City of Raleigh CORPUD NRWWTP Written Comments File Permit (WQ0001730) Vol. # 9

~DUKE_LAW Ryke Longest, Director Environmental Law & Policy Clinic Box90360 Durham, NC 27708-0360 Telephone: {919) 613-7207 Toll Free: {888) 600-7274 ·Fax: /919) 613-7262 November 5, 2007 David Hance DENR-DWQ-Planning Section 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-161 RE: Comments on CORPUD's proposed variance request-Permit Number WQ0001730 Dear David, I am writing to you in response to the Notice of Variance Application. This Notice indicated that the proposal was considered an appropriate variance by staff, "based on information contained in the variance request and technical review." I am writing to give you.my personal opinion on the proposal. Based on my review of the materials presented, I believe that the proposed ''Natural Attenuation Corrective Action Plan" should not be granted as proposed. This variance request is not supported by the facts presented, frustrates the policy declared by the State's constitution, and presents this commission with a false choice: do everything or do nothing. The City of Raleigh should be proposing to do something about its contaminated groundwater discharges to the Neuse River. Inste¢ it argues that everything is too expensive, so it should be allowed to do nothing, so long' as it accounts for it in its permitting capacity slack. I would ask that you pass along the' following to the Environmental Management Commission along with my compliments on behalf of the Neuse River Foundation. I. North Carolina's Law Creates a Public Trust to Protect Surface Water for Presel)t and Future Uses and to Prohibit Adverse Environmental Impacts The Constitution of the State of North Carolina ends with a section which declares the policy of the State with respect to environmental protection and resource conservation. This section begins: "It shall be the policy of this State to conserve and protect its lands ar..d waters for the benefit of all its citizenry, and to this end it shall be a proper function of ;l,e Stat": ,.. .::•;fn:rtl-> C':·_;_:,})::n fil"C its political subdivisions to acquire and preserve park, recreational, and scen.ic a!"f'"''-',, tG cc-;1t·d ;·-rj :~.::.t the .,..,r•1~:-f-:r. ")four air and water, to control excessive noise, ~nd in every ather appropriate way to preserve as a part of the common heritage of this State its forests, wt:tlands, estuaries, beaches, historical sites, openlands, and places of beauty." The Neuse River and the ecoeystems which it supports are such places of beauty. When interpreting any statute or rule of conservation or protectiQll, we must reme.mber that the people have enshrinee this policy statement in the Constitution of North Carolina. As this provision is the source of its power to enact legislation to regulate pollution, all such enactments and their
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page2
implementing rules must be judged with the Environmental Protection Clause in mind.
In all its choices, this Commission has a duty to carry out its powers so as to implement
the protections afforded to the lands and waters for the benefit of all its citizenry.
The General Assembly has done so by enacting the General Statutes. In the
Chapter on protection of Water and Air Resources, the General Assembly declares its
intent in that Chapter to be: "to achieve and to maintain for the citizens of the State a total
environment of superior quality. Recognizing that the water and air resources of the State
belong to the people, the General Assembly affirms the State's ultimate responsibility for
the preservation and development of these resources in the best interest of all its citizens
and declares the prudent utilization of these resources to be essential to the general
welfare." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-21 l(a)(emphasis added). The General Assembly's
enactment clearly shows their intent to clarify the legal point that water resources belong
to the people.
The General Assembly has recognized its duty to protect this heritage of the
people and discharge its public trust obligations in the General Statutes. Furthermore, the
General Assembly has directed this Commission to issue water quality standards and this
Department to enforce the same. The General Assembly set seven factors which must be
considered when this Commission enacts standards for water quality. Standards of water
quality must be designed to:
1) protect human health,
2) prevent injury to plant and animal life,
3) prevent damage to public and private property,
4) insure the continued enjoyment of the natural attractions of the State,
5) encourage the expansion of employment opportunities,
6) provide a permanent foundation for healthy industrial development,
7) secure for the people of North Carolina, now and in the future, the
beneficial uses of these great natural resources."
See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-21 l(c).
In order to meet this obligation, this Commission has enacted the 2L rules. These
rules both set the groundwater standards and require that parties which violate the
standards undertake corrective action. The purpose of the 2L rules is to implement the
policy of the Commission to protect all groundwater for use as a drinking water supply.
The 2L rules reads as follows, in pertinent part:
"The rules established in this Subchapter are intended to maintain and
preserve the quality of the groundwaters, prevent and abate pollution and
contamination of the waters of the state, protect public health, and permit
management of the groundwaters for their best usage by the citizens of
North Carolina. It is the policy of the Commission that the best usage of
the groundwaters of the state is as a source of drinking water: These ·
groundwaters generally are a potable source of drinking water without the
necessity of significant treatment. It is the intent of these Rules to protect
the overall high quality of North Carolina's groundwaters to the level
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page 3
established by the standards and to enhance and restore the quality of
degraded groundwaters where feasible and necessary to protect human
health and the environment, or to ensure their suitability as a future
source of drinking water."
See 15A NCAC 2L .0103 (a) (emphasis added)
The 2L rules thus establish that groundwater is to be protected for use as drinking
water both to protect human health and the environment. The 2L rules must be
interpreted so as to effectuate both of these purposes. These dual stated purposes meet
the policy declared in the Environmental Protection Clause of the North Carolina's
Constitution. Neither the Environmental Protection Clause, nor the Water and Air
Resources Chapter, nor the 2L rules themselves limit the protection of groundwater
resources to demonstrated human health effects. Rather, the Environmental Protection
Clause, the Water and Air Resources Chapter and the 2L rules state that the goal is to
protect the resources to benefit both human health and the environment. They also offer
these protections for both current and future uses. In considering whether to grant a
variance request, this Commission must not limit itself to looking only at current human
health impacts. To do so would eviscerate the protections enshrined in the
Environmental Protection Clause, the Water and Air Resources Chapter and the 2L rules.
II. Public Trust Doctrine Protects Neuse River as a Public Trust Resource
The Neuse is more than a river protected by this Commission's water quality
standards. The Neuse River is more than a sewer. The Neuse is more than a source of
drinking water. The Neuse is more than a passage for boats. The Neuse is more than a
place to observe wildlife. The Neuse is more than one of the most threatened rivers in
America. The Neuse River is a resource protected by the Public Trust Doctrine.
The Public Trust Doctrine applies to waters covered by ebb and flow of the tides
as well as those which can be navigated. When impounded, as it is above Raleigh, the
Neuse creates a large lake, easily traveled by large boats except during times of
exceptional drought. When joined by other waters, as it is below Raleigh, the Neuse
meets with other drainages. The waters of the Neuse River flowing past the CORPUD
treatment plant join with others to fill the large estuary as it turns brackish near New
Bern. Just a short trip later, the vast waters of the Neuse feeds into the second largest
estuarine system in the United States. The Neuse River is a Public Trust Resource.
