City of Raleigh CORPUD NRWWTP Permit (WQ0001730) Book #2 Vol. # 9

[Fwd: Status of Raleigh's variance]
l of 1
Subject: [Fwd: Status of Raleigh's variance l
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:36:12 -0500
To: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <Alan,[e-mail]>
FYI about the Raleigh CORPUD variance request .
david hance
x. 587
Subject: Status of Raleigh's variance . ,
From: Jay Zimmerman <jay.zimmermau@ncmail.n~t>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:03:05 :-.0500
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <Kathy.Stecker@ncmaiLnet>,
CC: Rick Bolich <Rick.Bolich@ncmaiLnet>, David Hance <David.Hance@nc:;mail.net>:; ,,
I hope someone has kept you in;.;t:,he loop concerning Raleigh. Here is the lat,e;St -_
Raleigh has requested, and Coleen. has agreed, to defer a decision on the s-ariance·,:,
until after our receipt of new .:information from them sometime in mid January. -Once
received we will review it and,·,per Colei?n,_ hold another public hearing. Sine,!= .i,t
likely will be an addendum to the current application my guess is we will s. .. till.,
consider input from the previous, hearing and any new input concerning the fut,_'t(re.
hearing. I had asked David to c:::ompile all the comments received to date and,;o:rgan;ize
them according to content, to make it easier for Rick Bolich anq I, as well::i:is _you,-
to review and consider. I haven-'t r~ceived them that I know of so I will check with
David concerning a timeframe.
A draft letter is being prepareo. for Coleen's signature concerning the defer:r.;a:1.Y,
which should go out this week, from what I am led to believe. Each of you .have •.been
copied so let Rick or I know if you do not get a copy. Let me know if any,other
questions and have a nice holiday.
Jay
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
. . · Content-Type: message/rfc822
Status of Raleigb'.Si varlfince . Content-Encoding: 7bit
12/18/2007 9:37 1
November 30, 2007
Mayor Thomas A. Bayliss
City of New Bern
P.O. Box 1129
New Bern, N.C. 28563-1129
(!]itg fJf Cfl.aleigh
!North Garollna
Re: City of Raleigh Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP)
Dear Mayor Bayliss:
The City is in receipt of your October 23rd letter to Mr. David Hance of the N.C.
l;>ivision of Water Quality (DWQ) regarding the City of Raleigh's pending request to the
N.C. Environmental Management Commission (EMC) for approval of a variance from
the ISA NCAC 2L Groundwater Standards. Thank you for copying Mayor Meeker with
your letter. I am sorry that there was not an opportunity provided for Raleigh staff to
discuss the City's request to the EMC with you prior to you submitting this letter, since
from our review of your letter it is clear that you do not fully understand the City's
purpose and reasoning for making such a request to the EMC.
The City of Raleigh submitted the variance request to DWQ on December 1, 2005 as a
conditional requirement of a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) subsequently approved by
DWQ on July 19, 2006. The CAP was issued at the City's request to DWQ in order to
address exceedances of the nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) standard for groundwater of 10 parts
per million (i.e. the standard for drinking water) that has ocurred at portions of the
compliance boundary around the perimeter of the City's biosolids land application farm
fields located adjacentto the NRWWTP.
The EMC' s rules require permitted parties like the City to use active remediation
measures to correct exceedances of groundwater standards at the compliance boundary of
their facilities. However, the rules also allow for a variance from the rules _where strict
compliance would not be economically reasonable and is not necessary to protect public
health. The City's CAP includes the installation of 40 wells for the extraction and
treatment of contaminated groundwater in the portion of the site closest to residential
development. The wells have already been installed and the City will begin pumping
water from these wells into the NRWWTP process for de-nitrification in January, 2008.
Once these active remediation facilities have been completed, the City will have
expended a total $1. 7 million in their design and construction. In order to strictly comply
with the EMC rules without the City pursuing the variance, similar wells would have to
be installed around much of the property boundary at an estimated cost of approximately
$80 million. DWQ and the State Toxicologist have agreed that there is no public health
risk present that would be addressed by such an extensive groundwater removal,
collection and treatment system; therefore, they support a variance that would relieve the
City from this requirement.
While it is true that there is nitrogen making its way to the Neuse River from the plant
site, the remedial system strictly required by the rules would do virtually nothing to
address that problem. Therefore, installing the remediation system required by the rules
would therefore be a tremendous waste of public money. To address the nitrogen
problem, which does not involve a violation of groundwater standards or a variance from
those standards, the City and DWQ agreed that the City should be required to count
estimated nitrogen loadings from the site towards its wastewater discharge limit for
nitrogen. In this manner, the total nitrogen loadings from the plant site -both from the
effluent discharge pipe and from the fields -will never be allowed to exceed the City's
permitted nitrogen loading limit. This is both a fair and effective way to address the
problem. The City has committed to exploring other ways to reduce nitrogen loading
from the plant site and has for the past couple of years been cooperating with, promoting
and funding research by hydrologists at DWQ, U.S. Geological Survey and N.C. State
University to determine the most appropriate technology to achieve this goal. However, I
want to reiterate that the remediation system that would be required without a variance is
not one of those options because it is designed to address a different issue (nitrate
nitrogen exceedances at the compliance boundary), not nitrogen loading to the Neuse
River.
Given the City of New Bern's location on the river, I certainly understand and appreciate
you concerns about nitrogen in any form being discharge to the Neuse River. However, I
assure you that the City of Raleigh has an equal and even greater concern for water
quality in the Neuse River, especially for nutrients, since the impounded Neuse River in
the form of Falls Lake is the City's current sole source of drinking water and the re-
created river immediately downstream of Palls Lake Dam is a source of passive and
active recreation and respite for thousand's of our City's citizens as the river travels
through Raleigh's jurisdiction.
From the outset of the determination that the Neuse River was a nutrient sensitive water
body in the mid-1980's Raleigh has been the leader and the benchmark for removal
nutrients from the Neuse River, starting with the installation of phosphorus removal
treatment process three (3) years prior to the regulatory requirement at the NRWWTP.
Raleigh also played key role in encouraging the Legislature to pass the so called
"phosphate detergent ban" during this timeframe.
As to nitrogen issue in the Neuse Estuary that came forward as a result of fish kills in the
New Bern area in the summer of 1995, Raleigh has set the standard not just locally, but
regionally and I dare say nationally for installation and operation of nitrogen removal
facilities at the NRWWTP. As I'm sure you recall, the so called ''Neuse Nitrogen Rules"
took effect in 1998 and NPDES permitted facilities such as the City's NRWWTP and the
New Bern WWTP were granted 5 years to install nitrogen removal facilities, so that they
would comply with total nitrogen discharge limits in calendar year 2003. Unlike many
NPDES permitted facilities such as New Bern's, Raleigh immediately proceeded and
spent approximately $15 million dollars in a two (2) phased major capital project of
adding additional nitrogen removal treatment process at the NRWWTP and began
reducing its nitrogen discharge in 1998, gaining compliance with its permit limits four (4)
full years in advance of the DWO requirement. Since 1998 Raleigh has removed a
conservative estimated total of more than 5,500,000 pounds of Total Nitrogen more than
it was required to remove by DWQ as shown on the attached graph, with steady
reductions from the previous year in every year but one. This trend will occur again this
year in 2007, with the City discharging less than 300,000 pounds of Total Nitrogen.
Because of this previous investment and record of nitrogen removal performance at the
NRWWTP, DWQ approved the CAP with the condition that the City continue to
discharge nitrogen at levels below the combined total of the plant treatment process plus
the annual modeled loading from the CSA that is estimated to be transported to the Neuse
River from the groundwater at the biosolids land application fields. The City retained an
engineering consultant to conduct an independent Comprehensive Site Assessment
(CSA) and prepare a CAP, both documents for DWQ review and approval. The CSA
concluded through hydraulic modeling of groundwater from the farm fields that some
NO3-N was leaving the plant site and was being discharged to the Neuse River.
The groundwater hydraulic modeling in the CSA indicates that over the next thirty (30)
years, a total of2,400,000 pounds or an annual average of 80,000 pounds per year. As
you can see, Raleigh has already removed more than twice this total amount ofNO3-N
and more than three times the estimated average annual loading. Both the City's
consultants and DWQ staff believe installation of active remediation across the entire site
in the form of additional groundwater wells, a collection system and denitrification of the
groundwater in the NRWWTP is impractical both in terms of removing p.itrate nitrogen
from groundwater as well the cost of such an extensive system, especially in light of what
Raleigh has done and continues to do in nitrogen removal from the NRWWTP effluent
being discharged from the Neuse River.
In addition to its unparalleled nitrogen removal performance, Raleigh was the local
government catalyst in first establishing and now continuing and enhancing a water
quality monitoring network along the Lower Neuse River Basin from Falls Lake to below
Havelock to insure through regular, frequent field sampling and laboratory analysis a
means to measure long term water quality trends. The analytical results from this
monitoring program indicate that the contribution of nitrogen to the Neuse River from the
nitrate nitrogen leaving the City's biosolids application farm fields through groundwater
is negligible on an annual basis.
We certainly recognize and appreciate the contributions and investment New Bern has
made to protect the Neuse River as well cited in your letter and look forward to
continuing the partnership between the two Cities through the Neuse River Compliance
Association and the Lower Neuse River Basin Association.
If you have any questions regarding the information in this letter, please contact me at
(919)-890-3070 or H. Dale Crisp, Raleigh's Public Utilities Director, (919)-857-4540.
Also, I encourage you to talk with the DWQ ~taffregarding the information I have
included about why Raleigh has requested the variance and why they support the
variance and have recommended its approval by the EMC.
Sincerely,
9,~~
J. Russell Allen
City Manager
Cc: Mayor and City Council Members
City Attorney
Associate City Attorney -McLawhorn
Public Utilities Director
Public Affairs Director
Reuse Superintendent
~astewater Treatment Superintendent
V1: WQ-Hance, Zimmerman and Sullins
Steve Levitas
November 30, 2007
Mayor Thomas A. Bayliss
City of New Bern
P.O. Box 1129
New Bern, N.C. 28563-1129
<Jity €Jf CJ:la,leigh
!!Horth &rohna.
Re: City of Raleigh Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP)
Dear Mayor Bayliss:
The City is in receipt of your October 23rd letter to Mr. David Hance of the N.C.
I)ivision of Water Quality (DWQ) regarding the City of Raleigh's pending request to the
N.C. Environmental Management Commission (EMC) for approval of a variance from
the I SA NCAC 2L Groundwater Standards. Thank you for copying Mayor Meeker with
your letter. I am sorry that there was not an opportunity provided for Raleigh staff to
discuss the City's request to the EMC with you prior to you submitting this letter, since
from our review of your letter it is clear that you do not fully understand the City's
purpose and reasoning for making such a request to the EMC.
The City of Raleigh submitted the variance request to DWQ on December 1, 2005 as a
conditional requirement of a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) subsequently approved by
DWQ on July 19, 2006. The CAP was issued at the City's request to DWQ in order to
address exceedances of the nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) standard for groundwater of 10 parts
per million (i.e. the standard for drinking water) that has ocurred at portions of the
compliance boundary around the perimeter of the City's biosolids land application farm
fields located adjacent to the NRWWTP.
The EMC's rules requfrepennitted parties like the -City to use active remediation
measures to correct exceedances of groundwater standards at the compliance boundary of
their facilities. However, the rules also allow for a variance from the rules _where strict
compliance would not be economically reasonable and is not necessary to protect public
health. · The City's CAP includes the installation of 40 wells for the extraction and
treatment of contaminated groundwater in the portion of the site closest to residential
development. The wells have already been installed and the City will begin pumping
water from these wells into the NRWWTP process for de-nitrification in January, 2008.
Once these active remediation facilities have been completed, the City will have
expended a total $1. 7 million in their design and construction. In order to strictly comply
with the EMC rules without the City pursuing the variance, similar wells would have to
be installed around much of the property boundary at an estimated cost of approximately
$80 million. DWQ and the State Toxicologist have agreed that there is no public health
risk present that would be addressed by such an extensive groundwater removal,
collection and treatment system; therefore, they support a variance that would relieve the
City from this requirement.
While it is true that there is nitrogen making its way to the Neuse River from the plant
site, the remedial system strictly required by the rules would do virtually nothing to
address that problem. Therefore, installing the remediation system required by the rules
would therefore be atremendous waste of public money. To address the nitrogen
problem, which does not involve a violation of groundwater standards or a variance from
those standards, the City and DWQ agreed that the City should be required to count
estimated nitrogen loadings from the site towards its wastewater discharge limit for
nitrogen. In this manner, the total nitrogen loadings from the plant site -both from the
effluent discharge pipe and from the fields -will never be allowed to exceed the City's
permitted nitrogen loading limit. This is both a fair and effective way to address the
problem. The City has committed to exploring other ways to reduce nitrogen loading
from the plant site and has for the past couple of years been cooperating with, promoting
and funding research by hydrologists at DWQ, U.S. Geological 'Survey and N.C. State
University to determine the most appropriate technology to achieve this goal. However, I
want to reiterate that the remediation system that would be required without a variance is
not one of those options because it is designed to address a different issue (nitrate
nitrogen exceedances at the compliance boundary), not nitrogen loading to the Neuse
River.
Given the City of New Bern's location on the river, I certainly understand and appreciate
you concerns about nitrogen in any form being discharge to the Neuse River. However, I
assure you that the City of Raleigh has an equal and even greater concern for water
quality in the Neuse River, especially for nutrients, since the impounded Neuse River in
the form of Falls Lake is the City's current sole source of drinking water and the re-
created river immediately downstream of Falls Lake Dam is a source of passive and
active recreation and respite for thousand's of our City's citizens as the river travels
through Raleigh's jurisdiction.
From the outset of the determination that the Neuse River was a nutrient sensitive water
body in the mid-1980's Raleigh has been the leader and the benchmark for removal
nutrients from the Neuse River, starting with the installation of phosphorus removal
treatment process three (3) years prior to the regulatory requirement at the NRWWTP.
Raleigh also played key role in encouraging the Legislature to pass the so called
"phosphate detergent ban" during this timeframe.
As to nitrogen issue in the Neuse Estuary that came forward as a result of fish kills in the
New Bern area in the summer of 1995, Raleigh has set the standard not just locally, but
regionally and I dare say nationally for installation and operation of nitrogen removal
facilities at the NRWWTP. As I'm sure you recall, the so called ''Neuse Nitrogen Rules"
took effect in 1998 and NPDES permitted facilities such as the City's NRWWTP and the
New Bern WWTP were granted 5 years to install nitrogen removal facilities, so that they
would comply with total nitrogen discharge limits in calendar year 2003. Unlike many
NPDES permitted facilities such as New Bern's, Raleigh immediately proceeded and
spent approximately $15 million dollars in a two (2) phased major capital project of
adding additional nitrogen removal treatment process at the NRWWTP and began
reducing its nitrogen discharge in 1998, gaining compliance with its permit limits four (4)
full years in advance of the DWO requirement. Since 1998 Raleigh has removed a
conservative estimated total of more than 5,500,000 pounds of Total Nitrogen more than
it was required to remove by DWQ as shown on the attached graph, with steady
reductions from the previous year in every year but one. This trend will occur again this
year in 2007, with the City discharging less than 300,000 pounds of Total Nitrogen.
Because of this previous investment and record of nitrogen removal performance at the
NRWWTP, DWQ approved the CAP with the condition that the City continue to
discharge nitrogen at levels below the combined total of the plant treatment process plus
the annual ;modeled loading from the CSA that is estimated to be transported to the Neuse
River from the groundwater at the biosolids land application fields. The City retained an
engineering consultant to conduct an independent Comprehensive Site Assessment
(CSA) and prepare a CAP, both documents forDWQ review and approval. The CSA
concluded through hydraulic modeling of groundwater from the farm fields that some
NO3-N was leaving the plant site and was being discharged to the Neuse River.
The groundwater hydraulic modeling in the CSA indicates that over the next thirty (30)
years, a total of 2,400,000 pounds or an annual average of 80,000 pounds per year. As
you can see, Raleigh has already removed more than twice this total amount of NO3-N
and more than three times the estimated average annual loading. Both the City's
consultants and DWQ staff believe installation of active remediation across the entire site
in the form of additional groundwater wells, a collection system and denitrification of the
groundwater in the NRWWTP is impractical both in terms ofremoving nitrate nitrogen
from groundwater as well the cost of such an extensive system, especially in light of what
Raleigh has done and continues to do in nitrogen removal from the NRWWTP effluent
being discharged from the Neuse River.
In addition to its unparalleled nitrogen removal performance, Raleigh was the local
government catalyst in first establishing and now continuing and enhancing a water
quality monitoring network along the Lower Neuse River Basin from Falls Lake to below
Havelock to insure through regular, frequent field sampling and laboratory analysis a
means to measure long term water quality trends. The analytical results from this _
monitoring program indicate that the contribution of nitrogen to the Neuse River from the
nitrate nitrogen leaving the City's biosolids application farm fields through groundwater
is negligible on an annual basis.
We certainly recognize and appreciate the contributions and investment New Bern has
made to protect the Neuse River as well cited in your letter and look forward to
continuing the partnership between the two Cities through the Neuse River Compliance
Association and the Lower Neuse River Basin Association.
If you have any questions regarding the information in this letter, please contact me at
(919)-890-3070 or H. Dale Crisp, Raleigh's Public Utilities Director, (919)-857-4540.
Also, I encourage you to talk with the DWQ staff regarding the information I have
included about why Raleigh has requested the variance and why they support the
variance and have recommended its approval by the EMC.
Sincerely,
9,~~
J. Russell Allen
City Manager
Cc: Mayor and City Council Members
City Attorney
Associate City Attorney -McLawhorn
Public Utilities Director
Public Affairs Director
Reuse Superintendent
~tewater Treatment Superintendent
0_:_JWQ-Hance, Zimmerman and Sullins
Steve Levitas
C ORPUD Written Comments: Comprehensive set
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD Written Comments: Comprehensive set
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:30:51 -0500
To: "Bachl, Carolyn" <[e-mail]>
Per our conversation today ; I have a complete set of written comments together . They
will be in a envelope with your name on it for you or your co-worker to pickup on
Wednesday, Nov .. 21st.
They will be in my chair in Room 625aa across from the copier machine.
I will be back after Thanksgiving Holiday.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
11/20/2007 4:311
!: CORPUD Variance: A new DRAFT Schedule with Discussion '\
>f2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: A new DRAFf Schedule with Discussion
From: "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:20:34-0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts
<[e-mail]>, Chuck Wakild <[e-mail]>
David & Others,
The Division is involved in ongoing discussions with the City about its plans to address the concerns at
this site. It is highly unlikely that the variance will go on the agenda for the January EMC meeting. I
would not worry about the "tight time frame", and would not move forward with your proposed series of
meetings until you hear back from me, Chuck, or Coleen.
Thanks,
Ted
David Hance wrote:
To Hearin g Officers, RRO Staff and other DWQ manag ement:
Attached is a recent proposed Draft Schedule of what we would need to do to get the CORPUD
Variance request to the EMC for the January 10, 2008 Meeting. This is in word. As you know -
we have received all the comments up to November 5th, which was the deadline.
Please note that there are question marks in spots in the table I am sending you. One has to do with
when the next hearing officers meeting should be held. The other has to do with comments
regarding the Edge of Auburn housing development. This company is developing a public water
supply well and is doing subsurface evaluations to determine if a variance granted for the CORPUD
may affect this operation. The comment that you received from Hunton and Williams (Craig
Bromby) indicated that this work could take some time. Do we need to discuss this?
Note also that the EMC Staff at DWQ 9th floor has established a "hard deadline" of December 12,
2007 for all agenda items with descriptions. In addition, attachments will now need to be in PDF
format. This places us under a very tight time frame in getting this variance to the EMC for January
2008.
It has been some time since the hearing officers and staffs have met on this variance. When should
we have a meeting? I would be glad to make the arrangements.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 X. 587
11/20/2007 10:48 A M
!: CORPUD Variance: A new DRAFJ' Schedule with Discussion
>f 2
Ted L. Bush, Jr., Chief
Aquifer Protection Section
DENR Division of Water Quality
11/20/2007 10:48 AM
:: CORPUD Variance: A new DRAFT Schedule with Discussion (Ja ...
of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: A new DRAFT Schedule with Discussion (Jay's time)
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:42:21 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Not a peep. Thanks.
David Hance wrote:
KS,
Jay Zimmerman will not be back until Monday, August 28th and this is the same for Jeff Manning.
I think it is vital that Jay Zimmerman be at the meeting from a technical standpoint.
In the meantime --I will check on room availability in case we can do this.
Have you heard from Andrew Pitner?
david hance
733-5083 X. 587
***************************************************************************
Kathy Stecker wrote:
I am available on the afternoon of November 29 and the afternoon of December 4. Many of us
will be at the DWQ supervisors' meeting on December 5. I have no other commitments that
day.
If we want to have some short meetings and/or conference calls on other days, it's possible I
could squeeze them in. Thanks.
David Hance wrote:
To Hearing Officers RRO Staff and other DW Q management:
Attached is a recent proposed Draft Schedule of what we would need to do to get the
CORPUD Variance request to the EMC for the January 10, 2008 Meeting. This is in
word. As you know -we have received all the comments up to November 5th, which was
the deadline.
Please note that there are question marks in spots in the table I am sending you. One has to
do with when the next hearing officers meeting should be held. The other has to do with
comments regarding the Edge of Auburn housing development. This company is
developing a public water supply well and is doing subsurface evaluations to determine if a
variance granted for the CORPUD may affect this operation. The comment that you
received from Hunton and Williams (Craig Bromby) indicated that this work could take
11/19/2007 4:42 PM
:: CORPUD Variance: A new DRAFT Schedule with Discussion (Ja ...
...
>f 2
some time. Do we need to discuss this?
Note also that the EMC Staff at DWQ 9th floor has established a "hard deadline" of
December 12, 2007 for all agenda items with descriptions. fu addition, attachments will
now need to be in PDF format. This places us under a very tight time frame in getting this
variance to the EMC for January 2008.
It has been some time since the hearing officers and staffs have met on this variance. When
should we have a meeting? I would be glad to make the arrangements.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 X. 587
Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
11/19/2007 4:42 PM
:: CORPUD Variance: A new DRAFf Schedule with Discussion (Ja ...
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: A new DRAFf Schedule with Discussion (Jay's time)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:41:27 -0500
To: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
KS,
Jay Zimmerman will not be back until Monday, August 28th and this is the same for Jeff Manning. I
think it is vital that Jay Zimmerman be at the meeting from a technical standpoint.
In the meantime --I will check on room availability in case we can do this.
Have you heard from Andrew Pitner?
david hance
733-5083 X. 587
***************************************************************************
Kathy Stecker wrote:
I am available on the afternoon of November 29 and the afternoon of December 4. Many of us will
be at the DWQ supervisors' meeting on December 5. I have no other commitments that day.
If we want to have some short meetings and/or conference calls on other days , it's possible I could
squeeze them in. Thanks.
David Hance wrote:
To Hearing Officers, RRO Staff and other DWQ management:
Attached is a recent proposed Draft Schedule of what we would need to do to get the CORPUD
Variance request to the EMC for the January 10, 2008 Meeting. This is in word. As you know
-we have re-ceived all the comments up to November 5th, which was the deadline.
Please note that there are question marks in spots in the table I am sending you. One has to do
with when the next hearing officers meeting should be held. The other has to do with comments
regarding the Edge of Auburn housing development. This company is developing a public
water supply well and is doing subsurface evaluations to determine if a variance granted for the
CORPUD may affect this operation. The comment that you received from Hunton and
Williams (Craig Bromby) indicated that this work could take some time. Do we need to discuss
this?
Note also that the EMC Staff at DWQ 9th floor has established a "hard deadline" of December
12, 2007 for all agenda items with descriptions . In addition, attachments will now need to be in
PDF format. This places us under a very tight time frame in getting this variance to the EMC
for January 2008.
11/19/2007 4:41 PM
~= CORPUD Variance: A new DRAFT Schedule with Discussion (Ja ...
of2
It has been some time since the hearing officers and staffs have met on this variance. When
should we have a meeting? I would be glad to make the arrangements.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 x. 587
11/19/2007 4:41 P M
te: CORPUD Variance: A new DRAFf Schedule with Discussion
f 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: A new DRAFf Schedule with Discussion
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:26:04 -0500
To: [e-mail]
The following is an automated response
to your message generated on behalf of Jeff .Manning@ncmail .net
I am out of the office until Nov 26th, 2007. Contact information for other unit
staff is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swccontact.html If you need to
speak with a live person immediately, please call [phone], and press 0 for
assistance. Thank you . ·
11/19/2007 4:26 PM
te: CORPUD Variance: A new DRAFT Schedule with Discussion
·1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: A new DRAFf Schedule with Discussion
From: JA [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:26:04 -0500
To: [e-mail]
The following is an automated response
to your message generated on behalf of JAY.ZIMMERMAN@ncrnail .net
Sorry I missed your message. I will be out of the office from Nov. 19 -23 and will
respond to your message upon my return. For immediate assistance, contact the Aquifer
Protection Section@ 919-791-4200 and ask for Keith Larick .
11/19/2007 4:26 PM
:ORPUD Variance: A new DRAFT Schedule with Discussion
, 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance: A new DRAFf Schedule with Discussion
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:25:26 -0500
To: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, J [e-mail], Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush,
Jr." <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>
To Hearing Officers, RRO Staff and other DWQ management:
Attached is a recent proposed Draft Schedule of what we would need to do to get the CORPUD
Variance request to the EMC for the January 10, 2008 Meeting. This is in word. As you know -we
have received all the comments up to November 5th, which was the deadline.
Please note that there are question marks in spots in the table I am sending you. One has to do with
when the next hearing officers meeting should be held. The other has to do with comments regarding the
Edge of Auburn housing development. This company is developing a public water supply well and is
doing subsurface evaluations to determine .if a variance granted for the CORPUD may affect this
operation. The comment that you received from Hunton and Williams (Craig Bromby) indicated that
this work could take some time. Do we need to discuss this?
Note also that the EMC Staff at DWQ 9th floor has established a "hard deadline" of December 12, 2007
for all agenda items with descriptions. In addition, attachments will now need to be in PDF format. This
places us under a very tight time frame in getting this variance to the EMC for January 2008.
It has been some time since the hearing officers and staffs have met on this variance. When should we
have a meeting? I would be glad to make the arrangements.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 X. 587
Content-Type: . application/msword '
3rdEd-variancetableSchedule.doc Content-Encoding: base64
11/19/2007 4:25 PM
momic Impact Analysis for the 2L Groundwater Quality Standard £..
fl
Subject: Economic Impact Analysis for the 2L Groundwater Quality Standard for Arsenic: Good contact
needed on pump and treat cleanup and effectiveness
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:57:48 -0500
To: "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Linda Culpepper <[e-mail]>, Debra
Watts <debra. [e-mail]>
As you know I have been working on the economic impact analysis for the proposed
revision to the Groundwater Standard for Arsenic. The budget people got back to us
with some comments. One of the the things they need is some additional information on
the cleanup process.
There of course has been a lot of changes in both Divisions since the reorganization.
I would like to know who on your various staffs is a good person to speak to on these
matters.
Could you give me a name and contact information? Anyone in the central office?
Regional Offices? I would greatly appreciate that.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 x. 587
11/16/2007 5:00 PM
momic Impact Analysis : Revision of Arsenic Groundwater Standar...
fl
Subject: Economic Impact Analysis: Revision of Arsenic Groundwater Standard in 2L / Information on
health and 'benefits'
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:38:57 -0500
To: Connie Brower <[e-mail]>
Connie:
A couple of weeks back, Jeff and I were at a meeting with the OSBM staff and DENR Budget Office
staff on the Economic Impact Analysis for the change that we are working on for Arsenic.
One of the comments related to benefits of the rule. They want to have some statement discussing health
effects of the rule with a focus on different concentration levels and health effects. They more
specifically want to know the cancer risk and non-cancer effects risk by lowering the standard from 50
ppb to 0 .02 ppb.
Question: Do you have an readily available information, such as a table or something, that we could
use in that Benefits Portion of the economic analysis for the arsenic rule?
I think at one point last year, Bailey had asked for a table and you provided it to him but my memory is
sketchy since I was not directly involved in the request.
Please note ... and a gain I say ... Please note .... I am not asking for a full blow research pro ject with
justifications and such. What we need is something fast and di ny to meet the new State Budget Manual
Requirements for economic anal ysis .
If you have questions -contact me at 733-5083 x. 587
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
Env Spec
11/16/2 007 5 :01 PM
'.ORPUD Variance: Status of a hearing officers meeting
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Status of a hearing officers meeting
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:10:08 -0500
To: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
It has been discussed back and forth but no date has been set . Andrew ~itner has been
on vacation.
david hance
11/15/2007 10:10 AM
~e: CORPUD Variance: Discussion of the Tom Worth request for a ...
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Discussion of the Tom Worth request for a Second Extension of the
Comment Period for the variance
From: susan massengale <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16: 14:33 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr." ....
<[e-mail]>
I am not aware that we have extended the comment period for any issue more. than once.
David Hance wrote:
*_Hearing Officers, RRO Staff, and DWQ-PIO:
*
As you know on October 3, 2007 the Director of DWQ, Ms Coleen Sullins, extended
the comment period for the City of Raleigh Variance to November 5, 2007, which is
today.
After that extension was made by the Director, an attorney named Torn Worth
representing "The Edge of Auburn" requested an_ additional extension_ for even
more time to comment.
I have not heard of any additional comment extension beyond the one specified in
the press release dated on October 3, 2007.
/*Question: Have any of you heard of a SECOND COMMENT extension being granted.for
this Variance?*/
If no extension has been granted, the Comment Period for this variance request
remain as it was established by the Director on October 3rd. _*_If this is the
case, the Division will accept written public comments on the City of Raleigh
Public Utilities Department Variance Request via letter, fax, or email up until 12
Midnight tonight November 5, 2007. *
David Hance
Env. Spec
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 x. 587
' 1 11/6/2007 3:33 PM
R.e: CORPUD Variance: Discussion of the Tom Worth request for a ...
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Discussion of the Tom Worth request for a Second Extension of the
Comment Period for the variance
From: David Hance <l)[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:14:28 -0500
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Jay,
You are correct. The hearing officers and the Director must decide on this!
david hance
733-5083 X. 587
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
I believe I sent a response that, in effect, indicated I did not see any reason to
extend the comment period any longer. I do not recall any additional extension
and I think it is up to the hearing officers and the Director to decide the merits
of any request.
Jay
susan massengale wrote:
I am not aware that we have extended the comment period for any issue more than
once.
David Hance wrote:
*_Hearing Officers, RRO Staff, and DWQ-PIO:
*
As you know on October 3, 2007 the Director of DWQ, Ms Coleen Sullins,
extended the comment period for the City of Raleigh Variance to November 5,
2007, which is today .
After that extension was made by the Director, an attorney named Tom Worth
representing "The Edge of Auburn" requested an_ additional extension_ for
even more time to comment.
I have not heard of any additional comment extension beyond the one
specified in the press release dated on October 3, 2007.
/*Question: Have any of you heard of a SECOND COMMENT extension being
granted for this Variance?*/
If no extension has been granted, the Comment Period for this variance
request remain as it was established by the Director on October 3rd. _*_If
this is the case, the Division will accept written public comments on the
City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department Variance Request via letter,
fax, or email up until 12 Midnight tonight November 5, 2007. *
David Hance
Env. Spec
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 x. 587
'1 11/5/2007 5:15 PM
~: CORPUD Variance: Discussion of the Tom Worth request for a ...
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Discussion of the Tom Worth request for a Second Extension of the
Comment Period for the variance
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:48:16 -0500
To: susan massengale <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew
Pitner <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."
<[e-mail]>
I believe I sent a response that, in effect, indicated I did not see any reason to
extend the comment period any longer . I do not recall any additional extension and I
think it is up to the hearing officers and the Director to decide the merits of any
request.
Jay
susan massengale wrote:
I am not aware that we have extended the comment period for any issue more than
once.
David Hance wrote:
*_Hearing Officers, RRO Staff, and DWQ-PIO:
*
As you know on October 3, 2007 the Director of DWQ, Ms Coleen Sullins, extended
the comment period for the City of Raleigh Variance to November 5, 2007, which
is today.
After that extension was made by the Director, an attorney named Tom Worth
representing "The Edge of Auburn" requested an_ additional extension_ for even
more time to comment.
I have not heard of any additional comment extension beyond the one specified
in the press release dated on October 3, 2007.
/*Question: Have any of you heard of a SECOND COMMENT extension being granted
for this Variance?*/
If no extension has been granted, the Comment Period for this variance request
remain as it was established by the Director on October 3rd. _*_If this is the
case, the Division will accept written public comments on the City of Raleigh
Public Utilities Department Variance Request via letter, fax, or email up until
12 Midnight tonight November 5, 2007. *
David Hance
Env. Spec
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 x. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
11/5/2007 5:14 PM
'.e: CORPUD Variance: Discussion of the Tom Worth request for a ...
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Discussion of the Tom Worth request for a Second Extension of the
Comment Period for the variance
From: susan massengale <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:14:33 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."
<[e-mail]>
T am not aware that we have extended the comment period for any issue more than once.
David Hance wrote:
*_Hearing Officers, RRO Staff, and DWQ-PIO:
*
As you know on October 3, 2007 the Director of DWQ, Ms Coleen Sullins, extended
the comment period for the City of Raleigh Variance to November 5, 2007, which is
today.
After that extension was made by the Director, an attorney named Tom Worth
representing "The Edge of Auburn" requested an_ additional extension_ for even
more time to comment.
I have not heard of any additional comment extension beyond the one specified in
the press release dated on October 3, 2007.
/*Question: Have any of you heard of a SECOND COMMENT extension being granted for
this Variance?*/
If no extension has been granted, the Comment Period for this variance request
remain as it was established by the Director on October 3rd. _*_If this is the
case, the Division will accept written public comments on the City of Raleigh
Public Utilities Department Variance Request via letter, fax, or email up until 12
Midnight tonight November 5, 2007. *
David Hance
Env. Spec
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 x. 587
f 1 11/5/2007 4:19 PM
:ORPUD Variance: Discussion of the Tom Worth request for a Seco ...
fl
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Discussion of the Tom Worth request for a Second Extension of the
Comment Period for the variance
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:09:22 -0500
To: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
CC: "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Hearing Officers , RRO Staff, and DWO-PIO:
As you know on October 3, 2007 the Director of DWQ, Ms Coleen Sullins, .extended the comment
period for the City of Raleigh Variance to November 5, 2007, which is today.
After that extension was made by the Director, an attorney named Tom Worth representing "The Edge
of Auburn" requested an additional extension for even more time to comment.
I have not heard of any additional comment extension beyond the one specified in the press release
dated on October 3, 2007.
Question: Have any of you heard of a SECOND COMMENT extension being granted for this
Variance?
If no extension has been granted , the Comment Period for this variance request remain as it was
established b y the Director on October 3rd. If this is the case, the Division will accept written public
comments on the City of Ralei gh Public Utilities Department Variance Re quest via letter, fax , or
email u p until 12 Midnight tonight November 5 , 2007.
David Hance
Env. Spec
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 X. 587
11/5/2007 4:09 PM
e: CORPUD 2L Variance Request: schedules
Df2
Subject: Re: CORPUD 2L Variance Request: schedules
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:52:42 -0500
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
You will recall from previous meetings that I have kept up with a scheduled for this variance and will be going over it
to see if revisions are needed.
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
Thanks David. Rick and I have already read most of the comments and prepared draft responses concerning some
of them. I will wait to finish our responses until we receive the summary from you, afterwhich Rick and I can go
through them more efficiently and provide input to Andrew and Kathy. I also spoke to Ted a couple of weeks ago
concerning a meeting to discuss the comments with upper management. He agreed that it would be a good idea
and that we should wait until we were nearly complete with our review.
Also, will you provide a timeline that Rick and I should be aware of for the purpose of making sure we submit
deliverables on time. My understanding is this will go to the EMC in January, correct? Thoughts please.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Hello Jav and other staff:
I can go over the comments from the CORPUD Variance Request and get them into categories. Once the
comment period closes tonight I will get on this.
Note I will also be working on the Arsenic Economic Impact Analysis again since we have some responses
and proposed changes from our Budget Office and Office of State Budget and Management. The is another
major project of mine in addition to routine work.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
*******************************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
I spoke to Ted Bush recently concerning the volume of comments we have been receiving. Rick and I
have started to wade through them, but I was thinking there has to be a better way for us to address the
concerns, starting with putting them in categories. Would you be willing to organize the comments in
such a way to allow Rick and I to provide technical feedback to Kathy and Andrew? What I am asking is
if you would be willing to sort the letters into groups (e.g.-lump the form letters together so that we can
11/5/2007 3:53 PM
'.e: CORPUD 2L Variance Request: schedules
'2
look at one example of each, note the number of similar letters and provide a comment). Some of the
letters are unique and will require an individual response, but a majority of them can probably be placed
into groups . Let me know if this is something you can assist with or if you have some other thoughts.
Thanks,
jay
David Hance wrote:
Hello Hearin g Officers and RRO staff:
Here are some more electronic comments received this week and are attached in a Word Document.
David Hance
Env Spec
DWQ/Planning
733-5083 X. 587
11/5/2007 3 :53 PM
ORPUD 2L Variance Request: Dealing with Comments recieved
Subject: CORPUD 2L Variance Request: Dealing with Comments recieved
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:57:38 -0500
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush
<[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>
CC: jeff manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Hello Jav and other staff:
I can go over the comments from the CORPUD Variance Request and get them into categories. Once the
comment period closes tonight I will get on this.
Note I will also be working on the Arsenic Economic Impact Analysis again since we have some responses and
proposed changes from our Budget Office and Office of State Budget and Management. The is another major
project of mine in addition to routine work.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
*******************************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
I spoke to Ted Bush recently concerning the volume of comments we have been receiving. Rick and I have
started to wade through them, but I was thinking there has to be a better way for us to address the concerns,
starting with putting them in categories. Would you be willing to organize the comments in such a way to
allow Rick and I to provide technical feedback to Kathy and Andrew? What I am asking is if you would be
willing to sort the letters into groups (e.g.-lump the form letters together so that we can look at one example
of each, note the number of similar letters and provide a comment). Some of the letters are unique and will
require an individual response, but a majority of them can probably be placed into groups. Let me know if
this is something you can assist with or if you have some other thoughts.
Thanks,
jay
David Hance wrote:
Hello Hearing Officers and RRO staff:
Here are some more electronic comments received this week and are attached in a Word Document.
David Hance
Env Spec
DWQ/Planning
11/5/2007 1:58 PM
CORPUD 2L Variance Request: Dealing with Comments recieved
I 733-5083 x. 587
2of2 11/5/2007 L :58
e: CORPUD Variance: Emailed "E-comments" from this week
Jf 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Emailed "E-comments" from this week
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:28:03 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: jeff manning <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush
<[e-mail]>
David,
I spoke to Ted Bush recently concerning the volume of comments we have been receiving. Rick and I
have started to wade through them, but I was thinking there has to be a better way for us to address the
concerns, starting with putting them in categories. Would you be willing to organize the comments in
such a way to allow Rick and I to provide technical feedback to Kathy and Andrew? What I am asking
is if you would be willing to sort the letters into groups (e.g.-lump the form letters together so that we
can look at one example of each, note the number of similar letters and provide a comment). Some of
the letters are unique and will require an individual response, but a majority of them can probably be
placed into groups. Let me know if this is something you can assist with or if you have some other
thoughts.
Thanks,
jay
David Hance wrote:
Hello Hearin e: Officers and RRO staff:
Here are some more electronic comments received this week and are attached in a Word Document.
David Hance
Env Spec
DWQ/Planning
733-5083 X. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/ Aquifer Protection Section
11/5/2007 1 :57 P M
3
'.ORPUD Variance: Emailed "E-comments" from this week
f 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Emailed "E-comments" from this week
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:10:06 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], kathy stecker
<[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush,
Jr." <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>
Hello Hearing Officers and RRO staff:
Here are some more electronic comments received this week and are attached in a Word Document.
David Hance
Env Spec
DWQ/Planning
733-5083 X. 587
Corpud-DailySummaryofEcomments-1027-1101.doc
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
11/1/2007 4:10 PM
,f 1
From: "Bach!, Carolyn" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:15:50 -0400
To: "David Hance" <[e-mail]>
David,
I got your message and just wanted to confirm what I have received. I got email messages from you on
10/23, 10/25, and 10/26 with email comments and a fax on 10/25 with written comments.
Thanks,
Carolyn
D' KIJ..PA11UCK ~ STOCKTON LLP
Carolyn A. Bachl
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Suite400
3737 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27612
t 9194201702
f 919 510 6169
Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its
disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client
privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained
in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 919 420 1700, and destroy the original
transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
***DISCLAIMER*** Treasury Department Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the Treasury
Department, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein ...
10/30/2007 6:15 PM
.ty of Raleigh Variance request: Attached public notice and contact
Subject: City of Raleigh Variance request: Attached public notice and contact
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:41:12 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
Sir,
Here is the public notice that went out for this variance request which gives a very good summary of what it
is about. It is in word.
Also, the contact on technical matters related to this variance is Mr. Jay Zimmerman in the DWQ-Aquifer
Protection Section -Raleigh Regional Office and his number is 919/791-4200.
As we discussed over the phone -public comments on this variance are to go to me by the extended deadline
of November 5, 2007.
David Hance
Environmental Specialist
DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] x. 587
:Fax: [phone]
. signatureversion-VersionpublicNotice-CORPUDVariance.doc
• Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
10/31/2007 11:41 AM
e: CORPUD Variance: Contact you discussed in email
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Contact you discussed in email
From: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:34:24 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Thanks, David.
David Hance wrote:
I have met Sue Dayton. She came by and listened to the public hearing tapes a while back.
david hance
****************************************************************************
Kathy Stecker wrote:
I was curious to see where the new standard language in the comments came from.
htt p:/ !forums .enctoday .com/index.cfm ?page=to pic&to piclD= 15508
is at least one of the sources.
David Hance wrote:
Here attached are the email or "e-comments" from Oct. 22nd through Oct. 26th in word. I
will be sending a copy on to Carolyn Bachl at Kilpatrick Stockton to keep them informed
as we have discussed.
david hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 X. 587
10/30/2007 6:36 PM
wd: Raleigh Ground Water Pollution Update)
f5
Subject: [Fwd: Raleigh Ground Water Pollution Update]
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:56:29 -0500
To: Ted Bush <[e-mail]>, JAY ZIMMERMAN <[e-mail]>,
Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<j [e-mail]>, David Hance <[e-mail]>
FYI -
I'm on the NRF mailing list.
Interesting .....
rb
Subject: Raleigh Ground Water Pollution Update
From: Neuse River Foundation <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:44:39 -0700
To: Neuse River Foundation <[e-mail]>
UPDATE: Lower Neuse Riverkeeper Larry Baldwin has been working with
the town of New Bern and Craven County Commissioners to oppose
Raleigh's plan to do nothing about a serious ground water pollution
problem that is leaching over 120,000 lbs a year of nitrogen from
polluted sewage sludge fields into the Neuse River. Meanwhile Upper
Neuse Riverkeeper, Dean Naujoks has been working attorney's
representing Raleigh to with draw the City's variance request and
develop a plan that would essentially offset this pollution impact to
the Neuse River and satisfy down stream concerns.
While we sincerely hope this issue can be resolved, it is important
for you to take one minute of your time to let the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) and Raleigh City officials know that
Raleigh must be required to clean up the largest source of ground
water pollution ever documented in North Carolina (PLEASE TAKE ACTION
BELOW). Thanks to everyone, who has taken action on this issue. To
date, the EMC has received more than 200 emails/letters from citizens
opposing Raleigh's variance request. More than 1800 emails have
collectively been sent to the EMC and Raleigh City Council Members
opposing this plan. Please take a brief moment to let them know you
oppose this variance request.
ACTION ALERT
City of Raleigh Seeks Variance to Avoid Cleanup of Sludge-Contaminated
Gro.undwater
Please oppose the proposed variance. If approved, the variance would
impact the Neuse River and set a very bad precedent for future ground
water contamination problems
Tell Raleigh City Officials that you oppose the variance by clicking
on the link provided below -it'll only take one minute of your time.
BACK GROUND: The City of Raleigh does not want to clean up nitrogen
10/29/2007 2: 11 PM
rd: Raleigh Ground Water Pollution Update]
f5
contamination in the Neuse River that is leaching from Raleigh's
sewage sludge fields (READ TODAY'S N&O ARTICLE BELOW).
As a result of decades of over-application of sewage sludge from the
City's Neuse
River sewage treatment plant, the city contaminated over 1,000 acres
of land/groundwater adjacent to the Neuse River. Problems at Raleigh's
sewage plant were first revealed in 2002 when sewage plant employees
contacted Upper Neuse Riverkeeper Dean Naujoks, citing numerous
violations at the plant. Investigations by both state and federal
officials
eventually revealed more than a dozen violations at the plant, which
has
cost the city millions in plant upgrades . Marc Fender, the sewage
plant
superintendent was also fired as a result of the problems at the
troubled plant.
The most significant environmental damage occurred from excessive
sludge application. Contaminated ground water was first detected at
the plant in 1986. As early as 1990, state officials repeatedly
warned Raleigh about unsafe levels of coliform bacteria, nitrates and
metals in the groundwater in fields near the wastewater plant, even
suggesting the city purchase additional land for sludge application.
Old farm ponds at the sewage plant were intentionally drained and
filled with sludge without obtaining a state permit. Raleigh Public
Utilities actually suspended research being conducted by Charles
Welby, a geologist at North Carolina State University, who was
investigating whether nitrates suspected to be in the wastewater plant
sludge were having an adverse effect on groundwater. 1996, Charles
Welby released his study indicating contaminants from the wastewater
plant are getting into local groundwater.
The City now says the problem was due to "miscalculations" in the
sludge application rates; application rates of sludge were reported to
be at least double or triple what they should have been. The state
finally required the city to stop land-applying sludge in 2002 after
several private wells in the area were contaminated with nitrates.
The wells have since been abandoned and the City of Raleigh now
provides drinking water to those residents with abandoned wells, but
more than 120,000 lbs of nitrogen per year (for the .next 30 years)
continues to leach into the Neuse River. This is an extraordinary
amount of nitrogen. It contributes more nitrogen per year to the Neuse
River than the town of Apex, Benson, Butner, Cary, Clayton, Johnson
County, Wake Forest and Zebulon combined.
It would set a very dangerous precedent to simply allow a variance for
such an egregious ground water pollution problem when the state's own
groundwater
rules prohibit natural attenuation (do nothing by letting nitrogen
levels naturally fall over time to correct the problem) rather than
treat polluted groundwater before it leaves the compliance boundary.
Polluted groundwater from the plant will actually leave the site and
travel more than 200 miles down river, impacting the Neuse Estuary
which has suffered terribly from pollution problems . The Neuse River
was recently listed as one of the Nation's Top Ten Most Endangered
Rivers due.to on-going pollution problems in the river.
Please tell EMC and Raleigh City Officials that this variance request
must be denied and that the city should be required to offset this
source of ground water pollution to the Neuse River.
Click here htt ://ncconservationnetworkl.org /campaign/ralei hvariance
to send a message!
For additional questions or for a complete compliance history at the
Raleigh sewage treatment plant please contact Dean Naujoks, Upper
Neuse Riverkeeper with Neuse River Foundation at [e-mail]
10/29/2007 2:11 PM
:.wd: Raleigh Ground Water Pollution Update]
f5
Thank you for taking action today!
Please read the article below
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/ralei g h/story/723119 .html
RALEIGH WANTS CLEANUP WAIVER
Faces $80 million bill in sewage mess
Wade Rawlins, Staff Writer
Pollution from treated sewage would leak for decades into the Neuse
River under a plan the city of Raleigh wants the state to approve.
Raleigh officials are asking for a waiver from state rules that would
require an $80 million cleanup of widespread groundwater contamination
around its Neuse River sewage-treatment plant. The city argues
essentially that time and nature will eventually scrub the fields and
groundwater of pollutants.
For years, workers at the plant spread too much treated waste sludge
on farm fields around the plant, despite warnings from the state. The
city was eventually fined and ordered to develop a cleanup plan. Now,
the groundwater beneath more than 1,100 acres of fields is
contaminated with high levels of nitrates, which can harm humans and
trigger fish kills downstream near the coast.
Since the problem came to a head in 2002, the state suspended the
city's permit to spread more sludge on the fields. The city has spent
more than $40 million improving the operation of the plant and has
turned a higher proportion of the plant's sludge into fertilizer and
compost. Some treated waste is trucked to Duplin and Sampson counties
and spread on farms there.
But city officials say ringing the entire site in southeastern Wake
County with hundreds of wells to collect and treat the groundwater
would cause a financial hardship, costing nearly $80 million. Instead,
city leaders propose to spend about $8 million to build 40 recovery
wells. That would clean up 20 acres nearest housing subdivisions close
to the plant.
The city wants natural degradation to gradually clean up the areas
where monitoring wells show the highest concentrations of nitrogen
amounts up to 18 times the maximum allowed under state law. Some of
those fields border the Neuse River.
City officials say the approach poses no risk to public health because
nearby residents have been hooked to municipal water and the
contamination will be monitored. High levels of nitrates in drinking
water can be toxic to infants, who have undeveloped digestive systems
that can't break down the pollutants. As a result, oxygen levels fall
in the blood, leading to a condition known as blue baby syndrome.
"There is no public health impact for spending tens of millions of
dollars on a remediation system," said Steve Levitas, a lawyer
representing the city.
But some residents near the spray fields say the city is skirting
state environmental standards.
"They were issued a permit, and along with that permit came a lot of
rules and regulations about how they should conduct their business,"
said Phillip Douglas, a retired electronics engineer who lives near
the plant. "One of the rules prohibits natural attenuation, which
means letting nature clean up your mess. When they messed up and found
out how much money it's going to cost to clean it up, they want a
variance."
Douglas, who opposes the city's plan, said state regulators should be
the guardians of the state's water quality and should not take cost
into account.
10/29/2007 2: 11 PM
Fwd: Raleigh Ground Water Pollution Update]
Raleigh Ground Water Pollution Update.em} i Content-Type: message/rfc822
!Content-Encoding: 7bit
10/29/2007 2: 11 PM
r1 article from The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC)
1
Subject: An article from The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC)
From: "Billy T." <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:24:23 UT
To: [e-mail]
,From
Staff
Reports
Comment period on water extended
Residents will have more time to weigh in on the city's request for a variance from
groundwater protection regulations at a pollution site near its wastewater treatment
plant.
From Staff Reports
Residents will have more time to weigh in on the city's request for a variance from
groundwater protection regulations at a pollution site near its wastewater treatment plant.
Please make Raleigh be responsible for cleaning their mess and be a good neighbor to
Johnston County!
For the complete story ...
htt p://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/raleigh /story /7253 61.html
Copyright The News & Observer Publishing Co., Raleigh, NC
www.newsobserver.com
This article should not be printed or distributed for anything except personal use.
Feedback is welcome at http ://www.newsobserver.com/member center/help/coritact/.
10/29/2007 2:14 PM
ORPUD Variance Request: Email comments for this week
Subject: CORPUD Variance Request: Email comments for this week
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:57:36 -0400
To: [e-mail], Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Here attached are the email or "e-comments" from Oct. 22nd through Oct. 26th in word.
I will be sending a copy on to Carolyn Bachl at Kilpatrick Stockton to keep them
informed as we have discussed .
david hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 x. 587 ..
. : Content-Type: application/msword I
Corpud-DadySummaryofEcomments-1022-1026.doc: . ·
j Content-Encodmg: base64
10/26/2007 6:57 PM
encToday.com -Forums Page 4 of 4
Content may not be reproduced without written permission from FENC CommL
http://forums.enctoday.com/index .cfm ?page=topic&topiclD= 15508 10/29/2007
newsobserver.com I Comment period on water extended Page 1 of2
~
News & Observer I newsobserver.com I Comment period on water
extended
Raleigh
Counties:
•
•
• ..
•
Topics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Columnists:
•
•
•
•
•
Wake County Briefs:
Published: Oct 04, 2007 12:30 AM
Modified: Oct 04, 2007 03:04 AM
Comment period on water extended
From Staff Reports
RALEIGH -Residents will have more time to weigh in on the city's request for a variance from
groundwater protection regulations at a pollution site near its wastewater treatment plant.
The public comment period has been extended to Nov. 5.
Raleigh wants a waiver from state environmental rules that would allow it to let nitrogen
contamination diminish naturally over time.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/raleigh/story/725361.html 10/28/2007
newsobserver.com I Comment period on water extended Page 2 of2
The city contaminated 1,100 acres near its Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant when it
sprayed treated wastewater on fields. Permit conditions and state groundwater rules prohibit
natural attenuation as a cleanup. method.
Those who wish to submit comments or inspect the variance request should:
* Write to:
David Hance, DENR-DWQ Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
* Or call [phone], ext. 587;
* Or send e-mail to [e-mail].
All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or
redistributed in any manner.
© Copyright 2007, The News & Observer Publishing Company
A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/raleigh/story/725361.html 10/28/2007
._i
1Vd: Raleigh Gro,:nd Water Pollution Update]
f5
Subject: [Fwd: Raleigh Ground Water Pollution Update]
From: susan massengale <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:17:30 -0500
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, DAVID
HANCE <DA [e-mail]>, Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>
FYI
Subject: Raleigh Ground Water Pollution Update
From: Neuse River Foundation <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:44:39 -0700
To: Neuse River Foundation <[e-mail]>
UPDATE: Lower Neuse Riverkeeper Larry Baldwin has been working with
the town of New Bern and Craven County Commissioners to oppose
Raleigh's plan to do nothing about a serious ground water pollution
problem that is leaching over 120,000 lbs a year of nitrogen from
polluted sewage sludge fields into the Neuse River. Meanwhile Upper
Neuse Riverkeeper, Dean Naujoks has been working attorney's
representing Raleigh to with draw the City's variance request and
develop a plan that would essentially offset this pollution impact to
the Neuse River and satisfy down stream concerns.
While we sincerely hope this issue can be resolved, it is important
for you to take one minute of your time to let the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) and Raleigh City officials know that
Raleigh must be required to clean up the largest source of ground
water pollution ever documented in North Carolina (PLEASE TAKE ACTION
BELOW). Thanks to everyone, who has taken action on this issue. To
date, the EMC has received more than 200 emails/letters from citizens
opposing Raleigh's variance request. More than 1800 emails have
collectively been sent to the EMC and Raleigh City Council Members
opposing this plan. Please take a brief moment to let them know you
oppose this variance request.
ACTION ALERT
City of Raleigh Seeks Variance to Avoid Cleanup of Sludge-Contaminated
Groundwater
Please oppose the proposed variance. If approved, the variance would
impact the Neuse River and set a very bad precedent for future ground
water contamination problems
Tell Raleigh City Officials that you oppose the variance by clicking
on the link provided below -it'll only take one minute of your time.
htt p ://ncconservationnetworkl.org /camp ai g n/raleig hvariance
BACK GROUND: The City of Raleigh does not want to clean up nitrogen
contamination in the Neuse River that is leaching from Raleigh's
sewage sludge fields (READ TODAY'S N&O ARTICLE BELOW).
As a result of decades of over-application of sewage sludge from the
City's Neuse
I
10/29/2007 2:07 PM
[Fwd: Raleigh Ground Water Pollution Update]
2 of5
River sewage treatment plant, the city contaminated over 1,000 acres
of land/groundwater adjacent to the Neuse River. Problems at Raleigh's
sewage plant were first revealed in 2002 when sewage plant employees
contacted Upper Neuse Riverkeeper Dean Naujoks, citing numerous
violations at the plant. Investigations by both state and federal
officials
eventually revealed more than a dozen violations at the plant, which
has
cost the city millions in plant upgrades. Marc Fender, the sewage
plant
superintendent was also fired as a result of the problems at the
troubled plant.
The most significant environmental damage occurred from excessive
sludge application. Contaminated ground water was first detected at
the plant in 1986. As early as 1990, state officials repeatedly
warned Raleigh about unsafe levels of coliform bacteria, nitrates and
metals in the groundwater in fields near the wastewater plant, even
suggesting the city purchase additional land for sludge application.
Old farm ponds at the sewage plant were intentionally drained and
filled with sludge without obtaining a state permit. Raleigh Public
Utilities actually suspended research being conducted by Charles
Welby, a geologist at North Carolina State University, who was
investigating whether nitrates suspected to be in the wastewater plant
sludge were having an adverse effect on groundwater. 1996, Charles
Welby released his study indicating contaminants from the wastewater
plant are getting into local groundwater.
The City now says the problem was due to "miscalculations" in the
sludge application rates; application rates of sludge were reported to
be at least double or triple what they should have been. The state
finally required the city to stop land-applying sludge in 2002 after
several private wells in the area were contaminated with nitrates.
The wells have since been abandoned and the City of Raleigh now
provides drinking water to those residents with abandoned wells, but
more than 120,000 lbs of nitrogen per year (for the next 30 years)
continues to leach into the Neuse River. This is an extraordinary
amount of nitrogen. It contributes more nitrogen per year to the Neuse
River than the town of Apex, Benson, Butner, Cary, Clayton, Johnson
County, Wake Forest and Zebulon combined.
It would set a very dangerous precedent to simply allow a variance for
such an egregious ground water pollution problem when the state's own
groundwater
rules prohibit natural attenuation (do nothing by letting nitrogen
levels naturally fall over time to correct the problem) rather than
treat polluted groundwater before it leaves the compliance boundary.
Polluted groundwater from the plant will actually leave the site and
travel more than 200 miles down river, impacting the Neuse Estuary
which has suffered terribly from pollution problems. The Neuse River
was recently listed as one of the Nation's Top Ten Most Endangered
Rivers due to on-going pollution problems in the river.
Please tell EMC and Raleigh City Officials that this variance request
must be denied and that the city should be required to offset this
source of ground water pollution to the Neuse River .
Click here http://ncconservationnetworkl.org/campai g n/raleig hvariance
to send a message!
For additional questions or for a complete compliance history at the
Raleigh sewage treatment plant please contact Dean Naujoks, Upper
Neuse Riverkeeper with Neuse River Foundation at [e-mail]
Thank you for taking action today!
Please read the article below
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/raleigh/story/723119.html
10/29/2007 2:07 p-
wd: Raleig)i Ground Water Pollution Update]
f5
RALEIGH WANTS CLEANUP WAIVER
Faces $80 million bill in sewage mess
Wade Rawlins, Staff Writer
Pollution from treated sewage would leak for decades into the Neuse
River under a plan the city of Raleigh wants the state to approve.
Raleigh officials are asking for a waiver from state rules that would
require an $80 million cleanup of widespread groundwater contamination
around its Neuse River sewage-treatment plant. The city argues
essentially that time and nature will eventually scrub the fields and
groundwater of pollutants.
For years, workers at the plant spread too much treated waste sludge
on farm fields around the plant, despite warnings from the state. The
city was eventually fined and ordered ·to develop a cleanup plan. Now,
the groundwater beneath more than 1,100 acres of fields is
contaminated with high levels of nitrates, which can harm humans and
trigger fish kills downstream near the coast.
Since the problem came to a head in 2002, the state suspended the
city's permit to spread more sludge on the fields. The city has spent
more than $40 million improving the operation of the plant and has
turned a higher proportion of the plant's sludge into fertilizer and
compost. Some treated waste is trucked to Duplin and Sampson counties
and spread on farms there.
But city officials say ringing the entire site in southeastern Wake
County with hundreds of wells to collect and treat the groundwater
would cause a financial hardship, costing nearly $80 million. Instead,
city leaders propose to spend about $8 million to build 40 recovery
wells. That would clean up 20 acres nearest housing subdivisions close
to the plant.
The city wants natural degradation to gradually clean up the areas
where monitoring wells show the highest concentrations of nitrogen
amounts up to 18 times the maximum allowed under state law. Some of
those fields border the Neuse River.
City officials say the approach poses no risk to public health because
nearby residents have been hooked to municipal water and the
contamination will be monitored. High levels of nitrates in drinking
water can be toxic to infants, who have undeveloped digestive systems
that can't break down the pollutants. As a result, oxygen levels fall
in the blood, leading to a condition known as blue baby syndrome.
