WQ0018708_Permit Status_20080710

aytree Lakes Permit Status_:
Subject: Re: Baytree Lakes Permit Status
From: David Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:12:35 -0400
To: Jim Barber <[e-mail]>
Jim Barber wrote:
David;
Just to cover all bases; I spoke.wifth Art this morning and he indicated that he
emailed you or spbke with you concerning the requests from Baytree that Art and ,
I discussed with you last week and we don't have any issues with the proposed
requests.
Jim Barber
David Goodrich wrote:
Jim,
We are still trying to finalize the Lake.Creek Corporation's permit
WQ0018708. They sent us an email late last week, whichll just forwarded to
you and Art. If your office is OK with their requests (as expressed in the
email), I will make the changes to the permit and do my best to have Kim sign
it ASAP. They withdrew their petition on June 26th, but it would be to
everyones' advantage to reach agreement and issue the permit as -soon as
possible.
David
Jim, '
Thanks for your email. I have "finalized"'the permit and submitted it to Kim for
approval and signature.
David
1
7 i 1/2008 8:57 AM

RCP) 874,e,
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Lake Creek Corporation WWTP Permit]]
From: Jim Barber <Jim.Barber@ncmail'.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:08:00 -0400
To: Art Barnhardt <[e-mail]>
Art;
You are correct. The issues raised by Baytree are the same issues that you and I
spoke with David Goodrich about over the phone last week. David said he would make
modification to the permit based on our comments and wouldgget Kim Colson to sign
ASAP.
Jim Barber
Art Barnhardt wrote:
David:
The date on the e-mail suggests to me that these are the
.discussed in our conference call over a week or so ago.
with it then, and still don't.
Jim, am I missing anything here?.
ArtB.
David Goodrich wrote:
same issues that we
I did not have a problem
Subject:
,[Fwd: Lake Creek Corporation WWTP Permit]
From:
David Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Date,:
Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:46:32 -0400
To:
"Oliver, Jane" <JOLIVER@ncdoj'.gov>'
To:
"Oliver, Jane" <[e-mail]>
Subject:
Lake Creek Cbrporation WWTP Permit
From:
[e-mail]
Date:
Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:16:22 +0000
To:
[e-mail]
To:
[e-mail]-
'CC:
"Barwick, Brooks" <[e-mail]>, "Dail, Harry" <[e-mail]>
David,
1 of 2 7/9/2008 9:08 AM

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Lake Creek Corporation WWTP Permit]]
Per our phone conversation yesterday, I am,providing you with a ,few questions
that need to be addressed prior to our moving forward with the hake Creek
Corporation WWTP expansion design.
1. We are currently reviewing the different treatment options for
the Lake Creek Corporation WWTP expansion. One option is to
construct a facultative pond. If the facultative,' pond is
designed for a treatment capacity of 50,000 gallons;;per day, can
it be permitted at a lower rate of 30,000 gallons per day?- Then
later, when the additional capacity is needed, re -rated for
50,000 gallons.
•
2. The draft permit stated that the complete designiof the
expansion shall be submitted sixty (60) days from the date,of
the permit. Lake Creek Corporation would like to extend the
time to ninety (120) days..
Please call me if you have any questions.
Brian Cox, PE
Engineering Services, PA
Garner, NC
919-662-7272
2 of 2 7/9/2008 9:08 AM

