.org/web/Ir/land-quality
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Mike Santowasso
Page 2 of 4
November 4, 2013
%V
that indicate that the feature is a stream. The significance of this determination is that the
sampling required under NCG24 must be conducted on the stormwater discharges from the
site (for example, from the stormwater pond discharge), not from the creek itself near the
lower drive crossing.
a. Whether the creek is a zero -flow stream per the regulatory definition or not, it is still
a North Carolina surface water, and samples from it may not be used to characterize
the NPDES stormwater discharge from the composting activity.
b. As you suggested previously, this brings up the question of how Raleigh will address
runoff from the eastern half of the site. We should talk more about that, after we
both have had a chance to consider it more closely.
2. Despite where past monitoring samples were taken, Raleigh's submittal to RRO should
provide all the water sampling data that has been accumulated on this site, and should
clarify for us where the samples were taken.
a. For example, samples of flow: leaving the composting pad; in the vegetated ditch;
entering the pond and forebay; contents of the pond; discharge from the pond;
contents of the beaver pond; and of course at the previous in -stream sampling
location. Whatever data there are, let's take a look at it together. I am not
suggesting that you now generate new sampling results, just give us what already
exists:
b. Raleigh's current obligation under NCG24 is to take quarterly samples beginning
February 1, 2013. Raleigh should switch immediately to retrieving samples from the
flow from the pond, not the creek.
c. The second paragraph on the first page of the draft Technical Memorandum
references some amount of sampling conducted prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Coverage. The ultimate submittal to RRO should include those data as well, along
with a clarification of where the samples were taken.
d. Our interest in the sampling data all goes to the point of whether Raleigh has
characterized, the polluted flow, and whether the proposed measures will likely
achieve the numerical benchmarks shown in the permit.
e. In addition to our interest in the data as related to the Raleigh Yardwaste Center, we
are interested in the data from a programmatic standpoint. The Stormwater
Permitting Program is engaged in a protracted roll -out of stormwater permitting for
the composting industry. There is wide variability in the reported pollutant
characterizations of treated and untreated discharges, in the readily available
composting literature. These data from the Raleigh Yardwaste Center represent
another, closer to home, bit of information about the character of the flow from yard
waste composting sites.
3. The first paragraph of the Technical Memorandum notes that an NOI has been submitted,
but a Certificate of Coverage has not been issued. This is no longer. correct. The Certificate
of Coverage was effective February 1, 2013.
4. As we discussed during the joint site visit, Raleigh's ultimate submittal should include more
specific information on a schedule for Phase 1 and, if necessary, Phase 2 actions. The
submittal should also propose start dates, finish dates if possible, and triggering conditions
if possible.
5. Technical Memorandum Phase 1 item 1 proposes to dewater the existing pond, and Drawing
C-1 notes that the dewatering flow can be discharged into a filter sock, and into the storm
drainage system. I'm unclear on what that means on this site, and where exactly the

"ate. Mike Santowasso
Page 3 of 4
November 4, 2013
discharge from the filter sock will go. Please clarify that for our review in the ultimate
submittal to RRO.
6. Technical Memorandum Phase 1 item 2: I'm unclear on the reference to assuring that "the
low flow discharge pipe is functioning." On the drawing detail I see the riser, the low flow
orifice indicated on the riser, and the main 24" discharge pipe from the riser. Is the
reference to a `low flow discharge pipe' a reference to the emergency drain line also shown
on Drawing C-3? Please clarify for us the intended operating mode, and that the emergency
drain line will not be used in a normal, or even low -flow, operating mode.
7. Technical Memorandum Phase 1: You may want to consider whether it makes sense to
remove the beavers as part of Phase 1 activities.
8. Technical Memorandum Phase 2: Channel realignment is noted in item 1, and on Drawing
C-1 Phase II note 1 requires the contractor to clear the vegetation and re -grade the channel
leading up to the stormwater pond. I may need to understand this better, but it's not clear
to me that clearing out the vegetation is a beneficial approach on this particular site. Please
explain this in the ultimate submittal.
Technical Memorandum Phase 2: General comment: I think we should consider together
whether the parties want our ultimate agreement between the City of Raleigh and RRO to
reflect that the City will come back to RRO with individual proposals for each succeeding
step after Phase 1. Even if we go one step at a time, there still may be reasons now to at
least outline the anticipated major elements of a Phase 2. For the moment in these
advance comments, I'll defer further comments on the Phase 2 Improvements.
10.John Holley's comments to me emphasized maintaining and expanding where possible the
use of vegetated stabilization and cover. Proposed construction activities should disturb as
little as possible of the vegetated areas. Where indicated by small erosion features, the
site should consider using level spreaders to ensure that flow entering the vegetated areas
remains diffuse and does not re -constitute into concentrated flow. Where feasible,
expansion of the vegetated flat areas should be considered, if operating space can be made
available through adjustment of the composting activity footprint.
11. John also commented that the access road should be maintained as a grassed surface, if at
all possible. I note that Drawing C-3 calls for a substantial amount of stone paving. This
seems contrary to best stormwater control practices. Please address this in the ultimate
submittal.
12.JH comment: Construction should include establishing safe access to the new sampling
point.
13. JH comment: Drawing D-1 Detail 5 Stone Check Dam calls for a 12" height of Class A
stone. John advises that the check dam should be constructed approximately 18" high of
riprap (Class B or 1) and faced with a layer of #5 or #57 washed stone on the upstream
side.
14.JH comment: The SPPP should be updated to designate the recycling and emergency
operation areas as well as the established and proposed BMPs.
15. JH comment: Although the operator has indicated that sufficient resources are available for
this project, John recommends that Solid Waste Services explore a partnership with the

Mr. Mike Santowasso
Page 4 of 4
November 4, 2013
EN
city's stormwater utility as a potential advocate for additional resources, and because their
activities should naturally overlap and complement the city's stormwater management
strategies.
16. My comments on the meeting notes from October 23, 2013.
a. As recorded in your notes, please send me all past water monitoring data for the
site. Just the results and clarification of the sampling locations are all that are
necessary for my interest at this time. I mean, it's not necessary for you to
construct an interpretation of the results at this point in time.
b. Are you still interested in following up on questions concerning the lab method for
monitoring for bacteriological pollution? Please contact Bethany or me if we can
help.
c. I withdraw any on -site comments indicating my request for submittal of a funding
schedule for site improvements. In retrospect my perhaps poorly expressed, but
now more sharply focused, intent was to emphasize that the City should be aware
that follow up expenditures may be required beyond just Phase 1, depending on the
performance of the proposed construction.
d. We acknowledge that the current in -progress Phase 1 proposal from the City of
Raleigh is not based on engineering calculations that predict numerical results below
benchmark values for the several pollutant parameters in the permit. Additionally,
the Division is committed to allowing the Yardwaste Center to approach stormwater
control in a phased manner to control their costs. However, please note that along
with the provision for a phased approach, the text of the permit requires that the
permittee eventually achieve effective control of his polluted discharges.
Mike, I hope these comments are helpful for your work. We look forward to working with you and
to receiving the City's fully developed compliance plan, at least through Phase 1.
Sincerely,
Ken Pickle
DEMLR Stormwater Permitting Program
cc: Mr. Ed Wright, City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services
Mr. Fred Battle, City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services
John Holley, DEMLR RRO
Dave Parnell, DEMLR RRO
Danny Smith, DWR RRO
Bethany Georgoulias, Stormwater Permitting Program
Bradley Bennett, Stormwater Permitting Program

DENIL.2 �,2 p
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources 9
Land Quality Section n+
Tracy E. Davis, PE, CPM Pat McCrory, Governor
Director John E. Skvarla, III, Secretary
0
November 4, 2013 z
Mr. Mike Santowasso
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4011 WestChase Blvd., Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27616
Subject: NPDES Stormwater Permit COC #NCG240012
Raleigh Yardwaste Center
Advance comments on H&S permit compliance plan
Dear Mr. Santowasso:
We appreciate the time you made available to us at the Yardwaste Center on Wednesday, October
23, 2013. Thank you for asking for our advance comments on your in -progress stormwater control
plan for the City of Raleigh Yardwaste Center. Raleigh is ultimately required to submit a finished
plan in accordance with our stormwater General Permit, NCG240000.
We have considered the elements of the stormwater control plan that have been presented to us in
several ways, so far:
• The October 23, 2013 H&S Technical Memorandum, stamped "DRAFT", and verbally
indicated to be an in -progress document, and handed to us during our site visit at the
Yardwaste Center;
• Five half-size drawings of the proposed construction at the Yardwaste Center, dated
September 2013, but not yet stamped, approved, nor issued, and also acknowledged as
still preliminary at this point; also handed to us during our site visit;
• Our recollection of our verbal conversations on site on October 23, 2013, and later follow-
up conversations and emails between us;
• Your minutes of the on -site meeting, received the following day on October 24, 2013;
• In addition, we have considered the provisions of our General Permit, NCG240000 for
composting activities.
Thank you for being clear that the H&S Technical Memorandum and drawings are preliminary and
incomplete. Consequently, we view our comments here not as a DEMLR review of final documents,
but instead as a technical assistance consultation on the general direction for improved stormwater
pollution control at the site. The General Permit ultimately requires the City to present a finished
plan to the DEMLR Raleigh Regional Office (John Holley's group) for their approval. However, for
this present technical assistance consultation, I have gathered comments from John and other
NCDENR folks to respond to your request for comments. Our comments are based on what we
understand of the currently incomplete description of the plan of action for the Yardwaste Center.
Comments
1. I am able to report to you that at some point along its run, the central north -to -south
drainage feature on the site becomes a surface water of the state, and it is not a ditch.
Danny Smith has shown me both a USGS topo map, and an SCS Wake County soils map
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 • Telephone [phone] / FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 • Internet: http:ltportal.ncdenr.org/web/Ir/land-quality
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Mike Santowasso
Page 2 of 4
November 4, 2013
that indicate that the feature is a stream. The significance of this determination is that the
sampling required under NCG24 must be conducted on the stormwater discharges from the
site (for example, from the stormwater pond discharge), not from the creek itself near the
lower drive crossing.
a. Whether the creek is a zero -flow stream per the regulatory definition or not, it is still
a North Carolina surface water, and samples from it may not be used to characterize
the NPDES stormwater discharge from the composting activity.
b. As you suggested previously, this brings up the question of how Raleigh will address
runoff from the eastern half of the site. We should talk more about that, after we
both have had a chance to consider it more closely.
2. Despite where past monitoring samples were taken, Raleigh's submittal to RRO should
provide all the water sampling data that has been accumulated on this site, and should
clarify for us where the samples were taken.
a. For example, samples of flow: leaving the composting pad; in the vegetated ditch;
entering the pond and forebay; contents of the pond; discharge from the pond;
contents of the beaver pond; and of course at the previous in -stream sampling
location. Whatever data there are, let's take a look at it together. I am not .
suggesting that you now generate new sampling results, just give us what already
exists.
b. Raleigh's current obligation under NCG24 is to take quarterly samples beginning
February 1, 2013. Raleigh should switch immediately to retrieving samples from the
flow from the pond, not the creek.
c. The second paragraph on the first page of the draft Technical Memorandum
references some amount of sampling conducted prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Coverage. The ultimate submittal to RRO should include those data as well, along
with a clarification of where the samples were taken.
d. Our interest in the sampling data all goes to the point of whether Raleigh has
characterized the polluted flow, and whether the proposed measures will likely
achieve the numerical benchmarks shown in the permit.
e. In addition to our interest in the data as related to the Raleigh Yardwaste Center, we
are interested in the data from a programmatic standpoint. The Stormwater
Permitting Program is engaged in a protracted roll -out of stormwater permitting for
the composting industry. There is wide variability in the reported pollutant
characterizations of treated and untreated discharges in the readily available
composting literature. These data from the Raleigh Yardwaste Center represent
another, closer to home, bit of information about the character of the flow from yard
waste composting sites.
3. The first paragraph of the Technical Memorandum notes that an NOI has been submitted,
but a Certificate of Coverage has not been issued. This is no longer correct. The Certificate
of Coverage was effective February 1, 2013.
4. As we discussed during the joint site visit, Raleigh's ultimate submittal should include more
specific information on a schedule for Phased and, if necessary, Phase 2 actions. The
submittal should also propose start dates, finish dates if possible, and triggering conditions
if possible.
S. Technical Memorandum Phase 1 item 1 proposes to dewater the existing pond, and Drawing
C-1 notes that the dewatering flow can be discharged into a filter sock, and into the storm
drainage system. I'm unclear on what that means on this site, and where exactly the

�G Mr. Mike Santowasso
Page 3 of 4
November 4, 2013
discharge from the filter sock will go. Please clarify that for our review in the ultimate
submittal to RRO.
6. Technical Memorandum Phase 1 item 2: I'm unclear on the reference to assuring that "the
low flow discharge pipe is functioning." On the drawing detail I see the riser, the low flow
orifice'indicated on the riser, and the main 24" discharge pipe from the riser. Is the
reference to a'low flow discharge pipe' a reference to the emergency drain line also shown
on Drawing C-3? Please clarify for us the intended operating mode, and that the emergency
drain line will not be used in a normal, or even low -flow, operating mode.
Technical Memorandum Phase 1: You may want to consider whether it makes sense to
remove the beavers as part of Phase 1 activities.
8. Technical Memorandum Phase 2: Channel realignment is noted in item 1, and on Drawing
C-1 Phase II note 1 requires the contractor to clear the vegetation and re -grade the channel
leading up to the stormwater pond. I may need to understand this better, but it's not clear
to me that clearing out the vegetation is a beneficial approach on this particular site. Please
explain this in the ultimate submittal.
Technical Memorandum Phase 2: General comment: I think we should consider together
whether the parties want our ultimate agreement between the City of Raleigh and RRO to
reflect that the City will come back to RRO with individual proposals for each succeeding
step after Phase 1. Even if we go one step, at a time, there still may be reasons now to at
least outline the anticipated major elements of a Phase 2. For the moment in these
advance comments, I'll defer further comments on the Phase 2 Improvements.
10.John Holley's comments to me emphasized maintaining and expanding where possible the
use of vegetated stabilization and cover. Proposed construction activities should disturb as
little as possible of the vegetated areas. Where indicated by small erosion features, the
site should consider using level spreaders to ensure that flow entering the vegetated areas
remains diffuse and does not re -constitute into concentrated flow. Where feasible,
expansion of the vegetated flat areas should be considered, if operating space can be made
available through adjustment of the composting activity footprint.
11. John also commented that the access road should be maintained as a grassed surface, if at
all possible. I note that Drawing C-3 calls for a substantial amount of stone paving. This
seems contrary to best stormwater control practices. Please address this in the ultimate
submittal.
12.JH comment: Construction should include establishing safe access to the new sampling
point.
13. JH comment: Drawing D-1 Detail 5 Stone Check Dam calls for a 12" height of Class A
stone. John advises that the check dam should be constructed approximately 18" high of
riprap (Class.B or 1) and faced with a layer of #5 or #57 washed stone on the upstream
side.
14.JH comment: The SPPP should be updated to designate the recycling and emergency
operation areas as well as the established and proposed BMPs.
15.JH comment: Although the operator has indicated that sufficient resources are available for
this project, John recommends that Solid Waste Services explore a partnership with the

Mr. Mike Santowasso
Page 4 of 4
November 4, 2013
city's stormwater utility as a potential advocate for additional resources, and because their
activities should naturally overlap and complement the city's stormwater management
strategies.
16. My comments on the meeting notes from October 23, 2013.
a. As recorded in your notes, please send me all past water monitoring data for the
site. Just the results and clarification of the sampling locations are all that are
necessary for my interest at this time. I mean, it's not necessary for you to
construct an interpretation of the results at this point in time.
b. Are you still interested in following up on questions concerning the lab method for
monitoring for bacteriological pollution? Please contact Bethany or me if we can
help.
c. I withdraw any on -site comments indicating my request for submittal of a funding
schedule for site improvements. In retrospect my perhaps poorly expressed, but
now more sharply focused, intent was to emphasize that the City should be aware
that follow up expenditures may be required beyond just Phase 1, depending on the
performance of the proposed construction.
d. We acknowledge that the current in -progress Phase 1 proposal from the City of
Raleigh is not based on engineering calculations that predict numerical results below
benchmark values for the several pollutant parameters in the permit. Additionally,
the Division is committed to allowing the Yardwaste Center to approach stormwater
control in a phased manner to control their costs. However, please note that along
with the provision for a phased approach, the text of the permit requires that the
permittee eventually achieve effective control of his polluted discharges.
Mike, I hope these comments are helpful for your work. We look forward to working with you and
to receiving the City's fully developed compliance plan, at least through Phase 1.
Sincerely,
4, J � d- - /o
Ken Pickle
DEMLR Stormwater Permitting Program
cc: Mr. Ed Wright, City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services
Mr. Fred Battle, City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services
John Holley, DEMLR RRO
Dave Parnell, DEMLR RRO
Danny Smith, DWR RRO
Bethany Georgoulias, Stormwater Permitting Program
Bradley Bennett, Stormwater Permitting Program

4(49
NC® NR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild, P.E.
Governor
Mr. J Russell Allen, City Manager
City of Raleigh
630 Beacon Lake Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
Dear Mr. Allen:
Director
January 15, 2013
rEsc E � V E
F�an D
JAN S�4tary
n
NC CENR
Raleigh Regional Office
Subject: General Permit No. NCG240000
City of Raleigh Yardwaste Center
COC NCG240012
Wake County
In accordance with your application for an NPDES stormwater discharge permit received on September
17, 2012, we are forwarding herewith the subject certificate of coverage to discharge under the subject
state — NPDES general permit. 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 US
Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as subsequently amended).
Based on your representation in the permit application that the Raleigh Yardwaste Center is a Type 1
compost facility, the provisions of the recently enacted Session Law 2012-200 pertain to the facility.
Consistent with the provisions of SL 2012-200, DWQ will permit all the composting discharges from
your Type 1 facility under the stormwater discharge provisions of the permit, and the General Permit
requirements related to process wastewater discharges do not apply to the composting discharges from
your "type 1 facility.
As an information item, and not as a condition of the General Permit, we call to your attention the
requirements of the Neuse Riparian Buffer Rule that all stormwater drainage to stream buffers, from
portions of this site that have been constructed after July 22, 1997, must be discharged through a .
correctly designed level spreader or another device that meets diffuse flow requirements per 15A NCAC
2B .0233. Diffuse flow requirements are described in Chapter 8 of the North Carolina Stonnwater BMP
Manual, available at: http://portal.ncdenr.org,/web/wq/ws/su/bmp-manual.
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the
Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area
Management Act or any other federal or local governmental permit that may be required.
Please note that this certificate of coverage is not transferable except upon the specific action of the
Division of Water Quality.
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location, 512 N, Salisbury St. Raleigh , North Carolina 27604 Orte
Phone, 919-807-6300 \ FAX'. 91 M07-6494 N o rd-iCaro l l n a
Internet: www.ncwateiquality.org Natural
//i
An Equal Opportunity I ARirmative Aclion Employer l�

Mr. J Russell Allen
City of Raleigh—NCG240012
January 15,2013
I
r—lfyou•have•anyquestions concerning this permit, please contact Ken Pickle at telephone number (919)
807-6376 or at ken'
en [e-mail].
1' E10S E -14
Sincerely,
Jt J;1 ORIGINAL SIGNED B)
KEN PICKLE
for Charles Wakild, P.E.
cc: DWQ Raleigh Regional Office, Danny Smith
DWQ Central Files
DWQ Stormwater Permitting Unit Files
Wake County Environmental Services, Attn: Eric Green, P.O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602
Enclosures
Certificate of Coverage NCG240012
Copy of General Permit NCG2400000, penmittee only
4, Quarterly stormwater monitoring forms, permittee only
4, Visual monitoring forms, permittee only
Page 2 of 2

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE No. NCG240012: authorizing SURFACE WATER DISCHARGES
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 as amended by North
Carolina Session Law 2012-200, other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by
the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended,
City of Raleigh Department of Solid Waste Services
is hereby authorized to discharge from a Type 1 composting facility (as defined in 15A NCAC 13B
.1400) located at
City of Raleigh Yardwaste Center
900 New 1-lope Road
Raleigh .
Wake County
to receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary to Crabtree Creek, a class C, NSW water in the
Neuse River Basin.
Pursuant to the provisions of Session Law 2012-200, a Type I composting facility is not required to
have a NPDES permit for discharge of process wastewater. Notwithstanding any contrary provisions
in the General Permit, all discharges of stormwater, including stormwater which comes into direct
contact with or results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished
product, byproduct, or waste product are authorized which comply with the stormwater pollution
management requirements, monitoring requirements, reporting requirements, and other conditions set
forth in Part I, Part 11 A - D, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, and Part V II of General Permit No. NCG240000
In accordance with the provisions of Session Law 2012-200, the process wastewater management
requirements do not apply to the composting discharges from this Type I facility, and all composting
operation discharges are authorized when the facility complies only with the stormwater provisions of
the General Permit. To the extent any provisions may be read to impose the process wastewater
standards in the General Permit to discharges from the permittee's facility, the provisions are
suspended and do not apply.
This Certificate of Coverage is an enforceable part of General Permit NCG240000, and shall become
effective for the permittee on February 1, 2013.
This Certificate of Coverage shall remain in effect for the duration of the General Permit.
Signed this day, January 15, 2013.
ORIGINAL SIGNED B)
KEN PICKLE
for Charles Wakild, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

LOCATION MAP: 11
Latitude: 35"47'13" N NCG240012
Longitude: 78"33'31" �V Facility
County: Wake County City of Raleigh Location
Stream Class: C, NSW Yardwaste Center
Receiving Stream: UT to Crabtree Ck L
Sub -basin: 03-04-02 (Neese River Basin) avott 1 Not to Scale