As a Public Trust Resource, the State cannot enact or enforce laws which
dispossess of the Public of its uses of that Resource. The State's power to act does not
extend that far. The General Assembly and the People of North Carolina recognized this
fact as part of the existing law which they sought to expand by passage of the
Environmental Protection Clause. As the N.C. Supreme Court noted, "Our state
constitution mandates the conservation and protection of public lands and waters for the
benefit of the public." State ex rel. Rohrer v. Credle, 369 S.E.2d 825, 831 (N.C. 1988)
State power must be interpreted so as to protect the Public Trust and such
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page4
protection is inherent in the title. "Title to public trust waters is "held in trust for the
people of the State, that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce
over them, and have liberty of fishing therein, freed from the obstruction or interference
of private parties." RJR Technical Co. v. Pratt. 339 N.C. 588,592 (N.C. 1995) (quoting
Shepard's Point Land Co., 132 N.C. at 526, 44 S.E. at 42) Only express legislative intent
suffices to detach the State from its obligations to Public Trust Resources, as contained in
a legislative grant of title in fee simple. See RJR Technical Co. v . Pratt, 339 N.C. 588,
590,453 S.E.2d 147, 149 (1995)
Our legislature has not granted CORPUD title to the Neuse River in fee simple for
its use as a natural attenuation waste treatment system. This Commission may not
therefore grant CORPUD any variance unless it demonstrates that the variance will not
interfere with Public Trust Resources. In particular, there would appear to be a concern
with allowing excess reactive forms of nitrogen into the Neuse River Basin by allowing
the Neuse River to be used as a wastewater treatment system.
In fairness to the applicant, the 2L rules do not list protection of public trust
resources such as submerged lands and fisheries as a factor in the variance criteria. The
most likely explanation for the absence of such a requirement is that the 2L rules writers
never envisioned that any applicant would make such a bold and imaginative use of the
variance process. CORPUD's variance makes no representations about fisheries impacts
whatsoever. It rather looks at human health effects on the fisherman. Nevertheless, 2L
variance cannot be interpreted to allow that which North Carolina's law prohibits:
obstruction and interference with common law rights to fish the waters. · This
Commission should deny the variance in order to protect the Public Trust Resource.
III. Variance Request does not Reflect Coordination with Agencies Promised by
Coastal Habitat Protection Planning Process and EMC Commitments
Regulatory effort and protection for the Neuse River and its estuary are not
limited to this Commission. Fisheries resources are a public trust resource of value to the
state as recognized by the courts. The Neuse River estuary historically has been a
productive fisheries resource enjoyed by anglers and commercial fisherman throughout
the state's history. Before there was a Raleigh, the Neuse was a vital fishing grounds.
Just a few years ago, this Commission committed itself to working together with
other agencies to protect the habitat of this fisheries resource. The Coastal Habitat
Protection Plan (CHPP) action items recognized that protection of estuarine fisheries
resources requires coordinated effort by all agencies interested in these issues. This
Commission as well as the CRC and the MFC committed to take actions to coordinate
their permitting and enforcement activities beginning in 2005. No mention of such
coordination appears in th(? record to this variance request.
The record is devoid of comments from the Division of Marine Fisheries or the
Wildlife Resources Commission about impacts from this nitrogen load to the Neuse
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page5
River's fisheries resource. It _would appear that such coordination has not occurred in the
processing of this variance request. This Commission committed itself to act in the
future in coordination with other agencies in making its decisions. Approving this
variance now without addressing the impact of additional nitrogen loading on estuarine
fisheries resources would betray the Public Trust Doctrine's purposes and the
commitments made in the CHPP Implementation Plan.
IV. Variance Application of CORPUD Does Not Meet the Standards Established
by the Environmental Protection Clause, Chapter 21 and the 2L Rules
The Environmental Protection Clause does not contain a variance provision.
Rather the basis for a variance must arise from the provisions in the Water and Air
Resources Chapter's provision for enforcement discretion. In this case, the discharges
from shallow groundwater are modeled by ENSR to be within the permitted capacity for
discharges. The conclusion that these discharges will not exceed permitted capacity is
based on two assumptions that may not always hold true. First, it is assumed that the
modeled discharges will decrease over time and be relatively constant. Shallow
groundwater flow to the river may not be constant, especially when drought conditions
make the groundwater contribution to river flow more significant. Discharges from the
CORPUD plant also may not be as consistent as modeled. The SW AT Model used by
CORPUD is a watershed level model. It is being used here to model the effects of a
single facility. No explanation occurs in the variance request of the uncertainties inherent
in using this model to answer the question of how much nitrogen is coming off of the
CORPUD site. CORPUD will argue that they have taken a very conservative estimate.
Conservative or not, the fact remains that the estimate is still based upon uncertainties
which have not been quantified to this Commission in the Variance Request. The risk
posed by this uncertainty increases due to the thirty year assumptions built into this
variance request.
Variance requests under 15A NCAC 2L need to establish a number of facts to the
satisfaction of the Environmental Management Commission (EMC). Applicants must
provide, inter alia:
"(5) Supporting information to establish that requirements of this Rule
cannot be achieved by providing the best available technology
economically reasonable. This information must identify specific
technology considered, and the costs of implementing the technology and
the impact of the costs on the applicant.
(6) Supporting information to establish that compliance would produce
serious financial hardship on the applicant.
(7) Supporting information that compliance would produce serious
financial hardship without equal or greater public benefit."
15A NCAC 2L .0113
CORPUD's request meets none of these three criteria.
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page6
A) Failure to Meet Factor Five
First, CORPUD has listed out its projected expenses of Alternative One, without
discussing why it rejected other less expensive options in its evaluation. In the CAP
document contained in the Variance Record, several treatment options were outlined in a
table. Most were rejected for narrative reasons, without providing this Commission with
an evaluation of their costs and benefits. Without such a complete analysis, CORPUD
has failed to show that its other options beside alternative one do not meet the test of
"best available technology economically reasonable." Rather, the argument is made that
since alternative one is very expensive, the preferred alternative is the only choice. In
fact, a range of alternatives have not been presented to this Commission, as the rule
requires under these circumstances. By neglecting to consider alternative feasible
options, CORPUD has failed to establish that it meets the requirements of factor 5.
There also exists no explanation of how certain figures have been determined.
Original estimated cost of the cleanup Alternative 1 was $25M, assuming more than 400
wells at 100 foot spacing. The extra cost is to allow expansion of plant capacity to meet
the 1.2 MGD of groundwater which would be pumped through the plant and discharged.
While CORPUD asserts that Alternative One would cost $35,402,500 in capital expenses
to implement, it later asserts that Alternative One will cost more than $70 Million more
than the "natural attenuation" CAP. The summary of these costs are in Table 8, but
details are not provided.
The difference between $35M and $70M must be in O&M costs, over a thirty
year span. CORPUD asserts that the O&M costs are projected to be increased for
alternative one by $SM per year for the first three years. All that CORPUD asserts in
support of its argument that costs are not reasonable are projections. The "reasonable"
cost of any treatment must be in relation to the extent of the problem. The problem this
cleanup is designed to treat is enormous in size. More than 400 extraction wells is a large
figure, but it covers a large area of contamination. CORPUD has failed to demonstrate
that this variance meets factor five, because the costs of the cleanup as projected are
reasonable in relation to the extent of the remedial action required.