[Fwd: [Fwd: Lake Creek Corporation WWTP Permit]]
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Lake Creek Corporation WWTP Permit]]
From: David Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:33:54 -0400
To: ART BARNHARDT <[e-mail]>, Jim Barber <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Lake Creek Corporation WWTP Permit]
From: David Goodrich<[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:46:32 -0400
To: "Oliver, Jane" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lake Creek Corporation WWTP Permit 1
From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:16:22 +0000
To: [e-mail]
CC: "Barwick, Brooks" <[e-mail]>, "Dail, Harry" <[e-mail]>
David,
Per our phone conversation yesterday, I am providing you with a few q iestions that need to be
addressed prior to our moving forward with the Lake Creek Corporation WWTP expansion design.
1. We are currently reviewing the different treatment options for the Lake Creek Corporation
WWTP expansion. One option is to construct a facultative ponds: If the facultative pond is
designed for a treatment capacity of 50,000 gallons per day, can it be permitted at a lower rate of
30,000 gallons per day? Then later, when the additional capacity is needed, re -rated for 50,000
gallons.
2. The draft permit stated that the complete design of the expansion shall be submitted sixty (60)
days from the date of the permit. Lake Creek Corporation would like to extend the time to
ninety (120) days.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Brian Cox, PE
Engineering Services, PA
Garner, NC
919-662-7272
;i Content,Type:. message/rfc822
[Fwd: Lake Creek Corporation WWTP Permitbeml #Content -!!Encoding: 7bit
1 of 2 7/9/2008 9:08 AM

[Fwd: [Fwd: Lake Creek Corporation WWTP Permit]] '
Content -Type: messagehfc822
• Lake Creek Corporation WWTP Permitemlii
Content -Encoding: 7bit
2 of 2
7/9/2008 9:08 AM

Baytree Lakes Permit Status
Subject: Baytree Lakes Permit Status
From: David Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:05:07 -0400
To: Jim Barber <[e-mail]>
Jim,
We are still trying to finalize the Lake Creek Corporation's permit WQ0018708. They
sent us an email late last week, which I just forwarded to ,you and Art. If your
office is OK with their requests (as expressed in the email), I will make the
changes to the permit and do my best to have Kim sign it ASAP. They withdrew their
petition on June 26th, but it would be to everyones' advantage to reach agreement
and issue the permit as soon as possible.
David
1 of 1 7/9/2008 9:09 AM

[Fwd: Additional Request]
Subject: [Fwd: Additional Request]
From: David Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 07:53:38 -0400
To: Kim Colson <[e-mail]>, ART BARNHARDT
<[e-mail]>, Jim Barber <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
"Oliver, Jane" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Additional Request
From: "BBarwick" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 18:33:45 -0300
To: <[e-mail]>
David
In addition to the previous email we also request that consideration be given to, III. Operational and Maintenance
Requirements, Paragraph 7. It is our opinion that testing and calibrating all waste application equipment once a
year would be excessive and an unnecessary expense. Our ORC is at our facility every day and when repairs
or preventative maintenance is required the work is performed as expeditiously as possible. At our meeting in
Fayetteville on February 28, 2008 we were'given a Stationary Sprinkler Irrigation System calibration booklet.
We feel that going through the methods described in this booklet once every 5,years would be sufficient.
Thanks again for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Brooks Barwick -
Bill Stafford
Content -Type: message/rfc822
Additional Request;;
Content -Encoding: 7bit
1 of 1 5/15/2008 8:07 AM /

[Fwd: Bay Tree Lakes]
Subject: [Fwd: Bay Tree Lakes]
From: David Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 07:52:41 -0400
To: Kim Colson <[e-mail]>, ART BARNHARDT
<[e-mail]>,.Jim Barber <[e-mail]>, jleach@ncdoj:gov,
"Oliver, Jane <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bay Tree Lakes
From: "BBarwick" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 18:13:12 -0300
To: <[e-mail]>
David
Attached is a copy of the changes recommended by Brian Cox of Engineering Services that more closely
describes our operation.
We have the following concerns regarding the purposed permit for Lake Creek Corporation:
Schedules Paragraph Number 1
The disinfection process has been installed and is functioning as designed. Please describe to
us what your intentions are in this paragraph.
Attachment A. Effluent Characteristics, pH and Total Residual Chlorine, we request that we measure 2
times a month because our contract lab is already performing lab samples in our area twice a month
and this would be a significant cost savings to us.
Thank you for your consideration with our requests and we look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Brooks Barwick
Bill Stafford
Content -Type: message/rfe822
Bay Tree Lakes;;
11 Content -Encoding: 7bit
`Revised Draft Spray Irrigation Permit doc
11
Content -Type: • application/msword
Content-Encodingi base64
1 of 1 5/15/2008 8:09 AM