�d n ,1 E.. � �v.
North Carolina
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
NODE R
Department of Environment and
Division of Water Quality
Charles.Wakild, P.E.
Director
Mr. J Russell Allen, City Manager
City of Raleigh
630 Beacon Lake Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
Dear Mr. Allen:
December 13, 2012
Natural Resources
Dee Freeman
Secretary
DEC 14 2012
_— NC DENR
R�iolgh Regional Ofii�e
Subject: General Permit No. NCG240000
City of Raleigh Yardwaste Center
COC NCG240012
Wake County
In accordance with your application for an NPDES stormwater discharge permit received on September
17, 2012, we are forwarding herewith the subject ccrtificite of coverage,to discharge under the subject
state — NPDES general permit. 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 US
Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as subsequently amended).
Based on your representation in the permit application that the Raleigh Yardwaste Center is a Type 1
compost facility, the provisions of the recently enacted Session Law 2012-200 pertain to the facility.
Consistent with the provisions of SL 2012-200, DWQ will permit all the composting discharges from
your Type 1 facility under the stormwater discharge provisions of the permit, and the General Pennit
requirements in Part ll Section E. Process Wastewater Discharges do not apply to the composting
discharges from your Type 1 facility.
Per the requirements of the Neuse Riparian Buffer Rule, all stormwater drainage to stream buffers, from
portions of this site that have been constructed after July 22, 1997, must be discharged through a
correctly designed level spreader or another device that meets diffuse flow requirements per 15A NCAC
213 .0233. Diffuse flow requirements are described in Chapter 8 of the North Carolina Stormwater BMP
Manual, available at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/bmp-manual.
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the
Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area
Management Act or any other federal or local governmental permit that may be required.
Please note that this certificate of coverage is not transferable except upon the specific action of the
Division of Water Quality.
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Ralegh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAH: 919-807-6494
Internet: w .ncwalerquality.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
One
NorthCarolina
Naturally

Mr. J Russell Allen
City of Raleigh—NCG240012
December 13.2012
i
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Ken Pickle at telephone number (919)
807-6376, or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED B)
KE PIcKIkE
for ChTes Wa iId, P.E.
cc: DWQ Raleigh Regional Office, Danny Smith
DWQ Central Files
DWQ Stormwater Permitting Unit Files
Wake County Environmental Services, Attn: Eric Green, P.O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602
Enclosures
Certificate of Coverage NCG240012
Copy of General Permit NCG2400000, permittee only
4, Quarterly stormwater monitoring forms, permittee only
4, Visual monitoring forms, permittee only
Page 2 of 2

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
GENERAL PERMIT No. NCG240000
CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE No. NCG240012
STORMWATER DISCHARGES
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,
City of Raleigh Department of Solid Waste Services
is hereby authorized to discharge stormwater from a facility located at
City of Raleigh Yardwaste Center
900 New Hope Road
Raleigh
Wake County
to receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary to Crabtree Creek, a class C, NSW water
in the Neuse River Basin, in accordance with the stormwater pollution management
requirements, monitoring requirements, reporting requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts 1, 11, III, IV, V, VI, and VII of General Permit No. NCG240000.
This certificate of coverage shall become effective January 1, 2013.
This Certificate of Coverage shall remain in effect for the duration of the General Permit.
Signed this day, December I J. 2012.
ORIGINAL SIGNED B1
KEN PICKLE
for Charles Wakild, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

LOCATION MAP:
Latitude: 35"47'13" N NCG240012 Facility
Longitude: 78"33'3'1" W `Y
County: Wake County City of Raleigh Location
Stream Class: C, NSW Yardwaste Center
Receiving Stream: UT to Crabtree Ck t
Sub -basin: 03-04-02 (Ncuse River Basin) [ffolult Not to Scale

or
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Mr. J Russell Allen, City Manager
City of Raleigh
630 Beacon Lake Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
Dear Mr. Allen:
Division of Water Quality
Charles Wakild, P.E.
Director
December 21, 2012
Subject: General Permit No. NCG240000
City of Raleigh Yardwaste Center
Retraction of COC NCG240012
Wake County
By this letter, DWQ retracts the subject Certificate of Coverage NCG240012, previously transmitted to
you by our letter of December 1 3, 2012. The effective date for permit coverage listed on the COC,
January I, 2013, is no longer valid.
I acted prematurely and in error in issuing the COC, as DWQ is still conducting discussions with the
Associate City Attorney in response to Raleigh's Petition for a Contested Case Hearing. We are
retracting the COC at Dan's request. It looks like only minor revisions to the documents are required,
and I still anticipate a satisfactory resolution soon.
If you have any questions, please contact Ken Pickle at telephone number [phone], or at
[e-mail].
ncdenr.gov.
Sinc�erel(y,
(` �"
Ken Pickle
cc: DWQ Raleigh Regional Office, Danny Smith
DWQ Central Files
DWQ Stormwater Permitting Unit Files
Wake County Environmental Services, Attn: Eric Green, P.O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602
Dan McLawhorn, Raleigh Associate City Attorney
Kathy Cooper, Special Deputy Attorney General, NC DOJ
Wetlands andStomtwater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location. 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: wwrv.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity t Affirmative Action Employer
One
NorthCarolina
NRtllCa��l�

Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
UAZEN AND SWER 4011 WestChase Blvd., Suite 500
Environmental Engineers & Scientists Raleigh, NC 27616
919-833-7152
Technical Memorandum
PREPARED FOR: Ken Pickle, NCDENR Stormwater Permitting Unit
Danny Smith, NCDENR Surface Water Supervisor
John Holley, NCDENR Land Quality Section Supervisor
CC: Fred Battle, City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services
Ed Wright, City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services
FROM: Hazen and Sawyer, PC '
PREPARED BY: Mike Santowasso, Matthew Jones
DATE: October 23, 2013
SUBJECT: Raleigh Yardwaste Center
Proposed Stormwater Pond Improvements
H&S Project 30336-011
Assessment of Existing Conditions
On October 18, 2012, Hazen and Sawyer staff conducted a walkthrough of the City of Raleigh
Yardwaste Center, located off of N. New Hope Road. The purpose of the walkthrough was to
examine existing stormwater conveyance and treatment mechanisms and identify opportunities
to improve on -site stormwater control to support stormwater permitting under the new NPDES
General Permit NCG240000. A Notice of Intent'(NOI) has been submitted to NCDENR DWQ,
but a Certificate of Coverage h'as hot been issued'for the facility. Under NCG240000,
stormwater sampling is required and threshold discharge standards have been established. A
schedule for compliance must be established in conjunction with NCDENR DWQ. It is
anticipated that the City will have as long as two years to comply with discharge standards.
Proposed improvements are intended to provide the City with the best opportunity to meet the
discharge standards while maximizing cost effectiveness and minimizing impacts to facility
operations.
Proposed Stormwater Improvements
Hazen and Sawyer has identified several potential mechanisms to improve stormwater
management at the site, and these items are discussed below. The following improvements are
presented in phases as a proposed schedule for compliance, for review and approval by
NCDENR staff. It should be noted that the existing stormwater testing program, which was in
place prior to the Certificate of Coverage for the General Permit being issued, must continue
throughout the period of permit coverage. Stormwater monitoring data will assist in the
evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed improvements, and in determining what, if any,
further improvements may need to be implemented.
Page 10f4

Phase 1 Improvements
Hazen and Sawyer recommends the Phase 1 improvements be implemented immediately
upon NCDENR approval of the compliance schedule and all necessary permitting for the site.
1. Restore Original Grades to Detention Basin — The basin will be dewatered and
accumulated sediment and debris will be removed. All sediment removed shall be
disposed of and stabilized in a location such that further sediment transport does not
occur. The basin will be restored to original design grades, and identified berm
deficiencies or problems will be addressed. Exterior and interior berm slopes, above the
normal pool elevation, will be re -seeded as necessary to insure adequate stabilization.
2. Clear and Repair Detention Basin Riser - Debris from the wet detention basin riser
will be reviewed, and the riser will be inspected to determine if any repairs are
necessary to the riser structure, trash rack, overflow drain, etc. to ensure the overflow
and low -flow drawdown are both functioning as designed. Once cleared, and repaired,
if required, the riser shall be inspected on a regular basis to assure the outlet is clear
and the low flow discharge pipe is functioning.
3. Improve the Existing Pond Forebay — The pond forebay is critical in the removal of
sediment and other pollutants from runoff leaving the facility. The forebay shall be
enlarged and improved, including lining with Class B Erosion Control Stone. The berm
separating the forebay from the body of the pond shall be re -constructed., and also lined
with Class B stone.
4. Upstream Channel Improvements - Basic improvements to the swale immediately
upstream of the forebay shall address bank stabilization and channel dimensions. Stone
check dams shall be installed in the channel to slow incoming flow and provide
additional impoundment area for sediment deposition and nutrient removal.
Phase 2 Improvements
If water quality data collected following repairs to the basin, forebay, and immediate
upstream channel indicates additional water quality improvements are necessary, a number of
additional measures can be considered in a second phase of improvements.
Evaluate Swale Improvements Upstream of the Forebay — Improvements could
include additional check dams, improved vegetation, channel or bank stabilization, or
channel re -alignment. Existing culverts should be inspected routinely and new culverts
with stabilized outfalls installed in areas where equipment crosses the swales on a
routine basis.
2. Provide Localized Detention —Additional localized detention adjacent to the compost
and possibly leaf storage areas may be considered to reduce sediment and nutrient
loading. The nature of the detention would need to be determined based upon the
Pave 2 of 4

location of the areas served, the discharge data, and operational modifications
available.
3. Operational Improvements — Modifications to the facility operations can improve water
quality. The need for such modifications should be established after review of
stormwater discharge quality data once structural repairs outlined above are in place. It
is anticipated that the compost areas and the leaf storage areas have greater potential
impact on water quality than yardwaste storage and processing areas and operational
modifications should be focused on these areas. Potential modifications and
improvements include:
a. Relocating the compost area closest to the detention pond,
b. Expanding the pavement beneath compost areas to allow for more efficient
composting,
c. Delay further development of leaf storage or any compost areas on the east side
of the facility that do not drain to the existing detention pond,
d. Establish vegetation in all inactive areas east of the stream, and consider
restoring the sedimentation basins on that side of the creek if turbid runoff is
observed,
e. Increase setbacks from compost and leaf storage areas to swales and the pond
and establishing vegetation to filter runoff in the setback areas.
In conjunction with these improvements, compost windrows should be aligned to prevent
trapping stormwater runoff. Areas adjacent to leaf storage areas and finished compost
piles should be graded to prevent ponding of runoff beneath or adjacent to the piles. On
the day of our visit, we observed that the compost windrows were properly aligned.
Areas adjacent to the leaf storage area located on the east portion of the site showed
signs of recent ponding of surface water runoff.
Conclusions
While there is inherent uncertainty in the nature of activities at the site and associated
water quality impacts, it is our opinion that implementation of the Phase 1 improvements
outlined above can improve water quality and support compliance with the discharge criteria
established, in NCG240000. NCDENR DWQ has indicated they would provide some
compliance flexibility to the City as the Yardwaste Center is an "existing" facility, so there is an
opportunity to make improvements and evaluate their impact. At a minimum, the Phase 1
improvements discussed above will be required, in our opinion, to consistently meet discharge
limits.
Additional improvements, including construction of BMP's as outlined in Phase 2, may
be required based upon long-term discharge sampling data. Modifications to the facility
operations, including consolidating active compost areas, may also be utilized to accomplish the
Paga3&a

required stormwater discharge improvements, especially when combined with site specific
improvements to the stormwater conveyance system.
The City of Raleigh, with technical support from Hazen and Sawyer looks forward to
working with NCDENR staff to reach an agreement on the approach for improving stormwater
discharge quality as outlined above and determining a schedule for the site to reach compliance
with the requirements of NCG240000. Should you have any questions or need additional
information regarding the proposed plan, please feel free to contact us.
?age 4 of 4

Meeting Minutes -October 24, 2013, 1:00 PM
City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services, Landfill, and Yard Waste Facilities Discussion
Attendees: Tim Heath, Ed Wright - City of Raleigh (COR) Solid Waste Services Department
Danny Smith - NCDENR Division of Water Resources, Raleigh Regional Office
John Holley - NCDENR Land Quality Section Supervisor
Ken Pickle, Bethany Georgoulias, Larry Wade - NCDENR DEMLR Stormwater
Permitting Unit
Mike Santowasso, Corinne Wilson - Hazen and Sawyer
Introductions
• Mike explained the purpose of the meeting, to begin process for approval of modifications to
the existing pond with the goal of meeting requirements of NCG240000.
• Overview of project status. The site is currently covered tinder NCG240000, and stormwater
sampling has been conducted. Hazen and Sawyer has prepared a draft memo and
preliminary drawings for NCDENR to outline the proposed approach to restoring the
existing pond and reaching the stormwater discharge permit requirements.
• Mike explained the approach Hazen and Sawyer proposes, using phased modifications to
existing facilities.
• Ken agreed NCDENR believes a progressive approach with phasing is appropriate.
• Ken explained that though he will be reviewing this plan, the ultimate decision falls with the
regional office (Dave Parnell and John Holley).
• Ken asked if any monitoring has been completed on -site. Mike will send monitoring results
to date to Ken.
• Mike mentioned a water quality testing procedure specified in the permit. Bethany said
there is no testing procedure specified. Mike will find where the testing procedure
information was found.
Site Walkthrough
• Mike went through an overview of the various phases that Hazen and Sawyer will
implement: (1) restore pond to original condition, restore forebay, install check dams
upstream of forebay; (2) implement further changes if necessary.
• John mentioned that Hazen and Sawyer may need to revisit pond design and meet
requirements of the BMP manual if monitoring shows to improvement after phases.
(ENGINEERS NOTE. It should be stated again the plan at this time is to not modify the
existing pond or forebay - which has never been permitted as a stormwater pond - only
restore the features to original condition for improved stormwater control and
pollutant reduction, and monitor the results.)

• Mike handed out plan sets and a memo explaining the design. Ken would like to see a
schedule in the final submission, but will review this as a preliminary review.
• . Ken asked about funding of secondary phases if the first phase shows no improvements.
Tim said that he would need to inquire with the City for further funding. Ken would like to
see a funding schedule so that NCDENR can allow the City to wait on funding for phases 2, 3,
etc. if it isn't there.yet. .
• In the final submission, Ken would like to see design calculations and reasoning behind
different phases.
(ENGINEERS NOTE. As noted previously, no design calculations are proposed at this
time in Phase 1 - the plan is only to restore existing features to original condition.)
• Ken mentioned that the City needs to change the water sampling point to the outlet of the
pond to meet permit requirements. Mike noted the current sampling location is also
included in the SWPPP.
(ENGINEER'S NOTE. Hazen and Sawyer would like clarification on the need to relocate
the sampling point from the previously agreed location. Reference was found in the
permit application noting the drainage feature east of the pond discharge is considered
a "Zero Flow Stream'. During a post -meeting phone can with Ken Pickle, Ken has agreed
to look into what, if any, implication this status for the feature has with regard to the
location of the sampling point. Itshould be noted the current sampling location is the
point the majority of drainage, from both the east and west sides of the drainage
feature, exits the Yard Waste site.)
• Mike stated the need to discuss budget, schedule, and resources for the project with the
City, and get this information to NCDENR for review. John mentioned that Hazen and
Sawyer should talk with the City of Raleigh Stormwater Unit to discuss forming a
partnership for monitoring the City's facilities.
Conclusions
• Ken and John will go through preliminary review of the drawings and memo and give
feedback to Mike.
• Danny said that nothing was needed from him in this process regarding buffer compliance.

Parnell, David
From: Holley, John
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 11:43 AM
To: Parnell, David
Subject: FW: City of Raleigh Yard Waste stormwater pond
From: Pickle, Ken
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:56 AM
To: Santowasso, Michael; Smith, Danny
Cc: Holley, John; Wright, Edward; Heath, Timothy; Jones, Matthew; Wilson, Corinne D; Wade, Larry; Georgoulias,
Bethany; Bennett, Bradley
Subject: RE: City of Raleigh Yard Waste stormwater pond
Hi Mike,
Based on part of our conversation yesterday at the Yardwaste Center, I've pulled the original permit application
submittal that Raleigh made September 13, 2012.
I see that you were correct yesterday reporting that the location of the discharge point was included in the original
submittal at that time. The included Site Plan does indeed label the creek as the "Discharge Point 2." My apologies for
contradicting you on what was presented in the original NOI, I was incorrect yesterday.
Despite my error yesterday, the original NO1 submittal data does not change our assessment from the site visit. Under
the federal NPDES stormwater program, the discharge point is the location of the stormwater flow immediately before it
the enters surface waters. This is the consistent requirement across all of our NPDES stormwater permits and program.
It is not a special condition or interpretation for the circumstances at the Yardwaste Center.
Just to clarify again: samples from the creek where it leaves the property are not the samples required under the permit;
discharge flow samples should be taken from the flow from the pond before the flow enters the creek.
Again, my apologies for creating confusion on this point yesterday.
If we need to discuss any ramifications on this sub -topic, or arising from any other part of our visit yesterday, please let
me know.
Ken
Ken Pickle
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DEMLR I Stoirmwater Permitting Program
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: ken. pickleCancdenr.gov
Website: http://i)ortal.ncdenr.org/web/Ir/stormwater

** Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulations.**
From: Santowasso, Michael [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 10:00 AM
To: Smith, Danny
Cc: Pickle, Ken; Holley, John; Battle, Frederick; Wright, Edward; Heath, Timothy; Jones, Matthew; Wilson, Corinne D
Subject: RE: City of Raleigh Yard Waste stormwater pond
Danny,
Thank you. A site visit would be very helpful, I am sure. There are no changes planned to the footprint of the pond
adjacent to the stream, and I think we can make the intent (and extent) of the pond improvements clear once out on
site.
At Ken Pickle's suggestion, I have a call into John Holley to set up a meeting concerning the plan to move forward with
this project with regard to the requirements of NCG24000. Ideally the meeting could include the site visit and be
attended by you, John, Ken, Ed Wright (CDR Yard Waste), Fred Battle (CDR Solid Waste), Tim Heath (CDR Solid Waste)
and a few people from our office. I have copied all on this email.
Unfortunately, I am out of the office all of next week but can be available any time otherwise. I will keep everyone
posted on possible meeting dates and hope to have one arranged shortly.
Thank you again.
Mike
From: Smith, Danny [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:40 AM
To: Santowasso, Michael
Cc: Pickle, Ken
Subject: RE: City of Raleigh Yard Waste stormwater pond
Based on the map you provided, a review of the soil survey and USGS map the existing wet detention pond does not
appear to be located within a natural drainage way that would be subject to Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules. That said,
there is a stream feature depicted on the maps that courses north to south into Crabtree Creek that is located adjacent
to the existing wet detention pond. I'm not clear exactly what changes (footprint) are proposed for the site.. so maybe
a site visit would be helpful.
Danny
Danny Smith
Regional Supervisor
Raleigh Regional Office
NCDENR-Division of Water Resources
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
[e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.

From: Santowasso, Michael[mailto:msantowasso(alhazenandsawver.com]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 12:41 PM
To: Smith, Danny
Subject: FW: City,of Raleigh Yard Waste stormwater pond
Danny,
Hello. It has been some time since our last correspondence, but I wanted to check in and see if you had been
able to look at the attached files concerning the proposed improvements to the stormwater pond at the City of Raleigh
Yard Waste Center. If I remember correctly, your intent was to locate the nearby stream to determine if stream buffer
requirements may apply to the project.
Please contact me as you are able to discuss. The City is looking to move forward with this project in order to
meet the requirements of permit NCGP240000 under which the site is now operating.
If it would be helpful, Hazen and Sawyer and City representatives would be happy to meet with you on site to
discuss this project and the permit requirements whenever is convenient for you.
Thank you for your time.
Mike
Michael Santowasso, PE, CPSWQ
Senior Associate I Hazen and Sawyer
4011 WestChase Blvd —Suite 500
919 833-7152 (main) 1919 755-8653 (direct) 1919 345-7446 (cell)
msantowassophazenandsawver.comIhazenandsawver.com
From: Santowasso, Michael
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 3:15 PM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: City of Raleigh Yard Waste stormwater pond
Danny,
Thank you for taking the time to talk this afternoon. As requested, I've attached a general location map, and more
specific site map, showing the location of the storm water pond on the City of Raleigh yard waste site for your review.
Mike
Michael Santowasso, PE, CPSWQ
Senior Associate I Hazen and Sawyer
4011 WestChase Blvd., Suite 500
919 833-7152 (main) 1919 755-8653 (direct) 1919 345-7446 (cell)
msantowassoahazenandsawver.comIhazenandsawver.com

Parnell, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I missed this one earlier.
Holley, John
Monday, October 28, 2013 3:35 PM
Parnell, David
FW: Partial progress, not yet done, Raleigh Yardwaste Center and 7Q10
From: Pickle, Ken
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:45 PM
To: Holley, John
Subject: FW: Partial progress, not yet done, Raleigh Yardwaste Center and 7Q10
Ken Pickle .
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DEMLR I Stormwater Permitting Program
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
512 N. Salisbury St,'Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: http://Pottal.ncdenr.org/web/Ir/stormwater
** Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulations.**
From: Pickle, Ken
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 4:21 PM
To: 'Santowasso, Michael'
Cc: Georgoulias, Bethany; Bennett, Bradley; Smith, Danny
Subject: Partial progress, not yet done, Raleigh Yardwaste Center and 7Q10
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your questions this morning on the zero -flow stream centrally located on the site. I'm making my way
through the relevant regs, and contacting others in DWR/DEMLR for additional input on how we have applied the zero -
flow stream regs in the past in other circumstances.
Here is where I think I'm headed on the question of the central drainage feature at the site:
• Based on our conversation this morning, I agree that the City's original permit application documents report that
the central drainage feature is a zero -flow stream.
• Identifying the feature as a zero flow stream per 15A NCA 213 .0206(d) means:
o That it is not a ditch;
o That it is not an effluent channel, per 15A NCAC 26 .0228;

o That it is some sort of surface water of the state. (I'm still looking into whether there are special .
regulatory provisions for zero flow streams beyond those in .0206(d) and the prohibition against new
discharges of oxygen consuming wastes.)
• The term "zero -flow stream" is jargon that does not appear verbatim in the regs, but the jargon does have
meaning. The meaning is presented in .0206(d) for the case where the 7Q10 of any particular stream is zero.
o Note that we would expect under most circumstances that the stream may very well have flow at other
times outside of the times when the 7Q10 is zero (i.e. once in ten years, the stream experiences no flow
for 7 days, the generalized definition of a ZFS), and that we have this rule .0206(d)specifically regulating
new discharges into. ZFS.....
o Note that all the provisionssurrounding a zero -flow stream in .0206(d) suggest stricter than normal
limitations on the new discharge.
o As I reported in our phone conversation, we have worked our way around the prohibition on the new
discharge of oxygen consuming wastes by noting that the compost facility discharge is not a new
discharge, but instead it is an already existing discharge. And by noting that .0206(d)(1), (2), and (3) all
provide that the agency can determine the requirements for existing discharges into ZFS on a case -by -
case basis.
So, pending feedback from my co-workers on how we have applied the ZFS regs in other circumstances, my
tentative conclusion is as I indicated to you initially, and grows out of the following logic string:
o A ZFS is a water of the state, as attested to by the regulations that place more stringent requirements
for the protection of these waters;
o The NPDES stormwater program is an 'end -of -pipe' program, meaning that the permittee is required to
sample and control the content of pollutants in his discharge flow. While there may be provisions in
other programs for considering the dilution effect of the receiving water, we have not used them in the
NPDES stormwater program, and have remained focused on an end -of -pipe approach.
o For the moment, my conclusion is still that the sampling should be conducted on the stormwater
discharge from the pond, not on the in -stream flow from the zero -flow stream.
o Danny Smith was on site yesterday, and he is due back in his office Monday. I've left a message for him,
as he is one of our staff that are most experienced in stream identifications and the application of our
rules to stream identifications. The questions I'll discuss with Danny will include, "Is this really a zero -
flow stream?", and "Is my suggested analysis of the rules correctly applied in these circumstances?"
I'll be back in touch on Monday.
Ken
Ken Pickle
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DEMLR I Stormwater Permitting Program
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: ken. oickle(a)ncdenr.gov
Website: http://Portal.ncdenr.org/web/Ir/stormwater
** Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulations.**