"There is no public health impact for spending tens of millions of
dollars on a remediation system," said Steve Levitas, a lawyer
representing the city.
But some residents near the spray fields say the city is skirting
state environmental standards.
"They were issued a permit, and along with that permit came a lot of
rules and regulations about how they should conduct their business,"
said Phillip Douglas, a retired electronics engineer who lives near
the plant. "One of the rules prohibits natural attenuation, which
means letting nature clean up your mess. When they messed up and found
out how much money it's going to cost to clean it up, they want a
variance."
Douglas, who opposes the city's plan, said state regulators should be
the guardians of the state's water quality and should not take cost
into account.
The state Division of Water Quality is taking public comments through
Oct. 5 on the city's request for the waiver from state rules. The
state Environmental Management Commission, a 19-member panel appointed
10/29/2007 2:07 PM
ivd: Raleig_.h Ground Water Pollution Update]
f5 10/29/2007 2:07 PM
~= CORPUD Variance: Finding a way to deal with all the public co ...
,f2
.,_ Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Finding a way to deal with all the public comments we are recieving _.,.
on this request
From: "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:01:49 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>,
J [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts
<de bra. [e-mail]>
David,
Sounds to me like a good way to handle the comments.
Ted
David Hance wrote:
Hello Hearing Officers, RRO staff and other interested D\-VO Staff:
There has been some discussion by email about the manner in which we should deal with public
comments and being able to place them in some kind of order that is clear, concise and gives staff
and hearing officers a means of addressing these -without going blind in the process!
See the attached document. This document was developed by Kim Colson and the DWQ-APS staff
when the 2T Non Discharge Rules were under rulemaking and the document was part of packet that
went to the EMC, back when they reviewed the rules for adoption.
Note the table provides a listing of the issues and resolution of the issues brought up during those
2004 hearings. Note also that if you click on the numbers --it will take you to a written comment
listing that is within this document and is cross referenced throughout.
I think it would be relatively easy to adapt this table for purposes of dealing with all the comments
we have received for this variance request and keep everyone on the same page. Agree? Disagree?
Objections to it's use? Any responses?
Please let me know what you think about this.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
Env Spec.
733-5083 X. 587
10/26/2007 5:07 PM
~: CORPUD Variance: Finding a way to deal with all the public co ...
)
>f2
Ted L. Bush, Jr., Chief
Aquifer Protection Section
DENR Division of Water Quality
10/26/2007 5:07 PM
~= CORPUD Variance: Finding a way to deal with all the public co ...
of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Finding a way to deal with all the public comments we are recieving
on this request
From: "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:01:49 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts
<de bra. [e-mail]>
David,
Sounds to me like a good way to handle the comments.
Ted
David Hance wrote:
Hello Hearing Officers, RRO staff and other interested DWO Staff:
There has been some discussion by email about the manner in which we should deal with public
comments and being able to place them in some kind of order that is clear, concise and gives staff
and hearing officers a means of addressing these -without going blind in the process!
See the attached document. This document was developed by Kim Colson and the DWQ-APS staff
when the 2T Non Discharge Rules were under rulemaking and the document was part of packet that
went to the EMC, back when they reviewed the rules for adoption.
Note the table provides a listing of the issues and resolution of the issues brought up during those
2004 hearings. Note also that if you click on the numbers --it will take you to a written comment
listing that is within this document and is cross referenced throughout.
I think it would be relatively easy to adapt this table for purposes of dealing with all the comments
we have received for this variance request and keep everyone on the same page. Agree? Disagree?
Objections to it's use? Any responses?
Please let me know what you think about this.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
Env Spec.
733-5083 X. 587
I 0/26/2007 5 :06 P M
~: CORPUD Variance: Finding a way to deal with all the public co ...
Ted L. Bush, Jr., Chief
Aquifer Protection Section
DENR Division of Water Quality
10/26/2007 5 :06 PM
ty of Raleigh Variance Request-Question about the Corrective Act...
Jf2
Subject: City of Raleigh Variance Request -Question about the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) associated with this.
From: David Hance <l)[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:41:18 -0400
To: "Moir, Kent" <[e-mail]>
Sir,
The City has submitted a CAP and we have it here in my office. I you decide to see the variance - I can let you look
over the CAP as well. Before they can go forward with the CAP, they must get a variance. They are separate processes.
Variances are covered under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 and CAPs are under 15A NCAC 2L .0106.
If you have questions about this email contact me at 733-5083 x. 587
David Hance, Env Spec
DWQ-Planning
Moir, Kent wrote:
Mr. Hance,
Thank you for your response. I may take you up on your offer to come in a review the variance request. I will
check with you for a date and time if we determine a review is necessary. Do you know if the City of Raleigh
has published their corrective action plan for the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant nitrogen
contamination? Or is it part of the variance request?
Thank you,
Kent Moir
Kent L. Moir
Marketing Coordinator
Brown and Caldwell
5410 Trinity Road
Palisades II, Suite 320
Raleigh, NC 27607
Tel : [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
From: David Hance [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:35 PM
To: Moir, Kent
Subject: Re: Variance Request -Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) -------Response
Mr. Moir,
We do not have this in electronic form and as of yet ---do not have scanning capabilities.
If you wish to come in and look at the variance request -please let me know of the day and time that
would work for you. I will be out of the office on October 24th.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
********************************************************************************* *
10/23/2007 5 :53 PM
ity of Raleigh Variance Request -Question about the Corrective Act...
Moir, Kent wrote:
Mr. Hance,
In reference to the media alert dated October 3, 2007, entitled "Public Comment Period for Raleigh Variance
Request Extended to Nov. 5," I am requesting a copy of the referenced variance request for inspection. Is
there a PDF or MS Word file available that you could e-mail me? I am also interested in obtaining a copy of
the City of Raleigh's corrective action plan (CAP) for nitrates that have migrated offsite from the Neuse River
WWTP, if available.
Thank you for your time.
Best,
Kent Moir
Kent L. Moir
Marketing Coordinator
Brown and Caldwell
5410 Trinity Road
Palisades II, Suite 320
Raleigh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
10/23/2007 5:53 PM
)RPUD Variance: Finding a way to deal with all the public commen ...
of I
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Finding a way to deal with all the public comments we are recieving on
this request
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:54:47 -0400
To: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>,
J [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, TED BUSH
<[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>
Hello Hearin g Officers. RRO staff and other interested DWO Staff:
There has been some discussion by email about the manner in which we should deal with public
comments and being able to place them in some kind of order that is clear, concise and gives staff and
hearing officers a means of addressing these -without going blind in the process!
See the attached document. This document was developed by Kim Colson and the DWQ-APS staff
when the 2T Non Discharge Rules were under rulemaking and the document was part of packet that
went to the EMC, back when they reviewed the rules for adoption.
Note the table provides a listing of the issues and resolution of the issues brought up during those 2004
hearings. Note also that if you click on the numbers --it will take you to a written comment listing that
is within this document and is cross referenced throughout.
I think it would be relatively easy to adapt this table for purposes of dealing with all the comments we
have received for this variance request and keep everyone on the same page. Agree? Disagree?
Objections to it's use? Any responses?
Please let me know what you think about this.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
Env Spec.
733-5083 X. 587
I Content-Type: application/msword
Attachment 2-2trulehearing-Template.doci oo.· 64 · Content-Enc mg: base
····-·······-·-·········-·----
10/26/2007 4:54 PM
e: CORPUD Variance: Finding a way to deal with all the public co ...
2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Finding a way to deal with all the public comments we are recieving
on this request
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11 :50:07 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark
<[e-mail]>, TED BUSH <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts
<de bra. [e-mail]>
David,
If you think it would be "relatively easy to adapt," I agree that this format would be very helpful.
Thanks!
-Kathy
David Hance wrote:
Hello Hearin g Officers , RRO staff and other interested DWQ Staff:
There has been some discussion by email about the manner in which we should deal with public
comments and being able to place them in some kind of order that is clear, concise and gives staff
and hearing officers a means of addressing these -without going blind in the process!
See the attached document. This document was developed by Kim Colson and the DWQ-APS staff
when the 2T Non Discharge Rules were under rulemaking and the document was part of packet that
went to the EMC, back when they reviewed the rules for adoption.
Note the table provides a listing of the issues and resolution of the issues brought up during those
2004 hearings. Note also that if you click on the numbers --it will take you to a written comment
listing that is within this document and is cross referenced throughout.
I think it would be relatively easy to adapt this table for purposes of dealing with all the comments
we have received for this variance request and keep everyone on the same page. Agree? Disagree?
Objections to it's use? Any responses?
Please let me know what you think about this.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
Env Spec.
733-5083 x. 587
10/29/2007 4:43 PM
Re: CORPUD Variance : Finding a way to deal with all the public co ...
2 of2
Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
10/29/2007 4:43
:ORPUD Variance: FYI on the schedule for the EMC Meeting for Ja ...
,f 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance: FYI on the schedule for the EMC Meeting for January 2008
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:48:38 -0400
To: [e-mail], Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker
<[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."
<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>
You will recall some discussion about when to hold a meeting on the City
of Raleigh Variance. One of the questions related to the EMC Schedule
for January 2008.
Staff at the DWQ -Administration got back to me and said that it will
be available "within the next two weeks".
As soon as I know something, I will get this to you.
David Hance
Env Spec
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 X. 587
10/25/2007 2:48 PM
3: fax number correct?
of2
Subject: RE: fax number correct?
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:16:42 -0400
\To: <[e-mail]>
·-
Sorry David ... the fax# is 5719604 ... my bad ... please try again ... Stephen
Smith
-----Original Message-----
From: David Hance [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 6:32 PM
To: Smith, Steve
Subject: fax number correct?
Sir,
I have sent you a fax twice today but it is not going through. is the
fax number correct?
david hance
733-5083 x, 587
( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (
( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (· ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (
[e-mail] wrote:
David ... will you please fax me that list? Stephen Smith fax#
5711893 ... I am here in Raleigh ... Thanks for your help ... SS
*From:* David Hance [mailto:[e-mail]]
*Sent:* Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:29 PM
*To:* Smith, Steve
*Subject:* Re: Question--reply about mailing list
Mr. Smith:
We have the materials here in our office. You can come by and look at
them if you are in the Raleigh area. Just set up a date and time for
this. If you want a faxed copy -I can do that too. Just let me know
what manner you want the information processed.
Note that list used is submitted by the petitioner pursuant to 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(c) (9) and the Division of Water Quality staff uses this
list to provide direct mail notice to the public. We also apply the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) when we give notice to the
public.
Note that any person who wants a notice submitted can also get that
upon making a request of staff .
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
[e-mail] wrote:
David, How and where can I get a list of the property owners who
received State notification regarding the City of Raleigh's Waste
Water Treatment Facility?
10/23/2007 9:55 AM
~: fax number correct?
:,f2
I Stephen Smith
Scott & Stringfellow, Inc . is a wholly-owned non-bank subsidiary of BB&T Corporation.
THE SECURITIES SOLD, OFFERED OR RECOMMENDED BY SCOTT & STRINGFELLOW,
INC. ARE NOT A DEPOSIT, NOT FDIC INSURED, NOT GUARANTEED BY THE BANK, NOT INSURED BY
ANY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY AND MAY GO DOWN IN VALUE.
10/23/2007 9 :55 A M
RE: Question--reply about mailing list
Subject: RE: Question--reply about mailing list
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:09:42 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
Thanks David ... l got your fax ... sorry for the confusion. Stephen Smith
From: David Hance [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:29 PM
To: Smith, Steve
Subject: Re: Question--reply about mailing list
Mr. Smith:
We have the materials here in our office. You can come by and look at them if you are in the Raleigh
area. Just set up a date and time for this. If you want a faxed copy - I can do that too. Just let me know
what manner you want the information processed.
Note that list used is submitted by the petitioner pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(c)(9) and the Division
of Water Quality staff uses this list to provide direct mail notice to the public. We also apply the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(e) when we give notice to the public.
Note that any person who wants a notice submitted can also get that upon making a request of staff.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
[e-mail] wrote:
David, How and where can I get a list of the property owners who received State notification regarding
the City of Raleigh's Waste Water Treatment Facility?
Stephen Smith
10/23/2007 1 :48 PM
KATHY L CARROLL
8500 OLD BAUCOM ROAD
RALEIGH NC 26610
LESTER L PHILLIPS
2700 BALLOT ROAD
CLAYTONNC 27520
PAULJGIL
2700 EMMETT CREST COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520
JOHN R BAUCOM
4400 AUBURN CHURCH ROAD
GARNER NC 27529
~ortly filarolina ~£neral !um.emhlg
~UU5l? nf ~l?nfatiftl?5
~tail? ~plmnrl? lfiluilmns
~aleisll 27601-1096
REPRESENTATIVE ALICE GRAHAM UNDERHILL
3RD DISTRICT
OFFICE ADDRESS: 16 W. JONES STREET, ROOM 1206
RALEIGH, NC 27601-1096
Tl!:LEPHONE: [phone]
[phone] FAX
EMAIL: [e-mail]
HOME ADDRESS: 3910 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
NEW BERN, NC 28562
PHONE: [phone]
[phone] FAX
October 16, 2007
Mr. David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 276-99-1617
AGRICULTURE
APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEES :
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT, CHAIR
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, VICE-CHAIR
HOMELAND SECURITY, MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAI RS
JUDICIARY III
TRA.NSPORTATION
Re: City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (Permit #WQ0001730)
Dear Mr. Hance:
I am writing in reference to the variance application by the City of Raleigh seeking to pursue a natural attenuation
corrective action plan (CAP) under the 15A NCAC 2L ( Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to ►
the Ground waters of North Carolina) for nitrates that have migrated offsite from its Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant (NRWWTP).
I am requesting that this application be denied. In the best of situations, the continued release of nutrients into
the Neuse River plays havoc with the water quality and the natural resources dependent on a healthy river. The
drought that Eastern North Carolina is facing is having significant impact on the health of the river and will
exponentially increase the impact of this release of nitrates into the River. The ability of the river and its natural
res©urces to recuperate may reach far into the future .
Beyond the damage done to the water quality and other natural resources will b_e the economic impact to the
people of Eastern North Carolina. ihe health of-tne Neuse River has a significant impact on jobs and the
economy in . Eastern North Carolina.
I recognize and understand the tough choices that the City of Raleigh must make, but passing their responsibility
on to others who live furt~er down river is not an acceptable choice .
Yours truly,
~4-~~
Rep. Alice G. Underhill
AGU/rtnp
CC: Charles Meeker, Mayor of Raleigh
David McCracken, President of Neuse River Foundation
=-:: Variance Request -Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant ...
Subject: RE: Variance Request -Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) -------Response
From: "Moir, Kent" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:55:40 -0400
To: "David Hance" <[e-mail]>
Mr. Hance,
Thank you for your response. I may take you up on your offer to come in a review the variance request. I will
check with you for a date and time if we determine a review is necessary. Do you know if the City of Raleigh has
published their corrective action plan for the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant nitrogen contamination?
Or is it part of the variance request?
Thank you,
Kent Moir
Kent L. Moir
Marketing Coordinator
Brown and Caldwell
5410 Trinity Road
Palisades II, Suite 320
Raleigh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
From: David Hance [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:35 PM
To: Moir, Kent
Subject: Re: Variance Request -Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) -------Response
Mr. Moir,
We do not have this in electronic form and as of yet ---do not have scanning capabilities.
If you wish to come in and look at the variance request -please let me know of the day and time that
would work for you. I will be out of the office on October 24th.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
*************************************************************************************
Moir, Kent wrote:
Mr. Hance,
In reference to the media alert dated October 3, 2007, entitled "Public Comment Period for Raleigh Variance
Request Extended to Nov. 5," I am requesting a copy of the referenced variance request for inspection. Is there a
PDF or MS Word file available that you could e-mail me? I am also interested in obtaining a copy of the City of
Raleigh's corrective action plan (CAP) for nitrates that have migrated offsite from the Neuse River WWTP, if
available.
Thank you for your time.
Best,
10/23/2007 5:50 PM
RE: Variance Request -Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant ...
2 of2
Kent Moir
Kent L. Moir
Marketing Coordinator
Brown and Caldwell
5410 Trinity Road
Palisades II, Suite 320
Raleigh, NC 27607
Tel: ( 919) 424-144 7
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
10/23/2007 5:50
'ity of Raleigh Variance : Information you requested on 10/22/07
,f 1
Subject: City of Raleigh Variance: Information you requested on 10/22/07
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:49:52 -0400
To: Dean Naujoks <[e-mail]>
Sir,
I got your phone call to me and then I spoke with you receptionist on the phone. The person to send
public comments to is me, David Hance, and here is the address to submit comments as follows:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] (ext. 587); Fax: [phone]
E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
This was also noted at the public hearing.
The hearing officers are Andrew Pitner at the DWQ-APS -Mooresville Regional Office and Kathy
Stecker at the DWQ-Planning Section/ Modeling-TMDL unit.
David Hance
Env Specialist
10/23/2007 5:53 PM
!: CORPUD Variance Request: Scheduling a Hearing Officers Meeting
Please send me dates and times when we can have a meeting. Those management persons who
wish to participate can also give your times and dates to me as well. I/possible, I would greatly
appreciate receiving a response from you on or before 9 AM on Thursday, October 25, 2007.
Once I have tha(from the principals involved including RRO staff and hearing officers, I will set
up a meeting room for us.
David Hance
DWQ-Env Spec
919-733-5083 X. 587
Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
10/22/2007 3 :00 PM
)RPUD Variance Request: Scheduling a Hearing Officers Meeting
Jf2
Subject: CORPUD Variance Request: Scheduling a Hearing Officers Meeting
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:54:53 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark
<[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts
<de bra. [e-mail]>
CC: "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>
Hello Hearin g Officers and DWO Staff involved in this pro iect:
A while back Kathy Stecker suggested that we have another hearing officers' meeting within the next
few weeks. As you know, as a result from action by our Director our new comment deadline is
November 5, 2007 and that is corning upon us quickly. We need to talk about where we are at with
comments and our hearing officers report.
In order to hold a meeting we need dates and times from the participants to the determine when we
should have our meeting/conference call in Raleigh. (If Andrew Pitner cannot attend the meeting -we
can do a conference call for him since he is in Mooresville).
Here is David Rance's availability (and periods that are out) between October 23rd and November
9th in the table below:
I The Week of Dates and
times When
I can meet
: October 22nd : Friday,
1
-October 26th i October 26,
2007
I October 29th i Open all
:. November i week as far
:I 2nd i as I know
:: November 5th ! Open all
!! . November ! week as far
ii 9th i as I know
Dates and times that are OUT for me
l\.1ost of this week does not look good for me. Monday is out of
course. I am out all day on Wednesday, 10/24/07 on personal
matters. I have a meeting on a morning or afternoon sometime
this week but I do not know when as of yet. Maybe Tuesday or
Thursday.
Not applicable
Not applicable
Please send me dates and times when we can have a meeting. Those management persons who wish to
participate can also give your times and dates to me as well. If possible, I would greatly appreciate
receiving a response from you on or before 9 AM on Thursday, October 25, 2007.
Once I have that from the principals involved including RRO staff and hearing officers, I will set up a
meeting room for us.
10/22/2007 2:55 P M
CORPUD Variance Request: Scheduling a Hearing Officers Meeting
2 of2
David Hance
DWQ-Env Spec
919-733-5083 X. 587
10/22/2007 2:55
:: CORPUD Variance Request: Scheduling a Hearing Officers Meeting
>f2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Scheduling a Hearing Officers Meeting
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15: 13 :35 -0400 -
To: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, Rick
Bolich <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."
<[e-mail]>
Kathy,
I agree with you but I think the date will depend upon when we need to have a completed product to
Coleen, taking into account time you and Andrew need to make heads or tails out of the comments.
Rick and I have reviewed most of them, but have not really compiled them into concise responses for
you and Andrew to consider (Rick, isn't that true?). I do not think it should take too long. In some
cases the hearing officers compile the comments and assoc. responses, so let me know if you and
Andrew would rather do this.
I had also suggested a meeting via email to Ted on Oct. 16th with management, to discuss "where do we
go from here?" and to make sure the recommendations from Rick and I are consistent with the
APS/DWQ position (if not we need to know that too). I have not gotten any response to my earlier
request for a mtg. I suggest you may wish to talk to Alan and see if he has any insight or would suggest
for you to talk to Coleen ( I can go if you need me). Please advise.
Jay
Kathy Stecker wrote:
Andrew will be out until November 13. I'd personally like to wait to meet until after the comment
period closes. What do others think? I had proposed November 29 to Andrew. Is that too late, too
close to when we'd liave to file documents with the clerk?
David Hance wrote:
Hello Hearing Officers and DWO Staff involved in this pro ject:
A while back Kathy Stecker suggested that we have another hearing officers' meeting within
the next few weeks. As you know, as a result from action by our Director our new comment
deadline is November 5, 2007 and that is coming upon us quickly. We need to talk about where
we are at with comments and our hearing officers report.
In order to hold a meeting we need dates and times from the participants to the determine when
we should have our meeting/conference call in Raleigh. (If Andrew Pitner cannot attend the
meeting -we can do a conference call for him since he is in Mooresville).
Here is David Hance's availability (and periods that are out) between October 23rd and
10/22/2007 3:23 PM
!: CORPUD Variance Request: Scheduling a Hearing Officers Meeting
November 9th in the table below:
..... ... ..
The Week of Dates and Dates and times that are OUT for me .... times When
,I can meet
October 22nd J?riday, Most of this week does not look good for me. Monday is
-October October 26, out of course. I am out all day on Wednesday, 10/24/07 on
26th 2007 personal matters. I have a meeting on a morning or
afternoon sometime this week but I do not know when as
of yet. Maybe Tuesday or Thursday.
October 29th :.Open all
ii
Not applicable
-November I week as far
2nd ! as I know
November Open all Not applicable
5th -week as far
November 9th as I know
Please send me dates and times when we can have a meeting. Those management persons who
wish to participate can also give your times and dates to me as well. If possible, I would
greatly appreciate receiving a response from you on or before 9 AM on Thursday, October
25, 2007.
Once I have that from the principals involved including RRO staff and hearing officers, I will
set up a meeting room for us.
David Hance
DWQ-Env Spec
919-733-5083 X. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
10/22/2007 3:23 PM
!: CORPUD Variance: Status of "Thomas Worth Request" for an Ad ...
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Status of "Thomas Worth Request" for an Additional Comment
extension w/ Questions
From: jeff manning <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:24:24-0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Alan
Clark <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], "Ted L. Bush, Jr."
<[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>
David:
There hasn't been a reason given to justify extending the comment period again.
Unless there are unusual and extenuating circumstances, the commenter should be able
to get comments in during the comment period that has already been extended by 30
days in order for the hearing officers to be able to consider his comments.
Jeff
David Hance wrote:
_*Hello Hearing Officers:*_
As you know some time ago -Thomas Worth -an attorney for the "Edge of Auburn"
----requested additional time for comments beyond the extension already given of
November 5th by the Director of DWQ. There has been some staff discussion on this
via email, but I have not heard or seen any correspondence suggesting if this
request was sent forward to Coleen Sullins for action.
Question# 1 : Has this request gone forward and when?
Question# 2: Has the Director issued a response yet?
David Hance
DWQ Planning
919-733-5083 x. 587
10/22/2007 10:42 AM
w
(!,
<C o_
> _J y
w w
3:
w y
<r,
3:_
w :r: t-
(Y)
(Y)
N
N
I co
lD
lD
I
(Tl .....
(Tl
.....
~
l.D .....
Raleigh wa~1ts sludge
to take care of itself
Request opposed by
officials down river.
f~asibl-e ." ·
'
'lhc:' dty i11sleall. w211ls to
install a litnitecl number of
groundwater extraction wells.
BY uTmA Mo'\CK SunoN al a cosl of $9 million and allow
· ·•m.1lura·1 aUe11uationff t,o , take
care of the nilrt>gen. ,
l{:i ·lcigh offidals lio1,e lime "Basita!ly, Ute Y3tiance that
will I.lice care of shLC!ge f1·om rls Haleigh has proposed is to do
N t-usc River vraslewa.ler (real-nothing t() dean thls up,., said
mer.if J>larit i..arry I3aldwi11, 1..o·wer Neuse
11•e plan( is respunstblt> Cur Riverkeepe,'.
l,ll!'KJ a.crC's of g-roi.mdw.alt>r . Officials iw-Craven County
ornfami.natiun cau~·<l f)y over-and Nl~W Bern,· tbe lucat..icm ol
.iwlying sli.1dge. Sludge, wbkh. Baldwin's of□ce, pla11 lo-send rs i.prayed on farm Iields, is R a lel!cr to the Environmental
Jefl•ovl'r !'lt>licl 1>rudt1cecl dm5nl{ M:a11asi;eme11LCon11nission, ask-
111'!.' waler ~ml sewage lreaL-ing them n~t lo grant Haleigh's
ment process, variance request .
A"'I rt fC'mt'lt uf the cu11.bnni11:1-Tw(.'n.(y.five percent of lh~
tiuu, t~0,000 poum.ls. or nitro-120,000 1iiutmcls of 11ilrnge11
gen will seep into !lie Ne'lls-e from Ral~h's treal.me,nt plant
l~iv~revet·y year fortl:i~:~e,cl:tt!" ~ll·mak,.~1~~ way:ul t:f~e!Neus-e
}'cars. ' J ,_ ' .. ..-..,Rin~r·•·~st:ujjf-y ,-in New Dern,
111e. slate Division of Waler Baldwiu sitld, ;~, {~t · ·
Quality r-eituires Raleigh lo ·. "lt's 11otjuslan issue S:11ecific
dean llp fhe contamination, but t-0 Raldgh, bl!t It ls some.tlun8'
how 1l w.m _do so is the sabject that has an effect iill the -'Way ·
ohl,e bale. dc1w11 ti1,e riv-er,~ he said.' .
A Oral option requires inst.all-·· While Baldwlrt said jt is 1rue
i11g 4 2:6 wells, forming .a. hydrau-the nUrog en, Will nafuia.Uy de-
lie b-furier that wtQu(d red11ce crease b\'er tiint;he said it will
gr<1u11rlwater discharge. With a take 40 years:or more to do so.
1irke lag of $80 millioil over 30 "For Uiem to ~t•a free ·pass
years, Ralejgb officials deemed and not clean iiriy of it up is just
that option "economically not untbiukable/ B-illdwin said .
· TJ. Lynch, lhe was~waler
lrcat meor pl.ult supetint,endent,
saicJ in January ti1e dly reduced
its nilrngcn discharges by 50
l)erc-ent, a hove ti 1e 30 percen\
ll1e -sfBle requir~s. Lynch said
the reduction~ are c1ue to beltoer
I.mining for em11foyce.s 1111d con-
llaually l,,.,.eak;ng the process lo
get better numbers .
Public: ~omcnenl-on Raleigh's
vaiiru1ce requesl has been ex-
le11ded until Nov. 5. . . . 1·.
'll1ose whc, wish to submit'
conunents or inspect tlJe·lrati-··
a11re req_ue.c;\, should write to .
David . Hance, DENR-DWQ ,
PL11111i11g Sediion, 1611 Mall
Su vke Center, Rale!gb, NC,,
276~1617~ call 733-5003. ert
587, or c-mal! davi"1.luinc-e@nc,, ·
mail.net · · · · · , ?
EXHIBIT3
TABLE 1 -JOHNSTON COUNTY PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO VARIANCE PARCELS
Number 0~.R -u -ADDRESS .. CITY $,TAT'i ZII~
1 WAY OF LIFE BAPTIST CHURCH 2100 HARMONY COURT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
2 WAUGH, DONALD & WAUGH, JEAN 2610 RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8809
3 BOLEN, HOWARD & BOLEN, MELISSA 2016 RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
4 JOHNSON, ROYS & CHARLOTTE M 2008 RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8809
5 FLEMING, JANET LYNN 2004 FOREST DR CLAYTON NC 27520-8811
6 AVIE CO 1000 CCC DR CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
7 MORRIS, SONDRA & GARY 2016 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
8 ETTRIDGE, JAMES F & JUDITH L 2020 ELIZABETH COURT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
9 STRICKER, RALPH & SONDRA 2024 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8818
10 STAMEY, ROBERT & JODIE 2000 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8818
11 JENKINS, GARY L & JANET H 2012 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
12 STRICKER, WILLIAM MICHAEL 2004 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
13 JOHNSON, TONY LEE & MARTHA P 2008 ELIZABETH CT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
14 PRIVETTE, WILLIS E & JANICE 1925 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
15 EVANS, BRUCE L & CAROLYN M 2004 PINEBARK LANE CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
16 WILLIAMS, DONALD K & VIRGINIA 2013 VALLEY CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8804
17 JEWELL, GARY A & RHONDA 2003 PINEBARK LN CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
18 CAUGHMAN, CE & REBECCA 2009 VALLEY COURT CLAYTON NC 27520-8804
19 MUNT, HERBERT F Ill 2017 VALLEY COURT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
20 SHREVE, JAMES DANIEL & MITSY 2000 PINE BARK LN CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
21 SMITH, SANDY M & MATTHEW 2007 PINEBARK LANE CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
22 GRANT, LONNIE G & PATTIE M 2021 VALLEY COURT CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
23 RUSSELL, TRAVIS E & DEBRA 121 PEBBLE DRIVE CLAYTON NC 27520-8042
24 CARROLL, LARRY W JR 125 PEBBLE DRIVE CLAYTON NC 27520-8042
25 JOHNSON, MALCOM DEWITT & CAROL POBOX966 CLAYTON NC 27520-0966
26 BOONE, CAROL BEARD 422 BISCAYNE DRIVE WILMINGTON NC 28411-0000
27 HORNE,SARAHBEARD 214 TARPON CT NAGS HEAD NC 27959-0000
28 BENSON, IRENE P 2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON NC 27520-6520
29 BENSON, IRENE LF EST &STEVEN 2501 OLD US 70 WEST CLAYTON NC 27520-6520
30 BENSON, IRENE P 2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON NC 27520-6520
31 BENSON, IRENE P 2501 OLD US 70 W CLAYTON NC 27520-6520
32 STATE OF NC C/O STATE PROPERTY 116 W JONES STREET RALEIGH NC 27603-0000
33 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 116 W JONES STREET RALEIGH NC 27603-0000
34 JONES, CHRISTOPHER & ANITA 2025 ELAINE DR CLAYTON NC 27520-8212
35 BELVIN , JUDITH W & LARRY E 321 EMAINST CLAYTON NC 27520-2463
36 JOHNSON, CLARENCE & WIFE 201 MEADOW RUN KNIGHTDALE NC 27520-2463
37 JOHNSON, DAVID IRA & MARNIE 5009 COVERED BRIDGE RD CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
38 PARKER, DONALD A 300S PINE ST BENSON NC 27504-0000
39 PARKER, DONALD A 300S PINE ST BENSON NC 27504-0000
40 JAMES M GILBERT INC PO BOX236 CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
41 JAMES M GILBERT INC PO BOX236 CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
42 JAMES M GILBERT INC POBOX236 CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
43 JAMES M GILBERT INC P OBOX236 CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
44 JAMES M GILBERT INC P OBOX236 CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
45 NA NA NA NA NA
NOTES:
NA: Parcel owner information not available on Wa ke County Geographic Informati on System
#ll051632v2
EXHIBIT3
TABLE 2 -WAKE COUNTY PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO VARIANCE PARCELS
Number ,0,Ql'Jli;B .. ADDRESS · Cu<T STATE ZIP
46 FRANKLIN, PATRICIA A 3435 DEER TRACE LN CLAYTON NC 27520-5931
47 AUTON, SUSAN M & JERRY L 3524 BALLOT RD CLAYTON NC 27520-9301
48 DOUGLAS, PHIWP N & BARBARA S 413 HARDWOOD RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8603
49 DONATI, BRIAN C & DEBORAH M 1316 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
50 DEBOCK, RICHARD M & JOANNE 1320 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
51 WHITE, DENNIS C & RUTH H 1324 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
52 TERRY, AMANDA & RYAN GROULX 1109 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
53 LEBING, WYTOLD R & CAROLBARBOUR, SWADE E JR 1304 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
54 NA NA NA NA NA
55 CARROLL, KATHY LYNN B500 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9266
56 DEBNAM, CATHERINE 5717 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8529
57 SEAWELL, VIRGINIA D 5529 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8526
58 TANKARD, ANNE M MCINNES, CORNELIA, STEWART C MCINNES 8419 KALB RD RICHMOND VA 23229-4133
59 BAUCOM, JOHN R JR & MARIE A 4400 AUBURN CHURCH RD GARNER NC 27529-8765
60 OKAMOTO, ERIC B & JUDITH F 1113PINETRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
61 HEDRICK, ROBERT A & PATRICIA 0 4704 STILLER ST RALEIGH NC 27609-5640
62 EDGE OF AUBURN LLC PO BOX19808 RALEIGH NC 27619-9808
63 HINZ, KYLE D & KAREN K 3401 DEER RACE LA CLAYTON NC 27520--0000
64 BEAVERS, RICHARD W & SHARON ROSE 654 CORBETT RD CLAYTON NC 27520-8452
65 NORTH CAROLINA STATE OFC/O STATE PROPERTY OFFICE 116 W JONES ST RALEIGH NC 27603-1300
66 BROADWELL. BOBBY H & PAMELA S 1328 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
67 HUNTER, TERI FULK TRUSTEE 1340 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
68 BAKER. LULA ANNE BAKER, TIMOTHY JOEL 3345 STONEY CREEK DR CLAYTON NC 27520-5958
69 SARROCCO, NICHOLAS A & EUGENIA S 7820 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9252
70 BRUFF, MICHAELS & KIMBERLY B 1312 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
71 GAZDA, SHANE GAZDA. MARGERY CARNEY 2704 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
72 ADAMS. JIMMY C & TONDRA E 8428 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9264
73 GARRETT, DARYL J & RAMONA C 7027 FARMDALE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
74 LEHOCKY, RICHARD D & BETTY A 1336 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
75 GIL. PAUL J & DARCY A 2708 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
76 MCLEAN, ROBERTS & JOHNNIE F 1333 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9345
77 SLAVIN, JAMES A & MARYE 1205 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9361
78 DEBNAM, SHIRLEY H 5700 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8528
79 MCCLUNG DOUGLAS E & AMY E 420 HARDWOOD RIDGE CT CLAYTON NC 27520-8603
80 BARBOUR, SWADE E JR HEIRS 326 LOMBAR ST CLAYTON NC 27520-0000
81 MALARKEY, WIWAM J & CECELIA GALE 1325 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9345
82 DEBNAM, RETHA M, DEBNAM, CHRISTOPHER HENRY W DEBNAM 1501 CHURCHILL DOWNS DR WAXHAW NC 27173-6610
83 PHILLIPS, LESTER L PHILLIPS, REBECCA 2700 BALLOT RD CLAYTON NC 27520-9304
84 WOO, HEA K & CHUN I 3425 DEER TRACE LN CLAYTON NC 27520-5931
85 BALL. DOUGLAS 1027 HWY 70 W SUITE 225 GARNER NC 27529--0000
86 TALTON, MARGARET B 2728 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9214
87 MCKINNON, SWANOLA DEBNAM 5708 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8528
88 D'ALLAIRD, DANIEL & EMMA 2436 NEUSEHILL LN RALEIGH NC 27610-9102
89 MORGAN, ELIZABETH B POBOX4721 CHAPEL HILL NC 27515-4721
90 LON G B RAN CH FARM LLC 2400 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9208
91 BAUC OM, JULIAN & MARLENE 3021 HIO<ORYTREE PL RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
92 HAW LEY. WILLIAM J & ROBERTA L 2 709 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
93 DUI IN, PHYLLIS DE6NAM 2916 OLD MILBURNIE RD R_l,LEIGH NC 27604-9655
94 OA.U GHERTY, GLADYS YOUNGDANIEL HOLLAND 572 BOGGS RANCH RD GRAHAM NC 27253--0000
95 BAUCOM. W ILLIA M BYRD POBOX248 CLAYTON NC 27528-024e
96 BAUCOM, CLIFT ON P 3005 HICKORY TREE PL RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
97 MIESCH. JOHN F & UNOA. T 3420 E GARNER RD CLAYTON NC 27520-9307
96 DA.NIELS. EARL & JOELINE Y 5717 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8529
99 ROBERTSON-JETHRO, ETHEL BARBOUR 1009 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9358
100 BIDDIX, THOMAS L & DEBORAH W 1117 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
101 CHAMPION, ROBERT & MONA 2700 EMMETT CREST CT CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
102 MARRINER, LOUIS & FRANCES OWENS 1125 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
103 QUINN, POLLY S PO BOX 132 HINESBURG VT 05461--0132
104 MCCARDLE, VAN R & CHERYL M 1105 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
105 FREEMAN DANNA F 1101 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
106 BAUCOM JULIAN M 3021 HICKORY TREE PL RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
107 PRICE, RALPH L & BEVERLY W 1201 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9361
106 MCKINNON SWANOLA DEBNAM 5708 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8528
109 REED, CHARLES E 7020 FARMDALE RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
110 NORTH CAROLINA STATE OFC/O STATE PROPERTY OFFICE 116 W JONES ST RALEIGH NC 27603-1300
111 KELLY, JOSEPH A & JOAN B 1332 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
112 BELL, IAN & ELMA C 1308 PINE TRL CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
113 JONES, CHRISTOPHER & ANITA A 2025 ELAINE DR CLAYTON NC 27520-8212
114 PBR GROUP LLC RTE 2 2400 BRANCH RD RALEIGH NC 27610--0000
115 PERKINS, MARVIN CLAUDE & SUSAN J 6200 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
116 RHODES, WILLIAM T & GWYN K 3751 E GARNER RD CLAYTON NC 27520-6541
118 GILBERT JENNIFER P 273C BLUE POND RD CLAYTON NC 27520-7493
NOTES:
NA: Parcel owner information not available on Wake County Geographic Information System
#9051632"2
EXHIBIT3
TABLE 3 • WAKE COUNTY VARIANCE PARCELS AND CITY OF RALEIGH PROPERTY
Numbe r OWNER AD DRESS CITY STATE ZIP
119 NC STATE OF C/O PROPERTY CONTROL OFFICE 9001 MAIL SERVICE CTR RALEIGH NC 27699-9001
120 DUNN, PHYLLIS DEBNAM 2916 OLD MILBURNIE RD RALEIGH NC 27604-9655
121 ADAMS, PAUL M HEIRS C/0 WANDA S ADAMS EXECUTRIX 8404 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9264
122 ADAMS , DAL TON HICKMAN ADAMS, GEORGIA M COOPER 8401 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9265
123 NICHOLSON, CHEYNEY A POBOX33065 RALEIGH NC 27636-3065
124 RALEIGH CITY OF POBOX590 RALEIGH NC 27602-0590
125 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO ATTN W H KEITH CX1G PO BOX 14042 ST PETERSBURG FL 33733-4042
126 WHEELER, PAMELA ANN WHEELER, BRIAN KEITH 6029 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-8534
127 NA NA NA NA NA
128 RALEIGH CITY OF PO BOX590 RALEIGH NC 27602-0590
129 COWING, BETTY B 8100 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9258
130 MATERIAL RECOVERY LLC 421 RALEIGH VIEW RD RALEIGH NC 27610-4623
131 HOPKINS, JOHN H 2293 ST ANDING ROCK RD CAMDENTON MO 65020-4626
132 BAUCOM, JOHN R JR 4400 AUBURN CHURCH RD GARNER NC 27529-8765
133 HINTON, JAMES E 333 LAFAYETTE AVE APT 121 BROOKLYN NY 11238-1337
134 BAUCOM, WILLIAM B & ANN R PO BOX248 CLAYTON NC 27528-0248
135 DUNN, PHYLLIS DEBNAM 2916 OLD MILBURNIE RD RALEIGH NC 27604-9655
136 RALEIGH CITY OF 222 W HARGETT ST RALEIGH NC 27601-1316
137 TIPPETTS CHAPEL ORIGINAL RR 1 KNIGHTDALE NC 27545-9801
138 DANIELS, EARL & JOELINE Y 5717 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-B529
139 NORTH CAROLINA ST A TE OF C/0 DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION 116 W JONES ST RALEIGH NC 27603-1300
140 NC STATE OF 1321 MAIL SERVICE CTR RALEIGH NC 27699-1321
141 RALEIGH CITY OF 222 W HARGETT ST RALEIGH NC 27601-1316
142 RALEIGH CITY OF POBOX590 RALEIGH NC 27602-0590
143 ADAMS, JERRY WAYNE ADAMS, BRENDA DIANNE 8513 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
144 HASH, DAVID W & LINDA B 6216 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
145 BROWN, SHERRY ADAMS & STEPHEN DALE 135 RIDGE WAY LN CLAYTON NC 27520-B084
146 NA NA NA NA NA
147 BROWN, SYBLE B 8529 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
148 FRISON, BRENDA J 8549 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
149 NA NA NA NA NA
150 HASH, DAVID W & LINDA B 6216 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
151 YOUNG, EVELYN C 8537 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
152 RHODES, WILLIAM T & GWYN K 3751 E GARNER RD CLAYTON NC 27520-6541
153 ADAMS, BRENDA DIANNE D M ADAMS JR 8513 OLD BAUCOM RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
154 NA NA NA NA NA
155 OSBORN, ARNOLD L JR 6208 MIAL PLANTATION RD RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
NOTES:
NA: Parcel owner information not available on Wake County Geographic Information System
#9051632v2
E: ,Question--reply about mailing list
,f 1
Subject: RE: Question--reply about mailing list
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:24:25 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
David ... will you please fax me that list? Stephen Smith fax# [phone] ... 1 am here in Raleigh ... Thanks for
your help ... SS
From: David Hance [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:29 PM
To: Smith, Steve
Subject: Re: Question--reply about mailing list
Mr. Smith:
We have the materials here in our office. You can come by and look at them if you are in the Raleigh
area. Just set up a date and time for this. If you want a faxed copy -I can do that too. Just let me know
what manner you want the information processed.
Note that list used is submitted by the petitioner pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(c)(9) and the Division
of Water Quality staff uses this list to provide direct mail notice to the public. We also apply the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(e) when we give notice to the public .
Note that any person who wants a notice submitted can also get that upon making a request of staff.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X . 587
[e-mail] wrote:
David, How and where can I get a list of the property owners who received State notification regarding
the City of Raleigh's Waste Water Treatment Facility?
Stephen Smith
10/22/2007 4: 17 P M
>-2 w w
3:
w y
~I
w
I
I-
CT)
CT)
N
N
I
LO
LD
LD
I
(J7 ....
(J7
....
(SJ
LO ....
Ral e igh wa1Jts slu d.g e
t o take c are of itself
Reqlle5t opposed by
offi~ials down river.
feasible _H •
·,
'lhi:-c.:iiy i11sleatl .. wa.11ls to
i11slall a limilecl number of
groun(!wakr extraction wells.
BY L'ITm·A MAcK Su·noN al a cosl of $9 mil~on md allow
· "m1tural allenualion" to , lake
care of tlte nil:rbgeh . ,
Haleigh offk:ials ho1,e lime "llasita!ly, the v:uilMlce that
wiil lake rnre tJf sludge frnm 1Ls Haleigh has proposed is to do
Nt>usc River waslewale.-lreat-nothing lo dea[l thls upt1 said
men( J~larit 1.arry l3aluwil1, Lower 1'le11Se
11}e plan[ is respuns.i:ble fur Riverk~r.
l.{)(KJ acrrs of gro1Jndw.al1:r . Officials iw-Crave11 County
omtmninat..ion caus-·<l. boy--u,1Je1·-and NL~W Bern,· tl1e loc~Uc:m ol
:ip11lying sludge . Sludge, whkh Baldwin's oHice, p\ari lo-send
i!'i !.prayed on farm 1ields, is r1 a lell«:>r to the Euvironmenlal
kft•1ver solid I ►roducecl dudti!a{ M:iimi.s~emenLCom1nission, as1t-
11it· wa:le.-~ml sewage lreaL-1ng them uol to grantl{;ilciRh's
rnent process. variru1ce rectuest .
I\."{ a l"C'~df uf tl1e o:m(.m1i1m-Twicn.(y.five percent of the
· TJ . Lynch, lhe wastewlller
tn:at me1)I plruLI superintendent,
sak) in Janua,-y tite dly reduced
ils 1iilrogcn disd1arges by 50
IJerc-eRt, ahovc lhe 30 percent
!he -stale reqllires. Lynell said
the red1..1ciiom1 ;a~ aue lo better
lr.li.ning for em1ifoyc~ and con.
Li aually l ""'ealt~ ng the process to
get better numbers.
Pul:iUc c:ommenl {)[l Raleigh ' S;
vaiiauce. reqt1est has been ex-
le11ded until Nov. 5. , . : 1 ·.
'll1ose who wish to submit .
comments or inspect tbe ·\lati-'
a,ic:e request, should write to .
D11.vid . Hance, DENR-DWQ ,
Plrn 111i11g S~dlon, 1611 Mail
Ser vice Center, Raleigh, NC,-:
276~1617~ call 733-5003. ext
587, or ~mai! t.lavi'll.hanc~no ·
mail.net · · · · , ?
liou, t,:!O,Ul.tO pouml~ or 11i(rn-12:U,UUO polmcls of 11llrngei1
gen wj]l seep into the Ne'll&e from Ral~h's treatme,nt plant m vr.-1· cvct·y yeRr for the ·next air 'Will orru!lt!~Jij way-l!J t:iJ~'Neuse
}1l'tll"S. . ',) t, 'l . i, ..;River '•·~~lilf-f .-_,in f:"~W Berri,
1l1e. slate Division of Waler Baldwiu said. '.7:-, {!,:;( · .
Qualily r-e1lu1res Raleigh .to ·. "lt's not)usl an issue s11eclfk
dean tcp U,e contamination, but to Rakigb, bl!t It js something
how it will do so is the subject lhat hais ar1 effect' all fue . Way
of die ha.lie. . dc1w11 :th-e riv-eri1 he said.• .
A firat option requires install• While Baldwi.rt said it is !rue
ing 42:6 wells, forml!Jg .a. hydrnu-the nHrogen /Mil nafuial.ly de-
tic barrier lhat would recface crease over fune,i he said it will
gfounclwaler clisdm,ge. WiU1 a take 40 year.;:ormore to do so.
11rice lag o[ $80 millioil over 30 "For Uiem to Wattta' free ·pass
yearn, Rale5gl, officials deemed and not clean i!riy ofit up is just
that optio11 "economically not un.thi11kable," Baldwin said .
)RPUD Variance Request:----Written Comments sent today to He ...
Subject: CORPUD Variance Request: ----Written Comments sent today to Hearing Officers
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:29:03 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], kathy stecker
<[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush,
Jr." <[e-mail]>
Hello,
I have sent out written comments out to the hearing officers and DWQ/ APS -RRO staff working on this
request.
Andrew Pitner has his set faxed to him. Jay, Rick and Kathy got their's hand delivered.
Debra Watts got a copy faxed since she is keeping up on this stuff for the DWQ-APS Central Office.
Look for the packet with the attached note.
David Hance
919-733-5083 X. 587
Notewrittencommts-corpudasofl0-19.doc
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
10/19/2007 5 :29 P M
ORPUD Variance: Status of "Thomas Worth Request" for an Addit. ..
of I
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Status of "Thomas Worth Request" for an Additional Comment extension
w/ Questions
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:33:52 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>, Debra Watts
<[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Hello Hearing Officers:
As you know some time ago -Thomas Worth -an attorney for the "Edge of Auburn"----requested
additional time for comments beyond the extension already given of November 5th by the Director of
DWQ. There has been some staff discussion on this via email, but I have not heard or seen any
correspondence suggesting if this request was sent forward to Coleen Sullins for action.
Question# 1 : Has this request gone forward and when?
Question# 2: Has the Director issued a response yet?
David Hance
DWQ Planning
919-733-5083 X. 587
10/19/2007 6 :34 PM
~: Question--reply about mailing list
of2
Subject: RE: Question--reply about mailing list
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:13:16 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
Thanks David. I already have the notice. I am most interested in obtaing the list of property owner who
received this notice.
Thanks for your help.
Stephen Smith
From: David Hance [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3: 10 PM
To: Smith, Steve
Subject: Re: Question--reply about mailing list
Since you have so much interest in this here is as copy of that notice that went out to the public.
I will get to your request later today or on Monday.
david hance
733-5083 X. 587
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((1
SSmith@ScottStrin gfellow.com wrote:
David ... will you please fax me that list? Stephen Smith fax# [phone] ... 1 am here in Raleigh ... Thanks for
your help ... SS
From: David Hance (mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:29 PM
To: Smith, Steve
Subject: Re: Question--reply about mailing list
Mr. Smith:
We have the materials here in our office. You can come by and look at them if you are in the Raleigh
area. Just set up a date and time for this. If you want a faxed copy - I can do that too. Just let me know
what manner you want the information processed.
Note that list used is submitted by the petitioner pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(9) and the
Division of Water Quality staff uses this list to provide direct mail notice to the public. We also apply
the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) when we give notice to the public.
Note that any person who wants a notice submitted can also get that upon making a request of staff.
David Hance
10/19/2007 3:25 PM
RE: Question--reply about mailing list
2of2
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
SSmith@ScottString fe llow.com wrote:
David, How and where can I get a list of the property owners who received State notification
regarding the City of Raleigh's Waste Water Treatment Facility?
Stephen Smith
10/19/2007 3:25
E: Question--reply about mailing list
Subject: RE: Question--reply about mailing list
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:24:25 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
David ... will you please fax me that list? Stephen Smith fax# [phone] ... 1 am here in Raleigh ... Thanks for
your help ... SS
From: David Hance [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:29 PM
To: Smith, Steve
Subject: Re: Question--reply about mailing list
Mr. Smith:
We have the materials here in our office. You can come by and look at them if you are in the Raleigh
area. Just set up a date and time for this. If you want a faxed copy - I can do that too. Just let me know
what manner you want the information processed.
Note that list used is submitted by the petitioner pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(c)(9) and the Division
of Water Quality staff uses this list to provide direct mail notice to the public. We also apply the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(e) when we give notice to the public.
Note that any person who wants a notice submitted can also get that upon making a request of staff.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
SSmith@ScottStringfellow .corn wrote:
David, How and where can I get a list of the property owners who received State notification regarding
the City of Raleigh's Waste Water Treatment Facility?
Stephen Smith
10/19/2007 3:04 PM
~e: request for a copy of the variance request for the city ofraleigh -( ...
of2
Subject: Re: request for a copy of the variance request for the city of raleigh -(Response)
From: LaToya Sutton <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:04:34 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Great. Thanks.
LaToya Sutton
The Wake Weekly
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
On Oct 8, 2007, at 9:58 AM, David Hance wrote:
I have October 11, 2007 @ 9 AM marked on my calendar.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
LaToya Sutton wrote:Mr. Hance,
Could I come look at those materials Thursday morning? Would around 9 a.m. be
good for you?
Thanks,
LaToya Sutton
The Wake Weekly
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
On Oct 5, 2007, at 12:57 PM, David Hance wrote:
I was out of the office for a couple of days on personal leave and on
some training.
The variance request consists of several binders and reports. If you
wish to examine these, please arrange a time with me so that you can
come to our office and do this next week. I am located at 512 North
Salisbury Street in the Archdale Building on the 6th Floor in Room
625aa.
My week is fairly open.
I know I will have someone looking at the materials on Monday.
Note that there was a press release sent out on Oct. 3rd extending the
comment period for this variance 30 days and this is attached. If you
have questions on the variance, the best contact to start with is Susan
10/8/2007 10:04 Alvl
Re: request for a copy of the variance request for the city of raleigh -( ...
2 of2
Massengale in Public Information at the DWQ Administration Office.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
<Raleigh V arianceExtend.doc>
Part 1.1
Content-Type: text/enriched
Content-Encoding: quoted-printable
10/8/2007 10:04 ,
:: [Fwd: Re : Question--reply about mailing list] ----response
Jf2
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Question--reply about mailing list] ----response
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:35:22 -0400
To: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Our "EMC Smith" ---is Stephen T. Smith of McMillan Smith and Plyer - A Raleigh law firm.
That other Smith is with what appears to be a financial agency of some sort.
I will talk to Lois Thomas on this on Friday to confirm.
david hance
******************************************************************************
Kathy Stecker wrote:
Is this the EMC Board member Stephen Smith? Maybe not - I guess it's a pretty common name ...
David Hance wrote:
FYI-A request I got today!
david hance
********************************************************************************* *
Subject:
Re: Question--reply about mailing list
From:
David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date:
Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:28:46 -0400
To: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Mr. Smith:
We have the materials here in our office. You can come by and look at them if you are in the Raleigh
area. Just set up a date and time for this. If you want a faxed copy - I can do that too. Just let me
know what manner you want the information processed.
Note that list used is submitted by the petitioner pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(c)(9) and the
Division of Water Quality staff uses this list to provide direct mail notice to the public. We also
apply the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) when we give notice to the public.
Note that any person who wants a notice submitted can also get that upon making a request of staff.
10/18/2007 5 :47 PM
:!: [Fwd: Re: Question--reply about mailing list] ----response
of2
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
[e-mail] wrote:
David, How and where can I get a list of the property owners who received State notification
regarding the City of Raleigh's Waste Water Treatment Facility?
Stephen Smith
10/18/2007 5:47 PM
:: [Fwd: Re: Question--reply about mailing list]
Jf 1
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Question--reply about mailing list]
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:40:17 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Interesting. Scott & Stringfellow is an investment firm.
http://www.scottstringfellow.com/ss//bb&t-personalized-banking-services.asp
David Hance wrote:
FYI-A request I got today!
david hance
*****************************************************************************************
Subject:
Re: Question--reply about mailing list
From:
David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date:
Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:28:46 -0400
To:
[e-mail]
To:
SSmith@ScottStringfellow .com
Mr . Smith:
We have the materials here in our office. You can come by and look at them if you are in
the Raleigh area. Just set up a date and time for this. If you want a faxed copy - I can
do that too. Just let me know what manner you want the information processed.
Note that list used is submitted by the petitioner pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c) (9)
and the Division of Water Quality staff uses this list to provide direct mail notice to
the public. We also apply the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e) when we give notice
to the public.
Note that any person who wants a notice submitted can also get that upon making a
request of staff.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
[e-mail] wrote:
David, How and where can I get a list of the property owners who received State
notification regarding the City of Raleigh's Waste Water Treatment Facility?
Stephen Smith
10/18/2007 3:42 PM
e: Variance Request -Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant( ...
ofl
Subject: Re: Variance Request -Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) -------Response
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:34:40 -0400
To: "Moir, Kent" <[e-mail]>
Mr. Moir,
We do not have this in electronic form and as of yet ---do not have scanning capabilities.
If you wish to come in and look at the variance request -please let me know of the day and time that would work for
you. I will be out of the office on October 24th.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
**********************************************************************************************
Moir, Kent wrote:
Mr. Hance,
In reference to the media alert dated October 3, 2007, entitled "Public Comment Period forRaleigh Variance
Request Extended to Nov. 5," I am requesting a copy of the referenced variance request for inspection. Is
there a PDF or MS Word file available that you could e-mail me? I am also interested in obtaining a copy of
the City of Raleigh's corrective action plan (CAP) for nitrates that have migrated offsite from the Neuse River
WWTP, if available. .
Thank you for your time.
Best,
Kent Moir
Kent L. Moir
Marketing Coordinator
Brown and Caldwell
5410 Trinity Road
Palisades II, Suite 320
Raleigh, NC 27607
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
10/18/2007 3:35 PM
edule a meeting?
fl
Subject: schedule a meeting?
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:12:56 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, David Hance <[e-mail]>
I know that a lot can happen between now and the January EMC meeting, but my calendar
is filling up fast, and I wondered if we should go ahead and schedule a tentative
meeting sometime after the comment period ends.
Andrew, will you be in Raleigh anytime in November? Could we schedule part of a day
to meet with staff and part for the two of us to "deliberate"?
Also, can we formulate questions in advance so that appropriate staff will be invited
to the meeting to answer them? I'm sure Jay and Rick would be there, but I think I
have questions that they can't answer .
Thanks!
-Kathy
Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
10/18/2007 10:15 AM
e: CORPUD Variance: 'Preceptions' discussion/my 2 cents
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: 'Preceptions' discussion/my 2 cents
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:31:11 -0400
To: Ted Bush <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, David Hance <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Chuck Wakild
<[e-mail]>, Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Ted,
The following was sent by Rick and responded to by David. I agree with David although like
Rick, I have some concerns regarding the nature of the comments and our role in responding
to them and/or providing input for the hearing officers consideration. The nature of the
responses and Rick's and my thoughts to them, raises significant Section and Divisional
policy issues that I think it important to discuss. Do you think it would be appropriate
and desirable to discuss some of the comments, and Rick's and my thoughts with you and
other members of management, prior to us finalizing our recommendations to the hearing
officers? If so, I would like to include as many people as you think appropriate, in
particular Chuck and Coleen. As you know Coleen has expressed a lot of interest in this
site through the past 5 years and the variance request as of late. I am not sure if we
should include Andrew and Kathy at this point, but I'll let you and other management make
that call. Please advise and we can set it up through Linda Jones.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Rick,
I believe this is a hearing officer's responsibility to discuss this with the DWQ
Director.
dh
*****************************************************************************************
Rick Bolich wrote:
Folks;
I'm deeply concerned about the overwhelming number of public comments that we've
received regarding the proposed City of Raleigh variance that refer to the variance
as a "clean-up waiver". I don't know whose responsibility it is to try to correct
this misconception -is it the DWQ or the City of Raleigh? The biggest problem is
that (i think) it will be almost impossible to correct this public misconception, and
that this will lead to prejudice when it comes to the evaluation of the variance and
the DWQ's responsibilities. How would we handle a situation where there is such a
large discrepancy between technical merit and public perception? This puts the
Division in a very tough situation, in my opinion, and staff can only do so much to
help change these misconceptions. And are we even obligated to try to do so?
This may appear as a bit of a rant, but i do think it would be a good idea to discuss
the current situation with Division management to make sure that we are all in
agreement with our respective roles and responsibilities. If there is consensus that
such a meeting would be appropriate, i don't know if the hearing officers
would/should be included. Any thoughts from you all on this?
rb
susan massengale wrote:
Just so you know, I told the reporter that, should the variance be granted as is,
the amount of nitrogen entering the Neuse from the groundwater would be subtracted
from the city's permitted allocation and that the amount would be 120,000 lbs/
year for the first year and would decrease over a 30-40 year time frame. I don't
10/16/2007 10:18 A M
Re: CORPUD Variance: 'Preceptions' discussion/my 2 cents
2 of2
think that the sentence,
"If the variance is granted, the city can legally put another 120,000 pounds of
pounds of
nitrogen in the river during the next 40 years." means that the expectation is
that they can put more than their permitted allocation. In context with the
sentence that preceeds it, ("Raleigh contends that it should be granted a cleanup
waiver because it has not come close to reaching its allowed limit of 676,417
pounds of nitrogen for the Neuse."), I think she was expressing that it would be
legally within their alloted amount if they added the 120,000 lbs. She did miss
the concept that the added amount is per year.
I, no doubt, will get another opportunity to discuss this with her before this
issue is done .
Susan
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/ Aquifer Protection Section
10/16/2007 10: J 8
)RPUD Variance: 'Preceptions' discussion/my 2 cents
Jf 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance: 'Preceptions' discussion/my 2 cents
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:15:01 -0400
To: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: susan massengale <[e-mail]>, Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>,
Ted Bush <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>
Rick,
I believe this is a hearing officer's responsibility to discuss this with the DWQ
Director.
dh
*****************************************************************************************
Rick Bolich wrote:
Folks;
I'm deeply concerned about the overwhelming number of public comments that we've
received regarding the proposed City of Raleigh variance that refer to the variance as
a "clean-up waiver". I don't know whose responsibility it is to try to c·orrect this
misconception -is it the DWQ or the City of Raleigh? The biggest problem is that (i
think) it will be almost impossible to correct this public misconception, and that
this will lead to prejudice when it comes to the evaluation of the variance and the
DWQ's responsibilities. How would we handle a situation where there is such a large
discrepancy between technical merit and public perception? This puts the Division in
a very tough situation, in my opinion, and staff can only do so much to help change
these misconceptions. And are we even obligated to try to do so?