Re: Bay Tree hearing continued to week of 6/9
Subject: Re: Bay Tree hearing continued to week of 6/9
From: Art Barnhardt <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 16:32:08 -0400
To: "Oliver, Jane" <[e-mail]>, Kim Colson <[e-mail]>, DAVID
GOODRICH <[e-mail]>, Jim Barber <[e-mail]>
Jane:
I will not be available any of that week. Plus I do not think I will be needed
because I was not involved in any direct manner. Call if we need to talk.
On settling, should be able to if the petitioners do what they indicated they would
do in a technical discussion meeting a while back. I do not know if we should
expect them to come through on their pledge to address their problems or not. I do
not see where they have submitted a new application which, is what we are basically
needing. Am I on the right page Jim, David, Kim?
ArtB.
Oliver, Jane wrote:
The Lake Creek Developers d/b/a Bay Tree Utilities hearing has been continued to
the week of June 6. It has also been reassigned to an ALJ (Webster) who is not
likely to give us another continuance.
Is there a way that we can settle this case before the tearing? No rush just
get back with me when you can.
Thanks. Jane
1 of 1 5/14/2008 12:12 PM

Re: Bay Tree hearing continued to week of 6/9
Subject: Re: Bay Tree hearing continued to week of 6/9
From: David Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 08:15:16 -0400
To: Art Barnhardt <[e-mail]>
CC: "Oliver, Jane" <[e-mail]>, Kim Colson <[e-mail]>, Jim Barber
<[e-mail]>
Art Barnhardt wrote:
Jane:
I will not be available any of that week. Plus I do not think I will be needed
because I was not involved in any direct manner. Call if, we need to talk.
On settling, should be able to if the petitioners do what they indicated they
would do in a technical discussion'meeting a while back.!I do not know if we
should expect them to come through on their pledge to address their problems or
not. I do not see where they have submitted a new application which is what we
are basically needing. Am I on the right page Jim, David, Kim?
ArtB.
Oliver, Jane wrote:
The Lake Creek Developers d/b/a Bay Tree Utilities hearing has been continued
to the week of June 6. It has also been reassigned to an ALJ (Webster) who is
not likely to give us another continuance.
Is there a way that we can'settle this case before the, hearing? No rush - just
get back with me when you can.
Thanks. Jane
Everyone,
The status of this situation is that.I sent the revised draft of the permit with
its three Attachments to Brooks Barwick on April 17.
One week ago today, I,spoke with him by telephone and he informed me that he had
been out of his office for a week and had not yet had the, opportunity to examine
the documents in depth. He had, however, forwarded the documents to Bill Stafford,
the ORC, who reportedly has some comments and wants some changes. They intend to.
contact their consulting engineer, Brian Cox, regarding the'design plans, schedule
for construction, etc. and to get back to us very soon.
I told Mr. Barwick that the best way to 'handle the changes that Bill desires is to
send us all a detailed email' that explicitly states their 'requested revisions so
that we can discuss them and respond to them.
I intend to contact Brooks today (5/13) to check on the status of their response to
our draft, and will update you immediately as soon as I know anything.
David Goodrich
1 of 1 5/14/2008 1:27 PM

Re: Bay Tree hearing continued to week of 6/9
Subject: Re: Bay Tree hearing continued to week of 6/9
From: David Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 10:21:58 -0400
To: Art Barnhardt <[e-mail]>
CC: "Oliver, Jane" <[e-mail]>, Kim Colson <[e-mail]>, Jim Barber
<Jim. B arber@ncmail . net>
Art Barnhardt wrote:
Jane:
i
I will not be available any of that week. Plus.2 do not think I will be needed
because I was not involved in any direct manner. Call if' we need to talk.
On settling, should be able to if the 'petitioners do what they indicated they
would do in a technical discussion meeting a while back:! 'do not know if we
should expect them to come through on their pledge to address their problems or
not. I do not see where they have submitted a new.application which is what we
are basically needing. Am I on the right page Jim, David,, Kim?
ArtB.
Oliver, Jane wrote:
The Lake Creek Developers d/b/a Bay Tree Utilities hearing has been continued
to the week of June 6. It has also been reassigned -to an ALJ (Webster) who is
not likely to give us another continuance.
Is there a way that we can settle this case before the, hearing? No rush - just
get back with me when you can.
Thanks. Jane
Everyone,
I just reached Brooks Barwick by telephone,. and he told me that he will be meeting
with Bill Stafford tomorrow to discuss the permit draft arid will sending us an email
describing requested changes and comments.
I am expecting to receive the email tomorrow (5/14), and Will forward it to all of
you if he does not copy it to you..
David Goodrich
1 of 1 5/14/2008 1:28 PM