CITY OF RALEIGH
M
YARD WASTE CENTER
STORMWATER BASIN ENHANCEMENT
it
`��.
`"3.4 ��'lff f-'�1n.A'f si..,� �11.ittiL t,,, � � - - +N'c4'i�.r s -�✓i
e
DRAWING INDEX
� 4 S S'. Y ' a�l+ N� � S' 3"
X" NUMBER sHFir nn.E ' ' R z S� iJ,yq'�:
WAR S 1. LOCAnp1 uA1 " WU..Nc INLfM����r��� _
£R; c-1 ovL RolEs 49 uuC
'Lc-3
C-3 EM�STOWW CM 9n r
srauuwAEEx eAswnAxsccnoxsAuoOerAcp-1 ER09gl ANU Y4YFNi C(Y11R0. MD CXAMNEI CEi/d5OD,
00-i
_ w- _fyi•py..w;.k {l .'y t rMS
PLOD,�RQECr1DGipN�""
wit
A rF
AV-1
E' r
�i r'S
+^11
0
✓F'2 tF'
T rl , ,,� `+l`��v\ �� Rye, 'd) -'�� .4j `�..
N
ZU
U
LOCATION MAP SITE MAP
0
—
o
3
C[A-
u��
AND SAWYER
\
CITY OF RALEIGH
rNc sun BAR
u ow gnaw
E<suea
o.>k SEA ueER ]0t3
w
¢
NwaER
—
°P+"'
a[cxm
l lf1[�EN
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists
NORTH CAROLINA
wo-. Lwc 0
I
1-c Nm A'
m
NAAARI
NUABER
—
°PO+ENOd
4011 WestChuse Blvd, Rvleigh. North [or'rn. 27607
YARD WASTE CENTER
cRArmG.
I
G-1
license Numbev [-01e1
��
STORMWATER BASIN ENHANCEMENT
roo
OAK
er
.maasen

� u
O O
3 X Lga w
doY
E p e
gA
jig
WIN
4 a
� p
Ya
E
b
S
Ei
�
•:
E
d
t
E
E
�E
_�
JI
J
L
�d3�eo6�V�`5$
MV6 3m�"
';ygg $
s2� a s F �a aq A<a =� ?;� € a' aa;g �a¢o
mW � a
a a �z
u b3 N3i Yc` F z a m'" to 83�s ��AQ "+®o � 'ag d= �a 3
b� ¢ aaao ate° EsM &
d k 3 bm Ga
iz
aP A ."
'_' c� g"sb g s w b �g�z. s a�c<g �k a3 b:`.Wb W e am 4^ Y W'a
u o b a�3�a Ui
W u 3a W W� �„� g "s add "�; — g g� �a so` � „£��_ a �� �b :a' �. ��Wo
yAA'g a aK
��txawp �� o
eaws7�`Cg3gg„ �6a _3;
byG gig a%im aSS 5g3a�
lON
o Eb;
�eWfi3o
d;�iga I
mI � g
� a
baa�

---� -� ; _�----�—���i'.l; � ,�� I �l (� � , 1 , � � � ��(J� �� � 11 ��� v lJ V\; ,�Iv',1v� ���'/, kl'/ � 7 •
�_ �� sltE ENTRANCE ` u " TT�— ' i 1 �\� J`� —� � •/ � ��5. � � �. (�� f Ili r,,�\ ��/OI Il
_YARD WASTE OPERATIOi OFFICE I / ' J y/ / ,- ••�
i
�.,G'''`ea I(?u ' � I�.'d � �� cam` -.ems•— �r-ae
wR
l/✓�-J���j/��': �/ �/; %/� I,'� \�� II �.� �/� �l � � Ya /_/
s>"' ai
1 S
, ® I
'';
\ s� ��\ ,/ �\� I l� / / ;`' UUU p ' \ CITY OF RAE'CE
/�`� /V 1 z YARD —WASTE CEN TER 1 1
(CLOSED) I / � �
�✓ /f I
1
PRO ./ ,
' fff XI'
11�
JECT
GRgvEVACLiSS ROAD ✓ice , / ��
TO Sit 1NSTALCED. SEE / I ,J�� '
V��'•, n ���/ �.��� ��DRAWING ,1
•I �—��__ vv� . % A �,. :, A�//� �A��-
VU
21
i a
NE SCALE 8^ D.R KPTEMBER 2013
HAZEN AND S"et CITY OF RAEEIGH
"s oe. BRO•
NORTH CAROLINA t.v"Es aE "we[e 3033(i-011
uc«eo - EXISTING CONDITIONS iH0" t0N0 °""+•^'c
Environmental Engineers r"E Calu"u "1u8E" CC
4011 WestChase 6Nc, Raleigh, Nadh YARD WASTE CENTER aBnW"C
C-2
License Number: C-0381
"o. issxo r« SAm e. we b li� � STORMWATER BASIN ENHANCEMENT

I \ j
— Ensnxc ClaicRT OUTLET
D \
E4snxc Acgg ROa \ \, l \\ cwsmucna uuli
� I
C\ \ \ X IF ea, "\ STONE
MC ROADWAY siALLfD MR.E%1sSET xcF si4LLD
ALMEEDaaROADWAr r`
d.J !. GALV
_ xpd2Wiµ L.PAgALLY YIELDTIT
\\\
�\ TO mAw RAN
STMCVLxCCN DAM TORE BAY \\ \
�T \ SIC IA1.A/C-]
SEE M\ \ t\\ —
- ME, PLATE
SEE'14/2' GµV BAR $1D[X, ,.P
TOP PLAN NEW OF TRASH RACK
• \�� \ / \ \a \ l'A� 4/2 AM WELD ANTRAM RA MIE
NEED..S NEIa i0 TRASH PAIX
MLO i0 1RA91 RACII-----------
1920
MJMT eM�o�cvo BTO AR �_
_ `lu /� / % / 12i LCMG BRTED i0
OIANML IINEO wM I C1%11�UA4 B RFR.W I l ^_ \� \ PVE �y RICER, MiN J16 EST
80.15
IS' NICK, E%NNDMC 10 TOP Of MEAM Elm \ I5B 1 \ -
�2W �\ \ \ \\ \a li \/\/! E%ISTNG ATN 12'' I WEE COMER ID BE ED TO R
\ \ \\ REMfE wM 1SU COP D EX6 AMI AWD0W r0 RIYF
\ •� 1 `\ \ - \ \ \ STRUCTURE io SURROUND C%R RNG DPA'YCOWH OPoilf£
\i
EXISTING DRAX110YM Mina EL 189
U.
/ 246 CAP BARRR j •' •L
1-I/2 R'A DE WAR INSTALLED OKF D
WV OUT IBSD_ t BDTTW 6 WP MIME TRA91 RAM
B1MY.RlE nNEAX'A��� DEREPA,F -3 �.
!j o
BEONNMc AHEL 192, PCxD
9fA11 EX[AVA1W i0 CL1185, ,j CWa[lE ANT25, W ) BIgS(
IRLANp AREAS BEROED"OP STORE) TO ROW ' k7"TMOI
G A SM SIDLE \
r0 RRKM cxexN¢ AND rOBEDArrpLOWNc\ I j EXISTING POND OUTLET STRUCTURE
SAvx RECMSTIDCTMs, RAMER MAN FLOW
i DIRECTLY wi0 PaxD 4=,,\\ DETAIL 2
STpE TEEL xrs C-]
SEE
DEru BN-I.
j I r
NOTES:
SITE PLAN
1. EXCAVATED SOL AND xaNENT SRAE_ BE
g5PO5fL OF w A%VONED u.NNER SUM THAT
1•-30'
FUNTIM Nri 1RAA 1 SEES NOT
OCCUR.
2 41 gSMRHED AREAS ONALL, MTHM 14
CALMS. DAYS Or MWF1FT N a .1
PHASE OF MADRID, BE RANTED M oMER.x
PROV wM TEOPMARY MOUND COVER,
NCODi CLASS B R:PRAP
GENCES, . SIRIIC,MRi 9 `TNOM1 TO
YN 19' TW[a _ B'
PFSIR4N EA03W,
EI 192.0
I ]. PER WEN HI GR0.M0 COVED 91i1LIEH1 t0
�i� \\/
AWPOM. WPTER SURrAEE
1 C•
^ •_
1 RE TRAIN MOSM MUST BE RANTED OR
1 oMEPNISE PROMDED M.A TA CµMOAR
IOMSAv
� �n 6
�+y4Aa' DASW M COEEorMENT.An IOLLOWNAG [CYRETON a [aKIPI1C11Cx
_
EL IBBO
D uO SIE0D ENCWN2RE➢ WRWG 60F®AY
E%CANATON-
BASIN FOREBAY
.ILrtR GEOTEY"r
—/
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA: 1,8 ACRES
DETAIL 1
C-3
DESMEO
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & SCientlsts
4011 WeslChase -Nd. Raleigh. NDdh CarDlino 27507
Uvense Number: C-0381
r
CITY OF RALEIGH
NORTH CAROLINA
STORMWATER BASIN PLAN,
SECTIONS AND DETAIL
M[ SCALE BAR
MAM BELOW
MusuREs ME
INM MG aN
ME MY
DRAW,,:
SATE SEPTEMBER 2013
k 5 b
NDMeEP 30336-01 t
_-
AW"
_
-
C-3
YARD WASTE CENTER
STORMWATER BASIN ENHANCEMENT
wmaw_ -
xo.
.,D TOR
DATE
BY
.waDi£D
i

e'-o• Mnx.
FABRIC
e Off^ � e DITCH� /(�C+ `M"LiINL
/ i
�I
FABRIC.
Or
-
4APLE5 \
NFILTER
OF B'
[TRANSVERSE ANCHOR
TRENCH STALL BE 6'
1AND
/ DEEP.
OTC STAPLES STAPLES TO BE STAGED AT
'I _ 1 -0' MAX. IN ALL DIRECTIONS
m s -
\
E
OVERLAP
PERSPECTIVE
`Bo CI(FIEL TRENCH AND
MIN COMPACT 1XCQWCJ1LY
ELEVATION SECTION
- xaTEs
v EXTRA STRE Cm FLIER FARM (AS APPRWED BY ENGINEER)
MEN 6-0' POST SLACWL DOES NOT FQWW[ MEN SUPPORT
TEN¢.
z LETTER FABMC SNA11 BE .RED DIRECTLY TO MOST MYN MRE OR
nP TIES OF w IB Mw, TENSILE STRENGTH.
]. MIEN JE NTS ARE NECESSI11, FASTEN FILTER CLOTH ONLY AT A
DI POST MM i -0' MIN, OVERLAP TO NEXT MOST,
SILT FENCE
DETAIL
NTs D-1
ELEV.
200 —
-20
198
196
194 1L—�_ �1
4 DI 4
CHANNEL SECTION
DETAIL B
LS'=V - GO D-1
ANCHOR TRENCH
I'
COMPAc1F0 LONGnDINAt
BACVFILL (1�.)\ nNCMCB TRENCH\ -T
IAT'I"rm\ G-s' MIN. LINING STAPLES
°`T1.. P DETAIL
VEGETATIVE MATTING
DETAIL
Nrs D-T
vCDpl 1e55 a PiPPeo
!¢A[yM
I STTEP5EgIENCE
[IIICP LCDIEM111F \
IANCHgt TRENCH
' MlIX IF�.rr—T Mcvwo-I�M..M. 1—NP
ol.v vv ".a'e�i«ro`An.M.aN°al�ecvw
M MP p.01M3 . fGN1. 9¢Y Mut R 4OM. I6 Os RwC ®6u R M
III TIxe®gx¢MM .SR 146
ELEV. f.m am,M:1�OIINre MT i(IW SrvuSM MNum.-MEu¢aWW+xh WITIam.olHrus e[vnAA.RO
`A. "RoTH,S (Ptl .M.z.m NM9PAE.;«ILA
- 198. arTNAjrra a «,,.M,. ,M., ff ay.m rlm.mY.
XMMNAX'
—196 Xb MI..M--IdPa.A. 9.'uFNi '- eP„PMa A.
—1.
194 MP L�.,-. MMwrrcluus RETAMEMAN—
EYEAME MM n.I
(Io +mAll l4 ersn le W 4 rAM
TOP VIEW (.a.ET) ul
SIDE MEW
GI -
- MZENW SAWYER
IMAMH
CHECAEn
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists
REWEAGN - e011 XE,SChCSs Blvd. Raleigh. North Carolina 27607
License NUmdeC C-03E1
TEMPORARY SEDIMENT FILTER BAG
DETAIL
NrsI D-1
CITY OF RALEIGH
NORTH CAROLINA
YARD WASTE CENTER
STORMWATER BASIN ENHANCEMENT
uCD(T CLASS a PIPVAP
:' ANCNN TarucH � '"
mIIR QUTEXTRE
STONE CHECK DAM
DETAIL
ET,
D-T
STABILIZED STONE OUTLET FOR SILT FENCE
DETAIL e
NR D-1
HI SCnIE TEAR
CATE $EPTEMDER 20t3
SHOVN 9ELN
EROSION AND SEDIMENT
MEAwaa ONE
xuuaER 303360T
CONTROL DETAILS, CHANNEL
wON LNG ON
oPAMxc
11 DRIOXNAL
uuata
DETAILS
DOAMNL
D_1

Mr. Parnell;
Thank you for allowing us the time for the lab to gather these test results. However due to lab error the
phosphorus level had to be retested. I have included the plan that Hazen and Sawyer submitted to
improve our storm water system. Our current engineering firm is URS. Hazen and Sawyer are no longer
with us. Our new engineering firm feels that this plan is the best way to solve the problems that we are
having with our storm water pond. As you can see some of your colleagues were involved in helping to
put it together. We hope to put this plan into effect upon approval. There seemed to be a break down in
communications previously and we plan to attack this more aggressively than before.
Sincerely,
Edward Wright 2-/16, /ZOlt/
City of Raleigh l
YWC Operations
Superintendent
oEc 9 s zow
NC DENR Raleigh Reglonal Office

Ac LIFMK K9'K!Q!J gGo!aus! OjU('

��•� T
`ter
NCDENR DEC 16 20%
Stormwater Discharge Outfall (SDO)
Qualitative Monitoring Report
NC DENR Raleigh Regional Office
Forguidance on filling out thisform, please visit: http://12ortal.ncdenr,org/web/wq/ws/­su/nl2dessw#tab-4
Permit No.: N/C/-j/ ZV-L/-3/]C/ 41—/ or Certificate of Coverage No.: N/C/9/2-/4-/0-/0-/0J0
Facility Name: City of Raleigh Yard Waste Center
County: Wake Phone No. (919)2S0-2728
Inspector: Israel Vega
Date of Inspection: 11/18/2014
Time of Inspection: 10:30 AM.
Total Event Precipitation (inches): 1 1/2
Was this a "Representative Storm Event" or "Measureable Storm Event" as defined by the permit?
(See information below.)
❑ Yes x No
Please verify whether Qualitative Monitoring must be performed during a 'representative storm
event" or "measureable storm event" (requirements vary, depending on the permit).
Qualitative monitoring requirements vary. Most permits require qualitative monitoring to be
performed during a "representative storm event' or during a "measureable storm event" However,
some permits do not have this requirement. Please refer to these definitions, if applicable.
A "representative storm event" is a storm event that measures greater than 0.1 inches of rainfall
and that is preceded by at least 72 hours (3 days) in which no storm event measuring greater than
0.1 inches has occurred. A single storm event may contain up to 10 consecutive hours of no
precipitation.
A "measurable storm event" is a storm event that results in an actual discharge from the
permitted site outfall. The previous measurable storm event must have been at least 72 hours
prior. The 72-hour storm interval does not apply if the permittee is able to document that a shorter
interval is representative for local storm events during the sampling period, and the permittee
obtains approval from the local DWQ Regional Office.
By this signature, 1 certify that this report is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge:
Israel M. Vega
(Signature of Permittee or Designee)
Pagel of 2
SWn-242, last modified 10/25/2012

u
r.
v5i?li>i noitairtgi�i;?Si:13i:.1>i
I

A
1. Outfall Description:
Outfall No. YW-2 Structure (pipe, ditch, etc.) Pipe
Receiving Stream: Drainage pond
Describe the industrial activities that occur within the outfall drainage area: Composting
2. Color: Describe the color of the discharge using basic colors (red, brown, blue, etc.) and tint
(light, medium, dark) as descriptors: Clear
3. Odor: Describe any distinct odors that the discharge may have (i.e., smells strongly of oil,
weak chlorine odor, etc.): No odors
4. Clarity: Choose the number which best describes the clarity of the discharge, where 1 is
clear and 5 is very cloudy:
2 3 4 5
5. Floating Solids: Choose the number which best describes the amount of floating solids in
the stormwater discharge, where 1 is no solids and 5 is the surface covered with Floating solids:
1 2 3 4 5
6. Suspended Solids: Choose the number which best describes the amount of suspended
solids in the stormwater discharge, where 1 is no solids and 5 is extremely muddy:
1 2 3 4 5
7. Is there any foam in the stormwater discharge? Yes yu
8. Is there an oil sheen in the stormwater discharge? Yes No
9. Is there evidence of erosion or deposition at the outfall? Yes a,
10. Other Obvious Indicators of Stormwater Pollution:
List and describe N/A
Note: Low clarity, high solids, and/or the presence of foam, oil sheen, or erosion/deposition
may be indicative of pollutant exposure. These conditions warrant further investigation.
Page 2 of 2
SWU-242, Last modified 10/25/2012

yn•
m

NCDENR DEC 1 6 2014
Stormwater Discharge Outfall (SDO)
Qualitative Monitoring Report NC DENR Raleigh Regional office
For guidance on filling out this form, please visit: http;//­portal.ncdenr.org/web/wQ/ws/su/npdessw#tab-4
Permit No.: N/C/ 9/Z/-L/3/�/y(/_/ or Certificate of Coverage No.: N/C/G/2-/4_/0_/0_/0_/0
Facility Name: City of Raleigh Yard Waste Center
County: Wake Phone No. [phone]
Inspector: Israel Vega
Date of Inspection: 11/18/2014
Time of Inspection: 10:30 AM.
Total Event Precipitation (inches): _1 1/2
Was this a 'Representative Storm Event" or "Measureable Storm Event" as defined by the permit?
(See information below.)
❑ Yes x No
Please verify whether Qualitative Monitoring must be performed during a "representative storm
event" or "measureable storm event" (requirements vary, depending on the permit).
----- ---- ---—..._..------------- ------ -- --- -- -------
Qualitative monitoring requirements vary. Most permits require qualitative monitoring to be
performed during a "representative storm event' or during a "measureable storm event" However,
some permits do not have this requirement. Please refer to these definitions, if applicable.
A "representative storm event" is a storm event that measures greater than 0.1 inches of rainfall
and that is preceded by at least 72 hours (3 days) in which no storm event measuring greater than
0.1 inches has occurred. A single storm event may contain up to 10 consecutive hours of no
precipitation.
A "measurable storm event' is a storm event that results in an actual discharge from the
permitted site outfall. The previous measurable storm event must have been at least 72 hours
prior. The 72-hour storm interval does not apply if the permittee is able to document that a shorter
interval is representative for local storm events during the sampling period, and the permittee
obtains approval from the local DWQ Regional Office.
By this signature, I certify that this report is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge:
Israel M. Vega
(Signature of Permittee or Designee)
Pagel of 2
SWU-242, last modified 10/25/2012

MC Ve-1110,10.1 OWCO

r
r w
1. Outfall Description:
Outfall No. YW-1 Structure (pipe, ditch, etc.) Pipe
Receiving Stream: Drainage pond
Describe the industrial activities that occur within the outfall drainage area: Composting
2. Color: Describe the color of the discharge using basic colors (red, brown, blue, etc.) and tint
(light, medium, dark) as descriptors: Light brown
3. Odor: Describe any distinct odors that the discharge may have (i.e., smells strongly of oil,
weak chlorine odor, etc.): Strong rotten odors
4. Clarity: Choose the number which best describes the clarity of the discharge, where 1 is
clear and 5 is very cloudy:
1 2 3 4 5
5. Floating Solids: Choose the number which best describes the amount of Floating solids in
the stormwater discharge, where 1 is no solids and 5 is the surface covered with Floating solids:
1 2 3 4 5
6. Suspended Solids: Choose the number which best describes the amount of suspended
solids in the stormwater discharge, where 1 is no solids and 5 is extremely muddy:
! 2 3 4 5
7. Is there any foam in the stormwater discharge? YU No
8. is there an oil sheen in the stormwater discharge? Yes
9. Is there evidence of erosion or deposition at the outfall? Yes —
10. Other Obvious Indicators of Stormwater Pollution:
List and describe N/A
Note: Low clarity, high solids, and/or the presence of foam, oil sheen, or erosion/deposition
may be indicative of pollutant exposure. These conditions warrant further investigation.
Page 2 of 2
SWU-242, last modified 10/25/2012