B) Failure to Meet Factor Six
Factor six requires that the applicant would produce serious financial hardship on
the applicant. CORPUD has not provided an analysis sufficient to satisfy this
requirement. Any such analysis should include an analysis of the revenue structure, rate
base, capital financing options available to the applicant. Obviously the burden an
applicant must meet under factor six will vary with the size and financial resources of the
applicant and whether they are a public utility. CORPUD has not begun to show how
this cost could be paid by ratepayers. For example, if $80M cost were paid over 30
payments by 150,000 ratepayers, the cost per ratepayer will be less than $20 per payment.
This is the kind of analysis which CORPUD must do because it is a public utility, with
the ability to raise its rates. Rather, CORPUD seeks to prove factor 6 by comparing the
projected costs of Alternative One to its projected budget for capital improvements.
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page 7
CORPUD;s entire submission on this point is budget strain: comparing the
cleanup expenses as a percentage of the current planned expenditures. CORPUD argues
serious financial hardship because it is a large portion of its currently projected capital
budget. CORUPUD has not identified any discreet action which it will not take if forced
to clean up the site as required. CORPUD has not shown that it will be unable to pay for
such cleanup with even its current resources. The standard is "serious financial hardship"
not inconvenience or unplanned expense. CORPUD has failed to provide the type of
analysis which this Commission should accept to support its argument. Financial
hardship is not serious, merely because it is unplanned. Cleanup obligations are
unplanned expenses by their nature. CORPUD has failed to meet factor six, because it
has not shown this Commission that it cannot raise the extra funds needed from
ratepayers.
C) Failure to Meet Factor Seven
Lastly, the issue of "greater public benefit" is given short discussion. The
assertion that groundwater is not likely to be used for drinking water does not mean that
clean groundwater has no value. Given the drought currently experienced by Raleigh and
the growth so eagerly planned by CORPUD, clean groundwater is likely to have a higher
value in ten years than it does today. This Commission has already determined that the ·
public policy of this state favors the protection of groundwater as a source of drinking
water for both current and future use. Such prudence is well demonstrated during the
current period of exceptional drought. What might have been written off as an excess of
groundwater resource ten years ago, now appears to have significant value. No
quantification of such value is presented by CORPUD in support of its argument.
In addition, there is a measurable public benefit in taking actual discharges of
nitrate out of the Neuse River and its estuarine system. The problems caused by excess
nitrogen in the Neuse are well understood by this Commission. This Commission has
previously enacted measures such as buffer rules to protect the Neuse from non-point
source pollution from nitrates. These measures cost many landowners significant sums in
order to eliminate non-point discharges from agricultural fields, pastures and homes
along the Neuse.
In 2001, before the State of North Carolina issued penalties against CORPUD for
overapplying sewage sludge, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) published a report on eutrophication in the nation's estuaries. (See Clement,
Chris, S. B. Bricker and D.E. Pirhalla. 2001, Eutrophic Conditions in Estuarine Waters.
In: NOAA's State of the Coast Report. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.) Per that report, the Neuse River estuary exhibits a high
level of eutrophication, along with 43 other observed estuarine systems in the United
States. Due to its state of eutrophication, this waterbody is damaged by all actual
discharges of nitrates which reach the area of the Neuse River estuary.
This Commission's hard work to address this eutrophication is well documented,
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page 8
but other parties have also worked hard to reverse the historic trend of nitrogen
overloading. The Soil and Water Conservation Commission have worked to reduce
loading of nitrates to the Neuse for the past decade. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
have been implemented on many sites, designed by Technical Specialists working for
local, state and federal governments. Many of these BMPs have been implemented with
state and federal cost share dollars. The State of North Carolina and the United States
Department of Agriculture have determined that the public benefit of removing non-point
source discharges of nitrate to the Neuse requires expenditure of the public's resources.
CORPUD's assertion in its variance that human health will not be endangered·
does not meet the standard set in factor seven. The Neuse River is more than just a
drinking water supply and sewage outfall. The Neuse River supports all manner of
wildlife, birds, fish, mollusks, insects and plants. Excess nitrate in Neuse River has
caused eutrophication in its lower reaches-a condition of over-enrichment by nutrients
leading to high levels of nuisance algal blooms and low dissolved oxygen. Protecting the
Neuse for the benefit of all North Carolina's citizens means protecting it from nuisance
algal blooms and low dissolved oxygen. Nitrate loading which does not cause toxic
effects on people swimming in the river will still contribute to eutrophication.
CORPUD asserts that there is no impact on the environment, because their
modeling of discharge of nitrates still is within the expected margin of loading allowed in
their current NPDES permit. No other defense of their proposal is offered. No studies,
no modeling of impacts, and no assessment of mitigation alternatives is presented.
Rather, since CORPUD has managed to negotiate a nitrate NPDES permit discharge limit
sufficiently above their ability to comply, this Commission is told that there is no adverse
impact on the environment. If everyone managed to discharge up to the legal limit, does
this Commission truly believe that the Neuse would not be harmed? This argument
assumes that existing maximum NPDES permit limits on the Neuse River are protecting
it from adverse environmental impacts. They are not doing so, as evidenced by the
actions taken by this commission to address non-point sources. CORPUD asks this
commission to issue a 30-year permit to one of the largest single non-point sources of
nitrate pollution in the Neuse River Basin. CORPUD has failed to demonstrate that this
variance meets factor seven by failing to show that the public benefits of reducing nitrate
loading to the Neuse outweigh the projected costs.
V. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Variance Requests
In enacting the amendments of 1972 to the Clean Water Act, Congress declared a
goal of eliminating discharges of pollutants to navigable waters by 1985. See 33
U.S.C.S. § 1251. The objective of the amendments was to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's water." Id. A discharge limit
is a means to that end. Because the Neuse is in a high state of eutrophication, all
additional discharges of nutrients harm the river, whether they are within permitted limits
or not.
It is undisputed that CORPUD runs a wastewater treatment plant which is subject
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page 9
to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Under NPDES,
CORPUD has a permit issued to its Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant. This
permit governs operation of the plant and its associated discharges. The variance
purports to allow CORPUD to discharge wastewater from its Neuse River plant in
violation of the terms of its existing NPDES permit. The authority to grant variances
under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 does not extend to allowing the discharge of contaminated
wastewater into surface waters in violation of the requirements of the NPDES program.
CORPUD has not sought to apply for a Special Order by Consent. Rather, CORPUD has
sought to use the variance procedure of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 to effectively amend its
NPDES permit obligations. Its current NPDES permit renewal was made contingent
upon its receipt of this variance request. Clearly, this variance is tied in with the concepts
and requirements of NPDES and with its recently approved NP DES permit.
The discharge limit which was set in that permit was technologically based with
the objective of meeting the water quality standards for the receiving waters. While the
permit limits may be sufficient to meet the water quality standards, they are also based
upon a showing that the technology used to treat the wastewater meets the technology
standards of the Clean Water Act. NPDES effluent permit limits are not a tradable
pollution quota which can be used to allow uncontrolled discharges of contaminated
groundwater at the same facility where tertiary treatment is required for wastewater. Nor
can they be used to offset the CORPUD's cleanup obligations under the 2L Rules.
Whatever value the offset may have in a more comprehensive solution than the instant
request, the purpose ofNPDES is to eliminate uncontrolled discharges of pollutants.