This may appear as a bit of a rant, but i do think it would be a good idea to discuss
the current situation with Division management to make sure that we are all in
agreement with our respective roles and responsibilities. If there is consensus that
such a meeting would be appropriate, i don't know if the hearing officers would/should
be included. Any thoughts from you all on this?
rb
susan massengale wrote:
Just so you know, I told the reporter that, should the variance be granted as is ,
the amount of nitrogen entering the Neuse from the groundwater would be subtracted
from the city's permitted allocation and that the amount would be 120,000 lbs/ year
for the first year and would decrease over a 30-40 year time frame. I don't think
that the sentence,
"If the variance is granted, the city can legally put another 120,000 pounds of
pounds of
nitrogen in the river during the next 40 years." means that the expectation is that
they can put more than their permitted allocation. In context with the sentence
that preceeds it, ("Raleigh contends that it should be granted a cleanup waiver
because it has not come close to reaching its allowed limit of 676,417 pounds of
nitrogen for the Neuse."), I think she was expressing that it would be legally
within their alloted amount if they added the 120,000 lbs. She did miss the
concept that the added amount is per year.
I, no doubt, will get another opportunity to discuss this with her before this
issue is done .
Susan
10/15/2007 4 :18 PM
~: Something in the New Bern Newspaper and need to clarify
of 3
Subject: Re: Something in the New Bern Newspaper and need to clarify
Fron'i: susan massengale <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:03:46-0500
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Just so you know, I told the reporter that, should the variance be granted as is, the amount of
nitrogen entering the Neuse from the groundwater would be subtracted from the city's permitted
allocation and that the amount would be 120,000 lbs/ year for the first year and would decrease
over a 30-40 year time frame . I don't think that the sentence,
"If the variance is granted, the city can legally put another 120,000 pounds of pounds of
nitrogen in the river during the next 40 years."
means that the expectation is that they can put more than their permitted allocation. In context
with the sentence that preceeds it, ("Raleigh contends that it should be granted a cleanup waiver
because it has not come close to reaching its allowed limit of 676,417 pounds of nitrogen for the
Neuse."), I think she was expressing that it would be legally within their alloted amount if they
added the 120,000 lbs. She did miss the concept that the added amount is per year.
I, no doubt, will get another opportunity to discuss this with her before this issue is done.
Susan
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
The article has a number of inaccuracies, which in my experience isn't all that unusual.
You are correct in that we are not measuring a gaseous form of notrogen and the 120,000
lb.contribution of nitrate-nitrogen via the groundwater is credited towards their permit
allocation, and not being added to what is already in their permit. The article also suggests
Raleigh is putting" ... another 120,000 pounds of nitrogen in the river during the next 40
years." It is actually about 120,000 lbs./yr, decreasing at a rate of about 3,000 lbs./yr ..
I'll copy Susan, but she has a pretty good handle on the situation. I don't know that we need
to correct the newspaper .
Jay
David Hance wrote:
*_Hello Rick, Jay and the Hearing Officers: *
I have read over this Sun Journal Article and I saw something in the 7th paragraph.
It would appear that the article has not provided the full facts of the matter with respect
to the nitrates in groundwater and the changes to the NPDES permit -as I understand it.
From the way the article reads, it looks like Raleigh is being _given additional capacity
above the 676,617 pounds of Nitrate by 120,000 more pounds. As I understand it, the
NPDES discharge is being mathematically backed off by 120,000 pounds of nitrate to
compensate from the groundwater discharge. The article also refers to nitrogen as a "gas".
I don't believe we are talking about the gaseous form of Nitrogen here (i.e. nitrate).
If I have got it wrong let me know ---but I think these are inaccuracies that our Public
Information Officer needs to be aware of in case she gets calls on it or maybe address at
the DWQ sees fit.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 x. 587
********************************************************************************************
Rick Bolich wrote:
fyi
Subject:
New Bern wants state to make Raleigh clean up sewagesludge before it gets into Neuse
River
10/15/2007 2:49 PM
Re: Something in the New Bern Newspaper and need to clarify
2 of3
From:
Neuse River Foundation <[e-mail]>
Date:
Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:19:52 -0700
To:
Neuse River Foundation <[e-mail]>
To:
Neuse River Foundation <[e-mail]>
"New Bern wants state to make Raleigh clean up sewage sludge before it
gets into Neuse River"
Nikie Mayo
Sun Journal
October 11, 2007 -8:24PM
New Bern officials are preparing a letter that will ask the state to
make Raleigh clean up sludge from a sewage plant before it seeps into
the Neuse River.
"We're not necessarily going to ask the Division of Water Quality to
go out and hang them by their toes, but we do intend to get across the
message that Raleigh should not be allowed to get away with putting
nitrogen into the Neuse," said Danny Meadows, New Bern's acting city
manager. Meadows is filling in for Bill Hartman, who is out of town
this week.
Under the conditions of a state-issued permit, Raleigh is allowed to
pump "biosolid" -sludge that is the byproduct of wastewater treatment
-onto some fields it owns. But over the years, the city pumped more
than its share of sludge onto some fields and now the groundwater
around the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant is contaminated.
Raleigh is asking the division to let nature take care of cleaning up
the overflow.
"Raleigh miscalculated," division spokeswoman Susan Massengale said
Thursday.
Because of those miscalculations, there are "hot spots" where
contamination near the plant is 18 times what is allowed by law, she
said. That contamination was not discovered until it began to affect
drinking water in some Raleigh households, according to Massengale.
"This is all on Wake County property, but it's adjacent to the Neuse.
The worry is about nitrogen percolating there," she said. "But this is
a very complicated, layered issue."
Raleigh contends that it should be granted a cleanup waiver because it
has not come close to reaching its allowed limit of 676,417 pounds of
nitrogen for the Neuse. That limit is based on the services Raleigh
provides for itself and for surrounding towns. If the variance is
granted, the city can legally put another 120,000 pounds of pounds of
nitrogen in the river during the next 40 years. About a quarter of
that gas will make its way to New Bern, according to Larry Baldwin,
the riverkeeper for the lower Neuse.
Without a waiver, Raleigh is responsible for cleanup, according to
division regulations.
"The contamination of groundwater is the result of something that
happened during a permitted activity. For that permitted activity,
Raleigh was given their bounds and they didn't execute the permit,"
Massengale said.
There should be consequences for that failure, Baldwin said during an
interview this week.
'Everybody needs to realize that what happens in Raleigh does not stay
in Raleigh," he said.
Meadows said New Bern has done its part to protect the Neuse and
expects the same of its Wake County counterparts.
.1
I
10/15/2007 2:49
~: omething in the New Bern ew paper and need lo c larify
)
of 3
"We've upgraded our sanitary practices to do what we can," he said.
"We"ve stepped up to the plate and they should, too. The tone of our
letter will stress the importance of protecting the river, not only
for the city of New Bern, but in the interest of the entire state."
The division is taking comments on Raleigh's request until Nov. 5. The
state Environmental Management Commission will hear the request that
month, but will delay acting on it until January.
TAKE ACTION: Please tell the state that Raleigh needs to clean up it
polluted ground water rather than allow it to go into the Neuse River .
Please click on link below. It will take one minute of your time.
Thanks,
Dean Naujoks, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper Neuse River Foundation.
http://ncconservationnetworkl.org/campaign/raleighvariance
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Neuse River
Foundation" group.
To post to this group, send email to [e-mail]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[e-mail]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/neuse-river-foundation?hl=en
10/15/2007 2:49 PM
:: Something in the New Bern Newspaper and need to clarify
Subject: Re: Something in the New Bern Newspaper and need to clarify
"froin: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:46:57 -0400
To: J?avid Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Susan Massengale <[e-mail]>
David,
The article has a number of inaccuracies, which in my experience isn't all that unusual. You are correct in that we are
not measuring a gaseous form of notrogen and the 120,000 lb.contribution of nitrate-nitrogen via the groundwater is
credited towards their permit allocation, and not being added to what is already in their permit. The article also
suggests Raleigh is putting " ... another 120,000 pounds of nitrogen in the river during the next 40 years." It is actually
about 120,000 lbs./yr, decreasing at a rate of about 3,000 lbs./yr .. I'll copy Susan, but she has a pretty good handle on
the situation. I don't know that we need to correct the newspaper.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Hello Rick, Jav and the Hearing Officers:
I have read over this Sun Journal Article and I saw something in the 7th paragraph.
It would appear that the article has not provided the full facts of the matter with respect to the nitrates in
groundwater and the changes to the NPDES permit -as I understand it.
From the way the article reads, it looks like Raleigh is being given additional capacity above the 676,617 pounds of
Nitrate by 120,000 more pounds. As I understand it, the NPDES discharge is being mathematically backed off by
120,000 pounds of nitrate to compensate from the groundwater discharge. The article also refers to nitrogen as a
"gas". I don't believe we are talking about the gaseous form of Nitrogen here (i.e. nitrate).
If I have got it wrong let me know ---but I think these are inaccuracies that our Public Information Officer needs to
be aware of in case she gets calls on it or maybe address at the DWQ sees fit.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 X. 587
**********************************************************************************************
Rick Bolich wrote:
fyi
Subject:
New Bern wants state to make Raleigh clean up sewagesludge before it gets into Neuse River
From:
Neuse River Foundation <[e-mail]>
Date:
Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:19:52 -0700
To: Neuse River Foundation <neuse-river-foundation@ 1moglegrou ps.com>
To: Neuse River Foundation <neuse-river-foundation@ goo.elegrou ps.com>
10/15/2007 2:50 P M
Re: Something in the New Bern Newspaper and need to clarify
2 of3
"New Bern wants state to make Raleigh clean up sewage sludge before it
gets into Neuse River"
Nikie Mayo
Sun Journal
October 11, 2007 -8:24PM
New Bern officials are preparing a letter that will ask the state to
make Raleigh clean up sludge from a sewage plant before it seeps into
the Neuse River.
"We're not necessarily going to ask the Division of Water Quality to
go out and hang them by their toes, but we do intend to get across the
message that Raleigh should not be allowed to get away with putting
nitrogen into the Neuse," said Danny Meadows, New Bern's acting city
manager. Meadows is filling in for Bill Hartman, who is out of town
this week.
Under the conditions of a state-issued permit, Raleigh is allowed to
pump "biosolid" -sludge that is the byproduct of wastewater treatment
-onto some fields it owns. But over the years, the city pumped more
than its share of sludge onto some fields and now the groundwater
around the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant is contaminated.
Raleigh is asking the division to let nature take care of cleaning up
the overflow.
"Raleigh miscalculated," division spokeswoman Susan Massengale said
Thursday .
Because of those miscalculations, there are "hot spots" where
contamination near the plant is 18 times what is allowed by law, she
said. That contamination was not discovered until it began to affect
drinking water in some Raleigh households, according to Massengale .
"This is all on Wake County property, but it's adjacent to the Neuse .
The worry is about nitrogen percolating there," she said. "But this is
a very complicated, layered issue."
Raleigh contends that it should be granted a cleanup waiver because it
has not come close to reaching its allowed limit of 676,417 pounds of
nitrogen for the Neuse. That limit is based on the services Raleigh
provides for itself and for surrounding towns. If the variance is
granted, the city can legally put another 120,000 pounds of pounds of
nitrogen in the river during the next 40 years. About a quarter of
that gas will make its way to New Bern, according to Larry Baldwin,
the riverkeeper for the lower Neuse.
Without a waiver, Raleigh is responsible for cleanup, according to
division regulations .
'The contamination of groundwater is the result of something that
happened during a permitted activity. For that permitted activity,
Raleigh was given their bounds and they didn't execute the permit,"
Massengale said.
There should be consequences for that failure, Baldwin said during an
interview this week.
"Everybody needs to r e alize that what happens in Raleigh does not stay
in Raleigh," he said.
Meadows said New Bern has done its part to protect the Neuse and
expects the same of its Wake County counterparts.
"We've upgraded our sanitary pra cti ce s t o d o what we can," he said .
11 We 've stepped up to the plate and they should, too. The tone of our
letter will stress the importance of protecting the river, not only
for the city of New Bern, but in the interest of the entire state ."
The division is taking comments on Raleigh's request until Nov. 5. The
state Environmental Management Commission will hear the request that
month, but will delay acting on it until January.
TAKE ACTION: Please tell the state that Raleigh needs to clean up it
10/15/2007 2:5 0
!: Something in the New Bern Newspaper and need to clarify
of3
polluted ground water rather than allow it to go into the Neuse River.
Please click on link below. It will take one minute of your time .
Thanks,
Dean Naujoks, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper Neuse River Foundation.
'http://ncconservationnetworkl.org/campaign/raleighvariance
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 'Neuse River
Foundation" group.
To post to this group, send email to [e-mail]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[e-mail]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/neuse-river-foundation?hl=en
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Ja [e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
10/15/2007 2:50 P M
e: Somethini, in the New Bern Newspaper and need to clarify
Subject: Re: Something in the New Bern Newspaper and need to clarify
From: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:07:43 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Good observation, David. Thanks.
David Hance wrote:
Hello Ric k, Ja y and the Hearing Officers:
I have read over this Sun Journal Article and I saw something in the 7th paragraph.
It would appear that the article has not provided the full facts of the matter with respect to the nitrates in
groundwater and the changes to the NPDES permit -as I understand it.
From the way the article reads, it looks like Raleigh is being given additional capacity above the 676,617 pounds of
Nitrate by 120,000 more pounds. As I understand it, the NPDES discharge is being mathematically backed off by
120,000 pounds of nitrate to compensate from the groundwater discharge. The article also refers to nitrogen as a
"gas". I don't believe we are talking about the gaseous form of Nitrogen here (i.e. nitrate).
If I have got it wrong let me know ---but I think these are inaccuracies that our Public Information Officer needs to
be aware of in case she gets calls on it or maybe address at the DWQ sees fit.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 X. 587
**********************************************************************************************
Rick Bolich wrote:
fyi
Subject:
New Bern wants state to make Raleigh clean up sewagesludge before it gets into Neuse River
From:
Neuse River Foundation <[e-mail]>
Date:
Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:19:52 -0700
To: Neuse River Foundation <neuse-river-foundation@ googlel!ro u p s.com>
To: Neuse River Foundation <neuse-river-foundation@ goo~legrou ps.com>
"New Bern wants state to make Raleigh clean up sewage sludge before it
gets into Neuse River"
Nikie Mayo
Sun Journal
October 11, 2007 -8:24PM
New Bern officials are preparing a letter that will ask the state to
make Raleigh clean up sludge from a sewage plant before it seeps into
the Neuse River.
"We're not necessarily going to ask the Division of Water Quality to
go out and hang them by their toes, but we do intend to get across the
message that Raleigh should not be allowed to get away with putting
10/15/2007 1:14 P M
Re: Something in the New Bern Newspaper and need to clarify
2 of3
nitrogen into the Neuse," said Danny Meadows, New Bern's acting city
manager. Meadows is filling in for Bill Hartman, who is out of town
this week.
Under the conditions of a state-issued permit, Raleigh is allowed to
pump "biosolid" -sludge that is the byproduct of wastewater treatment
-onto some fields it owns. But over the years, the city pumped more
than its share of sludge onto some fields and now the groundwater
around the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant is contaminated.
Raleigh is asking the division to let nature take care of cleaning up
the overflow.
"Raleigh miscalculated,• division spokeswoman Susan Massengale said
Thursday.
Because of those miscalculations, there are "hot spots" where
contamination near the plant is 18 times what is allowed by law, she
said. That contamination was not discovered until it began to affect
drinking water in some Raleigh households, according to Massengale.
"This is all on Wake County property, but it's adjacent to the Neuse.
The worry is about nitrogen percolating there," she said. "But this is
a very complicated, layered issue."
Raleigh contends that it should be granted a cleanup waiver because it
has not come close to reaching its allowed limit of 676,417 pounds of
nitrogen for the Neuse. That limit is based on the services Raleigh
provides for itself and for surrounding towns. If the variance is
granted, the city can legally put another 120,000 pounds of pounds of
nitrogen in the river during the next 40 years. About a quarter of
that gas will make its way to New Bern, according to Larry Baldwin,
the riverkeeper for the lower Neuse.
Without a waiver, Raleigh is responsible for cleanup, according to
division regulations.
"The contamination of groundwater is the result of something that
happened during a permitted activity. For that permitted activity,
Raleigh was given their bounds and they didn't execute the permit,"
Massengale said.
There should be consequences for that failure, Baldwin said during an
interview this week.
"Everybody needs to realize that what happens in Raleigh does not stay
in Raleigh," he said.
Meadows said New Bern has done its part to protect the Neuse and
expects the same of its Wake County counterparts.
"We've upgraded our sanitary practices to do what we can," he said.
"We've stepped up to the plate and they should, too. The tone of our
letter will stress the importance of protecting the river, not only
for the city of New Bern, but in the interest of the entire state."
The division is taking comments on Raleigh's request until Nov. 5. The
state Environmental Management Commission will hear the request that
month, but will delay acting on it until January.
TAKE ACTION: Please tell the state that Raleigh needs to clean up it
polluted ground water rather than allow it to go into the Neuse River.
Please click on link below. It will take one minute of your time.
Thanks,
Dean Naujoks, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper Neuse River Foundation.
http://ncconservationnetworkl.org/campaign/raleighvariance
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Neuse River
Foundation" group.
To post to this group, s end email to neuse-river-foundation@googlegroups .com
10/15/2007 1:14
:: Somethini in the New Bern Newspaper and need to clarify
::if3
T5 unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[e-mail]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/neuse-river-foundation?hl=en
10/15/2007 1:14 PM
>mething in the New Bern Newspaper and need to clarify .,
)
of3
Subject: Something in the New Bern Newspaper and need to clarify
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:14:20 -0400
To: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, JAY ZIMMERMAN <[e-mail]>, Kathy
Stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
Hello Rick, Jay and the Hearing Officers:
I have read over this Sun Journal Article and I saw something in the 7th paragraph.
It would appear that the article has not provided the full facts of the matter with respect to the nitrates in
groundwater and the changes to the NPDES permit -as I understand it.
>From the way the article reads, it looks like Raleigh is being given additional capacity above the 676,617 pounds
of Nitrate by 120,000 more pounds. As I understand it, the NPDES discharge is being mathematically backed off
by 120,000 pounds of nitrate to compensate from the groundwater discharge. The article also refers to nitrogen as a
"gas". I don't believe we are talking about the gaseous form of Nitrogen here (i.e. nitrate).
If I have got it wrong let me know ---but I think these are inaccuracies that our Public Information Officer needs to
be aware of in case she gets calls on it or maybe address at the DWQ sees fit.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 x. 587
**********************************************************************************************
Rick Bolich wrote:
fyi
Subject:
New Bern wants state to make Raleigh clean up sewagesludge before it gets into Neuse River
From: Neuse River Foundation <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08: 19:52 -0700
To: Neuse River Foundation <neuse-river-foundation@ googlegroups.com>
To: Neuse River Foundation <neuse-river-foundation@ goog legrou ps.com>
"New Bern wants state to make Raleigh clean up sewage sludge before it
gets into Neuse River"
Nikie Mayo
Sun Journal
October 11, 2007 -8:24PM
New Bern officials are preparing a letter that will ask the state to
make Raleigh clean up sludge from a sewage plant before it seeps into
the Neuse River.
"We're not necessarily going to ask the Division of Water Quality to
go out and hang them by their toes, but we do intend to get across the
message that Raleigh should not be allowed to get away with putting
nitrogen into the Neuse," said Danny Meadows, New Bern's acting city
manager. Meadows is filling in for Bill Hartman, who is out of town
this week.
10/15/2007 12:14 P M
Something in the New Bern Newspaper and need to clarify
2 of3
Under the conditions of a state-issued permit, Raleigh is allowed to
pump "biosolid" -sludge that is the byproduct of wastewater treatment
-onto some fields it owns. But over the years, the city pumped more
than its share of sludge onto some fields and now the groundwater
around the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant is contaminated.
Raleigh is asking the division to let nature take care of cleaning up
the overflow.
"Raleigh miscalculated," division spokeswoman Susan Massengale said
Thursday.
Because of those miscalculations, there are "hot spots" where
contamination near the plant is 18 times what is allowed by law, she
said. That contamination was not discovered until it began to affect
drinking water in some Raleigh households, according to Massengale.
"This is all on Wake County property, but it's adjacent to the Neuse.
The worry is about nitrogen percolating there," she said. "But this is
a very complicated, layered issue."
Raleigh contends that it should be granted a cleanup waiver because it
has not come close to reaching its allowed limit of 676,417 pounds of
nitrogen for the Neuse. That limit is based on the services Raleigh
provides for itself and for surrounding towns. If the variance is
granted, the city can legally put another 120,000 pounds of pounds of
nitrogen in the river during the next 40 years. About a quarter of
that gas will make its way to New Bern, according to Larry Baldwin,
the riverkeeper for the lower Neuse.
Without a waiver, Raleigh is responsible for cleanup, according to
division regulations.
"The contamination of groundwater is the result of something that
happened during a permitted activity. For that permitted activity,
Raleigh was given their bounds and they didn't execute the permit,"
Massengale said.
There should be consequences for that failure, Baldwin said during an
interview this week.
"Everybody needs to realize that what happens in Raleigh does not stay
in Raleigh," he said.
Meadows said New Bern has done its part to protect the Neuse and
expects the same of its Wake County counterparts.
"We've upgraded our sanitary practices to do what we can," he said.
"We've stepped up to the plate and they should, too. The tone of our
letter will stress the importance of protecting the river, not only
for the city of New Bern, but in the interest of the entire state."
The division is taking comments on Raleigh's request until Nov. 5. The
state Environmental Management Commission will hear the request that
month, but will delay acting on it until January.
TAKE ACTION: Please tell the state that Raleigh needs to clean up it
polluted ground water rather than allow it to go into the Neuse River .
Please click on link below. It will take one minute of your time .
Thanks,
Dean Naujoks, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper Neuse River Foundation .
http://ncconservationnetworkl.org/campaign/raleighvariance
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Neuse River
Foundation" group.
To post to this group, send email to [e-mail]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[e-mail]
10/15/2007 12: 14
Jmething in the New Bern Newspaper and need to clarify
>f 3
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/neuse-river-foundation?hl=en
10/15/2007 12 :14 PM
'wd: New Bern wants state to make Raleigh clean up sewagesludge ...
Subject: [Fwd: New Bern wants state to make Raleigh clean up sewagesludge before it gets into Neuse River]
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:31:22 -0400
To: JAY ZIMMERMAN <JA [e-mail]>, David Hance <[e-mail]>, Kathy Stecker
<[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
fyi
Subject: New Bern wants state to make Raleigh clean up sewagesludge before it gets into Neuse River
From: Neuse River Foundation <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:19:52-0700
To: Neuse River Foundation <[e-mail]>
"New Bern wants state to make Raleigh clean up sewage sludge before it
gets into Neuse River"
Nikie Mayo
Sun Journal
October 11, 2007 -8:24PM
·New Bern officials are preparing a letter that will ask the state to
make Raleigh clean up sludge from a sewage plant before it seeps into
the Neuse River.
"We're not necessarily going to ask the Division of Water Quality to
go out and hang them by their toes, but we do intend to get across the
message that Raleigh should not be allowed to get away with putting
nitrogen into the Neuse," said Danny Meadows, New Bern's acting city
manager. Meadows is filling in for Bill Hartman, who is out of town
this week.
Under the conditions of a state-issued permit, Raleigh is allowed to
pump "biosolid" -sludge that is the byproduct of wastewater treatment
-onto some fields it owns. But over the years, the city pumped more
than its share of sludge onto some fields and now the groundwater
around the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant is contaminated.
Raleigh is asking the division to let nature take care of cleaning up
the overflow.
"Raleigh miscalculated," division spokeswoman Susan Massengale said
Thursday.
Because of those miscalculations, there are "hot spots" where
contamination near the plant is 18 times what is allowed by law, she
said. That contamination was not discovered until it began to affect
drinking water in some Raleigh households, according to Massengale.
"This is all on Wake County property, but it's adjacent to the Neuse.
The worry is about nitrogen percolating there," she said. "But this is
a very complicated ]avered j ssve ·11
~ntends that it should be granted a cleanup waiver because it
has not come close to reaching its allowed limit of 676,417 pounds of
nitrogen for the Neuse. That limit is based on the services Raleigh
provides for itself and for surrounding towns. If the variance is
granted, the city can legally put another 120,000 pounds of pounds of
nitrogen in the river during the next 40 years. About a quarter of
that gas will make its way to New Bern, according to Larry Baldwin,
the riverkeeper for the lower Neuse.
Jf 2
Without a waiver, Raleigh is responsible for cleanup, according to
division regulations.
"The contamination of groundwater is the result of something that
happened during a permitted activity. For that permitted activity,
Raleigh was given their bounds and they didn't execute the permit,"
Massengale said.
There should be consequences for that failure, Baldwin said during an
interview this week.
"Everybody needs to realize that what happens in Raleigh does not stay
in Raleigh," he said.
Meadows said New Bern has done its part to protect the Neuse and
expects the same of its Wake County counterparts.
"We've upgraded our sanitary practices to do what we can," he said.
"We've stepped up to the plate and they should, too. The tone of our
letter will stress the importance of protecting the river, not only
for the city of New Bern, but in the interest of the entire state."
10/15/2007 11 :44 AM
[Fwd: New Bern wants state to make Raleigh clean up sewagesludge ...
2 of2
The division is taking comments on Raleigh"s request until Nov. 5. The
state Environmental Management Commission will hear the request that
month, but will delay acting on it until January.
TAKE ACTION: Please tell the state that Raleigh needs to clean up it
polluted ground water rather than allow it to go into the Neuse River.
Please click on link below. It will take one minute of your time.
Thanks,
Dean Naujoks, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper Neuse River Foundation.
http://ncconservationnetworkl.org/campaign/raleighvariance
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Neuse River Foundation" group.
To post to this group, send email to [e-mail]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [e-mail]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/neuse-river-foundation?hl=en
Content-Type: message/rfc822
;New Bern wants state to make Raleigh clean up sewagesludge before it gets into Neuse River.em)
Content-Encoding: 7bit
10/15/2007 11 :4 4
!: CORPUD Variance Request: Media Contact and possible story
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance Request: Media Contact and possible story
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:57:10 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
thanks David
David Hance wrote:
This is an FYI for the hearin 2: officers, RRO staff, and other interested staff:
Today, Latoya Sutton of the "Wake Weekly" newspaper came by and examined the proposed
CORPUD variance and other materials. I referred her to Jay Zimmerman at the RRO for discussions
on the technical issues related to this request. I also gave her my business card. She seemed very
appreciative of the help she got from the Planning Section. I requested that the article that appears
in that paper be sent to me.
I wanted get this to you in case any more contacts are made by this news organization.
david hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 X. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
10/11/2007 2:08 P M
e: City of Raleigh Variance: one more thing
of 1
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Variance: one more thing
From: LaToya Sutton <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:01:48 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Ok. That's no problem.
Thanks for your help this morning. Have a good day .
LaToya Sutton
The Wake Weekly
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
On Oct 11, 2007, at 12:58 PM, David Hance wrote:
Ms. Sutton,
If your paper produces an article or some other publication from this, I would
certainly like to have a copy of it. I keep these for the hearing officers and
staff.
You can email it to me here or fax it to 919-715-5637 .
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
10/11/2007 1 :04 P M
ty of Raleigh Variance: one more thing
)
Jf 1
Subject: City of Raleigh Variance: one more thing
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:58:06 -0400
To: LaToya Sutton <[e-mail]>
Ms. Sutton,
If your paper produces an article or some other publication from this, I would
certainly like to have a copy of it. I keep these for the hearing officers and staff.
You can email it to me here or fax it to 919-715-5637.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
10/11/2007 12 :58 PM
ORPUD Variance Request: Media Contact and possible story
of 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance Request: Media Contact and possible story
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:33:08 -0400
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker
<[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Linda Jones <[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
This is an FYI for the hearin g officers, RRO staff, and other interested staff:
Today, Latoya Sutton of the "Wake Weekly" newspaper came by and examined the proposed CORPUD
variance and other materials. I referred her to Jay Zimmerman at the RRO for discussions on the
technical issues related to this request. I also gave her my business card. She seemed very appreciative
of the help she got from the Planning Section. I requested that the article that appears in that paper be
sent to me.
I wanted get this to you in case any more contacts are made by this news organization.
david hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 X. 587
10/11/2007 1 :33 PM
,sitor from the News Media At DWQ Planning 6th Floor this Thursd ...
Jf 1
Subject: Visitor from the News Media At DWQ Planning 6th Floor this Thursday on Oct. 11th
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:46: 13 -0400
To: Planning Section -DWQ <[e-mail]>
Hello staff:
This is a message to 6th Floor Planning people. Latoya Sutton of the "Wake Weekly"
wants to look at the CORPUD Variance request at 9 AM on Thursday, October 11th.
I intend to set her up at the desk next to Jeff's office, unless there is some need
for her to go somewhere else. I wanted to let you all know this.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
x. 587
10/10/2007 4:46 PM
e: CORPUD Variance: A NEW request for even more time to comm ...
of 3
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: A NEW request for even more time to comment beyond November 5, 2007 & some
perspective
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:51:10 -0400
To: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush,
Jr." <[e-mail]>
You and Andrew could/should run it by Ted and ultimately Coleen. I have already offered my thoughts and can discuss them
further if needed. We are not necessarily obligated to extend the comment period merely becasue it was requested, as it always
is .....
Jay
Kathy Stecker wrote:
It sounds as if they already have a comment. Who is supposed to ask the Director to respond to the request?
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
I agree. I see no reason to extend the comment period at this point. Rick and I have already looked at his client's
property, which is locted almost 1/2 mile from the nearest CORPUD field and separated by 2 or 3 streams. We don't
percieve the CORPUD site will pose a risk. While at the public hearing, someone representing the company indicated
they had approached Raleigh about sewer and water and were turned down. He indicated to me they would not have
concerns if Raleigh connected them, and anything I could do to persuade Raleigh to get them water and sewer would be
appreciated.
It appears to me they are trying to leverage water and sewer. If they are concerned about nitrates they should go ahead
and install monitor wells, as the area has been extensively cultivated in some areas. I would not be surprised if nitrates
show up given the land use in the area, but given what we know about the sites hydrogeology it would not be from
CORPUD. They have -20 monitor wells within -I mile of the northeastern most edge of the Edge of Auburn
property and only 2 of them, located -3,300 feet away have reported nitrate> 10 ppm.
jay
David Hance wrote:
Hello Hearing Officers and other interested staff:
One of our commenters for the CORPUD variance is requesting a further extension of the time frame for public
comment beyond November 5th.
Mr. Thomas C. Worth represents Edge of Auburn, LLC. To give the hearing officers and staff some perspective I
will review what outreach has been done by the DWQ Staff thus far.
Note that comment period began with the mailing of notices to adjacent property owners, interested third parties,
local public officials, health officials, state staffs, and city staff as required per ISA NCAC 2L .0113. This
happened between July 30, 2007 and August 1, 2007. Publication of the public notice occurred in the newspaper N
& 0 on August 4th. Oral comments were accepted at the September 5, 2007 hearing as well written comments.
This attorney's client "Edge of Auburn, LLC" was mailed a notice of the hearing from this office between July 30th
and August 1st. This company was on the listing of adjacent property owners and area property owners provided by
the CORPUD in the variance request and that is why there was direct contact from our Division. The Email from
the attorney shows that he was aware of the public hearing before the hearing occurred (August 21st). This person
made oral comment at the public hearing-and in fact --his attorney has sent us comments already. This email only
10/11/2007 12:58 P M
:: CORPUD Variance: A NEW request for even more time to comm ...
DWQ-Planning Section
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Release: IMMEDIATE Contact: Susan Massengale
Date: Oct. 3, 2007 Phone: [phone] ext. 227
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR RALEIGH VARIANCE REQUEST EXTENDED TO NOV. 5
RALEIGH -State officials collecting public comment on a city of Raleigh request for a variance from
groundwater protection regulations have extended the comment period to Nov. 5.
Raleigh has requested that the Environmental Management Commission approve a variance request to allow the
city to pursue a natural attenuation corrective action plan for nitrogen contamination in groundwater that is
migrating off site from the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant. Permit conditions· and state groundwater
rules prohibit natural attenuation as a clean-up method on permitted wastewater treatment land disposal sites,
even though natural attenuation with groundwater containment may be appropriate based on information
contained within the request and technical review by state Division of Water Quality staff. Therefore, a variance
is being sought to the groundwater regulations.
Natural attenuation is an available clean.:.up option for use on sites contaminated by unpermitted discharges, such
as leaking underground storage tanks.
Those who wish to submit comments or inspect the variance request, should write: David Hance, DENR-DWQ
Planning Section, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617; call [phone] ext. 587 or e-mail
[e-mail].
###
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>.
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
10/11/2007 12:58 P M
:: CORPUD Variance: A NEW request for even more time to comm ... •
::,f3
. \
Subj~ct: Re: CORPUD Variance: A NEW request for even more time to comment beyond November 5, 2007 & some perspective
From: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:49:01 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>
Kathy and Andrew, Ted and I discussed this after a another meeting with Coleen and Chuck today. I asked about protocol
regarding the role of the hearing officers versus upper management in making decisions like time extensions. Coleen says there is
nothing formal, but that it would be ideal for the hearing officer(s) and her to confer before a decision is made. I would say she
feels that the director has the ultimate authority in a situation where there was a difference of opinion, but it was her desire to make
sure the hearing officers had a role in such a decision. Based on our discussion, I think you should feel free to contact her as
needed to fulfill your hearing officer obligations. While I agree with Jay that it may be appropriate to confer with section chiefs and
technical staff first, depending on the matter at hand, you should feel free to develop your opinions and discuss with Coleen as
needed.
Ted, do you agree?
Alan
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
You and Andrew could/should run it by Ted and ultimately Coleen. I have already offered my thoughts and can discuss them
further if needed. We are not necessarily obligated to extend the comment period merely becasue it was requested, as it always
is · .....
Jay
Kathy Stecker wrote:
It sounds as if they already have a comment. Who is supposed to ask the Director to respond to the request?
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
I agree. I see no reason to extend the comment period at this point. Rick and I have already looked at his client's
property, which is locted almost 1/2 mile from the nearest CORPUD field and separated by 2 or 3 streams. We don't
percieve the CORPUD site will pose a risk. While at the public hearing, someone representing the company
indicated they had approached Raleigh about sewer and water and were turned down. He indicated to me they would
not have concerns if Raleigh connected them, and anything I could do to persuade Raleigh to get them water and sewer
would be appreciated.
It appears to me they are trying to leverage water and sewer. If they are concerned about nitrates they should go ahead
and install monitor wells, as the area has been extensively cultivated in some areas. I would not be surprised if nitrates
show up given the land use in the area, but given what we know about the sites hydrogeology it would not be from
CORPUD. They have -20 monitor wells within -1 mile of the northeastern most edge of the Edge of Auburn
property and only 2 of them, located -3,300 feet away have reported nitrate > 10 ppm.
jay
David Hance wrote:
Hello Hearing Officers and other interested staff:
One of our commenters for the CORPUD variance is requesting a further extension of the time frame for public
comment beyond November 5th.
10/9/2007 6:52 PM
:: CORPUD Variance: A NEW request for even more time to comm ...
t gabrielle@embarg mail.com
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 2:25 PM
Subject: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / Public Comment
Extension!
Hello to those interested in the pro posed 2L Groundwater Variance for the City of Ralei gh ;
Attached is an official press release NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources informing you that
the comment period has been extended for the variance. It is in a word file. If you cannot open it, I have the text
of this below the line.
David Hance
Environmental Specialist
DWQ-Planning Section
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Release: IMMEDIAIB Contact: Susan Massengale
Date: Oct. 3, 2007 Phone: [phone] ext. 227
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR RALEIGH VARIANCE REQUEST EXIBNDED TO NOV. 5
RALEIGH -State officials collecting public comment on a city of Raleigh request for a variance from
groundwater protection regulations have extended the comment period to Nov. 5.
Raleigh has requested that the Environmental Management Commission approve a variance request to allow the
city to pursue a natural attenuation corrective action plan for nitrogen contamination in groundwater that is
migrating offsite from the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant. Permit conditions and state groundwater
rules prohibit natural attenuation as a clean-up method on permitted wastewater treatment land disposal sites,
even though natural attenuation with groundwater containment may be appropriate based on information
contained within the request and technical review by state Division of Water Quality staff. Therefore, a variance
is being sought to the groundwater regulations.
Natural attenuation is an available clean-up option for use on sites contaminated by unpermitted discharges, such
as leaking underground storage tanks.
Those who wish to submit comments or inspect the variance request, should write: David Hance, DENR-DWQ
Planning Section, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617; call [phone] ext. 587 or e-mail
david. h [e-mail].
###
10/9/2007 6:52 PM
mtact information for public comment
of I
Subject: Contact information for public comment
From: susan massengale <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:20:59 -0500
To: [e-mail]
CC: DAVID HANCE <DA [e-mail]>
Hello Mr. Tessnear,
I wanted to make sure you, and your readers, have contact information for those who
wish to comment on Raleigh's variance request to the Environmental Management
Commission ..
Those who wish to comment can:
snail mail written comments to David Hance, DENR-DWQ Planning Section, 1617 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
or e-mail: [e-mail]
or, call:
[phone] extension 587
If you would like to discuss the issue, please give me a call. My number is: (919)
733-7015 ext.227.
Susan Massengale
Public Information Office
NC Division of Water Quality
10/11/2007 12:59 PM
:: New Bern article on Raleigh variance
Subject: Re: New Bern article on Raleigh variance
From: susan massengale <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:01:42 -0500
To: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, David Hance <[e-mail]>, Alan
Clark <Alan. [e-mail]>
I'll give the reporter a call and make sure he has contact info for David. We did
send that to the media as part of the extension announcement but I will reinforce it.
Kathy Stecker wrote:
I've not gotten caught up on my email, so pardon me if this has already made the
rounds. You'll see in the comments that people are asking for contact
information. Should someone contact the newspaper and give them that if we
haven't already? The story was also picked up by the Myrtle Beach newspaper .
http://www.newbernsj.com/news/raleigh 36878 article.html/neuse bern.html
10/11/2007 12:59 PM
our request for review of the Proposed Variance for the City of Rale ...
of 1
Subject: Your request for review of the Proposed Variance for the City of Raleigh Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:55:28 -0400
To: penny sparacino <[e-mail]>
Dear Ms. Sparacino,
You may come to our office at 512 North Salisbury Street in downtown
Raleigh (Archdale Building) to view it.
Call me at 919-733-5083 x.587 or email me to set up a time that you can look this material
over .
I am in the office all week. I have no meetings planned this week -so far. My schedule
appears
to be fairly open.
Please contact me and let me know what times work for you. I will set
aside an area for you to examine the request .
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
penny sparacino wrote:
Mr. Hence, thanks for replying to my comment re:natural attenuation for the city of
Raleigh. I would like to examine the variance request and the original
permit/regulation How do I go about doing that.
Penny Sparacino
10/8/2007 10:35 AM
~: request for a copy of the variance request for the city of raleigh -( ...
of 1
Subject: Re: request for a copy of the variance request for the city of raleigh -(Response)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:58:23 -0400
To: LaToya Sutton <[e-mail]>
I have October 11, 2007@ 9 AM marked on my calendar.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
LaToya Sutton wrote:
Mr. Hance,
Could I come look at those materials Thursday morning? Would around 9 a.m. be good for you?
Thanks,
LaToya Sutton
The Wake Weekly
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
lato va@wakeweekl v.com
On Oct 5, 2007, at 12:57 PM, David Hance wrote:
Ms. Sutton,
I was out of the office for a couple of days on personal leave and on some training.
The variance request consists of several binders and reports. If you wish to examine
these, please arrange a time with me so that you can come to our office and do this next
week. I am located at 512 North Salisbury Street in the Archdale Building on the 6th
Floor in Room 625aa.
My week is fairly open.
I know I will have someone looking at the materials on Monday. Note that there was a
press release sent out on Oct. 3rd extending the comment period for this variance 30
days and this is attached. If you have questions on the variance, the best contact to
start with is Susan Massengale in Public Information at the DWQ Administration
Office.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x . 587
<Raleigh V arianceExtend.doc>
10/8/2007 10:35 AM
!: New Bern article on Raleigh variance---Comment on Article
of 1
Subject: Re: New Bern article on Raleigh variance---Comment on Article
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:34:54 -0400
To: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, susan massengale <[e-mail]>, Alan
Clark <[e-mail]>
I believe that the contact for public comments needs to be provided. I looked at the
article and they gave my name but no contact email or fax.
This information needs to go to the paper. I will speak Susan on this if she is going to
handle this or wants me to do it. Any media contacts can go to Susan as they normally do.
david hance
733-5083 x. 587
********************************************************************************************
Kathy Stecker wrote:
I've not gotten caught up on my email, so pardon me if this has already made the
rounds. You'll see in the comments that people are asking for contact information .
Should someone contact the newspaper and give them that if we haven't already? The
story was also picked up by the Myrtle Beach newspaper.
http://www.newbernsj.com/news/raleigh 36878 article.html/neuse bern.html
10/8/2007 10:35 A M
ew Bern article on Raleigh variance
of 1
Subject: New Bern article on Raleigh variance
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:20:22 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, David Hance <[e-mail]>, susan
massengale <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <Alan. [e-mail]>
I"ve not gotten caught up on my email, so pardon me if this has already made the
rounds. You"ll see in the comments that people are asking for contact information .
Should someone contact the newspaper and give them that if we haven't already? The
story was also picked up by the Myrtle Beach newspaper.
http://www.newbernsj.com/news/raleigh 36878
Kathy Stecker <Kathy [e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
article.html/neuse bern.html
10/8/2007 10:31 AJvl
Raleigh plant could contaminate the Neuse in New Bern Page 1 of 1
Raleigh plant could contaminate the Neuse in New Bern
B Matt Tessnear
October 5, 2007 -9:41PM
Sewage will pollute the Neuse River in New Bern for more than 30 years if the state allows
Raleigh to bypass cleanup of a wastewater treatment plant, a local environmentalist said
Friday.
The state Environmental Management Commission has asked the city of Raleigh to clean up
groundwater contamination at its Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant. The cleanup
would cost the city about $80 million, said Larry Baldwin, the lower Neuse Riverkeeper.
City officials asked the state for a waiver to avoid the cleanup. Officials say time and nature
will take care of the problems at the plant, which is located in southeastern Wake County.
But Baldwin says time will only allow the sewage to damage the Neuse River in the New
Bern area. Baldwin's job is to work for clean water in the Neuse and Trent rivers and their
tributaries.
If the sewage at the Raleigh plant is not cleaned up, an estimated 120,000 pounds of nitrogen
would get into the Neuse River in the next 30 to 40 years, said Baldwin.
"About 25 percent of that, or 30,000 pounds, would make its way down to New Bern," he
said. "What this means is that our water quality would be severely damaged here. Nitrogen is
one of the most potent contributors to fish kills, which is already a problem in our area.
Nitrogen also contributes to the growth of algae, which can harm the health of people."
David Hance, an official with the state Division of Water Quality, said the city of Raleigh
petitioned for the variance in September. He said the variance went to a public hearing Sept. 5
for oral comments.
Hance is taking public comments through Nov. 5 on Raleigh's waver request. Baldwin said
people in New Bern should write letters to the state to show officials they understand the
effects the groundwater contamination would have on New Bern.
"What happens in Raleigh doesn't stay in Raleigh," he said. "It comes on down stream. We
have to work on the whole river system to clean it up. This could have devastating effects if
the problem is not taken care of at the source."
The state Environmental Management Commission will hear Raleigh's request in November.
Hance said the Commission, which meets every other month, will discuss action on the
variance in January.
http://www.newbernsj.com/common/printer/view. php?db=nbsj&id=36878 10/8/2007
: CORPUD variance: Request by the law firm representing the City ...
f2
Subject: Re: CORPUD variance: Request by the law firm representing the City of Raleigh (Kilpatrick
Stockton) (reply 1 from Hance)
From: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:48:34 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>
Thanks for the info David. In terms of our extension of the comment period and likely
J anuary EMC appearance, what are the new deadlines/important dates for completing the
r eport with proper review/signatures/EMC notification/etc? BTW, I'll be back from my
vacation after the comment period is over. I'm leaving 10/26 and returning on 11/13 .
Andrew
David Hance wrote:
Andrew,
I h ave•still have some more digests to get to you. I was out on Wednesday on leave
helping my family and was on Training on Thursday.
At this point, I am trying to make sure all of our commenters know of the extension of
c o mments to November 5th that was in the press release that went out on October 3rd .
That is my Friday Assignment!
As for written comments, these are tricking in so far. I think email seems to the the
preference to communicate since I am getting allot of these. I will make copies of the
written comments and get them to you -most like a fed ex. The other staff including
Kathy will get these hand delivered.
I am expecting a rush of comments today. Next week -I think we will get a better idea
of what we have and I can draft up something like I did after the hearing.
I have spoken with Alan Clark. We can assume that we will miss the November 2007 EMC
meeting since our comment period has been extended and the mailing date for the EMC
packet is October 22nd. The earliest this can go to is the January 2008 EMC meeting.
david hance
***************************************************************************************
Andrew Pitner wrote:
I'm fine with you sharing the comments with Raleigh in whatever method is
convenient & practical for you.
For our needs, I've seen all of the digests & a few stray emails that arrived from
different directions, but have not seen any of the faxes or snail-mailed ones.
Will you either be making copies or scanning those in? I'm also hoping that, as
these things come in, you've got some method for collecting them so that they will
neatly fit as a complete attachment to the final report .
Andrew
David Hance wrote:
As you may know, I have been away from the office for a couple of days.
I got a phone call from Carolyn Bachl who works for Steve Levitas . They want
copies of the comments we received on this variance both written, fax, and
emails. We respect to comments, I think we should accommodate them but only
after the materials requested have been sent to the hearing officers and
staff. I can email them the same "digests" of emails you have been getting. I
can also get written comments to them in as timely a manner as possible though
US Mail (or fax if its a few pages). Otherwise, they come by and pick it up
since they are local.
So far I have 202 email comments and I am getting a trickle of faxes and US
Mail.
What do you think?
10/5/2007 I :59 PM
Re: CORPUD variance: Request by the law firm representing the City ...
2 of2
david hance
919-733-5083 x/ 587
Andrew Pitner, P .G . [e-mail]
Division of Water Quality -Aquifer Protection Section
Mooresville Regional Office (MRO)
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
MRO Main Phone: [phone]
Direct Phone: [phone]
MRO Fax: [phone]
10/5/2007 1 :59 P
: Raleigh Variance Request Comment Period Extension Release
f2
Subject: Re: Raleigh Variance Request Comment Period Extension Release
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:49:22 -0400
To: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: susan massengale <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>,
Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, DAVID HANCE <DA [e-mail]>,
Chuck W akild <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush <[e-mail]>
Hi Kathy;
Granting the variance would allow for the nitrate beyond the compliance boundary to
naturally attenuate, and the City's groundwater transport model predicted that the
(precipitation-normalized} flux to the Neuse River should have peaked last year under
this scenario. So the groundwater flux of nitrate should be gradually decreasing
over time now, even if the City does nothing.
The City has installed a series of extraction wells in one portion of the site where
there are potential future receptors (private residences). The groundwater extracted
from this system will be pumped into the headworks of the treatment plant, which will
remove some of the nitrogen before the effluent is discharged to the river at the
NPDES outfall. The installation and operation of a groundwater extraction system
along the entire perimeter of the site, which would be required if the variance is
not granted, would also send the extracted groundwater into the wastewater treatment
plant where nitrate reduction would occur before the effluent is discharged into the
river.
So requiring Raleigh to "clean up" the groundwater in this way before it would
normally discharge directly into the river should result in lower net N levels in the
river . Jay and i recognize that it would be practically impossible to design a
groundwater extraction system along the compliance boundary that would prevent all of
the contaminated groundwater from getting into the Neuse river, but even a
"minimally-designed" groundwater extraction system should result in a net decrease in
N to the river. This is based on the assumption that the extracted groundwater would
have higher nitrate levels than the current average NPDES outfall levels, which i
think is a safe assumption. ·
I may have misunderstood an earlier question from you that may have indicated that
there would be no net N decrease in the river if the City were denied the variance
and had to install extraction wells along the boundaries of all of the land
application fields.
rb
Kathy Stecker wrote:
Just curious -would it be worthwhile for someone to try to correct the apparently
widespread misconception that allowing the variance will cause N levels in the
Neuse to increase? Probably 99.9% of the _dozens of comments we've gotten so far
have assumed that requiring Raleigh to "clean up" would result in lower N levels
in the river. It's kind of a shame that people aren't commenting on the right
thing, but they're lacking important information that might cause them to comment
differently ...
susan massengale wrote:
This went out this afternoon
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
10/5/2007 1:59 PM
Re: Raleigh Variance Request Comment Period Extension Release
2 of2
Release: IMMEDIATE Contact: Susan Massengale
Date: Oct. 3, 2007 Phone: [phone] ext . 227
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR RALEIGH VARIANCE REQUEST EXTENDED TO NOV. 5
RALEIGH -State officials collecting public comment on a city of Raleigh
request for a variance from groundwater protection regulations have extended
the comment period to Nov. 5.
Raleigh has requested that the Environmental Management Commission approve a
variance request to allow the city to pursue a natural attenuation corrective
action plan for nitrogen contamination in groundwater that is migrating offsite
from the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant. Permit conditions and state
groundwater rules prohibit natural attenuation as a clean-up method on
permitted wastewater treatment land disposal sites, even though natural
attenuation with groundwater containment may be appropriate based on
information contained within the request and technical review by state Division
of Water Quality staff. Therefore, a variance is being sought to the
groundwater regulations.
Natural attenuation is an available clean-up option for use on sites
contaminated by unpermitted discharges, such as leaking underground storage
tanks.
Those who wish to submit comments or inspect the variance request, should
write: David Hance, DENR-DWQ Planning Section, 1617 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617; call [phone] ext. 587 or e-mail
[e-mail].
###
10/5/2007 1 :59 PI\
)RPUD Variance: Heads-up-Contact with a reporter in New Bern, NC
Jf I
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Heads-up-Contact with a reporter in New Bern, NC
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:02:35 -0400
To: Susan Massengale <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>
I got a call this morning from Matt Tessmear (252-635-5637) of the New Bern Sun
Journal. What prompted his call was a call from the local Neuse River Keeper.
Mr. Tessmear began asking me a number of open ended questions about " .. city's
perspective on the variance from DWQ". I referred him to our PIO -Susan Massengale.
I also told him that if he wanted to discuss Raleigh's perspective on the variance,
contact Dale Crisp with the City of Raleigh. If he wanted to talk about the technical
merits of this variance request he could speak to Jay Zimmerman at the RRO and I gave
him Jay's number.
He wanted to know that if there was enough negative public response about this that
would that end any discussion of a variance for the City of Raleigh and keep it from
going to the EMC. I said I do not have any information on that matter and the comment
period has not ended and the final recommendation will come from the hearing
officers. That is when I seg-wayed into a discussion of the process for this
variance and I explained to him that it is found in rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113. I said
that the comment period has been extended one month to November 5th and that the
earliest the EMC could see this variance request would most likely be the January
2008 EMC meeting. He was already aware of the extension of the comment period.
Note that he may contact you Susan and Jay because he is working on a deadline.
david hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 x. 587
10/5/2007 I 1:15 AM
.e: Raleigh Variance Extension --Response and question
of 1
Subject: Re: Raleigh Variance Extension --Response and question
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:02:16-0400
To: susan massengale <[e-mail]>
Susan,
I don't see it here. Did you attach it?
I will check the PI Web on Friday when I get in.
Also, I do not have the variance request electronically. It consists of many reports.
I have it in my office at Room 625aa. If you wish to look at it, please contact me
and I will arrange a time for viewing.
Fyi-Ryke Longest of Duke University School of Law came by on Tuesday and looked it
over. He made comments to us on Oct. 3rd via email.
david hance
733-5083 x/ 587
**********************************************************************
susan massengale wrote:
Hello David,
I am attaching a word copy of the release. It is also at the Public Information
Web site under both Press Releases and Hot Topics . Do you have the variance
request electronically? I would like a copy in any case.
Thanks,
Susan
10/4/2007 6:03 PM
~: Corpud Raleigh Variance Request Comment Period Extension Re ...
of2
Subject: Re: Corpud Raleigh Variance Request Comment Period Extension Release -Comment to hearing
officers and staff
From: susan massengale <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:50:29 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>, Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Kathy and I spoke about this and she is going to find some additional information. I will
be happy to help in any way I can.
David Hance wrote:
_Hearing Officers and Technical Staff:
I have observed that trend that Kathy eludes to as well. The variance does call from
some level of treatment to prevent downgraident migration from the fields where over
application occurred. The RRO Staff powerpoint does go into that .
This is something to handle in the staff response to the comments we get and I believe
when this gets to the EMC.
In the mean time, maybe Susan Massengale as our DWQ PIO can massage some language when
questions arise for to help the hearing officers with the report? Just a thought.
david hance
733-5083 x.587
****************************************************************************************
Kathy Stecker wrote:
Just curious -would it be worthwhile for someone to try to correct the apparently
widespread misconception that allowing the variance will cause N levels in the Neuse
to increase? Probably 99.9% of the dozens of comments we"ve gotten so far have
assumed that requiring Raleigh to "clean up" would result in lower N levels in the
river. It's kind of a shame that people aren't commenting on the right thing, but
they're lacking important information that might cause them to comment
differently ...
susan massengale wrote:
This went out this afternoon
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr ., Secretary
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Release: IMMEDIATE Contact: Susan Massengale
Date: Oct. 3, 2007 Phone: [phone] ext. 227
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR RALEIGH VARIANCE REQUEST EXTENDED TO NOV. 5
RALEIGH -State officials collecting public comment on a city of Raleigh request
for a variance from groundwater protection regulations have extended the comment
period to Nov. 5.
Raleigh has requested that the Environmental Management Commission approve a
variance request to allow the city to pursue a natural attenuation corrective
action plan for nitrogen contamination ~n groundwater that is migrating offsite
from the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant. Permit conditions and state
groundwater rules prohibit natural attenuation as a clean-up method on permitted
wastewater treatment land disposal sites, even though natural attenuation with
10/4/2007 5 :58 PM
Re: Corpud Raleigh Variance Request Comment Period Extension Re ...
2 of2
groundwater containment may be appropriate based on information contained within
the request and technical review by state Division of Water Quality staff.
Therefore, a variance is being sought to the groundwater regulations .
Natural attenuation is an available clean-up option for use on sites contaminated
by unpermitted discharges, such as leaking underground storage tanks .
Those who wish to submit comments or inspect the variance request, should write:
David Hance, DENR-DWQ Planning Section, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1617; call [phone] ext. 587 or e-mail [e-mail].
###
10/4/2007 5:5 8
!: please tell me if you did NOT receive a forwarded voice message-...
of 1
Subject: Re: please tell me if you did NOT receive a forwarded voice message--reply & question
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:37:16-0400
To: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Kathy,
I did come into the office real late to pick up something and I checked emails.
dh
do not think I did get that voice mail . I got a call tram Charles Futterman, an attorney. Was that the person's name·?
will be on training at Capital Blvd on Thursday -al l day.
( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( I ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( I ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( C ( ( ( C (( ( ( ( ( ( I ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( I ( ( ( ( (IC ( ( (( C ( ( I ( ( ( ( ( ( 11 C (CC C ( ( (( ( ( I I I I (( I I ( I ( I ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( C (
Kathy Stecker wrote:
I I got: one voice message from a commenter . I didn't listen to it and tried to forward it to you. I don't think I was successful. Thanks.
10/3/2007 8 :06 PM
Take Action: City of Raleigh Neuse Pollution Clean-up
groundwater contamination ever recorded in North Carolina
and should not be dismissed without action.
Page 2 of 2
City:*
I hope that DENR will reject Raleigh's request for a variance. [
Raleigh should either treat their ground water pollution on site lr-S_ta_te_:_* __ _
or offset it through other means like buffer or wetland --Choose a st a
restoration (or through storm water retrofits). ZIP:*
I
(Edit Letter Below)
I recognize that it may cost the City a great
deal to clean up after itself. I want the
City of Raleigh to meet our moral and legal
obligations to clean up this pollution -not
simply to let it leach downstream for other
communities to deal with.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]
http://ncconservationnetworkl.org/campaign/raleighvariance
E L
~conv10"
_J
Public Alerts:
Sign up now tc
periodic email
current enviro1
issues and ho"'
make a differe
p-
FREE Action .
* Required Fie
Send Tois
10/3/2007
b floor staff -Second Visitor on October 2nd
Subject: 6th floor staff -Second Visitor on October 2nd
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:23:48 -0400
To: Planning Section -DWQ <[e-mail]>
FYI
Another visitor has arrived at 3:20 PM . Mr. Ryke Longst of Duke University School Of
Law is reviewing the materials for the City of Raleigh Variance request. He is at the
desk next to Jeff Manning's office.
david hance
10/2/2007 4:04 PM
:aff on 6th Floor -Note about visitors
Jf 1
Subject: Staff on 6th Floor -Note about visitors
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:33:43 -0400
To: Planning Section -DWQ <[e-mail]>
FYI to DWO Plannin g Staff on 6th Floor,
We have some visitors today from the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL). They are
Sue Dayton and David (?)
They are in Room 625T (D. Hill's old office).
They are here to listen to the tape recording of the City of Raleigh Variance Hearing for the Neuse River
Waste Water Treatment Plant that was held September 5th. They should be here until the close of
business today or they may leave earlier than that. They know that I am the contact for this.
david hance
733-5083 X. 587
10/2/2007 2:34 PM
[Fwd: Raleigh wants cleanup waiver]
2 of3
"There is no public health impact for spending tens of millions of dollars on a
remediation system," said Steve Levitas, a lawyer representing the city.
But some residents near the spray fields say the city is skirting state environmental
standards.
"They were issued a permit, and along with that permit came a lot of rules and
regulations about how they should conduct their business," said Phillip Douglas, a
re~ired electronics engineer who lives near the plant. "One of the rules prohibits
natural attenuation, which means letting nature clean up your mess. When they messed
up and found out how much money it's going to cost to clean it up, they want a
variance."
Douglas, who opposes the city's plan, said state regulators should be the guardians
of the state"s water quality and should not take cost into account.
The state Division of Water Quality is taking public comments through Oct. 5 on the
city's request for the waiver from state rules. The state Environmental Management
Commission, a 19-member panel appointed by the governor and legislative leaders, is
expected to hear Raleigh's request in November.
*City's rationale*
Raleigh contends its plan would keep it below its limit for nitrogen discharge into
the .river. It has sharply reduced its nitrogen discharges in the past decade, so it
has unused discharge capacity. Jay Zimmerman, regional supervisor for the state's
aquifer protection section, said the city"s approach has technical merit because of
the practical complications of trying to remove groundwater from the overall site.
"The way I have explained it is if they were discharging 500,000 pounds of nitrogen
into the river, whether or not it was the right thing for the river, they would be in
compliance with their permit," Zimmerman said. "We're not saying it's the best
choice."
He said the city had not considered another alternative --to clean up the most
contaminated areas in addition to the areas near subdivisions.
Dean Naujoks, the Upper Neuse Riverkeeper, an environmental advocate, said state
environmental regulators should not give the city a waiver because the pollution will
harm the river.
"Raleigh's groundwater pollution contributes more nitrogen per year to the Neuse
River than the towns of Apex, Benson, Butner, Cary, Clayton, Wake Forest and Zebulon
combined," Naujoks said, noting that Johnston County could be added in, too, and
Raleigh would still be the leading nitrogen polluter. "The bottom line is they should
be required to offset their nitrogen pollution that is entering the river from
contaminated groundwater."
In addition to being harmful to infants, nitrogen causes excessive algae growth,
which can rob the water of oxygen as it dies and cause fish kills, hampering sport
and commercial fishing. The Neuse has shown stress downstream from too much
nitrogen-rich treated sewage and fertilizer runoff from farms.