0

Quarterly Stormwater Discharge Monitoring Report DEC 1 6 20%
for North Carolina Division of Water Quality General Permit No. NCG240000
Date submitted 12/15/2014 NC DENR Raleigh Reglonel Office
CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE No. NCG240000
FACILITY NAME :City Of Raleigh Yard Waste Center
COUNTY _Wake
PERSON COLLECTING SAMPLES: Israel Vega
LABORATORY: City of Raleigh EMJWTP Lab cent. If 426
Comments on sample collection or analysis:
Part A: Stormwater Benchmarks and Monitoring Results
SAMPLE COLLECTION YEAR 2014
SAMPLE QUARTER ❑ Jan -March ❑ April -June ❑ July -Sept ®Oct -Dec
or ❑ Monthly' (month)
DISCHARGING TO CLASS ❑ORW ❑HQW ❑Trout ❑PNA
❑Zero -flow [—]Water Supply ❑SA
❑Other
Total event rainfall 21 112 or ❑ No discharge this period3
Date Sample
Collected'
(mo/dd/yr)
Outfall No.
TSS
COD
Fecal
coliform
Total
nitrogen
Total
phosphorus
Total
copper
Total
lead
Total
zinc
pH
Parameter
benchmarks =__>
100 mg/L
120 mg/L
1000 col./100 mL
30 mg/L
2 mg/L
0.007 mg/L
0.03 mg/L
0,067 mg/L
6.9
21/18/2014
YW-1
280mg/L
24
58,000MPN/100m
L
37.20
23 ug/l
12 ug/I
539 ug/I
S.76
11/18/2014
YW-2
12mg/L
4054
610MPN/300mL
0.80
4 ug/I
<5.0 ug/I
27 ug/I
7.48
' Monthly sampling (instead of quarterly) must begin with the second consecutive benchmark exceedance for the same parameter at the same outfall.
'The total precipitation must be recorded using data from an on -site rain gauge. Unattended sites may be eligible for a waiver of the rain gauge requirement.
3 For sampling periods with no discharge, you must still submit this discharge monitoring report with a checkmark here.
°The TSS benchmark value is 100 mg/L; except when discharging to ORW, HQW, Trout, and PNA waters in which case the benchmark is 50 mg/L.
Permit Date:10/1/2011-9/30/2016 Last Revised 12/02/11
Page 1 of 2

b
��\
ƒ
I
�
§
� �

Part B: Vehicle Maintenance Area Monitoring Results: only for facilities averaging > 55 gal of new motor oil/month.
Date Sample
Collected'
(mo/dd/yr)
Outfall No.
pH
TPH using method
1664A SGT-HEM
TSS
Total
Rainfa112
Check
If No
Flow
This
Period'
Average New Motor Oil Usage
6-9
15 mg/L
100 mg/L
-
-
NOT
APPLICABLE
Footnotes from Part A also apply to this Part B
FOR PART A AND PART B MONITORING RESULTS:
• A BENCHMARK EXCEEDANCE TRIGGERS TIER 1 REQUIREMENTS. SEE PERMIT PART II SECTION B.
• 2 EXCEEDANCES IN A ROW FOR THE SAME PARAMETER AT THE SAME OUTFALL TRIGGER TIER 2 REQUIREMENTS. SEE PERMIT PART 11 SECTION B.
a TIER 3: HAS YOUR FACILITY HAD 4 OR MORE BENCHMARK EXCEEDENCES FOR THE SAME PARAMETER AT ANY ONE OUTFALL? YES ® NO ❑
IF YES, HAVE YOU CONTACTED THE DWQ REGIONAL OFFICE? YES ❑ NO
REGIONAL OFFICE CONTACT NAME:
f an oriainal and one copy of this DMR, including all "No Discharge" reports within 30 days of receipt of the lab results (or at end of monitoring Period
In the case of "No Discharge" reports) to:
Division of Water Quality
Attn: DWQ Central Files
1617 Mall Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
YOU MUST SIGN THIS CERTIFICATION FOR ANY INFORMATION REPORTED:
"I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to
assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or
those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I
am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations."
..15ZA A 0 E. Q A 12/15/2014
(Signature of Permittee) (Date)
Permit Date:10/1/2011-9/30/2016 Last Revised 12/02/11
Page 2 of 2

I

i
(9ity Of CRaleigh
.North eam ins
Report ti20141121019
Location: 900 New Hope Rd. Outfall 1
Sample Date: 11/18/2013
Collected by: Israel Vega
• . Parameter r �
-
- sit
5.76 units
- Method
SM4500 H+8-2000
H
pH
Temperature
6.5 ^C
Fecal Coliform
58 000 MPN 100mL
SM9222D-1997
Total Suspended Solids
280 ing L
SM2540D-1997
Location: 900 New Hope Rd. Outfall 2
Sample Date: 11/10/2013
Collected by: Israel Vega
_'-:- P.aiameter.. -= _
Results . -.
7.48 units
_ —Method _ •--
SM4500 H+B-2000
H
Temperature
6.4,eC
Fecal Coliform
610 MPN 300mL
SM9222D-1997
Total Suspended Solids
12 m L
SM2540D-1997
Symbols/Abbreviations
oC Degree Celsius
PPM Parts per Million
< Less Than
mg/I Milligrams per Liter
MPN/mL Most Probable Number per Milliliter
NCDEH Laboratory ID: 37604
NC DEM Laboratory ID: 426
EPA Laboratory ID:NCI-15
Report Prepared By: Marte((sa��Parham NC DENR ROWgh Reglonal Offico
Reviewed By: •�- al' &
Martesa Parham (919 996-3170)
Senior Chemist
222 WEST HARG91T smEirr. POsr oPme BOR 990, RALEIGH. NORTH cARm"HA 27602

� &&l+�iPy&m�z
\ � � [ � ..
�� � \ . \ f
�
'����\�����)

GREENVILLE, N.C. 27835-7085
756-0633
CITY OF RALEIGH (LANDFILL)
EDWARD WRIGHT, SUPERINTEND
CITY OF RALEIGH OPERATIONS
900 N. NEW HOPE RD.
RALEIGH ,NC 27610
IDi: 1016
DATE COLLECTED: 11/13/14
DATE REPORTED : 12/03/14
REVIEWED BY:..
Outran
Outfall
Analysis
Method
PARAMETERS
001
002
Date
Analyst
Code
COD, mg/l
24
4054
11/24/14
TRB
H8000-79
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N,mgfl
37.20
0.80
12/01/14
BJC
351.2 R2-93
Nitrate -Nitrite as N, mgA
0.47
0.20
11/26/14
BJC
353.2 112-93
Copper, ug/1
23
4
11/21/14
LFJ
EPA200.7
Lead, ug/1
12
<5.0
11/24/14
MTM
3113B-04
zinc, ug/1
539
27
11/21/14
LFJ
EPA200.7
<<< LABORATORY COPY >>>

Water( DW )
tier! WIN 1
C)
/
CHAIN OF CUSTODY ANALYSIS REQUEST FORM
CITY OF RALEIGH, EM JOHNSON WATER PLANT LABORATORY
/ 10301 Falls of Nauss Rd, Raleigh NC 27614, Phone [phone], Fax[phone]
V
Sampled By., C' q c -
Preeerve8ve Key
None
0
1:1 HCI
A
Nitric Add
1.
Sodium Thicsuliate
'�d
Phosphoric Add
e
Ammonium Chloride
5
Sutludc Add
8
Ascorbic Add
7
Malsic Acid
8
Other
e
•
Sepl
Saie
Seedledo
Cl2
FC12
,.
Turb
am�ose
t
Malyses Requested r
@ryeGye,
Lab 5z�rilPle
"4 , $Am'ple Locatl
pop
,�, .
{i
rt'I Used : ;`
.n.
1
010
l 1g�i� .pop
�.?�
�o•S
S
Cop PO
2
00- ��i
�
3
4
5
6
7
dr ,y.'tz+l .;..`�aSfd r]�lVy'M1'y+Y7i#., ,1 d.:a tab,: �81GNATURE�LI; ., i-...
- , - 6,:pRRINTrNAME ,r_ -;i:�i a i '1ti:'-'. t
.•10ATEi.?-., t:
lr '"rIME�:is.
ReuwusleDBY: SQd, e`�aA
SSQA u 4A
( $ I
00
RECEWED BY; ,-I
ar S 0' n
it
�S
REUINIDISHEDeY:
✓�
/
RECENEDBY;
�
'� �
�•
G Laboratory Information
Samples Checked Age Ina COC By:_�—�
Accepted: Yea �No
Samples Logged In By:
Comments:
Distributbn: While - Lab Copy 1: yellow
EMJ LAB FORM COC REVISE Y13114
Copy 2: Pink
1y
Resemple Requested: Yes No Temperature At Receipt fQ_°C
Login comments: '
m
by C4ent NC OPH LABL B 1 37404
A
`// !�•�w�//� �1/� v NC DEM U78 D# QB
/Y EPA LAB ID# 115

H� _ AND �� Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
iHJt`A1(/Jl'2`IIU� 4011 WestChase Blvd., Suite 500
Environmental Engineers & Scientists Raleigh, NC 27616
919-833-7152
Technical Memorandum
PREPARED FOR: Ken Pickle, NC DEMLR Stormwater Permitting Unit
Danny Smith, NC DEMLR Surface Water Supervisor
John Holley, NC DEMLR Land Quality Section Supervisor
CC:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Fred Battle, City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services
Ed Wright, City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services
Mark Senior, City of Raleigh Stormwater Utility
Todd Rall, City of Raleigh Stormwater Utility
DEC 16 2014
Hazen and Sawyer, PC
Mike Santowasso, Matthew Jones
November 26. 2013
Raleigh Yardwaste Center
Proposed Stormwater Pond Improvements
Permit Compliance Plan
H&S Project 30336-011
Assessment of Existing Conditions
NC pFNR R�fgh Regions ��,
On October 18, 2012, Hazen and Sawyer staff conducted a walkthrough of the City of Raleigh
Yardwaste Center, located off of N. New Hope Road. The purpose of the walkthrough was to
examine existing stormwater conveyance and treatment mechanisms and identify opportunities
to improve on -site stormwater control to support stormwater permitting under the new NPDES
General Permit NCG240000. A Notice of Intent (NOI) was submitted to NC DEMLR and a
Certificate of Coverage was issued for the facility in February of 2013. Under NCG240000,
sampling of stormwater leaving the site is required and threshold discharge standards have
been established. A plan to attain compliance with the discharge limits and a schedule for
implementation of the plan must be established in conjunction with NC DEMLR DWQ prior to
beginning improvements to the on -site stormwater controls.
An on -site visit with DWQ and City personnel on October 23, 2013 was used to view current site
conditions at the Yardwaste Center and discuss, and submit a narrative and design drawings for
preliminary review, the City's plans for moving forward in complying with the discharge
standards of NCG240000. The phased improvements proposed at the meeting are intended to
provide the City with the best opportunity to meet the discharge standards while maximizing
cost effectiveness and minimizing impacts to facility operations. DWQ provided advance
comments on the proposed improvements in a letter dated November 4, 2013 and these
comment and other design refinements have been incorporated into this final plan submittal.
Page 1 of 4

4I ,

Proposed Stormwater Improvements
Hazen and Sawyer has identified several potential mechanisms to improve stormwater
management at the site, and these items are discussed below. The following improvements are
presented in phases as a proposed schedule for compliance, for review and approval by NC
DEMLR staff. It should be noted that the existing stormwater testing program, which was in
place prior to the Certificate of Coverage for the General Permit being issued, must continue
throughout the period of permit coverage. Stormwater monitoring data will assist in the
evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed improvements, and in determining what, if any,
further improvements may need to be implemented.
Phase 1 Improvements
Hazen and Sawyer recommends the Phase 1 improvements be implemented immediately
upon NC DEMLR approval of the compliance schedule and all necessary permitting for the site.
David Scarborough of the City of Raleigh Department of Solid Waste Services has stated there
is currently money in the budget for the proposed Phase 1 improvements.
Schedule:
Once approval for the first phase of improvements is obtained from NC DEMLR DWQ,
the project can be ready for bid in approximately 2 weeks. The bid period would likely be
3 weeks, with award of the contract and Notice to Proceed approximately 3 weeks later,
with one week to mobilize. Construction is anticipated to take approximately 3 weeks.
Assuming NC DEMLR approval on December 16, 2013, construction could therefore
begin on or about February 17, 2014 and be completed by March 7, 2014.
Components of Improvements:
Restore Original Grades to Detention Basin — The basin will be dewatered and
accumulated sediment and debris will be removed. All sediment removed shall be
disposed of and stabilized in a location such that further sediment transport does not
occur. The basin will be restored to original design grades, and identified berm
deficiencies or problems will be addressed. Exterior and interior berm slopes, above the
normal pool elevation, will be re -seeded as necessary to insure adequate stabilization.
Clear and Repair Detention Basin Riser - Debris from the wet detention basin riser
will be removed, and the riser inspected to determine if any repairs are necessary to the
riser structure, trash rack, etc. the outlet is functioning as designed. Once cleared, and
repaired, if required, the drawdown orifice will be modified with an inverted elbow and
screen to prevent clogging. The riser shall be inspected on a regular basis to assure the
outlet is clear and the low flow discharge pipe is functioning.
Improve the Existing Pond Forebay — The pond forebay is critical in the removal of
sediment and other pollutants from runoff leaving the facility. The forebay shall be
enlarged and improved, including armoring the inlet channel with Class B Erosion
Page 2 of 4

Control Stone. The berm separating the forebay from the body of the pond shall be re-
constructed, and also lined with Class B stone.
Upstream Channel Improvements - Basic improvements to the swale immediately
upstream of the forebay shall address bank stabilization and channel dimensions. Stone
check dams shall be installed in the channel to slow incoming flow and provide
additional impoundment area for sediment deposition and nutrient removal.
Phase 2 Improvements
If water quality data collected following repairs to the basin, forebay, and immediate
upstream channel indicates additional water quality improvements are necessary, a number of
additional measures can be considered in a second phase of improvements. The Department of
Solid Waste Services has noted money will be budgeted for the proposed Phase 2
improvements if the need arises.
Schedule:
The City would request the impacts of the Phase 1 improvements be analyzed over a full
cycle of stormwater sampling (4 quarterly samples over the period of one year) before a
decision is made on whether or not there is a need for a second phase of improvements.
Stonnwater sampling would begin upon completion of construction in the first quarter of
2014 and continue until the final quarter of the year. If the results of the quarterly testing
shows one or more of the stormwater benchmark parameters to be significantly exceeded, it
is anticipated Phase 2 improvements could then be designed, permitted, and installed
during the first or second quarter of 2015.
Components of Improvements:
Evaluate Swale Improvements Upstream of the Forebay — Improvements could include
additional check dams, improved vegetation, channel or bank stabilization, or channel re-
alignment. Existing culverts should be inspected routinely and new culverts with stabilized
outfalls installed in areas where equipment crosses the swales on a routine basis.
Provide Localized Detention — Additional localized detention adjacent to the compost and
possibly leaf storage areas may be considered to reduce sediment and nutrient loading.
The nature of the detention would need to be determined based upon the location of the
areas served, the discharge data, and operational modifications available.
Operational Improvements — Modifications to the facility operations can improve water
quality. The need for such modifications should be established after review of stormwater
discharge quality data once structural repairs outlined above are in place. It is anticipated
that the compost areas and the leaf storage areas have greater potential impact on water
quality than yardwaste storage and processing areas and operational modifications should
be focused on these areas. Potential modifications and improvements include:
Page 3 of 4

• Relocating the compost area closest to the detention pond,
• Increase setbacks between from compost and leaf storage areas and swales and
the pond by establishing vegetative filter strips in setback areas,
• Expanding the pavement beneath compost areas to allow for more efficient
composting,
• Delay further development of leaf storage or any compost areas on the east side
of the facility that do not drain to the existing detention pond,
• Establish vegetation in all inactive areas east of the stream, and consider
restoring the sedimentation basins on that side of the creek if turbid runoff is
observed,
• Align compost windrows to prevent trapping of stormwater runoff. Grade area
adjacent to leaf storage areas and finished compost piles to prevent ponding of
runoff beneath or adjacent to the piles.
Conclusions
While there is inherent uncertainty in the nature of activities at the site and associated
water quality impacts, it is our opinion that implementation of the Phase 1 improvements
outlined above can improve water quality and support compliance with the discharge criteria
established in NCG240000. NC DEMLR DWQ has indicated they would provide some
compliance flexibility to the City as the Yardwaste Center is an "existing" facility, so there is an
opportunity to make improvements and evaluate their impact. At a minimum, the Phase 1
improvements discussed above will be required, in our opinion, to consistently meet discharge
limits.
As noted above, we believe Phase 1 Improvements could be approved and constructed
by the first quarter of 2014. We then hope to monitor the stormwater runoff for an additional four
quarters before analyzing the resultant data and determining the need for additional Phase 2
improvements.
Such additional improvements as outlined in Phase 2, may be required based upon the
results of the long-term discharge sampling data. Modifications to the facility operations,
including consolidating active compost areas, may also be utilized to accomplish the required
stormwater discharge improvements, especially when combined with site speck improvements
to the stormwater conveyance system.
The City of Raleigh, with technical support from Hazen and Sawyer, trust the provided
phased implementation, schedule, and design drawings are sufficient for NC DEMLR DWQ staff
to approve the City's approach for reaching compliance with the requirements of NCG240000 at
the Yardwaste Center. Should you have any questions or need additional information regarding
the proposed plan, please feel free to contact us.
Page 4 of 4

WILDERS GROVE SOLID WASTE SERVICES
EMPLOYEE SAFETY MEETING
FACILITATOR: Tim Heath DATE: 0128/2014
SUBJECT: Spill Response Training — 7 Steps to Spill Cleanup
Name:
Supervisor: Ed Wright —
Yard Waste Center
Prin Name:
Sin Nam :
T
r
2rJ
1 s�JN
DEC 9 S 2014
NC DENR Ralel94 Regional D��

iPSnw
fi fti r,L.

Regional Office Interoffice Mail Routing Cover Sheet DEC162014
Date:
To: ❑ ARO- WQROS
❑ Landon Davidson ❑ Chuck Cranford
❑ FRO- WQROS
❑ Belinda Henson ❑ Other
❑ MRO- WQROS
❑. Michael Parker
RRO- WQROS
❑ Danny Smith
❑ WaRO- WQROS
❑ David May
❑ WiRO- WQROS
❑ Jim Gregson
❑ WSRO- WQIZOS
❑ Corey Basinger
❑ Andrew Pitner
Rick Bolich
NC DfNR 9h Regio.Office
w
❑ Other
❑ Other
❑ Other C /? /G /</Ce2
❑ Robert Tankard ❑ Other
❑ Morella Sanchez -King ❑ Other
❑ Sherri Knight ❑ Other
From:,/mot. 1106-0 S , WQROS - C.O.
For your Review/Information ile
Please respond with comments ❑ at your convenience ❑ within business days
Comments:
WQROS Regional Office Interoffice Mail Routing Cover Ver. 07/2014

1
T1

TVISolutions-IES
37 1101 Nowell Road ■ Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone] 0 Fax [phone]
Industrial & Environmental Services www.solutions-ies.cont
DEC 1
November 24, 2014
•.r
Mr. Michael Rogers NC DENR Raleigh Regional CAM -mail: [e-mail]
NCDENR Water Quality Regional Operations Section Division of Water Resources
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1636 RECEIVEDIDENR/M
Re: UIC Permit W10500657 4'" Quarterly Data Report DEC 0 8 2014
Former Eaton Selma Facility (REC Program ID NONCD 0002853)
1100 East Preston Street Water Quality Regional
Selma, North Carolina, 27576 Operations Section
Dear Mr. Rogers:
Solutions-IES, Inc. (SIES), on behalf of Eaton Corporation (Eaton), is providing this quarterly data report
in accordance with Part VII 3 of UIC Permit W10500657. SIES completed Phase I injection activities
between October 21, 2013, and October 31, 2013, with the injection of a colloidal buffer (CoBupFl-Mg)
followed by an emulsified vegetable oil (EOS XR) into 60 injection wells. The Phase 2 injection, which
included the remaining 60 injection wells, was completed between January 20, 2014, and February 14.
2014. Bioaugmentation using BAC-9 was completed in May 2014. The data presented in this quarterly
report represent conditions approximately 12 months post -injection of Phase I and 9 months post -
injection of Phase 2.
The location of monitoring wells and injection wells at the site are depicted in Figures I and 2. Survey
coordinates for existing site monitoring wells and injection wells are provided in Attachment I. Data
tables for monitoring wells are provided in Attachment 2 and include groundwater elevations ('fable 1),
Field parameters (Table 2), natural attenuation parameters (Table 3), analytical laboratory data for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) (Table 4), molecular biological tools (MB'I's) and volatile fatty acid (VI -'A)
data (Table 5), and chlorine number calculation (Table 6). In addition to the performance monitoring
wells prescribed in the RAP, SIES sampled four injection wells during this event. The data are
summarized in Tables 7 through 10 in Attachment 2. Data collected included field parameters, select
natural attenuation parameters, VOC data, and a calculation of the chlorine number. In addition, pl-I and
oxidation-reduction potential were measured in 40 injection wells. These data are summarized in Tables
I I and 12 of Attachment 2.
One more quarterly sampling event in the Phase 2 injection area is planned for January or February 2015.
Therefore, the next quarterly update will be submitted in February 2015.
We will also send a color hard copy of this report to your attention. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please feel free to contact meat [phone] [e-mail].
Yours truly,
Solutions-IES
Jody Overmyer, P.E., PMI'
Project Manager
M. Tony Lieberman, RSM, PMP
Senior Consultant

3oniC tsnni�s�i ripis!t�fl yfc�3C( �;,

UIC Permit W10500657 SIES Project No. 2013.0014.EA'I'N
Former Eaton Selma Facility (REC Program ID NONCD 0002853) November 24, 2014
Figures
Attachment I Monitoring Well and Injection Well Survey Information
Attachment 2 Data'Fables
Electronic cc: Ms. Karen Souza, Allegheny Environmental Services, Inc., ksouza_aesi a verizon.net
Mr. Eric Rice, NCDENR, [e-mail]