RE: Bay Tree hearing continued to week of 6/9
Subject: RE: Bay Tree hearing continued to week of 6/9
From: "Oliver, Jane' <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 14:58:50 -0400 •
To: "David Goodrich" <[e-mail]>, "Art Barnhardt"
<[e-mail]>
CC: "Kim Colson" <[e-mail]>, "Jim Barber" <[e-mail]>
Thanks, everyone! Sounds like things are moving along. Dave, I will
review any documents you send me. Please keep me informed'. about any
concerns you might have, status, etc. THANKS!.
Art, I think you should come back in during another vacation week
(presumably the reason you'll be out) to go to court! I'm still
impressed about your dedication in the freedman farms case. ,By the way,
I called OAH today and the case has been tentatively set for 5/28 - but
they have not been able to find a room for the hearing. They are still
working on it.
Original Message
From: David Goodrich [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:15 AM
To: Art Barnhardt
Cc: Oliver, Jane; Kim Colson; Jim Barber
Subject: Re: Bay Tree hearing continued to week of 6/9
Art Barnhardt wrote:
Jane:
2 will not be available any of that week. Plus I do not'think I will
be needed because I was not involved in any direct manner. Call if we
need to talk.
On settling, should be able to if the petitioners do what they
indicated they would do in a technical discussion meeting a while
back. I do not know if we should expect them to come through on their
pledge to address their problems or not. I do not see where they have
submitted a new application which is what we are basically needing. Am
I on the right page Jim, David, Kim?
ArtB.
Oliver, Jane wrote:
The Lake Creek Developers d/b/a Bay Tree Utilities hearing has been
continued to the week of June 6. It has also been reassigned to an
ALJ (Webster) who is not likely,to give us another continuance.
Is there a way that we can settle this case before the, hearing? No
rush - just get back with me when you can.
Thanks. Jane
Everyone,
The status of this situation is that I sent the revised draft of the
permit with its three Attachments to Brooks Barwick on April 17.
One week ago today, I spoke with him by telephone and he informed me
that he had been out of his office for a week and had not 'yet had the
opportunity to examine the documents in depth. He had, however,.
forwarded the documents to Bill Stafford, the ORC, who reportedly has
some comments and wants some changes. They intend to contact their
consulting engineer, Brian Cox, regarding the design plans, schedule for
1 of 2 5/14/2008 1:28 PM

RE: Bay Tree hearing continued to week of 6/9
construction, etc. and to get back to us very soon.
I told Mr. Barwick that the best way to handle the changes' that Bill
desires is to send us all a detailed email that explicitly states their
requested revisions so that we can discuss them and respond to them.
I intend to contact Brooks today (5/13) to check on the status of their
response to our draft, and will update you immediately as soon as I know
anything.
David Goodrich
2 of 2 5/14/2008 1:28 PM