Since massive fish kills in the 1990s, which led to the Neuse's being classified as
sensitive to nitrogen, state environmental officials have tried to reduce the amount
of nitrogen entering the river from sewage-treatment plants and farming by 30
percent. The city of Raleigh has sharply reduced its nitrogen discharge into the
river.
"We don't like to have any more nitrogen in the Neuse than we can help," said Walter
B. Hartman Jr., city manager of New Bern, which is near the stretch of the river
where fish kills have historically occurred. "We're not throwing stones. We just need
to take a close look at it --make sure there is not a better way."
10/2/2007 4:06 PM
[Fwd: Raleigh wants cleanup waiver]
1 of3
Suoject: [Fwd: Raleigh wants cleanup waiver]
From: jeff manning <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:44:58 -0400
To: "david.hance" <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, Kathy
Stecker <[e-mail]>
fyi -in case you haven't seen this already.
Subject: Raleigh wants cleanup waiver
From: susan massengale <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:39: 15 -0500
To: DWQ Clips <[e-mail]>
From the Raleigh News and Observer
Raleigh wants cleanup waiver
Faces $80 million bill in sewage mess
Wade Rawlins, Staff Writer
Pollution from treated sewage would leak for decades into the Neuse River under a
plan the city of Raleigh wants the state to approve.
Raleigh officials are asking for a waiver from state rules that would require an $80
million cleanup of widespread groundwater contamination around its Neuse River
sewage-treatment plant. The city argues essentially that time and nature will
eventually scrub the fields and groundwater of pollutants.
For years, workers at the plant spread too much treated waste sludge on farm fields
around the plant, despite warnings from the state. The city was eventually fined and
ordered to develop a cleanup plan. Now, the groundwater beneath more than 1,100 acres
of fields is contaminated with high levels of nitrates, which can harm humans and
trigger fish kills downstream near the coast.
Since the problem came to a head in 2002, the state suspended the city's permit to
spread more sludge on the fields. The city has spent more than $40 million improving
the operation of the plant and has turned a higher proportion of the plant's sludge
into fertilizer and compost. Some treated waste is trucked to Duplin and Sampson
counties and spread on farms there.
But city officials say ringing the entire site in southeastern Wake County with
hundreds of wells to collect and treat the groundwater would cause a financial
hardship, costing nearly $80 million.
Instead, city leaders propose to spend about $8 million to build 40 recovery wells.
That would clean up 20 acres nearest housing subdivisions close to the plant.
The city wants natural degradation to gradually clean up the areas where monitoring
wells show the highest concentrations of nitrogen --amounts up to 18 times the
maximum allowed under state law. Some of those fields border the Neuse River.
City officials say the approach poses no risk to public health because nearby
residents have been hooked to municipal water and the contamination will be
monitored. High levels of nitrates in drinking water can be toxic to infants, who
have undeveloped digestive systems that can't break down the pollutants. As a result,
oxygen levels fall in the blood, leading to a condition known as blue baby syndrome.
10/2/2007 4:06 PM
[Fwd: Raleigh wants cleanup waiver]
2 of3
"There is no public health impact for spending tens of millions of dollars on a
remediation system," said Steve Levitas, a lawyer representing the city .
But some residents near the spray fields say the city is skirting state environmental
standards.
"They were issued a permit, and along with that permit came a lot of rules and
regulations about how they should conduct their business," said Phillip Douglas, a
retired electronics engineer who lives near the plant. "One of the rules prohibits
natural attenuation, which means letting nature clean up your mess. When they messed
up and found out how much money it's going to cost to clean it up, they want a
variance."
Douglas, who opposes the city's plan, said state regulators should be the guardians
of the state's water quality and should not take cost into account.
The state Division of Water Quality is taking public comments through Oct. 5 on the
city"s request for the waiver from state rules. The state Environmental Management
Commission, a 19-member panel appointed by the governor and legislative leaders, is
expected to hear Raleigh's request in November .
*City's rationale*
Raleigh contends its plan would keep it below its limit for nitrogen discharge into
the river. It has sharply reduced its nitrogen discharges in the past decade, so it
has unused discharge capacity. Jay Zimmerman, regional supervisor for the state's
aquifer protection section, said the city's approach has technical merit because of
the practical complications of trying to remove groundwater from the overall site.
"The way I have explained it is if they were discharging 500,000 pounds of nitrogen
into the river, whether or not it was the right thing for the river, they would be in
compliance with their permit," Zimmerman said. "We're not saying it's the best
choice."
He said the city had not considered another alternative --to clean up the most
contaminated areas in addition to the areas near subdivisions.
Dean Naujoks, the Upper Neuse Riverkeeper, an environmental advocate, said state
environmental regulators should not give the city a waiver because the pollution will
harm the river.
"Raleigh's groundwater pollution contributes more nitrogen per year to the Neuse
River than the towns of Apex, Benson, Butner, Cary, Clayton, Wake Forest and Zebulon
combined," Naujoks said, noting that Johnston County could be added in, too, and
Raleigh would still be the leading nitrogen polluter. "The bottom line is they should
be required to offset their nitrogen pollution that is entering the river from
contaminated groundwater."
In addition to being harmful to infants, nitrogen causes excessive algae growth,
which can rob the water of oxygen as it dies and cause fish kills, hampering sport
and commercial fishing. The Neuse has shown stress downstream from too much
nitrogen-rich treated sewage and fertilizer runoff from farms.
Since massive fish kills in the 1990s, which led to the Neuse's being classified as
sensitive to nitrogen, state environmental officials have tried to reduce the amount
of nitrogen entering the river from sewage-treatment plants and farming by 30
percent. The city of Raleigh has sharply reduced its nitrogen discharge into the
river.
"We don't like to have any more nitrogen in the Neuse than we can help," said Walter
B. Hartman Jr., city manager of New Bern, which is near the stretch of the river
where fish kills have historically occurred. "We're not throwing stones. We just need
to take a close look at it --make sure there is not a better way."
10/2/2007 4:06 PM
[Fwd: Raleigh wants cleanup waiver]
Content-Type: message/rfc822 '
Raleigh wants cleanup waiver Content-Encoding: 7bit
3 of3 10/2/2007 4:06 PM
1 of 1
Subject: Raleigh variance request
From: LaToya Sutton <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:20:03 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Mr. Hance,
How can I get a copy of the city of Raleigh's variance request? Is it something you
can e-mail to me?
Thanks,
LaToya Sutton
The Wake Weekly
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
10/5/2007 12:57 PM
09114/07-Jav and rick res ponses DRAFT
Summary of Oral Comments Made at the September 5, 2007
Public Hearing and Written Comment Submitted by the Public
Variance Request from Corrective Action Requirements For the
City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD)
DWQ Permit WQ000l 730
A. Comments made at the September 5, 2007 Public Hearing in Ralei gh , NC
with Responses:
Commenter # 1: My organization, the Neuse River Foundation, represents 3,000 members in
the Neuse River Basin. We work to protect water quality in the Upper Neuse River Basin and we
have been actively involved in addressing issues surrounding this plant since 2002. He said that
in 2003 the Neuse River Foundation challenged permit limits under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for the City of Raleigh. He said that at that
based on conversations I had at that time with the attorney representing the City of Raleigh, Mr.
Steven Levitas who is in the audience, there was an agreement met regarding this permit. The
agreement was to leave an opener in the permit that Raleigh would work to offset nitrogen going
into the river via groundwater pollution. In 2003, the Neuse River Foundation requested a 'no
net increase' for nitrogen from the plant. Our organization understood that the City of Raleigh
agreed to this and the state needs to hold the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department
(CORPUD) and officials responsible for their promise. I hope that the city admits to the fact the
there was an agreement in 2003 on this matter in their comments. In entering that agreement, our
membership was quite generous to the city in giving them other alternatives than pump and treat
cleanup since we acknowledge that it can be extremely expensive. We approached the issue with
the view of finding useful and cost effective alternatives. The Neuse River Foundation . had
discussed changes in effluent limitations since the city is not even coming close to reducing
concentrations of nitrogen even with plant upgrades . We acknowledge that they are within their
NPDES permit limits but that reduction from this engineered solution will not come close to
offsetting nitrogen impacts in the river from the contribution of nitrate from groundwater as a
result of compliance problems. Our organization has recommended buffers and wetlands
mitigation, which are feasible actions for City of Raleigh and they should be required to do this.
Note the Jordan Lake Rules and their impacts on the City of Durham ( and, potentially the Falls
Lake Rules), would require stormwater retrofits. I do not understand why the City of Raleigh is
not being required to take such actions under this variance since there are plenty of paths for the
City of Raleigh to mitigate nitrate impacts to the river.
I cannot believe the scale of this problem. We are talking about 120,000 pounds of
Nitrogen per year being allowed to decrease over time over the next 30 to 40 years. When
factored together this allowance provides more nitrogen to the river than the towns of Apex,
Benson, Butner, Cary, Johnston County, Wake Forest, and Zebulon combined and the state is
going to just waive this requirement for them to mitigate this problem. This is the largest source
1
09/14/07-Ja l' and rick responses DRAFT
of groundwater contamination the state has ever identified -over 1000 acres! The track record of
natural attenuation has very limited success. Note that in areas where mitigation is occurring is
occurring in Raleigh, the land areas are relatively small compared to what is making its way to
the river. It is a very dangerous precedent for the state to just allow this to occur without any real
mitigation. If you waive this requirement I don't see how the state could get any party to
conduct mitigation. I support the states recommendation concerning considering the
groundwater contribution of nitrate into the river to the NPDES individual permit and the NRCS
Permit. I also support the current physical upgrades the plant has already done.
I want to remind that state that there has been a history of non-compliance at the
CORPUD that Neuse River Foundation has identified dating back to 1986 and we contend with
staff that the over application of biosolids was not the result of a 'miscalculation'. This is
documented in the states files and is shown in a written comment from our organization titled
"Profile of a Polluter" and is being submitted this evening. In 1999, DWQ staff urged the city to
purchase more land for sludge application due to relatively high concentrations of nitrates,
metals, fecal coliforms and other pollutants. In 2002 the state finally issued its first fines, which
is nearly 20 years after it was suspected that biosolids were impacting the river from 1986
studies. There have also been other egregious and well-documented on-site violations as well.
One must consider the fact that the nitrogen from this site has not only traveled beyond
the compliance boundary and affected private wells it is also traveling well beyond that into the
lower Neuse River and the Pamlico Sound. In 2007, the Neuse River was listed as one of the top
ten endangered rivers. The Neuse Basinwide Plan just released this year and the Neuse Basin
Oversight Committee for the Agricultural Rules have both indicated that our state is not meeting
the mandatory 30 percent nitrogen reduction goals for the estuary and some university work
indicates North Carolina is meeting only single digit reductions at best. Until the City of Raleigh
develops a plan to offset this added nitrogen from groundwater with buffers, wetlands,
stormwater controls or other means, it is inconceivable that the state would consider a variance
of this kind and this request should be denied. It is inconceivable that the state would specify that
the city be allowed to just monitor the nitrate under this variance. I believe that granting this
variance is a violation of the state's own rules and am very disappointed that this request has
gotten this far (Dean Naujoks, Upper Neuse River Keeper, Neuse River Foundation, 112
South Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 27601).
Response:
The Division acknowledges that the compliance history of the Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant has been less than ideal in the past. The Division's responsibility for the
variance application is to consider its technical merit for corrective action to reduce nitrate
levels bevond the permitted compliance boundarv. Natural attenuation is a viable method
of corrective action for the reduction of nitrate. and we are recommending that the amount
of nitrate that enters the Neuse River is to be deducted from CORPUD's NPDES permit.
Since the amount of nitrate for CORPUD's NPDES permit is determined by the Neuse
Consortium in consideration of the total nitrate loads of the Upper Neuse River, the
Division believes the current NP DES nitrate limit to be protective of the environment. The
combination of nitrate from groundwater discharge and treatment plant outfall discharge
2
09114/07-Ja v and rick responses DRAFT
will not be allowed to exceed the NPDES permit limit. The Division is not aware of the
s p ecific details concerning conversations or a greements between the Neuse River
Foundation and the City of Raleigh that involve additional reductions in p ermitted nitrate
discharges from the wastewater treatment plant. The Division would su pport further
reductions in the total nitrate flux from the treatment plant as a condition of the variance if
the Ci tv ·ofRaleigh and the Neuse River Foundation have a greed to this.
Commenter # 2: I represent a land development called the "Edge of Auburn, LLC" and in
particular, Parcel Number 131 as identified on some of the maps submitted by the CORPUD.
This parcel is to the west of the site. Our concern is that we are in the process of preparing an
application for a subdivision with Wake County on this land. In this subdivision we intend to
have on-site wastewater and, possibly, a community public water supply well system that will
with approximately 130,000 gallons of water per day .. Our site is just to the west of this tract of
land. There is no way to know with certainty that these nitrates cannot get into the same water-
bearing aquifer that our proposed development will be using. Even though the permitted
operations are downgradient from our site, the cone of depression of this water well could end up
drawing nitrates into the water supply well that we are considering for our development. The
cone of depression can reach as significant distance away from our property (Russell Briggs,
Engineer, Edge of Auburn -LCC, 2805 Tobermory Lane, Raleigh, NC 27606).
Response:
The eastern most edge of the referenced Parcel No 131 is located greater than 2600 feet from the
nearest monitor well (MW -50) rep orting a concentration of Nitrate in excess of the allowable
standard. MW-50 re ported 27.75 parts per million (pp m ) of Nitrate in the July 2005 anal yti cal
data. This parcel is also se parated b y several surface water features (streams) and is located
to po graphically. and presumably h ydraulicall y, u pgradient of the land a pp lication fields used b y
the City of Ralei gh. While the Division agr ees •there is no wa y to know for certainty whether or
not the Nitrates associated with the City of Ralei gh activities would imp act a community well
installed for the pro posed subdivision, the presence of the surface water features should act as a
hydraulic barrier and p revent mi grations of Nitrate onto the sub ject parcel. Additionally, the
distance between the p arcel and the nearest field should further preclude the possibility of Nitrate
imp acts. However, in consideration of the concern ex pressed , the Aq uifer Protection Section
staff will recommend the installation of an additional monitor well(s ) and the monitorin g of a
sufficient number of monitor wells and surface waters to evaluate the p otential for future
imp acts.
Commenter# 3: I want note for the record that our firm and the City of Raleigh Public Utilities
Department (CORPUD) has been working to address groundwater problems and issues at this
site for five years with the Neuse River Foundation. It appears we have a misunderstanding about
Mr. Naujoks concept of what constitutes an "offset" versus the city's idea. The variance
3
09114/07-Ja v .and rick res ponses DRAFT
specifies that the concept of the offset will charge the groundwater contribution against the City
of Raleigh's allowable discharge under its NPDES Permit for its wastewater treatment plant is
the same as it was when we proposed this to the Division of Water Quality five years ago.
During the last five years, there has been a substantial reduction in the city's point source loading
which far exceeds the amount of the calculated loading via nitrate _ from groundwater. We will
continue discussions with Mr. Naujoks to see if we can clarify that issue. I am sorry he is
disappointed in the proposal (Steven Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, 3737 Glenwood Avenue,
Raleigh, NC 27612).
Response:
As this is directed directl y to Mr. Nau joks , the Division has no res ponse to this comment.
Commenter# 4: Natural attenuation means to me that '"we made a big mess and we want nature
to clean it up". That can only happen over 30 to 40 years and that contamination will reside in
the groundwater and the surface water in the area of this wastewater treatment plant. The
Division of Water Quality should be concerned only with water quality not cost. When the City
of Raleigh accepted this permit to operate this plant they also accepted the rules and regulations
of the state of North Carolina. Now that there is a problem they want a variance to get around
those rules and regulations. That is not right! (Phillip N. Douglas, 413 Hardwood Ridge Court,
Clayton, NC 27520).
Response:
The Division is concerned about the qualit y of the waters of the State. However , b y rule the
Division is also re quired to consider amon g other thin gs , the extent of an y violations , the threat
to human health or safety, the potential for adverse imp acts to the environment, the use of best
available technolo gy as well as the time and costs estimated to achieve restoration of the
gr oundwater quali ty . Natural attenuation is a viable alternative app roach provided the Division
considers the above and is an available option for non-permitted activities , such as the accidental
release of petroleum , solvents or even nitrate based fertilizer. We a eree that the City of Ralei gh
must abide b y the rules and re gulations app licable to a permitted facilit y. Because the y are
permitted the y are not currentl y allowed to pursue a plan prop osin g natural attenuation without a
vanance.
4
09/14/07-Ja v and rick res ponses DRAFT
B. Written Comments and Res ponses Submitted before October 5 ,
2007:
Written Comment # 1: We oppose this variance for the City of Raleigh Public Utilities
Department (CORPUD) and believe the groundwater problems need to be corrected
immediately. We have two wells on our property that are our sole source of drinking water and
we are within 100 yards of wells that have already been contaminated. We are afraid that our
wells may have been contaminated as well. We think your information in the public notice about
"no active wells in the impacted area" is incorrect. (Edward Moody, Tippett's Chapel Free
Will Baptist Church, 2530 Shotwell Road, Clayton, NC 27520, (919-553-7037)-Received on
August 27, 2007).
Response:
-Ti pp ett's Chapel is located at a distance gr eater than 100 yards and is estimated, based upon a
review of available ma ps. to be located approximatel y 1000 feet to the South of the nearest wells
known to be contaminated. The chapel is located to pogra phically and hydraulically upgradient
of the nearest known extent of nitrate contaminated groundwater and is sep arated from the Cit y
of Ralei gh land app lication fields b y Beddingfield Creek.
The Public Water Su pp lv Section was contacted and confirmed the well at Tipp ett's Chapel is
monitored annuall y for Nitrates. The last results reported for Nitrates were well below the States
Groundwater Qualit y Standard of 10 pp m. Staff of the Aquifer Protection Section does not
believe the well located at Tipp ett's Chapel is at risk of impact associated with the Cit y of
Ralei gh 's activities gi ven the distance and the h ydraulic barrier associated with Beddingfield
Creek. However. in consideration of the concern ex pressed , the Aquifer Protection Section staff
will recommend the installation the monitoring of a sufficient number of monitor wells and
surface waters to evaluate the potential for future impacts.
Written Comment# 2: When the City of Raleigh accepted the permit to operate this plant they
also accepted the rules and regulations of the state that go with the permit. The fact that the
CORPUD has submitted a justification for natural attenuation should have not any weight. The
only beneficiary of this is the city and that information came from them and those in their
employ. fustead of trying to find ways around regulations they should be made to cleanup using
existing rules. I want these questions answered:
a. How long has the contamination condition existed?
b. Why hasn't full public disclosure been made?
c. Why is this variance application even being considered?
d. Will there be a fine levied against the city for creating this condition?
(Phillip N. Douglas, 413 Hardwood Ridge Court, Clayton, NC 27520 -
Received on August 29, 2007).
5
09/14/07-Jav and rick responses DRAFT
Response:
See response to the verbal comment submitted bv Mr. Douglas (commenter #4 above). In
addition. the Division has a statutory obligation to consider applications for variance
provided the applications meet the requirements set forth in 15A NCAC 2L .0113. In the
opinion of the Division, the CORPUD has met these requirements in their completed
application. The Division believes that the variance application has technical merit. In
response to your specific questions:
a) We do not know the exact Jength of time that groundwater contamination has
existed at this facility. Presumably, nitrates exceeding the groundwater quality
standard of 10 parts per million could have existed since the time that residuals
were first applied, but this would not necessarily have been a violation of the permit.
Groundwater quality is permitted to may exceed state standards directly
underneath permitted fields, but it is not allowed to travel bevond the established
compliance boundaries.
b) The Division believes that the COPRUD has satisfied their statutory obligations for
disclosure and notification under the current groundwater quality rules.
c) This variance application is being considered because the Division has a statutory
obligation to accept and process variance applications that conform to the
requirements of ISA NCAC 2L.0113. Although we would prefer a corrective aetion
system that did not reauire a Yariance, the CORPUD has met its regulatory
obligations for the variance and the Division believes that the varianee application is
technically Yiable.
d) The CORPUD haswas been fined$ 73,936.85 on June 21, 2002
for over-application of biosolidsBiosolids in excess of permitted limits.
Written Comment # 3: In response to the variance request the Neuse River Foundation is
submitting to the Division of Water Quality a document from the Neuse River Foundation and it
is titled ''Profile of a Polluter". This document is a chronological history of compliance
problems, distortions by officials, untrue claims, neglect, poor maintenance, construction
problems, and lack of environmental stewardship at the CORPUD Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) and the EM Johnson Water Treatment Plant.
Twelve years after plant construction of the NRWWTP and 10 years after plant
administrators began spraying sludge on farm fields, city officials were being warned that
nitrates from the spraying was leading into the groundwater. We have documented significant
releases and spills into Neuse River leading to some of the largest fines in the state. We have
documented here the chronology of groundwater quality problems that have impacted private
wells and resulted in the need to abandon those wells and place people on city water. We believe
6
09/14/07-Ja v and rick res p onses DRAFT
management problems still exist and that extraordinary steps must be taken to prevent the current
disregard of environmental laws from continuing.
Our organization also submits a document dated June 30, 2003 that we had requested to
go into the permit record but never appeared there. It is titled "Raleigh Waste Water Treatment
Plant NC00290033". In this document the Neuse River Foundation is requesting a "no net
increase" of nitrogen from entering the Neuse River. We also request that the city go beyond its
49 % reduction to offset contaminated groundwater in the Neuse River. We feel the city should
be required to incorporate the findings for the groundwater study and develop a comprehensive
river management plan by calculating the loading estimates entering the river and working to
offset estimated nitrogen loading. The findings of the groundwater report should be used to
determine the total nutrient-loading going into the Neuse River from the contaminated
groundwater as well as their effluent. Raleigh is a Nutrient Trading Coalition Member. The state
needs to revisit its participation in this coalition. The bottom line is nutrients entering the river
from contaminated groundwater are the product of waste treatment and mishandling of
wastewater operations and the state has the authority to act on this. (Dean Naujoks, Upper
Neuse River Keeper, Neuse River Foundation, 112 South Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 27601
-Received on September 5, 2007).
Response:
The Division acknowled ges that there have been compliance problems at the Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant in the past. We are not aware of any current compliance problems
at this facilit y (other than the contaminated groundwater migrating beyond the permitted
compliance boundary) that would preclude their eligibilit y to appl y for a variance. The Division
has evaluated the variance a pp lication as req uired under current re gu lations and has detennined
that the variance application is comp lete and that it_ l-"!.<.!S technical merit. CORPUD has develo ped
a comprehensive site assessment to detem1ine the extent of the groundwater contamination and
constructed a groundwater contaminant trans port model as a tool to predict the future nitrate flux
from groundwater into the Neuse River. The future nitrate flux from groundwater will be
deducted from the current NPDES outfall dischar!!e permit for nitro gen, and the plant must
maintain the total amount of nitro gen dischar !c!ecl into the river from gr oundwater and the effluent
outfall below the permitted levels. The Neuse River Nutrient Trading Coalition sets the
permitted levels for nitro gen entering the river from the Citv of Ralei gh 's wastewater treatment
plant. The Division is not aware of any cu1Tent problems with the total nitro gen loads from
Coalition members that would result in substantial harm to the environment. Ifth.e l'teuse River
Foundation has information that the total nitrogen flux from the Raleigh 'NastBYNater treatment
plant is harmful to the environment, the Division ,vill consider this ,vhen establishing the
permitted nitrogen levels for CORPUD and other members of the Coalition.
7
DRAFT Agenda (9/27 /07)
Agenda for the October 1, 2007 -Hearing Officers Meeting
on the City of Raleigh Variance Request (CORPUD)
(1) Information you received from The Planning Section to work from on Oral and
Written Comments:
(2) Written comments we expect to receive by the end of Comment period on October 5th
:
a) City of Raleigh Scheduled to get this to us on October 3rd '
b) Dale Naujoks and the river keeper group;
c) Dr. Bill Showers comments;
d) Ryke Longst Request to review the variance request;
e) Any more contacts?
(3) Where we are at on reviewing and responding to public comments received thus far:
a) Comments on hand as of this meeting;
b) Writing the Hearing Officers Report and recommendations;
c) Steve Levitas Meeting? What does he want? Any more discussion with the
Division?
(4) Responding to River Keepers Comments that we have on hand:
a) Ted Bush email forwarded about the EMC Groundwater Committee and the
Commission meetim?:;
b) The variance will NOT GO BACK TO THE EMC Groundwater Committee;
c) The variance will go to the full EMC;
draftAgendaforCORPUDHearingO-meetingOctoberlst 1
DRAFT Agenda (9/27/07)
(5) EMC Materials for the variance for Mailing by the Division of Water Quality
Administration:
a) Agenda item that has RRO staff comments;
b) Hearing officers responses and hearing officers report;
c) Need this to Lois Thomas by October 10th to stay on Director's schedule for the
November EMC Meeting.
d) "Staying on" depends on what we get from the public on October 5th ---(or "the
tail that wags the dog");
e) Approaching the Director if a delay is needed beyond the November 2007 EMC
Meeting.
(6) November 2007 EMC Meeting and the Variance Request;
a) Phone Discussions with C. Bacyl about CORPUD or City of Raleigh making a
presentation -Not a good idea!
b) Having CORPUD and consultants present for Q and A by the EMC members ;
c) Andrew Pitner Not here Kathy Stecker will make the HO presentation;
d) What should be our focus and how much presentation is appropriate for an EMC
meeting?
i. Rick's presentation or a Thumbnail Version of Ricks Presentation?
(7) Any other related matters?
draftAgendaforCORPUDHearingO-meetingOctoberlst 2
1 of 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -DRaft Agenda Item for the EMC Meeting in November "07
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:27:10-0400
To: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, David Hance <[e-mail]>,
Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Rick, if your office is where I think it is, morning would be convenient. You're
sort of on my way in (if I go a different way). Would it work for you if I met you
at your office and we went on from there? I could be there around 8:30 or earlier .
Thanks!
Rick Bolich wrote:
Kathy;
I am free most of Wednesday as of today. I'd be happy to take you to the site
either in the morning or afternoon. Just let me know when you'd prefer and i'll
contact the guys at the vi'WTP to let them know .
rb
Kathy Stecker wrote:
The only day I am available for several hours is Wednesday, 10/3 (anytime).
The other days are all chopped up, but I might be able to squeeze it in if
Wednesday doesn't work. Thanks!
-Kathy
\.
Kathy Stecker <Kath [e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
9/27/2007 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -DRaft Agenda Item for the EMC Meeting in November "07
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:55:53 -0400
To: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, David Hance <[e-mail]>,
Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Kathy;
I am free most of Wednesday as of today. I'd be happy to take you to the site either
in the morning or afternoon . Just let me know when you'd prefer and i'll contact the
guys at the WWTP to let them know.
rb
Kathy Stecker wrote :
The only day I am available for several hours is Wednesday, 10/3 (anytime). The
other days are all chopped up, but I might be able to squeeze it in if Wednesday
doesn't work. Thanks!
-Kathy
1 of 1 9/27/2007 2:52 PM
1 of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -DRaft Agenda Item for the EMC Meeting in November "07
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:49: 17 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, David Hance <[e-mail]>,
Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
The only day I
other days are
doesn't work.
-Kathy
am available for several hours is Wednesday, 10/3 (anytime). The
all chopped up, but I might be able to squeeze it in if Wednesday
Thanks!
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
Either Rick or I could arrange it with Tim Woody. Let us know dates you are not
available between now and the 5th
Jay
Kathy Stecker wrote:
Jay, Rick,
Will we have time for that tour? Sorry I missed the first one. I think it
would be helpful to be able to picture the site from firsthand observation.
Any days better than others for you? Thanks!
-Kathy
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
I would also add that since the nitrate is not homogeneuosly distributed
throughout the groundwater system, any extraction system will likely be
pumping a lot of "clean" water and I would be surprised if the concentration
of nitrate in the inffluent was above our limit of 10 ppm. The main purpose
for a system as proposed would be to creat a hydraulic barrier between the
pollutant source and something at risk -e.g. the river. Not to mention,
wells would have to be installed along a portion of the various creeks, so
that nitrate didn't move into them and "short-circuit" the extraction
wells. Typically you would design a system to remove as much of the mass of
the contaminant (nitrate) in addition to controlling where it may
discharge. In an ideal situation we would want extraction wells around the
perimeter of the site (460+) and at various locations withn the interior,
where high concentrations of nitrate have been adequately defined (hasn"t
been done due to the size of the site). I agree with Rick"s summation.
Jay
[e-mail] wrote:
Hi Kathy;
It is my understanding that the "full groundwater extraction option", as
outlined in CORPUD's revised CAP, would send the extracted groundwater
back into the WWTP headworks to be treated along with all of the other
influent wastewater. The treated groundwater would then be discharged
via the NPDES outfall and would have to meet their permit limits, which
are based on the Consortium allocation for nitrogen. So if i understand
your question correctly, there would be not net change to the total river
load of N that way except that, theoretically, the groundwater flux
contribution would be near zero. In reality, it would be impossible to
intercept all of the groundwater before it enters the river using
9/27/2007 2:53 PM
2 of2
extraction wells .
rb
Kathy Stecker <Kath v [e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
9/27/2007 2:53 PM
1 of 1
Subject: EMC Groundwater Committee: September 2007 Minutes-CORPUD Portion for review
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:49:23 -0400
To: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Hello Jay and Rick,
Attached in word is a section of the minutes from the last EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting on
September 12th. You recall you gave a heads up about the variance request from CORPUD.
What I need is your input into this since we are going to be sending this to the Groundwater Committee
in the packet for the next meeting and this is scheduled to go out to them on 9/22/07.
Please review and get changes back to me. I f possible, I would like to g et your responses and chang es
on or befo re 4:30 PM on Tuesda y. October 2 , 2007.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
DraftVersionSept2007Minutes-J ay& Rick-CORPud.doc
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
9/26/2007 7:49 PM
, DRAFf 9/26/07 DRAFT
IV. Information Agenda Item # 4: Update on the Variance Application from the City of
Raleigh Public Utilities Department for Natural Attenuation Corrective Action at Biosolids
Land Application Fields
a. Description:
Mr. Jay Zimmerman of Division of Water Quality (DWQ) -Aquifer Protection Section
provided the EMC Groundwater Committee with an introduction to the staff responsible for
working on this variance request. He is the DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section Regional
Supervisor in the Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) and said that this variance was being brought
the Groundwater Committee to provide them with the status of this request, the technical
presentation, and the plan to bring this to the EMC for final action at the November 8, 2007
Commission meeting. Mr. Zimmerman stated the staff Hydrogeologist who conducted the
technical review for this variance request would make the presentation before the EMC
Groundwater Committee. He stated that Mr. Bolich and himself would be available to discuss
questions the members may have on this informational item.
Mr. Bolich provided the Groundwater Committee with a power point presentation of this
variance request. He said that the variance is requested from the City of Raleigh Public Utilities
Department (CORPUD) for its Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant. M. Bolich stated that
this site is approximately 1,466 acres and is located in the southeast comer of Raleigh, North
Carolina near the Johnston County line. Mr. Bolich stated that the Division received this request
on December 1, 2005 and discussions ensued between Division staff and the utility concerning
information needed to complete the variance application. As a result of this, a comprehensive site
assessment was required. He said that a corrective action plan has been submitted which
specifies extraction of groundwater in a limited area of the site and natural attenuation has been
submitted by the CORPUD. In order to get this corrective action plan approved a variance must
be granted by the Environmental Management Commission pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113.
Public hearing was held on September 5, 2007 and the hearing officers are Kathy Stecker and
Andrew Pitner. Mr. Bolich stated that the comment period for written comment ori this variance
request ends on October 5, 2007.
He said that the city has historically land applied biosolids residuals at various fields
since the 1980s. Over-application of biosolids resulted from a miscalculation of plant available
nitrogen failing to take into account "carry over" of nitrates. This resulted in exceedences of the
Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate at 10 milligrams per liter in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 in
groundwater monitoring wells and in private water supply wells outside the facility's compliance
boundary. Mr. Bolich stated that at the request of DWQ, land application operations ceased and
wells that impacted by nitrates were abandoned or used for irrigation and impacted water users
were placed on public water supply by the City of Raleigh. He said that the CORPUD is
responsible for cleanup of nitrate that has migrated outside permitted compliance boundary.
Properties surrounding this site consist of residential properties, farmland, commercial, and state
owned forestland.
Mr. Bolich said that the variance request is from state requirements in 15A NCAC 2L
.0106(k) which prohibit a facility from using natural attenuation as a method of corrective action
for contamination that extends beyond a compliance boundary. The current rules do not allow for
corrective action that relies on natural remediation and attenuation since it bas a permit. He said
that non-permitted facilities are allowed to use natural remediation and attenuation assuming
DraftVersionSept2007Minutes-Jay& Rick-CORPud 1
DRAFT 9/26/07 DRAFT
they can meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k). This variance would allow for the
CORPUD to apply the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k). Mr. Bolich stated that the
variance request also specifies active treatment of nitrate in groundwater via a groundwater
extraction and treatment system in the area where water supply wells were impacted.
Mr. Bolich said that the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) has
submitted technical information that meets the criteria of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c). He stated that
nitrates will break down under natural conditions over time and a human health risk assessment
was prepared to support the variance application and this indicates no impacts to human health
by allowing natural attenuation. He said that the North Carolina Division of Public Health has
reviewed the risk assessment methodology for this variance and agrees that it is protective of
health on the conditions that additional monitoring wells, sampling, and monitoring be conducted
at the site are made part of the variance.
Mr. Bolich stated that the alternative for CORPUD would be extensive corrective action
at this site under 15A NCAC 2L .0106 using best available technology. Application of best
available technology at this facility would require groundwater extraction and treatment along
with the injection of substances that would promote the degradation of nitrate in the subsurface.
He said that the utility has submitted information demonstrating that to implement corrective
action would require the installation of 426 extraction wells at a cost upwards of $ 80 Million
dollars. Groundwater extraction might dry up groundwater recharge waters that feed surface
streams and result in a degradation of aquatic habitat. Mr. Bolich said that direct injection of
chemical compounds might have undesirable side effects on groundwater and surface water
quality.
The DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) staff believes that
approval of this variance needs to have the following conditions:
o The amount of nitrate migrating into the Neuse River vial groundwater discharge will be
deducted from the CORPUDs National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) outfall limit. This permit limit will account for nitrate discharging into surface
waters from the groundwater as well as nitrate from the discharge pipe such that the total
allowable discharge of this substance is unchanged. The current NPDES permit accounts
for this nitrate flux into the surface waters. Tables and graphs were shown to the EMC
Groundwater Committee in the powerpoint presentation discussing modeling conducted
by the permittee to support this variance;
o The amount of nitrate entering the river should be monitored and deducted from the
NPDES outfall permit limits and these should include provisions for independent third
party monitoring of the actual river nitrate levels to verify the performance of the model
and that the decreases in accordance with model predictions; and
o The variance should incorporate the recommendations of the Division of Public Health
for additional groundwater monitoring.
Draft VersionSept2007Minutes-J ay & Rick-CORPud 2
DRAFT 9/26/07 DRAFT
b. Comments made on the Variance A pp lication from the City of Raleigh:
Mr. Cecich wanted to know more details about well owners who were impacted by
nitrates from biosolids residuals management at the CORPUD Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant. Mr. Zimmerman said there were a number of private wells impacted but there
were no public water supply wells impacted by the migration of nitrate beyond the compliance
boundaries from the two fields that were impacted. He stated that since 2002, the drinking water
supplies for those persons with wells impacted by biosolids management at this site are on public
water from the City of Raleigh and the wells were abandoned or used for irrigation. These
persons will have water supplied by the city for 20 years without expense. Mr. Ellis asked about
residual application rates stating that it would appear the city lost 120 pounds of per acre off a
1,000 plus acre site. Mr. Zimmerman noted that the cause of the groundwater incident was not
through the permitted allowance of nitrate in the permit but was due to an over application of
nitrate. He said that the over application resulted from a calculation error in a spreadsheet that
was used by the CORPUD to calculate the amount of nitrate applied per acre. Mr. Zimmerman
said that the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) applied two to three times
the amount of plant available nitrogen above the limit to those affected fields onsite. Due to the
mathematical error and carry over of nitrate into the groundwater, this substance :was discovered
in monitoring wells at the compliance boundary near the affected fields, and later in private
wells. Mr. Zimmerman said that the amount of nitrate getting into the river is an;estimate based
on a groundwater model and staff believes that this model may be over estimating the amount of
nitrate. Mr. Ellis asked if the facility was fined by DWQ and the amount of that fine. Mr.
Zimmerman stated that the city was assessed penalties on the order of approximately $ 70,000 to
$ 75,000 range. Mr. Zimmerman stated that during the initial investigations the CORPUD
contended with staff that the nitrate issues at the site were due to past agricultural issues on
former farmland it either leased or purchased as the plant grew. Once the Division and the
CORPUD discovered the over-application issue, this was linked to the exceedences of nitrate in
water wells and discharges into Neuse River tributaries. In addition, during the 1990s the
Division's priorities, staff, and resources were placed on the underground storage tank program,
until this work was reorganized in 1997 to the Division of Waste Management. Mr. Ellis
wanted to know if the facility would be used for land farming of biosolids in the·Juture and Mr.
Zimmerman responded that the Division has currently banned land application at this facility.
He added that they are using fertilizers to grow crops at this facility. Mr. Ellis noted some news
reports in the early 1990s that there was hay produced by some sites, which resulted in nitrate
poisoning in cattle. Mr. Zimmerman.
Mr. Harrell asked if the Division has taken steps to prevent this from happening again at
this and other permitted facilities. Mr. Zimmerman stated that the recent 2004 reorganization
refocused the Division of Water Qualities efforts on groundwater compliance and permitting at
permitted operations. He noted that the city did cooperate with staff in that when questions arose
they reviewed their calculations and found no problems. However, the historic inputs into their
formula for determine land application rates was flawed to the extent that it caused an over
application of nitrates for a period of several years. Mr. Zimmerman stated that the occurrence
of nitrate in groundwater and surface streams was the result of this significant exceedence of the
nitrate application rates in the spreadsheet and not from the appropriate permitted application
rates. He also stated that the Division is prohibited from monitoring or regulating application
rates at agricultural operations. Over time the city acquired adjacent properties including
farmland that had previous applications of nitrate for fertilizing crops. Mr. Zimmerman said that
there was no site specific baseline groundwater data for staff to determine if the nitrates found at
DraftVersionSept2007Minutes-Jay& Rick-CORPud 3
DRAFT 9/26/07 DRAFT
the site were from these applications, the CORPUD-Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant,
or other general sources of nitrate (i.e. stormwater or septic systems). Mr. Ellis noted that the
soil science department at NC State University has a wealth of information on nitrate inputs into
croplands and he found it difficult to believe that the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department
(CORPUD) did not rely on that information to make sure their permitted biosolids operation was
in compliance with the permit and state rules. He said that in the next few months, the
Committee members are scheduled to see presentations on biosolids residuals management
practices at animal waste facilities and the extensive site-specific management practices that
farmers must meet. Mr. Martin noted that he would like to know the full nature of the calculation
error made that led to the groundwater exceedences. He stated that it might be appropriate for
representatives from the City of Raleigh to come to the EMC Groundwater Committee meeting
to answer questions the members might have.
Mayor Moss asked about the source of the information that the CORPUD submitted to
specify a serious financial hardship under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(6) and 15A NCAC 2L .0113(7).
He specifically wanted to know more details about the 80 Million dollar figure for corrective
action using best available technology to address this site. Mr. Zimmerman said that the figure is
an estimate from the city and represents the use of the typical best available technology, which is
pump and treat. He added that this figure is based on the use of 426 pumping wells at the
perimeter of the facility. Mr. Zimmerman stated that the Division staff is uncertain as to the
effectiveness of using that many wells to treat nitrate at such a large parcel of land and prevent
nitrate. He said that in order to get effective treatment, wells might need to be installed within the
facility, which would increase cost significantly. Mr. Zimmerman noted that the city is
discharging nitrate in groundwater and in its NPDES permit at a rate considerably below its
allowed discharge rate in total pounds of nitrogen per year. To put this in perspective, if there
was no groundwater discharge, the city would be allowed to discharge nitrogen to approximately
640,000 pounds per year at its permitted outfall if the flow coming into the plant allowed them to
do this. He said that making the change in the NPDES Permit to account for the flow of nitrate in
groundwater reduced this ceiling by approximately 120,000 pounds per year to a level of
approximately 440,000 pounds per year. Mr. Ellis added that there appears to be an excessive
amount of excess capacity in the NPDES permit for this facility. Mr. Ellis and Mr. Brewer noted
that this is excess capacity that the plant is not even using as of yet but could use as the city grew
and that the reduction of that poses no penalty to the city. Mr. Ellis said that it is plausible that if
an accident were to occur with respect to nitrate discharges, the city may have enough excess
capacity to avoid a Notice of Violation. Mayor Moss noted that the Town of Creedmoor does not
have the same excess capacity for discharges. Wastewater goes from this town and is treated by
the City of Butner, which has limited development.
Mr. Harrell asked would granting a variance request preclude the Division from pursing
additional actions if the variance or the corrective action plan submitted by the facility did not
satisfactorily control nitrates in groundwater or surface waters. Mr. Zimmerman stated that the
variance allows for a corrective action plan using natural attenuation. The Division has proposed
that groundwater and surface water be monitored to determine the effectiveness of the plan and
other actions, as necessary, may be taken if the monitoring does not show the nitrate reductions
over time that the model predicted. Mr. Martin asked if the Neuse River was meeting the 30
percent nitrate reductions as required by the Commission's Neuse River Nutrient Management
Strategy. Mr. Alan Clark stated that the upper Neuse River is showing reductions but this is not
occurring in the lower Neuse River and estuary waters. Mr. Martin also asked the Division staff
to make sure any nitrate credits that the city is getting for reductions in the Neuse River are not
Draft VersionSept2007Minutes-J ay & Rick-CORPud 4
DRAFT 9/26/07 DRAFf
being "double counted" for this activity under the variance. There were no additional comments
expressed by the Committee members or staff to this information item.
Draft VersionSept2007Minutes-J ay & Rick-CORPud 5
----· L-··-· ------o--· -------------o.J ---.; --c-.; -----c~--
1 of2
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Raleigh Variance Meeting]----my reply and opinion
From: jeff manning <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:22:32 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
I agree, sounds like ya'll need to meet on Monday .
David Hance wrote:
_Jay, Rick, Hearing officers, and other DWQ Staff:
Here is my opinion that I am sharing with our DWQ Staff ---only.
I saw in Jay's email that he indicated having a hearing officers meeting on October 1st
was an option as in "if needed".
I have been operating on the view that we will be having a Hearing Officers Meeting in the
afternoon on October 1st.
I believe this Hearing Officers meeting and staff meeting is needed for everyone to catch
up on where we are at with the review of comments, the variance, and discussions we have
been having with each other. There has been some email traffic on certain items but I
think we need to get on the same page. This new wrinkle from Steve Levitas also gives me a
sense that we need to talk some more --and I agree -it would be good to know Steve's
concerns prior to meeting with him so we can be prepared. In fact, Andrew Pitner
indicated that he would be coming to Raleigh that day.
David Hance
919-733-5083 x. 587
********************************************************·***********************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
Chuck,
The only deadline we are working against, of which I am aware, is the one imposed by
Coleen to get this before the EMC in November, which necessitates a quick turn around
for the hearing officers to get their recommendations to her by Oct 12th for signature.
Also, the hearing record is open through Oct. 5th. The hearing officers, Rick Bolich,
David Hance and myself have scheduled a time to meet (only if needed) on Oct. 1st from
1-3 in the 14th FCR, to discuss any last minute issues. David Hance or Alan Clark may
be aware of other deadlines so I have copied them. If managment wished to meet to
discuss, with or without Steve, I can meet prior to that time, Tuesday after -11:00,
Thurs. or Friday. I believe we have a DWQ supervisor's mtg on the 3rd at 10:00. Has
Steve provided any indication regarding his concerns?
Jay
Chuck Wakild wrote:
Jay,
I should have copied you on the earlier email. Is there any regulatory deadlines or
time frames we are working against on the variance?
Subject:
Raleigh Variance Meeting
From:
Chuck Wakild <Chuck.Wakild@ncmail .net>
Date:
Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:12:32 -0400
To:
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
To:
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
9/26/2007 5:23 PM
Ke: L rwu: K,11e1gn v anance 1v1eenngJ----my rep1y anu oprmon
2 of2
CC:
Ted Bush <[e-mail]>
Steve Levitus representing the City of Raleigh wants to meet with us next week to
discuss the variance issues and the paths forward from here. He is suggesting both
legal and technical issues be discussed. He is available Monday, Tuesday or
Wednesday and will be checking the availability of others for the City. I have left
a message with Cathy Cooper about our need to lawyer up but do not know who (if
anyone) has been working for us from DOJ. Can we meet early next week? Do we need
or want to meet that quickly?
9/26/2007 5:23 PM
1 of2
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Raleigh Variance Meeting]
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:57:25 -0400
To: Chuck Wakild <[e-mail]>
CC: Mike Templeton <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush <[e-mail]>, Paul Rawls
<[e-mail]>, Rick Shiver <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark
<[e-mail]>, David Hance <[e-mail]>
Chuck,
The only deadline we are working against, of which I am aware, is the one imposed by Coleen to get this
before the EMC in November, which necessitates a quick turn around for the hearing officers to get their
recommendations to her by Oct 12th for signature. Also, the hearing record is open through Oct. 5th.
The hearing officers, Rick Bolich, David Hance and myself have scheduled a time to meet ( only if
needed) on Oct. 1st from 1-3 in the 14th FCR, to discuss any last minute issues. David Hance or Alan
Clark may be aware of other deadlines so I have copied them. If managment wished to meet to discuss,
with or without Steve, I can meet prior to that time, Tuesday after -11 :00, Thurs. or Friday. I believe
we have a DWQ supervisor's mtg on the 3rd at 10:00. Has Steve provided any indication regarding his
concerns?
Jay
Chuck W akild wrote:
Jay,
I should have copied you on the earlier email. Is there any regulatory deadlines or time frames we
are working against on the variance?
Subject:
Raleigh Variance Meeting
From: Chuck Wakild <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:12:32 -0400
To: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
To: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
CC: Ted Bush <[e-mail]>
Steve Levitus representing the City of Raleigh wants to meet with us next week to discuss the
variance issues and the paths forward from here. He is suggesting both legal and technical issues be
discussed. He is available Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday and will be checking the availability of
others for the City. I have left a message with Cathy Cooper about our need to lawyer up but do not
know who (if anyone) has been working for us from DOJ. Can we meet early next week? Do we
need or want to meet that quickly?
9/26/2007 4:58 PM
2 of2
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
9/26/2007 4:58 PM
1 of 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Meeting with Hearing Officers on October 1st in the afternoon -Will
you attend or teleconference?
From: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:50:34 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
David,
Barring unforeseen circumstances, I'm pretty sure that I'm coming to Raleigh on
Monday 10/1 for our meeting at 1 pm. I'll also be in Raleigh 10/3 for the DWQ
supervisor's meeting, though I probably won't have much time on 10/3 to discuss
CORPUD unless it's fairly quick .
Andrew
David Hance wrote:
Andrew,
Your last email on this indicated that you were coming to Raleigh on this. Is that
so?
If you need to teleconference please call me at 919-733-5083 x. 587
david hance
DWQ-Planning
Andrew Pitner, P.G. [e-mail]
Division of Water Quality -Aquifer Protection Section
Mooresville Regional Office (MRO)
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
MRO Main Phone: [phone]
Direct Phone: [phone]
MRO Fax: [phone]
9/26/2007 3:16 PM
"-..,,\...J..1.'-.1.. ULJ v a.J..lCLll\.,\., • .lV..l.\.,\JL.l.J . .1.5 VV.I.LI..I. ..1...1.\.IUJ..l..l..l,O \...J.l..l..l.\.,1\.,1.l.,;) V.1..1. '-J\.11,VVV.1. .l.,;)I, .ll.l. OU
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Meeting with Hearing Officers on October 1st in the afternoon-Will you
attend or teleconference?
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:19:59 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Andrew,
Your last email on this indicated that you were coming to Raleigh on this. Is that
so?
If you need to teleconference please call me at 919-733-5083 x. 587
david hance
DWQ-Planning
9/26/2007 2:20 PM
1 of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -Kathy's comments about the proposed agenda and a comment from me
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 _Sep 2007 11:37:02 -0400
To: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>, Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Hello hearing officers and staff:
My email was down for a day and I am finally back up!
Anyway, I read these comments from Kathy. I am still going over the tape from the September 2007 meeting tape. Some
of the Committee members spoke that if corrective action with pumping is conducted rather than a variance, there may
be loading issues with respect to water volumes that could impact flow in the plant (i.e. groundwater treatment flow plus
existing flow from treatment operations). This could have an operational impact on the plant by adding more fluid volume
-an outcome of not granting a variance.
david hance
733-5083 X. 587
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&~
Kathy Stecker wrote:
A few suggested revisions from me.
And a question:
If Raleigh pumped all the groundwater instead of getting a variance, would the water go to the WWTP? Then be
treated to meet the old/current (higher) permit limits? So no net change that way either?
Thanks!
-Kathy
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
Here are my suggested edits along with Rick's, which I understand he has already sent to each of you. Feel free to
comment
J
David,
We are working on the technical responses.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay and Rick,
As you know, the deadlines to get items before the EMC are coming upon us and are next week. The agenda
title is due October 9th and the materials are due on October 10th. See the attached document in word.
To facilitate getting us on the agenda for the November 8, 2007 EMC meeting, attached is a draft of the
9/26/2007 11 :44 AM
.l'\..Ci. vviu--U.LJ V i:1J.J.WJ.\.,Ci -.n...aui.y i::) \...UJ.J.llJ.J.CiJ.J.Li::> i:1UUUI. WV }J.lU_l}U.)VU ai:;(;aJ.u •••
2 of2
agenda item with a title, explanation and recommendation shown. I wanted staff and the hearing officers to
look this over. It is based on Rick Bolich's powerpoint presentation from the last EMC Groundwater
Committee meeting and materials that appeared in the public notice and is "short and sweet". If vou have
an y chang es to this or additions, please send them to me b y the end of the week (Sept. 28th).
Otherwise, it will go forward as is.
This agenda item will serve as a short-brief for the hearing officers report and attachments that are to be
developed upon completion of the work for this variance request.
ALSO-Thank you Rick for the powerpoint you sent me. I tried to print this out but I had some trouble
getting the slides to show. Can you help me with this?
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 X. 587
9/26/2007 11 :44 AM
1 of 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -DRaft Agenda Item for the EMC Meeting in November "07
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:28:39 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, David Hance <[e-mail]>,
Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Jay, Rick,
Will we have time for
helpful to be able to
than others for you?
-Kathy
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
that tour? Sorry I missed the first one. I think it would be
picture the site from firsthand observation. Any days better
Thanks!
I would also add that since the nitrate is not homogeneuosly distributed
throughout the groundwater system, any extraction system will likely be pumping a
lot of "clean" water and I would be surprised if the concentration of nitrate in
the inffluent was above our limit of 10 ppm. The main purpose for a system as
proposed would be to creat a hydraulic barrier between the pollutant source and
something at risk -e.g. the river. Not to mention, wells would have to be
installed along a portion of the various creeks, so that nitrate didn't move into
them and "short-circuit" the extraction wells. Typically you would design a
system to remove as much of the mass of the contaminant {nitrate) in addition to
controlling where it may discharge. In an ideal situation we would want
extraction wells around the perimeter of the site (460+) and at various locations
withn the interior, where high concentrations of nitrate have been adequately
defined {hasn't been done due to the size of the site). I agree with Rick's
summation.
Jay
[e-mail] wrote:
Hi Kathy;
It is my understanding that the "full groundwater extraction option", as
outlined in CORPUD's revised CAP, would send the extracted groundwater back
into the WWTP headworks to be treated along with all of the other influent
wastewater. The treated groundwater would then be discharged via the NPDES
outfall and would have to meet their permit limits, which are based on the
Consortium allocation for nitrogen. So if i understand your question
correctly, there would be not net change to the total river load of N that way
except that, theoretically, the groundwater flux contribution would be near,
zero. In reality, it would be impossible to intercept all of the groundwater
before it enters the river using extraction wells.
rb
Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
9/26/2007 11 :46 AM
1 of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -Kathy's comments about the proposed agenda and a comment from me
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:37:02 -0400
To: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>, Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Hello hearing officers and staff:
My email was down for a day and I am finally back up!
Anyway, I read these comments from Kathy. I am still going over the tape from the September 2007 meeting tape. Some
of the Committee members spoke that if corrective action with pumping is conducted rather than a variance, there inay
be loading issues with respect to water volumes that could impact flow in the plant (i.e. groundwater treatment flow plus
existing flow from treatment operations). This could have an operational impact on the plant by adding more fluid volume
-an outcome of not granting a variance.
davidhance
733-5083 X. 587
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&~
Kathy Stecker wrote:
A few suggested revisions from me.
And a question:
If Raleigh pumped all the groundwater instead of getting a variance, would the water go to the WWTP? Then be
treated to meet the old/current (higher) permit limits? So no net change that way either?
Thanks!
-Kathy
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
Here are my suggested edits along with Rick's, which I understand he has already sent to each of you. Feel free to
comment
J
David,
We are working on the technical responses.
Jay
David Hance. wrote:
Jay and Rick,
As you know, the deadlines to get items before the EMC are coming upon us and are next week. The agenda
title is due October 9th apd the materials are due on October 10th. See the attached document in word.
To facilitate getting us on the agenda for the November 8, 2007 EMC meeting, attached is a draft of the
9/26/2007 11 :37 AM
.l.'\..V. V\J.1.'-L" u.1..1 v a.J.J.W.l\.,c, -.n...alJ..ly;:,, \..lu.u.11.uvu1,.::, auvu1. u.u;; p.1vpv;:,,c,u aeiv.uu ...
2 of2
agenda item with a title, explanation and recommendation shown. I wanted staff and the hearing officers to
look this over . It is based on Rick Bolich's powerpoint presentation from the last EMC Groundwater
Committee meeting and materials that appeared in the public notice and is "short and sweet". If you have
any changes to this or additions , p lease send them to me b v the end of the week (Sept. 28th ).
Otherwise, it will go forward as is.
This agenda item will serve as a short-brief for the hearing officers report and attachments that are to be
developed upon completion of the work for this variance request.
ALSO-Thank you Rick for the powerpoint you sent me. I tried to print this out but I had some trouble
getting the slides to show. Can you help me with this?
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 X. 587
9/26/2007 11 :37 AM
.-.---------. -------------0 ---------------
1 of 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -DRaft Agenda Item for the EMC Meeting in November "07
From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:46:35 -0400 (EDT)
To: <[e-mail]>, Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Hi Kathy;
It is my understanding that the "full groundwater extraction option",
as outlined in CORPUD's revised CAP, would send the extracted
groundwater back into the WWTP headworks to be treated along with all
of the other influent wastewater. The treated groundwater would then
be discharged via the NPDES outfall and would have to meet their permit
limits, which are based on the Consortium allocation for nitrogen. So
if i understand your question correctly, there would be not net change
to the total river load of N that way except that, theoretically, the
groundwater flux contribution would be near zero. In reality, it would
be impossible to intercept all of the groundwater before it enters the
river using extraction wells .
rb
9/26/2007 11 :45 AM
1 of 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -DRa:ft Agenda Item for the EMC Meeting in November "07
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:38:01 -0400
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
CC: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, David Hance <[e-mail]>,
Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Thanks, Rick. That was exactly what I was looking for.
[e-mail] wrote:
Hi Kathy;
It is my understanding that the "full groundwater extraction option", as outlined
in CORPUD's revised CAP, would send the extracted groundwater back into the WWTP
headworks to be treated along with all of the other influent wastewater. The
treated groundwater would then be discharged via the NPDES outfall and would have
to meet their permit limits, which are based on the Consortium allocation for
nitrogen. So if i understand your question correctly, there would be not net
change to the total river load of N that way except that, theoretically, the
groundwater flux contribution would be near zero. In reality, it would be
impossible to intercept all of the groundwater before it enters the river using
extraction wells.
rb
Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
9/26/2007 11 :46 AM
1 of 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -DRaft Agenda Item for the EMC Meeting in November "07
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11 :09:36 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, David Hance <[e-mail]>,
Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
I would also add that since the nitrate is not homogeneuosly distributed throughout
the groundwater system, any extraction system will likely be pumping a lot of "clean"
water and I would be surprised if the concentration of nitrate in the inffluent was
above our limit of 10 ppm. The main purpose for a system as proposed would be to
creat a hydraulic barrier between the pollutant source and something at risk -e.g.
the river. Not to mention, wells would have to be installed along a portion of the
various creeks, so that nitrate didn't move into them and "short-circuit" the
extraction wells. Typically you would design a system to remove as much of the mass
of the contaminant {nitrate) in addition to controlling where it may discharge. In
an ideal situation we would want extraction wells around the perimeter of the site
(460+) and at various locations withn the interior, where high concentrations of
nitrate have been adequately defined (hasn't been done due to the size of the site).
I agree with Rick's summation.
Jay
[e-mail] wrote:
Hi Kathy;
It is my understanding that the "full groundwater extraction option", as outlined
in CORPUD's revised CAP, would send the extracted groundwater back into the WWTP
headworks to be treated along with all of the other influent wastewater. The
treated groundwater would then be discharged via the NPDES outfall and would have
to meet their permit limits, which are based on the Consortium allocation for
nitrogen. So if i understand your question correctly, there would be not net
change to the total river load of N that way except that, theoretically, the
groundwater flux contribution would be near zero. In reality, it would be
impossible to intercept all of the groundwater before it enters the river using
extraction wells.
rb
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Ja [e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
9/26/2007 11 :46 AM
David Hance Pagei 9/25/2007
Information Sheet on the Public Hearing for the City of Raleigh Variance Request
(CORPUD) for DWQ Permit Number WQ0001730
(Information as of9/25/07)
ATTENDEES (Total Number of DWO Staff -16):
Division of Water Quality
Andrew Pitner
Kathy Stecker
David Hance
Hearing Officer
Hearing Officer
Recorder
Jay Zimmerman Raleigh Regional Office -Aquifer Protection Section
Supervisor
Rick Bolich Division of Water Quality -Aquifer Protection Section
Staff (Technical Staff for the Variance Request)
Other Division of Water Quality Staff in attendance:
Heather Boyette
Amy Keyworth
Keith Larick
Hannah Stallings
Nikki Remington
Elizabeth Kountis
PUBLIC (Total Number of persons -26 ):
Four persons made comments at the hearing
Nora Deamer
Ted Bush
Debra Watts
Kevin Bowden
Michael Cunningham
1. Dean Naujoks, Upper Neuse River Keeper, Neuse River Foundation, 112 South Blount Street,
Raleigh, NC 27601
2. Steven Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, 3737 Glenwood Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27612
3. Russell Briggs, Engineer, Edge of Auburn -LCC, 2805 Tobermory Lane, Raleigh, NC 27606
4. Phillip Douglas, 413 Hardwood Ridge Court, Clayton, NC 27520
David Hance Page ii 9/25/2007
WRITTEN COMMENT
As of 9/25/07 we have the followimr written comments:
1. Edward Moody, Tippett's Chapel Free Will Baptist Church, 2530 Shotwell Road, Clayton, NC
27520, (919-553-7037) -Received on August 27, 2007.
2. Phillip N. Douglas, 413 Hardwood Ridge Court, Clayton, NC 27520 -Received on August
29, 2007.
3. Dean Naujoks, Upper Neuse River Keeper, Neuse River Foundation, 112 South Blount Street,
Raleigh, NC 27601 -Received on October 5, 2007 at the public hearing.
ADDITIONAL WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT ARE ANTICIPATED BEFORE
OCTOBER 5, 2007:.
We anticipate receiving comments from Steve Levitas of Kilpatrick Stockton, who is representing
the City of Raleigh. We also anticipate getting comments from Dr. Bill Showers at NCSU. Also, Dean
Naujoks has indicated that he and others in his organization will be sending written comments.
ii
1 of 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -DRaft Agenda Item for the EMC Meeting in November "07 (rEply)
From: David Hance <l)[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:39:58 -0400
To: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Rick.