VI. CORPUD Already Caught a Break During the Penalty Phase
CORPUD asserts in support of its request that the required remedial activity will
adversely affect its ability to make planned capital improvements in its plant. The
argument goes that this $79M cleanup is excessive, and will prevent other needed
improvements. While it is tempting to accept that CORPUD should plow more into other
improvements at the plant, the fact remains that CORPUD already caught a significant
break from the State in the civil penalty assessed for the spill.
While CORPUD was assessed civil penalties for the overapplications made to
these fields, they were far below the statutory maximum. On June 21, 2002, Alan
Klimek assessed a penalty against CORPUD for overapplying sewage sludge on more
than 100 occasions in 2001 and 2002. The total assessed for these violations was a little
over $700 per violation on average. Additionally, CORPUD was cited for 14 other
violations for which no penalty was assessed and another 6 violations for less than $200
each. All told, the City was assessed $73,650 for 124 violations, or just under $600 per
violation on average. The statutory maximum at the time for these violations was
$10,000 per violation, making this CPA eligible for a seven figure assessment.
Assessing CORPUD a lower civil penalty has already achieved the objective of
allowing CORPUD to retain money needed in order to improve its operations. To its
credit, CORPUD appears to have done just that. CORPUD has made significant
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page 10
improvements in both its operations and in its equipment. What CORPUD has failed to
explain is what they will choose not to do if their proposal is not allowed.
VII. Conclusion: CORPUD's Variance Presents a False Dichotomy
Since 2002 the City of Raleigh has made remarkable strides in improving its
sewage treatment. They have worked to greatly improve upon the level of effort made by
previous councils, staffs and mayors. For this they are to be rightly commended. This
variance request is not in keeping with the fine tradition which the City of Raleigh is
pursuing in making the environment a top priority.
Despite this record of improvement, the Variance Request under review presents
this Commission with a false dichotomy-a forced limit among possible choices. The
Corrective Action Plan shows that a number of alternatives existed. Even if Alternative
One is approved and implemented, there is no guarantee that no nitrate will cross the
compliance boundary. The area impacted is too large to even be accurately measured,
rather the impacts must be modeled. It may be that the current proposal is the result of a
misunderstanding.
Reading it, one cannot help but conclude that CORPUD has presented this
Commission with a false dichotomy. The Commission is presented with two choices:
Alternative One is claimed to cost more than $79M, clearly making it one of the most
expensive cleanups of groundwater in North Carolina's history. Alternative Two is
claimed to cost nearly $5M, but uses the Neuse River as its primary treatment system.
Surely there exist other alternatives and other means of achieving the mutual goals of the
City of Raleigh and the State of North Carolina. In effect, CORPUD asks this
commission to issue a 30-year permit to one of the largest single non-point sources of
nitrate pollution in the Neuse River Basin. The fact that it is called a variance does not
alter the fact that it acts as a permit, purporting to allow that which the law would
otherwise forbid.
Cc: Dean Naujoks
Steve Levitas
Very Truly Yours,
Ryke Longest
City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department Variance Request-Coffililents
1 of 1
Subject: City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department Variance Request-Comments
From: "Ryke Longest" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:18:26 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
CC: "Phil Bowie" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, "'David McCracken"'
<[e-mail]>, "'Mary Aim Harrison"' <[e-mail]>, "Nat Baggett"
<[e-mail]>, "Richard Goodwin" <[e-mail]>, "RiverLaw"
<[e-mail]>, '"Dick Goodwin"' <rgoodwin4 [e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, "'William Olah"' <[e-mail]>, "Alexandra Wyatt"
<[e-mail]>, "David Wright" <[e-mail]>, '"Marilyn
Grolitzer"' <[e-mail]>, "'Ron Gregory"' <[e-mail]>, "Rick Bolich"
<rick. [e-mail]>, "Larry Baldwin" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
"Michelle Nowlin" <[e-mail]>, "'Sandy Parker"' <[e-mail]>,
'"Joanne Somerday"' <[e-mail]>, "'Smoke Boyd"' <[e-mail]>
David,
Please accept the attached comments in response to the Variance Request of the City
of Raleigh. These comments are submitted electronically by e-mail today per the
instructions in the extension granted in the attached document. These comments are
offered in further support of comments previously submitted by the Neuse River
Foundation. Please contact me when. there is a hearing scheduled on Raleigh's
variance request or upon its withdrawal, whichever shall first occur.
Thanks,
Ryke Longest
Ryke Longest
Director & Sr . Lecturing Fellow
Environmental Law and Policy Clinic
Duke University School of Law
P.O. Box 90360
Durham, NC 27708-0360
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
Email: [e-mail] .edu
Raleigh VarianceExtend-1.doc
Content-Type: application/ms word
Content-Encoding: base64
· . . Content-Type: application/pdf ·
CORPUD Variance Comments.pelf: C E d. b 64 ontent-nco mg: ase
11/20/2007 3:32 PM
HuNroN&
WILLIAMS
November 5, 2007
By Hand
Mr. David Hance
Planning Section
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Room 625AA, Archdale Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
POST OFFICE BOX 109
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
lEL 919 • 899 • 3000
FAX 919 • 899 • 3209
CRAIG A. BROMBY
DIRECT DIAL : 919-899-3032
EMAIL: [e-mail]
FILE NO: 99999.000309
Re: Comments on Variance Request by City of Raleigh and Request for Extension of
Comment Period
Dear Mr. Hance:
Enclosed please find comments submitted by Edge of Auburn, LLC, on the request for
variance by the City of Raleigh. Edge of Auburn appreciates this opportunity to submit
comments on this proposed variance to the regulatory corrective action requirements at 15A
NCAC 2L .0106. Edge of Auburn, LLC, owns property to the west southwest of the land
application fields operated by the City of Raleigh, and is adjacent to a parcel that has
reportedly been contaminated by nitrates in excess of groundwater standards.
Edge of Auburn's interest pertains to a proposed mixed use development that it plans and for
which it has recently submitted plans to Wake County. Because neither the City of Raleigh nor
the City of Gamer would agree to extend public water supply to this development, Edge of
Auburn will have to rely on a system of on-site wells for its community water supply. The
City of Raleigh was aware of the potential for this community water supply system before it
filed its application for variance.
The wells in the Edge of Auburn's community water supply system will pump at a
significantly higher rate than any other well ( or collection of wells) examined by Raleigh 's
consultants, but the effect of the wells was not investigated or accounted for in any report
submitted by Raleigh or its consultants to the Aquifer Protection Section of the Division of
Water Quality.
ATI..ANTA BANGKOK BEiffi\/G BRUSSELS CHARLOTTE DALLAS HOUSTON KNOXVILLE LONDON
LOS ANGELES McLEAN MIAMI NEW YORK NORFOLK RALEIGH RICHMOND SINGAPORE WASHINGTON
IIuNToN&
WILLIAMS
Mr. David Hance
November 5, 2007
Page2
Edge of Auburn is in the process of retaining an expert hydrogeologist to review the Raleigh
submittal. Since fewer than 60 days have elapsed since Edge of Auburn was notified of the
request for variance, we do not believe it is unreasonable to extend the comment period for an
additional 60 days.
Sincerely yours,
~ ,0' /2-(5
Craig A. Bromby
CAB/psb
cc: Steve Smith
of the request for variance to assess the effects that variance could have on its planned mixed use
development, and we have discovered the technical questions and issues of the groundwater to
be many and significant.