Re: Lake Creek Adjudication WQ0018708
Subject: Re: Lake Creek Adjudication. WQ0018708
From: David Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 07:11:36 -0500
To: Jim Barber <[e-mail]>
CC: Art Barnhardt <[e-mail]>
Jim Barber wrote:
David;
Your comments look fine and address all issues discussed. By the way, did Kim C.
received the NPDES permit for Town of White Lake that I'faxed the afternoon of 28
Feb? If you need a hard copy mailed to your attention (4 the fax copy is of poor
quality), iet'me'know and I will send the copy I have for the AP files.
Jim Barber
David Goodrich wrote:
,Everyone,
I have been. in contact with Jane Oliver of the AJO and;th.e hearing date is
approximately two months away. We may' be able to resolve the' issues
associated with this permit'before that time. '
Pursuant to our meeting at the FRO last week with the' Lake Creek
representatives, I am summarizing our progress and resolutions herewith:
.1,) We are going to change the PPI Effluent Sampling Schedule of 4 times a year
to agree with the.3 times a year sampling schedule and the groundwater
sampling schedule. This will mean that "4 X/year",willbe, March, July,
September, and November. The schedule of "3 X/year" and the groundwater
'sampling schedule will both remain .the same-, as March, July, and November.
2) The Pe.rmittee's commitment to stay with grab sampling instead of -composite
sampling will force their permit to be limited to an effluent flow of 30,000
gallons or less, and they understand this limitation.
3)The Permittee is reluctant to sample the effluent 5times-a week, and the
.ORC claims that the Town of White Lake's NPDES-permityupon which our
sampling policies are based) requires monitoring for pH and Chlorine only once
a week. We are going to look'into this reported condition by examining the
NPDES permit.
4)We intend to remove the pH limits from Attachment A.:
5) Permit Condition III.7 of the 12/12/07 permit requires the testing and
calibration of all waste application equipment at least once a year. The
Permittee wants this requirement restricted to the flow meters. However, the
intent of this Condition is to include the flow meters1and the performance of
a field calibration (in accordance with a Cooperative Extension Guidance
Document) that will empirically calibrate the spray guns by using catch cans,
etc. We may expand the existing Permit. Condition to include explicit reference
' to this document to add clarification.
6) The •(revised) design requirements of the plant will: include a disinfection
process that will have to work as intended by the designer. There are
presently no requirements for the plant to achieve secondary or -tertiary
standards of wastewater treatment.
7) Everyone anticipates that it will require their des'igri engineer, Brian Cox,
at least 30 days to design the expansion of the system.
8) We intend to change the current permit to reflect the'changes and
resolutions described herein. .. We plan,to create:a revised permit and send the draft';to,Lake Creek for their
1 of 2 4/2/2008 11:43 AM

Re: Lake Creek Adjudication WQ0018708
v
approval..
9)In the future, after Brian Cox has completed his design plans for the
expansion of the system, the Lake Creek people will submit a permit
modification request that reflects these upgrades.
Please. let me know if I have missed'anything!•Thank you for your assistance.
David Goodrich
Thanks, Jim. Twill check with Kim on the status of that fax transmission - I don't
know if he .received it.
David
i
2 of 2 4/2/2008 11:43 AM