`1]2� ���t7T�••{� C w- _ ` LEGEND
SHALLOW MONITORING WELL
172 \tI 17�
WOODED .
FORMERLY J Y
v � ) iS© DEEP MONITORING WELL i
172. S+q o
u8 PZ_ B / ..P a� '•1A - i TREE
o - ` MW.6 OgFP,)C u`S it c
II Ci0 MONITORING WELL IEMES)
ry ca D
f MW-7 `� w h - PIEZOMETER
M\ fi 1I
Il - �i PROPERTY BOUNDARY
-NW _ _ MWE A ♦ NDEVELOPED— �r
CULVERT
�. //,,�� MMMMMMpppppppppppp::::::14f �.. / DRAINAGE FEATURE.
MWT '1ayfu a �. �✓t 172
.� .✓ � �' N'ATER LINE
p^ —. — ELECTRICAL LINE
tT et >. 'DP-2
\ y :I —f• — SOWER LINE
O \t wOQOED� / FORMER — as — ss
k'\\ fj f 1I EATON ry OP3� —,..— STORNVATER LINE
2 r I FACILITY - 1 "
SS ft4EiI I 1 \ 9 — r— TELEPHON_LItE
l U{ GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION
3R y �: MWa18I y ITz (FT MSLI
�p GROUND SURFACE CONTOUR
DEVED ELOPm
MW-11A -
�'
' j•� pp �1�y1yF�F _ -T� - i
�ll
�D 91L�'�3,-.LlCR7�.9...�170
HNSTON
8 —_ _ 21 — .=.�] —�JO70
COUNTY
FARM \� SHRINER'S
vd FIELD-� 7< CLUB 0
f
eS I I` SCALE IN FEET
NOTES'. rlcwa
Solutions-IES 11 BASEIMP OBTAINED FROM J WY BARBOUR SURVEYING. PA, APRIL 309. FORM ER EA TON FACILITY
0) WELL LOCATIONS ARE BASE D ON SURVEY DATA PROVIDED BY NCI SITE MAP
Indusvial k Envimnmcnnl S[rvicn ASSOCIATES OF N C. JUNE N08. JULY 101Y, & OCTOBER 2013 11 DO EAST PRESTON STREET 1
o 1LLn. 3) GROUND SURFACE CONTOUR LINES FROM JOHNSTON CWNN GIS, 3011. SELMA, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC.
El[N. NNTIGPMY PPo1
F1-161Y1en IPd [M:lar%en.lOr[
J \Project Files'Eaton Cowraton\Eaton Solma\CAD\CUU.m Drawings\RomodAl ACIDn\COnatNCtlDn COmpi.WII R.,rt NO. tde

CARDSOARDANDPARTS
{yam STORAGE AREA
T MW t
w In
Q�
SCALE IN FEET
,L
-{j!-
SHALLOW MONITORINGWELL
DEEP MONITORING WELL
O
® PHASE I INJECTION WELL
® PHASE 2 INJECTION WELL
%S_olutions-IES.
Indunrial & Envim..mJI Sen'ices
ualr U-Rwo
clre slmximo ru:nm.enrm.
y MWb
�W1
*NY -2 IWd 0RY-0
MI6
01W 01W_f+1W4s 01W.9
01W-10 PZ2A_ PZn L
sJ2A77 IW l M'A- IW-I<�NJ-15 01W-1fi�IW-11
r WOCYI FORME a"i tt--.ss. R—ter n
STORAGE ppp� IW-b
BUILDING IW2fi0 0 ®0�-�01W ]001W-310 32
t M1\Y4t _ RY43 0/
r �Mw-ti
r�l
z
FORMER
z EATON
FACILITY
i
LEGEND
PIEZOMETER / DRAINAGE FEATURE
TREE — WATERLINE
AGt�A
CULVERT —r — ELECTRICALLINE —s°— STORMWATER
� .._v• V —V bv�IW 39ry
9 ^
v
MW-t T
C
01W-0901Ww
011v-51
NMI
pr
'
IT La:Z *IW.52
I�p
I
I
d ,5 01w-53
IU5
W I
a 01W.54
F
�. O�tilw-550 01w-
i
z
e I
'= 52 IW.A
—n.I� 50
�.j
O IW mlor+Iwfi
F-
I
LINE
I
I
O 1 MW-t9 I
w
PROPERTY BOUNDARY —si — SEWERLINE i— TELEPHONE LINE
I
FORMER EATON FACILITY
1100 EAST PRESTON STREET
SELMA, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
i
�UNDEVELOPED-
cicLwe:
INJECTION WELL LAYOUT 1 2
.1 PmJBct roslFaton CaLmralminEamn SGzna\CADIGalent Draw ,%RRTP,0. Ad on,GW RA,W,21 Ac110n EVaW91Inn n

ATTACHMENT I
MONITORING WELL AND INJECTION WELL SURVEY INFORMATION

KCI
Landmark Center 11
Suite 220
Six Forks Road
Raleigh,
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
[phone] Fax
MONITORING WELL
SHEET
Project:
SOLUTIONS - SELMA
Project No:
Well
Northing
Easting
Top Casing
Top PVC
Ground Elev
MW-1
647242.56
2212775.07
172.63
172.00
172.63
MW-2
647297.30
2213052.97
171.45
171.21
171.37
MW-3
646993.23
2213412.61
171.45
171.13
171.29
MW-4
647271.95
2213398.26
171.87
171.56
171.73
MW-5
646707.96
2213204.42
171.19
170.42
171.05
MW-6
647425.50
2213079.73
174.07
173.88
171.06
MW-7
647358.89
2213228.79
174.78
174.63
171.57
MW-8
1 647285.12
2213276.33
171.39
171.08
171.28
MW-9
647146.83
2213319.88
173.00
172.66
173.01
MW-11
646868.13
2213422.88
170.63
170.25
170.54
MW-13
647514.66
2213133.77
173.98
173.94
171.49
MW-14
647232.43
2213330.43
171.75
171.45
171.71
MW-15
647283.81
2212908.86
171.64
171.49
171.69
MW-16
647345.96
2213007.05
175.12
174.78
171.71
MW-17
647213.97
2213032.89
172.54
172.19
172.41
MW-18
647291.13
2213414.58
172.16
171.43
172.01
MWA
6469:4.96
2213388.08
171.37
171.19
171.39
MW-20
647237.41
2213207.95
172.70
1
172.10
172.32

Landmark Center 11
Suite 220
Six NC 2 609
Raleigh, NC 27609
Raleigh,
KCI(919)783-9214
(919( 783-9266 Fax
INJECTION & MONITORING WELL SHEET
Project:
SOLUTIONS -SELMA
Date: 10/11/13
Project No:
35134131A
Crew: MK
Well
Northing
Easting
top Elev
Top PVC - A
Top PVC - B
Ground Elev
IW-1
647379.91
2213014.03
175.06
174.67
174.63
171.68
IW-2
647362.03
2212991.51
175.48
174.95
175.08
172.06
IW-3
647359.80
2213021.64
175.38
174.96
174.99
171.69
IW-4
647360.11
2213051.35
174.79
174.41
174.36
171.57
IW-5
647342.79
2213039.63
175.20
174.78
174.82
171.91
IW-6
647332.21
2212990.34
175.05
174.63
174.67
171.74
IW-7
647331.18
2213021.01
176.05
174.67
174.63
171.82
IW-8
647330.30
2213050.94
175.59
175.04
175.12
172.15
IW.9
647328.97
2213078.50
171.86
171.34
171.56
171.71
IW-10
647312.87
2212977.83
175.20
174.82
174.76
171.93
IW-11
647301.26
2212989.85
171.23
170.87
170.79
171.32
IW-12
647301.75
2213017.10
171.30
170.76
170.83
171.33
IW-13
647301.96
2213050.92
171.47
171.06
171.16
171.37
IW-14
647299.64
2213079.73
171.54
170.76
171.14
171.42
IW-15
647299.08
2213110.10
171.75
171.49
171.51
171.77
IW-16
647300.64
2213143.69
171.95
171.37
171.53
171.93
IW-17
647297.92
2213170.15
171.94
171.60
171.66
171.90
IW-18
647297.27
2213200.72
171.66
171.04
171.20
171.54
IW-19
647299.73
2213231.04
171.49
171.03
171.12
171.39
IW-20
647296.15
2213260.01
171.22
170.47
170.73
171.07
IW-21
647296.28
2213290.50
171.31
170.64
170.99
171.20
IW-22
647294.37
2213319.64
171.41
170.77
170.92
171.25
IW-23
647293.10
2213351.37
171.57
170.75
170.85
171.36
IW-24
647292.28
2213380.15
171.95
171.08
171.20
171.94
IW-25
647280.24
2213097.93
172.04
171.42
171.66
172.01
IW-26
647266.40
2212986.21
171.57
171.07
171.34
171.57
IW-27
647270.41
2213016.64
171.29
171.00
171.07
171.30
IW-28
647269.86
2213046.31
171.66
171.14
171.16
171.66
IW-29
647269.67
2213078.09
172.11
171.79
171.90
172.13
IW-30
647268.77
2213109.58
172.56
171.92
172.29
172.55
IW-31
647268.22
2213139.49
172.84
172.29
172.59
172.84
IW-32
647267.13
2213169.71
172.69
172.21
172.33
172.69
IW-33
647270.49
2213198.43
172.07
171.60
171.77
171.88
IW-34
647267.48
2213229.64
171.86
171.36
171.55
171.78
IW-35
647266.74
2213260.74
171.86
171.19
171.42
171.76
IW-36
647265.70
2213289.53
171.72
171.36
171.47
171.65
IW-37
647265.00
2213319.98
171.77
171.16
171.26
171.73
IW-38
647264.08
2213349.57
171.86
171.36
171.55
171.81
IW-39
647263.80
2213377.14
172.00
171.25
171.66
171.96
IW-40
647265.99
2213405.75
172.09
171.62
171.60
172.04
IW-41
647242.05
2212989.D4
171.53
171.11
171.29
171.40
IW-42
647240.39
2213018.36
171.16
170.94
170.57
171.11
IW-43
647245.15
2213051.23
171.93
171.13
171.54
171.80
IW-44
647252.53
2213090.28
172.51
171.98
172.11
172.51
IW-45
647242.42
2213363.17
172.00
171.51
171.27
171.84
IW-46
647241.45
2213393.02
171.95
171.15
171.45
171.86
IW-47
647231.35
2213383.51
171.53
170.99
171.23
171.45
IW-48
647230.62
2213408.09
171.52
171.02
171.06
171.37
IW-49
647197.53
2213377.86
171.53
170.74
170.89
171.35
IW-50
647201.57
2213408.14
171.48
171.16
171.28
171.42
IW-51
647172.44
2213408.57
171.28
170.70
170.79
171.21
IW-52
647143.09
2213406.80
171.27
170.66
170.61
171.30
IW-53
647112.06
2213405.12
171.50
170.86
170.87
171.36
IW-54
647082.64
2213404.84
171.37
171.02
171.10
171.35
IW.55
647051.60
2213404.79
171.41
170.76
170.80
171.34
IW-56
647050.73
2213424.69
171.28
170.69
170.87
171.18
IW-57
647027.95
MUM 1:
111.58
171.34
171.%
171.50
IW-58
647020.04
2213424.49
171.15
170.83
170.70
171.13
IW-69
646991.40
2213403.73
171.55
170.96
170.89
171.52
IW-60
646992.62
2213426.38
171.33
170.54
170.76
171.30
HORIZONTAL BASED ON NAD'83 AND VERTICAL BASED NAVD'88

TABLE
SUMMARV OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 EAST PRESTON STREET, SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Monitoring
Well or
Piezometer ID
Ground
Ground
Surface
Elevation
ft msl
Tap of Casing
(ft ms1)
Interval
ft b s
g
Date
Depth -to-
Water
( ft bloc
Groundwnter
Elevation
( ft msl
Depth -to -
Water
ft b s
( S
Shallow Mon iforing Wells
M W-1
172.63
172.00
15 - 20
6/18/2009
6.61
165.39
7.24
7/16/2008
6.60
165.40
7.23
4/8/2009
1.68
170.32
2.31
4/22/2009
1.38
170.62
2.01
7/28/2010
8.53
163.47
9.16
6/27/2011
8.58
163.42
9.21
4/27/2012
5.65
166.35
6.28
10/30/2012
10.18
161.82
10.81
1/31/2013
7.73
164.27
8.36
10/1/2013
7.32
164.68
7.95
1/15/2014
1.58
170.42
2.21
4/28/2014
1.89
170.11
2.52
7/29/2014
7.80
164.20
8.43
11/3/2014
5.63
166.37
6.26
M W-2
171.37
171.21
25 - 30
6/18/2008
5.68
165.53
5.84
7/16/2008
5.65
165.56
5.81
4/8/2009
0.98
170.23
1.14
4/22/2009
1.67
169.54
1.83
7/28/2010
7.45
163.76
7.61
6/27/2011
7.59
163.62
7.75
4/27/2012
4.60
1 166.61
4.76
10/30/2012
9.21
162.00
9.37
1/31/2013
6.59
164.62
6.75
10/1/2013
6.33
164.88
6.49
1/15/2014
0.90
170.31
1.06
4/28/2014
1.17
170.04
1.33
7/29/2014
6.80
164.41
6.96
11/3/2014
1 4.65
166.56
4.81
M W-3
171.29
171.13
15 - 20
6/18/2008
5.14
165.99
5.30
7/16/2008
4.91
166.22
5.07
4/8/2009
I.Q 1
170.12
1.17 ,
4/22/2009
1.58
169.55
1.74
7/28/2010
7.15
163.98
7.31
6/27/2011
7.43
163.70
7.59
4/27/2012
4.43
166.70
4.59
10/30/2012
9.20
161.93
9.36
1/31/2013
6.17
164.96
6.33
10/l/2013
6.11
165.02
6.27
1/15/2014
1.05
170.08
1.21
4/28/2014
1.49
169.64
1.65
7/29/2014
6.71
164.42
6.87
I I/3/2014
4.50
I66.63
4.G6
['age 1 of 5

TABLE I
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 EAST PRESTON STREET, SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Monitoring
Well or
Piezometer ID
Ground
Surface
Elevation
ft msl
Top of Casing
(ft msl)
Screened
Interval
(ft bgs)
Date
Depth -to-
Water
(ft btoc)
Groundwater
Elevation
(ft ms1)
Depth -to -
Water
(ft bgs)
M W-4
-
171.73
171.56
15 - 20
6/18/2008
5.84
165.72
6.01-
7/16/2008
5.88
165.68
6.05
4/8/2009
1.31
170.25
1.48
4/22/2009
2.02
169.54
2.19
7/28/2010
7.66
163.90
7.83
6/27/2011
7.82
163.74
7.99
4/27/2012
4.79
166.79
4.95
10/30/2012
9.48
162.08
9.65
1/31/2013
6.62
164.94
6.79
10/l/2013
6.51
165.05
6.69
1 / 15/2014
1 1.30
170.26
1.47
42014
1.69
169.87
1.86
7/29/28//2014
7.06
164.50
7.23
11/3/2014
4.54
167.02
4.71
MW-5
171.05
170.42
15 - 20
6/18/2008
4.47
165.95
5.10
7/16/2008
4.02
166.40
4.65
4/8/2009
0.4
170.02
1.03
4/22/2009
1.06
169.36
1.69
7/28/2010
6.57
163.95
7.20
6/27/2011
6.93
163.49
7.56
4/27/2012
4.52
165.90
5.15
10/30/2012
8.75
161.67
9.39
1/31/2013
4.86
165.56
5.49
10/1/2013
5.59
164.83
6.22
1/15/2014
Above TOC
--
--
4/28/2014
0.7
169.72
1.33
7/29/2014
6.19
164.23
6.82
11/3/2014
3.11
167.31
3.74
MW-6
171.06
173.88
20-30
7/28/2010
10.13
163.75
7.31
6/27/2011
10.26
163.62
7.44
4/27/2012
7.34
166.54
4.52
10/30/2012
11.85
162.03
9.03
1/31/2013
9.25
164.63
6.43
1/15/2014
3.62
170.26
0.80
MW-7
171.57
174.69
20-30
7/28/2010
10.78
163.90
7.67
6/27/2011
10.94
163.74
7.83
4/27/2012
8.00
166.68
4.89
10/30/2012
12.53
162.15
9.42
1/31/2013
9.86
164.82
6.75
1/15/2014
4.37
17Q31
1.26
4/28/2014
4.66
170.112
1.55
7/29/2014
10.13
164.55
7.02
11/3/2014
8.01
166.67
1 4.90
Page 2 of 5

TABLE I
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 EAST PRESTON STREET, SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Monitoring
Well or
Pierometer ID
Ground
Surface
Elevation
ft msl
Top of Casing
(ft msl)
Screened
Interval
s ft b
( �)
Date
Depth -to-
Water
ft bloc
( )
Groundwater
Elevation
(ft msl)
Depth -to -
Water
(ft bgs)
MW-8
_
171.28
171.08
20-30
7/28/2010
T23
163.85
7.43
6/27/2011
7.36
163.72
7.56
4/27/2012
4.34
166.74
4.54
10/30/2012
8.99
162.09
9.19
1/31/2013
6.27
164.81
6.47
1/15/2014
0.82
170.26
1.02
4/28/2014
1.14
169.94
1.34
7/29/2014
6.53
164.55
6.73
II/3/2014
4.44
166.64
4.64
MW-9
173.01
172.66
28-38
7/28/2010
9.05
163.61
9.40
6/27/2011
9.03
163.63
9.38
10/30/2012
10.72
161.94
11.07
1/31/2013
8.88
163.78
923
10/1/2013
7.03
165.63
7.38
1/15/2014
2.55
170.11
2.90
4/28/2014
2.84
169.82
3.19
7Y29/2014
8.27
164.39
8.62
11/3/2014
6.07
166.59
6.42
11VIW-11
170.54
170.25
25-35
7/28/2010
6.35
163.90
6.64
6/27/2011
6.62
163.63
6.91
4/27/2012
3.70
166.55
3.99
10/30/2012
8.45
161.80
8.74
1/31/2013
5.49
164.76
5.78
10/1/2013
5.37
164.88
5.66
1/15/2014
1 0.26
169.99
0.55
4/29/2014
0.70
169.55
0.99
7/29/2014
1 5.92
164.33
6.21
11/3/2014
370
166.55
3.99
MW-13
171.49
173.94
21-31
6/27/2011
10.32
163.62
7.87
4/27/2012
7.40
16654
495
1/31/2013
9.26
164.68
6.81
10/l/2013
9.06
164.88
6.61
I/15/2014
3.75
170.19
1.30
4/28/2014
4.04
169.90
1.59
7/29/2014
9.53
164.41
7.08
11/3/2014
7.40
16654
4.95
MN'-16
171.71
174.78
15-25
10/1/2013
9.90
164.88
6.83
1/15/2014
4.47
170.31
1.40
4/28/2014
4.75
170.03
1.68
7/29/2014
10.41
164.37
7.34
11/3/2014
8.23
166.55
5.16
MW-17
172.41
172.19
15-25
10/1/2013
7.37
164.82
7.59
1/15/2014
1.94
170.25
2.16
4/2R/2014
2.24
169.95
2.46
7/29/2014
7.88
164.31
8.10
11/3/2014
5.72
166.47
5.94
Page 3 of 5

TABLE I
SUIUMARV OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 EAST PRESTON STREET, SELIDIA, NORTH CAROLINA
ring
Monitoring
Well l or
Piezometer ID
Ground
Surface
Elevation
ft msl
Top of Casing
(ft msl)
Screened
Interval
(D bgs)
Date
Depth -to-
Water
(ft btoc)
Groundwater
Elevation
(ft msl)
Depth -to -
Water
(ft bgs)
MW-18
172.01
171.43
15-25
10/1/2013
6.36
165.07
6.94
1/15/2014
1.12
170.31
1.70
4/28/2014
1.52
169.91
2.10
7Y29/20I4
6.88
164.55
7.46
I I/3/2014
4.73
166.70
5.31
MW-19
171.39
171.19
15-25
10/1/2013
6.22
164.97
6.42
1/15/2014
1.10
170.09
1.30
4/28/2014
1.55
169.64
1.75
7/29/2014
6.76
164.43
6.96
II/3/2014
4.59
166.60
4.79
MW-20
172.32
172.10
15-25
10/1/2013
7.12
164.98
7.34
1/15/2014
1.86
170.24
2.08
4/28/2014
2.15
169.95
2.37
7/29/2014
7.66
164.44
7.88
II/3/2014
1 5.51
166.59
5.73
Deep Monitoring Wells
MW-14
171.71
171.45
47-57
6/27/2011
7.53
163.92
7.79
4/27/2012
4.56
166.89
4.82
10/30/2012
9.22
162.23
9.48
1/31/2013
6.39
165.06
6.65
10/I/2013
5.80
165.65
6.06
1/15/2014
3.81
167.64
4.07
4/28/2014
0.75
170.70
1.01
7/29/2014
4.73
166.72
4.99
11/720214
4.46
166.99
4.72
MW-15
171.69
171.49
46-56
6/27/2011
8.00
163.49
8.20
4/27/2012
5.19
166.30
5.39
10/30/2012
9.47
162.02
9.67
1/31/2013
7.16
164.33
7.36
10/1/2013
6.77
164.72
6.97
1/15/2014
2.12
169.37
2.32
4/29/2014
1.70
169.79
1.90
7/29/2014
7.15
164.34
7.35
11/3/2014
5.09
166.40
5.29
Piezometers
DP -I
167.61
171.01
4-5
7/29/2010
DRY
<162.61
--
6/27/2011
DRY
<162.61
--
4/27/2012
2.95
168.06
-0.45
10/30/2012
2.95
168.06
-0.45
4.53
166.48
1.13
--TO
1O/1/2 113
2.96
168.05
-0.44
1/15/2014
2.46
168.55
-0.94
4/28/2014
1.47
169.54
-1.93
7/27/2014
1.79
IG9.22
-1.61
II/3/2014
0.80
170.21
1 -2.60
Page 4 of 5

TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 EAST PRESTON STREET, SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Monitoring
Well or
Piezometer ID
Ground
Surface
Elevation
ft msl
Tap of Casing
(ft msl)
Screened
Interval
(s ft Ings)
Date
Depth -to-
Water
( ft btoc)
Groundwater
Elevation
ft msl
(�
Depth -to -
Water
(ft bg' )
DP-2
167.34
170.59
4-5
7/28/2010
DRY
<162.34
--
6/27/2011
DRY
<162.34
--
4/27/2012
2.93
167.66
-0.32
10/30/2012
2.82
167.77
-0.43
1/31/2013
2.93
167.66
-0.32
10/1/2013
2.49
169.10
-0.76
1/15/2014
2.49
168.10
-0.76
4/29/2014
2.35
168.24
-0.90
7/29/2014
2.05
168.54
-1.20
11/3/2014
1.92
168.67
-1.33
DP-3
167.21
170.51
4-5
7/29/2010
DRY
<162.21
--
6/27/2011
DRY
<162.21
--
4/27/2012
2.50
169.01
-0.80
10/30/2012
2.94
167.57
-0.36
1/31/2013
3.56
166.95
0.26
10/1/2013
0.50
170.01
-2.80
1/15/2014
0.95
169.56
-2.35
4/29/2014
0.35
170.16
-2.95
7/29/2014
6.98
163.53
3.68
II/3/2014
0.50
170.01
-2.80
PZ-2A�
NS
172.84
13.5-14.5
4/22/2009
2.69
170.15
--
6/27/2011
9.14
163.70
--
10/30/2012
10.62
162.22
-
1/31/2013
8.07
164.77
--
10/1/2013
6.08
166.76
-
1/15/2014
1.59
171.25
--
4/28/2014
1.13
171.71
--
7/29/2014
6.19
166.65
--
II/3/2014
5.65
167.19
--
P%-213'
NS
172.81
5.5-65
4/22/2009
4.75
168.06
--
6/27/2011
DRY
DRY
--
10/1/2013
2.55
170.26
-
1/15/2014
0.60
172.21
--
4/28/2014
0.48
172.33
--
7/29/2014
1.99
170.83
--
11/3/2014
0.10
172.71
--
pZ-3�
NS
170.01
7.5-85
4/22/2009
0.64
169.37
--
6/27/2011
1.0
169.01
--
10/1/2013
4.40
165.61
--
1/15/2014
AboveTOC
> 70.01
--
4/28/2014
0.05
169.96
--
7/29/2014
2.82
167.19
--
11/3/2014
0.80
169.21
1--
Notes:
II msl - feet mean sea level (NAVD 1988) --= Not calculated
11 bgs - feet below ground surface NS = Not surveyed
0 btoc - feet below top of casing
I. Piezometer elevations were measured from nearby monitoring wells and are approximate.
Page 5 of 5

TABLE
SUMMARY' OF FIELD PARAMETERS IN PERMANENT MONITORING WELLS
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 FAST PRESTON STREET, SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Monitoring
Well ID
Date
Sampled
Days Post
Injection
pH
(SU)
Specific
Conductance
(AS/cm)
Temperature
(OC)
Turbidity
(NTU)
Oxidation -
Reduction
Potential
m V
DO
(mg/L)
Phase I Injection Shallow Monitoring Wells
6/19/2008
--
5.6
177
23.4
32
46
NM
4/7/2012
--
6.4
139
16.5
31
NM
NM
7/28/2010
--
6.0
94
29.2
7
61
0.3
10/2/2013
--
5.4
76
20.0
33
42
0.2
M W -2
10/31 /2013
INJECTION
1/16/2014
77
5.3
886
11.5
33
-479
0.2
4/28/2014
179
5.7
1,276
18.5
12
-42
0.2
7/29/2014
271
5.7
1238
23.7
358
-106
0.0
11/4/2014
369
6.1
1.129
18.9
357
-88
0.2
10/2/2013
--
4.5
1,262
17.7
8
117
0.2
10/31 /2013
INJECTION
MW-16
1/16/2014
77
5.8
723
13.0
5
-81
0.3
128/2014
179
6.0
1,019
16.7
5
-21
0.3
7/29/20I4
271
5.6
1,182
19.8
3
-102
0.1
11/4/2014
369
5.8
1,226
18.8
2
-123
0.3
Phase 2 Injection Shallow Monitoring Wells
6/18/2008
--
3.6
1,287
19.5
II
205
NM
7/29/2010
--
3.2
4.506
20.8
4
192
0.9
MW-3
10/2/2013
--
3.5
4,146
21.6
6
285
0.2
2/14/2014
INJECTION
7/30/2014
301
4.0
1589
21.5
5.1
221.8
0.3
11/4/2014
263
4.1
3.227
20.1
6.3
-156.2
0.3
6/18/2008
--
3.9
1,201
19.4
20
168
NM
7/28/2010
--
3.5
2,881
19.2
19
214
0.7
10/30/2012
-
3.5
3,420
18.6
2
413
3.0
1/31/2013
--
3.6
4,297
16.7
5
401
0.6
10/2/2013
--
3.2
4,246
19.7
4
202
0.5
MW-4
1/15/2014
--
3.5
1 4.536
16.3
41
405
0.7
2/14/2014
INJECTION
4/28I2014
73
4.3
4,026
15.3
8
186
0.5
7/29/2014
165
3.4
1929
19.3
7
444
0.5
11/4/2014
263
3.7
C040
18.1
4
401
0.6
7/29/2010
--
5.6
160
20.7
20
121
0.3
10/30/2012
--
3.9
416
17.7
14
305
2.0
1/31/2013
--
4.0
1.418
15.6
12
352
0.6
10/2/2013
--
4.2
1,170
19.8
7
122
0.2
MW-8
1/15/2014
--
4.2
1.316
1 16.2
50
1 366
0.5
2/14/2014
INJECTION
4/29/2014
74
5.6
613
16.0
658
-58
0.2
7/30/2014
166
5.5
751
19.7
4
-80
0.2
11/3/2014
262
5.5
788
1 17.8
7
-50
0.2
Page I ol'3

TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF FIELD PARAMETERS IN PERMANENT MONITORINC WELLS
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 EAST PRESTON STREET, SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Monitoring
Well ID
Date
Sampled
Days Post
Injection
pH
(SU)
Specific
Conductance
Temperature
oC)
Turbidity
NTU)
Oxidation -
Reduction
Potential
mV
DO
(mg/W(pS/cm)
10/2/2013
--
3.3
3,323
19.9
5
201
0.9
1/15/2014
--
3.6
4.085
14.9
7
398
0.9
MW-18
2/14/2014
INJI]CTION
4/28/2014
73
4.1
3.846
15.9
67
215
OS
7/29/2014
165
3.5
3.812
18.7
9
416
0.7
11/4/2014
1 263
3.6
8
17.6
1 8
347
13.4
Compliance Shallow Monitoring Wells
6/18/2008
-
5.0
126
19.3
44
81
NM
M W I
7/29/2010
--
3.8
39
21.3
8
79
1.0
10/2/2013
--
5.0
80
19.6
0.5
200
0.2
11/5/2014
--
5.0
69
18.8
4
226
0.4
6/18/2008
--
6.5
231
19.2
II
165
NM
M W-5
7/29/2010
--
10.3
254
21.1
171
29
2.8
10/2/2013
--
12.2
3,107
20.6
33
-55
2.5
11/5/2014
--
6.4
2.877
1 19.2
340
180
1.3
MW-6
7/28/2010
--
6.1
123
21.9
107
79
0.2
7/29/2010
--
6.1
179
20.5
27
46
0.4
1/16/2014
--
5.1
234
12.4
2
67
2.1
MW-7
4/29/2014
--
5.1
337
15.0
9
127
0.9
7/29/2014
--
4.6
198
18.2
7
16
0.2
11/3/2014
--
5.1
216
16.6
6
193
0.5
7/29/2010
--
5.0
72
22.5
84
10
0.5
10/1/2013
--
4.9
1 61
20.0
62
28
0.2
g
1/15/2014
--
5.4
98
16.3
194
-21
0.6
MW
4/29/2014
--
5.8
136
17.1
8
-1
0.3
7/30/2014
-
5.5
92
23.1
20
106
0.2
11/3/2014
--
5.4
115
17.9
8
-27
0.2
7/29/2010
--
6.4
278
23.1
84
40
0.2
MW-11
10/2/2013
-
6.1
141
23.3
29
42
0.2
11/4/2014
--
6.0
108
19.5
9
-70
0.2
6/27/2011
--
6.0
132
20.1
88
-94
0.4
MW-13
10/1/2013
--
4.5
61
17.9
15
57
1.0
11/5/2014
--
5.3
68
17.8
66
180
0.6
MW-17
10/2/2013
--
4.4
1.256
21.0
9
269
0.7
11/4/21114
--
6.5
1,429
18.9
24
-160
0.2
10/2/2013
--
3.6
4,270
19.9
9
315
0.4
1/15/2017
--
3.6
4,286
14.9
26
138
0.5
MW-19
4/28/2014
--
4.0
1 1,108
17.5
31
193
0.4
7/29/2014
--
3.6
3.036
21.8
10
285
0.2
I I14/2014
--
4.2
2,499
18.5
11
-48
0.2
10/1/2013
--
4.0
1.853
23.0
4
220
0.3
1/16/2014
--
4.1
1.633
14.9
7
391
0.4
MW-20
4/29/2014
--
5.4
1.102
16.7
20
-32
0.3
7/30/2014
--
4.3
1,534
21.9
9
185
0.4
11/3/2014
--
5.3
1,194
20.3
27
-164
0.2
Paget )1'3

'TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF FIELD PARAMETERS IN PERMANENT NIONIT'ORINC WELLS
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 FAST PRESTON STREET, SELMA, NORT11 CAROLINA
Specific
Oxidalion-
Monitoring
Date
Days Post
pli
Temperature
Turbidity
Reduction
UO
Well ID
Sam led
P
Injection
J
SU
( )
Conductance
o
(C)
NTU
( )
Potential
(mg/L)
(PS/cm )
mV
Compliance Deep Monitoring Wells
6/27/2011
--
6.5
238
23.2
240
71
0.5
MW-14
10/1/2013
--
9.5
403
22.4
9
-7
0.1
11/3/2014
--
10.2
699
18.9
34
42
0.3
6/27/2011
--
11.0
622
22.7
12
-68
0.2
MW-IS
10/2/2013
--
7.3
259
23.4
16
-121
0.3
11/4/2014
--
7.1
253
18.7
7
-132
0.2
Notes:
SU = Standard Units
pS/cm = Microsiemens per centimeter
°C = Degrees Celsius
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
mV = Millivolts
mg/L = milligrams per liter
NM = not measured
Page 3 of

'TABLE 3
S1INMARYOF NA"IVRALATTENIJAJ'ION PARAMETERS
FORMER F.A"fON CORPORATION FACILITY
11011 EASTPRES ON STREET, SELMA, NOR'1'll CAROLINA
Well ID
Date
Days Post
Injection
Methane
(µg/LI
Ethane
Ip8/1-)
F,thene
(µg/L)
Sulfate
(mWL)
Sulfide
(mg/1-)
Nitrate N
(mg/1-)
Fe2+
(mg/L)
Iron
(mg/ L)
Magnesium
(mg/L)
'I'OC
(mg/L)
Alkalinity
(mg/l.)
NC21,Standard
NE
NE
NE
2511
NE
10
NL
0.3
NL
NE
NF.
['base I Injection Shallow Monitoring Wells
10/2/2013
0.818.1 <0.087 10.5253 1 2.7 1 NA 1 0.66 0.44 1 1.3 0.81) 0.33 J 21
10/31/2013
INJECTION
PAW
1/16/2014
77
7.26
1.88
0.535.1
<0. 13
NA
<0.016
IOU
91
IN
261
351)
.2
4/28/2014
179
1,1111
2.27
0.795 J
<0. 13
<0.45
0.17
220
2211
22
731
4541
7/29/2014
271
400
<0. 14
<0.15
0.316.1
<0.450
0.0251.1
232
228
24.4
675
717
11/42014
369
1,900
<0.14
11.82 .1
3.12
<0.450
0.0090.1
221
167
23.7
599
633
10/2/2013
--
7.6
0.113 J
0.235.1
610
NA
7.9
<0.020
0.24
33
4.2
<0.59
10/31/2013
]NJ I?C'I'ION
MW-16
I/162014
77
1.97.1
0.269.1
0.241.1
2.50
NA
1 16
64
62
13
244
240
4/28/2014
179
12.4
0.212.1
0.493 J
1.6
c0.45
0.27
110
1211
20
289
460
7292014
271
190
<0. 14
<0.15
0.307.1
<0.450
0.0264.1
182
174
24.1
393
58H
11/42014
369
760
<0.14
<0.15
3.84
<0.450
0.0113J
INN
143
28.3
365
587
' Phase 2 Injection Shallow Monitoring Wells
10/2/2013
27.9 <0.087 <0.071 3,100 NA 1 38 <0.020 0.33 67 7.7 <0.59
MW-3
2/14/2014
INJECTION
7/3OR14
166
3.3
<0. 14
<0.15
1,870
<0.450
1.113
17.1
16.6
121
75.9
<0.926
11/4/2014
263
fi.5
<(1.14
q),IS
2,090
14.8
O.693
51.7
47.2
102
411.1
<0.926
1022013
7.78
1 <0.087
<0.071
3,61111
NA
311
<0.020
0.12
93
11.5
<0.59
2/14/2014
INJECTION
MW-4
4/28/2014
73
7.08
<0087
<0.071
3d00
<OAS
9.1
<0.039
0.21
95
47.J
<0.77
7292014
165
3.6
cO 14
<0.15
2,890
<OA50
16.9
0.1511 .1
<0.0694
R8.1
22.9
c0.926
11/4/2014
263
3.4
<0. 14
<0.15
3,240
<0.450
18.0
0.140.1
0.150.1
91.3
11.9
<0.926
1022013
--
5.54
<0.087
<0.071
1 600
NA
3.0
0.59
0.81
28
3.5
<0.59
2/14/2014
INJECTION
M W-8
4/29/2014
74
5.54
0.553 J
M -1 J
<0.13
2.7
<0.046 A
68
76
111
275
191)
7/30/2014
I'6
71
<0.14
<0.15
U.5115J
<0.450
<0.0175
121
112
12.9
JUI
40J
1 1 /32014
262
550
<0. 14
<0.15
0.369 .l
0.61111 ,11
0.0170 J
131
112
14.8
329
421
10/22013
--
20.3
2.38
10.1
2500
NA
1 17
2.0
3.5
81)
36
<059
2/14/2014
INJECTION
MW-18
4282014
73
6.59
0.1681
0.431J
3,200
<0A5
24Aa, Dil
0.20
0.76
85
40.3
<0.77
7/29/2014
165
4.1
<0. 14
<0.15
2560
<0.450
12.3
0.201) J
<0.0694
79.1
. 11.5
<0.926
11/4/2014
263
1.6
<0. 14
<0. 15
1,620
<0.450
4.78
0.110.1
1 0.321
1 68.7
1 10.2
1 <0926
Compliance Shallow Monitoring, Wells
MW-I
10/2/2013
33.4
<0.087
<0.071
<0. 13
NA
0.28
<0.020
<0.026
0.66
2
5.4
11/5/2014
9.0
<0.14
<0. 15
0.3881
<0.450
0.352
<0.0266
<0.058
<1.150
0.443.1
9.76.1
MW-5
10/2/2013
-
4.69.1
<0.087
<0.071
2.800
NA
29
<0020
0.12
83
7.7
<0.59
11/5/2014
5.3
<0. 14
<0. 15
2,480
<0A50
21.9
0.120,1
0.614
90.7
6.12
<0.926
1/16/2014
<0,435
<0.087
<0.071
63
NA
2.4
<0.039
0.063
3.5
0.70.1
6
MW-7
4/29/2014
--
<0A35
<0.087
<0.071
711
<0.45
2.7A
<0.039
11.41
3.7
1.6
7.11
7/29/2014
-
<0.048
<0. 14
<0. 15
56.5
<0A50
1.08
0.0400.1
0.612
0.268
0.273.1
8.25.1
11/32014
0.54.IR
<0. 14
<0, 15
63.1
<0,450
1.63
<0.0266
0.418413.1
3.25.1
0.403.1
898.1
10/1/2013
0.948J
<0.087
<0.071
1.6
NA
<0.016
2.0
3.7
0.61)
1.1
II
4I 129/2014
<0.435
<0.087
<0,071
33.11
<0.45
1.71 A
<0.039
0.35
L1
1.75 J
12
0.57
<0. 14
<0. 15
14.3
<0A50
<0.0175
0.270.1
1.02
<1.64
<0.224
14.8
21MW-9
I1/34
0.411R
<0. 14
<0.15
24.7
<0d50
0.133
11.200.1
0504
<1.150
0.277.1
12.1
MW-11
1022013
--
1.2,1
<0.087
<0,071
14
NA
<0.016
1.6
3.1
2.2
1.241
511
11/4/2014
0.64
<0. 14
<0. 15
4.41
<0.450
11.00670.1
2.38
2.8
1970.1
0.396.1
41.3
MW-13
10/1/2013
--
8.92
<0.087
<0.071
4.5
NA
0.52
<0.020
0.46
0.61
1
22
11/5/2014
0.54 J
<0. 14
<0. 15
3.34
<0.450
0.510
0.0600.1
2.31
<1, 150
0.645.1
12.5
MW-14
10/1/2013
--
6.98
<0.087
1.15
14
NA
0.11
<0.020
2.4
1.9
19
171)
11/3/2014
--
1.5
<0. 14
<0. 15
11.1
<0.450
0.00600.1
0.4211
1.29
1 <1. 150
2.33
241
MW-IS
10/2/2013
I6.2
0.373.1
0.852 .1
58
NA
0.12
<0.020
1.2
2.4
<0.3
1411
11/4/2014
--
9.8
<1.14
<0. 15
J.211
<OA50
0.034I'1
1.54
1.65
2.88.1
0.569.1
124
MW 17
/2013
10/2/2013.
--
10.7
0.1, 1
<0 .071
680
NA
8.7
<0.020
41.14
37
3.2
<059
11/4/2014
14
<0.14
<0.15
5.22
<0 J50
0.0607
262
INN
29.4
2911
558
Page I ol'2

TABLE 3
SUMb1ARY OF NATURAL A'I"IF,NUATION PARAMETERS
FORMER EA'I ON CORPORA ['ION FACILITY
1100 F,AS'1PRF,S'ION S'IRF,F,'I', SLLNIA. NOR"I'll CAROLINA
Well 11)
Date
Days Post
Injection
Methane
(AWId
Ethane
(Rg/l.)
Fthene
(Ng/1-)
Sulfate
(mg/l.)
Sulfide
(mg/l.)
Nitrate-N
(mg/L)
Fe2+
(mg/L)
Iron
(mg/1,)
Magnesium
(mg/L)
'IOC
(mg/I)
Alkalinity
(ntg/L)
10/2/2013
29.1
<0.087
0.3611
3,300
NA
39
<0.020
0.55
70
7.7
<0.59
MW-19
4/28/2014
--
2.60
<0.087
<0.071
710
<0A5
15 An, DO
<0.039
0.33
22
1 H)
<0.77
7/2912014
--
3.2
<0.14
<0. 15
27611
4
1.61
20.1
23.3
96.5
129
<0.926
11/4/2014
2.5
0.28.1
<0.15
1820
7.20
0.139
61.7
45.9
.53.6
35.2
<0.926
10/1/2013
--
10.5
<0.087
<0.071
I,0110
NA
10
<0.020
0.19
43
4.3
<0.59
I/16/2014
11.3
<0.
A
0 9
<4
11.25
41
1
5.9
<0.77<
MW-20
4/29/2014
6.83
<0.087
<01
5701
O
0
30.4
<0.77
7/30/2014
6.1
<0. 14
<0. 15
785
<0.450
1.94
7.54
7.71
37.6
5Al
<0.926
11/3/2014
5.7
<0.14
<0. 15
445
8.6
0.0671
34.8
33.9
25.2
51.3
104
Notes'.
pg/I, w micrograms per liter
mg/I, - milligrams per liter
NF = Nut established
Bolded values indicate concentration greater than the laboratory reporting limit.
J = Indicates the result is between the MDL and RDL
Shaded calls are concentrations in excess of the NC 2L Standard.
Aa = recovery fur final CCV (I l2%) is outside the control limits
DI I = Dilution for this sample/anulyte was analy/ed outside methods recommended hold time
Page 2 of 2

"TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL. LABORATORY DATA FOR VOCS IN PERMANENT MONITORING WELLS
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 EAST PRESTON STREET, SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Monitoring
Well ID
Date
Sampled
Days Post
Injection
VOCs by EPA Method 8260 (µg/L)
PCE
TCE
cis-1,2
DCE
VC
I, I,1
'TCA
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
Carbon
tetrachlo
ride
1,1,2
"I'CA
1,2-DCA
Benzene
1,2-
Dichloro
benzene
Dibromo
chlorome
thane
COC Category
P
P
DP
DP
S
P
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
NC 2L Standard
0.7
3
70
0.03
200
350
6
0.3
NE
0.4
1
20
0.4
Phase 1 Injection Shallow Monitoring Wells
6/18/2008
--
8,820
1,080
4.4
<0.62
6.5
1,780
7.0
6.6
1.8
<0.12
L2
102
<0.21
4/7/2009
--
7,140
879
100
<6.2
<4.8
910
<3.2
<2.5
<2.9
<1.2
<2.5
<3.0
<2.1
7/28/2010
--
5,150
624
<320
<320
<320
838
<320
<320
<320
<320
<320
<320
<320
10/2/2013
--
6,300
570
<7.6
<16
<6.3
700
<9.6
<12
<17
<14
<7.2
<7.6
<30
M W-2
10/31 /2013
INJECTION
1/16/2014
77
37
36
1,900
<3.1
<1.3
240
<1.9
<2.4
<3.3
<2.8
<1.4
<1.5
<6.0
4/28/2014
179
29
25
1,900
43
<1.9
<2.4
<3.3
<2.8
<1.4
<1.5
<6.0
7/29/2014
271
43
44
2,400
53
<1.5
<0.030
0.22 J
OA2 J
0.14 J
0.49 J
<0.040
11/4/2014
369
9.11
14 J
2,700
58
992t
<2.0
<3.0
<4.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<4.0
10/2/2013
--
3,300
310
<3.9
<7.8
<4.8
<3.8
<IS
10/31/2013
INJECTION
1/16/2014
77
<6.9
1 000
680
<16
<6.3
830
<9.6
<12
<17
<14
<7.2
<7.6
<30
MW-16
4/18/2014
179
<3.4
740
9,400
<7.R
<3.1
780
28
<5.9
<8.3
<7.0
<3.6
<3.8
<15
7/39/2014
271
1.9
51 J
9,100
1203
15
730
23
<0.030
1.1
0.55
<0.030
0.64
<0A0
11/4/2014
369
7.0 J
13 J
2,900
35 J
9.4 J
560
29
<3.0
<4.0
<3.0
<3.0
<30
<4.0
Phase 2 Injection Shallow Monitoring Wells
6/18/2008
--
573
2.8
<0.19
<0.62
3.1
13.9
<0.32
<0.25
<0.29
<0.12
<0.25
<0.30
<0.21
7/29/2010
--
1,630
<80.0
<80.0
<80.0
<80.0
<80.0
<80.0
<80.0
<80.0
<80.0
<80.0
<80.0
<80.0
10/2/2013
--
1,800
<0.27
<0.38
<0.78
18
24
<0.48
<0.59
<0.83
<0.70
3.5
<0.38
<1.5
MVd-3
2/14/2014
INJECTION.
7/30/2014
166
900
1.2
0.78
<0.070
4.3
17
0.97
0.053 J
<0.040
0.19 J
1.2
<0.030
<0.040
11/4/2014
263
770
<0.75
<0.75
<1.8
1.6J
<1.0
<0.50
<0.75
<1.0
<0.75
<0.75
<0.75
<1.0
Page I of4