,.
Page 5 of 5
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
~DUKE LAW
Ryke Longest, Director
Environmental Law & Policy Clinic
Box90360
Durham, NC 27708-0360
Telephone: [phone]
Toll Free: [phone]
Fax: (9 I 9) 6 I 3-7262
November 5, 2007
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-161
RE: Comments on after hours filings
Dear David,
I just want to make my objection known, for the record, to consideration as part of
the record any comments made after filing hours. As I understand the rules, the
designation of November 5th as a filing date does not include comments filed after 5:00
p.m. Eastern Standard Time. When I called the Water Quality Section Main Number, I
was informed by recording of the fact that regular business hours for the office ends at
5:00 p.m. It would appear therefore that the proper deadline for submitting comments on
any water quality related matters ends at 5:00 p.m. as well, absent a provision in the
comment requesting document. According to my theory, this document is untimely. I
submit it to register my objection to the consideration by this Commission of any
document filed after 5:00 p.m. on November 5, 2007. Should the Commission decide to
accept filings after 5:00 p.m. despite this fact, I would ask the Commission to consider
whether those who have submitted their comments early have been prejudiced by any
sandbagging tactics by those who file later.
Very Truly Yours,
Ryke Longest
Second Comment
1 of 1
Subject: Second Comment
From: "Ryke Longest" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20: 17:24 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>
David,
The attached is only applicable to any comments filed after 5:00 p.m. today .
Thanks,
Ryke
Ryke Longest
Director & Sr . Lecturing Fellow
Environmental Law and Policy Clinic
Duke University School of Law
P.O. Box 90360
Durham, NC 27708-0360
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
Email: long [e-mail] .edu
CORPUD Variance Comments-after hours.pelf
Content-Type: application/pdf ·
Content-Encoding: base64
11/6/2007 3:38 PM
Board of Commissioners
Johnnie Sampson, Jr., Chairman
Jason R. Jones, Vice Chairman
Lee Kyle Allen
C!Craben C!Countp Administration Building
406 Craven Street
New Bern, NC 28560
Fax [phone]
[e-mail] Theron McCabe
Perry L. Morris
M. Renee Sisk
Steve Tyson
Administrative Staff
Harold Blizzard, County Manager
Ray H. Moser, Assistant Manager
Gwendolyn M. Bryan, Clerk to the Board
Rick Hemphill, Finance Officer
Joan Harrell, Human Resources Director
l\1r. David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service. Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear l\1r. Hance:
October 23, 2007
Commissioners 252-636-6601
Manager 252-636-6600
Finance 252-636-6603
Human Resources 252-636-6602
On behalf of the Craven County Board of Commissioners, and the citizens of Craven
County I am writing to oppose the variance application for cleanup at the City of Raleigh
Public Utility Department-Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (Permit Number
WQ000l 730). It is feared that relieving the City of Raleigh from its responsibility to
clean up contamination from land-applied sludge may result in the production of
significant amounts of nitrogen which would undoubtedly make its way down the Neuse,
to the detriment of Raleigh's down river neighbors in the lower Neuse communities.
All communities along the Neuse River share in its benefits, and should share in its
preservation as well. We ask that the DWQ consider North Carolina's citizens here at the
"end of the line" in making this crucial decision.
Sincerely, O -. " _ ~~~>t g ;ir~an Johnnie Sampson, Jr.
Craven County Board of Commissioners
ALDERMEN
JULIUS C. PARHAM, JR.
ROBERT G. RAYNOR, JR.
MACK L. "MAX" FREEZE
JOSEPH E. MATTINGLY, JR.
BARBARA LEE
TOM BAYLISS , Ill
MAYOR
WALTER B. HARTMAN , JR.
CITY MANAGER
VICKIE H. JOHNSON
CITY CLERK DANAE. OUTLAW
W:qrtt OJrnturies of ~nrtly OJarnlina ~ritage
F0UNDED1710
Phone: [phone] P.O. Box 1129
Mr. David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Ralei~ NC 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Hance:
~efu ~ern, ~(II 28563-112g
October 23, 2007
MARY B. MURAGLIA
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
It has come to our attention that the City of Raleigh has made a request for a
variance from its permit to allow an area contaminated by permit violation to correct
itself naturally. While we sympathize with Raleigh's predicament, our position is that
something must be done to eliminate this problem in a way that provides maximum
benefits to the Neuse River.
In New Bern, we have spent considerable· resources in creating methods for
eliminating or diminishing discharge of nitrogen. We have made it a policy that we don't
participate in nutrient trading at considerable potential city expense. We have also
removed three discharges of small inefficient package systems by allowing them to use
our system even though they were not in New Bern proper. Additionally, we have
developed an old quarry in New Bern as a non-point discharge although we didn't need
to for purposes of our permit.
We would hate to think that the reductions we have made would be marginalized
by discharges into the river that shouldn't have occurred under their permit. It is our
hope that your department and Raleigh can work together to eliminate this discharge in
the least expensive way possible to Raleigh's rate payers with emphasis on the former.
cc: Board of Aldermen
Neuse River Foundation
Mayor Charles Meeker
Sincerely,
~~B
Mayor
~nrflr Oiarolimt ~enentl!'semhl11
~use of ~pnsetthttiues
~hrle ~gislmwe· ~uilmng
~rueiglf 2,so1-1ogs
REPRESENTATIVE ALICE GRAHAM UNDERHILL
3RD DISTRICT
AGRICULTURE
APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEES :
OFFICE ADDRESS : 16 W. JONES STREET, ROOM 1206
RALEIGH, NC 27601·1096
TELEPHONE: (919) 733·5853
[phone] FAX
EMAIL: [e-mail]
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT, CHAIR
ENVIRONMENT AND NATUl'tAL RESOURCES, VJCE·CHAIR
HOMELAND SECURITY, MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
JUDICIAl'tYill
HOME ADDRESS : 3910 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
NEW BERN , NC 28562
PHONE : (252) 633·2270
(252) 637·0539 FAX
October 16, 2007
Mr. David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 276-99-1617
TRANSPORTATION
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
resources to recuperate may reach far into the future.
Beyond the damage done to the water quality and other natural resources will be the economic impact to the
people of Eastern North Carolina. lhe health of-the N~use 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 furth~r down river is not an acceptable choice.
Yours truly,
~_4.l{,1\~
Rep . Alice G . Underhill
AGU/rtnp
CC: · Charles Meeker, Mayor of Raleigh
David McCracken, President of Neuse River Foundation
..