Lake Creek Adjudication WQ0018708
Subject: Lake Creek Adjudication WQ0018708
From: David'Goodrich <David.GoodrichWCMail.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:14:27 -0500
To: ART BARNHARDT <[e-mail]>, Jim Barber
<[e-mail]>, Kim Colson <[e-mail]>
Everyone,
I have been in contact with Jane Oliver of the AJO and the'hearing date is
approximately two months away. We may be able to resolve the issues associated with
this permit before that time.
Pursuant to our meeting at the 'FRO last week with the Lake,Creek representatives, I
am summarizing our progress and resolutions herewithi •
1) We are going to change the PPI Effluent Sampling Schedule of4 times a year to
agree with the 3 times a year sampling schedule and the groundwater sampling
schedule. This will mean that "4 X/year" will be March, July,,September, and
November. The schedule of "3 X/year" and the groundwater sampling schedule will both
remain the same, as March, July, and November.
2) The Permittee's commitment to stay with grab sampling instead of composite
sampling will force their permit to be limited to an effluent flow of 30,000 gallons
or less, and they understand this limitation.
3)The Permittee is reluctant'to sample the effluent 5 time a'week, and the ORC
claims that the Town of White Lake's NPDES permit (upon which our sampling policies
are based) requires monitoring for pH and Chlorine only once a week. We are going to
look into this reported condition by examining the NPDES permit.
4)We intend to remove the• pH limits from Attachment A•.
5) Permit Condition III".7 of the 12/12/07 permit requires the testing and
calibration of all waste application equipment at least once a year.•The Permittee
wants this requirement restricted to the flow meters. However, the intent of this
Condition is to include the flow meters and the performance of a field- calibration
(in accordance with a Cooperative Extension. Guidance Document) that will
empirically calibrate the spray guns by using catch cans, etc. We may expand the
existing Permit Condition to include explicit reference to ',,this document to add
clarification.
6) The (revised) design requirements of the plant will include a disinfection
process that will have to work as intended by the designer. There are presently no _
requirements for the plant to achieve secondary or tertiary standards of wastewater
treatment.
7) Everyone anticipates that it will require their design engineer, Brian Cox, at
least 30 days to design the expansion of the system.
8) We intend to change the current permit to reflect the changes and resolutions
described herein.
We plan to create a revised permit and send the draft to Lake•Creek for their
approval.
9)In the future, after Brian Cox has completed his design plans for the 'expansion of
the system, the Lake Creek people will submit a permit modification request that
reflects these upgrades.
Please let me know if I have missed anything! Thank you for!your assistance.
David Goodrich
1 of 1 4/2/2008 11:43 AM

• Re: [Fwd: Lake Creek]
_Subject: Re: [Fwd: Lake,Creek]
From: Jim Barber <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:10:21 -0500
To: David Goodrich <[e-mail]>, Art Barnhardt'<[e-mail]>
David;
loam on 28 Feb is fine by me. I have reserved, a conference room from 9:30 = 12:30.
Jim Barber .
David Goodrich wrote:
Jim Barber wrote:
Dave;
At this time my calender is open and will stay, open all day for either 28 Feb
or 10 March 2008 for a meeting here at the Fayetteville Regional Office.
Jim Barber
David Goodrich wrote:
Jim Barber wrote:
Art;
My calender is open all day the 13th., 14th & 15th.
I
David;
Will the meeting be at Bay Tree or here at the Fayetteville Office. I
don't have a problem with going to Bay Tree. • 111 '
Jim Barber
Art Barnhardt wrote:
Jim:
To clarify 13th, 14th,
the meeting.
ArtB.
15th mornings are the proposed time slots for
Subject:
Lake Creek
From:
Art Barnhardt. <[e-mail]>
Date:
Fri, 08 Feb 2008 12:09:37 .-0500
To:
DAVID GOODRICH <[e-mail]>
To:
DAVID GOODRICH <[e-mail]>
David:
i
All those mornings are out for me. Jim Barber wi@11
representative and he can attend any of the dates.,.'•
ArtB.
Jim and Art,
r
be an ableFRO
The Permittee wants to have the meeting at the Fayettlevi11e Regional
Office. The two dates that look good for our (Kim and` myself) calendars
are Thursday, February 28th and Monday, March loth. Please let me know if
either of those work for you guys, and I will wait to hear from you before
1 of 2 2/12/2008 12:10 PM

e02/]I2008 12:08 919-715-0588 .NODE&NR/WATER QUAL
PAGE 01
State of North Carolina •
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Divisionof Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G, Ross Jr., Secretary ,
Alan W. Klimek P.E., Director •
Division' of Water Quality.
Aquifer Protection Section
Location: 2728 Capital Blvd,
Raleigh, NC 27604 ,.
Mailing Address:1636 Mail'Service Center
Raleigh, NC. 27699-1636
FAX: [phone]
(919) 716048
Date: 2 /1 1 S
FAXTO: ,` i ell AdGvi
FAX NUMBER: iIgO ` Yi — I
•
077
FROM:
PHONE: 7 (5 - 61‘2.
•
NO, OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: lO
,i5 • LI 5€
. `? «'.
�t e
�.
U&dSG#K.
if you receive this fax by mistake call: Aquifer Protection Section @ 919-733-3221