Thanks for getting back to me on this so soon!
david hance
***********************************************************8
Rick Bolich wrote:
David;
Thanks for sending this . I've made some edit suggestions on the attached document
that i hope you will consider.
Thanks;
rb
David Hance wrote:
Jay and Rick,
As you know, the deadlines to get items before the EMC are coming upon us and
are next week. The agenda title is due October 9th and the materials are due on
October 10th. /*See the attached document in word*/.
To facilitate getting us on the agenda for the November 8, 2007 EMC meeting,
attached is a draft of the agenda item with a title, explanation and
recommendation shown. I wanted staff and the hearing officers to look this
over. It is based on Rick Bolich's powerpoint presentation from the last EMC
Groundwater Committee meeting and materials that appeared in the public notice
and is "short and sweet". *_If you have any changes to this or additions,
please send them to me by the end of the week (Sept. 28th)._* Otherwise, it
will go forward as is.
This agenda item will serve as a short-brief for the hearing officers report
and attachments that are to be developed upon completion of the work for this
variance request.
*ALSO-* Thank you Rick for the powerpoint you sent me. I tried to print this
out but I had some trouble getting the slides to show. Can you help me with
this?
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 X. 587
9/24/2007 4:51 PM
1 of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -DRa:ft Agenda Item for the EMC Meeting in November "07
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:30:09 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, Rick
Bolich <[e-mail]>
A few suggested revisions from me.
And a question:
If Raleigh pumped all the groundwater instead of getting a variance, would the water go to the WWTP?
Then be treated to meet the old/current (higher) permit limits? So no net change that way either?
Thanks!
-Kathy
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
Here are my suggested edits along with Rick's, which I understand he has already sent to each of
you. Feel free to comment
J
David,
We are working on the technical responses.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay and Rick,
As you know, the deadlines to get items before the EMC are coming upon us and are next week.
The agenda title is due October 9th and the materials are due on October 10th. See the attached
document in word.
To facilitate getting us on the agenda for the November 8, 2007 EMC meeting, attached is a
draft of the agenda item with a title, explanation and recommendation shown. I wanted staff
and the hearing officers to look this over. It is based on Rick Bolich's powerpoint presentation
from the last EMC Groundwater Committee meeting and materials that appeared in the public
notice and is "short and sweet". If you have an v chan g es to this or additions, please send
them to me b y the end of the week (Se pt. 28th). Otherwise, it will go forward as is.
~
This agenda item will serve as a short-brief for the hearing officers report and attachments that
are to be developed upon completion of the work for this variance request.
ALSO-Thank you Rick for the powerpoint you sent me. I tried to print this out but I had some
9/26/2007 11 :37 AM
..I..'-""'• ...._,,'-J..l.."-.J.. '--..1.J..J 'I' U...L..Lu...L..L""'""' -.J..J..l..'-.LI...I.. .. .,/._ 15...,.1._..1..~LL ..1..11, ..... ..L..L..L ..1..V..1.. .. ..L..L ..... .L..J.l..'l'...I....._,, ..1.. .. ..1.. ............ ..L..LE;, ••••
trouble getting the slides to show. Can you help me with this?
2 of2
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733-5083 X. 587
Kathy Stecker <Kathy [e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
DRAFT-November07-corpudvarianceAI-rb.doc
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
9/26/2007 11:37 AM
DRAFT -9/24/07
ACTION ITEM FROM THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY: Request to Approve the
Natural Attenuation Variance for the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department -Neuse
River Waste Water Treatment Plant (DWQ Permit WQ0001730)
Explanation:
On December 1, 2005 the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) proposed
requested a variance to groundwater dea0up remediation requirements for its Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant at 8500 Battle Bridge Road in Raleigh, North Carolina to the Division
of Water Quality (DWQ). This plant is located in the southeast comer of Raleigh and consists of
1,466 acres. Pursuant to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113, technical reviews conducted
by the DWQ Aquifer Protection Section (APS) -Raleigh Regional Office and all supporting
information for this variance request were completed on January 29, 2007.
Since the earlv 1980'si the CORPUD began land applying residual biosolids at various fields
located at this site. Over:;:-application of biosolids resulted from a miscalculation of plant available
nitrogen failing to account for "carry over" of nitrates. This resulted in exceedences of the
Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate under 15A NCAC 2L .0202 in groundwater monitorin g
and private wells outside of the facilit v's--t'fle compliance boundary. Land application operations
ceased at this facility in 2002 at the request of the DWQ--APS Raleigh Regional Office. Wells that
were impacted by nitrates were abandoned or used for irrigation and impacted water users were
placed on public water supply from the City of Raleigh. The CORPUD is responsible for cleanup
of nitrate that has migrated outside the permitted compliance boundary. Properties surrounding this
site consist of residential properties, farmland, commercial, and state owned forestland.
This variance request is from state requirements in 15A NCAC 2L .0106 that prohibit a permitted
facility from using natural attenuation for contamination beyond a compliance boundary. A
variance would let CORPUD comply with 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k), which would allow for active
remediation in one area of the site and would allow the nitrates beyond compliance boundary in
the remainiIH! areas of the site to naturally attenuate. Additional off site migration of nitrate from
the affected field:; would be mitigated through the installation of a limited number of grmmdv,ater
extraction wells. Short-term extraction of groundwater combined with natural remedial processes
or attenuation in the subsurface will result in control and break down of nitrate over time. Long-
term monitoring of other land application fields will be conducted over the remaining areas of the
site where exceedences of the Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate have occurred at or
beyond the compliance boundary. Monitoring of both groundwater and surface water will continue
until the CORPUD achieves compliance with the rules. The variance, if granted by the
Commission, will not change the required standard for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the
facility must meet under its permit obligation. In addition, the amount of nitrate migrating into the
Neuse River via groundwater discharge will be deducted from the City of Raleigh Public Utility
Department's (CORPUD's) National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES) Outfall Limit. This
will account for nitrate from groundwater discharging into surface waters as well as nitrate from
the discharge pipe such that the total allowable discharge of this substance is unchanged. The
Division of Water Quality believes that this variance has technical merit and is protective of health
and the environment. The North Carolina Division of Public Health has reviewed the proposed
variance and finds it acceptable on the condition that additional monitoring wells and sampling are
made part of the variance.
1
DRAFT -9/24/07
Pursuant to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113, a public hearing was held in Raleigh on
September 5, 2007 and the hearing officers are Kathy Stecker and Andrew Pitner. Twenty-six
persons attended the hearing and four persons made verbal comments. The public notice for the
hearing was sent to persons noted in 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(e) and the final date to receive written
comments was October 5, 2007. This deadline was noted at the public hearing as well.
Recommendation:
The hearing officers recommend that the Environmental Management Commission vote to approve
this variance for the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department pursuant to the conditions
outlined in the hearing officers' report and attachments.
11
Lrwu: .l\.t:: n1v11.., llt:IlllS lUI l~UV. Olil IDLgJ-1..,VlU'UU vananct: -r1t:as ...
2of3
Alan,
You're right.
David,
Please note the EMC due dates.
Thanks,
Jeff
Alan Clark wrote:
Jeff, we're also still currently on track to bring the Raleigh CORPUD variance to the EMC in
November.
Alan
jeff manning wrote:
There are slim pickings for the EMC in November. But I'm not complaining as the Nov.
8th EMC meeting is early in the month, and therefore these due dates are early pretty early
in October, as follows:
* Oct 9th -Agenda Item Title due to me and Lois.
* Oct 10th -Agenda Item Description and Attachments due to Lois.
I currently have the following DWQ items:
* Declaratory Ruling on a Water Supply Ordinance Implementation
Issue for the Town of Southern Pines ( on both WQC and EMC)(Julie
Ventaloro).
* Request to Proceed to Temporary Rulemaking for Rules Regulating
Impacts to Waters that are not Regulated by the USACE ( on both WQC
and EMC)(Tom Reeder).
If you have any other items to add to the EMC's agenda, please let me know.
Thanks,
Jeff
Ted L. Bush, Jr., Chief
9/24/2007 11 :58 AM
I
3 of3
Aquifer Protection Section
DENR Division of Water Quality
Re: EMC items for Nov. 8th mtg Content-Type: message/rfc822j.
'---·-···-· _ __ ·---"'== ~ontent-Encoding: 7bit ·---------·---·····-·····-·-·----------
9/24/2007 11 :58 AM
........ '-"...l'-L _.,_, .......... -.a..a.--. .,.. ,., ....... --i------
1 of2
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Your 2 questions
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:44:35 -0400
To: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Kathy,
The answer to your first question is the DWQ Planning Section gets the items together for the EMC agenda
and interacts with technical staffs on groundwater matters. Once agenda is set the material goes to the clerk for
the EMC (Lois Thomas) at DWQ-Administration who assembles the packets for the Chairman to approve and
then sends them out to the members.
As for your second question, the Attorney General's Office representative for the AGO is Frank Crawley. Jf
you think it is appro priate I could contact him and inform him of the contact b y the city . This would just be an
FYI and no sp ecific action re quested on his part.
David Hance
DWQ Planning
919-733-5083 X. 587
******************************************************************************************
Kathy Stecker wrote:
Does the Commission and/or Committee have a clerk that sets the agenda? Wouldn't Raleigh have to
contact them to get on the agenda?
Also, should our attorney(s) be aware that we are being contacted by Raleigh's attorneys? Who are our
attorneys anyway?
Thanks for the update!
-Kathy
David Hance wrote:
Hello,
I just got off the phone with this lady who works at the firm which represents the City of Raleigh in
this variance.
I want you all to know that they requested to be placed on the agenda for the EMC Groundwater
Committee (GWC) and EMC to speak. I discussed this with her and I think I convinced her that this
would be highly inappropriate. I spoke to Jeff Manning afterwards and he agreed. The EMC will be
exercising their quasi-judicial role with respect to this variance and the hearing officers should be
conducting the work of presenting the variance and their recommendations when this gets to the EMC
GWCand EMC. I did tell Carolyn that the City of Raleigh should be at the EMC GWC and EMC
meetings and be prepared to answer questions in case the either of the Chairman call upon them to
speak. That is appropriate.
9/21/2007 10 :45 AM
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Phone Conversation with Kilpatrick Stockton Staff member Carolyn
Bacyl / Appropriate involvement at the EMC meetings
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10: 19:07 -0400
To: [e-mail], Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>
Hello,
I just got off the phone with this lady who works at the firm which represents the
City of Raleigh in this variance.
I want you all to know that they requested to be placed on the agenda for the EMC
Groundwater Committee (GWC) and EMC to speak. I discussed this with her and I think
I convinced her that this would be highly inappropriate. I spoke to Jeff Manning
afterwards and he agreed. The EMC will be exercising their quasi-judicial role with
respect to this variance and the hearing officers should be conducting the work of
presenting the variance and their recommendations when this gets to the EMC GWC and
EMC. I did tell Carolyn that the City of Raleigh should be at the EMC GWC and EMC
meetings and be prepared to answer questions in case the either of the Chairman call
upon them to speak. That is appropriate.
In addition, Carolyn requested a copy of the comments that we have received thus
far from the persons who have submitted written comments . These will be sent to her
today by US Mail. She also got an update about our activities with respect to this
variance and that we are reviewing comments leading to the development of the hearing
officers report and recommendations to the EMC GWC and EMC in November 2007.
david hance
919-733-5083 X 587
9/21/2007 10:19 AM
1 of I
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Status of Technical Responses to Comments and the hearing officers
report.
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:07:59 -0400
To: [e-mail], Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker
<[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Hello,
I am contacting you in case I get some questions at Planning about the status of this
project.
You will recall that I sent you copies of the Comment summary that I wrote up along
with the names contact information for the persons who submitted comments. You will
also recall from our last meeting on this that the RRO was going to provide the
hearing officers with responses on this so we could finalize work and get the hearing
officers report completed.
Question: How is everything coming along so far?
David Hance
DWQ Planning
919-733-5083 x. 587
9/20/2007 5:08 PM
1 of 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance Request -my opinion & an FYI note
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:34:58 -0400
To: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
CC: J [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
This is just my opinion Kathy.
It is true that they are not comments but they are "concerns" of one of our hearing officers. You will
recall from the end of the hearing officers speech that this is a consideration in making
recommendations to the EMC GWC and the full Commission.
What we could do is send a copy on to Jay and Rick and to Andrew via a fax. I can fax that from here
to get everyone looking at it. Come down to my office at Room 625aa, if you want me to send it.
Remember we have scheduled a meeting on October 1st regarding this variance in case we need to
discuss items that concern us. I think this is something you may want to talk over with Andrew too
during the next 2 weeks.
FYI Note: Carolyn Bachl of Kilpatrick Stockton (Attorney for the City of Raleigh) stopped by
today, reviewed the tape of the EMC GWC meeting and made some notes.
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
************************************************************************************
Kathy Stecker wrote:
I wrote down questions and comments from the Groundwater Committee meeting last Wednesday.
I know they're not "public" comments, but is there a way to discuss or address them as we prepare
everything else? Or is this something Andrew and I need to talk abqut? Thanks!
-Kathy
9/17/2007 3:37 PM
3
August, 1996
John Kiviniemi, then the wastewater plant superintendent, writes to DWQ and essentially admits that sludge is
probably oozing into the water table. Kiviniemi says "certain monitoring well locations suggest impacts
associated with nitrate-nitrogen."
Se ptember 1996
During Hurricane Fran and afterward between 50 and 80 million gallons of raw human sewage pours
into Walnut Creek when power to a lift station on Barwell Road is lost for days. About 95 percent of the
city's sewage flows to the station, where it is lifted 40 feet to flow down to the wastewater plant. Raleigh
installed an emergency generator after the hurricane, but there was none there before.
October 1996-September 1997 .
On Oct. 17, 1996, residents near the water treatment plant report the unnamed creek running through the plant
and their backyards is bright red and has been for at least eight hours. The creek empties into Falls Lake. Daniel
Rowe with Wake County's Environmental Health Division speaks to Jerry Keene, a water plant supervisor.
Keene says a valve from a drying bed was cracked open to allow potassium permanganate, referred to as
Cairox, a chemical used in the manufacture of water, to trickle into the creek. Rowe says the stream is "bright
red." The following day, Keene tells Rowe there had been at least 100,000 gallons of the chemical in the drying
bed and the release had been going on since Oct. 14, when some tanks were flushed.
"It was standard operating procedure that when the drying bed was full of chemicals, they opened the
valve and let them trickle out into the creek," Frank LeBron, then a certified operator at the plant, says.
The Wake County lab analyzed samples and determined about 753 pounds of the Cairox had been released
in the four days.
"Given this concentration," Kenneth Schuster, regional supervisor for DWQ, writes to Benton On Nov. 8,
''there would have been 2,377 pounds of potassium permanganate released to the receiving stream if 100,000
gallons of solution had been discharged. These concentrations are extremely lethal to aquatic life according to
the most recent toxicity studies." Schuster says plant personnel "had knowin gly discha rg ed" the chemical.
According to former water plant operators, Benton's policy was no NOVs (notice of violation), with
the practical effect that any violations of state or federal laws or regulations at the water plant were
covered up and not reported, reported as less than what really happened or blamed on the intentional or
unintentional actions of low-level personnel.
On Nov. 25, 1996, Benton replies, saying ''the actions of the water plant staff unintentionally resulted" in
the water being "discolored." He also says there was no release "until approximately 11:00 a.m. on October
17th."
Benton also writes: ''No water quality standard was exceeded as a result of this occurrence. There was no
fish kill nor damage to other aquatic life."
John Garland, water plant superintendent, writes to DWQ on Oct. 31 saying there had been only a
"temporary pink discoloration" in the creek.
Crisp argues in a letter to DWQ that there had been no violation of the permit or water quality
standards. Crisp says, "The city was permitted to discharge KMnO4 via NPDES permit No.
NC0082376."
DWO strongly disagrees, sayi ng "No provision in the permit allows the City to discharge
leftover chemicals used in the process of drinking water." DWO found nine se parate violations of state
and federal statutes and rules in this incident.
Benton claims the city did not release more than 100 pounds of Cairox.
4
LeBron says he estimated the spilled between 1,000 and 2,000 pounds of dry c:rystal Cairox while filling a
holding tank. He and others shoveled up what they could into five or 10 55-gallon drums and then flushed the
ground with water, draining the mix into the drying bed. He did not know where the filled drums went.
It is Sept. 23, 1997, before Schuster sends a memo to Bob Sledge, the point source compliance enforcement
unit supervisor, recommending a civil penalty of $474 and saying "many violations of the permit occurred, as
well as contraventions of water quality standards."
That was the end of the matter. There was only minimal enforcement action taken and no civil penalty
assessed.
Feb.14,1997
DWQ gives Raleigh the authority to dump dry waste on its fields.
Dec. 15, 1997
The water treatment plant receives an NOV because a 55-gallon oil drum leaked petroleum into the stream
running through the plant and discharging into Falls Lake above the city's water intake structure. The catch
basin valve, which should have been "closed to contain spills ... had been opened to release storm water."
DWQ raises concerns that the outfalls should "only be used during cases of emergency" and that any oil
or chemical should be "routed to the wastewater treatment area" rather than discharged into the
stream. No fines were issued.
January, 1998
At the start of the year, Benton hires Marc Fender as superintendent for the Neuse River wastewater plant.
Seven days after Fender takes over, on Jan. 27 and 28, the plant bypasses final treatment and releases 42
million gallons of partly treated sewage into the Neuse.
Feb.5.1998
Crisp requests the state give the city retroactive "relief' from interim BOD (biological oxygen demand),
effective for the entire month of Janua:ry. It would essentially authorize any bypass that occurred -including
the 42-million bypass at the end of Janua:ry-without incurring a NOV. Crisp says the Neuse has "significant
assimilative capacity to handle such a discharge.
Feb.6,1998
Dave Goodrich, NPDES unit supervisor, denies the request for the interim limit.
The state issues NOVs for "the bypasses incidents" -two bypasses actually occurred -and a 400,000-
gallon sewage spill into Walnut Creek. The state tells Benton the violations are considered illegal discharges to
surface waters and the city could face penalties ofup to $10,000 a day for each violation.
The state also raises concerns that the city could have taken actions "to prevent the situation from
occurring" and suggests "further research should be conducted by the city in determining the cause of the
incident" and preventing the "possibility of this event to occur again."
The city blames the second bypass on operator error, but the state says the "event could have been averted."
Fender would later admit to multiple bypasses occurring over the next four years, all of which went
unreported.
Feb.23.1998
Benton writes to DWQ saying that "the plant had run for 18 years without any violations of state and federal
environmental limits ... we expect to operate the plant for another 18 years without the notice of a violation."
No fines are issued for the bypasses at the wastewater plant or the spill into Walnut Creek.
6
Summer2000
There are two methanol spills of about 1,000 gallons each at the wastewater plant, spills that are either not
reported or improperly reported to the state. They come to light during state and federal investigations in 2002.
Oct. 31 , 2000
DWQ renews permit WQ000l 730, valid through Sept. 30, 2005, for Raleigh's wastewater plant to spray sludge
on fields. However, DWQ "respectfully" issues a second advisory saying the city should buy more land.
The permit says the plant has an allowance of 7,000 dry tons of waste that can be sprayed on the fields for
aerobic breakdown.
December 2000
Benton retires as city manager, soon to take up an appointed post as chief deputy secretary in the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Russell Allen is selected as the new city manager.
2001
The state fines Raleigh $42,000 for 42 violations of its permit, all for spraying excessive sludge on its fields.
These fines were higher than those in 2000 because the city had not responded to DWQ's request that the city
purchase more land for sludge spraying or sell more dry sludge as fertilizer.
December 2001
City officials say it was worker error that caused a spill of 75,000 gallons of sludge into a holding pond. City
officials at first reported the amount of the spill was only 15,000. The true figure of 75,000 is revealed only
after state investigators visit the plant.
.Jan. 20-24, 2002
An undetermined amount of partially treated sludge -variously reported at 5, 41.3, 54 or even 97 million
gallons -is dumped into the Neuse River from the wastewater plant during this five-day period.
Fender, the plant's director, reports the spills by telephone but does not follow the state's requirement of
reporting the bypass within five days. Also, Fender reports the size of the spill at 5 million gallons.
This was a time of heavy rain -about 3.8 inches between Jan. 19 and 24 -and the plant had about 25
percent more stored sludge than usual because it could not spray on the fields.
The bypass does not become public knowledge for six months, until the investigations in 2002.
May 9 ,2002
Fender suspends 20-year employee James 0. Rogers indefinitely without pay after Rogers protests to Fender
about the health hazard posed to school children who were allowed to tour an area of the plant he believed to be
contaminated.
May 2002
After his suspension, Rogers calls Dean Naujoks, the Upper Neuse Riverkeeper with the Neuse River
Foundation, and reports multiple violations at the wastewater plant. Rodgers and Naujoks call upon the SBI
and the EPA's special environmental crimes unit who, in turn, contact state environmental agencies .
Rogers tells these authorities of many problems at the wastewater plant, most notably toxic chemicals
which include PCBs, arsenic, formaldehyde, mercury, rat poison and herbicides.
The agencies discover -in addition to unreported effluent violations -that plant employees buried
eight cases of rat poison in a field near the plant in 1994.
7
June 1, 2002
The city begins its own inquiry into events at the Neuse River plant on May 31, still without knowing about the
January bypasses.
State environmental agencies, the SBI and the Neuse River Foundation are reported to be probing
allegations of possible chemical contamination and a possible illegal landfill.
Crisp says the multiple violations "were an honest mistake." He is also quoted, in a paraphrase, as
saying the city could have done more to avoid the events.
June2,2002
Neuse River plant officials finally admit to the January sludge bypass and estimate the spill at no more than 5
million gallons.
Ernie Seneca, the DWQ spokesman, says that the city bas increased its spraying of the plant's solid
waste to two to three times acceptable levels during the past couple of years.
Allen says he intends to run an independent audit of the wastewater plant.
June 4 , 2002
Raleigh City Council agrees to investigate employee claims of violations of environmental and worker safety
protection.
June 7 ,2002
Seneca says the state suspected problems of sewage sludge disposal at the Neuse plant as early as 1990.
Nothing was done by the state at that time, he says, because the state was concentrating its effort on cleaning up
leaking underground storage tanks. After that duty was transferred to another office, DWQ began to examine
the sludge issue more closely.
The problem of Raleigh's sludge bas become one of the most serious cases of groundwater
contamination in the state, Seneca says.
June 10 , 2002
About 1,000 gallons of methanol is spilled at the wastewater plant but either not reported or improperly
reported. This spill and two others in the summer of 2000 are made public in a News & Observer article on
June 19 .
June 10 , 2002
An inspector with the Division of Waste Management, part of DENR, finds the city had been improperly
disposing of solid waste, much from city utility projects, at the wastewater plant. Spokesman Chrystal Bartlett
says in July that the city would face fines of up to $5,000 a day if the soil, abandoned equipment, wood and
refuse are not cleaned up within a month.
June 12 , 2002
Raleigh officials issue new figures saying the original 5-million-gallon number for the January bypasses was
grossly underestimated. The figure is adjusted to 41.3 million gallons of partially treated sludge that went into
the Neuse.
Fender says, "It went through the entire process . . . the water had been cleaned, but some of the
microorganisms got out."
8
Fender and Crisp, in a joint statement, say they thought they had reported the problem accurately and
correctly. "That's our standard operating procedure ... call it in when it occurs and report it in the monthly
report."
However, workers who were interviewed by Naujoks say the bypasses and others like it consisted of a
thick black sludge that "looked like chocolate pudding being discharged into the river."
June 18, 2002
Mayor Charles Meeker sets a deadline of July 2 for more information from Allen and city attorney Thomas
McCormick.
DWQ holds an unannounced inspection of the wastewater plant, after which Seneca comments that the
plant holds a lot of dry sludge.
June 19. 2002
Craven County commissioners vote unanimously to send a resolution to the county's state delegation, the City
of Raleigh and DWQ "requesting an investigation of the recent sewer spill to the fullest extent and the
imposition of the maximum fme permissible by law for this violation of the state's water standards."
Former City Manager, Dempsey Benton said he didn't personally brief his successor, Russell Allen,
about the concerns about the plant and left that issue to be handled by the public utilities department.
Russell Allen and city council members said they were not aware of the problems or knew about the state's
concerns until articles appeared in the News and Observer.
June 20, 2002
The state fines Raleigh $72,500, mostly for supersaturating fields near the Neuse plant with sludge. It is
the highest fine in the state's history for improperly disposing of sludge and the third highest for water
quality violations.
The state Department of Agriculture is probing the handling of rat poison, the state Department of Labor is
looking into plant workers' claims of safety problems and the SBI is interviewing workers to determine
whether there are grounds for a criminal investigation.
June 26, 2002
An article in the N&O compares the land available to Cary's wastewater treatment plant to Raleigh's. Raleigh's
plant processes significantly higher flows of wastewater. Cary owns 2,900 acres for land application of
sludge while the much larger Raleigh plant owns 1,100 acres.
June 28, 2002
Raleigh begins testing private wells near the wastewater plant on Mial Plantation, Old Baucom and Brown
Fields roads. High concentrations of nitrates have been connected to the potentially fatal blue-baby syndrome.
Crisp and Fender say they planned to test the wells but the city has been busy the past six months testing the
groundwater under land it owns.
An N&O article says wastewater plant employees were not given proper safety information, important
protective equipment was missing and employees were forced to work under hazardous conditions, including
that employees "were sprayed with sludge."
The city offers plant employees free voluntary medical screenings at Duke Medical Center and given until
July 17 to make an appointment at the city's expense.
9
June 30, 2002
In an N&O article, the owner of a hog slaughterhouse admits illegally dumping wastewater from the
slaughterhouse floor and employee bathrooms into the Neuse River for more than 10 years. The dumping
illustrates the problem DENR bas in enforcing environmental laws.
July 1, 2002
EPA begins an inquiry into conditions at the wastewater plant, an inquiry headed by environmental engineer
Mike Hom from the regional office in Atlanta.
Julv 3 , 2002
The state Department of Labor fines Raleigh $14,700 for 18 health and safety violations at the Raleigh's Waste
Water Treatment plant. Sixteen of the violations were deemed serious offenses. They include "failing to warn
workers about on-the-job hazards, failing to place proper railing on ladderways, exposing workers to
formaldehyde and a methanol byproduct solution and improperly weatherproofing equipment."
"In our mind, we thought any of these violations could lead to serious injury or fatality," Juan Santos,
a spokesman for the labor department, says.
July 4 , 2002
An article in The Wake Weekly says Raleigh's E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant is nearing its capacity.
During 2001, the plant did not deliver water to Cary, a contract customer, on four separate occasions because it
did not have the water to send.
In 2000 the city asked for and received permission to increase the plant's production from the capacity it was
built for, 76 mgd, to 86 mgd to meet demand. Operators said that to produce 72 mgd for customers, the plant
has to operate part of the day at a rate of 86 mgd because there is not enough storage. The city has between 30
and 40 million gallons of capacity in its storage tanks.
To operate at the higher capacity, the plant pushed water through its filters faster than the state usually
allows, which can lead to particles and contaminants remaining in the water.
The article also said the water plant had high turnover for operators, leading to inadequate staffmg and
untrained operators who make mistakes. One former employee said no certified operator in the state would
apply there because of the administration.
July 12, 2002
Crisp and Fender acknowledge an additional 20 million gallons of partially treated sewage spilled into the
Neuse River during late January. The acknowledgement brings the total the city claims was released to 62.25
million gallons.
McCormick says, according to his probe, the spill was most likely about 97 million gallons.
July 16, 2002
Raleigh City Council approves $690,000 to renovate the wastewater plant and approves paying nearly $74,000
in state fines. The plant improvements include hiring consultants about modem sludge disposal, new insulated
storage ponds and a drying plant to make the wet sludge into dried fertilizer.
10
July 18, 2002
Environmental Investigations of Durham, hired by the state to investigate the wastewater plant, releases its
underground mercury test results.
One sample found 0.257 parts per million in land under or near the plant, 17 times the amount
allowed by state law to protect groundwater.
The second sample found a mercury level of 1.06 ppm, 67 times accepted state levels.
July 22, 2002
Crisp sends an e-mail to the city attorney, city manager, assistant city manager, a DENR official, the
wastewater plant superintendent and others. In the message, Crisp adjusts the amount of partially treated
sludge released in late January from 62.25 million gallons to 54.04 million gallons.
Aug. 1, 2002
Naujoks sends letter to members of the Raleigh City Council questioning the reduction of the January sludge
release from 62 -or maybe 97 -million gallons to 54 million gallons.
His letter also questions the variations in statements about the SCADA equipment used to measure flows and
indicate bypasses at the wastewater plant. A service report by Instrumentation Services Inc. showed the
equipment had always functioned correctly.
Fender, however, said there was no reason to trust the data when the equipment showed bypasses for four
continuous days because it had not been correctly calibrated for over a year.
On July 15, 2002, Arcadis, unlike Instrumentation Services, found the equipment was not accurately
calibrated.
Aug. 2, 2002
This issue of the N&O includes a letter from Meeker saying: 1) There will be "no more landfilling" at the plant.
2) Henceforth, there must be constant and continual dialogue among the city manager, city council, regulatory
authorities and the public. 3) The city is attempting to acquire more land near the plant for sludge application.
4) The city has hired an environmental lawyer to expedite matters. 5) The council is asked to approve an
independent consultant to review all aspects of the operation and management of the wastewater plant.
Meeker also says he wants the city manager to tell the council "how the wastewater plant got offtrack."
Aug. 2, 2002
An N&O article says the wastewater plant exceeded the allowed amount of phosphorus in the treated water it
released into the Neuse during May, June and part of July. Phosphorus contributes to algae blooms in the lower
Neuse and has been regulated since May 1993 to 2 parts per million for a three-month average. The plant's
averages were 1. 7 ppm in April, 2.03 in May and 2.56 in June - a three-month average of 2.1 ppm -while from
July 1 through 17 the average was 2.03 ppm. Seneca at DWQ said the three-month average would have to
reach 2.4 ppm to trigger enforcement.
July and August 2002
Preliminary tests reveal arsenic and mercury contamination where sludge was used to fill in at least one pond at
the wastewater plant. Crisp and Allen downplay the information while Meeker and council members wonder
why they did not receive the information sooner.
Crisp admits to intentionally dumping soil contaminated with gasoline and diesel fuel near an old
storage barn. The soil was removed from a leaking underground storage tank more than five years ago.
11
"I've known about it the whole time that it has been down there, but it's one of those things," Crisp
said. "It wasn't a priority and, as time passed, we didn't proceed with removing it. It's easy to focus on
something else."
Au g. 3-Sept. 5, 2002
Three hypochlorite spills are reported at the E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant, the only chemical spills
reported at the plant in three years. The reports were made after The Wake Weekly began writing articles about
the plant's operation.
Aug. 6 , 2002
The Raleigh City Council unanimously approves purchasing 100 acres for sludge disposal at the wastewater
plant. The cost is $1.3 million, bringing the total Raleigh has spent on the plant to $2 million plus.
The purchase brings Raleigh's total land application acreage to 1,200, still less than half what Cary's
wastewater plant, has available.
Au g. 8, 2002
In an interview with the N&O, Dempsey Benton (former Raleigh City Manger and now Deputy
Secretary at DENR) says Crisp was essentially at fault for the sludge problems because of a failure to
implement a long-term sludge management plan. Benton said that during a 1999 planning retreat he
questioned why Crisp and the public utilities staff had not offered long-term strategi es for dealing with
sludge. Benton also stated; ''I agonized over how this occurred; that's the reality of it. It removes the value of
everything good that we've done there."
Au g. 23 , 2002
Seven private wells near the wastewater plant are found to be unsafe due to a high nitrate content in the water.
Au g. 23 , 2002
Naujoks and David Wojnowski, coordinator for N.C. Stream Watch, sample the water in the stream running
through the water treatment plant on Falls of Neuse Road.
Downstream of the plant's discharge, the biological assessment found only one aquatic worm. Six feet
upstream of the plant's discharge, an abundance of aquatic species were found.
The assessment clearly shows, Wojnowski said, that something is being discharged. into the stream, which
flows directly into Falls Lake, which is ''rendering the water injurious to aquatic life. He recommends Raleigh
take steps to improve the effluent because the city is "killing all the aquatic life" in the stream.
The water plant's NPDES permit says that toxic substances shall not render waters injurious to aquatic life
or wildlife, recreational activities, public health, or impair the water for any designated uses."
Au g. 27, 2002
A state biologist samples the unnamed stream at the water treatment plant and finds some aquatic life below the
plant's discharge point but no caddisflies or mayflies, species very sensitive to pollution. Biologist Kathy
Herring said there should have been a healthy community of aquatic insects but finds none below the discharge
point. Seneca, who accompanied Herring and Naujoks, says the suspect may be chlorine or that and something
else. DWQ is testing a black material that coats rocks on the creek bottom.
Frank Eagles of Rolesville, an avid fisherman, says Honeycutt Bay, where the unnamed stream enters Falls
Lake, is "kinda like the Dead Sea. No fish, or at least size and numbers are way off."
Crisp has already sent a letter to DWQ saying the city is planning a dechlorination system for the water
plant.
12
Aug;. 29, 2002
Tests are made public which show six private wells near the sludge-spraying fields have high nitrate levels,
making the water unsafe to drink and potentially causing a fatal condition for infants.
Allen says that "faulty septic tanks, farm ponds or lawn fertilizer" could have caused the high nitrate
levels.
Sept. 6 , 2002
A bypass of about 15,000 gallons of partly treated wastewater goes into the Neuse River from the wastewater
treatment plant.
Allen, who had demanded no more bypasses, suspends Fender without pay.
Sept. 17, 2002
Fender resigns from his post.
The Raleigh City Council approves $250,000 to hire an engineering consultant to investigate polluted
groundwater under the wastewater plant and its surrounding farmland.
Sept. 23 , 2002
Wake Forest nearly turns off the Raleigh tap because the water coming into town from Raleigh for several days
had tested lower for chlorine than state regulations allow. George Rogers, superintendent of the town's water
resources, says he had told his operators to be prepared to shut down the water main from Raleigh if the
chlorine was not at least 2 ppm. State law requires water systems to maintain a chlorine level of between 2 and
4 ppm throughout the distribution system. This would not have been the first time Wake Forest refused to
purchase Raleigh water because of quality problems, Rogers says.
In a separate interview, former operator LeBron said chlorine levels in the Raleigh system can vary widely
and have been so high in some areas near the plant that infants would have been at risk if the water was used in
their formula.
Se pt. 26, 2002
WRAL-TV airs an investigative report by Cullen Browder in which Seneca says the E.M. Johnson Water
Treatment Plant is being investigated because of the impacts the plant is having on aquatic life in the stream,
possible unpermitted sludge disposal into the stream and conducting uncertified alum tests for almost three
years. State officials, the report says, have also raised concerns about recent chemical spills and operational
issues.
Se pt. 26, 2002
Crisp tells the N&O that Raleigh conducted "its own tests on water it release(d) into the creek, and preliminary
results found that (the water was) not toxic."
Oct. 3 , 2002
Alan W. Klimek, DWQ director, sends a letter to residents near the wastewater plant saying the state would
hold a public meeting if Raleigh asks to add more land to spray sludge. The council's decision to purchase 100
acres had alarmed some neighbors.
October-November, 2002
The city's Aquatic Toxicity Reports for sampling in the stream at the water plant done during these months
show chlorine levels at 0.40 mg/I, 0.53 mg/I and 0.66 mg/1. Mortality rates for aquatic life are extremely high at
these levels.
13
In November, there was a kill-off rate of 100 percent for Ceriodaphina (water fleas) with only 24
percent of the effluent in the mixture.
Dec. 4 , 2002
9 million gallons of raw human sewage spills into Walnut Creek and the Neuse River during the ice storm
after an emergency generator at the Barwell Road lift station fails to start the afternoon before the storm. A
contractor can not repair the generator immediately and city crews have difficulty hooking up a rented
generator. Meanwhile, sewage gushes so strongly for six hours that it erodes part of a driveway.
In 2002, 15,548,427 gallons of raw sewage reached Wake County's surface waters, twice as much as
any other coun ty in the state, with the greatest majority of the sewag e coming from Raleig h.
Dec. 16, 2002
Naujoks sends a report to Meeker and the council members on the status of the Neuse River Foundation's
investigation into the E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant. The report includes documentation of the impacts
to aquatic life in the stream through the plant, pictures of sludge discharged into the stream and Falls Lake and
a toxicology report from DWQ showing the "black precipitate covering the rocks" in the stream matches the
chemical composition of sludge. Naujoks also expressed concern about the quality of Raleigh's public
drinking water. Based on the plant's own records, water quality com plaints had risen 1008%
from 1998 through 2001-287 complaints in 1998, 1476 in 1999, 1854 in 2000 and 2895 in 2001.
Allen and Crisp say only "minor exceedances" of the permit occurred and deny sludge has ever been
discharged into the stream.
Jan.6,2003
About 126,000 gallons of sludge spills from a storage tank at the Neuse River plant but is caught in a pond
before reaching the river. Once again, employee error is blamed for the spill. By the end of January, Granville
Farms Inc., the contractor, has only been able to haul away just over a quarter of the 10 million gallons of
sludge in the four storage tanks at the plant.
Jan.7,2003
The City Council votes to build a waterline for people whose wells were contaminated by sludge sprayed on
fields. This waterline, costing $270,000, will serve those people who previously used four private wells.
A $250,000 report shows the sludge the city sprayed on fields fouled private wells and contaminated
groundwater. Earlier, Allen and Crisp blamed other factors for the contamination.
Jan.9.2003
Raleigh officials release their next steps in addressing the problems at the wastewater plant. Acting on a
$200,000 study by CH2MHil..L begun last August, the city plans to follow the short-term, five-year plan which
includes emptying and inspecting the storage tanks and creating a system to record the amount of sludge
sprayed on city-owned fields. CH2MHILL also recommended a 20-year management plan.
In the final chapter of the CH2MHILL report, two experts say the city should begin immediately to
improve maintenance, worker safety and sludge management.
"The plant and program have gone through a period of, let's say, benign neglect," Gordon Garner, recently
retired as director of the Louisville/Jefferson County Municipal Sewer District in Kentucky, said. "It obviously
hasn't had the resources put into it that it really needs to have."
The experts found that workers had given up asking the utility department management for enough
money to maintain equipment. That equipment now needs to be replaced.
14
The plant is in "crisis mode" in its handling of sludge.
The expert team recommends spending $189.1 million at the plant in the next 10 years.
Jan.10,2003
T.J. Lynch, formerly chief of operations and maintenance at Cary's South Water Reclamation Facility, is
selected to run Raleigh's wastewater plant. Former plant head Fender resigned last fall.
Feb.5,2003
Ten more wells tainted with nitrates are found, bringing the total to 16 wells polluted by the city's wastewater
plant and its spraying of sludge on nearby fields. Residents in the area are drinking bottled water provided by
the city.
February 2003
A letter-writing campaign by conservation groups -Neuse River Foundation. N.C. Conservation Council,
Clean Water for N.C., N.C. Wildlife Federation, N.C. Action Network and Friends of Falls Lake -and
residents urges the city council to reform Raleigh Public Utilities Department. Some writers particularly target
Crisp, the utility director. Naujoks, who has asked for changes in the public utility department for months, said
that if the city manager is not going to take action, it is important for the council to set standards and
expectations the department is supposed to meet.
Feb.17,2003
Allen requests $709,000 for chemicals, repairs and equipment as the first step in fixing the wastewater plant.
This brings the cost of f'Ixing the plant and its associated problems to $3 million plus. Those costs will
increase to tens of millions as the city replaces outdated and poorly maintained equipment.
Feb.18.2003
Residents near Raleigh's wastewater plant with contaminated wells say they should not have to pay for city
water.
They also told the city council they had complained for years about odors from the plant.
Naujoks calls on council members to make Crisp and the public utilities department accountable for the
plant's problems.
The council goes into closed session to discuss criticism of Crisp, but no action is taken.
Feb.19,2003
In a letter to Crisp, EPA regulators say Raleigh may have violated the Clean Water Act by filling
in a pond at the wastewater plant with sludge tainted with arsenic and mercury and mixed with
scrap metal, concrete, machine parts and asphalt. The pond is within 1,000 feet of the Neuse
River, and groundwater rushed into some of the test pits. The city could face rmes of up to $25,000
per day per violation and also court orders to repair any damages.
EPA further said Raleigh had not sent them reports for five years for areas called monofills, places filled
with sludge. The city was supposed to test the areas for some metals, methane gas and groundwater quality.
Feb.25,2003
An N&O article says Raleigh failed to test Rolesville's water for trihalomethanes during 2002, the year the city
took ownership of the town's water and sewer systems. The city must notify the 1,000 residents of the laps.
15
Toe same article says the state Department of Labor cited Raleigh the week before for two "non-serious"
violations at the wastewater plant for not property training employees to use respirators and for taking too long
to give them safety information about Raleigh Plus, a fertiliz.er the city produces from its sludge.
March 4, 2003
The N&O reports the cost of fixing the wastewater plant could rise to $4 million. That would not
apparently include any of the costs of increasing the plant capacity from its original and current 60 mgd to 7 5
mgd to meet the city's increased demand for wastewater treatment.
March 14 , 2003
The city offers free water for 20 years to four homeowners whose wells were contaminated by the city's
sludge. Others with the same contaminated wells are still waiting for the city's decision.
June2003
The City Council approves a budget and Capital Improvements Program which will spend at least $431.2
million on water and wastewater projects over the next 10 years.
That $431.2 million does not include the $100 million Crisp says it will cost if the state requires the city to
remove metals like cadmium, chromium, lead and selenium from its sludge.
The city plans to pay for the improvements through bond issues paid for by user rates~ which are to rise
through the 10-year period. Roughly $3 million has been spent on fines, sludge removal, repairs and consulting
fees just this past year alone, as well as and additional $1.3 million land purchase for sludge application (at top
dollar prices). In FY 2003-04, the city has a $15 million construction budget for fixing problems at the
plant. As a result, Raleigh taxpayers are now expected to see a drastic increase in sewer rates over the
next four years. According to Raleigh's Department of Administrative Services, sewer rates are
projected to increase 9% for fiscal year (FY) 2004, 9% FY 05, 9% FY06 and 9% FY 07-a projected
( over) 40% increase in sewer rates over the next four years.
In fiscal 2003-2004, an average household would pay a bill of $52.66 every other month. With the
planned rate increases throu gh 2012 , that bimonthly bill would rise to $77.26-a 46% increase. About
$55.4 million over the next 10 years re presents maintenance and re pair at the wastewater plant for
problems found durin2: the past year. Most of the problems contributing to these projected increases could
have been avoided.
Julv 16 , 2003
An article in The Wake Forest Gazette highlights extremely high turnover rate at Raleigh's E.M
Johnson Water Treatment Plant. One-third of the operators at the water plant have been replaced since
the start of the year. A full staff is 15 operators. The city was advertising for three operators this week, and
Superintendent John Garland said he had hired two or "possibly" three operators this year.
Only thre.e of the plant's operators had been there longer than three years. Garland said there were six
people with A water quality licenses which are required to operate a water plant. Those six include himself,
three supervisors, an operator and a lab technician.
In contrast, there are seven people on the 12-man Town of Wake Forest staff with A licenses and those
seven also hold the highest licenses, Grade IV, for operating wastewater facilities.
Au g. 4, 2003
The N&O reports state and city officials do not agree about the amount of contaminants Raleigh needs to
remove from the wastewater it releases. Crisp says it will cost $100 million to upgrade the wastewater plant to
remove cadmium, chromium, lead and selenium. The metals may come from industries in the city which are
required to have an effective pretreatment program to remove metals, a program the city is supposed to monitor
under its NPDES permit. The state also wants to test the water released at the water treatment plant for metals
and other contaminants.
16
Au g.8.2003
Naujoks sends a formal letter of complaint to EPA alleging numerous worker safety violations, Clean Water
Act and Resource Conservation Recovery Act violations and other illegal activities that were intentionally
unreported. The letter alleges that former city manager Benton knew about these problems and that current city
manager Allen has refused to investigate allegations linking Crisp and other upper utility managers to
fraudulent activities. Naujoks recommended a federal criminal investigation.
Au g. 14 , 2003
An article in The Wake Weekly reviews Raleigh's 2002 discharge monitoring reports and finds the city would
have violated possible new required levels for lead, selenium and cyanide six times. Crisp responds that DWQ
is faulty in its methodology which allows for unusual events. Crisp also downplays recent criticism of
(both) the Raleigh Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant and the E.M. Johnson Water Treatment
Plant. "There certainly have been some problems, but when you balance that with the (record)
of the over all facility, we've done an outstanding job," Crisp said. "This plant is better than
any in North Carolina or in the Southeastern United States."
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The News & Observer:
• June 1, 2002, Hall, "Raleigh waste-plant violations cited"
• June 4, 2002, Shiffer and Hall, "Sludge spills into Neuse"
• June 5, 2002, Shiffer and Hall, "Council to probe wastewater plant"
• June 8, 2002, Shiffer and Hall, "Belated attention to sludge"
• June 13, 2002, Hall, "City's sewage report probed"
• June 19, 2002, Kakissis and Hall, "Benton stays out of plant probe"
• June 19, 2002, Kakissis, "City seeks answers on sludge"
• June 22, 2002, Kakissis and Hall, "City slapped with sewage fines"
• June 26, 2002, Hall and Kakissis, "Plenty of sludge to budge"
• June 29, 2002, Hall, "Raleigh to test wells, workers"
• June 30, 2002, Smith, ''N.C. polluters have the edge"
• July 2, 2002, Hall, "EPA probing sludge problem"
• July 4, 2002, Kakissis, "State fines water plant"
• July 8, 2002, Hall, "Wastewater plant neighbors fret about safety"
• July 9, 2002, Kakissis, "Raleigh plant draws citation"
• July 10, 2002, Hall, "Capital's waste land"
• July 11, 2002, Kakissis, "Hey, Raleigh! Keep it clean"
1o July 12, 2002, Hall, "Plant marked by varied past"
• July 13, 2002, Hall, "Larger sludge spill acknowledged"
• July 16, 2002, Hall, "Council may pay to fix plant"
• July 17, 2002, Hall, "Council approves sludge disposal"
• July 19, 2002, Hall, "Wake plant test results mixed
• July 23, 2002, Kakissis and Hall, "Sewage-plant woes focus spotlight on Raleigh brass"
17
• July 25, 2002, Hall, "Raleigh pays state $73,936"
• Aug. 2, 2002, Hall, ''More woes for plant"
• Aug. 2, 2002, Hall, "Council considers outside review of plant''
• Aug. 2, 2002, Meeker letter to the editor
• Aug. 3, 2002, Hall, "Tests at plant find arsenic, mercury"
• Aug. 7, 2002, Kakissis, "Sludge gets new spot"
• Aug. 8, 2002, Kakissis, "Ex-official says plan lacking for sludge"
• Aug. 11, 2002, Hall, "He blew the whistle"
• Aug. 23, 2002, Hall, ''Nitrate levels too high in wells"
• Aug. 30, 2002, Hall, "Water found tainted"
• Sept. 7, 2002, Hall, "Treatment plant chief suspended"
• Sept. 18, 2002, Hall, "Sewage plant director resigns"
• Sept. 27, 2002, Hall, "Water plant to cut chlorine"
• Oct. 4, 2002, Hall, "State to hold hearing on sewage plant"
• Dec. 11, 2002, Hall, "9 million gallons of sewage in spill"
• Dec. 12, 2002, Hall, "City weighs waterline near plant''
• Dec. 21, 2002, Bonner, "Sewage spills reported"
• Jan. 8, 2003, Hall, "Council OKs water pipeline"
• Jan. 10, 2003, Hall, "City outlines steps t fix sewage plant
• Jan. 11, 2003, Hall, "Raleigh gets new guardian of wastewater"
• Jan. 23, 2003, Hall, "Plant woes might raise utility bills"
• Jan. 14, 2003, Hall, "Workers' lapse cited in spill"
• Feb. 5, 2003, Hall, "Raleigh finds tainted wells"
• Feb. 6, 2003, Hall, "Raleigh tackles wastewater woes"
• Feb. 8, 2003, Hall, "Experts fault plant upkeep"
• Feb. 14, 2003, Hall, "Letter campaign targets plant''
• Feb. 18, 2003, Hall, "Fixing plant could increase rates"
• Feb. 19, 2003, Hall, "Residents confront officials over plant"
• Feb. 25, 2003, Hall, "Raleigh skips Rolesville water test"
• Feb. 27, 2003, Hall, "EPA looks at possible violations"
• March 4, 2003, Hall, "Sewage plant bill is $4 million"
• March 15, 2003, Hall, "Water, wait may be costly"
• July 16, 2003, Hall, "Raleigh OKs contracts for ailing treatment plant"
• Aug. 4, 2003, Hall, "Water testing price is issue"
The Wake Weekly:
• July 4, 2002, Pelosi, "Raleigh water plant nearing its capacity"
• Aug. 8, 2002, Pelosi, "Plant officials deny sludge was released"
• Aug. 15, 2002, Pelosi, "The water plant creek ran red, but the state never fined Raleigh"
• Sept. 26, 2002, Pelosi, "Poor water quality nearly halts Raleigh's flow into Wake Forest"
• Oct. 3, 2002, Pelosi, "Chlorine killing stream"
• Aug. 14, 2003, Meadows, "Raleigh water scrutinized"
The Wake Forest Gazette:
• July 16, 2003, Pelosi, "High operator turnover troubles Raleigh's water plant''
• Aug. 6, 2003, Pelosi, "Raleigh planning its 'its largest public investment' in utility system"
18
Documents from DWQ and Raleigh Regional Water Quality Section:
• Nov. 1, 1996
• April 29, 1997
• Permit WQ0O0l 730
• Dec. 15, 1997
• Feb. 5, 1998
• Feb. 6, 1998
• May 14, 1998
• Permit NC002903
• May 27, 1998
• File 02-0 I 0, Findings and decision and assessment of civil penalties
Report from state Sen. Charlie Albertson to General Assembly 2003
New Bern Sun-Journal:
• June 21, 2002, Book, "Raleigh's sewage is now city's problem"
S ummary for
Profile o f a Polluter
19
This is the 27-year history of Raleigh's Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant and
the corruption, fraud, misuse of public trust and funds which have characterized its management since shoddy
construction materials were substituted in its construction.
Twelve years after the plant began operations and 10 years after plant administrators
began spraying the plant's sludge on farm fields, city officials were being warned that nitrates from the
spraying was leaking into the groundwater. Then and later the official city position was to deny, stonewall and
refuse to follow any recommendation from the state's Division of Water Quality.
Former City Manager Dempsey Benton, who now holds an even higher position of trust
in the state's Department of Environment and Natural Resources, had a policy for the city's public utility
department -no Notices of Violation. From interviews and from the evidence of the years, it is clear Benton
and Dale Crisp, who he appointed to head the utility department, sought to avoid notices of violation of state
and federal regulations by failing to report and underreporting any spills, bypasses or other mishaps. The same
ethic -or lack of it -can be seen in the records of the E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant.
This chronology demonstrates how Benton and Crisp and the employees under them
lied, distorted the record, made untrue claims and tried by every trick to avoid blame for lack of maintenance of
equipment, lack of proper care for employees and their health and lack of any kind of regard for the city's and
the state's land and water and the health and welfare of the people in it.
Lack of stewardship led to the first fouling of the Neuse River's waters in 1978 and that
same lack of stewardship by the current administration led to the January 2002 bypasses into the Neuse. City
Attorney Thomas McCormick undertook a private investigation and concluded those bypasses totaled 97
million gallons. Crisp has said the bypasses were anywhere from 5 million to 62 million gallons.
The ethical, moral and legal lapses are not only demonstrated by Benton and Crisp.
They extend to current City Manager Russell Allen, Mayor Charles Meeker and the members of the City
Council who have not held Crisp to account for the endemic problems. The State of North Carolina also bas
grossly failed to live up to its mandate to protect the water and land of this state and the health and welfare of
its residents. Again and again the state has failed to force the city to meet the letter of the law.
20
Outside experts have said the Neuse River plant is in crisis mode. We believe the entire
utility deparbnent is in crisis mode and extraordinary steps must be taken to prevent the current disregard for
environmental laws from continuing.
Dean Naujoks
Upper Neuse Riverkeeper
Neuse River Foundation
Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Plant
NC0029033
0, 0~ ..... .......)
I don't think I have to go into much detail about the environmental problems at Raleigh's
Waste Water Treatment Plant because it has been so publicized. But let me just say that
it is appalling that the conditions at this facility ever got this bad. The state knew about
the ground water problems along time ago. I can only hope the state has learned a lesson
from this, because the supposed "A" student, turned out to be a poor example of how to
run a public utility. Unfortunately, the state does not have to pay for this mistake, nor
does Dale Crisp or Dempsey Benton; it is the Raleigh taxpayers who have the pick up the
tab.
For several years now, this facility has been leaching nitrates and coliform bacteria from
contaminated ground water into the Neuse River and various tributaries that flow directly
into the Neuse and unfortunately, will continue to do so for many years to come. This is
based on the cities own ground water report. Neuse River Foundation had Pete Dressen,
President of Piedmont Geologic, a certified geologist, review the report to confirm this
information. It is undisputed. Unfortunately, the cities final ground water report will not
be finished until June. We would like to put an opener in the permit, so that we can come
back and address the issue of nitrates entering the Neuse River.
The city has stated that they are open to this idea and are willing to offset nitrate pollution
entering the river from contaminated groundwater, by over-compensating for it in the
WWTP's effluent. We have consensus on this the last time I checked. Where we
disagree is the percentages. Neuse River Foundation is requesting a "no net increase" of
nitrogen from entering the Neuse River.
This plant has been living a lie for several years. In fact one of the major reasons Mr.
Crisp still has his job if because he and the city manger ran around convincing every
Council Member that they have been good stewards to the river by achieving a 49%
reduction in nitrogen. However, since a long-term sludge management plan was never
developed, the 49% reduction of nitrogen entering the river is a serious misrepresentation
of what has really been occurring out at this facility. Instead of adequately addressing
nitrate pollution, Public Utilities' shortsighted decisions have simply allowed the true
cost of dealing with excess pollution from nitrates and sludge to be passed along in the
form of contaminated groundwater. This problem has come full circle; nitrates are
reentering the Neuse River. And since the area of contamination is so great, efforts to
remediate or remove contaminated soil is virtually impossible.
Our request is that the city be required to go beyond the 49% reduction to offset the
contaminated ground water entering the Neuse River. It is the only way to adequately off
set the nitrates that are entering into the river. I think this is the very least the City can
do, considering it still does not make up for the nitrates that have steadily been entering
the Neuse River for several years now, let alone the contamination they have caused to
the ground water. To be honest with you, I think the city is getting off light.
If the state does not require a "no net increase" in nitrogen, than all the city has to do is
lower percentage of nitrogen they are currently reducing from their eflluent. They would
still be beyond the state requirement and could justify that they are reducing nitrates by
overcompensating for it in their eflluent.
NRF feels the city should be required to incorporate the findings of the groundwater
study and develop a comprehensive river management plan, by calculating the loading
estimates of nitrogen entering the river and working to offset estimated nitrogen loading.
This will not be easy; it probably will never be an exact science. But if this facility is to
live up to its promise of being an environmental steward to the Neuse River and a good
neighbor to those living down stream, the city should work to achieve a goal of "no net
increase of nitrogen." This can only be achieved through compensatory mitigation,
which I described above (possibly other ways, purchase of buffers etc.).
The findings of the ground water report should be used to determine the total nutrient-
loading going into the Neuse River from the contaminated ground water as well as their
eflluent. Raleigh is currently a Nutrient Trading Coalition Member. The state needs to
revisit Raleigh's participation in the Nutrient Trading Coalition. It defeats the purpose of
this coalition if nitrates from the polluted ground water are not reflected in Raleigh's
overall nutrient loading. The bottom line is that the nitrates entering the river (from
contaminated ground water) are a product of waste treatment and the mishandling of
wastewater operations.
The state has the authority to make this facility address the problems they created and I
hope the state uses that authority.
DeL\!'J }\\Au,i rJfs-
\.) p 9efl---r;J Q_ J.3'~ ¥-t J r)).ltepetL
N .e u S L, ¥, J e,.i]____ -~ 0 .0 ~ A-1, O /0
09/14/07 DRAFT
Summary of Oral Comments Made at the September 5, 2007
Public Hearing and Written Comment Submitted by the Public
Variance Request from Corrective Action Requirements For the
City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD)
DWQ Permit WQ000l 730
A. Comments made at the Se ptember 5 , 2007 Public Hearing in Ralei gh , NC
with Res ponses:
Commenter# 1: My organization, the Neuse River Foundation, represents 3,000 members in
the Neuse River Basin. We work to protect water quality in the Upper Neuse River Basin and we
have been actively involved in addressing issues surrounding this plant since 2002. He said that
in 2003 the Neuse River Foundation challenged permit limits under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for the City of Raleigh. He said that at that
based on conversations I had at that time with the attorney representing the City of Raleigh, Mr.
Steven Levitas who is in the audience, there was an agreement met regarding this permit. The
agreement was to leave an opener in the permit that Raleigh would work to offset nitrogen going
into the river via groundwater pollution. In 2003, the Neuse River Foundation requested a 'no
net increase' for nitrogen from the plant. Our organization understood that the City of Raleigh
agreed to this and the state needs to hold the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department
(CORPUD) and officials responsible for their promise. I hope that the city admits to the fact the
there was an agreement in 2003 on this matter in their comments. In entering that agreement, our
membership was quite generous to the city in giving them other alternatives than pump and treat
cleanup since we acknowledge that it can be extremely expensive. We approached the issue with
the view of finding useful and cost effective alternatives. The Neuse River Foundation had
discussed changes in effluent limitations since the city is not even coming close to reducing
concentrations of nitrogen even with plant upgrades. We acknowledge that they are within their
NPDES permit limits but that reduction from this engineered solution will not come close to
offsetting nitrogen impacts in the river from the contribution of nitrate from groundwater as a
result of compliance problems. Our organization has recommended buffers and wetlands
mitigation, which are feasible actions for City of Raleigh and they should be required to do this.
Note the Jordan Lake Rules and their impacts on the City. of Durham (and potentially the Falls
Lake Rules), would require stormwater retrofits. I do not understand why the City of Raleigh is
not being required to take such actions under this variance since there are plenty of paths for the
City of Raleigh to mitigate nitrate impacts to the river.
I cannot believe the scale of this problem. We are talking about 120,000 pounds of
Nitrogen per year being allowed to decrease over time over the next 30 to 40 years. When
factored together this allowance provides more nitrogen to the river than the towns of Apex,
Benson, Butner, Cary, Johnston County, Wake Forest, and Zebulon combined and the state is
going to just waive this requirement for them to mitigate this problem. This is the largest source
1
09/14/07 DRAFT
of groundwater contamination the state has ever identified -over 1000 acres! The track record of
natural attenuation has very limited success. Note that in areas where mitigation is occurring is
occurring in Raleigh, the land areas are relatively small compared to what is making its way to
the river. It is a very dangerous precedent for the state to just allow this to occur without any real
mitigation. If you waive this requirement I don't see how the state could get any party to
conduct mitigation. I support the states recommendation concerning considering the
groundwater contribution of nitrate into the river to the NPDES individual permit and the NRCS
Permit. I also support the current physical upgrades the plant has already done.
I want to remind that state that there has been a history of non-compliance at the
CORPUD that Neuse River Foundation has identified dating back to 1986 and we contend with
staff that the over application of biosolids was not the result of a 'miscalculation'. This is
documented in the states files and is shown in a written comment from our organization titled
"Profile of a Polluter" and is being submitted this evening. In 1999, DWQ staff urged the city to
purchase more land for sludge application due to relatively high concentrations of nitrates,
metals, fecal coliforms and other pollutants. In 2002 the state finally issued its first fines, which
is nearly 20 years after it was suspected that biosolids were impacting the river from 1986
studies. There have also been other egregious and well-documented on-site violations as well.