0
w c.r,
<C
CL
>
2 w w
3:
w ::.::: <r,
3:_
w I
I-
('J
('J
N
N
I
LO
LD
LD
I
(J"l
.-I
(J"l
.,....,
~
UJ
.-I
Ral e igh wa1Jts slud.g e
to take c are of itself
Reque5t opposed by
officials down river.
k'~sibl~." ·
'
1hC' diy i11steatl .. wai1ls to
i11stal.l a limited number of
groundwater extraction wells
BY LJIToYA. MA.CK Sm-roN al a co~L o($9 million and allow
"na(ura·, anenuaoon" to' take
care of the nilr1:>ge11. ,
Jh1lcigh offidals ho1,e lime NBasita!ly, c.t1e valillllce that
will lake care of sluc!ge from ils Haletgh nas proposed is to do
Nrusc lliver w:aslewaler treat-nothing ~o deat1 this upN" said
mc:r.rt J~larit 1.arry Balclwi11, Lower e11se
11\e planl is responsiblt' fur mverkeeper.
l.noo iKTC'S of g,·O'Jndw.a(C"r . Officials iw-Crave11 County
omlmni.naLiun cau~·d ·oy -o,,.er-and New Bern,· tlle foc;,Uon ol
.i1i11lying sludge. Sludge, wbkh . Baldwin's oroce, ph1,11 lo-send
i!'l 1'J>rayed on farm Jields, ls A a leller to the Elll/i.ronme11lai
lefl•over solid 1woducecl dming M311agerne11LCom1nission, as1t-
1h,r waler :mtl sewage lreaL-ing them nul 1-o grant Haleigh's
1nent process. vruiru1ce request .
f\.q it l"C"~UII uf tl1e <:U11.(:am;r1:a-Tw.rn.(y.five percent of lb~
tiuu, ~.:m,rn.lfJ poum.ls. of nitru-12U,OOO 1i1:.1lmtls of nilrngeu
gen wm seep into tile Ne'IJs-e. irom Ral~h's treatme,nt plant
Hi vr.-r cvei·y yeAr for the ·ne,rtair '\vjH 111:!k.e~il:8 way :((l t:he'Neu:s-e.
~'L'tll'S. . '.) ., ... 'l ..... ..iRi.vet '•·~&i'aiU-y .-.in New Bern,
1)Je state Division of Waler Baldwiu sai~. ;~, :Jf · ·
quality r-e1L uires Raleigh lo ·. "lt's not )usl an issue S:tteclfic
dean up, the contaminatio.n, but to Raldgh, bat It ls some!hing
how it will µo so is the subject that h~s an effect~ the-·way
ohloehalie. dc,wn the rivelj1 he slid.• .
_ A firal option requires install-· W~e BaJd~ ~ai_~ l~ is 1rue
mg4Z6wells,formmg.a.hydrau-lhe mlrogen.~ill naturiilly de-
tic barrier lhat would reduce crease over ti:tne;he said it will
gjourtdwaler discharge. With a take 40 years:O'i,~~~.to dQ so.
1irice lag of $80 milliou over 30 "for Ulem to wanta· .free pass
years, Raleigh offidals deemed and □ot clean fuiy ofit up is just
that. option ''economically not unthiukable,V Baldwin said .
· TJ. Lynch, lhe wa!!rtew:1.ler
lrcalment plant superintiendent,
:s.ai(] in January the dly reduced
ils nilrogcn discharges by 50
1,erc-e11t, above lite 30 J)oerirent
the -stale require~. Lynell said
Ute red1.1dion~ are c1ue to betloer
tnti.ning tor em11foyces and con-
lii.lually l'llleaking lhe[:1rocess. to
get better numbers.
Publll" c:ommenl on Raleigh's
\ladru.1ce. r~q11esl has been ex-
te1lded until Nov. 5. _ . : \:
ll1ose who wlsh to submit'
conunents or inspect tlte·vafi-'
anc:e ·request, sl muld write to .
David . Hance, DENR-DWQ ,
PL,1111i11g Sediion, 1617 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, NC,,
2769':H617~ call 733-5003. ext
587, or c,.mai~ david_.luince@m:• '.
mail.net. · ' . t
BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE
www.BREDL.org PO BOX 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 [e-mail] [phone] office [phone] cell
November 5, 2007
Mr. David Hance
Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
RE: Notice of Variance Application and Hearing
DENR/DWQ
Cleanup at the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant-Permit Number WQ0001730
TO:
Ms. Kathy Stecker, Hearing Officer
Mr. Andrew Pitner, Hearing Officer
Kevin Martin, EMC Groundwater Committee Chair
Marion Deerhake
Tom Ellis
David Moreau
Donnie Brewer
Thomas Cecich
Freddie Harrill
Darryl Moss
Steven Weber
Forrest W esthall
We wish to thank the DENR/DWQ for granting our request for an extension of public comments
concerning the City of Raleigh's request for a variance from groundwater protection regulations
concerning the nitrate contamination that has occurred at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
It is important that the public has ample opportunity to comment on the subsequent
contamination of the groundwater, the Neuse River, private drinking water wells, and
surrounding land from years of over-application of sewage sludge by the City of Raleigh Public
Utilities Department.
On behalf of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, I wish to submit to you the
following comments and recommendations concerning the City of Raleigh's request for a
variance 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 into the Neuse River and surrounding properties.
1
Variance re quest
We oppose the City of Raleigh's request for a variance and strongly urge the DENR/DWQ to
deny this variance request. Permit conditions and state groundwater rules in 15A NCAC 2L
prohibit natural attenuation as a clean-up method on permitted wastewater treatment land
disposal sites. We strongly object to the city's "do-nothing" approach as it fails to conform to
state regulations designed to protect groundwater and surface water. Moreover, the state's
approval of this variance would set a dangerous precedent for clean up of similar contamination
at other permitted facilities. Natural attenuation is an available clean-up option for use on sites
contaminated by unpermitted discharges, such as leaking underground storage tanks. The Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant is a permitted facility; thus, using natural attenuation as a
cleanup method for nitrate contamination is not applicable to this facility.
Recommendations
Reports from the media, public officials, state regulators and private citizens. describe the City of
Raleigh's options for cleanup of the nitrate contamination as a "damned if you do, damned if you
don't" extreme. These are: 1) remediate the nitrate contamination by drilling over 425 extraction
wells and conducting active remediation involving a pump and treat method. This reportedly will
cost the city an estimated $80 million dollars; 2) remediate the nitrate contamination using the
"do-nothing" method. In other words, allowing Mother Nature to take care of the mess.
Unfortunately, both of these options represent the extremes of what might be a safer and better
approach, along with being more cost effective for the applicant.
Because of the severity and range of contamination, we recommend a multi-faceted approach to
offset the impacts of the contamination such as on-site clean up of the primary source of nitrate
contamination, restoration of wetlands further downstream, and remediation of the 16 drinking
water wells belonging to private residents of communities impacted by this contamination. We
also recommend the DENR/DWQ and the City of Raleigh continue to engage in a transparent
dialogue with the Neuse River Foundation and members of the public in identifying an
acceptable and effective solution with swift implementation of a plan to offset the impacts of
contamination caused by over-application of sewage sludge.
Human health risks from nitrates
Under North Carolina Administrative Code Subchapter 2L-Groundwater Classification and
Standards, section 15A NCAC 02L.0113 (4) states that the applicant that submits a request for a
variance must demonstrate that the variance "will not endanger the public health and safety,
including the health and environmental effects from exposure to groundwater contaminants."
The "do-nothing" alternative for. nitrate clean up proposed by the applicant does not come close
to fulfilling the stipulations under this section.