02/01/2008 12:08 919-715-0588
NCDE&NR/WATER QUAL,
PAGE 02
1-30-08
Lake Creek Corporation d/b/a
Bay Tree Utilities
33 West Bay Ridge Road
Harrelis, North Carolina 28444
[phone]
Fax [phone].
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Please find enclosed a response to the Order for Prehearing Statemelnts Case number 08
EHR 0030. In response to your letter to us dated 1-16-08 and your email to us dated 1-
22-08, we would like to resolve these issues before the adjudicating hearing. However,
we are still concerned with, permit condition III. 7 and the requirement for testing for
PH and TRC five times a week.
k
Please note obr response to Ms Lassiter to these items in paragraph number 2 of the
enclose letter.
Please provide us with copies of your policies as it pertains to the two before mentioned
items. Also for the discovery process we would like to have copies of any permits of
any facilities 30,000 gpd that have been renewed or newly issuedthat are similar or
equal to our current spray irrigation permitted operation. l
We would like to meet with you ,as soon as possible at your suggested location of the
Fayetteville Regional Office. Please call us to arrange this meeting
1
Sincerely:
dLeje
Bill Stafford
ORC Bay Tree Utilities
910-862-5905 cell
Brooks Barwick
Bay Tree Utilities
910-214-9929 cell
4.71

02l01`12008 12:08 919-715-0588
NCDE&NR/WATER QUAL..1 PAGE 03 •
1-30-08
Lake Creek Corporation cilb/a
Bay Tree Utilities
33 West Bay Ridge Road
Harrells, North Carolina 28444
[phone]
Fax [phone]
The Honorable Ms Melissa Owens Lassiter
Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
Dear Ms Lassiter:
We respond to the Order for Prehearing Statements, case number 08 F.I IR 0030 accordingly:
co
-,
r n _._co
N r_;
c� r'i"
1. The issues to be resolved are explained in detail in our letter dated 1-4,-08 to Mr. David Goodrich
with DWQ. A copy is attached herewith. We are not familiar with specific General Statues that
areinvolved. Concerning legal precedent, we have expressed our desire to DWQ for copies of the
rules which'govern our application. They advised us that some of the conditions in the permit
were "policies" and we did not receive specific statute information- It appears that personal
preferences mandated by DWQ regulators will cause us unnecessary financial hardships that
would restrict our abilities to effectively maintain the current wastewater system.
2. We also include a letter from Mr. Goodrich dated 1-16-08. Of his'second paragraph, be advised
that our licensed.engineer is currently involved in planning our applicable needs. The third
paragraph states, "All waste application equipment must be tested and calibrated at least once per
year." An interpretation of this statement could include the calibration of all pipes, valves,
sprinkler heads, etc, and could be interpreted iri a manner that would unduly invoke financial
mismanagement on our part. Generally speaking, the calibration process is performed by
specialists with the necessary equipment to certify to within 10% of true flow. The forth and final
paragraph states, "The monitoring of the treated wastewater effluent for PH and total residual
chlorine must be performed 5 times a week." Our position is that this,is excessive and again would
lead to unnecessary expenses. Currently we only test for these parameters 3 times a year through a
contract lab; We would have to buy lab equipment, follow the guidelines of becoming a certified
field lab, and have that equipment calibrated once a year. Again, another cost not necessarily
associated with operating efficiently and in the most environmentally friendly manner. It is our
position that it would be financially irresponsible to perform such test 5 times a week as.the
operator in charge is only required to visit the spray irrigation facility once per week. It appears
that other issues subject to this paragraph are negotiable with DWQ for an acceptable resolution
prior to our hearing date.
1