One must consider the fact that the nitrogen from this site has not only traveled beyond
the compliance boundary and affected private wells it is also traveling well beyond that into the
lower Neuse River and the Pamlico Sound. In 2007, the Neuse River was listed as one of the top
ten endangered rivers. The Neuse Basinwide Plan just released this year and the Neuse Basin
Oversight Committee for the Agricultural Rules have both indicated that our state is not meeting
the mandatory 30 percent nitrogen reduction goals for the estuary and some university work
indicates North Carolina is meeting only single digit reductions at best. Until the City of Raleigh
develops a plan to offset this added nitrogen from groundwater with buffers, wetlands,
stormwater controls or other means, it is inconceivable that the state would consider a variance
of this kind and this request should be denied. It is inconceivable that the state would specify that
the city be allowed to just monitor the nitrate under this variance. I believe that granting this
variance is a violation of the state's own rules and am very disappointed that this request has
gotten this far (Dean Naujoks, Upper Neuse River Keeper, Neuse River Foundation, 112
South Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 27601).
Response:
2
09/14/07 DRAFT
Commenter # 2: I represent a land development called the "Edge of Auburn, LLC" and in
particular, Parcel Number 131 as identified on some of the maps submitted by the CORPUD.
This parcel is to the west of the site. Our concern is that we are in the process of preparing an
application for a subdivision with Wake County on this land. In this subdivision we intend to
have on-site wastewater and, possibly, a community public water supply well system that will
with approximately 130,000 gallons of water per day. Our site is just to the west of this tract of
land. There is no way to know with certainty that these Iritrates cannot get into the same water-
bearing aquifer that our proposed development will be using. Even though the permitted
operations are downgradient from our site, the cone of_depression of this water well could end up
drawing nitrates into the water supply well that we are considering for our development. The
cone of depression can reach as significant distance away from our property (Russell Briggs,
Engineer, Edge of Auburn -LCC, 2805_ Tobermory Lane, Raleigh, NC 27606).
Response:
Commenter# 3: I want note for the record that our firm and the City of Raleigh Public Utilities
Department (CORPUD) has been working to address groundwater problems and issues at this
site for five years with the Neuse River Foundation. It appears we have a misunderstanding about
Mr. Naujoks concept of what constitutes an "offset" versus the city's idea. The variance
specifies that the concept of the offset will charge the groundwater contribution against the City
of Raleigh's allowable dischar ge under its NPDES Permit for its wastewater treatment plant is
the same as it was when we proposed this to the Division of Water Quality five years ago .
During the last five years, there has been a substantial reduction in the city's point source loading
which far exceeds the amount of the calculated loading via nitrate from groundwater. We will
continue discussions with Mr. Naujoks to see if we can clarify that issue. I am sorry he is
disappointed in the proposal (Steven Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, 3737 Glenwood Avenue,
Raleigh, NC 27612).
3
09/14/07 DRAFT
Response:
Commenter# 4: Natural attenuation means to me that "we made a big mess and we want nature
to clean it up". That can only happen over 30 to 40 years and that contamination will reside in
the groundwater and the surface water in the area of this wastewater treatment plant. The
Division of Water Quality should be concerned only with water quality not cost. When the City
of Raleigh accepted this permit to operate this plant they also accepted the rules and regulations
of the state of North Carolina. Now that there is a problem they want a variance to get around
those rules and regulations. That is not right! (Phillip N. Douglas, 413 Hardwood Ridge Court,
Clayton, NC 27520).
Response:
B. Written Comments and Res ponses Submitted before October 5,
2007:
Written Comment # 1: We oppose this variance for the City of Raleigh Public Utilities
Department (CORPUD) and believe the groundwater problems need to be corrected
immediately. We have two wells on our property that are our sole source of drinking water and
we are within 100 yards of wells that have already been contaminated. We are afraid that our
wells may have been contaminated as well. We think your information in the public notice about
"no active wells in the impacted area" is incorrect. (Edward Moody, Tippett's Chapel Free
4
09/14/07 DRAFT
Will Baptist Church, 2530 Shotwell Road, Clayton, NC 27520, (919-553-7037)-Received on
August 27, 2007).
Response:
Written Comment# 2: When the City of Raleigh accepted the permit to operate this plant they
also accepted the rules and regulations of the state that go with the permit. The fact that the
CORPUD has submitted a justification for natural attenuation should have not any weight. The
only beneficiary of this is the city and that information came from them and those in their
employ. Instead of trying to find ways around regulations they should be made to cleanup using
existing rules. I want these questions answered:
a. How long has the contamination condition existed?
b. Why hasn't full public disclosure been made?
c. Why is this variance application even being considered?
d. Will there be a fine levied against the city for creating this condition?
(Phillip N. Douglas, 413 Hardwood Ridge Court, Clayton, NC 27520 -
Received on August 29, 2007).
Response:
Written Comment # 3: In response to the variance request the Neuse River Foundation is
submitting to the Division of Water Quality a document from the Neuse River Foundation and it
is titled "Profile of a Polluter". This document is a chronological history of compliance
problems, distortions by officials, untrue claims, neglect, poor maintenance, construction
5
09/14/07 DRA FT
problems, and lack of environmental stewardship at the CORPUD Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) and the EM Johnson Water Treatment Plant.
Twelve years after plant construction of the NRWWTP and 10 years after plant
administrators began spraying sludge on farm fields, city officials were being warned that
nitrates from the spraying was leading into the groundwater. We have documented significant
releases and spills into Neuse River leading to some of the largest fines in the state. We have
documented here the chronology of groundwater quality problems that have impacted private
wells and resulted in the need to abandon those wells and place people on city water. We believe
management problems still exist and that extraordinary steps must be taken to prevent the current
disregard of environmental laws from continuing.
Our organization also submits a document dated June 30, 2003 that we had requested to
go into the permit record but never appeared there. It is titled "Ralei Eili Waste Water Treatment
Plant NC00290033". In this document the Neuse River Foundation is requesting a "no net
increase" of nitrogen from entering the Neuse River. We also request that the city go beyond its
49 % reduction to offset contaminated groundwater in the Neuse River. We feel the city should
be required to incorporate the findings for the groundwater study and develop a comprehensive
river management plan by calculating the loading estimates entering the river and working to
offset estimated nitrogen loading. The findings of the groundwater report should be used to
determine the total nutrient-loading going into the Neuse River from the contaminated
groundwater as wel1 as their effluent. Raleigh is a Nutrient Trading Coalition Member. The state
needs to revisit its participation in this coalition. The bottom line is nutrients entering the river
from contaminated groundwater are the product of waste treatment and mishandling of
wastewater operations and the state has the authority to act on this. (Dean Naujoks, Upper
Neuse River Keeper, Neuse River Foundation, 112 South Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 27601
-Received on September 5, 2007).
Response:
6
'-"..._,..l..'I...L '-.1..1...J' • _,._.1.~..1.. .. n,,"-' ..1..'-"-''1""-'0lo, .L•..L.._.lo'-"..l.Ll,l,.L.o.:J ]'-'""" .1..1"-'"-'~ .LI.V.L..L...l .L..L..L."-'
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance Request: Materials you need from me
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:16:50 -0400
To: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Hello hearing officers and RRO Staff:
Attached in word or two documents promised to you at the September 12th meeting.
One of them is a listing of persons who attended the public hearing. It also includes all those who have
submitted comments to us as of today. We are expecting more written comments from Dale Naujoks, Steven
Levitas, and Dr. Showers.
The other document is a summary of oral comments from the hearing and also includes a summary of the
written comment we have as of today. Responses have been left blank so the RRO staff can recommend some
technical responses to the hearing officers and any other things they want to send over ---as agreed.
In conducting your work on this, the hearing officers should consider me their staff with respect to this. If
anyone spots a correction or remembers something that is not included -call or email me.
I will be in all next week.
david hance
919-733-5083
1 Content-Type:
CORPUDVariance-DraftCommentSummary.doc:
J Content-Encoding: base64
application/msword
Content-Type: application/msword :
CORPUDvariance-listingofbearingandwrittencommenters.doc I
Content-Encoding: base64
9/14/2007 8:16 PM
DRAFT
Public Hearing Attendance List and
Written Comment Inventory
9/14/07
City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) Variance to Corrective Action
Requirements under 15A NCAC 2L .0106/or Nitrate under
Permit Number WQ0001730 at the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
Members of the Public who Registered Attendance at the September S, 2007 Public Hearin g :
1. Jerry Adams, 510 West Park Drive, Clayton, NC 27520
2. Carolyn Bachl, Attorney, Kilpatrick Stockton, 3737 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400, Raleigh,
NC 27612
3. Carl Bailey, 1205 Ligerly Lane, Cary, NC 27511
4. Clifton P. Baucom, Homeowner, 3005 Hickory Tree Place, Raleigh, NC 27610
5. William B. Baucom, Landowner, 7920 Old Baucom Road, Raleigh, NC 27610
6. Chad Blackmon, Engineer, Blackmon Engineering, 410 Aversboro Road, Garner, NC 27529
7. Russell Briggs, Engineer, Edge of Auburn -LCC, 2805 Tobermory Lane, Raleigh, NC 27606
8. Steven Brown, Tippett's Chapel FWB Church, 510 West Park Street/ 8517 Old Baucom Road,
Clayton, NC 27520
9. Herbert Cash, Tippett's Chapel FWB Church, 16750 Buffaloe Road, Wendell, NC 27591
10. H. Dale Crisp, City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department, PO Box 590, Raleigh, NC 27602
11. Phillip Douglas, 413 Hardwood Ridge Court, Clayton, NC 27520
12. John Fountain, Professor, NC State University, Box 8208, Raleigh, NC 27693
13. Marti Gibson, Environmental Coordinator, City of Raleigh, PO Box 590, Raleigh NC 27602
14. Steven Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, 3737 Glenwood Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27612
15. T. J. Lynch, WWTP Superintendent, City of Raleigh, PO Box 590, Raleigh NC, 27602
16. Ryke Longst, 1001 West South Street, Raleigh, NC 27603
17. Robert McLean, 1333 Pine Trial, Clayton, NC 27520
18. Dean Naujoks, Upper Neuse River Keeper, Neuse River Foundation, 112 South Blount Street,
Raleigh, NC 27601
19. Lee Ross, 2823 Shotwell Road, Raleigh, NC, 27610
20. Bill Showers, Professor, NCSU, Department MEAS, Raleigh, NC 27695
1
DRAFT 9/14/07
21. C. Stephen Smith, Landowner, Edge of Auburn -LCC, 3204 Brennan Drive, Raleigh, NC
27613
22. Les Strickland, Tippett's Chapel FWB Church, 2530 Shotwell Road, Clayton, NC 27520
23. James R, Strickland, Tippett's Chapel FWB Church, 2530 Shotwell Road, Clayton, NC 27520
24. Dr. Peter Thibodeau, ENSR, 7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103, Raleigh, NC 27616
25. Tim Woody, Rouse Superintendent, City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department, PO Box 590,
Raleigh, NC 27602
26. Tom Worth, Jr., Attorney, Property Owners in Area, PO Box 1799, Raleigh, NC 27602
Division of Water Quality Staff in Attendance:
1.
2.
3.
Andrew Pitner -
Kathy Stecker -
David Hance -
Hearing Officer
Hearing Officer
Recorder
4. Jay Zimmerman -Raleigh Regional Office -Aquifer Protection Section Supervisor
Division of Water Quality -Aquifer Protection Section 5. Rick Bolich -
Staff (Technical Staff for the Variance Request)
6. Other Division of Water Quality Staff that attended the public hearin g:
Heather Boyette
Amy Keyworth
Keith Larick
Hannah Stallings
Nikki Remington
Elizabeth Kountis
Nora Deamer
Ted Bush
Debra Watts
Written Comment Received prior to October 5 , 2007:
Kevin Bowden
Michael Cunningham
1. Edward Moody, Tippett's Chapel Free Will Baptist Church, 2530 Shotwell Road, Clayton, NC
27520, (919-553-7037) -Received on August 27, 2007.
2. Phillip N. Douglas, 413 Hardwood Ridge Court, Clayton, NC 27520 -Received on August
29, 2007.
3. Dean Naujoks, Upper Neuse River Keeper, Neuse River Foundation, 112 South Blount Street,
Raleigh, NC 27601 -Received on October 5, 2007 at the public hearing; Additional
comments received on
4.
2
DRAFT 9/13/07
Report & Checklist on Sep tember 12th Post Hearin g Meeting with the Hearing Officers:
1)
2)
Information item for the EMC Groundwater Committee at the September 12, 2007
Meeting Presented f121 Done by RRO staff)
Resp onding to written and oral comments:
a. David Hance will get a listing of commenters and a "comment summary'' of
verbal comments and written comments received thus far to the hearing officers
by close of business on Friday, September 14 th •
b. Regional Staff for the variance (Jay Zimmerman and Rich Bolich) will develop
draft technical responses to comments, make recommendation on appropriate
actions, and make recommendations regarding which comments are outside the
scope of a variance request.
c. Comments "outside the scope" are those comments not directly related to the
variance request or cannot be imposed upon the property owned by CORPUD.
d. If actions are taken by the City of Raleigh that may improve surface water quality,
groundwater quality, or management practices at the facility the hearing officers
may voice support for that with management and to the Commission if the
action(s) have merit.
e. The Hearing Officers (Kathy Stecker and Andrew Pitner) will review the
comments, suggested staff responses, provide feedback to regional staff and
incorporate final draft responses into the comment summary for management.
Both regional staff and hearing officers will confer on this as we go with what
comments we have.
3) Completing Hearing Officers Report:
a. David Hance will send any written comments received this far to the hearing
officers (Ill Done)'
b. Andrew Pitner will send skeleton-nized version of the hearing officers report to
the hearing officers, RRO staff, and David Hance (121 Dorie)
c. David Hance will send an email to prompt staff and interested management about
a possible second meeting of the hearing officers and staff, as we get closer to the
date when the comment period closes. This is to iron out any final details for
comment responses and the hearing officers report (Iii Done)
CORPUD Variance Request -Permit Number WQ000l 730
DRAFT 9/13/07
d. David Hance will send Kathy Stecker, Andrew Pitner and others copies of (
previous hearing officers reports for examination to determine if the format may
be appropriate (Ill Dorie)
e. Hearing officers will draft up a report based on what we discussed, attach any
needed materials, and sign the report. Once it is ready, it will go on to David
Hance to get this to the Division for concurrence prior to the DWQ EMC
Submittal dates for the November 2007 EMC GWC and EMC Meetings .
4) Gettin g DWO Director's involvement:
a. There is a very quick turn around time in our schedule to get the Director to sign-
off on the variance due to the EMC submittal schedule for the November 2007
meeting.
b. As of September 12 th Coleen's schedule for October 8th through October 11 th was
open.
c. The hearing officers & RRO staff think she should be briefed on the variance
leading up to the October 5th close of public comment date.
d. Management to approach Coleen very soon to see if she wants to be briefed. Alan
Clark was suggested as the contact. Ted Bush would be kept informed of what
happened with this contact.
5) In case we get si gnificant comments from the public on October 5th :
a. Kathy, Andrew and Jay will meet with the Director if the volume or types of
comments may upset the schedule to get the variance request to the EMC GWC in
November 2007.
CORPUD Variance Request-Permit Number WQ000l 730
(
(
DRAFT 9/13/07
Re port & Checklist on September 12 th Post Hearin g Meetin g with the Hearing Officers:
1) Information item for the EMC Groundwater Committee at the September 12, 2007
Meeting Presented (Ill Done by RRO staff)
2) Responding to written and oral comments:
3)
a. David Hance will get a listing of commenters and a "comment summary" of
verbal comments and written comments received thus far to the hearing officers
by close of business on Fridav, September 14th •
b. Regional Staff for the variance (Jay Zimmerman and Rich Bolich) will develop
draft technical responses to comments, make recommendation on appropriate
actions, and make recommendations regarding which comments are outside the
scope of a variance request.
c. Comments "outside the scope" are those comments not directly related to the
variance request or cannot be imposed upon the property owned by CORPUD.
d. If actions are taken by the City of Raleigh that may improve surface water quality,
groundwater quality, or management practices at the facility the hearing officers
may voice support for that with management and to the Commission if the
action(s) have merit.
e. The Hearing Officers (Kathy Stecker and Andrew Pitner) will review the
comments, suggested staff responses, provide feedback to regional staff and
incorporate final draft responses into the comment summary for management.
Both regional staff and hearing officers will confer on this as we go with what
comments we have.
Completing Hearing Officers Report:
a. David Hance will send any written comments received this far to the hearing
officers (Ill Done)
b. Andrew Pitner will send skeleton-nized version of the hearing officers report to
the hearing officers, RRO staff, and David Hance (Iii Done)
c. David Hance will send an email to prompt staff and interested management about
a possible second meeting of the hearing officers and staff, as we get closer to the
date when the comment period closes. This is to iron out any final details for
comment responses and the hearing officers report (Iii Done)
CORPUD Variance Request-Permit Number WQ0001730
DRAFT
4)
5)
9/13/07
d. David Hance will send Kathy Stecker, Andrew Pitner and others copies of
previous hearing officers reports for examination to determine if the format may
be appropriate (fiZJ Done)
e. Hearing officers will draft up a report based on what we discussed, attach any
needed materials, and sign the report. Once it is ready, it will go on to David
Hance to get this to the Division for concurrence prior to the DWQ EMC
Submittal dates for the November 2007 EMC GWC and EMC Meetings .
Gettin g DWO Director's involvement:
a . There is a very quick tum around time in our schedule to get the Director to sign-
off on the variance due to the EMC submittal schedule for the November 2007
meeting.
b. As of September 12th Coleen's schedule for October 8th through October 11 th was
open.
c. The hearing officers & RRO staff think she should be briefed on the variance
leading up to the October 5th close of public comment date.
d. Management to approach Coleen very soon to see if she wants to be briefed. Alan
Clark was suggested as the contact. Ted Bush would be kept informed of what
happened with this contact.
In case we get si gn ificant comments from the public on October 5 th :
a. Kathy, Andrew and Jay will meet with the Director if the volume or types of
comments may upset the schedule to get the variance request to the EMC GWC in
November 2007.
CORPUD Variance Request -Permit Number WQOOOI 730
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Schedule for the next Hearing Officer's Meeting.
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:17:08 -0400
To: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush
<[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>
Hello Hearin g Officers, RRO Staff and mana gement:
The hearing officers and staff for the 2L variance request for City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department
have sent me their available dates for meeting. I have looked over this information you have sent. The
meetin g will be held as follows:
Date: Monday, October 1, 2007
Time: 1 PM to 3 PM
Place: Archdale Building, 14th Floor -Conference Room# 3
I have scheduled the room for us with DENR Administrative staff up on the 14th Floor.
Note that Alan Clark has informed me that he can attend. This meeting will be to review the work we
have done so far on the variance, any new comments that come in. As noted beforehand, we will hold
this meeting contingent upon the need to do so.
If you have questions -call me.
David Hance, Env. Spec.,
DWQ-Planning
919733-5083 X. 587
9/14/2007 3:17 PM
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Packets dropped off today-comments
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:46:24 -0400
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>
Hello,
I went by the RRO today and hand delivered you copies of some comments. The materials you have are
as follows:
1. Comments from a private citizen -Phillip N. Douglas to the request received August 29th.
2. Written comments submitted by Dale Naujoks (Upper Neuse River Keeper) at the
September 5th hearing: This included his "Profile of a Polluter" and a two page document hand dated
6/30/2003. Mr. Naujoks said to me at the hearing that the 6/30/2003 document was submitted to DWQ
staff to be incorporated into comments about the permit but was left out of the record.
The hearing officers should have these.
The problem with the mail may be because our regular secretary has been out on surgical leave and we
are fending for ourselves.
david hance
919-733-5083 X, 587
9/14/2007 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -Scheduling the next hearing officers meeting-in case we need it
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:15:21 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Hi David;
Right now i am available any of the days that you listed.
rb
David Hance wrote:
*_Hearing Officers, Raleigh Regional Office Staff, and DWQ Managers:_*
The hearing officers and RRO staff will recall yesterday's Post-Hearing Meeting on
the variance for the City of Raleigh. At that meeting, we decided to look into
scheduling another meeting to address the hearing officers report, public comments
and any other matters that come forth as a result of this. The meeting would be
held if it is deemed needed.
It was also felt that we need to schedule the next hearing officers meeting as
close as possible to the date that the comment period for the variance ends
which is October 5, 2007 ..
As a recall -we had picked out the last week of September 2007 and the first week
of October 2007 as a time frame to look at meeting dates. (Note that October 3rd
is a supervisors meeting and that date should be considered out)
The hearing officers and RRO staff are requested to provide a listing of the days
and times (AM or PM) for which you can participate in a "tentative" meeting for
the Hearing Officers and staff on this Variance Request. The necessity for
actually having this meeting will be based on comments received, the need to iron
out any responses to comments, and other considerations of the hearing officers
and staff.
Here are the dates that I, David Hance, am available:
* September 24th through 28th-----I am available every day that
week-I have nothing scheduled.
* October 1st and October 2nd ---Available all day each day.
* October 4th and October 5th----Available all day each day.
*/If possible, please get back to me on or before 1 PM on Monday, October 17,
2007 .
/*
If management wishes to participate or just sit in on a meeting you are welcome to
come. Again, I would need your availability if you would want to attend.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733=5083 x. 587
1 of 1 9/14/2007 10:15 AM
1 of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -Scheduling the next hearing officers meeting-in case we need it
From: jeff manning <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:07:03 -0400
To: "david.hance" <[e-mail]>
David -
Don't wait on my availability to set up the meeting . Go ahead and set it up with all
the other's availability and then I will attend.
Thanks,
Jeff
Andrew Pitner wrote:
My availability is also inserted into the list below (AHP-}. When I'm limited in
the afternoons for a physical meeting, a conference call could go later (-4p} if
I'm at the MRO.
Andrew
Alan Clark wrote:
David, see may availability in red for the dates that Kathy is available.
Alan
Kathy Stecker wrote:
I am available
Sept. 24-26 all day afternoon all three days (AHP-24ok; 25-can't be in
Raleigh later than 2:30; 26-ok}
Sept. 27 p.m. OK (AHP-can't be in Raleigh later than 2:30}
Sept. 28 a.m. OK (AHP-ok)
Oct. 1 all day OK (AHP-ok)
Oct. 2 p.m. OK (AHP-can't be in Raleigh later than 2:30)
Oct. 4 all day OK (AHP-can't meet, open all day on 10/5)
-Kathy
David Hance wrote:
*_Hearing Officers, Raleigh Regional Office Staff, and DWQ Managers:_*
The hearing officers and RRO staff will recall yesterday's Post-Hearing
Meeting on the variance for the City of Raleigh. At that meeting, we
decided to look into scheduling another meeting to address the hearing
officers report, public comments and any other matters that come forth as
a result of this. The meeting would be held if it is deemed needed.
It was also felt that we need to schedule the next hearing officers
meeting as close as possible to the date that the comment period for the
variance ends .... which is October 5, 2007 ..
As a recall -we had picked out the last week of September 2007 and the
first week of October 2007 as a time frame to look at meeting dates.
(Note that October 3rd is a supervisors meeting and that date should be
considered out)
The hearing officers and RRO staff are requested to provide a listing of
the days and times (AM or PM) for which you can participate in a
"tentative" meeting for the Hearing Officers and staff on this Variance
Request. The necessity for actually having this meeting will be based on
comments received, the need to iron out any responses to comments, and
9/14/2007 11 :29 AM
other considerations of the hearing officers and staff.
Here are the dates that I, David Hance, am available:
* September 24th through 28th-----I am available every day
that week-I have nothing scheduled.
* October 1st and October 2nd ---Available all day each day.
* October 4th and October 5th----Available all day each day.
*/If possible, please get back to me on or before 1 PM on Monday, October
17, 2007.
/*
If management wishes to participate or just sit in on a meeting you are
welcome to come. Again, I would need your availability if you would want
to attend.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733=5083 x. 587
2 of2 9/14/2007 11:29 AM
1 of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -Scheduling the next hearing officers meeting-in case we need it
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:50:59 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
I am available:
Sept. 24th, 26th and 28th
Oct 1,2,4 and 5th
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Hearin g Officers, Raleigh Regional Office Staff, and DWO Managers:
The hearing officers and RRO staff will recall yesterday's Post-Hearing Meeting on the variance for
the City of Raleigh. At that meeting, we decided to look into scheduling another meeting to address
the hearing officers report, public comments and any other matters that come forth as a result of this.
The meeting would be held if it is deemed needed.
It was also felt that we need to schedule the next hearing officers meeting as close as possible to the
date that the comment period for the variance ends .... which is October 5, 2007 ..
As a recall -we had picked out the last week of September 2007 and the first week of October 2007
as a time frame to look at meeting dates . (Note that October 3rd is a supervisors meeting and that
date should be considered out)
The hearing officers and RRO staff are requested to provide a listing of the days and times (AM or
PM) for which you can participate in a "tentative" meeting for the Hearing Officers and staff on this
Variance Request. The necessity for actually having this meeting will be based on comments
received, the need to iron out any responses to comments, and other considerations of the hearing
officers and staff.
Here are the dates that I, David Hance, am available:
• September 24th through 28th-----I am available every day that week-I have nothing
scheduled.
• October 1st and October 2nd ---Available all day each day.
• October 4th and October 5th ----Available all day each day.
If possible, please get back to me on or before 1 PM 011 Monday, October 17, 2007.
If management wishes to participate or just sit in on a meeting you are welcome to come. Again, I
would need your availability if you would want to attend.
9/13 /2007 5:07 PM
2 of2
* October 1st and October 2nd ---Available all day each day.
* October 4th and October 5th----Available all day each day.
*/If po.ssible, please get back to me on or before 1 PM on Monday, October
17, 2007.
/*
If management wishes to participate or just sit in on a meeting you are
welcome to come. Again, I would need your availability if you would want to
attend.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733=5083 x. 587
Andrew Pitner, P.G . -Andrew.Pitner@ncmail .net
Division of Water Quality -Aquifer Protection Section
Mooresville Regional Office (MRO)
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
MRO Main Phone: [phone]
Direct Phone: [phone]
MRO Fax: [phone]
9/14/2007 1:54 PM
1 of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -Scheduling the next hearing officers meeting-in case we need it
From: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:02:52 -0400
To: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>, Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>, Jeff
Manning <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]:>-, Debra Watts
<de bra. [e-mail]>
My availability is also inserted into the list below (ARP-}. When I'm limited in the
afternoons for a physical meeting, a conference call could go later (-4p) if I'm at
the MRO.
Andrew
Alan Clark wrote:
David, see may availability in red for the dates that Kathy is available.
Alan
Kathy Stecker wrote:
I am available
Sept. 24-26 all day afternoon all three days (ARP-24ok; 25-can't be in Raleigh
later than 2:30; 26-ok}
Sept. 27 p.m. OK (AHP-can't be in Raleigh later than 2:30)
Sept. 28 a.m. OK (AHP-ok}
Oct. 1 all day OK (AHP-ok)
Oct. 2 p.m. OK (AHP-can't-be in Raleigh later than 2:30)
Oct. 4 all day OK (ARP-can't meet, open all day on 10/5)
-Kathy
David Hance wrote:
*_Hearing Officers, Raleigh Regional Office Staff, and DWQ Managers:_*
The hearing officers and RRO staff will recall yesterday's Post-Hearing
Meeting on the variance for the City of Raleigh. At that meeting, we decided
to look into scheduling another meeting to address the hearing officers
report, public comments and any other matters that come forth as a result of
this. The meeting would be held if it is deemed needed.
It was also felt that we need to schedule the next hearing officers meeting
as close as possible to the date that the comment period for the variance
ends .... which is October 5, 2007.
As a recall -we had picked out the last week of September 2007 and the
first week of October 2007 as a time frame to look at meeting dates. (Note
that October 3rd is a supervisors meeting and that date should be considered
out)
The hearing officers and RRO staff are requested to provide a listing of the
days and times (AM or PM) for which you can participate in a "tentative"
meeting for the Hearing Officers and staff on this Variance Request. The
necessity for actually having this meeting will be based on comments
received, the need to iron out any responses to comments, and other
considerations cif the hearing officers and staff.
Here are the dates that I, David Hance, am available:
* September 24th through 28th-----I am available every day
that week-I have nothing scheduled.
9/14/2007 1:54 PM
1 of 1
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request and proper address to send written comments
From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:10:19 -0400 (EDT)
To: "David Hance" <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
Thanks for your email.
I am in South Africa this week and will return to NC next week.
I will send you a summary next week if that is ok?
Thanks for considering my input .
Best regards,
Bill Showers
Dr . Showers,
You will recall that you attended the public hearing for the variance
for the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department last week on October
5th . You said to me after the meeting you would be forwarding written
comments to me before the close of the comment period.
I found later that 2 of the 100 or so business cards that I had at the
public hearing were outdated.
So as to make sure your comments come to me on time ... Please send
them to the following address:
*David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617*
If you need to contact me -call 733-5083 x. 587.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
9/14/2007 10:15 AM
1 of 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: to answer Your Question
From: jeff manning <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:42:49 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Thanks, David.
David Hance wrote:
The division of labor was worked out at the hearing officers meeting we had on the
12th of September.
I am going to get comment summary of what we have right now to them and a listing
of people who have expressed comments. Jay and Rick will look at the summary of
oral comments and written comments we have on hand and make recommendations to the
hearing officers. The hearing officers are working out the format of the hearing
officers report. Andrew Pitner has already submitted a rough draft of a hearing
officers report with some gaps that we need to fill. We anticipate getting more
comment in the.next couple of weeks.
They can use me as they need me to get this work ready.
david hance x/ 587
***********************************************************************************
jeff manning wrote:
David -
Are you compiling the HO report for the Hearing Officers?
Jeff
David Hance wrote:
* H ello Hearing Officers, RRO Staff and management:_
* The hearing officers and staff for the 2L variance request for City of
Raleigh Public Utilities Department have sent me their available dates for
meeting. I have looked over this information you have sent. * The meeting
will be held as follows: *
*Date: Monday, October 1, 2007
Time: 1 PM to 3 PM*
*Place: Archdale Building, 14th Floor -Conference Room# 3*
I have scheduled the room for us with DENR Administrative staff up on the
14th Floor.
Note that Alan Clark has informed me that he can attend. This meeting will
be to review the work we have done so far on the variance, any new comments
that come in. As noted beforehand, we will hold this meeting contingent
upon the need to do so.
If you have questions -call me.
David Hance, Env. Spec.,
DWQ-Planning
919733-5083 x. 587
9/14/2007 3:42 PM
1 of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -Scheduling the next l].earing officers meeting-in case we need it
From: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:02:52 -0400
To: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>, Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>, Jeff
Manning <jef£[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts
<[e-mail]>
My availability is also inserted into the list below (AHP-}. When I'm limited in the
afternoons for a physical meeting, a conference call could go later (-4p} if I'm at
the MRO.
Andrew
Alan Clark wrote:
David, see may availability in red for the dates that Kathy is available.
Alan
Kathy Stecker wrote:
I am available
Sept. 24-26 all day afternoon all three days (AHP-24ok; 2s~can't be in Raleigh
later than 2:30; 26-ok}
Sept. 27 p.m. OK (AHP-can't be in Raleigh later than 2:30}
Sept. 28 a.m. OK (AHP-ok)
Oct. 1 all day OK (AHP-ok}
Oct. 2 p.m. OK (AHP-can't be in Raleigh later than 2:30}
Oct. 4 all day OK (AHP-can't meet, open all day on 10/5)
-Kathy
David Hance wrote:
*_Hearing Officers, Raleigh Regional Office Staff, and DWQ Managers:_*
The hearing officers and RRO staff will recall yesterday's Post-Hearing
Meeting on the variance for the City of Raleigh. At that meeting, we decided
to look into scheduling another meeting to address the hearing officers
report, public comments and any other matters that come forth as a result of
this. The meeting would be held if it is deemed needed.
It was also felt that we need to schedule the next hearing officers meeting
as close as possible to the date that the comment period for the variance
ends .... which is October 5, 2007.
As a recall -we had picked out the last week of September 2007 and the
first week of October 2007 as a time frame to look at meeting dates. (Note
that October 3rd is a supervisors meeting and that date should be considered
out}
The hearing officers and RRO staff are requested to provide a listing of the
days and times (AM or PM} for which you can participate in a "tentative"
meeting for the Hearing Officers and staff on this Variance Request. The
necessity for actually having this meeting will be based on comments
received, the need to iron out any responses to comments, and other
considerations of the hearing officers and staff.
Here are the dates that I, David Hance, am available:
* September 24th through 28th-----I am available every day
that week-I have nothing scheduled.
9/14/2007 10:14 AM
2 of2
* October 1st and October 2nd ---Available all day each day.
* October 4th and October 5th----Available all day each day .
*/If possible, please get back to me on or before 1 PM on Monday, October
17, 2007.
/*
If management wishes to participate or just sit in on a meeting you are
welcome to come . Again, I would need your availability if you would want to
attend.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733=5083 x . 587
Andrew Pitner, P.G. -Andrew.Pitner@ncmail .n e t
Division of Water Qual ity -Aquifer Protection Section
Mooresville Regional Off i ce (MRO)
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
MRO Main Phone: [phone]
Direct Phone : [phone]
MRO Fax: [phone]
9/14/2007 10 :14 AM
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -Scheduling the next hearing officers meeting-in case we need it
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:15:21 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Hi David;
Right now i am available any of the days that you listed.
rb
David Hance wrote:
*_Hearing Officers, Raleigh Regional Office Staff, and DWQ Managers:~*
The hearing officers and RRO staff will recall yesterday's Post-Hearing Meeting on
the variance for the City of Raleigh. At that meeting, we decided to look into
scheduling another meeting to address the hearing officers report, public comments
and any other matters that come forth as a result of this. The meeting would be
held if it is deemed needed.
It was also felt that we need to schedule the next hearing officers meeting as
close as possible to the date that the comment period for the variance ends
which is October 5, 2007 ..
As a recall -we had picked out the last week of September 2007 and the first week
of October 2007 as a time frame to look at meeting dates. (Note that October 3rd
is a supervisors meeting and that date should be considered out)
The hearing officers and RRO staff are requested to provide a listing of the days
and times (AM or PM) for which you can participate in a "tentative" meeting for
the Hearing Officers and staff on this Variance Request. The necessity for
actually having this meeting will be based on comments received, the need to iron
out any responses to comments, and other considerations of the hearing officers
and staff.
Here are the dates that I, David Hance, am available:
* September 24th through 28th-----I am available every day that
week-I have nothing scheduled.
* October 1st and October 2nd ---Available all day each day .
* October 4th and October 5th----Available all day each day .
*/If possible, please get back to me on or before 1 PM on Monday, October 17,
2007.
/*
If management wishes to participate or just sit in on a meeting you are welcome to
come. Again, I would need your availability if you would want to attend .
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733=5083 x. 587
1 of 1 9/14/2007 10:14 AM
1 of2
Subject: Re: CORPUDVariance -Scheduling the next hearing officers meeting-in case we need it
From: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:21:02 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Andrew
Pitner <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts
<[e-mail]>
David, see may availability in red for the dates that Kathy is available.
Alan
Kathy Stecker wrote:
I am available
Sept. 24-26 all day afternoon all three days
Sept. 27 p.m. OK
Sept. 28 a.m. OK
Oct. 1 all day OK
Oct. 2 p.m. OK
Oct. 4 all day OK
-Kathy
David Hance wrote:
Hearin g Officers , Raleigh Re gional Office Staff, and DWQ Mana gers:
The hearing officers and RRO staff will recall yesterday's Post-Hearing Meeting on the variance
for the City of Raleigh. At that meeting, we decided to look into scheduling another meeting to
address the hearing officers report, public comments and any other matters that come forth as a
result ofthis. The meeting would be held if it is deemed needed.
It was also felt that we need to schedule the next hearing officers meeting as close as possible to
the date that the comment period for the variance ends .... which is October 5, 2007 ..
As a recall -we had picked out the last week of September 2007 and the first week of October
2007 as a time frame to look at meeting dates. (Note that October 3rd is a supervisors meeting
and that date should be considered out)
The hearing officers and RRO staff are requested to provide a listing of the days and times (AM
or PM) for which you can participate in a "tentative" meeting for the Hearing Officers and staff
on this Variance Request. The necessity for actually having this meeting will be based on
comments received, the need to iron out any responses to GOmments, and other considerations
of the hearing officers and staff.
9/13/2007 5:24 PM
2 of2
Here are the dates that I , David Hance, am available:
• September 24th through 28th-----I am available every day that week-I have nothing
scheduled.
• October 1st and October 2nd ---Available all day each day.
• October 4th and October 5th----Available all day each day.
lfpossible,please get back to me on or before 1 PM on Monday, October 17, 2007.
If management wishes to participate or just sit in on a meeting you are welcome to come. Again,
I would need your availability if you would want to attend.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733=5083 X. 587
9/13/2007 5:24 PM
.&."'-'-'• _,..._, ... '-A ......,....., .,. __... ... _ ....... __ _ _ _._... __ _.... ........ t:,, --....... _ ....... ...._ __ ....... o -.-. .... --............. --........ 0···
1 of2
,.,
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -Scheduling the next hearing officers meeting-in case we need it
From: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:21:02 -'0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Andrew
Pitner <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts
<[e-mail]>
David, see may availability in red for the dates that Kathy is available.
Alan
Kathy Stecker wrote:
I am available
Sept. 24-26 all day afternoon all three days
Sept. 27 p.m. OK
Sept. 28 a.m. OK
Oct. 1 all day OK
Oct. 2 p.m. OK
Oct. 4 all day OK
-Kathy
David Hance wrote:
Hearin g Officers, Raleigh Regional Office Staff, and DWQ Mana gers:
The hearing officers and RRO staff will recall yesterday's Post-Hearing Meeting on the variance
for the City of Raleigh. At that meeting, we decided to look into scheduling another meeting to
address the hearing officers report, public comments and any other matters that come forth as a
result of this. The meeting would be held if it is deemed needed'.
It was also felt that we need to schedule the next hearing officers meeting as close as possible to
the date that the comment period for the variance ends .... which is October 5, 2007 ..
As a recall -we had picked out the last week of September 2007 and the first week of October
2007 as a time frame to look at meeting dates. (Note that October 3rd is a supervisors meeting
and that date should be considered out)
The hearing officers and RRO staff are requested to provide a listing of the days and times (AM
or PM) for which you can participate in a "tentative" meeting for the Hearing Officers and staff
on this Variance Request. The necessity for actually having this meeting will be based on
comments received, the need to iron out any responses to comments, and other considerations
of the hearing officers and staff.
9/14/2007 1:55 PM
2 of2
Here are the dates that I , David Hance, am available:
• September 24th through 28th -----I am available every day that week-I have nothing
scheduled.
• October 1st and October 2nd ---Available all day each day.
• October 4th and October 5th----Available all day each day.
If possible, please get back to me on or before 1 PM on Monday, October 17, 2007.
If management wishes to participate or just sit in on a meeting you are welcome to come. Again,
I would need your availability if you would want to attend.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733=5083 X. 587
9/14/2007 1:55 PM
1 of 1
·*Subject: CORPUD Variance -Scheduling the next hearing officers meeting-in case we need it
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:31:46 -0400
To: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>, J [e-mail], kathy stecker
<[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."
<[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>
Hearin g Officers, Raleigh Regional Office Staff, and DWQ Managers:
The hearing officers and RRO staff will recall yesterday's Post-Hearing Meeting on the variance for the
City of Raleigh. At that meeting, we decided to look into scheduling another meeting to address the
hearing officers report, public comments and any other matters that come forth as a result of this. The
meeting would be held if it is deemed needed.
It was also felt that we need to schedule the next hearing officers meeting as close as possible to the date
that the comment period for the variance ends .... which is October 5, 2007 ..
As a recall -we had picked out the last week of September 2007 and the first week of October 2007 as a
time frame to look at meeting dates. (Note that October 3rd is a supervisors meeting and that date should
be considered out)
The hearing officers and RRO staff are requested to provide a listing of the days and times (AM or PM)
for which you can participate in a "tentative" meeting for the Hearing Officers and staff on this Variance
Request. The necessity for actually having this meeting will be based on comments received, the need to
iron out any responses to comments, and other considerations of the hearing officers and staff
Here are the dates that I , David Hance, am available:
• September 24th through 28th-----I am available every day that week-I have nothing scheduled.
• October 1st and October 2nd---Available all day each day.
• October 4th and October 5th ----Available all day each day.
If possible, please get hack to me 011 or before 1 PM on Monday, October 17, 2007.
If management wishes to participate or just sit in on a meeting you are welcome to come. Again, I would
need your availability if you would want to attend.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733=5083 X. 587
9/13 /2007 3 :32 PM
Ke: L;UK.t'UU vanance -.:scneounng me nexi neanng mncers meenng ...
2 of2
If possible, please get back to me on or before 1 PM on Monday, October 17, 2007.
If management wishes to participate or just sit in on a meeting you are welcome to come. Again, I
would need your availability if you would want to attend.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
919-733=5083 X. 587
Kathy Stecker <Kath y.Stecker@n cmail.net> '
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
9/13/2007 5:08 PM
-----· ------· -------------o --------------o ---------------o···
1 of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance -Scheduling the next hearing officers meeting-in case we need it
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:38:13 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>, J [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>,
"Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>
I am available
Sept. 24-26 all day
Sept. 27 p.m.
Sept. 28 a.m.
Oct. 1 all day
Oct. 2 p.m.
Oct. 4 all day
-Kathy
David Hance wrote:
Hearin g Officers , Raleigh Re gional Office Staff, and DWO Managers:
The hearing officers and RRO staff will recall yesterday's Post-Hearing Meeting on the variance for
the City of Raleigh. At that meeting, we decided to look into scheduling another meeting to address
the hearing officers report, public comments and any other matters that come forth as a result of this.
The meeting would be held if it is deemed needed.
It was also felt that we need to schedule the next hearing officers meeting as close as possible to the
date that the comment period for the variance ends .... which is October 5, 2007 ..
As a recall -we had picked out the last week of September 2007 and the first week of October 2007
as a time frame to look at meeting dates. (Note that October 3rd is a supervisors meeting and that
date should be considered out)
The hearing officers and RRO staff are requested to provide a listing of the days and times (AM or
PM) for which you can participate in a "tentative" meeting for the Hearing Officers and staff on this
Variance Request. The necessity for actually having this meeting will be based on comments
received, the need to iron out any responses to comments, and other considerations of the hearing
officers and staff.
Here are the dates that I, David Hance, am available:
• September 24th through 28th-----I am available every day that week-I have nothing
scheduled.
• October 1st and October 2nd ---Available all day each day.
• October 4th and October 5th ----Available all day each day.
9/13/2007 5:08 PM
I of I
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Hearing Officers Meeting is set up for Wed. Sept. 12th at the
Archdale Building (14th Floor)
From: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:41:58 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
David,
I'll be in my office at 704-235-2180 .
Andrew
David Hance wrote:
Hi Everyone involved in the CORPUD variance,
As you will know from lasts weeks email, your availability for a post hearing
meeting with the hearing officers was requested.
The hearing officers and technical staff that have worked on this variance request
have provided information to me and we can set a date for this meeting.
*_The meeting will be held as follows: *
*Date: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Time: 9:30 AM to 12 Noon
Place: Archdale Building, 14th Floor -Conference Room# 3*
Andrew Pitner will be participating via conference call from the Mooresville
Regional Office. The staff located in Raleigh will be attending the meeting. I
will be in that room early that morning to get us all set up for the conference
call with Andrew.
* Note to Andrew: Could you provide me with the "call in" number that you will be
at?
*We will be getting our "game plan" together as to how to proceed on public
comments that we have so far -bot~ written and those from the hearing and our
schedule.
If you have additional questions -Please feel free to contact me at 919-733-5083
x. 587.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
Andrew Pitner, P.G. [e-mail]
Division of Water Quality -Aquifer Protection Section
Mooresville Regional Office (MRO)
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
MRO Main Phone: [phone]
Direct Phone: [phone]
MRO Fax: [phone] .
9/11/2007 10:20 AM
1 ofl
Subject: Re: EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting: CORPUDVariance -Information sheet for staff
presentation
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:28:39 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
That's helpful, David. Thanks for putting that together.
rb
David Hance wrote:
Jay and Rick,
Attached in word is something to assist in the EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting .
A little information sheet about the public hearing for the staff presenting the
Informational Item# 4 about the CORPUD Hearing that was held on September 5th. It
is useful as reference in developing your talk and in answering any questions you
might get from the EMC GWC. I took this from the materials I have here. You will
recall from the Deputy Director's Pre-Meeting that we want to keep it simple this
time and not get too detailed since the EMC GWC and full Commission is scheduled
to take action on this in November 2007.
If you know of anything different than what is shown -get a hold of me .
Hope this helps,
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
9/11/2007 3:35 PM
.a..'-"'• '--".._,..a.,..... '-'.., • WJ..Ll,l..&.L...,..,, ......... --..-. ........ 0 ---------·-----o ----· --r --
1 of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Hearing Officers Meeting is set up for Wed. Sept. 12th at the
Archdale Building (14th Floor)
From: "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:23:58 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan
Clark <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts
<[e-mail]>
David,
I do not plan to attend this meeting. lfl need to become involved or follow-up in some way, I will do so
at a later time.
Ted
David Hance wrote:
Hi Everyone involved in the CORPUD variance,
As you will know from lasts weeks email, your availability for a post hearing meeting with the
hearing officers was requested.
The hearing officers and technical staff that have worked on this variance request have provided
inforniation to me and we can set a date for this meeting.
The meetin g will be held as follows:
Date: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Time: 9:30 AM to 12 Noon
Place: Archdale Building, 14th Floor -Conference Room# 3
Andrew Pitner will be participating via conference call from the Mooresville Regional Office. The
staff located in Raleigh will be attending the meeting. I will be in that room early that morning to get
us all set up for the conference call with Andrew.
Note to Andrew: Could vou provide me with the "call in" number that ou will be at?
We will be getting our "game plan" together as to how to proceed on public comments that we have
so far -both written and those from the hearing and our schedule.
If you have additional questions -Please feel free to contact me at 919-733-5083 x. 587.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
9/11/2007 2 :03 PM
~MC Grouadwater Committee Meeting: CORPUD Variance / Your q ...
Subject: EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting: CORPUD Variance / Your question and Powerpoint
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11 :41 :20 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Jay,
Here are m y thoughts below:
1. Your Questions: Here is my opinion. A powerpoint would communicate better than copies in that if the
committee members have paper in front of them, they may pay more attention to that than what you are saying.
They will not be taking action on this variance on September 12th. This presentation is to prepare them for the
issue later. I believe that the key points in the presentation should be:
a. What the variance is about and why it is needed,
b. The summary of how the hearing went, and;
c. What we are doing to address comments and make ready to bring this to the November EMC
Groundwater Committee and Commission meetings.
(Or more simply put: Where we have been, where we are now at, and where we are going).
We are having a meeting with the hearing officers on Wed. September 12th at 9:30 AM. It may be good to
share your comments there to get their feedback to help fine tune what you say.
2. Powerpoint: It sounds like you will need a projector. Question: Do you have one at the RRO you ca11 use?
If not, I can get one from our stash at DWQ Planning. Please let me know as early as possible today•· if you will
need one from us so I can check it out!
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
******************************************************************************************~
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
I assume we can make a brief Power Point presentation, correct? Or should we plan on handing out copies
of the slides and just going through them? Or both?
J
David Hance wrote:
Jay and Rick,
Attached in word is something to assist in the EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting. A little
information sheet about the public hearing for the staff presenting the Informational Item # 4 about the
CORPUD Hearing that was held on September 5th. It is useful as reference in developing your talk and
in answering any questions you might get from the EMC GWC. I took this from the materials I have
here . You will recall from the Deputy Director's Pre-Meeting that we want to keep it simple this time
and not get too detailed since the EMC GWC and full Commission is scheduled to take action on this in
EMC Gr~dwater Committee Meeting: CORPUD Variance / Your q ...
November 2007.
If you know of anything different than what is shown -get a hold of me.
Hope this helps,
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
DRAFT 9/13/07
Report & Checklist on September 12th Post Hearing Meetin g with the Hearin g Officers:
1) Information item for the EMC Groundwater Committee at the Se ptember 12 . 2007
Meeting Presented (Ill Done by RRO staff)
2) Res ponding to written and oral comments:
3)
a. David Hance will get a listing of commenters and a "comment summary'' of
verbal comments and written comments received thus far to the hearing officers
by close of business on Friday, September 14th •
b. Regional Staff for the variance (Jay Zimmerman and Rich Bolich) will develop
draft technical responses to comments, make recommendation on appropriate
actions, and make recommendations regarding which comments are outside the
scope of a variance request.
c. Comments "outside the scope" are those comments not directly related to the
variance request or cannot be imposed upon the property owned by CORPUD.
d. If actions are taken by the City of Raleigh that may improve surface water quality,
groundwater quality, or management practices at the facility the hearing officers
may voice support for that with management and to the Commission if the
action( s) have merit.
e. The Hearing Officers (Kathy Stecker and Andrew Pitner) will review the
comments, suggested staff responses, provide feedback to regional staff and
incorporate final draft responses into the comment summary for management.
Both regional staff and hearing officers will confer on this as we go with what
comments we have.
Completing Hearing Officers R ep ort:
a. David Hance will send any written comments received this far to the hearing
officers (Ill Done)
b. Andrew Pitner will send skeleton-nized version of the hearing officers report to
the hearing officers, RRO staff, and David Hance {Ill Done)
c. David Hance will send an email to prompt staff and interested management about
a possible second meeting of the hearing officers and staff, as we get closer to the
date when the comment period closes. This is to iron out any final details for
comment responses and the hearing officers report (Ill Done)
CORPUD Variance Request-Permit Number WQOOOl 730
DRAFT 9/13/07
d. David Hance will send Kathy Stecker, Andrew Pitner and others copies of
previous hearing officers reports for examination to determine if the format may
be appropriate (Ill Done)
e. Hearing officers will draft up a report based on what we discussed, attach any
needed materials, and sign the report. Once it is ready, it will go on to David
Hance to get this to the Division for concurrence prior to the DWQ EMC
Submittal dates for the November 2007 EMC GWC and EMC Meetings.
4) Gettin g DWO Director's involvement:
5)
a. There is a very quick tum around time in our schedule to get the Director to sign-
off on the variance due to the EMC submittal schedule for the November 2007
meeting.
b. As of September 12th Coleen's schedule for October 8th through October 11 th was
open.
c. The hearing officers & RRO staff think she should be briefed on the variance
leading up to the October 5th close of public comment date.
d. Management to approach Coleen very soon to see if she wants to be briefed. Alan
Clark was suggested as the contact. Ted Bush would be kept informed of what
happened with this contact.
In case we get si gnificant comments from the public on October 5th :
a. Kathy, Andrew and Jay will meet with the Director if the volume or types of
comments may upset the schedule to get the variance request to the EMC GWC in
November 2007.
CORPUD Variance Request-Permit Number WQ000l 730
\
'.,lV.lL-\J!UWlUWi:I.LCil VUUil!llLL.c;c; .LV.lVCiLlll!,• VV.L'-.C UL' Y aJ..lQ.il\.,i;; I .L UW I.fa.•
~ject: EMC Groundwarer Committee Meeting: CORPUD Variance/ Your question and Powerpoint
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11 :41 :20 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Jay,
Here are m y thoug hts below:
1. Your Questions: Here is my opinion. A powerpoint would communicate better than copies in that if the
committee members have paper in front of them, they may pay more attention to that than what you are saying.
They will not be taking action on this variance on September 12th. This presentation is to prepare them for the
issue later. I believe that the key points in the presentation should be:
a. What the variance is about and why it is needed,
b. The summary of how the hearing went, and;
c. What we are doing to address comments and make ready to bring this to the November EMC
Groundwater Committee and Commission meetings.
(Or more simply put: Where we have been, where we are now at, and where we are going).
We are having a meeting with the hearing officers on Wed. September 12th at 9:30 AM. It may be good to
share your comments there to get their feedback to help fine tune what you say.
2. Powerpoint: It sounds like you will need a projector. Question: Do you have one at the RRO you ca11 use?
If not, I can get one from our stash at DWQ Planning. Please let me know as early as possible today•· if you will
need one from us so I can check it out!
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
******************************************************************************************~
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
I assume we can make a brief Power Point presentation, correct? Or should we plan on handing out copies
of the slides and just going through them? Or both?
-J
David Hance wrote:
Jay and Rick,
Attached in word is something to assist in the EMC Groundwater Committee Meeting. A little
information sheet about the public hearing for the staff presenting the Informational Item # 4 about the
CORPUD Hearing that was held on September 5th. It is useful as reference in developing your talk and
in answering any questions you might get from the EMC GWC. I took this from the materials I have
here. You will recall from the Deputy Director's Pre-Meeting that we want to keep it simple this time
and not get too detaile~ since the EMC GWC and full Commission is scheduled to take action on this in
9/11/2007 11:41 AM
.J.'-.\,.,. ~'-J.l."-..1. U.J.J V UJ..LU,.LLV,._,. ~'-'1,11,.1...1..l,5 U. '-Su..L.LI.V .I. .Ll,I..LI. IA-'E:,VIJ....l.""'.L "'-' Ll,~'U,..1.VOO 11..&.U,.,, ••
1 of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Getting a "Game Plan" together to address the staff work load to
complete DWQ Work on the 2L Variance Request
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:25:31 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, Rick
Bolich <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark
<[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>
David,
I am available any day with the exception of the 12th at this point. If everyone can make it, it may be a
good idea to meet prior to the GW Committee meeting, then attend it to see if we can get a preliminary
read concerning the committee's response.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Hello Hearing Officers, Technical Staff, Management, and other interested staff:
There have been discussions up here in the Archdale Building as to how to proceed with the work
load for the City of Raleigh Variance Request in light of what we have received so far from the
Public Notice & Public Hearing. The Director believes that based on what we have received thus
far, we can move this variance to the Environmental Management Commission at the November
2007 meeting.
It is believed by management at the Planning Section that the best way to proceed is to schedule
either a meeting or a conference call as soon as possible on this variance to discuss responsibilities,
"division oflabor", submittal dates for deliverable items, and the process to accomplish our staff
work on this in light of the tight time frames we are working under.
Therefore, you are requested to provide the date and times that you can be either at a meeting
here in Raleigh or a conference call between Tuesday, September 11th and Tuesday,
September 18th.
Please send that information to me via email. If you have questions contact me. Note that I, David
Hance, am available as follows:
• September 11th, 14th, 17th, and 18th: All day
• September 12th: From 9 AM to 1 :30 PM and from 4 PM to 5 PM or later.
• September 13th: Anytime after 10 AM.
Note also that the EMC Groundwater Committee will be meeting on Wednesday, Sept~mber 12,
2007 between 2 PM and 4 PM. If the hearing officers and technical staff can be here at the Archdale
'1 Building either earlier in the day or after 4 PM, we may be able to hold that meeting/conference call
9/10/2007 9:50 AM
Ke: CUKPUV vanance: uettmg a "uame t'lan" togetner to aaoress me ...
2 of2
that day since staff will be present at the Groundwater Committee meeting .
In addition, note the attachment dated today that I have sent you here. This attached document is a
'Proposed Schedule' of activities that I have worked up. This schedule is for discussion purposes
only at this point and would be a something for us to examine prior to meeting.
It is critical that Jay Zimmerman, Rick Bolich, Kathy Stecker, Andrew Pitner and Myself attend this
meeting. Certainly having other staff including managements' perspectives would be helpful as well
If possible, please let me know your availability for a meeting/conference call As Soo,i As
Possible.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 X. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Jay.Zimmerman@n cmail.net>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/ Aquifer Protection Section
9/10/2007 9 :50 AM
1 of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Getting a "Gatne Plan" together to address the staff work load to
complete DWQ Work on the 2L Variance Request
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:07:58 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]> .
CC: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, David Hance <[e-mail]>, Rick
Bolich <rick.bolich@nc~ail.net>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark
<[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<j [e-mail]>
I can be available on the 12th (all day, before and/or after the Committee meeting
time). If you need other dates, please let me know. Thanks .
-Kathy
Andrew Pitner wrote:
Hi Folks,
I'd prefer to participate via conference call and I'm available at the following
times:
9/11 -open before 10:30a and after lp
9/12 -open until -3:15p
9/13 -open until -4:00p
9/14 -open all day
9/17 & 18 -not available either day
Andrew
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
I am available any day with the exception of the 12th at this point. If
everyone can make it, it may be a good idea to meet prior to the GW Committee
meeting, then attend it to see if we can get a preliminary read concerning the
committee's response.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
_Hello Hearing Officers, Technical Staff, Management, and other interested
staff:
There have been discussions up here in the Archdale Building as to how to
proceed with the work load for the City of Raleigh Variance Request in light
of what we have received so far from the Public Notice & Public Hearing.
The Director believes that based on what we have received thus far, we can
move this var iance to the Environmental Management Commission at the
November 2007 meeting .
It is believed by management at the Planning Section that the best way to
proceed isto schedule either a meeting or a conference call as soon as
possible on this variance to discuss responsibilities, "division of labor",
submittal dates for deliverable items, and the process to .accomplish our
staff work on this in light of the tight time frames we are working under .
*_Therefore, you are requested to provide the date and times that you can be
either at a meeting here in Raleigh or a conference call between Tuesday,
September 11th and Tuesday, September 18th. *
Please send that information to me via email. If you have questions contact
me. Note that I, David Hance, am available as follows:
* September 11th, 14th, 17th, and 18th: All day
..?
9/10/2007 3 .. 0-t;
* September 12th: From 9 AM to 1:30 PM and from 4 PM to 5 PM or
later.
* September 13th: Anytime after 10 AM.
Note also that the EMC Groundwater Committee will be meeting on Wednesday,
September 12, 2007 between 2 PM and 4 PM. If the hearing officers and
technical staff can be here at the Archdale-Building either earlier in the
day or after 4 PM, we may be able to hold that meeting/conference call that
day since staff will be present at the Groundwater Committee meeting.
In addition, note the attachment dated today that I have sent you here.
This attached document is a 'Proposed Schedule' of activities that I have
worked up. This schedule is for discussion purposes only at this point and
would be a something for us to examine prior to meeting.
It is critical that Jay Zimmerman, Rick Bolich, Kathy Stecker, Andrew
Pitner and Myself attend this meeting. Certainly having other staff
including managements' perspectives would be helpful as well
*/If possible, please let me know your availability for a meeting/conference
call As Soon As Possible.
I*
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 x. 587
Kathy Stecker <Kathy [e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
9/10/2007 3:30 PM
Ke: CV.Kt'UU vanance: vemng a ·vame .nan-· wgemer w auaress me ...
1 of2
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Getting a "Grune Plan" together to address the staff work load to
complete DWQ Work on the 2L Variance Request
From: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:06:00 -0400
To: JayZimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Rick
Bolich <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr.11 <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark
<[e-mail]>, Debra Watts <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>
Hi Folks,
I'd prefer to participate via conference call and I'm available at the following
times:
9/11 -open before 10:30a and after lp
9/12 -open until -3:lSp
9/13 -open until -4:00p
9/14 -open all day
9/17 & 18 -not available either day
Andrew
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
I am available any day with the exception of the 12th at this point. If everyone
can make it, it may be a good idea to meet prior to the GW Committee meeting, then
attend it to see if we can get a preliminary read concerning the committee's
response.
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Hello Hearing Officers, Technical Staff, Management, and other interested
staff;
There have been discussions up here in the Archdale Building as to how to
proceed with the work load for the City .of Raleigh Variance Request in light of
what we have received so far from the Public Notice & Public Hearing._ The
Director believes that based on what we have received thus far, we can move
this variance to the Environmental Management Commission at the November 2007
meeting.
It is believed by management at the Planning Section that the best way to
proceed is to schedule either a meeting or a conference call as soon as
possible on this variance to discuss responsibilities, "division of labor",
submittal dates. for deliverable items, and the process to accomplish our staff
work on this in light of the tight time frames we are working under.
* Therefore, you are requested to provide the date and times that you can be
either at a meeting here in Raleigh or a conference call between Tuesday,
September 11th and Tuesday, September 18th. *
Please send that information to me via email. If you have questions contact
me. Note that I, David Hance, am available as follows:
* September 11th, 14th, 17th, and 18th: All day
* September 12th: From 9 AM to 1:30 PM and from 4 PM to 5 PM or
later.