Short-term exposure to drinking water with a nitrate level at.or just above the health standard of
10 mg/I nitrate-N is a potential health problem primarily for infants. Babies consume large
quantities of water relative to their body weight, especially if water is used to mix powdered or
concentrated formulas. The digestive systems of babies are more likely than adult digestive tracts
to allow the reduction of nitrates to nitrites. In particular, the presence of nitrites in the digestive
tract of newborns can lead to a disease called methemoglobinemia (Nitrate: Health Effects in
Drinking Water, M. McCasland, N. Trautmann, and K. Porter, Natural Resources Cornell
Cooperative Extension: htt p:/ /pmep .cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/nit-heef-grw85 .html).
2
Effects on ecos ystems
In addition to being toxic to human babies, nitrates affect young animals and are a problem for
ruminant animals of all ages. Some livestock have been known to abort fetuses due to drinking
water containing high levels of nitrates (Animal Waste and Water Quality, Alabama Cooperative
Extension System, p.5: http://www.aces.edu/crd/publications/wtrqlty/wq-animalwaste.pdf).
A growing number of studies suggest that nitrates have the potential to be an endocrine
disrupting contaminant and pose a direct threat to the conservation and restoration of vertebrate
populations and the ecosystems they depend on for survival (ls Nitrate an Ecologically Relevant
Endocrine Disruptor in Vertebrates? L.Guillette, Jr. and T.M. Edwards, Society for Integrative
and Comparative Biology, 2005, 45(1):19-27:
http ://icb.oxford journals.org/c gi/content/full/45/1/19).
It is well documented that increased amounts of nutrients can kill fish due to a lack of oxygen as
a result of excessive algal growth (What are the Usual Causes of Fish Kills? USGS:
http://water.us gs.gov/owq/FAO .htm#0 10). However, in addition to fish kills, research conducted
by Pieter Johnson of the University of Colorado has found that increased levels of nitrogen cause
deformities in amphibians. Snail populations that host microscopic parasites known as
trematodes reproduce dramatically in nitrogen rich environments infecting frogs with the
parasites which then cause cysts in the limbs of developing tadpoles (Aquatic Eutrophication
Promotes Pathogenic Infection in Amphibians, Johnson et al, 2007:
http://www.colorado.edu/eeb/facultysites/pieter/documents/Johnson%20et%20al.%202007.pdt).
It is not known whether the Neuse River ecosystem will be affected by this phenomenon due to
excessive levels of nitrate contamination.
Additional organic wastewater contaminants found in slud ge
The Notice of Variance Application and Hearing states that "no other substance monitored at this
facility is under consideration." Additional impacts from contaminants contained in sludge may
not be so apparent, and thousands of potentially toxic compounds continue to remain unregulated
and untested due to the federal government's inability to take effective action to provide
protection of human health and the environment frorri emerging contaminants. Untested
chemicals at wastewater treatment plants include heavy metals, pharmaceuticals and personal
care products (PPCPs), hormones, pathogens, and industrial chemicals that end up in effluent
released into surface waters. Many of these compounds are classified as organic wastewater
contaminants (OWCs).
These compounds have been found to concentrate in sludge, collectively referred to as biosolids
by academics, state and federal regulators and industry pundits. A survey conducted by Eastern
Washington University and the USGS examined nine different biosolids products destined for
land application produced by municipal wastewater treatment in seven different states. Fifty-five
OW Cs from a total of 87 OWCs were detected in one biosolids product with a minimum of 30
and a maximum of 45 OWCs detected in any one sample. Among the most commonly detected
compounds were pharmaceuticals (prescription and non-prescription), hormones, detergent
metabolites, steroids, fragrances, plasticizers, pesticides, fire retardants, and disinfectants in the
biosolids. The compounds detected in greater concentrations were nonlyphenol and octyylphenol
detergent metabolites.
3
The Eastern Washington University/USGS study concluded that a range of compounds are
"incompletely removed during wastewater treatment and sequestered in biosolids that are
subsequently land applied." Since an estimated fifty percent of biosolids are land applied they
are a potentially ubiquitous nonpoint source of OWCs into the environment. The potential
concerns surrounding the presence of these compounds in the environment include adverse
psychological effects, increased cancer, reproductive impairment in humans and other animals,
and antibiotic resistance among pathogenic bacteria (Survey of Organic Wastewater
Contaminants in Biosolids Destined for Land Application, Kinney et al, Environmental Science
Technology, Vol. 40, 2006, p. 7207-7215).
Studies conducted by the USGS have found hormones, antibiotics, and prescription drugs in
urban streams receiving effluent from wastewater treatment plants across the nation. Some of
these chemicals such as the detergent degradation product nonylphenol and the fragrances
AHTN and HHCB have been shown to disrupt reproduction and growth in fish by affecting the
endocrine systems (Assessing the biological potency of binary mixtures of environmental
estrogens using vitellogenin induction in juvenile rainbow trout, Thorpe et al, Environmental
Science and Technology, v. 35, no, 12,201).
Other chemicals such as triclosan found in popular liquid anti-bacterial soaps may increase the
antibiotic resistence of basteria in the environment (Resistance to triclosan in laboratory and
clinical strains of Escherichia coli, McMurry et al, FEMS Microbiology Letters, v. 166,.no. 2,
1998) and reducing algae diversity in streams (Effects of three pharmaceutical and personal care
products on natural freshwater algal assemblages, Wilson et al, Environmental Science and
Technology, v. 37, no. 9, 2003).
The human health and environmental effects of these and other compounds are not well
understood, and standards to protect human health and aquatic life have not been established for
these chemicals (Wastewater Chemicals in Colorado's Streams and Groundwater, USGS:
http://www.coboulder.com/health/environ/water/ows/pdf/FactSheet%20W astewater%20Chemica
ls.pdf
Numerous research studies have shown that endocrine-disrupting compounds and
pharmaceuticals that have the ability to alter the sex of fish and create antibiotic resistance. In
Boulder Creek and the South Platte River, Colorado, researchers found more feminized fish
downstream of sewage effluent sites than upstream. At least two estrogen compounds, a natural
estrogen and a type of synthetic estrogen found in birth control pills, contributed to the
feminization. The Colorado study found that each compound was potent enough to cause
changes in fish on its own, but together had an even greater impact ("Wading in Hormones:
Estrogen Invades Colorado's South Platte River," ScienceLine, Aug, 1, 2007:
http :/ /scienceline.org/2007/08/01/environment-anderson-water hormones/).
These compounds end up in wastewater effluent that is eventually released into the Neuse.
However, since these compounds also concentrate in sludge, instead of being applied to land,
they have been "re-released" into the Neuse, the volumes of which are unknown.
Environmental justice
Since the 1980s the city has over-applied sewage sludge to 1,000-acres at its Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant's sludge farm. As a result of the over-application of sewage sludge
over 30 families (16 wells total) have had their drinking water wells contaminated with nitrates
from the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant.
4
After the contamination was discovered, the wells were abandoned and families were placed on
city water. It is unclear as to if and when the wells will be safe to use again. Additional concerns
include a community well system planned for a subdivision in W alee County just west of the
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (Public Hearing, Raleigh Request for Variance,
Testimony of Russell Briggs, B&F Consulting).
If the city's request for a variance is granted, an estimated 120,000-150,000 lbs. of nitrates will
be released into the Neuse River over the next 30-40 years. It is reportedly the largest source of
groundwater contamination in the state. In order to ensure protection of future generations and
residents who may be living in subdivisions on lands in close proximity to the Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant, the applicant should be required by the state to provide continuous
remediation of the 16 contaminated wells until they are restored to their original condition.