'['ABLE 4
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA FOR VOCS IN PERMANENT MONITORING WELLS
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 EAST PRESTON STREET, SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Monitoring
Well ID
Date
Sampled
Days Post
Injection
VOCs by EPA Method 8260 (µg/L)
PCEFFCE
cis-1,2
DCE
VC
LI'1
TCA
LI-DCE
I,1-DCA
Carbon
tetrach to
ride
LL2
TCA
1,2-DCA
Benzene
1,2-
Dichloro
benzene
Dibromo
chlorome
thane
COC Category
P
P
DP
DP
S
P
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
NC 21, Standard
0.7
3
70
0.03
200
350
6
0.3
NE
0.4
1
20
0.4
6/18/2008
--
2,320
1,030
1.0
<0.62
47.6
553
6.3
<0.25
1.1
<0. 12
<0.25
<0.30
<0.21
7/28/2010
--
18,200
3,460
<1.250
<1.250
6,560
3,230
<1,250
<1,250
<I.250
<1,250
<1.250
<1,250
<1,250
10/30/2012
--
25,800
3,380
<4.48
<9.65
8,940
3,140
7.00 J
<4.23
<5.40
<3.48
<3.90
15.0 J
<12.8
1/31/2013
--
37,000
4,200
<38
<78
14,000
4,500
<48
<59
<83
<70
<36
<38
<150
10/2/2013
--
30,000
4,800
<7.6
<16
7,600
3,600
<9.6
<12
<17
<14
<7.2
<7,6
<30
M\V 4
I/U/ 00,4
--
22,000
5,200
<3.8
<7.8
7,700
4,000
<4.8
<5.9
<8.3
<7.0
<3.6
<3.8
<15
2/ 14/2014
INJECTION
4/28/2014
73
29,000
5,300
<3.8
<7.8
5,600
3,700
<4.8
<5.9
<8.3
<7.0
<3.6
<3.8
<15
7/29/2014
165
19,000
5,300
6.4
0.19 J
6,400
4,000
10
12
7.1
<0.030
0.92
8.9
<0.040
11/4/2014
263
26,000
4,800
<21
<50
8,800
5,100
<14
<21
<29
<21
<21
<21
<29
7/28/2010
--
974
<50.0
<50.0
<50.0
102
132
<50.0
<50.0
<50.0
<50.0
<50.0
<50.0
<50.0
10/30/2012
--
874
58.2
1.72
<0.386
45.9
128
5.15
<0.169
<0216
<0.139
<0.156
0.430 J
<0.173
1/3 U2013
--
2,100
150
<1.5
<3.1
200
400
<1.9
<2.4
<3.3
<2.8
<1.4
<1.5
<6.0
10/2/2013
--
2,200
120
<0.38
<0.78
120
260
3.6
<0.59
<0.83
<0.70
<0.36
<0.38
<1.5
N1\\'-8
1/15/2014
--
1,900
130
2.6
<0.78
130
340
3.0
4.0
<0.83
1 <0.70
<0.36
<0.38
<1.5
2/ 14/2014
INJECTION
4/29/2014
74
65
13
5.8
<0.78
3.4
60
8.6
<0.59
<0.83
<0.70
<0.36
<0.38
<1.5
7/30/2014
I
40
16
210
3.2
4.3
95
10
<0.030
<0.040
0.073 J
<0.030
0.059 J
<0.040
11/3/2014
262
38
11
360
6.7
4.7J
120
14
<0.30
<0.40
<0.30
<0.30
<0.30
<0.40
10/2/2013
--
110,000
22,000
380
<31
37,000
17,000
300
<24
<11
<28
<14
<15
<60
1/15/2014
--
50,000
6,000
<I5
<31
21,000
7,400
<19
<24
<33
<28
<14
US
<60
2/14/2014
INJECTION
MW-I8
4/29/2014
73
1 66,000
14,000
<15
<31
20,000
14,000
110
<24
<33
<28
<14
1 <15
<60
7/29/2014
165
62,000 B
10,000
19
1.2
20,000
10,000
53 E
29
28
0.92
1.0
27
<0.40
11/4/2014
1 263
88,000
20,000
<94
<220
28,000
23,000
<63
<94
<130
<94
<94
<94
<94
Compliance Shallow Monitoring Wells
6/11/2008
--
1.2
<0.47
<0.19
<0.62
<0.48
<0.56
<0.32
<0.25
<0.29
<0.12
2.8
<0.30
10,21
7/29/2010
--
2.15
<L00
7.02
<1.00
<LOp
<L00
4.58
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<L00
<1.00
<1.00
N1 N'-I
10/2/2013
--
3,500
200
120
<16
<6.3
400
<9.6
<12
<17
<14
<7.2
<7.6
<30
11/5/2014
--
3,700
190
81
<8.8
47 J
510
17 J
<3.8
<5.0
<3.8
<3.8
<3.8
<5.0
Page 2 ol'4

TABLE
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA FOR VOCS IN PERMANENT MONITORING WELLS
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 EAS'I' PRES'rON S'1'REE7', SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
.Monitoring
Well ID
Date
Sampled
Days Post
Injection
VOCs by EPA Method 8260 (µg/L)
PCE
'I'CE
cis-1,2-
UCE
VC
I'Ll
'I'CA
I,I-DCF.
I,I-DCA
Carbon
tetrachlo
ride
1,1,2
'rCA
1,2-DCA
Benzene
1,2-
Dichloro
benzene
Dibromo
chlorome
thane
COC Category
P
P
DP
DP
S
P
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
NC 2L Standard
0.7
3
70
0.03
200
350
6
0.3
NE
0.4
1
20
0.4
6/18/2009
--
<0.46
<0.47
<0.19
<0.62
<0.48
<0.56
<0.32
<0.25
<0.29
<0.12
<0.25
<0.30
<0.21
7/29/2010
--
1.53
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
MW-5
10/2/2013
--
210
<0.054
<0.076
<0.16
1.2
4.0
<0.096
<0.12
<0.17
<0.14
2.4
<0.076
<0.30
1 1/5/2014
--
210
O.43 J
0.49 J
<0.44
0.86 J
5.8
<0.13
<0. 19
<0.25
<0.19
2.1 J
<0.19
<0.25
MN'-6
7/28/2010
--
244
14.2
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
24.7
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
7/28/2010
--
273
29.6
<16.0
<16.0
<16.0
52.3
<16.0
<16.0
<16.0
<16.0
<16.0
<I6.0
<16.0
1/16/2014
--
1,600
140
<7.6
<16
120
390
<9.6
<12
<17
<14
<7.2
<7.6
<30
MW-7
4/29/2014
--
1,500
130
<1.5
<3.1
110
370
<1.9
<2.4
<3.3
<2.8
<1.4
<1.5
<6.0
7/29/2014
--
2,100
250
5.3
0.19 J
180
720
3.7
0.79
<0.040
0.18 J
<0.030
0.25 J
<0.040
11/3/2014
--
1,300
120
5.1 J
<2.5
83
380
3.8
<I.I
I <1.4
<Ll
<1.1
<LI
<1.4
7/28/2010
--
3.62
<1,00
I <1.00
<1.00
I <1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
I <1.00
<1.00
<1.00
10/1/2013
--
14
0.55
<0.076
<0.16
<0.063
1.3
<0.096
<0.12
<0.17
<0.14
<0.072
<0.076
<0.30
1/15/2014
--
140
3.4
<0.076
<0. 16
1.6
11
<0.096
<0.12
<0.17
<0.14
<0.072
<0.076
<0.30
MW-9
4/29/2014
--
220
5.5
<0.076
<0.16
2.9
17
0.68
<0.12
<0.17
<0.14
<0.072
<0.076
<0.30
7/30/2014
--
120
3.0
0.26 J
<0.070
0.60
5.7
0.50
<0.030
<0.040
<0.030
<0.030
<0.030
<0,040
11/3/2014
--
210
3.8
<0. 19
<0.44
1.4 J
10
0.51 J
<0.19
<025
<0.19
<0.19
<0.19
<0.25
7/29/2010
--
2.01
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
MW-11
10/2/2013
--
<0.069
<0.054
<0.076
<0.16
<0.063
<0.078
<0.096
<0.12
<0.17
<0.14
<0.072
<0.076
<0.30
11/4/2014
--
0.33 J
<0.030
<0.030
<0.070
<0.020
<0.040
<0.020
<0.030
<0.040
<0.030
<0.030
<0.030
<0.040
6/27/2011
--
6.20
1.60
<0. 136
<0.124
0.170 J
2.88
<0.165
<0.101
<0. 126
<0.167
<0.113
<0.137
<0.134
MN'-13
10/1/2013
--
48
IS
<0.076
<0.16
1.2
33
<0.096
<0.12
<0.17
<0.14
<0.072
<0.076
<0.30
1 1/5/2014
--
56
25
0.30 J
<0.11
1.4
48
0.38 J
0.12 J
<0.062
<0.047
<0.047
<0.047
<0.062
10/2/2013
--
2,100
350
32
<7.8
250
370
<4.8
<5.9
<8.3
<7.0
<3.6
<3.8
<15
MN' 17
I I/4/2014
--
55
40 J
2,900
15 J
25 J
410
35 J
<2.5
<3.3
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<3.3
10/2/2013
--
100
<0.054
<0.076
<0.16
0.73
3.6
<0.096
<0.12
<0.17
<0.14
3.7
<0.076
<0.30
1/15/2014
--
800
<0.05
145
0.712
.1
.1
0
<<0
4.5
<0.076
<0.30
130
0.75
<0.076
<016
<0I063
<02<0
7
.14
0.94720
<0.076
<0.302
0.26 J
1.
<0.070
0.1J
3.8
0.34 J
0.045 J
<040
0.17 J
4 J
0.030
<0.040
11/4/2014
100
5.5
0.24 J
<0.29
13
12
0.76J
<0.13
<0.17
<0.13
1.2 J
<0.13
<0.17
Page 3 ot4

TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA FOR VOCS IN PERMANENT MONFPORINC WELLS
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 EAST PRESTON STREET, SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Monitoring
Well ID
Date
Sampled
Days Post
Injection
VOCs by EPA Method 8260 (µg/L)
PCE
SCE
cis-1,2-
DCE
VC
1'I'1
TCA
LI-DCE
LI-DCA
Carbon
tetrachlo
ride
1,1,2
TCA
1,2-DCA
Benzene
1,2-
Dichloro
benzene
Dibromo
chlorome
thane
COC Category
P
P
DP
DP
S
P
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
NC 2L Standard
0.7
3
70
0.03
200
350
6
0.3
NE
0.4
1
20
OA
10/1/2013
--
1,400
76
<1.5
<3.1
160
160
<1.9
<2.4
<3.3
<2.8
<1.4
<1.5
<6.0
1/16/2014
--
1,200
56
<1.5
<3.1
57
150
<L9
<2.4
<3.3
<2.8
<1.4
<1.5
<6.0
MkV- 20
4/29/2014
--
1,300
-- 78
<1.5
<3.1
55
200
<1.9
<2,4
<3.3
<2.8
<1.4
<1.5
<6.0
7/30/2014
--
1,300
65
2.1
<0.070
60
170
2.4
0.75
<0A40
0.10 J
0.035 J
0.48 J
<0,040
11/3/2014
--
1,100
64
1.5 J
<2.5
28
120
12 J
<1.1
<1.4
<1.1
<1.1
<1.1
<1.4Compliance
Deep Monitoring Wells
6/27/201 1
--
0.230 J
<0.125
<0.136
<0.124
<0.123
<0.212
<0.165
<0. 101
<0. 126
<0.167
<0.113
<0.137
0.640 J
MN'-14
10/1/2013
--
<0.069
<0.054
<0.076
<0. 16
<0.063
<0.078
<0.096
<0.12
<0.17
<0. 14
<0.072
<0.076
<0.30
11/3/2014
--
0.11 J
<0.030
<0.030
<0.070
<0.020
<0.040
<0.020
<0.030
<0.040
<0.030
<0.030
<0.030
<0.040
6/27/2011
--
0.440 J
<0.125
<0.136
<0.124
<0.123
<0.212
<0. 165
<0.101
<0.126
<0.167
<0.113
<0.137
<0.134
MN'-15
10/2/2013
--
<0.069
<0.054
<0.076
<0. 16
<0.063
<0.078
<0.096
<0.12
<0.17
<0. 14
<0.072
<0.076
<0.30
11/4/2014
--
0.10 J
<0.030
0.078 J
<0.070
<0.020
<0.040
<0.020
<0.030
<0.040
<0.030
<0.030
<0.030
<g040
Notes:
pg/1- = micrograms per liter
P = Primary contaminant of concern
DP = C VOC Degradation Daughter Product
S = Secondary contaminant of concern
NE = not established
Bulded values indicate concentration greater than the laboratory reporting limit.
Shaded cells are concentrations in excess of the NC 21- Standard or a detection if no NC 2L Standard is estbalished.
J = Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
E = Compound exceeds the upper level of the calibration range or the instrument.
Page 4 ol'4

TABLES
SUMMARY OF MB'F AND VFA DATA
FARMER EATON CORPORATION FACILITY
1100 EASTPR4STON STRF.E'1', SELMA, NORTII CAROLINA
VIR'1' by CENSUS (rellslml.)
VFA by Method A,M23G (mg/IJ
Well lD
Sample Dale
Daps Post
Injection
DIIC
'1'CE
Beductase
Beductase
Beductase
Lactic
Arid
Acetic
Acid
PrAcid c
Acid
Formic
Acid
Butyric
Acid
Arid
PAcid
i-
I'entannic
Acid
1'entanoir
Acid
i-
Ilexanoic
\rid
Ilescid
Acid
r
'Fatal
Phase I Injection Shallow Monitoring Wells
102/2013
-- <5.00H-01 <5.00E-01 <5.00E-01 <5.00H-01 0.1 0.069.1 0.020 J 1 0.092 J O.036 J 0.070 J <0. 15 1 0.075 1 10.10 1 <OSO 1.14
10/31/2013
INJEC"I'ION
1/16/2014
77
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 3.2.1
370
1 360
1 6.2
49
6.6
2.0
30
1 <0.10
1 3.2
1 830
MN'-2
428/2014
179
2.004:01.1
<3.00H-01
1 <3.00I?-01
1 <100E-01
1 3.1.1
1 460
1 330
1 15
1 37
1 56
1 <15
1 33
1 <10
1 <50
1 934
529/2014
210
BIOAUGMEN"TA"I'ION
729/2014
271
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 <I.0
510
320
12
1 48
86
<1.5
1 46
5.3
1 22
1,1149
11/4/2014
369
4.58E+111
8.70F.+00
6.0017-01
1.004; 01 J1
0.14 J
320
250
13
45
69
7.8
42
<2.0
19
766
102/2013
<5.0017-01
<5.00B-01
<5.00F-0I
<5.00G01
<0A0
0.095
0.025.1
1 0.10
0.040J
<0. 15
<p. 15
0.16
<0A0
<0.50
(J.42
10/31/2013
INJECTION
1/16/2014
77
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.18.1
220
62
3.0
4.6
0.26
0.24
0.95
<0A0
0.38 J
29
MW-16
8/2
3.004II J
<.00E-01
<300E-01
<3.00li-01
5.9 J
230
190
11
16
9.0
IAJ
7.0
<I.0
<5.0
472029/
15/22014 0
27
BIOAUGMENTA'I'ION
7/29/2014
271
NA
NA
NA
NA
<IO
390
220
1 11
45
47
<L5
36
1.1 J
4.63
755
II/4/2014
369
4.80E+00
<5.00E-01
<fimF-01
<5.00E-01
<I.0
400
120
6.6
45
26
3.6
16
<2.0
11
628
Phase 2 Injection ShallowMonitoring Wells
10/2/2013
<5"00E-01 <5.00H-01 <5.0014-01 <5.00E-01 1 3.6 1 0.51 J <0.50 1 0.77 J <0.50 <1.5 <I.5 1 <0.70 1 <I.0 <5.0 4.88
2/14/2014
INJECTION
428/2014
73
<3.00I3-01 <3.00E-01 <3.00Ii-OI <3.00Ii-OI <I.0 1 2.0 1 0.37 J 1 0.58 J 1 <0.50 <1.5 <1.5 <0.70 <LO <5.0 2.95
MW4
5/292014
104
131OAUGMEN'TA'TION
7/29/2014
165
5.IOE+00
LU04: 01 .1
<5.00I 01
1.00E-01 J
0.43.1
0.45.1
0.32 J
0.18 J
<0.50
<1.5
<1.5
<M0
<10
<5.0
1.38
1 I/4/2014
263
<4.00li-01
<4.00 -01
<4.00H-01
<4.00E-01
0.42 ,1
0.65 J
0.37 J
0.653
<0.50
<I.5
<L5
<0.70
<2.0
<5.0
2.09
10/22013
<5.00H-01
1 <5.00E-01
1 <5.00F.-01
1 <5.00Ii-01
1 1.8
13
0.36
0.27
0.11
O.IO J
<0. 15
0.19
<0.10
<0.50
15.8
2114/2014
INJFC'I'ION
4/28/2014
1 73
<5.00H-01 <5,00E-01 <5.00Ii-OI <5.00E-01 <I.0 3.3 0.61 0.76 J 0.40 J 0.57 J 0.64 J <0.70 <L0 <5.0 6.28
MW 18
5/29/2014
104
BIOAUGMENTATION
7/29/2014
165
6.60E+00
1.511E+00
1 <5.001 01
5.0017-011
0.18 J
2.5
<0.50
1 0.17 J
<0.50
<1.5
<1.5
<0.70
<2.0
<5.0
2.85
11/4/2014
263
<5.00E-01
<5.00H-01
<5.00H-01
15.00I3-01
0.23 J
7.4
0.75
0.773
<0.50
<1.5
<1.5
<Ml)
<2.0
<5.0
9.15
Compliance Shallow Monitoring Wells
10/3/2013
-
<S.00Ii-OI
<S.00Ii-01
<5.00I--
<S.00Ii-01
3.6
U.47.1
<O.50
1.3
<OSp
<L5
<L5.
<0.70
<L0
<5.0
5.37
MW 19
4/282014
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.093J
0.051.1
<0.050
OA94J
<0.050
<0. 15
<0. 15
<0.070
<0.I0
<OSO
0.24
7292014
2.82E+01
3.00E+00
1 <5.0017-01
3.00E-01 JJ
0.27 J
27
17
1.2
2.8
0.51 .1
0.50.1
1.8
1.4 J
<5.0
52
11/42014
<5.00E-01
<5.0017-01
1 <5ME-01
1 <5.00H-01
1 0.32J
19
2.4
1.1
0.97
0.50.1
1.0J
<0.70
<2.0
<5.0
25
Notes:
mgll. = milligrams per liter
I. 'Total VFA calculated as the sum uCall concentrations detected above the labomtory detection limit.
1= Estimated concentration greater than the set method detection limit and less than the set reporting limit.
NA = Not analymd

TABLE
CHLORINE NUMBER
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 EAST PRESTON STREET, SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Monitoring
Well ID
Date
I Sampled
Days Post
I Injection
Chlorinated Aliphatics
Chlorine
Number
PCE
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
VC
Et It ne
Molecular Weight (µg/µmol)
165.8
131.40
96.95
62.50
28.05
Unit
( /L) ( mol/L)
( /L)
( mol/L)
( L) ( mol/L)
( /L) (mol/L)
( L) ( mol/L)
(pmol/L)
Phase I Injection
Shallow Monitoring Wells
6/18/2008
--
8.820
53.20
1.080
8.22
4.4
0.05
0.3
0.00
NA
0
3.86
4/7/2009
--
7.140
43.06
879
6.69
100
1.03
3.1
0.05
NA
0
3.82
7/28/2010
--
5.150
31.06
624
4.75
161)
L65
160
2.56
NA
0
3.61
10/2/2013
--
6300
38.00
570
4.34
3.R
0.04
8
0.13
053
0.()2
3.89
MN'-2
10/31/2013
INJECTION
1/16/2014
77
37
0.22
36
0.27
1.900
19.60
1.55
0.02
0.54
0.02
2.03
4/28/2014
179
29
0.17
25
0.19
1,900
19.60
43
0.69
0.80
0.03
1.99
7/29/2014
271
43
0.26
44
0.33
2.400
24.76
53
0.85
0.08
0.003
2.00
I1/4/2014
369
9.1
0.05
14
0.11
2.700
27.85
58
0.93
0.82
0.03
1.97
10/2/2013
--
3.300
19.90
310
2.36
1.9
0.02
3.9
0.06
0.235
0.01
3.88
10/31/2013
INJECTION
1/16/2014
77
3.45
0.02
18.000
136.99
680
7.01
8.0
0.13
0.241
0.01
2.95
MW-16
4/28/2014
179
1.7
0.01
740
5.63
9.400
96.96
3.9
0.06
0.49
0.02
2.05
7/29/2014
271
L9
0.01
51
0.39
9.100
93.86
120.0
1.92
0.08
0.003
1.98
I I/4/2014
369
7.0
0.04
13
0.10
2.900
29.91
35.0
0.56
0.09
0.003
1.99
Phase 2 Injection
Shallow Monitoring Wells
6/18/2008
--
573
3.46
2.8
0.02
0.095
0.00
0.31
0.00
NA
0
3.99
7/29/2010
--
1.630
9.83
40
0.30
40
0.41
40
0.64
NA
0
3.73
10/2/2013
1 1.800
10.86
0.135
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.39
0.01
1 0.0355
0.001
4.00
Mµ,-3
2/14/2014
INJECTION
7/30/2014
166
900
5.43
1.2
0.01
0.78
0.01
0.035
0.001
0.075
0.003
3.99
II/4/2014
263
770
4.64
0.375
0.003
0.375
0.004
0.9
0.01
0.08
0.003
3.99
6/18/2008
--
2.320
13.99
1.030
7.84
H)
0.01
0.3
0.005
NA
0
3.64
7/28/2010
--
18.200
109.77
3.460
26.33
625
6.45
625
10.00
NA
0
3.55
10/30/2012
--
25.800
155.61
3.380
25.72
2.24
0.02
4.825
0.08
NA
0
3.86
1/31/2013
--
37,000
223.16
4,200
31.96
19
0.20
39
0.62
NA
0
3.87
10/2/2013
--
30.000_
180.94
4.800
36.53
3.8
0.04
8
0.13
0.0355
0.001
3.83
MW-4
1/15/2014
--
22.000
132.69
51200
39.57
1.9
0.02
3.9
0.06
1 NA
0
3.77
2/14/2014
INJECTION
4/28/2014
103
29.000
174.91
5.300
40.33
1.9
0.02
3.9
0.06
0.0355
0.001
3.81
7/29/2014
165
19M00
114.60
5,300
40.33
6.4
Q.07
0.19
0.00
0.08
0.003
3.74
I I/4/2014
263
26.000
156.82
4.800
36.53
10.5
1 0.11
25
0.40
1 0.08
0.003
3.80
Page 1 of