* September 13th: Anytime after 10 AM.
Note also that the EMC Groundwater Committee will be meeting on Wednesday,
September 12, 2007 between 2 PM and 4 PM. If the hearing officers and
9/10/2007 9:51 AM
Ke: CU.Kl'UlJ vanance: Uettmg a "Uame .t'lan" together to address the ...
2 of2
technical staff can be here at the Archdale Building either earlier in the day
or after 4 PM, we may be able to hold that meeting/conference call that day
since staff will be present at the Groundwater Committee meeting.
In addition, note the attachment dated today that I have sent you here. This
attached document is a 'Proposed Schedule' of activities that I have worked up .
This schedule is for discussion purposes only at this point and would be a
something for us to examine prior to meeting.
It is critical that Jay Zimmerman, Rick Bolich, Kathy Stecker, Andrew Pitner
and Myself attend this meeting. Certainly having other staff including
managements' perspectives would be helpful as well
*/If possible, please let me know your availability for a meeting/conference
call As Soon As Possible.
/*
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Sectton
919-733-5083 x. 587
Andrew Pitner, P. G. -Andrew. J::>it:_:[e-mail]
Division of Water Quality -Aquifer Protection Section
Mooresville Regional Office (MRO)
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
MRO Main Phone: [phone]
Direct Phone: [phone]
MRO Fax: [phone]
9/10/2007 9:51 AM
J. \.lf,U.J. Ul.U.,O
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 x. 587
2 of 2 9/10/2007 9:52 AM
I
DRAFT -September 7, 2007
Proposed Schedule for Work Load on the City of Raleigh
CORPUD Variance Request
DATE ACTIVITY
DONE Staff sends memorandum to the Division of Public Health
DONE DWQ APS Regional Office Discussions with DPH staff on the
variance. DONE
DONE Staff gets hearing location and date set up
DONE Staff gets public notice and Director's memorandum written up for
management review.
DONE Send materials up for the Director's review for completeness per
15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(d).
DONE DWQ Planning Gets Rudo's responses back from him.
Get the Director's review for completeness per 15A NCAC 2L
DONE .0l 13(d). The Director must sign the ,2ublic notice -to go forward
with this.
DONE Get the notice filed with the newspaper legal ads -prefer
publishing date of August 5, 2007. This has to go through Budget.
DONE Mail out to Adjacent Property Owners.
Public Hearing held in the evening at 7 PM in the Ground Floor
DONE Hearing Room to receive oral and written comments. Comment
(September 5, 2007) Period Begins.
DONE Written Comments submitted at hearing sent on to hearing
(September 7, 2007) officers.
Email sent to Hearing Officers and Technical Staff about a
September 7, 2007 "Post-Hearing Meeting" t o di cuss workflow and staff
responsibilities. This email proposes a conference call or
meetin~ between Sep tember 11 th and September 18th.
EMC Groundwater Committee Information Item on the
September 12, 2007 CORPUD Variance at the 9/12/07 EMC Groundwater
Committee Meeting (Jay and Rick).
DWQ Planning Staff gets Oral Comments frf:)m the hearing &
September 14, 2007 Written Comments summarized and sent on to hearing
officers and technical staff.
DWQ Planning Staff gets the Address List of Public Hearing
September 14, 2007 participants completed and emailed to hearing officers and
technical staff.
For discussion with the Hearing Officers and Staff 1
DRAFT -September 7, 2007
Prop osed Schedule for the Work Load on the City of Raleigh
CORPUD Variance Re q uest (Continued)
DATE ACTIVITY
Sep tember 21, 2007 All comments addressed and technical res ponses comp leted.
September 26, 2007 Responses to comments completed and documented as an
attachment to the report.
September 28, 2007 Tentative Final Hearing Officers' report completed by
hearing officers with management a pproval.
October 3, 2007 Technical Meeting of Hearing Officers and DWQ-APS staff
to iron out last minute details (N ecessa rv·?)
October 5, 2007 Comment Period ENDS.
*October 6th through October ih Any final work on Written Comments conducted over the
(This is a weekend) weekend.
Discuss any final written comments received on October 5,
October 8, 2007 in the AM 2007 with the hearing officers and technical staff (if
(morning) necessary). /(there are no signifi cant concerns raised in the
comment. then oroceed throu 2h the rest o f this schedule.
* October 8, 2007 in the PM Groundwater Committee Packet with Hearing Officers
(afternoon) Report to the Director for concurrence to the go to the
Groundwater Committee for the November 7, 2007 Meeting.
* • October 9, 2007 Director gives concurrence to the hearing officer
recommendations and rep ort (ONE DAY).
• October 9, 2007 CORPUD Variance Agenda Item Titles Due to the DWQ-
Administration (Lois Thomas)
• October 10, 2007 Full Agenda Items Due with attachments including the
hearing officer's report and comments (Lois Thomas).
October 10, 2007 All EMC Groundwater Committee Paperwork is completed.
October 22, 2007 DWQ Planning Sends out EMC Groundwater Committee
Packet with Variance req uest members.
October 22, 2007 Division Administration sends out the EMC Packet.
•November 7, 2007 EMC Groundwater Committee Approval.
(30 Day Waiver Not Deemed Needed by DWQ Director)
•November 8, 2007 Full EMC A pproval
November 12, 2007 Letter is Written and Sent Informing die Applicant of (1)
Approval and Conditions for a Variance or, (2) Denial by the
Commission.
Final Day for the applicant to file a Contested Case if the
January 7, 2008 Commission's Decision of Unacceptable (60 Days from
Decision Made at the Commission meeti1111:)
For discussion with the Hearing Officers and Staff 2
DRAFT -September 7, 2007
* -Events that must happen or completing work on the variance request will be delayed.
• -Filing dates for the EMC Groundwater Committee meeting are identical to Commission
deadlines unless DWQ-Planning Section grants an extension.
• -An EMC Groundwater Committee meeting and EMC meeting must happen in November
2007 or final action on the variance request will be delayed. The scheduled meetings that follow
are in March 2008, May 2008, and July 2008 .
For discussion with the Hearing Officers and Staff 3
1 of 1
Subject: City of Raleigh Variance Request (CORPUD): Update on staff assistance during the public
hearing on September 5th
From: David Hance <l)[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:55:31 -0400
To: Planning Section -DWQ <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Hello all:
So far I have the following commitments from the DWQ Planning Section Staff to help the he;rring
officers and me with this variance hearing for Wed, September 5th:
Here are their names:
Heather Boyette
Rich Gannon
Hannah Stallings
Heather Patt (?)
Elizabeth Kountis (?)
Adrienne Weaver(?-pending discussion with family)
I have not received any emails/or phone calls from DWQ-APS staffs from the RRO, RRO Surface
Water Program, or the APS Central Office.
Jay --I think we do need one additional person from the RRO in addition to vou and Rick. We are
getting some written comment before the hearing in opposition to the variance and some phone calls and
there could be better than nonnal interest.
I also spoke with Captain Franklin at the State Capital Police (SCP). We will need a 'doorman' to let
peo ple into the building before the hearin g. Volunteers?
If we have any troublesome persons at the public hearing -SCP will be on call and we can reach them at
733-4646. I don't think we will but ----there is always that possibility since it is an emotional issue for
some.
For those of you helping out or considering helping out, please be at the Archdale Building Ground
Floor Hearing Room at 6:30 PM on September 5th. The hearing will start at 7:00 PM but the public
does tend to arrive early for things like this.
Anyone else want to volunteer a Wednesday evening? It can't hurt and the more the merrier:)
Call me if you have questions or know of other persons willing to help.
David Hance, DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
8/30/2007 6:12 PM
CO.KPU!J vanance Kequest: mrormauon suorrmLt:u oy wt: \.,HY vi .&.<11. ••
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance Request: Information submitted by the City of Raleigh at the hearing two
nights back (FYI)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:41:58 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <j [e-mail]>,
[e-mail], "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>
Hello Hearing Officers,
After the hearing was over, Carolyn Bachl, the Attorney's Office representing the
City of Raleigh on this Variance Request, forwarded to me an updated packet of
information for the variance request. The main things they told me are updated maps
and figures for the site.
It looks like I have three copie$ of it. What I will do is keep one here for staff.
I will send the other two on to the hearing officers for reference and discussion.
Andrew will get his through the Courier mail. Kathy will get hers dropped off at her
office .
David Hance
. DWQ Planning
919-733-5083 X 587
RP· r;i--,, of Raleigh Groundwater 2L Variance Hearing Tonight on Sept 5th: Staff attending ...
1 of2
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Groundwater 2L Variance Hearing Tonight on Sept 5th: Staff attending & participating
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:23 :23 -0400
To: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark
<Alan. [e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
Nora,
I hope this helps.
We had the Division of Water Quality Pre-Meeting for the September 2007 EMC Groundwater Committee this morning .
The plan is to have this go to the EMC Groundwater Committee and EMC in November 2007. Coleen was at the meeting
and wants staff to push for the November 2007 meeting.
Unless something really unusual occurs, such as as different written comment received by October 5th than what was
presented at the hearing last night, it should be assumed that we will be on schedule for November 2007 .
David Hance
919-733-5083 x. 587
************************************************************************************
Nora Deamer wrote:
Hi David,
I think things went very well last night . I expected to hear from many more folks.
I'm updating the information in the basin plan about the variance. Do you have a feel for when this issue will
make it before the EMC for consideration?
Thanks
Nora
David Hance wrote:
Hello all,
Here is the listing of people attending the public hearing for the 2L Variance for the City of Raleigh Public
Utilities Department (CORPUD) variance request for the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment System:
_*Hearing Officers:*
Andrew Pitner (DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section (APS) -Mooresville Regional Office)
Kathy Stecker (DWQ-Planning Section)
9/6/2007 10:24 A
~e: City of Raleigh C-·water 2L Variance Hearing Tonight on Sept 5th: Staff attending ...
of2
*_Raleigh Regional Office Staff:_*
Jay Zimmerman (DWQ-APS RRO Supervisor)
Rick Bolich (DWQ-APS hydrogeologist who serves as technical staff for variance)
*_DWQ Staff Assisting with the setup, registrations, and the public hearing this evening: *
Heather Boyette
Rich Gannon
Hannah Stallings (depending on how long her contract with the real estate agent goes)
Nora Deamer
Elizabeth Kountis
Amy Keyworth
Nikki Remington
Keith Larick (Raleigh Regional Office and will be observing the hearing)
* DWQ Aquifer Protection Section Staff -Central Office: *
No word yet on who will be attending and/or helping with-this hea r ing.
In addition, Jay Zimmerman has informed me that the consultants for the City or Raleigh will be arriving early
at 6:30 PM to help in the setup for the variance hearing.
*Question: Anyone else in either the DWQ/Planning Section or the DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section want to join
in tonight's event?*
Again, we will be meeting at the Ground Floor Hearing Room in the Archdale Building at 6:30 PM and the hearing
will begin at 7:00 PM .
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
9/6/2007 10:24 AM
1 of2
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Groundwater 2L Variance Hearing Tonight on Sept 5th: Staff attending &
participating
From: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:52:58 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Thanks David, I didn't expect it to be so quick.
Nora
David Hance wrote:
Nora,
I hope this helps .
We had the Division of Water Quality Pre-Meeting for the September 2007 EMC
Groundwater Committee this morning.
The plan is to have this go to the EMC Groundwater Committee and EMC in November
2007. Coleen was at the meeting and wants staff to push for the November 2007
meeting.
Unless something really unusual occurs, such as as different written comment
received by October 5th than what was presented at the hearing las t night, it
should be assumed that we will be on schedule for November 2007.
David Hance
919-733-5083 x. 587
***********************************************************************************
Nora Deamer wrote:
Hi David,
I think things went very well last night. I expected to hear f r om many more
folks.
I'm updating the information in the basin plan about the variance . Do you have
a feel for when this issue will make it before the EMC for consideration?
Thanks
Nora
David Hance wrote:
Hello all,
Here is the listing of people attending the public hearing for the 2L
Variance for the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD)
variance request for the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment System:
*Hearing Officers:*
Andrew Pitner (DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section (APS) -Mooresville Regional
Office)
Kathy Stecker (DWQ-Planning Section)
* Raleigh Regional Office Staff: *
Jay Zimmerman (DWQ-APS RRO Supervisor)
Rick Bolich (DWQ-APS hydrogeologist who serves as technical staff for
variance)
* DWQ Staff Assisting with the setup, registrations, and the public hearing
this evening :_*
9/6/2007 12:27 PM
2 of2
Heather Boyette
Rich Gannon
Hannah Stallings (depending on how long her contract with the real estate
agent goes)
Nora Deamer
Elizabeth Kountis
Amy Keyworth
Nikki Remington
Keith Larick (Raleigh Regional Office and will be observing the hearing)
* DWQ Aquifer Protection Section Staff -Central Office: *
No word yet on who will be attending and/or helping withthis hearing.
In addition, Jay Zimmerman has informed me that the consultants for the City
or Raleigh will be arriving early at 6:30 PM to help in the setup for the
variance hearing.
*Question: Anyone else in either the DWQ/Planning Section or the
DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section want to join in tonight's event?*
Again, we will be meeting at the Ground Floor Hearing Room in the Archdale
Building at 6:30 PM and the hearing will begin at 7:00 PM.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
9/6/2007 12:27 PM
1 of 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Final Hearing officers speech (attached)
From: ''[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17 :30: 17 -0400 (EDT)
To: <[e-mail]>
David, thanks. Did you accept all changes? I printed out what I had
before I left work today (accepting all changes). I don't think I'll
be able to print again till Wednesday afternoon. Just wanted to make
sure I have the right version.
-Kathy
9/4/2007 2:06 PM
1 of2
Subject: staff help and thanks
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:39:58 -0400
To: Amy Keyworth <[e-mail]>
I will have plenty of innocuous things to choose from : )
I will put you down. Please come at 6:30 PM.
davidhance
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Amy Keyworth wrote:
David,
I told Rick that I'd come, but, this being my first, I didn't realize you were the organizer. (Your earlier
message went so far to the back of my brain it may not see daylight again). Anyway, it's on my
calendar. What time do you need us there? I'd like to help with something innocuous, like
registration, since this is my first ever hearing.
Thanks,
Amy
David Hance wrote:
Hello all:
So far I have the following commitments from the DWQ Planning Section Staff to help the
hearing officers and me with this variance hearing for Wed, September 5th:
Here are thei r names:
Heather Boyette
Rich Gannon
Hannah Stallings
Heather Patt (?)
Elizabeth Kountis (?)
Adrienne Weaver(?-pending discussion with family)
I have not received any emails/or phone calls from DWQ-APS staffs from the RRO, RRO Surface
Water Program, or the APS Central Office.
Jay --I think we do need one additional person from the RRO in addition to y ou and Rick. We
are getting some written comment before the hearing in opposition to the variance and some
phone calls and there could be better than normal interest.
I also spoke with Captain Franklin at the State Capital Police (SCP). We will need a 'doorman' to
let peo ple into the building before the hearing. Volunteers?
8/31/2007 12:44 PM
2 of2
If we have any troublesome persons at the public hearing -SCP will be on call and we can reach
them at 733-4646. I don't think we will but ----there is always that possibility since it is an
emotional issue for some.
For those of you helping out or considering helping out, please be at the Archdale Building
Ground Floor Hearing Room at 6:30 PM on September 5th. The hearing will start at 7:00 PM
but the public does tend to arrive early for things like this.
Any one else want to volunteer a Wednesday evenin g? It can't hurt and the more the merrier:)
Call me if you have questions or know of other persons willing to help.
David Hance, DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
8/31/2007 12:44 PM
1 of2
Subject: Variance hearing and thanks
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:41:23 -0400
To: Nikki Remington <[e-mail]>
Nikki,
Please show up at 6:30 PM and I will fill you in then.
Thank you very much!
david hance
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Nikki Remington wrote:
Hi David,
I've decided to attend the hearing Wed night so if you need any additional help I
will be available. Just let me know what you need me to do.
Nikki
David Hance wrote:
Hello all:
So far I have the following commitments from the DWQ Planning Section Staff to
help the hearing officers and me with this variance hearing for Wed, September
5th:
* Here are their names: *
Heather Boyette
Rich Gannon
Hannah Stallings
Heather Patt (?)
Elizabeth Kountis (?)
Adrienne Weaver (?-pending discussion with family)
I have not received any emails/or phone calls from DWQ-APS staffs from the RRO,
RRO Surface Water Program, or the APB Central Office.
*Jay-*-_ I think we do need one additional person from the RRO in addition to
you and Rick. _We are getting some written comment before the hearing in
opposition to the variance and some phone calls and there could be better than
normal interest.
I also spoke with Captain Franklin at the State Capital Police (SCP). We will
need a 'doorman' to let people into the building before the hearing.
*Volunteers?
* If we have any troublesome persons at the public hearing -SCP will be on
call and we can reach them at 733-4646. I don't think we will but there
is always that possibility since it is an emotional issue for some'.
*/For those of you helping out or considering helping out, please be at the
Archdale Building Ground Floor Hearing Room at 6:30 PM on September 5th. The
hearing will start at 7:00 PM but the public does tend to arrive early for
things like this.
/*
* _Anyone else want to volunteer a Wednesday evening·?
more the merrier
*It can't hurt and the
Call me if you have questions or know of other persons willing to help .
David Hance, DWQ-Planning Section
8/31/2007 12:44 PM
. ---------- --·---o -----··--I 733-5083 x. 587
2 of2
8/31/2007 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: City of Raleigh Variance Request (CORPUD): Update on staff assistance
during the public hearing on September 5th]]
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:41:59-0400
To; Keith Larick <[e-mail]>
Ok -thanks!dh
If you can come at 6:30 PM that would be good!
dh
Keith Larick wrote:
David,
I'm planning on attending, so that makes one more from RRO .
·Thanks,
Keith
Subject:
[Fwd: City of Raleigh Variance Request (CORPUD): Update on staff assistance during
the public hearing on September 5th]
From:
Rick Bolich <r i ck.bolich®ncmail.net>
Date:
Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:59:29 -0400
To:
Jimmie Greer <j [e-mail]>, Keith Larick <Keith [e-mail]>,
Joseph Gyamfi <Josep h.Gy [e-mail]>, JAY ZIMMERMAN
<[e-mail]>, Ed Owen <[e-mail]>, Jane Bernard
<[e-mail]>, Eric Rice <[e-mail]>, Rich Hayes
<richarc:r:[e-mail]>, Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>, Buster
Towell <[e-mail]>
To:
Jimmie Greer< immie. [e-mail]>, Keith Larick <[e-mail]>,
Joseph Gyamfi <Jose p h.Gy [e-mail]>, JAY ZIMMERMAN
<[e-mail]>, Ed Owen <[e-mail]>, Jane Bernard
~[e-mail]>, Eric Rice~[e-mail]>, Rich Hayes
<richard._~...:_~[e-mail]>, Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>, Buster
Towell <buster [e-mail]>
Subject:
City of Raleigh Variance Request (CORPUD): Update on staff assistance during the
public hearing on September 5th
From:
David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date:
Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:55:31 -0400
To:
Planning Section -DWQ <denr.p ls.dwg @ncmail .net>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr ."
<[e-mail]>, Jay [e-mail], Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>
To:
Planning Section -DWQ <denr. [e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr ."
<[e-mail]>, Jay [e-mail], Rick Bolich
1 of 2 8/31/2007 12:44 PM
2 of2
<[e-mail]>
CC:
Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Hello all:
So far I have the following commitments from the DWQ Planning Section Staff to
help the hearing officers and me with this variance hearing for Wed, September
5th:
* Here are their names: *
Heather Boyette
Rich Gannon
Hannah Stallings
Heather Patt (?)
Elizabeth Kountis (?)
Adrienne Weaver (?-pending discussion with family)
I have not received any emails/or phone calls from DWQ-APS staffs from the RRO,
RRO Surface Water Program, or the APS Central Office.
*Jay-*-_ I think we do need one additional person from the RRO in addition to you
and Rick. _We are getting some written comment before the hearing in opposition to
the variance and some phone calls and there could be better than normal interest.
I also spoke with Captain Franklin at the State Capital Police (SCP). We will
need a 'doorman' to let people into the building before the hearing. *Volunteers?
* If we have any troublesome persons at the public hearing -SCP will be on call
and we can reach them at 733-4646. I don't think we will but there is
always that possibility since it is an emotional issue for some.
*/For those of you helping out or considering helping out, please be at the
Archdale Building Ground Floor Hearing Room at 6:30 PM on September 5th. The
hearing will start at 7:00 PM but the public does tend to arrive early for things
like this.
I*
*_Anyone else want to volunteer a Wednesday evening?
the merrier
*It can't hurt and the more
Call me if you have questions or know of other persons willing to help.
David Hance, DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
8/31/2007 12:44 PM
1 of2
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request (CORPUD): Update on staff assistance during the public
hearing on September 5th
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:42:54 -0400
To: Heather Patt <[e-mail]>
You are right --it was Nora.
Thank You!
david hance
*********************************************************
Heather Patt wrote:
HI David,
I don't remember saying I would help out, but if you really need me to I can,
maybe it was Nora you were thinking about ... pending her Jury duty outcome. At
this point I'm not planning on attending as I have info to prepare for EMC
pre-meeting the following day. thanks, Heather Patt
David Hance wrote:
Hello all:
So far I have the following commitments from the DWQ Planning Section Staff to
help the hearing officers and me with this variance hearing for Wed, September
5th:
* Here are their names: *
Heather Boyette
Rich Gannon
Hannah Stallings
Heather Patt (?)
Elizabeth Kountis (?)
Adrienne Weaver(?-pending discussion with family)
I have not received any emails/or phone calls from DWQ-APS staffs from the RRO,
RRO Surface Water Program, or the APS Central Office.
*Jay-*-_ I think we do need one additional person from the RRO in addition to
you and Rick. _We are getting some written comment before the hearing in
opposition to the variance and some phone calls and there could be better than
normal interest.
I also spoke with Captain Franklin at the State Capital Police {SCP). We will
need 'a 'doorman' to let people into the building before the hearing.
*Volunteers?
* If we have any troublesome persons at the public hearing -SCP will be on
call and we can reach them at 733-4646. I don't think we will but there
is always that possibility since it is an emotional .issue for some.
*/For those of you helping out or considering helping out, please be at the
Archdale Building Ground Floor Hearing Room at 6:30 PM on September 5th. The
hearing will start at 7:00 PM but the public does tend to arrive early for
things like this.
/*
*_Anyone else want to volunteer a Wednesday evening?
more the merrier
*It can't hurt and the
Call me if you have questions or know of other persons willing to help.
David Hance, DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
8/31/2007 12:43 PM
2 of2
8/3 1/2007 12:43 PM
1 of3
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Notice of variance memo]]]]
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:40:46 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>, David
Hance <[e-mail]>, JAY ZIMMERMAN <[e-mail]>, Ted
Bush <[e-mail]>
Pleai;i,e see the attached message sent to the City of Raleigh's consultant regarding
the Tippett's Chapel message and similar requests/concerns. We have not received a
response from the City's consultant yet.
rb
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Notice of variance memo]]]
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:00:20 -0400
To: "Thibodeau, Peter" <[e-mail]>
CC: Dale Crisp <[e-mail]>, JAY ZIMMERMAN
<JA [e-mail]>
Hey Pete;
Please see the attached forwarded message from the pastor at Tippett's Chapel on
Shotwell Road. He claims that the church's water supply wells are within 100 yards
of contaminated wells that were replaced with Raleigh city water. I do not believe
that is accurate, but i wanted to check with you before we prepare any type of
response.
This issue has come up several times; that is, people who claim that their well may
be contaminated by the City due to their location. It would be very helpful to us at
the upcoming public hearing if we could display a figure showing the location of all
homes that have been tested by the City, those homes with elevated Nitrate in their
well, and the location of the water supply line. Perhaps color coding would help
identify these residences and their water supply status.
I'm in the process of preparing a presentation for the upcoming public hearing for
the variance. My presentation will be a brief description of the site, the history
of the problem, and recommendations from the Division regarding the variance. In
addition to the figure requested above, we would like to have electronic and paper
copies of the following figures from the Revised Corrective Action Plan:
Figure 1-2 "Proposed Remediation Plan and Variance Areas"
Figure 1-3 "Nitrate Analytical Results"
Figure 2-1 "Conceptual Layout of Extraction Wells ...... " (electronic version only for
this figure}
We believe it may be helpful to have the requested hard copy figures mounted on a
presentation media for display at the public hearing .
Please call or email me if you have any questions or comments.
Thanks;
rb
8/30/2007 10:09 AM
2 of3
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Notice of variance memo]]
From: Jay Zimmerman <j [e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:53:23 -0400
To: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
fyi
Subject: [Fwd: Notice of variance memo]
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:42:01 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], kathy stecker
<[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush,
Jr." <[e-mail]>
A comment concerning the variance request.
dh
Subject: Notice of variance memo
From: Eddie Moody <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:21:08 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
To: [e-mail]
August 27, 2007
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: Permit Number WQ0001730
Dear Mr. Hance:
We have received your memo regarding the variance application for cleanup at the city
of Raleigh Public Utilities Department. Your memo indicates that there are no active
wells in the impacted area. We have two wells on our property that are our sole
source of drinking water. We are concerned about the water quality of our wells
because they are within 100 yards of wells that have been contaminated and placed on
public water systems. We are afraid that our wells may have been contaminated as
well.
We oppose any variances or exceptions for the city of Raleigh to fail to comply with
all water regulations. We believe that the ground water problem needs to be
corrected immediately.
Sincerely,
Edward Moody
Pastor
Tippett's Chapel
8/30/2007 10:09 AM
.._,....., ............ ._,......, • _ ... ....._ ... _._, ........................... --.... ......... 0 -...... ____ -r----,---------✓
1 of-1
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Final Hearing officers speech (attached)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:52:37 -0400
To: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
CC: J [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Hi Kathy and Andrew:
I have taken your changes and placed them into the Hearing Officers' speech for the September 5th
hearing.
Please read and be familiar with this.
In the mean time, I have been lining up staff to assist in this public hearing and it would appear that I am
getting good response.
Have a nice day offl
d~vid hance
733-5083 X. 587 ..-----======
Fin-corpudSpeech WQ000l 730.doc
Content-Type: applic~tion/msword11
Content-Encoding: base64 ·
8/31/2007 2 :53 PM
.... ---~J"""''"'"'--... .... -_..__._r ....... r .............. ------------0' ·· -:i---·---
1 of2
Subject: Projector and Laptop for CORPUD Hearing/w question
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:37:27 -0400
To: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Linda Chavis
<[e-mail]>
Rick,
I have Projector# 3 checked out from Planning for September 5th.
Q. Are you going to bring your own laptop?
Just in case --I checked out Laptop # 1 from Planning.
davidhance
733=5083 X. 587
!&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Rick Bolich wrote:
Hi David;
I'm going to need a powerpoint projector for my presentation. Is there one available in planning that i could
borrow?
Thanks;
rb
David Hance wrote:
Hello all:
So far I have the following commitments from the DWQ Planning Section Staff to help the hearing
officers and me with this variance hearing for Wed, September 5th:
* Here are their names: * --
Heather Boyette
Rich Gannon
Hannah Stallings
Heather Patt (?)
Elizabeth Kountis (?)
Adrienne Weaver(?-pending discussion with family)
I have not received any emails/or phone calls from DWQ-APS staffs from the RRO, RRO Surface Water
Program, or the APS Central Office.
*Jay-*-_ I think we do need one additional person from the RRO in addition to you and Rick._ We are
getting some written comment before the hearing in opposition to the variance and some phone calls and
8/31/2007 12:44 PM
rIUJC~lUI i:lllU Laptop lUl vV.1\..r ULJ IlCc:lUU~ w y_uc;:suuu
2 of2
there could be better than normal interest.
I also spoke with Captain Franklin at the State Capital Police (SCP)._ We will need a 'doorman' to let
people into the building before the hearing. *Volunteers?
* _If we have any troublesome persons at the public hearing -SCP will be on call and we can reach them
at 733-4646. I don't think we will but ----there is always that possibility since it is an emotional issue
for some.
*/For those of you helping out or considering helping out, please be at the Archdale Building Ground
Floor Hearing Room at 6:30 PM on September 5th. The hearing will start at 7:00 PM but the public does
tend to arrive early for things like this.
I*
*_Anyone else want to volunteer a Wednesday evening? _ *It can't hurt and the more the merrier : )
Call me if you have questions or know of other persons willing to help.
David Hance, DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
8/31/2007 12:44 PM
Final Version (08/31/07)
Public Hearing-Variance Request
September 5, 2007
Variance to 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) and 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j)
City of Raleigh Public Utility Department (CORPUD) Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant (NRWWTP)@ 8500 Battle Bridge Road, Wake County, North Carolina
(Permit Number WQOOOJ730)
HEARING LOCATED AT:
City of Raleigh
Archdale Building -Ground Floor Hearing Room
512 North Salisbury Street -(at 7:00 PM)
HEARING OFFICER'S SPEECH
HEARING OFFICERS: Andrew Pitner, Division of Water Quality, Regional Groundwater
Supervisor (Mooresville Regional Office)
Kathy Stecker, Division of Water Quality, Planning Section -
Modeling and TMDL Unit Supervisor
HEARING OFFICER KATIIY STECKER: GOOD EVENING, I CALL THIS PUBLIC
HEARING TO ORDER. MY NAME IS KA THY STECKER AND I AM THE DIVISION
OF WATER QUALITY -MODELING/TMDL UNIT SUPERVISOR. TO MY (right or left)
IS MR. ANDREW PITNER. HE IS THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY REGIONAL
AQUIFER PROTECTION SUPERVISOR IN THE MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE.
WE HA VE BEEN DESIGNATED HEARING OFFICERS FOR THIS EVENING'S
HEARING.
1
Final Version (08/31/07)
THIS HEARING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL
STATUTE 150B,21.2. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL STATUTES, A
PUBLIC NOTICE OF THIS HEARING WAS PUBLISHED IN CONFORMITY WITH
15A NCAC 2L .0113 OF THE GROUNDWATER RULES AND GENERAL NOTICE
HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE LOCAL PAPER. NOTICES WERE ALSO DISTRIBUTED
TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, WELL OWNERS,
AND PROPERTY HOLDERS WITHIN AND NEAR THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED
VARIAN CE. THE VARIAN CE IS DESCRIBED IN THE PUBLIC NOTICE AND
COPIES ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO PERSONS ATTENDING THIS
HEARING TONIGHT.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING IS TO OBTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT AND
PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR
THE CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT'S-NEUSE RIVER WASTE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN RALEIGH, NC. THIS PUBLIC UTILITY IS
REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM RULES CONTAINED IN 15A NCAC 2L
GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS FOR THE PROPERTY
2
Final Version (08/31/07)
LOCATED AT 8500 BA TILE BRIDGE ROAD.
AT THIS POINT, I WILL TURN THE HEARING OVER TO MY CO,HEARING
OFFICER, MR. ANDREW PITNER TO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT HA VE LED UP TO THIS VARIANCE REQUEST AND PUBLIC HEARING AND
THE PROCEDURES RELATED TO THIS VARIANCE.
HEARING OFFICER ANDREW PITNER: THANK YOU KA THY. THE CITY OF
RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT OR CORPUD OWNS AND OPERATES
THE NEUSE RIVER WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT. THIS PLANT IS
AUTHORIZED UNDER PERMIT TO LAND APPLY WASTEWATER RESIDUALS
(ALSO KNOWN AS BIOSOLIDS) ON NUMEROUS FIELDS WITHIN ITS PERMITTED
COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY. THE APPLIED BIOSOLIDS ARE USED AS FERTILIZER
FOR AGRICULTURAL CROPS NOT MEANT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. DUE
TO THE OVER APPLICATION OF RESIDUALS IN TWO FIELDS (THA TIS, FIELDS
50 AND 500), NITRATE EXCEEDENCES IN GROUNDWATER HA VE OCCURRED
BEYOND THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY FOR THIS FACILITY. THIS
GROUNDWATER IS DISCHARGING INTO THE NEUSE RIAVERUNDER 15A
NCAC 2L .0107, COMPLIANCE BOUNDARIES ARE ESTABLISHED FOR
PERMITTED FACILITIES THAT DISPOSE OF WASTES, INCLUDING APPLICATION
3
Final Version (08/31/07)
OF BIOSOLIDS, AND RESULTING SUBSTANCES IN GROUNDWATER ARE NOT
ALLOWED TO MIGRATE BEYOND THOSE BOUNDARIES. PURSUANT TO A
NOTICE OF VIOLATION ISSUED BY THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY -
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE, THAT REQUIRES ASSESSMENT AND
REMEDIATION OF THE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION, THE UTILITY
REQUESTED THE VARIANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
A VARIANCE ADOPTED UNDER 15A NCAC 2L .0113 WILL ALLOW THE
CORPUD TO PURSUE A NATURAL A TTENTUATION CORRECTIVE ACTION
PLAN (CAP) UNDER 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k), WHICH CANNOT BE DONE UNLESS
A VARIAN CE IS GRANTED. UNDER THE STATE'S RULES, PERMITTED
FACILITIES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PURSUE A CAP THAT PROPOSES NATURAL
REMEDIATION OR LIMITED CORRECTIVE ACTION. PLEASE NOTE THAT
FACILITIES WITH UNPERMITTED DISCHARGES ARE ALLOWED TO PURSUE
THIS KIND OF CORRECTIVE ACTION. IF GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION, THE
CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (CORPUD) WILL FORGO
ACTIVE REMEDIATION AND TREATMENT OF A PORTION OF GROUNDWATER
CONTAINING NITRATE THAT HAS MIGRATED BEYOND THE COMPLIANCE
BOUNDARY. THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED FOR THIRTY,FIVE PARCELS OF
LAND THAT HA VE BEEN USED BY THE CORPUD AS LAND APPLICATION
FIELDS AT THE NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
4
Final Version (08/31/07)
15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) WOULD INVOLVE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WHERE
GROUNDWATER IS NOT BEING USED AS A WATER SUPPLY AND WHERE
DISCHARGES OF GROUNDWATER IMPACTED BY NITRATES WILL MIGRATE TO
ADJACENT SURFACE WATERS.· THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
PROPOSED BY THE FACILITY IS INTENDED TO RESULT IN GROUNDWATER
CONTAINMENT AND TREATMENT ADJACENT TO THE TWO IMPACTED
FIELDS WHERE GROUNDWATER HAS MIGRATED OFF-SITE AND RESULT IN
CONTROLLING ADDITIONAL OFF SITE MIGRATION. LONG-TERM
MONITORING WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE OTHER LAND APPLICATION
FIELDS OVER THE REMAINING AREAS OF THE SITE WHERE EXCEEDENCES OF
THE GROUNDWATER STANDARD FOR NITRATE HAVE OCCURRED. IN
ADDITION, THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
OR NPDES PERMIT FOR THIS FACILITY HAS BEEN MODIFIED SUCH THAT
NITRATE DISCHARGING FROM GROUNDWATER INTO THE SURFACE WATERS
WILL BE CONSIDERED ALONG WITH NITRATE COMING OUT OF THE
DISCHARGE PIPE SUCH THAT THE PERMITTED TOTAL ALLOWABLE NITRATE
DISCHARGING INTO THE NEUSE RIVER IS UNCHANGED. THE VARIANCE WILL
NOT CHANGE THE GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS THAT THE CORPUD MUST MEET FOR NITRATE AT THE
FACILITY. WHILE THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE
5
Final Version (08/31/07)
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY HAS SUSPENDED THE LAND APPLICATION OF
RESIDUALS FROM WASTEWATER TREATMENT AT THE FIELDS DISCUSSED IN
THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
THIS HEARING WILL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE RULES AND STATUTES.
ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND
HEARING ARE LOCATED IN THIS BUILDING AND ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC
REVIEW.
A WRITTEN RECORD OF THIS HEARING WILL BE PREPARED WHICH WILL
INCLUDE ALL THE RELEVANT COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND DISCUSSIONS.
FOR THIS REASON, THE HEARING IS BEING TAPE-RECORDED. WRITTEN
COMMENTS RECEIVED THROUGH OCTOBER 5, 2007 WILL ALSO BE INCLUDED
IN THE RE CORD. BASED ON THESE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ON ANALYSIS BY
THE DIVISION STAFF, WE, THE HEARING OFFICERS, WILL MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION.
IN MAKING THE FINAL DECISION, THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION CONSIDERS THE WRITTEN RECORD, THE RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING OFFICERS, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF DIVISION STAFF, ··
AND THE CONCERNS OF ITS MEMBERS. THE COMMISSION MUST ALSO
CONSIDER WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH RULES
6
Final Version (08/31/07)
PERTAINING TO THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
IF THE APPLICANT DECIDES THAT THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IS
UNACCEPTABLE, A PETITION MAY BE FILED CONTESTING THAT DECISION.
IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT RECEIVE THAT PETITION WITHIN 60 DAYS OF
ITS DECISION ON THE VARIANCE, THAT RULING WILL BE FINAL AND
BINDING.
AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE (names of local and state officials)
AND THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THIS HEARING. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO
RECOGNIZE THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE FROM THE DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY (DWQ central office and DWQ regional office personnel).
MR. RICH BOLICH (staff speaker,) OF THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY -
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION WILL NOW SUMMARIZE THE PROPOSED
VARIANCE WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING.
STAFF SPEAKER: (staff speaker summarizes variance request).
HEARING OFFICER KATHY STECKER: THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW
ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. WE WOULD LIKE
7
Final Version (08/31/07)
TO REQUEST THAT EVERYONE FILL OUT A REGISTRATION FORM. AFTER ALL
REGISTERED SPEAKERS HA VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENT;
WE WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS AS TIME PERMITS. WHEN YOUR
NAME IS CALLED, PLEASE COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND STA TE YOUR
NAME, ADDRESS AND ANY AFFILIATION. ALL COMMENTS SHOULD BE
LIMITED TO MA TIERS THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSED ADOPTION
OF THIS VARIAN CE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE WILL BE A SEP ARA TE PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION PROCESS FOR THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN. IF YOUR
COMMENTS ARE LONGER THAN THREE MINUTES, WE REQUEST THAT THEY
BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING. THE HEARING OFFICERS MAY QUESTION
SPEAKERS IF THE NEED SHOULD ARISE IN ORDER TO CLARIFY COMMENTS
THAT ARE MADE.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STAFF WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTIONS AFTER THE COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING
TONIGHT. I WOULD NOW LIKE TO CALL [first speaker].
[speakers ... ]
( the hearing officer, referring to THE REGISTRATION CARDS, calls each speaker to the microphone
in turn)
8
Final Version (08/31/07)
HEARING OFFICER KATHY STECKER: THANK YOU [last speaker]. ARE THERE I
ANYMORE COMMENTS? SINCE THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS, I DECLARE
THE HEARING CLOSED. THE HEARING RECORD WILL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL
12:00 MIDNIGHT ON OCTOBER 5, 2007. ANYONE WISHING TO SUBMIT
WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY DO SO UNTIL THAT DA TE. AFTER WHICH TIME,
THE COMMENTS WILL BE MADE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD AND WE
SHALLMAKERECOMMENDATIONSTOTHEENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT
COMMISSION. WRITTEN COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED TO DAVID HANCE
AT THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY , PLANNING SECTION. THE ADDRESS
WRITTEN COMMENTS NEED TO BE SENT TO IS SHOWN IN THE PUBLIC
NOTICE AND IS AS FOLLOWS:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
A FACSIMILE COPY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY BE SENT TO MR.
HANCE BY DIALING (919) 715,5637. HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (919) 733,5083
(extension 587). COMMENTS MAY ALSO BE SENT TO MR. HANCE VIA £,MAIL BY
CONTACTING HIS INTERNET MAILING ADDRESS SHOWN IN THE PUBLIC
NOTICE, WHICH IS [e-mail]. MR. HANCE'S BUSINESS CARDS
SHOWS THIS INFORMATION AND ARE LOCATED AT THE REGISTRATION
TABLE.
9
Final Version (08/31/07)
IT IS THE DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION TO ALWAYS ACT IN THE BEST
POSSIBLE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC. THEREFORE, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS
A VERY IMPORT ANT PART OF THE RULE~MAKING PROCESS. WE WOULD LIKE
TO THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THE HEARING AND OFFERING YOUR
COMMENTS.
10
1 of 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Fax I just sent you on public participation
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug200713:51:57-0400
To: Andrew Pitner<[e-mail]>
yes! dh
Andrew Pitner wrote:
Hey David,
I didn't actually get a copy of it from Kathy. Can you also fax or email one this
way. Thanks,
Andrew
David Hance wrote:
Jay and Rick,
I just sent you a 2 page fax on public participation. Did you get it?
Kathy Stecker, one of the hearing officer for the CORPUD Variance hearing,
gave this to me and to Andrew Pitner at the end of the meeting we had on this
variance on the 10th floor last week.
*It is just FYI.* It looks like a very good tool to help staff think about
public participation and how to tailor what we do at public hearings ... and
afterwards.
Note that Kathy has significant work experience on these matter when she worked
for the State of South Carolina and I think she is a good person to rely on for
assistance.
Have a Nice Holiday Weekend,
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
8/31/2007 2:54 PM
1 of 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Fax !just sent you on public participation
From: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13 :51: 17 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Hey David,
I didn't actually get a copy of it from Kathy . Can you also fax or email one this
way. Thanks,
Andrew
David Hance wrote:
Jay and Rick,
I just sent you a 2 page fax on public participation. Did you get it?
Kathy Stecker, one of the hearing officer for the CORPUD Variance hearing, gave
this to me and to Andrew Pitner at the end of the meeting we had on this variance
on the 10th floor last week.
*It is just FYI.* It looks like a very good tool to help staff think about public
participation and how to tailor what we do at public hearings ... and afterwards .
Note that Kathy has significant work experience on these matter when she worked
for the State of South Carolina and I think she is a good person to rely on for
assistance.
Have a Nice Holiday Weekend,
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 5_87
Andrew Pitner, P.G. [e-mail]
Division of Water Quality -Aquifer Protection Section
Mooresville Regional Office (MRO)
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
MRO Main Phone: [phone]
Direct Phone: [phone]
MRO Fax: [phone]
8/31/2007 2:54 PM
1 of 1
Subject: City of Raleigh Variance Request (CORPUD): Update on staff assistance during the public
hearing on September 5th
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:55:31 -0400
To: Planning Section -DWQ <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Hello all:
So far I have the following commitments from the DWQ Planning Section Staff to help the hearing
officers and me with this variance hearing for Wed, September 5th:
Here are their names:
Heather Boyette
Rich Gannon
Hannah Stallings
Heather Patt (?)
Elizabeth Kountis (?)
Adrienne Weaver(?-pending discussion with family)
I have not received any emails/or phone calls from DWQ-APS staffs from the RRO, RRO Surface
Water Program, or the APS Central Office.
Jay --I think we do need one additional person from the RRO in addition to vou and Rick. We are
getting some written comment before the hearing in opposition to the variance and some phone calls and
there could be better than normal interest.
I also spoke with Captain Franklin at the State Capital Police (SCP). We will need a 'doorman' to let
peo ple into the building before the hearing . Volunteers?
If we have any troublesome persons at the public hearing -SCP will be on call and we can reach them at
733-4646. I don't think we will but ----there is always that possibility since it is an emotional issue for
some.
For those of you helping out or considering helping out, please be at the Archdale Building Ground
Floor Hearing Room at 6:30 PM 01i September 5th. The hearing will start at 7:00 PM but the public
does tend to arrive early for things like this.
Anvone else want to volunteer a Wednesday evening? It can't hurt and the more the merrier:)
Call me if you have questions or know of other persons willing to help.
David Hance, DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
8/30/2007 4:55 PM
1 of 1
Subject: leave September 4-5
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:30:26 -0400
To: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>,
"DENR.TMDL.DWQ" <[e-mail]>
Alan,
I will be on vacation next Tuesday and Wednesday.
I *WILL* BE BACK IN TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING WEDNESDAY EVENING.
(That was for David and Andrew.)
I'm going to the beach in Maryland with my mother and brother and various other
relatives and family friends. I will be pretty much incommunicado. If someone
really really needs to get in touch, my cell phone number is 995-3975. (Exception:
Anyone with AT&T/Cingular cell phone service is welcome to call me anytime because
it's free.) I might check email but can't promise I'll have access unless someone
gives me a laptop to take with me.
I will be in the office all day today, and until about 1:30 Friday.
-Kathy
Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
8/30/2007 10:08 AM
Jorth Carolina Department of
:nvironment and Natural Resources 1:i: 06 1-E; -@3}7 016H26507019
$00.33~ tivision of Water Quality• Planning Branch
617 Mail Service Center ~
9
_
16
.
laleigh , Nonh Garolina 276 \i17 i .~
a '\,, .i . .l ~ -ii\~~ ·=
.RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED ~ a
UH•
~:!
A. ii:
·~
GJ
iii
Ill :c 08/15/2007
Mailed From 27607
US POSTAGE
\5·· \ \ .. ··•· ...
STEPHEN & SHERRY BROWN
137 RIDGE WAY LN
CLAYTON, NC 27520-8084
:N'%X=%'E · ¾76 -~C -.1 ....... --C& OG/~i4/0'7
.RETURN TO .SENDER
NO SUCH NUMBER .
UNABLE: ·To ,-OR\JARO
:18:1799 *:l.:l.48.-·07.579-:l. ?---~9
,ll-1 ,l,h1f rlm 11ll1Jl,111JHli ll lli111'11n1h ill
1 of 1
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request (CORPUD): Update on staff assistance during the
public hearing on September 5th
From: Elizabeth Kountis <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:01:37 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
I can make it that night.
David Hance wrote:
Hello all:
So far I have the following commitments from the DWQ Planning Section Staff to
help the hearing officers and me with this variance hearing for Wed, September
5th:
*_Here are their names: *
Heather Boyette
Rich Gannon
Hannah Stallings
Heather Patt (?)
Elizabeth Kountis (?)
Adrienne Weaver (?-pending discussion with family)
I have not received any emails/or phone calls from DWQ-APS staffs from the RRO,
RRO Surface Water Program, or the APS Central Office.
*Jay-*-_ I think we do need one additional person from the RRO in addition to you
and Rick. _we are getting some written comment before the hearing in opposition to
the variance and some phone calls and there could be better than normal interest.
I also spoke with Captain Franklin at the State Capital Police (SCP). _We will
need a 'doorman' to let people into the building before the hearing. *Volunteers?
*_If we have any troublesome persons at the public hearing -SCP will be on call
and we can reach them at 733-4646. I don't think we will but there is
always that possibility since it is an emotional issue for some.
*/For those of you helping out or considering helping out, please be at the
Archdale Building Ground Floor Hearing Room at 6:30 PM on September 5th. The
hearing will start at 7:00 PM but the public does tend to arrive early for things
like this.
/*
*_Anyone else want to volunteer a Wednesday evening?
the merrier
*It can't hurt and the more
Call me if you have questions or know of other persons willing to help.
David Hance, DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
8/30/2007 5 :29 PM
L'-"-'• L..L YY'-£• .L ,v ..... ...,v V.L 1' ...... ,,. .............. "" .............. ,,. ........... J
1 nf 1
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Notice of variance memo]
From: Jay Zimmerman <;[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:32:18 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>, kathy sleeker <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush <[e-mail]>
Andrew et all,
I do not believe it was sampled by Johnston County or our office. I checked with the PWSS this morning, regarding sample results. The well is a
transient non-community well and must be analyzed for nitrate annually. The results from 5/16/06 report 2.38 ppm nitrate. Also, when I looked at
the church location on Google Earth, the driveway entrance is > 1000 ft. from the creek, which lies to the North. I would estimate their well to
be 1200+ ft. from, and upgradient of, the nearest well impacted by the Cities activities.
we have received a number of requests, from people 1/2· mile away, wanting their well sampled because they believe they may have a problem (for
which they believe Raleigh is responsible). This isn't a surprise as these situations generally create quite a stir. All wells located in close
proximity to the application fields were sampled repeatedly, including wells located adjacent to those reporting Nitrate. At this point we have
no plans to sample additional wells and I have been referring callers to the local county health departments. In the event they find nitrates in
their water, I have asked for the owner to contact our office for appropriate followup. I have also tried to educate people concerning other
sources of nitrate, such as fertilizers and septic tanks, each of which are likely used by them as well as their neighbors.
Let me know if any questions.
Andrew Pitner wrote:-
Thanks for the info David.
This location appears to be to the west of the main area of concern:
htt p : //map s .g o og le. com/map s?f-u &hl=en&;3eocode=&9 =2530+Shotwell+Rd, +2_7.§1._9&.sll1:35. 66693 -8-0. 46935&.ss n=O .109895 0. 237579&ie-UTFB&ll-35. 693343. -78. _J.
and, I would expect that that this well serving a church should be registered as a public water supply, which would likely require testing for
nitrates.
Jay -has this well been sampled and/or data from PWSS been reviewed?
Andrew
David Hance wrote:
A comment concerning the variance request.
dh
SUbject:
Notice of variance memo
From:
Eddie Moody <elmoodv@mindsp rinq .com>
Date:
Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:21:08 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
To:
[e-mail]
TO:
david. hance@ncmail . net
August 27, 2007
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: Permit Number WQ000l 730
Dear Mr. Hance:
we have received your memo regarding the variance application for cleanup at the city of Raleigh Public Utilities Department. Your memo
indicates that there are no active wells in the impacted area. we have cwo wells on our property that are our sole source of drinking
water. we are concerned about the water quality of our wells because they are within 100 yards of wells that have been c:ontaminated and
placed on public water systems. we are afraid that our wells may have been contaminated as well. We oppose any variances or exceptions for
the city of Raleigh to fail to comply with all water regulations. We believe that the ground water problem needs to be corrected
immediately. Sincerely,
Edward Moody
Pastor
Tippett' s Chapel
2530 Shotwell Road
Clayton, NC 27520
919-553-7037
ti ppettsfwb§learthlink. net
www. Ti ppettsCha p el. com
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Ja v.Zimmerman@n cmail.net>
Environrnetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
8/30/2007 10:08 AM
I of3
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Notice of variance memo]]]]
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:40:46-0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>, David
Hance <[e-mail]>, JAY ZIMMERMAN <JA [e-mail]>, Ted
Bush <[e-mail]>
Please see the attached message sent to the City of Raleigh's consultant regarding
the Tippett's Chapel message and similar requests/concerns. We have not received a
response from the City's consultant yet.
rb
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Notice of variance memo]]]
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:00:20 -0400
To: "Thibodeau, Peter" <[e-mail]>
CC: Dale Crisp <[e-mail]>, JAY ZIMMERMAN
<[e-mail]>
Hey Pete;
Please see the attached forwarded message from the pastor at Tippett's Chapel on
Shotwell Road. He claims that the church's water supply wells are within 100 yards
of contaminated wells that were replaced with Raleigh city water. I do not believe
that is accurate, but i wanted to check with you before we prepare any type of
response.
This issue has come up several times; that is, people who claim that their well may
be contaminated by the City due to their location. It would be very helpful to us at
the upcoming public hearing if we could display a figure showing the location of all
homes that have been tested by the City, those homes with elevated Nitrate in their
well, and the location of the water supply line. Perhaps color coding would help
identify these residences and their water supply status.
I'm in the process of preparing a presentation for the upcoming public hearing for
the variance. My presentation will be a brief description of the site, the history
of the problem, and recommendations from the Division regarding the variance. In
addition to the figure requested above, we would like to have electronic and paper
copies of the following figures from the Revised Corrective Action Plan:
Figure 1-2 "Proposed Remediation Plan and Variance Areas"
Figure 1-3 "Nitrate Analytical Results"
Figure 2-1 "Conceptual Layout of Extraction Wells ...... " {electronic version only for
this figure)
We believe it may be helpful to have the requested hard copy figures mounted on a
presentation media for display at the public hearing.
Please call or email me if you have any questions or comments .
Thanks;
rb
8/30/2007 I 0:09 AM
L-·•-• L-••-• L-••-• L ... ••-• ..,,..., ..... _ _. ........ ,....,_,. ____ ...... _. ............ JJJJ
2 of3
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Notice of variance memo]]
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:53:23 -0400
To: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
fyi
Subject: [Fwd: Notice of variance memo]
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:42:01 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], kathy stecker
<[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush,
Jr." <[e-mail]>
A comment concerning the variance request .
dh
Subject: Notice of variance memo
From: Eddie Moody <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:21 :08 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
To: [e-mail]
August 27, 2007
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: Permit Number WQ0001730
Dear Mr. Hance:
We have received your memo regarding the variance application for cleanup at the city
of Raleigh Public Utilities Department. Your memo indicates that there are no active
wells in the impacted area. We have two wells on our property that are our sole
source of drinking water. We are concerned about the water quality of our wells
because they are within 100 yards of wells that have been contaminated and placed on
public water systems. We are afraid that our wells may have been contaminated as
well.
We oppose any variances or exceptions for the city of Raleigh to fail to comply with
all water regulations. We believe that the ground water problem needs to be
corrected immediately.
Sincerely,
Edward Moody
Pastor
Tippett's Chapel
8/30/2007 10:09 AM
1 of 1
Subject: Re: FYI .... Courier Mail that will go out on Wednesday: EMC Groundwater Committee
Meeting packet for September 12th
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:23:27 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
I plan to attend just to see how it goes .
David Hance wrote:
Andrew,
Since RRO will be g1.v1.ng the EMC Groundwater Committee an "information only"
update on the City of Raleigh variance request, a copy of the EMC GWC packet has
been sent to you by courier. Kathy Stecker has also been given a copy of the EMC
GWC packet and Jay Zimmerman got his hand delivered this afternoon.
Note that I am only sending this to you 'FYI' since you are a hearing officer for
the variance and have an interest in it. I have _not_ received any request from
management that you come from Mooresville to be at this meeting. You are
certainly welcome to ait in.
See the attached Agenda for that meeting under Informational Item# 4. There are
other items on this agenda that may be of interest to you as well .
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 x. 587
Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
8/28/2007 5:47 PM
I of2
Subject: Re: some more informaiton on the variance hearing
From: Elizabeth Kountis <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:18:45 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Ok. Let me check with my husband that he can take care of the kids that night, and
then get back with you.
David Hance wrote:
Hello again:
The hearing will be held as follows:
Raleigh
September 5, 2007
7 PM
Archdale Building
Ground floor Hearing Room
It will ,probably go to 9 PM but it is a local issue of interest so it may even go
to 10 PM (just in case).
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
*******************************************************************
Elizabeth Kountis wrote:
Oops, just read your message that the hearing will be in the Archdale Grd Floor
room. However, if you could still let me know the time frame you need help in
for that evening, that would be great.
Elizabeth Kountis wrote:
I can probably help. Where is the hearing? And from what time to what time
do you need help?
David Hance wrote:
_Hello Planning Staff:
We are having a public hearing on a variance to groundwater rules for the
City of Raleigh-Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant.
Planning Section -CSU will need some help with registrations fort.he
hearing and room s-etup for the hearing. The hearing will begin in r.he
evening at 7 PM. We have the room at 6 PM so we c an prepare in advance.
*Question: Can any of you assist me with this that evening?
*
Please send an email reply.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 x. 587
8/27/2007 I 0:28 AM
2 of2 8/27/2007 I 0:28 AM
-North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality• Planning Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
WILLIAM BYRD BAUCOM
PO BOX 248 "~-
CLAYTON NC 27528-0'.ZlJS
Nl:X:Z:E 276 CE 1.
"' CIJ
vi
4U :c
RETURN TO SEHCER
$00.33~
08/03/2007 -
Mailed From 27607
US POSTAGE
08 08./ :18./ 07
NOT OEL~VERABLE AS AOORESSEC UNA.Ell..E TO FORWARD
ec ·: 2;,ggg:1&:1799 ~~seo-ooe73-;1e-2:1
l,, I, ll,,, I, ll 1,_l, l11l 1h1111 I 1;1 I,,,, ,111,,, 11,I ,., I, I, II 11111
1 ofl
Subject: Re: Assistance requested with a Public Hearing: 2L Variance Request Hearing on Wednesday
Evening---Wed. September 5, 2007
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:52:33 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
I have 2 yes and one maybe. I might be good to have one more from Raleigh if U can swing it!
dh
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
Do you need any extra help from our staff? Rick and I are planning to be there but wasn't sure if
you needed extra help. Please advise.
J
David Hance wrote:
Hello Planning Staff:
We are having a public hearing on a variance to groundwater rules for the City of
Raleigh-Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant.
Planning Section -CSU will need some help with registrations for the hearing and room setup
for the hearing. The hearing will begin in the evening at 7 PM. We have the room at 6 PM so
we can prepare in advance.
Question: Can any of you assist me with this that evening?
Please send an email reply.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 X. 587
8/27/2007 9:59 AM
1 of 1
- - -_.L ____ - -
'
Subject: Assistance requested with a Public Hearing: 2L Variance Request Hearing on Wednesday
Evening---Wed. September 5, 2007
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:14:45 -0400
To: Planning Section -DWQ <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Hello Planning Staff:
We are having a public hearing on a variance to groundwater rules for the City of Raleigh-Neuse River
Waste Water Treatment Plant.
Planning Section -CSU will need some help with registrations for the hearing and room setup for the
hearing. The hearing will begin in the evening at 7 PM. We have the room at 6 PM so we can prepare in
advance.
Question: Can any of you assist me with this that evening?
Please send an email reply.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 X. 587
8/24/2007 2:15 PM
------------------:i.-------··-----------------o---. --------------,1------·-
1 of 1
•
Subject: Re: Assistance requested with a Public Hearing: 2L Variance Request Hearing on Wednesday
Evening---Wed. September 5, 2007
From: Hannah Stallings <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:18:21 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
i '11 help
David Hance wrote:
yes
Hannah Stallings wrote:
is it here?
David Hance wrote:
Hello Planning Staff:
We are having a public hearing on a variance to groundwater rules for the
City of Raleigh-Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant.
Planning Section -CSU will need some help with registrations for the
hearing and room setup for the hearing. The hearing will begin in the
evening at 7 PM. We have the room at 6 PM so we can prepare in advance .
*Question: Can any of you assist me with this that evening?
*
Please send an email reply .
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 x. 587
Hannah Stallings
NCDENR-Division of Water Quality
Planning Section
SEPA Coordinator
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh,NC 27604
v: [phone] ext. 555 f: [phone]
8/24/2007 2:18 PM
-----· --------------i .. •---•·------------a• --T ---------i.----••• .
Subject: Re: Assistance requested with a Public Hearing: 2L Variance Request Hearing on Wednesday
Evening---Wed. September 5, 2007
From: Hannah Stallings <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:18:21 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
i' 11 help
David Hance wrote:
yes
Hannah Stallings wrote:
is it here?
David Hance wrote:
Hello Planning Staff:
We are having a public hearing on a variance to groundwater rules for the
City of Raleigh-Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant.
Planning Section -CSU will need some help with registrations for the
hearing and room setup for the hearing. The hearing will begin in the
evening at 7 PM. We have the room at 6 PM so we can prepare in advance .
*Question: Can any of you assist me with this that evening?
*
Please send an email reply.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 x. 587
Hannah Stallings
NCDENR-Division of Water Quality
Planning Section
SEPA Coordinator
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh,NC 27604
v: [phone] ext. 555 f: [phone]
1 of 1 8/24/2007 2:20 PM
1 of 1
Subject: Addendum to my last email about the 2L Variance Hearing on September 5th
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:20:26 -0400
To: Planning Section -DWQ <[e-mail]>
Hello again:
The hearing will be held as follows:
Raleigh
September 5, 2007
7 PM
Archdale Building
Ground floor Hearing Room
David Hance
733-5083 x. 587
8/24/2007 2:21 PM
.treatment land disposal operations at its NRWWTP where discharges of groundwater impacted by
nitrates will migrate into adjacent surface waters, or onto adjacent properties where the groundwater is
not going to be used for a water supply. In areas near the facility, where the future use of the
groundwater will be for a potable supply, the CORPUD has implemented an active treatment system
designed to more rapidly remove the nitrate from the groundwater. Residents in this area have been
connected to municipal water by CORPUD in the interim.