+, a
Lake Creek Corporation
33 West Bay Ridge Road
Harrells, North Carolina 28444
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Mr. David Goodrich
Aquifer Protection Section
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
January 04-2008
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Concerning the permit renewal WQ0018708, there are several concerns that we need to
address prior to this permit becoming effective. Due to time constraints we have this date filed
a petition for a hearing with the Office of Administration. Hearing. The issues are listed below
with general comments of our concerns. Very briefly we are attempting to describe the
current wastewater system.
.1
We are currently permitted for 20,000 GPD aeration system and ,a 5i acre spray field area.
Our flow is 100% domestic with no industrial waste received. At' the headworks of the plant
the influent flow comes in to a splitter box from a pumping station located in the collection
system. Upon exiting the splitter box the flow is divided into dual aeration system with
clarifiers. The flow leaves the clarifiers, flows through a flow meter. chamber where we
measure the influent flow. After the flow meter it goes into an approximately 1 acre lagoon.
This lagoon also serves as our holding basin for our spray field pump station. The flow enters
at approximately one end of this lagoon while the pump station is near the far end. Flow is
metered, chlorinated and applied to our irrigation area.
We do not feel or see a need to construct and operate an additional 20,000 GPD. expansion of
the aeration system. The plant originally was designed for 20,000 GPD to meet stringent
NPDES requirements of 6 mg/1 BOD in the summer months and!10mg/1 BOD in the winter
months. Under the spray irrigation we no longer have these monthly limits. Therefore, the
expansion of the 20,000 GPD aeration system is not needed. Under 'the current system the
Label for the 20,000 GPD needs to be removed. Monthly average flow should be increased
under the present WWTP configuration to 30,000 gpd.
The original application for a permit contained expansion of the; aeration system and .other
mechanical features that were unnecessary. Possibly this aeration system is not needed at all
now. (We could pipe the flow to the lagoon, add a couple aerators and reduce maintenance
cost).
One of our main concerns is operating within our financial resources. We are anticipating
increased operating cost because of the age of our facility. We prefer to spend money that will
directly benefit our operation rather than with construction of unnecessary aeration
equipment. Our ongoing Inflow and Infiltration repair program is expensive, time consuming
and sometimes a major cost is involved to repair a relatively small leak. Additional
expenditures of unnecessarily expanding the WWTP would curtail our abilities to modernize

our existing lift stations and collection system. Also consideration needs to be given to the
drinking water infrastructure and upgrades.
Please clarify Section III. Number 7 which should be limited to the flow meter.
We would like to review attachment A of Effluent Limits. Under monitoring requirements,
measurement frequency, our proposed frequencies have doubled from our previous permit,
also doubling the cost. In our opinion, four times a year should be adequate (March, June,
September and November). We would prefer that all parameters have the same frequency,
some parameters are three times a year, some are four times a year at various months. This
would ease our administrative costs. PH and TRC are noted at 5 times a week. Our old
permit required testing only 3 times a year. We consider 4 times a year sufficient on the same
parameter schedule. Sampling PH and TRC 5 times a week is cost prohibitive.. We would
have to purchase meters, become certified as a field lab and do annual performance
evaluationsresulting in unnecessary expense. All sample types should be "grab" due to the
cost of the composite sampler and because our flow characteristics are consistent throughout •
the day with 100% domestic, non industrial waste. Please note under section 002 expanded
WWTP, total nitrogen under frequency is listed' as continuous which appears to be an error.
Under Attachment C of Ground Water Monitoring Wells measuring! frequency could possibly
be on the same schedule as Attachment A at three'timesa year (March, June and November).
We are also concerned about TOC daily maximum. After a review of past lab analysis we may
have exceeded the daily maximum on our new permit.. This limit ;may too low initially.
Presently the proposed permit expires November, 2012. During the next five years future
comprehensive studies, with consultation with our engineers will enable us to determine
exactly what expansions are needed and where. Possible expansion Will be determined by
future growth. Real Estate sells have tumbled in the past two years and we have not grown as
we had expected. National projections are bleak for new second -home construction.
A draft of the proposed permit would be appreciated to prevent the process of filing a petition
for these types of discrepancies. If there is any other information' that might help in these
important matters please call Bill Stafford at [phone] or Brooks Barwick at (910) 214-
9929.
Sincerely,
Brooks Barwick
Development Manager
Bill Stafford
ORC, Bay Tree Utilities
cc: D. Stephen Jones
President, Lake Creek Corporation