TABLE
CIILORINE NUMBER
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 EAST PRESTON STREET, SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Monitoring
R'ell1D
Date
I Sampled
Days Post
Injection
Chlorinated Aliphatics
Chlorine
Number
PCE
TCE
rrs-1,2-DCE
VC
Ethene
Molecular Weight (µg/µmol)
165.8
131.40
96.95
62.50
28.05
Unit
/L
mol/L
L
mol/L
/L
mol/L
/L
mol/L
/L
mol/L
(µmot/L)
7/28/2010
--
974
5.87
25
0.19
25
0.26
25
0.40
NA
0
3.72
10/30/2012
--
874
5.27
58.2
0.44
1.72
0.02
0.193
U.00
NA
0
3.91
1/31/2013
--
2,100
12.67
150
1.14
0.8
0.01
1.55
002
NA
0
3.91
10/2/2013
--
2200.
13.27
120
0.91
0.19
0.00
0.39
0.01
NA
0
3.93
MW-8
1/15/2014
--
1.900
11.46
130
0.99
2.6
0.03
0.39
0.01
0.036
0.001
3.91
2/ 14/2014
INJECTION
4/29/2014
74
65
0.39
13
0.10
5.8
0.06
0.39
0.01
0.715
0.03
3.42
7/30/2014
166
40
0.24
16
0.12
210
2.17
3.2
0.05
0.075
0.003
2.21
11/3/2014
262
38
0.23
11
0.08
360
3,71
6.7
0.11
0.075
0.003
2.10
I0/2/2013
--
110 000
663.45
22,000
167.43
38U
3.92
15.5
0.25
10.1
0.36
3.79
1/15/2014
--
50.000.
301.57
6.000
45.66
7.5
O.UB
15.5
0.25
NA
0
3.87
2/ 14/2014
INJ ICTION
MW-18
4/28/2014
73
66.000
398.07
1 14.000
106.54
7.5
0.09
15.5
0.25
0.431
0.02
3.79
7/29/2014
165
62.000
373.94
10.000
76.10
19
0.20
1.2
0.02
0.075
0.003
3.83
I I/4/2014
263
88,000
530.76
20.000
152.21
47
0.48
110
1.76
0.075
0.003
3.77
Notes:
µg/l, = micrograms per liter
µmol/l, = micromoles per litre
µg/µmol = micrograms per micromoles
Data reported less than the MDL was replaced with half ofthe reported MDL value in order to complete calcuations (sec Table 4 for the reported MDL values)
Data qualifers were removed from the table to complete calcuations (see Table 4 for data qualifers)
NA = Not analyzed
Caclulations regarding NA ethene data (µmol/l,) were considered to be zero (0)
Page 2 of 2

TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF FIELD PARAMETERS IN INJECTION WELLS
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 EAST PRESFON STREET, SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Screened
Screened
ic
Oxidation -
Interval
Uate
Days Post
pHTemperature
r1o.dSu/C.1.nce
Turbidity
Reduction
DO
Well ID
Sam led
P
Injection
J
SU
())
oC
( )
NTII
( )
Potential
( E )
m /L(ft
bgs)
mV
Phase I Injection Wells
10/31/2013
INJECTION
IW-2A
10-20
11/7/2014
372
6.5 1 1.904
1 18.6
70
-103
0.3
10/31/2013
INJECTION
IW-426
23-30
11/7/2014
372
5.9 995
19.5
11.2
-77.9
0.3
Phase 2 Injection Wells
2/14/2014
INJECTION
IN'-60A
10-20
11/7/2014
266
8.6 1 2,111
19.5
IS
-39U
0.6
2/14/2014
INJECTION
IW-4013
23-30
11/7/2014
266
9.5 2,289
19.0
12
-441
0.2
Notes:
SU = Standard Units
0/cm = MicroSiemens per centimeter
°C = Degrees Celsius
NTU = Ncphelometrie'I'urbidity Units
mv= Millivolts
mg/I, = milligrams per liter

TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF NATURAL ATTENUATION PARAMETERS IN IN.IECTION WELLS
FORMER EATON CORPORATION FACILITY
1100 EAST PRESTON STREET, SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Well ID
Screened
Interval
(ft bgs)
Date
Days Past
Injection
Methane
(µg/L)
Ethane
(µg/L)
F,Ihene
(µg/L)
Sulfide
(mg/L)
NC2LStandard
NE
NF:
NE
NE
Phase 1 Injection Wells
IW-2A
10 - 20
10/31/2013
INJECTION
II/7/2014
372
1,800
<0.14
<0.15
<0.450
IW-42B
23 - 30
10/31/2013
INJECTION
II/7/2014
1 372
1,900 1 <0.14 55 <0.450
Phase 2 Injection Wells
IW-60A
10-20
2/14/2014
INJECTION
II/7/2014
266 1,600
1.7
1.9
2.60
IW-40B
23-30
2/14/2014
INJECTION
11/7/2014
266
1,800
1 5.0
68
1 <0.450
Notes:
pg/I, = micrograms per liter
mg/I, = milligrams per liter
NE = Not established
Bolded values indicate concentration greater than the laboratory reporting limit.

TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA FOR VOCS IN INJECTION WELLS
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 EAST PRESTON STREET, SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Monitoring
R'ellIU
Screened
Interval
(ft bgs)
Date
Sampled
Days Post
Injection
VOCs by EPA Method 8260 (µg/L)
PCF.
TCE
cis-1,2-
DCE
VC
I'Ll-
TCA
1,1-DCE
I,1-DCA
Carbon
tet ride
ride
1,1,2-
,FCA
1,2-DCA
Benzene
1,2-
Denzene
benzene
Dibromo
ch thane
thane
COC Category
P
P
DP
DP
S
P
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
NC 2L Standard
0.7
3
70
0.03
200
350
6
0.3
NE
0.4
1
20
0.4
Phase 1 Injection Wells
10/31/2013
INJECTION
IW-2A
10-20
I I/7/2014
372
1.2 J
Ll J
5.1
30 <0.14
2.9 J
I 1.3 J
<0.21
<0.29
<0.21
<0,21
<0.21
<0.29
10/31/2013
INJECTION
IN'-4211
23- 30
11/7/2014
372
3.5,J
30
1,100
1,400 25
82 51
<1.3
<1.7
<1.3
<1.3
<1.3
<1.7
Phase 2 Injection Wells
2/14/2014
INJECTION
IW-60A
10-20
11/7/2014
266
6.0
1.8
11
5.4 <0.020
7.7
1 3.8
<0.030
<0.040
<0.030
0.45 J
<0.030
<0.40
2/14/2014
INJECTION
IW-4013
23-30
11/7/2014
266
28
30
660
93 <0.40
130 1 110
<0.60
<0.80
<0.60
<0.60
<0.60
<0.80
Notes:
P = Primarw contaminant of concern
DI' =CVOC Degradation Daughter Product
S = Secondary contaminant of concern
NE = not established
Bolded values indicate concentration greater than the laboratory reporting limit.
Shaded cells are concentrations in excess of the NC 21, Standard or a detection if no NC 21. Standard is estbalished.
J = Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.

TABLE 10
CHLORINE NUMBER IN INJECTION WELLS
FORMER EATON CORPORATION
1100 EAST PRESTON STREET, SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Monitoring I ng
WeIIIU
Screened
Interval
(ftbgs)
Uate
Sampled
Days Post
Injection
Chlorinated Aliphatics
Chlorine
Number
PCE
TCE
cis-1,2-UCE
VC
Ethene
Molecular Weight (µg/pmol)
165.8
131.40
96.95
62.50
28.05
(pmol/L)
Unit
( /L)
( mol/L)
L) I ( mol/L)
( /L) I ( mol/L)
( /L)
( mol/L)
( L) ( mol/L)
Phase I Injection Wells
10/31/2013
INJECTION
IW-2A
10-20
I I/7/2014
372
1.2
0.007
1.1 0.008 5.1 1 0.053
30
0.480
0.075 0.003
1.16
0I3
10'—,/
INJECTION
IW-4213
23- 30
I 2014
1 7
372
4
0.021
30 0.228 1,100 1 11.346
L400
22.400
55 1.961
1.28
Phase2 Injection Wells
2/14/2014
INJECTION
IN'-60A
10-20
II/7/20I4
266
6.0
0.036
1.8 0.014 11 0.113
5.4
0.086
1.9 0.068
1.57
2/14/2014
INJECTION
IW-4013
23-30
11/7/2014
266
28
0.169
30 0.228 660 1 6.808
93
1.488
68 2.424
1.48
Notes:
pg/l, = micrograms per liter
pmol/L = micromoles per litre
pg/µmol = micrograms per micromoles .
Data reported less than the MIN, was replaced with half of the reported MDI, value in order to complete calcuations (see Table 9 for the reported MDT. values)
Data qualifiers were removed from the table to complete calcuations (see Table 9 for data qualifers)

TABLE I I
PHASE 1 pll AND ORP ME-ASUREME-NI'S
FORMER E-A'1'ON CORPORATION
1100 FAST PRESTO\ STREET. SELMA, NORTH CAROLINA
Start of Phase 1
End of Phase 1
30 Day
60 Dav
90 Dav
12 Month
IN' ID
Date: 10/22/13
Date: 10/31/13
Date: 11/26/13
Date. 12/30/13
Date: 2/7/14
Date: I1/5-6/14
11 ORP
pli ORP
pli I ORP
pil ORP
pil ORP
p1l ORP
CROUPA ZONE A
IW-5A
4.5
103
8.2
86
6.9
.149
7.4
-106
6.9
-10
6.2
-91
IW-1IA
5.5
69
9.1
85
7.5
-160
7.0
-83
6.3
-49
64
-101
IW-14A
5.9
35
--
6.9
-U7
T9
-98
6.3
-35
6.3
-107
IW-27A
5.9
74
8.6
59
6.5
-59
83-199
8.4
-44
60
-78
IW-30A
4.6
III
9.4
30
9.6
-142
8.9
-227
6.2
-55
6.6
-151
GROAT' A ZONE
B
IW-513
6.2
71
9.2
69
6.2
-127
8.1
-44
5.5
-82
6.7
-124
1W-1113
61
38
9.2
85
6.4
-112
7.3
-48
6.0
-66
6.5
-144
IW-1413
6.1
-270
--
--
7A
-173
8.8
51
5.6
-323
65
-98
IW-2713
6.9
45
9364
6.0
-110
7.0
-12
5.6
-II
5.8
-14
IW-30B
6.1
78
9J8
23
5.6
-87
5.6
10
5.1
-59
5.9
-30
GROUP B ZON'E, A
1W-2A
6.1
96
T9
113
7.4
-153
6.8
-58
6.1
166
64
-98
1W-9A
5.2
90
8.3
83
i6
-119
6.3
-62
6.1
-64
6.2
-109
1W-18A
4.0
138
9.4
89
8.2
-108
7.5
-185
6.0
-2
66
-97
IW-25A
4.6
127
9.5
93
72
-169
6.9
-94
6.2
-93
6.3
-122
IW-42A"
5.0
102
9.5
62
7.8
-210
9.8
-133
8.0
37
6.3
-107
G ROUP BZONE B
IW-2B
5.6
73
8.3
170
7.0
-121
8.1
-81
6.2
.65
6.1
-67
1W-913
6.4
60
8.5
105
6.4
-136
6.7
-83
6.1
-89
6.9
-159
IW-1811
6.4
75
9.7
99
6.4
-119
8.9
-126
6.0
69
6.4
-142
IW-256
6.2
75
9,2
114
6.3
-143
6.7
-59
6.1
-96
6.5
-112
IW-4213
12.0
21
9.3
103
6.3
-103
6.9
-46
5.8
.64
6.1
-107
Nate:
-- Readings could not be collected.
" 90 day pl1/ORP readings collected on 2/10/ 14.

'TABLE: 12
PIIASE 2 pi AND ORP NIF:ASURENIEN'I S
FORMER F,ATON CORPORATION
1100 F-AS'1' PRF.STON SIREN: I', SELMA, N'ORTII CAROLINA
Start of Phase 1
End of Phase 1
311 Dav
60 Dav
941 Dar
9 Month
INV 11)
Uate: 1/20/N
Date: 2/10/14
Dale: 3/5/14
Date: 4/8/14
Date: 5/7/I4
Date: 11/5-6/W
11 ORP
pit ORP
pit I ORP
pil ORP
pil ORP
I p 11 ORP
CROUPA ZONE
IW-24A
3.8
324
9.2
-377
8.6
-412
1 9.6
-431
9.6
-392
9.7
-357
IW-39A
3.5
352
--
--
8.1
-138
9.1
-239
9.2
-400
9.2
-364
IW-40A
3.4
356
--
--
8.8
J65
9.6
-225
9.6
-420
9.4
-434
IW-53A
41
Tti
-
--
8.6
-264
8B
-336
7.8
-423
8.6
.444
IW-59A
3.4
359
--
--
8.2
-81
9.0
-214
8.2
.455
8.3
.440
CROUP A ZONE R
IW-2411
6A
250
8.9
-53
6.6
1 -402
1 6.5
-360
6.7
-287
7.6
.136
IW-3913
19
336
8.5
-130
6.3
-34R
7.0
-230
8.3
.430
7.8
-376
IW-40B
5.6
281
--
59
-391
6.0
-210
6.0
-293
7.3
-257
IW-5311
4.7
323
--
-
7.3
-206
6.3
-287
6.5
-363
6.7
-134
1W-59B
3.5
362
5.6
.234
5.3
-308
5.3
.320
6.1
-257
CROUP It ZONE A
IW-19A
3.9
330
8.3
120
1 6.4
1 -339
1 7.1
.235
79
-185
8.3
-350
IW-36A
3.8
332
9A
-47
7.5
-409
9.2
-345
9.1
-355
7.5
-201
IW-47A
3.4
364
8.6
-355
9.6
-312
9.3
-430
9.3
-392
IW-52A
3.7
358
8.6
-140
9.2
-335
9.3
-376
8.7
-448
IW-60A
3.3
360
--
-
8.3
-335
of-299
8.1
-435
8.1
-354
CROUP It ZONE: B
IW-19B
5.2
279
8.6
-45
7.0
1 .194
6.0
.213
6.1
-190
lr.7
-III
IW-3613
5.9
262
8.1
-230
5.5
-345
5.7
219
6.2
-200
7.6
.211
IW-4713
3.6
359
-
-
8.0
-283
7.9
-240
7.4
.375
7.1
-258
IW-5211
44
331
--
--
8.2
-130
64
-240
6.9
-425
1 6.9
IW-6013
3.6
355
7.4
-177
6.2
-308
5.5
-330
1 6.5
-190
Note
-- Readings could not be collected because water was at the top of casing.

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET .
NCG PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
DOC TYPE,
t2- HISTORICAL FILE
❑ MONITORING REPORTS
DOC DATE
❑ ���� �1 ��
YYYYM M DD

*
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Land Quality Section Pat McCrory, Governor
Tracy E. Davis, PE, CPM John E. Skvada, III, Secretary
Director
November 6, 2014
CERTIFIED MAIL #7012 1640 0001.9605 7843
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Frederick D. Battle
City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services
900 New Hope Road
Raleigh, NC 27602
Subject. Notice of Deficiency
NOD-2014-PC-0200
City of Raleigh Yardwaste Center
NPDES Stormwater Permit NCG230012
Wake County
Dear Mr Battle:
On October 20, 2014, Dave Parnell, from the Raleigh Regional Office of the North Carolina Division of
Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR) conducted a compliance evaluation inspection (CEI) at the
referenced facility, located at 900 New Hope Road, Raleigh, North Carolina. The facility lies in the
watershed of an unnamed tributary (UT) to Crabtree Creek, Class WS-11; HQW, NSW waters, in the Neuse
River Basin.
The following observations were noted during the DEMLR inspection and file review.,
This is an on -site composting and mulching facility, which has no on -site tanks requiring secondary
containment. Mr. Edward Wright, Operations Manager, was on site during the inspection and provided
valuable assistance to DEMLR staff.
1628 Mail service Center, Ralegh, North Carolina 27699-1628
Location: 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] NorthCarolina
Internet: htporportal.ncrmaty Acton/lrl 1►�atimal/y
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmawe Action Employer [.i/ �/ L L I4"

iV
Stormwater run-off generated at this facility is regulated by a general NPDES stormwater permit. The
DEMLR Stormwater Permitting Program has issued certificate of coverage (COC) NCG24OO12. The
permit was on site and current. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP) was reviewed by
DEMLR staff. The SPPP satisfied most of the requirements of the permit. The plan lacked the following:
documentation of annual employee training.
The monitoring reports were reviewed during the inspection. Qualitative monitoring is required
quarterly, but has not been conducted. Although limited, the data from the analytical monitoring reports,
makes it difficult to determine if advancing to elevated Tiers is warranted. There was some discrepancy
as to the number of Stormwater Discharge Outfall (SDO) to be monitored, though the SPPP denotes two.
Monitoring has being done periodically at SDO #2.
Requested response: You are directed to respond to this letter in writing to DEMLR at the address
provided below within 30 days of receipt Please address the following items noted in bold:
• Please fully develop the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan by placing documentation of
annual employee stormwater and spill response training.
Please begin qualitative monitoring and provide the latest report to this office as soon as
possible.
• A review of analytical monitoring reports, indicate benchmarks have may been exceeded. Please
adhere to the requirements of the NPDES permit with respect to the Tier program. Indicate
the tier level at the time of your response.
Please respond to:
Dave Parnell
NCDENR/DEMLR
Raleigh Regional Office
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1628
Location: 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Phone: 919-791 A2001 FAX: 919-571A718
Internet: http:portal. ncdencorgAveMr/
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Acton Employer
NorthiCarolina
Aaturally

Should you have questions regarding these matters, please contact Dave Parnell at [phone].
Sincerely,
v
ohn L. Holley, ee P CPESC
Regional Engineer
Raleigh Regional Office
cc: Stormwater Permitting Program Files - with attachment
DEMLR Raleigh Regional Office Files - with attachment
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1628
Location: 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: http:portal.nodenr.orgMeb/Ir/
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
Naturally"

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: NCG240012 Effective: 12/13/12 Expiration: 09/30/16 Owner: City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services
Department
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: City of Raleigh Yardwaste Center
County: Wake 900 New Hope Rd
Region: Raleigh
Raleigh NC 27602
Contact Person: Frederick D Battle Title: Phone: [phone]
Directions to Facility:
1-440 Exit US 64 Business East - 1.2 mi right turn onto New Hope Rd - Facility is 0.8 mi on left
System Classifications:
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 10/20/2014 Entry Time: 09:30AM Exit Time: 11:OOAM
Primary Inspector: David R Parnell Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit Inspection Type: Compost Operations StormwaterNVastewater Discharge CDC
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
M Storm Water
(See attachment summary)
Page: 1

Permit: NCG240012 Owner - Facility: City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services Department
Inspection Data: 10/20/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit Routine
Inspection Summary:
Page: 2

i
Permit: NCG240012 Owner -Facility: City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services Department
Inspection Date: 10/20/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit-. Routine
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Yes No NA NE
Does the site have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan? ■ El Q ❑
# Does the Plan include a General Location (USGS) map? E ❑ ❑ ❑
# Does the Plan include a "Narrative Description of Practices'?
# Does the Plan include a detailed site map including outfall locations and drainage areas?
■ ❑ Q ❑
# Does the Plan include a list of significant spills occurring during the past 3 years?
! 11 ❑ 11
# Has the facility evaluated feasible altematives to current practices?
E ❑ ❑ ❑
# Does the facility provide all necessary secondary containment?
❑ 11 N ❑
# Does the Plan include a BMP summary?
i ❑ Cl ❑
# Does the Plan include a Spill Prevention and Response Plan (SPRP)?
0 ❑ Q ❑
# Does the Plan include a Preventative Maintenance and Good Housekeeping Plan?
At Does the facility provide and document Employee Training?
# Does the Plan include a list of Responsible Party(s)?
# Is the Plan reviewed and updated annually?
# Does the Plan include a Stormwater Facility Inspection Program?
❑ El
Has the Stormwater Pollution Prevenfion Plan been implemented?
E
❑ ❑
Comment: No liquids that require secondary containment. No employee training being conducted
Qualitative Monitoring
Yon
No NA NE
Has the facility conducted its Qualitative Monitoring semi-annually?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
Comment: Discussed with Edward Wright methods for visual monitoring.
Analytical Monitoring Yes No NA NE
Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring? ❑ 0 Q ❑
# Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring from Vehicle Maintenance areas? ❑ ❑
Comment: Infrequent sample results are for outfall 2 only. No results for outfall 1. Difficult to determine
which Tier they fall upon. Zinc appears to be exceeding benchmark but asked for clarification
from lab.
Permit and Outfalls Yee No NA NE
# Is a copy of the Permit and the Certificate of Coverage available at the site? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
# Were all outfalls observed during the inspection? E 110 Cl
# If the facility has representative outfall status, is it property documented by the Division? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
# Has the facility evaluated all illicit (non stormwater) discharges? 0 El ❑ ❑
Comment:
Page: 3