The CORPUD believes that groundwaters downgradient from the facility are exceeding the current
standard but can be attenuated and restored by passive natural processes in the subsurface. If granted by
the Environmental Management Commission, the variance will require implementation of corrective
action under ISA NCAC 2L. 0106(k) and will lead to changes in the permit that will allow for
downgradient plume containment and long term monitoring of nitrate in lieu of a full scale cleanup as
specified under ISA NCAC 2L .0106(j). The proposed variance request will not change the required
standard for nitrate of 10 milligrams per liter that the facility must meet under its permit obligations. It
must be noted that the cleanup requirements for nitrate outside the compliance boundaries are in this
variance request and no other substance monitored at this facility is under consideration.
Supporting Materials:
The supporting information for this variance request is contained in two reports titled as follows:
• "Corrective Action Variance Application, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina, December 1, 2005" and will be referred to in this letter as the
"December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" and is also referred to as the
variance request;
• "City of Raleigh, Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina, Revised
Corrective Action Plan, ENSR International, December 2005" and will be referred to in this
letter as "December 2005 Revised Corrective-Action Plan" or "RCAP."
Reasons that a Variance Will not Endanger Public Health and Safety:
The Division of Water Quality requests that the Division of Public Health evaluate the attached
information to support the risk assessment for this proposed variance. Relevant portions of the reports
discussed above are included with this request. In order to meet the requirements in 15A NCAC 2L
.0113, the utility submitted the following supporting information to demonstrate that the variance will
not endanger public health and safety for the following reasons:
1. The permitted operations at this facility (Permit Number WQ0O0l 730) have been conducted
since 1976 and the CORPUD will be overseeing permitted land application operations and
the conditions related to this variance request until the facility is no longer in use, which is
not likely occur for decades to come. The current estimated life of the CORPUD Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant is 30 years.
2. The utility has fully delineated which properties are included in this variance request. The
thirty-five parcels of land included within this request are listed in Table # 6 of the
2
\
"December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" with parcel sizes and land uses
discussed. These properties are shown in Figure # 2 of the variance request.
3. The CORPUD has determined the direction and rate of groundwater flow that would be
affected by granting a variance. Page 1-4 and Page 1-5 of the "December 2005 Revised
Corrective Action Plan" shows that groundwater is generally moving in the direction of the
Neuse River and its tributaries around the site. Page 4 of the request states that the movement
of groundwater through soils and subsurface materials as the site is approximately a rate of
"1.3 square feet per day", which is a relatively low rate of movement for this hydro geologic
setting.
4. The CORPUD investigated groundwater analytical results from monitoring wells on-site and
these are discussed on Page # 4 and Page # 6 of the variance request. Monitoring well data
for nitrate is shown in Table# 3 for Test Wells (TW) from March 2003 to July 2005. Results
from Monitoring Wells (MW) are found in Table # 4 for nitrate from late 2002 through the
spring of 2004. These tables demonstrate that wells around Fields 50 and 500 consistently
have concentrations of nitrate above the Groundwater Quality Standard of 10 milligrams per
liter. It is these land application fields that the CORPUD believes have caused significant
impacts to downgradient properties outside of compliance boundaries. Analysis of
groundwater samples from various fields shows exceedences of the Groundwater Quality
Standard for nitrate at sixteen fields (Fields 6, 12, 18, 19, 41, 47, 50, 60, 61, 62, 63, 74, 100,
201, 500 and 503 which are located near the compliance boundary. Four onsite monitoring
wells and a former water supply well (PW-22) have exceedences of the nitrate standard. The
utility believes that off-site nitrate impacts to groundwater associated with biosolids in the
vicinity of Old Baucom Road and Mial Plantation Road does not ex,tend east of Shotwell
Road and Mial Plantation Road. (See Table # 3 and Table # 4 of the December 1, 2005
Corrective Action Variance Application and Figure 3 from the December 2005 Revised
Corrective Action Plan).
5. Table# 1 of the titled "December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" shows
private well sampling around this facility. The utility has investigated the off-site impacts to
area drinking water wells to meet the criteria of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(4). There are no
downgradient water wells that are known to be in use for drinking water supply at this time.
All of these properties are now on the City of Raleigh's public water supply system. Starting
in 2002, the CORPUD conducted sampling of private water supply wells located adjacent to
the facility. Of the thirty-six water supply wells initially sampled, seven showed
concentrations of nitrate above the Groundwater Quality Standard of 10 milligrams per liter
in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. As a result of the initial sampling effort and to evaluate water use
in light of proposing a variance, the utility expanded its monitoring to forty-five properties
and sampled wells on a quarterly basis. There are thirty-nine properties that were served by
thirty-eight water supply wells, of which thirty-seven have been permanently abandoned in
accordance with the state's rules and all of these properties have been connected to the City
of Raleigh Public Water Supply System. The owner of the one property where the well has
not been abandoned is on city water but refused the offer to have the well abandoned.
Analytical data from the monitoring wells located across Beddingfield Creek indicates that
3
migration of nitrate-impacted groundwater under the stream is not likely occurring. (See
Page 5 and Page 6 of the December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application for a
more detailed discussion and Figure 3 of the request).
6. The utility has conducted further analysis of nitrate concentrations from this site to support
its findings that the variance will not endanger human health. Exhibit # 2 of the "December
1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance Application" shows that the utility has conducted a risk
analysis of the impacts of nitrate to neighboring properties. A discussion of this risk
assessment work begins on Page # 8 of the request and continues onto Page # 9 of the
request. The CORPUD examined various pathways of exposure using the most sensitive
human receptors to determine the most conservative risk pathway. The exposure pathways
analyzed included a young child exposed to nitrate from water used in a swimming pool, a
child and a teenager wading in surface water near the facility, and the use of groundwater
containing nitrate as a source of irrigation supply. Data analysis of these pathways did not
indicate an unacceptable risk of exposure to the nitrates from the facility. The only pathway
for which risk analysis showed a possible impact was consumption of groundwater.
However, there are no property owners in the vicinity of the CORPUD Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant that are using groundwater as a source of drinking water where
nitrate exceeds or is predicted to exceed the Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202 (103). It must be noted that the city will continue to monitor nitrate levels as required
by permit for as long as nitrate concentrations in groundwater are above the 10 milligrams
per liter standard to ensure protection of public health and the environment.
7. The CORPUD has submitted information demonstrating that land application of residuals
from the wastewater treatment process on existing fields that are in use will continue to be an
effective means of addressing these permitted activities. Page # 6 and Table # 2 of the
request discusses land application of nitrate and soils at this facility. The utility has
conducted analytical soil sampling to determine the soil profile for nitrate at the time this
variance was requested. The utility took samples from Field 3 (northwest), Field 100 (west)
and Field 500 (southeast) and found that nitrates are accumulating in a zone between 4 feet
and 8 feet below the ground surface. The implication of this is that nitrates from the
permitted operations are accumulating through mechanisms such as infiltration via slow
water movement through the soil and anion exchange. In addition, Page 7 notes that the site
assessment work by ENSR International considered Plant Available Nitrogen or PAN in
2003 and was submitted by the CORPUD to support this variance request. The study
concluded that the nitrogen applied to these field was "adequate to excessive" for crop
production and will support plant life.
8. Table# 5 of the variance request provides surface water analytical results from November
2002 through September 2005. These locations are mapped out on Figure 1 in this variance.
The direction of groundwater flow through this portion of the facility is toward a tributary of
the Neuse River identified in the variance request as Beddingfield Creek. This water body is
classified as Class C NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Water). There is no nitrate surface water
standard for this class of surface water. This body of water empties into the Neuse River,
which is classified as Water Supply V Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW) and the surface water
4
standard for Water Supply V NSW is 10 milligrams per liter. Nitrate levels in nearby surface
water suggests that groundwater discharges to streams and tributaries of the Neuse River,
however, Beddingfield Creek and the Neuse River did not exceed the 15A NCAC 2B Surface
Water Standard of 10 milligrams per liter. A discussion of surface water sampling and the
implications of results found are located on Page # 6, Page # 8 and Page # 9 of the variance
request.
9. The CORPUD has also investigated the potential for euthrophication of the Neuse River as a
result of granting the variance request. Under certain ambient conditions, additional nitrate in
a surface water body may result in the occurrence of algal blooms that can deteriorate water
quality. Based on the data contained in the variance request, CORPUD has agreed that as a
condition for approval of the variance it will account for this potential impact. The utility has
indicated that it will accept a specification in its wastewater discharge permit to account for
the excess amount of nitrogen estimated to enter the Neuse River from groundwater
discharge. Where the Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 is exceeded for
nitrate, the CORPUD will be required to count toward its annually-reported amount of
discharged nitrogen not only the amount actually discharged by its NRWWTP, but also the
amount of nitrate associated with the groundwater discharge to the Neuse and its tributaries
once the variance is granted. The annual amount of nitrate that computer modeling predicts
will be discharged to the Neuse River via groundwater as a result of violations of the
Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate, will be used as the basis for this determination
subject to actual field measurements and groundwater monitoring. The goal of this effort will
be that CORPUDs wastewater treatment and disposal operations never contribute more
nitrogen to the Neuse River than what is currently allocated under its NPDES discharge
permit. The potential for euthrophication is discussed on Page# 12 and Page# 13 of the
variance request.
10. The utility has provided a listing of property owners, well owners, and former well owners
affected by this variance request as required under 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(c)(9). Figure# 2
lists the properties and ownership of them around the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant (NRWWTP). Exhibit# 3 of the request also shows which parcels of land are in Wake
County, Johnson County and those that are owned by the State of North Carolina.
Variance Alternatives:
In proposing this variance request, the CORPUD has proposed two alternatives to addressing nitrate
migration outside of its existing compliance boundary and these are as follows:
Alternative # 1 -Corrective Action Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L: Groundwater Extraction and
Enhanced Denitrification along the Compliance Boundary with Discharge to the Neuse River
Waste Water Treatment Plant:
This alternative would involve the construction of 426 extraction wells installed along portions of
the compliance boundary where the Groundwater Quality Standard for nitrate has been exceeded or is
anticipated to be exceeded. Enhanced denitrification involves the injection (pressure or gravity feed) of
5
biodegradable carbon electron donor, such as com syrup or sodium lactate via injection wells to create
in-situ anaerobic zones to denitrify nitrate enriched plumes of groundwater beyond the compliance
boundary. The goal of using this method would be to stimulate the growth of microbes that would use
the nitrate as groundwater passes through these zones from the land application fields.
Alternative # 2 -A Variance Under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 that will Result in Groundwater
Containment in Fields 50 and 500, Discharge to North Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Plant or
land application and Long-Term Monitoring of Other Areas:
Based on the best available information, nitrate exceedences have occurred beyond the compliance
boundary for this facility near Fields 50 and 500. This alternative is directed at controlling additional
offsite migration of nitrate into impacted areas through installation of a limited number of groundwater
extraction wells. If this alternative is applied short-term extraction of groundwater combined with
natural remedial processes or attenuation and degradation in the subsurface will control and break down
nitrate over time. Long-term monitoring will be conducted over the remaining areas of the site where
exceedences of the nitrate Groundwater Quality Standard have occurred at or beyond the compliance
boundary under permit.
Comparing the Effects of Alternative # 1 and Alternative # 2 the Neuse River Waste Water
Treatment Plant (NRWWTP):
The following table was developed from the information submitted by the CORPUD in variance
request and shows a comparison of the effect of using either Alternative # 1 or Alternative # 2 for as
follows:
EFFECT OF ALTERNATIVE# 1: ALTERNATIVE# 2:
IMPLEMENTATION Corrective Action involving A Variance with Groundwater
Groundwater Extraction Plume Containment and Long-
with Enhanced Term Monitoring
Denitrification
Number of New Wells 426 pumping wells around the 22 new groundwater extraction
Constructed entire facility wells installed downgradient from
(Including the construction Field 500
of 195 new injection wells
under
15A NCAC 2C .0200)
Additional Groundwater 128 wells 39 wells
Monitoring (20 monitoring wells, 20 (10 monitoring wells and 29
(Sampling conducted three times injection wells, and 88 extraction wells)
per year for the life of the recovery wells)
project)
6
EFFECT OF ALTERNATIVE # 1: ALTERNATIVE# 2:
IMPLEMENTATION Corrective Action involving A Variance with Groundwater
(Continued) Groundwater Extraction Plume Containment and Long-
with Enhanced Term Monitoring
Denitrification
Surface Water Sampling 10 locations 2 locations
(Sampling conducted three times
per year for the life of the
p rQject)
Potential Reduction of stream High None
base flow into the Neuse River
Estimated Costs $ 79 Million Dollars $ 9 Million Dollars
(Over the estimated 30 year life
Qf the facility)
If a variance is not granted, the utility will be required to address nitrate levels outside compliance
boundaries at this site by using Alternative # 1 in the table, which CORPUD believes is the Best
Available Technology (BAT) per 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). If Alternative # 1 is applied to its Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant, the bulk of this cost would be in the form of capital costs over a
period of the first three years of the project and represents " .... approximately 30 to 90 percent of its
total capital budget in the next few years. "
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(6) and (7), the applicant has submitted information in this
variance request to support the finding that the cost of applying BAT to this site is a "serious financial
hardship" on CORPUD without an equal or greater public benefit. The permittee does not believe that
any public benefit can be gained through the implementation of a Corrective Action Plan relying on
active remedial technology to cleanup groundwaters outside of permitted boundaries for a majority of
the site. A variance would allow concentration of nitrate to remain at levels near the 15A NCAC 2L
.0202 and allow the processes of natural degradation and attenuation to act upon residual concentrations
at this site. For a more detailed discussion of the economics of both alternatives, of the implementation
of corrective action Alternative # 1, and a variance under Alternative # 2 with application of 15A NCAC
2L .0106(k), see Page 9 through Page 14 of the "December 1, 2005 Corrective Action Variance
Application."
Request Review and Comment b y July 27, 2007:
Please review the attached report and provide David Hance in the DWQ-Planning Section with a
recommendation regarding the risk assessment of this variance request. Mr. Hance may be contacted at
733-5083 (ext. 587) and he is in the Archdale Building Room 625. If you would like to meet with
Aquifer Protection Section staff to further discuss the variance request, particularly regarding technical
aspects of the variance, please contact Mr. Hance to arrange such a meeting.
If possible, the Planning Section would like to receive your recommended response by Friday, July
27, 2007. If you need my assistance please call me at extension 570. Per the requirements of ISA
NCAC 2L .0113, variance requests must receive final action by the Environmental Management
7
Commission. Upon receiving your recommendation, this information will be incorporated into the
variance request packet and be forwarded to the Director of the Division of Water Quality for review
pursuant to title 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(d). If the Director deems the information to support this variance
request complete, DWQ will proceed to public notice and hearing under 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(e) of the
rule.
ATTACHMENTS
cc: Jeff Manning
Ted Bush
Debra Watts
Jay Zimmerman (Raleigh Regional Office -Aquifer Protection Section Supervisor)
Rick Bolich
David Hance
Dr. Ken Rudo
8
Dr. Ken Rudo
Variance Request, City of Raleigh, NC
Technical Evaluation
July 25, 2007
impacted or have the potential to be impacted in the future, were connected tQ, Raleigh municipal
water and their former wells have been abandoned. The source for Raleigh municipal water is Falls
Lake, which is not threatened by the groundwater contamination from the CORPUD land application
fields.
On July 24, 2007, you and I conducted a site inspection to familiarize you with the area
surrounding the CORPUD facility including the location of nearby residents, locations of former
application fields in relation to these homes, area topography and discharge features. Private water
supply wells not connected to municipal water and that are adjacent to the area covered by the
proposed variance are located up gradient from and/or across one or more perennial drainage features.
As such, it is extremely unlikely that they would become impacted by groundwater contamination
from the current CORPUD biosolids application fields.
Staff from the APS-RRO have reviewed the variance application and supporting
documentation and have concluded that the proposed variance is appropriate, technically feasible,
and protective of human health and the environment. The RRO supports this variance on the
condition that the estimated flux of nitrate into the Neuse River, via groundwater discharge, is offset
by deducting the equivalent amount of nitrate from the NRWWTP's permitted effluent outfall. The
RRO supports continuing research and monitoring at the site to improve the accuracy of determining
the groundwater nitrate flux into the river in order to evaluate the performance of the proposed
variance and the corrective action system.
In order to address concerns that you have expressed regarding the potential for
contamination to migrate across the hydro logic barriers in the southeastern portion of the site, the
RRO would support additional limited groundwater monitoring in these areas including the
installation of additional monitor wells, surface water sampling points and a limited number of
residential wells.
cc: Coleen Sullins -DWQ Director
Ted Bush -APS Section Chief
Alan Clark-DWQ Planning Section Chief
DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL
Public Hearing-Variance Request
September 5, 2007
Variance to 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) and 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j)
08/22/07
City of Raleigh Public Utility Department (CORPUD) Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant (NRWWTP)@ 8500 Battle Bridge Road, Wake County, North Carolina
(Permit Number WQ000J730)
HEARING LOCATED AT:
City of Raleigh
Archdale Building -Ground Floor Hearing Room
512 North Salisbury Street -(at 7:00 PM)
HEARING OFFICER'S SPEECH
HEARING OFFICERS: Andrew Pitner, Division of Water Quality, Regional Groundwater
Supervisor (Mooresville Regional Office)
Kathy Stecker, Division of Water Quality, Planning Section -
Modeling and TMDL Unit Supervisor
HEARING OFFICER KATHY STECKER: GOOD EVENING, I WOULD LIKE TO
CALL THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO ORDER. MY NAME IS KA THY STECKER AND I
AM THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY -MODELING/fMDL UNIT SUPERVISOR.
TO MY (right or left) IS MR. ANDREW PITNER. HE IS THE DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY REGIONAL GROUNDWATER SUPERVISOR IN THE MOORESVILLE
REGIONAL OFFICE. WE HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED HEARING OFFICERS FOR
THIS EVENING'S HEARING.
1
DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
THIS HEARING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL
STATUTE 150B~21.2. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL STATUTES, A
PUBLIC NOTICE OF THIS HEARING WAS PUBLISHED IN CONFORMITY WITH
15A NCAC ZL .0113 OF THE GROUNDWATER RULES AND GENERAL NOTICE
HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE LOCAL PAPER. NOTICES WERE ALSO DISTRIBUTED
TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, WELL OWNERS,
AND PROPERTY HOLDERS WITHIN AND NEAR THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED
VARIANCE. THE VARIAN CE IS DESCRIBED IN THE PUBLIC NOTICE AND
COPIES ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO PERSONS ATTENDING THIS
HEARING TONIGHT.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING IS TO OBTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT AND
PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR
THE CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT'S-NEUSE RIVER WASTE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN RALEIGH, NC. THIS PUBLIC UTILITY IS
REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM RULES CONTAINED IN 15A NCAC ZL
GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS FOR THE PROPERTY
2
DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL
LOCATED AT 8500 BATTLE BRIDGE ROAD.
08/22/07
AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN THE HEARING OVER TO MY co~
HEARING OFFICER, MR. ANDREW PITNER TO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HAVE LED UP TO THIS VARIANCE REQUEST AND
PUBLIC HEARING AND THE PROCEDURES RELATED TO THIS VARIANCE.
HEARING OFFICER ANDREW PITNER: THANK YOU KATHY. THE CITY OF
RALEIGHPUBLICUTILITYDEPARTMENTORCORPUDOWNSANDOPERATESA
THE NEUSE RIVER WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT. THIS PLANT IS
AUTHORIZED UNDER PERMIT TO LAND APPLYWASTEWATERRESIDUAI.S VIA
LANDFARMING ON NUMEROUS FIELDS WITHIN ITS PERMITTED COMPLIANCE
BOUNDARY. DUE TO THE OVER APPLICATION OF RESIDUALS IN TWO FIELDS
(THAT IS, FIELDS 50 AND 500), NITRATE EXCEEDENCES HAVE OCCURRED
BEYOND COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY FOR THIS FACILITY. UNDER 15A NCAC 2L
.0107, COMPLIANCE BOUNDARIES ARE ESTABLISHED FOR PERMITTED
FACILITIES THAT DISPOSE OF WASTES, INCLUDING LANDFARMING
ACTIVITIES, AND SUBSTANCES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MIGRATE BEYOND ··
THOSE BOUNDARIES. PURSUANT TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION ISSUED BY
THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY -RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE, THE
3
DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
UTILITY REQUESTED THE VARIANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
A VARIANCE ADOPTED UNDER 15A NCAC 2L .0113 WILL ALLOW THE
CORPUD TO PURSUE A NATURAL A TTENTUATION CORRECTIVE ACTION
PLAN (CAP) UNDER 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (k), WHICH CANNOT BE DONE UNLESS
A VARIANCE IS GRANTED. UNDER THE STATE'S RULES, PERMITTED
FACILITIES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PURSUE A CAP THAT PROPOSES NATURAL
REMEDIATION OR LIMITED CORRECTIVE ACTION. IF GRANTED BY THE
COMMISSION, THE CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
(CORPUD) WILL FORGO ACTIVE REMEDIATION AND TREATMENT OF
GROUNDWATERCONTAINING NITRATE THAT HAS MIGRATED BEYOND THE
COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY. VARIANCE IS REQUESTED FOR THIRTY-FIVE
PARCELS OF LAND THAT HAVE BEEN USED BY THE CORPUD AS LAND
APPLICATION FIELDS AT THE NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT.
15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) WOULD BE APPLIED TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES
WHERE GROUNDWATER IS NOT BEING USED AS A WATER SUPPLY AND
WHERE DISCHARGES OF GROUNDWATER IMPACTED BY NITRATES WILL
MIGRATE TO ADJACENT SURFACE WATERS. THE CORRECTIVE ACTION
PLAN PROPOSED BY THE FACILITY IS INTENDED TO RESULT IN
GROUNDWATER CONTAINMENT AND TREATMENT ADJACENTTOTHETWO
4
DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
IMPACTED FIELDS WHERE GROUNDWATER HAS MIGRATED OFF,SITE AND
RESULT IN CONTROLLING ADDITIONAL OFF SITE MIGRATION. LONG,TERM
MONITORING WILL BE APPLIED TO THE OTHER LAND APPLICATION FIELDS
OVER THE REMAINING AREAS OF THE SITE WHERE EXCEEDENCES OF THE
GROUNDWATER STANDARD FOR NITRATE HA VE OCCURRED. IN ADDITION,
THE NATIONAL POLLITT ANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM OR NPDES
PERMIT FOR THIS FACILITY HAS BEEN MODIFIED SUCH THAT NITRATE
DISCHARGING INTO THE SURFACE WATERS WILL BE CONSIDERED AS WELL
AS NITRATE COMING OUT OF THE DISCHARGE PIPE SUCH THAT THE TOTAL
ALLOW ABLE NITRATE DISCHARGING INTO THE NEUSE IS UNCHANGED. THE
VARIAN CE WILL NOT CHANGE THE GROUNDWATER AND SURF ACE WATER
STANDARDS THAT THE CORPUD MUST MEET FOR NITRATE AT THE
FACILITY. WHILE THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY HAS SUSPENDED THE APPLICATION OF
RESIDUALS FROMWATERWATER TREATMENT AT THIS FACILITY .
THIS HEARING WILL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE RULES AND STATUTES.
ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND
HEARING ARE LOCATED IN THIS BUILDING AND ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC
REVIEW.
5
DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
A WRITTEN RECORD OF THIS HEARING WILL BE PREPARED WHICH WILL
INCLUDE ALL THE RELEVANT COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND DISCUSSIONS.
FOR THIS REASON, THE HEARING IS BEING TAPE~RECORDED. WRITTEN
COMMENTS RECEIVED THROUGH OCTOBER 5, 2007 WILL ALSO BE INCLUDED
IN THE RECORD. BASED ON THESE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ON ANALYSIS BY
THE DIVISION STAFF, WE WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION. IN MAKING THE FINAL
DECISION, THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION CONSIDERS
THE WRITTEN RECORD, THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING OFFICERS,
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF DIVISION STAFF, AND THE CONCERNS OF ITS
MEMBERS. THE COMMISSION MUST ALSO CONSIDER WHETHER THE
APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH RULES PERTAINING TO THE REQUESTED
VARIANCE.
IF THE APPLICANT DECIDES THAT THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IS
UNACCEPTABLE, A PETITION MAY BE FILED CONTESTING THAT DECISION.
IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT RECEIVE THAT PETITION WITHIN 60 DAYS OF
IT DECISION ON THE VARIAN CE, THAT RULING WILL BE FINAL AND BINDING.
AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE (names of local and state officials)
AND THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THIS HEARING. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO
6
DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
RECOGNIZE THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE FROM THE DNISION OF WATER
QUALITY (DWQ central office and DWQ regional office personnel).
MR. RICH BOLICH (staff speaker,) OF THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY -
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION WILL NOW SUMMARIZE THE PROPOSED
VARIANCE WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING.
STAFF SPEAKER: (staff speaker swnmarizes variance request).
HEARING OFFICER KATHY STECKER: THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW
ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VARIAN CE. I WOULD LIKE TO
REQUEST THAT EVERYONE FILL OUT A REGISTRATION FORM. AFTER ALL
REGISTERED SPEAKERS HA VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENT; I
WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS AS TIME PERMITS. WHEN YOUR NAME
IS CALLED, PLEASE COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME
AND AFFILIATION. ALL COMMENTS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO MA TIERS THAT
ARE RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THIS VARIANCE. IF YOUR
COMMENTS ARE LONGER THAN THREE MINUTES, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST
THAT THEY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING. I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO QUESTION
SPEAKERS IF THE NEED SHOULD ARISE.
7
DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTIONS IF NECESSARY. I WOULD NOW LIKE TO CALL [first speaker].
[speakers .•• ]
( the hearing officer, referring to THE REGISTRATION CARDS, calls each speaker to the microphone
in turn)
HEARING OFFICER KA THY STECKER: THANK YOU [last speaker]. ARE THERE
ANY MORE COMMENTS? SINCE THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS, I DECLARE
THE HEARING CLOSED. THE HEARING RECORD WILL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL
12:00PM (MIDNIGHT) ON OCTOBER 5, 2007. ANYONE WISHING TO SUBMIT
WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY DO SO UNTIL THAT DATE. AFTER WHICH TIME,
THE COMMENTS WILL BE MADE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD AND WE
SHALL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION. WRITTEN COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED TO DAVID HANCE
AT THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY~ PLANNING SECTION. THE ADDRESS
WRITTEN COMMENTS NEED TO BE SENT TO IS SHOWN IN THE PUBLIC
NOTICE AND IS AS FOLLOWS:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
8
DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
A FACSIMILE COPY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY BE SENT TO MR
HANCE BY DIALING (919) 715,5637. HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER IN RALEIGH IS
(919) 733,5083 (extension587). COMMENTSMAYALSOBESENTTOMR.HANCE
VIA £,MAIL BY CONTACTING HIS INTERNET MAILING ADDRESS SHOWN IN
THE PUBLIC NOTICE, WHICH IS [e-mail]. MR. HANCE'S
BUSINESS CARDS SHOWS THIS INFORMATION AND ARE LOCATED AT THE
PLACE YOU REGISTERED FOR THIS HEARING.
IT IS THE DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION TO ALWAYS ACT IN THE BEST
POSSIBLE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC. THEREFORE, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS
A VERY IMPORT ANT PART OF THE RULE,MAKING PROCESS. I WOULD LIKE
TO THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THE HEARING AND OFFERING YOUR
COMMENTS.
9
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance Request: Draft Hearing Officers speech for your review and comment
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:30:04 -0400
To: [e-mail], Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>
Hello Hearin g Officers:
Attached is the draft hearing officers speech for the September 5, 2007 CORPUD variance hearing.
I am also sending this to the RRO APS Supervisor (Jay Zimmerman) and Rick Bolich since they are the
technical staff and their presentation will need to be "dovetailed" into this.
Please bring this with you for discussion on Thursday, August 23rd at the hearing officers meeting in
Raleigh.
David Hance, Env. Spec.
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
corpudSpeech WQOOOl 730.doc
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
8/22/2007 1:30 PM
l
KS-& AP DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL
Public Hearing-Variance Request
September 5, 2007
Variance to ISA NCAC 2L .0106(k) and 15A NCAC 2L .01066)
oa,22101 I
City of Raleigh Public Utility Department (CORPUD) Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant (NRWWTP) @8500 Battle Bridge Road, Wake County, North Carolina
(Permit Number WQ000J 730)
HEARING LOCATED AT:
City of Raleigh
Archdale Building -Ground Floor Hearing Room
512 North Salisbury Street -(at 7:00 PM)
HEARING OFFICER'S SPEECH
HEARING OFFICERS: Andrew Pitner, Division of Water Quality, Regional Groundwater
Supervisor (Mooresville Regional Office)
Kathy Stecker, Division of Water Quality, Planning Section -
Modeling and TMDL Unit Supervisor
HEARING OFFICER KA THY STECKER: GOOD EVENING, I WOULD LIKE TO
CALL THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO ORDER. MY NAME IS KA THY STECKER AND I
AM THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY -MODELING/fMDL UNIT SUPERVISOR
TO MY (right or left) IS MR. ANDREW PITNER. HE IS THE DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY REGIONAL GRGUNDWATERA OUIFER PROTECTION SUPERVISOR IN
THE MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE. WE HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED
HEARING OFFICERS FOR THIS EVENING'S HEARING.
1
KS-& AP DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL oa,22107 I
THIS HEARING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT.TO NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL
STATUTE lS0B,21.2. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL STATUTES, A
PUBLIC NOTICE OF THIS HEARING WAS PUBLISHED IN CONFORMITY WITH
15A NCAC 2L .0113 OF THE GROUNDWATER RULES AND GENERAL NOTICE
HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE LOCAL PAPER. NOTICES WERE ALSO DISTRIBUTED
TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, WELL OWNERS,
AND PROPERTY HOLDERS WITHIN AND NEAR THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED
VARIAN CE. THE VARIAN CE IS DESCRIBED IN THE PUBLIC NOTICE AND
COPIES ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO PERSONS ATTENDING THIS
HEARING TONIGHT.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING IS TO OBTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT AND
PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR
THE CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT'S-NEUSE RIVER WASTE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN RALEIGH, NC. THIS PUBLIC UTILITY IS
REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM RULES CONTAINED IN 15A NCAC 2L
GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS FOR THE PROPERTY
2
KS-& AP DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL oa,22101 I
LOCATED AT 8500 BA TILE BRIDGE ROAD.
AT THIS POINT, I ~'OULD LIKE TOWILL TURN THE HEARING OVER TO I
MY CO-HEARING OFFICER, MR. ANDREW PITNER TO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HA VE LED UP TO THIS VARIANCE REQUEST AND
PUBLIC HEARING_. AND THE PROCEDURES RELATED TO THIS VARIANCE.
HEARING OFFICER ANDREW PITNER: THANK YOU KATHY. THE CITY OF
RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT OR CORPUD OWNS AND OPERATES A I
THE NEUSE RIVER WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT. THIS PLANT IS
AUTHORIZED UNDER PERMIT TO LAND APPLY WASTEWATER RESIDUALS
(ALSO KNOWN AS BIOSOLIDS ) VIA LANDFARMING ON NUMEROUS FIELDS
WITHIN ITS PERMITTED COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY. THE APPLIED BIOSOLIDS
ARE USED AS FERTILIZER FOR AGRICULTURAL CROPS NOT MEANT FOR
HUMAN CONSUMPTION. DUE TO THE OVERAPPLICATION OF RESIDUALS IN
TWO FIELDS (THA T IS, FIELDS 50 AND 500), NITRATE EXCEEDENCES IN
GROUNDWATER HA VE OCCURRED BEYOND THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
FOR THIS FACILITY. THIS GROUNDWATER IS DISCHARGING INTO THE NEUSE
RIVER. UNDER ISA NCAC 2L .0107, COMPLIANCE BOUNDARIES ARE
ESTABLISHED FOR PERMITTED FACILITIES THAT DISPOSE OF WASTES,
3
KS -& AP DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
INCLUDING LAf-JDFARMING ACTIVITIESAPPLICATION OF BIOSOLIDS, AND
RESULTING SUBSTANCES IN GROUNDWATER ARE NOT ALLOWED TO
MIGRATE BEYOND THOSE BOUNDARIES. PURSUANT TO A NOTICE OF
VIOLATION ISSUED BY THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY -RALEIGH
REGIONAL OFFICE, THAT RE Q UIRES ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION OF THE
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION , THE UTILITY REQUESTED THE
VARIANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
A VARIANCE ADOPTED UNDER 15A NCAC 2L .0113 WILL ALLOW THE
CORPUD TO PURSUE A NATURAL A TTENTUA TION CORRECTIVE ACTION
PLAN (CAP) UNDER 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k), WHICH CANNOT BE DONE UNLESS
A VARIANCE IS GRANTED. UNDER THE STATE'S RULES, PERMITTED
FACILITIES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PURSUE A CAPTHA T PROPOSES NATURAL
REMEDIATION OR LIMITED CORRECTIVE ACTION. PLEASE NOTE THAT
FACILITIES WITH UNPERMITfED DISCHARGES ARE ALLOWED TO PURSUE
THIS KIND OF CORRECTIVE ACTION. IF GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION, THE
CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (CORPUD) WILL FORGO
ACTIVE REMEDIATION AND TREATMENT OF A PORTION OF GROUNDWATER I
CONTAINING NITRATE THAT HAS MIGRATED BEYOND THE COMPLIANCE
BOUNDARY. THE VARIA.NCE IS REQUESTED FOR THIRTY,FIVE PARCELS OF
LAND THAT HAVE BEEN USED BY THE CORPUD AS LAND APPLICATION
4
KS-& AP DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL oa122101 I
FIELDS AT THE NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) WOULD BE APPLIED TOINVOLVE ADJACENT I
PROPERTIES WHERE GROUNDWATER IS NOT BEING USED AS A WATER
SUPPLY AND WHERE DISCHARGES OF GROUNDWATER IMPACTED BY
NITRATES WILL MIGRATE TO ADJACENT SURFACE WATERS. THE
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY THE FACILITY IS INTENDED TO
RESULT IN GROUNDWATER CONTAINMENT AND TREATMENT ADJACENT TO
THE TWO IMPACTED FIELDS WHERE GROUNDWATER HAS MIGRATED OFF,
SITE AND RESULT IN CONTROLLING ADDITIONAL OFF SITE MIGRATION.
LONG,TERM MONITORING WILL BE APPLIED TOREO UIRED FOR THE OTHER I
LAND APPLICATION FIELDS OVER THE REMAINING AREAS OF THE SITE
WHERE EXCEEDENCES OF THE GROUNDWATER STANDARD FOR NITRATE
HAVE OCCURRED. IN ADDITION, THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM OR NPDES PERMIT FOR THIS FACILITY HAS BEEN
MODIFIEDSUCHTHATNITRATEDISCHARGINGFROMGROUNDWATERINTO
THE SURFACE WATERS WILL BE CONSIDERED AS WELL ASJ\LONG WITH
NITRATE COMING OUT OF THE DISCHARGE PIPE SUCH THAT THE PERMITTED
TOTAL ALLOWABLE NITRATE DISCHARGING INTO THE NEUSE RIVER ·IS
UNCHANGED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT CHANGE THE GROUNDWATER AND
SURFACE WA TER O UALITY STANDARDS THAT THE CORPUD MUST MEET FOR I
5
KS-& AP DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL oa,22101 I
NITRATE AT THE FACILITY. WHILE THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS UNDER
CONSIDERATION, THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY HAS SUSPENDED THE
LAND APPLICATION OF RESIDUALS FROM ~'ATERWATER WASTEWATER
TREATMENT AT THE FIELDS LOCATED AD )ACENT TO THIS FACILITY.
THIS HEARING WILL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE RULES AND STATUTES.
ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND
HEARING ARE LOCATED IN THIS BUILDING AND ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC
REVIEW.
A WRITTEN RECORD OF THIS HEARING WILL BE PREPARED WHICH WILL
INCLUDE ALL THE RELEVANT COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND DISCUSSIONS.
FOR THIS REASON, THE HEARING IS BEING TAPE~RECORDED. WRITTEN
COMMENTSRECEIVEDTHROUGHOCTOBER5,2007WILLALSOBEINCLUDED
IN THE RECORD. BASED ON THESE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ON ANALYSIS BY
THE DIVISION STAFF, WE, THE HEARING OFFICERS , WILL MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ENVIRONMENT AL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION.
IN MAKING THE FINAL DECISION, THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION CONSIDERS THE WRITTEN RECORD, THE RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING OFFICERS, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF DIVISION STAFF,
AND THE CONCERNS OF ITS MEMBERS. THE COMMISSION MUST ALSO
6
KS-& AP DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
CONSIDER WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH RULES
PERTAINING TO THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
IF THE APPLICANT DECIDES . THAT THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IS
UNACCEPTABLE, A PETITION MAY BE FILED CONTESTING THAT DECISION.
IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT RECEIVE THAT PETITION WITHIN 60 DAYS OF
ITS. DECISION ON THE VARIANCE, THAT RULING WILL BE FINAL AND
BINDING.
AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE (names of local and state officials)
AND THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THIS HEARING. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO
RECOGNIZE THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE FROM THE DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY (DWQ central office and DWQ regional office personnel).
MR. RICH BOLICH (staff speaker,) OF THE DIVISION OF w ATER QUALITY -
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION WILL NOW SUMMARIZE THE PROPOSED
VARIAN CE WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING.
STAFF SPEAKER: (staff speaker summarizes variance request).
HEARING OFFICER KATHY STECKER: THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW I
7
KS-& AP DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. -IWE WOULD LIKE
TOREQUESTTHATEVERYONEFILLOUT A REGISTRATION FORM. AFTERALL
REGISTERED SPEAKERS HA VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENT; I
WE WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS AS TIME PERMITS. WHEN YOUR
NAME IS CALLED, PLEASE COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR
NAME . ADDRESS AND ANY AFFILIATION. ALL COMMENTS SHOULD BE
LIMITED TO MA TIERS THAT ARE R£LATIVE RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSED
ADOPTION OF THIS VARIANCE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE WILL BE A
SEPARATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS FOR THE CORRECTIVE ACTION
PLAN. IF YOUR COMMENTS ARE LONGER THAN THREE MINUTES, I--WE
~'OULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THEY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING. ITHE
HEARING OFFICERS-_R£SERVE THE R1GHT TO MAY QUESTION SPEAKERS IF
THE NEED SHOULD ARISE IN ORDER TO CLARIFY COMMENTS THAT ARE
MADE.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STAFF WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTIONS IF NECESSARY/\FTER THE COMMENT PORTION OF THE
HEARING TONIGHT. I WOULD NOW LIKE TO CALL [first speaker].
[speakers ... ]
( the hearing officer, referring to THE REGISTRATION CARDS, calls each speaker to the microphone
8
KS-& AP DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL oa122101 I
in turn)
HEARING OFFICER KA THY STECKER: THANK YOU [last speaker]. ARE THERE
ANY MORE COMMENTS? SINCE THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS, I DECLARE
THE HEARING CLOSED. THE HEARING RECORD WILL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL
12:00 PM-tMIDNIGHTt ON OCTOBER 5, 2007. ANYONE WISHING TO SUBMIT
WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY DO SO UNTIL THAT DATE. AFTER WHICH TIME,
THE COMMENTS WILL BE MADE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD AND WE
SHALLMAKERECOMMENDATIONSTOTHEENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT
COMMISSION. WRITTEN COMMENTS MUST BEADDRESSEDTO DA YID HANCE
AT THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY, PLANNING SECTION. THE ADDRESS
WRITTEN COMMENTS NEED TO BE SENT TO IS SHOWN IN THE PUBLIC
NOTICE AND IS AS FOLLOWS:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
A FACSIMILE COPY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY BE SENT TO MR.
HANCE BY DIALING (919) 715,5637. HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER IN RALEIGH IS
(919) 733,5083 (extension587). COMMENTSMAYALSOBESENTTOMR.HANCE
VIA £,MAIL BY CONTACTING HIS INTERNET MAILING ADDRESS SHOWN IN
9
KS-& AP DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
THE PUBLIC NOTICE, WHICH IS [e-mail]. MR. HANCE'S
BUSINESS CARDS SHOWS THIS INFORMATION AND ARE LOCATED AT THE
PLACE YOU REGISTERED FOR THIS HEARINGREGISTRA TION TABLE.
IT IS THE DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION TO ALWAYS ACT IN THE BEST
POSSIBLE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC. THEREFORE, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS
AVERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE RULE~MAKING PROCESS. I-WE WOULD
LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THE HEARING AND OFFERING YOUR
COMMENTS.
10
AHP-edits ... DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL
Public Hearing-Variance Request
September 5, 2007
Variance to 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) and 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j)
os122101 I
City of Raleigh Public Utility Department (CORPUD) Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant (NRWWTP) @8500 Battle Bridge Road, Wake County, North Carolina
(Permit Number WQ000J 730)
HEARING LOCATED AT:
City of Raleigh
Archdale Building -Ground Floor Hearing Room
512 North Salisbury Street -(at 7:00 PM)
HEARING OFFICER'S SPEECH
HEARING OFFICERS: Andrew Pitner, Division ofWater Quality, Regional Groundwater
Supervisor (Mooresville Regional Office)
Kathy Stecker, Division of Water Quality, Planning Section -
Modeling and TMDL Unit Supervisor
HEARING OFFICER KATHY STECKER: GOOD EVENING, I WOULD LIKE TO
CALL THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO ORDER. MY NAME IS KA THY STECKER AND I
AM THE DNISION OF WATER QUALITY -MODELING/fMDL UNIT SUPERVISOR.
TO MY (right or left) IS MR. ANDREW PITNER. HE IS THE DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY REGIONAL GRDUND\X'ATER AQUIFER PROTECTION SUPERVISOR IN
THE MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE. Wt HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED
HEARING OFFICERS FOR THIS EVENING'S HEARING.
1
AHP-edits ... DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL oa122101 I
THIS HEARING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL
STATUTE 150B~21.2. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL STATUTES, A
PUBLIC NOTICE OF THIS HEARING WAS PUBLISHED IN CONFORMITY WITH
15A NCAC 2L .0113 OF THE GROUNDWATER RULES AND GENERAL NOTICE
HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE LOCAL PAPER. NOTICES WERE ALSO DISTRIBUTED
TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, WELL OWNERS,
AND PROPERTY HOLDERS WITHIN AND NEAR THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED
VARIANCE. THE VARIANCE IS DESCRIBED IN THE PUBLIC NOTICE AND
COPIES ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO PERSONS ATTENDING THIS
HEARING TONIGHT.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING IS TO OBTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT AND
PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR
THE CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILI1Y DEPARTMENT'S-NEUSE RIVER WASTE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN RALEIGH, NC. THIS PUBLIC .UTILITY IS
REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM RULES CONTAINED IN 15A NCAC 2L
GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS FOR THE PROPER1Y
2
A HP-edits ... DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL
LOCATED AT 8500 BATTLE BRIDGE ROAD.
os,22101 I
AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN THE HEARING OVER TO MY co~
HEARING OFFICER, MR. ANDREW PITNER TO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HA VE LED UP TO THIS VARIANCE REQUEST AND
PUBLIC HEARING AND THE PROCEDURES RELATED TO THIS VARIANCE.
HEARING OFFICER ANDREW PITNER: THANK YOU KATHY. THE CITY OF
RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT OR CORPUD OWNS AND OPERA TES A
THE NEUSE RIVER WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT. THIS PLANT IS
AUTHORIZED UNDER PERMIT TO LAND APPLY WASTEWATER RESIDUALS
(ALSO KNOWN AS BIOSOLIDS ) VIA U\NDFARMING ON NUMEROUS FIELDS
WITHIN ITS PERMITTED COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY. THE APPLIED BIOSOLIDS
ARE USED AS FERTILIZER FOR AGRICULTURAL CROPS NOT MEANT F0]1
HUMAN CONSUMPTION. DUE TO THE OVER APPLICATION OF RESIDUALS IN
TWO FIELDS (THAT IS, FIELDS 50 AND 500), NITRATE EXCEEDENCES IN
GROUNDWATER HA VE OCCURRED BEYOND COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY FOR
THIS FACILITY. UNDER 15A NCAC 2L.0107, COMPLIANCE BOUNDARIES ARE
ESTABLISHED FOR PERMITTED FACILITIES THAT DISPOSE OF WASTES,
INCLUDING LANDFl\.RMING ACTIVITIESAPPLICATION OF BIOSOLIDS, AND
3
AHP-edits ... DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
RESULTING SUBSTANCES IN GROUNDWATER ARE NOT ALLOWED TO
MIGRATE BEYOND THOSE BOUNDARIES. PURSUANT TO A NOTICE OF
VIOLATION ISSUED BY THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY -RALEIGH
REGIONAL OFFICE, THAT RE Q UIRES ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION OF THE
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION , THE UTILITY REQUESTED THE
VARIANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
A VARIANCE ADOPTED UNDER ISA NCAC 2L .0113 WILL ALLOW THE
CORPUD TO PURSUE A NATURAL ATTENTUATION CORRECTIVE ACTION
PLAN (CAP) UNDER ISA NCAC 2L .0106(k), WHICH CANNOT BE DONE UNLESS
A VARIANCE IS GRANTED. UNDER THE STATE'S RULES, PERMITTED
FACILITIES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PURSUE A CAP THAT PROPOSES NATURAL
REMEDIATION OR LIMITED CORRECTIVE ACTION. PLEASE NOTE THAT
FACILITIES WITH UNPERMITTED DISCHARGES ARE ALLOWED TO PURSUE
THIS KIND OF CORRECTIVE ACTION. IF GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION, THE
CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (CORPUD) WILL FORGO
ACTIVE REMEDIATION AND TREATMENT OF A PORTION OF GROUNDWATER I
CONTAINING NITRATE THAT HAS MIGRATED BEYOND THE COMPLIANCE
BOUNDARY. THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED FOR THIRTY-FIVE PARCELS OF· 1
LAND THAT HAVE BEEN USED BY THE CORPUD AS LAND APPLICATION ,~
FIELDS AT THE NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
4
AHP-edits ... DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL -~ 08/22/07
15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) WOULD BE APPLIED TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES
WHERE GROUNDWATER IS NOT BEING USED AS A WATER SUPPLY AND
WHERE DISCHARGES OF GROUNDWATER IMPACTED BY NITRATES WILL
MIGRATE TO ADJACENT SURFACE WATERS. THE CORRECTIVE ACTION
PLAN PROPOSED BY THE FACILITY IS INTENDED TO RESULT IN
GROUNDWATER CONTAINMENT AND TREATMENT ADJACENT TO THE TWO
IMPACTED FIELDS WHERE GROUNDWATER HAS MIGRATED OFF,SITE AND
RESULT IN CONTROLLING ADDITIONAL OFF SITE MIGRATION. LONG,TERM
MONITORING WILL BE APPLIED TO THE OTHER LAND APPLICATION FIELDS
OVER THE REMAINING AREAS OF THE SITE WHERE EXCEEDENCES OF THE
GROUNDWATER STANDARD FORNITRA TE HA VE OCCURRED. IN ADDITION,
THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM OR NPDES
PERMIT FOR THIS FACILITY HAS BEEN MODIFIED SUCH THAT NITRATE
DISCHARGING FROM GROUNDWATER INTO THE SURFACE WATERS WILL BE
CONSIDERED l\S \'::'ELL ,'\£,ALONG WITH NITRATE COMING OUT OF THE
DISCHARGE PIPE SUCH THAT THE PERMITTED TOTAL ALLOW ABLE NITRATE
DISCHARGING INTO THE NEUSE RIVER IS UNCHANGED. THE VARIANCE WILL
NOT CHANGE THE GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER STANDARDS
THAT THE CORPUD MUST MEET FOR NITRATE AT THE FACILITY. WHILE THE
VARIANCE REQUEST IS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE DIVISION OF WATER
5
AHP-edits ... DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
QUALITY HAS SUSPENDED THE LAND APPLICATION OF RESIDUALS FROM
WATERWATER WASTEWATER TREATMENT AT THE FIELDS LOCATED
AD !ACENT TO THIS FACILITI.
THIS HEARING WILL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE RULES AND STATUTES.
ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND
HEARING ARE LOCATED IN THIS BUILDING AND ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC
REVIEW.
A WRITTEN RECORD OF THIS HEARING WILL BE PREPARED WHICH WILL
INCLUDE ALL THE RELEVANT COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND DISCUSSIONS.
FOR THIS REASON, THE HEARING IS BEING TAPE~RECORDED. WRITTEN
COMMENTS RECEIVED THROUGH OCTOBERS, 2007 WILL ALSO BE INCLUDED
IN THE RECORD. BASED ON THESE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ON ANALYSIS BY
THE DIVISION STAFF, WE , THE HEARING OFFICERS , WILL MAKE A I
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ENVIRONMENT &MANAGEMENT COMMISSION.
IN MAKING THE FINAL DECISION, THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION CONSIDERS THE WRITTEN RECORD, THE RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING OFFICERS, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF DIVISION STAFF,
AND THE CONCERNS OF ITS MEMBERS. THE COMMISSION MUST ALSO
CONSIDER WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH RULES
6
AHP-edits ... DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL
PERTAINING TO THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
os122107 I
IF THE APPLICANT DECIDES THAT THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IS
UNACCEPTABLE, A PETITION MAY BE FILED CONTESTING THAT DECISION.
IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT RECEIVE THAT PETITION WITHIN 60 DAYS OF
IT DECISION ON THE VARIANCE, THAT RULING WILL BE FINAL AND BINDING.
AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE (names of local and state officials)
AND THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THIS HEARING. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO
RECOGNIZE THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE FROM THE DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY (DWQ central office and DWQ regional office personnel).
MR. RICH BOLICH (staff speaker,) OF THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY -
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION WILL NOW SUMMARIZE THE PROPOSED
VARIANCE WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING.
STAFF SPEAKER: (staff speaker summarizes variance request).
HEARING OFFICER KATHY STECKER: THANK YOU. ·WE WILL NOW
ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. -IWE WOULD LIKE
TO REQUEST THAT EVERYONE FILL OUT A REGISTRATION FORM. AFTER ALL
7
AHP-edits ... DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
REGISTERED SPEAKERS HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENT; I
WE WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS AS TIME PERMITS. WHEN YOUR
NAME IS CALLED, PLEASE COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND STA TE YOUR
NAME , ADDRESS AND ANY AFFILIATION. ALL COMMENTS SHOULD BE
LIMITED TO MA TIERS THAT ARE R£b6tTIVE RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSED
ADOPTION OF THIS VARIANCE. IF YOUR COMMENTS ARE LONGER THAN
THREE MINUTES, I-WE WOUW LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THEY BE SUBMITTED
IN WRITING. ITHE HEARING OFFICERS-_RESERVE THE RIGHT TO QUESTION
SPEAKERS IF THE NEED SHOULD ARISE IN ORDER TO CLARIFY COMMENTS
THAT ARE MADE.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STAFF WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER I
YOUR QUESTIONS IF NECESSARY. I WOULD NOW LIKE TO CALL [first speaker].
[speakers ... ]
( the hearing officer, referring to THE REGISTRATION CARDS, calls each speaker to the microphone
in turn)
HEARING OFFICER KA THY STECKER: THANK YOU [last speaker]. ARE THERE I'
ANY MORE COMMENTS? SINCE THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS, I DECLARE
THE HEARING CLOSED. THE HEARING RECORD WILL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL
8
A HP-edi,ts ... DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
12:00 PM (MIDNIGHT) ON OCTOBER 5, 2007. ANYONE WISHING TO SUBMIT
WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY DO SO UNTIL THAT DATE. AFTER WHICH TIME,
THE COMMENTS WILL BE MADE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD AND WE
SHALL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION. WRITTEN COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED TO DAVID HANCE
AT THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY -PLANNING SECTION. THE ADDRESS
WRITTEN COMMENTS NEED TO BE SENT TO IS SHOWN IN THE PUBLIC
NOTICE AND IS AS FOLLOWS:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
A FACSIMILE COPY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY BE SENT TO MR.
HANCE BY DIALING [phone]. HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER IN RALEIGH IS
[phone] (extension 587). COMMENTS MAY ALSO BE SENT TO MR. HANCE
VIA E-MAIL BY CONTACTING HIS INTERNET MAILING ADDRESS SHOWN IN
THE PUBLIC NOTICE, WHICH IS [e-mail]. MR. HANCE'S
BUSINESS CARDS SHOWS THIS INFORMATION AND ARE LOCATED AT THE
PL'\CE YOU REGISTER£D FOR THIS HEARINGREGISTRA TION TABLE.
IT IS THE DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION TO ALWAYS ACT IN THE BEST
9
AHP-edits ... DRAFT FOR HEARING OFFICER'S APPROVAL 08/22/07
POSSIBLE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC. THEREFORE, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS
A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE RULE~MAKING PROCESS. I-WE WOULD
LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THE HEARING AND OFFERING YOUR
COMMENTS.
10
1 of 1
Subject: Reminder/Hearing Officers Meeting for the City of Raleigh (CORPUD) 2L Variance Request -
On Thursday Afternoon (read on please)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:33:12 -0400
To: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker
<[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark
<[e-mail]>, Ted Bush <[e-mail]>, Debra Watts
<[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Hello Hearing Officers and Other interested staff:
A reminder about tomorrow's meeting in Raleigh. The Hearing Officers meeting for this Variance
is as follows:
Raleigh
Thursday, August 23, 2007
@ 1:30 PM
Archdale Building (512 North Salisbury Street)
10th Floor Conference Room (Room 1042A-2) in the NC Forest Resources Offices
We will be discussing the upcoming hearing on September 5th and other related things.
I have attached a draft agenda for that meetin g. If you have some additions you would like to make -
please
get them to me .•••..•• today.
If will be in the office all day. See you on Thursday afternoon!
David Hance
Env Spec
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
AgendaforCORPUDHearingO-meetingAug23rd.doc
Content-Type: application/msword i
Content-Encoding: base64
8/22/2007 11:33 AM
DRAFf AGENDA FOR HEARING OFFICERS' MEETING
Agenda for the August 23rd Hearing Officers Meeting on the
City of Raleigh Variance Request (CORPUD)
(1) Questions about the Variance Process in Rule .0113;
(2) Public Contacts as a result of the public notice that went to property owners and the
newspaper per the rule;
a. Any contacts from media?
(3) Recommendations from the Division of Public Health on the risk assessment -Is this
complete?
(4) Do we have everything we need from the CORPUD before the hearing?
(3) The Hearin g on Sep tember 5th :
(a) DRAFT Hearing Officers Speech
(b) DWQ-Aquifer Protection Section staff presentation;
( c) How to deal with the public that may attend;
( d) Any technical issues related to the request.
(4) Post hearing Activities including EMC Groundwater Committee and EMC.
1
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD variance request: Kathy Stecker's hearing officer's designation memorandum?
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:51:25 -0400
To: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
Jeff,
I left this in your chair on Monday, August 9th and I have not heard from you yet.
Q. Does this look good? Is it ready to go to Alan Clark for Signature?
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-508.3 X. 587
8/16/2007 12:51 PM
http://view.atdmt.com/VON/iview/whtp7vos0160000074von/direct/01&645702512?click= ... 8/14/2007
Dr. Ken Rudo
Variance Request, City of Raleigh, NC
Technical Evaluation
July 25, 2007
impacted or have the potential to be impacted in the future, were connected tQ, Raleigh municipal
water and their former wells have been abandoned. The source for Raleigh municipal water is Falls
Lake, which is not threatened by the groundwater contamination from the CORPUD land application
fields.
On July 24, 2007, you and I conducted a site inspection to familiarize you with the area
surrounding the CORPUD facility including the location of nearby residents, locations of former
application fields in relation to these homes, area topography and discharge features. Private water
supply wells not connected to municipal water and that are adjacent to the area covered by the
proposed variance are located up gradient from and/or across one or more perennial drainage features.
As such, it is extremely unlikely that they would become impacted by groundwater contamination
from the current CORPUD biosolids application fields.
Staff from the APS-RRO have reviewed the variance application and supporting
documentation and have concluded that the proposed variance is appropriate, technically feasible,
and protective of human health and the environment. The RRO supports this variance on the
condition that the estimated flux of nitrate into the Neuse River, via groundwater discharge, is offset
by deducting the equivalent amount of nitrate from the NRWWTP's permitted effluent outfall. The
RRO supports continuing research and monitoring at the site to improve the accuracy of determining
the groundwater nitrate flux into the. river in order to evaluate the performance of the proposed
variance and the corrective action system.
In order to address concerns that you have expressed regarding the potential for
contamination to migrate across the hydro logic barriers in the southeastern portion of the site, the
RRO would support additional limited groundwater monitoring in these areas including the
installation of additional monitor wells, surface water sampling points and a limited number of
residential wells.
cc: Coleen Sullins -DWQ Director
Ted Bush -APS Section Chief
Alan Clark -DWQ Planning Section Chief
Dr. Ken Rudo
Variance Request, City of Raleigh, NC
Technical Evaluation
July 25, 2007
impacted or have the potential to be impacted in the future, were connected tQ , Raleigh municipal
water and their former wells have been abandoned. The source for Raleigh municipal water is Falls
Lake, which is not threatened by the groundwater contamination from the CORPUD land application
fields.
On July 24, 2007, you and I conducted a site inspection to familiarize you with the area
surrounding the CORPUD facility including the location of nearby residents, locations of former
application fields in relation to these homes, area topography and discharge features. Private water
supply wells not connected to municipal water and that are adjacent to the area covered by the
proposed variance are located up gradient from and/or across one or more perennial drainage features.
As such, it is extremely unlikely that they would become impacted by groundwater contamination
from the current CORPUD biosolids application fields.
Staff from the APS-RRO have reviewed the variance application and supporting
documentation and have concluded that the proposed variance is appropriate, technically feasible,
and protective of human health and the environment. The RRO supports this variance on the
condition that the estimated flux of nitrate into the Neuse River, via groundwater discharge, is offset
by deducting the equivalent amount of nitrate from the NR WWTP' s permitted effluent outfall. The
RRO supports continuing research and monitoring at the site to improve the accuracy of determining
the groundwater nitrate flux into the river in order to evaluate the performance of the proposed
variance and the corrective action system.
In order to address concerns that you have expressed regarding the potential for
contamination to migrate across the hydro logic barriers in the southeastern portion of the site, the
RRO would support additional limited groundwater monitoring in these areas including the
installation of additional monitor wells, surface water sampling points and a limited number of
residential wells.
cc: Coleen Sullins -DWQ Director
Ted Bush -APS Section Chief
Alan Clark -DWQ Planning S_ection Chief
Out Church
• Service Schedule
• Our Mission
• Staff
• Free Will Baptists
• Missions
-Cuba Mission Trip
• Our History
• Contact Us
• Directions and Map
e
Our ActiviUes
• Vacation Bible School
• Fall Festival
• Fishing Trips
• Awana
rippetr':,, l 'ha1leJ free\\ ilJ ilapii:-{ ( 'hurch
2:iJli "i-him'l'·~ll RoiiJ
t 'l.t~ tun.:\('::! . .'SlO
919~;,i . .:,J-hlJ l
Yout GtO\tVth
• Worship Services
• Children's Activitie
• Youth Activities
• Sunday School
• Ministry
• Master's Men
• Women's Book Clul
All contents of this website ©2007 Tippett's Chapel Free Will Baptist Church,
except where specifically noted otherwise.
~~\}'Contact the Webmaster
Make TippcttsChapcl.com Your Homepage~!
http://www.tippettschapel.com/ 8/13/2007
$1999 /mo. !or 1) rn,:i,;.
Paci.:agco, ~tart,•lg c1: ~
Res!Jictlons apply.
(after ma•l·m redemption)
http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/N2790.Advertising.corn/B2369367.9;sz=234x60;click=http://... 8/14/2007