DEQ-CFW_00047488

From: Goyb'Ju|ie [/D=NCMAL/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYD|BOHF2]3PDLT)/CN=REOP|ENTS/CN=JULIE. GRZYB]
Sent: 3/6/20I3358:39PM
To: Moore, Cindy [/O=NCMA|L/OU=EXCHAN6EADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYD|8DHFZ33PDLT)/CN=REOP|ENT3/CN=Cindy.a.moore];Ho||enkamp,Carol [/O=NCMA|L/OU=EXCHANGE
ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYD|8OHFI33PDLT)/CN=REC|P|ENT3/CN=Caro|.hoUenkamp]
CC: 8e|nickTom [/O=NCK8A|L/OU=EXCHANSEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYD|BOHFI]3PD[n/CN=REOP|ENT3/CN=Tombe|nick]
Subject: VVTPinfo
Attachments: VVTPtoxicity breakdown 1-10-2013.x|s
Cindy and Carol,
As requested, attached please find a spreadsheet that breaks down BU the VVTP5 according tDtreatment type. Column
D shows the type and N the flow.
TO Sum up, there are approximately 40 IE'S and 20 RO plants. Toxicity tests are showing a 50% failure rate for the IE'S
and less for the RD'5. Basically, we can assume 30 plants may need assistance from ATU on accurately assessing their
toxicity failures.
NPIDES, I think, is prepared to move forward with asking for each of these failing facilities to assess their specific
alternatives and see what is feasible. This request would be made upon permit renewal and the permittee would be giver
five years to do the evaluation and submit it (a whole permit cycle and NPIDES could include the results in the permit
renewal five years from now).
Your feedback isgreatly appreciated,