The water quality standards applicable to groundwater rules established under section 15A
NCAC 02L.0103 Policy (a) specifically provide for the preservation of the "quality of the
groundwaters, prevent and abate pollution and contamination of the waters of the state, protect
public health, and permit management of the groundwaters for their best usage by the citizens of
North Carolina.
Furthermore, 15A NCAC 021.0103 states, "It is the policy of the Commission that the best usage
of the groundwaters of the state is as a source of drinking water .... and to enhance and restore
the quality of degraded groundwaters where feasible and necessary to protect human health
and the environment, or to ensure their suitability as a future source of drinking water."
[emphasis added]
The city's request to apply 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) which allows the contaminant to migrate
onto adjacent properties if (A) "such properties are served by an existing public water supply
system dependent on surface waters ... " is a rule that applies to non-permitted sites only.·
Furthermore, it is a sham that the city wishes to use this rule to allow the migration of nitrates
into the Neuse River and avoid clean up of nitrate contamination while allowing it to further
contaminate land where it now provides public water to those whose wells it was responsible for
contaminating.
Since they are very soluble and do not bind to soils, nitrates have a high potential to migrate to
groundwater. And because they do not evaporate, nitrates/nitrites are likely to remain in water
until consumed by plants or other organisms (USEP A Consumer Fact Sheet on Nitrates/Nitrites:
http ://www.ep a.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw contamfs/nitrates.html).
Principles of Enforcement
The city has stated the over-application was due to a mathematical error which resulted in
application rates double or triple what they should have been. This resulted in the migration of
nitrates from groundwater into the Neuse River. Land application was stopped in 2002 after
several wells were found to be contaminated with nitrates from the over-application of sewage
sludge (Notes from EMC Meeting Summary, Erin Kimrey, NCCN, Sept. 12-13, 2007, p.10).
Research conducted by the Neuse River Foundation, however, states the opposite. Their research
shows a history of illegal dumping, raw sewage and chemical spills, worker safety issues, illegal
and excessive sludge spraying, and repeated violations despite penalties and warnings from the
state (Profile of a Polluter: The History of Problems at Raleigh's Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant and the E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant, Neuse River Foundation:
5
www.neuseriver.or g). This history of negligence demonstrates a clear disregard for state and
federal laws, human health and the environment.
As the capital of the State of North Carolina, the City of Raleigh should take a leadership role in
being a steward-instead of a polluter -of our state's environment. The city needs to own up to
its failure to protect the environment and health of its people. The NCDENR has a vested
responsibility to uphold and embrace its mission to protect human health and the environment by
upholding the state standards for groundwater and surface waters.
We encourage the DENR/DWQ to defer to its "Principles of Enforcement" in the matter of the
City of Raleigh's variance request:
I) Compliance is the first step toward the ultimate goal of stewardship;
2) Enforcement will be an effective deterrent against future violations;
3) Enforcement actions will increase in severity for regulated entities with poor compliance
histories;
4) The cost of non-compliance should be greater than the cost of compliance.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Dayton
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
NC Healthy Communities Statewide Coordinator
P.O.BOX44
Saxapahaw, NC 27340
336.525.2003
sda vt on@swc p.com
6
Comments re: City of Raleigh's variance request
1 of 1
Subject: Comments re: City of Raleigh's variance request
From: "Sue Dayton" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 21:02:10 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>
Hi David:
Please see our attached comments. Thank you again for your help and assistance.
Best-
Sue Dayton
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
North Carolina Healthy Communities Program
PO BOX44
Saxapahaw, NC 27340
[phone]
sdayton@swcp .com
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -Martin Luther King Jr.
• • ! Content-Type: application/Jnsword
Comments on Raleigh request for variance.doc : C E d" b 64 i ontent-nco mg: ase
11/6/2007 3:34 PM
~ortly Qiarolina ®.eneral J\ss.emhlu
Jl{nuse nf ~pr.e.sentaii&e.s
~mte ~gishtfi&e ~uilhing
~aleiglf 27601-1096
REPRESENTATIVE ALICE GRAHAM UNDERHILL
3RD D I STRICT
AGRICULTURE
APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEES:
OFFICE ADDRESS : 16 W. JONES STREET, ROOM I 206
RALEIGH, NC 27601·1096
TELEPHDN E: (91 9) 733·5853
(919) 833·0606 FAX
EMAIL: [e-mail]
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMl!:NT, CHAIR
ENVIRONMENT ANO NATURAL RESOURCES, VICE·CHAIR
HOMELAND SECUPIITY, MILITARY ANO VETERANS AFFAIRS
JUDICIARY lll
HOME ADDRESS: 3910 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
NEW BERN, NC 28562
PHONE : (252) 633·2270
(252) 637·0539 FAX
October 16, 2007
Mr. David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 276-99-1617
TRANSPORTATION
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
resources to recuperate may reach far into the future.
Beyond the damage done to the water quality and other natural resources will be the economic impact to the
people of Eastern North Carolina. The health of the 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 furth~r down river is not an acceptable choice.
Yours truly,
~4.u.1\~
Rep . Alice G. Underhill
AGU/rmp
CC: Charles Meeker, Mayor of Raleigh
David McCracken, President of Neuse River Foundation
0
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release/ P ...
2of2
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
da [e-mail].
###
10/19/2007 3:30 PM
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / P ...
1 of2
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release/ Public Comment Extension!
From: "Thomas C. Worth, Jr."<[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:19:59 -0400
To: "David Hance" <[e-mail]>
Mr.Hance:Thank you for copying me today on the "Media Alert" about which I read in the "News & Observer" last
night.Please note that in behalf of my clients I had formally requested an extension of the Public Comment Period of a
minimum of sixty(60)days from 10/5/07.1 now request that the sixty days(60)days run from11/5/07as I believe it will take
every bit of ninety(90) days if not more to become conversant in this matter about which we knew nothing until Mr.Crisp's
Notice dated August 21,2007.Thomas C.Worth,Jr.
-----Original Message -----
From: David Hance
To: [e-mail]; biioubill@minds prin g.com; [e-mail]; cand yf [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Thomas C. Worth , Jr.; deb welch@ yahoo.com; djmadcow@ yahoo.com; Mike Holland
; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Harry LeGrand; J.C. Wilson; John Crenshaw;
[e-mail]; juliecrum6262@ yahoo.com; lawsonhen ry @earthlink.net; [e-mail];
matthew miller; [e-mail]; michelencha ppy @bellsouth.net; nanc yrpal@ yahoo.com ;
rollin [e-mail]; sasserbird@ yahoo.com; sherrill@o peramail.com; sn [e-mail];
tqabrielle@embarq 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 p ro 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: 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.
10/19/2007 3:30 PM
(0
/U: u.s. --P~ sd--l,lJ ~SVvJ~
✓~~ u~1 ~~ep 4
v~ ,'\~~ ~ -flAM¼,J~~
.fro Y"Y\: I ~~~ ~ /4-. rvJ-c/41Jj ~~ ~
f~ ~a_} 1 ~ ~ ,,....,.,,.....,v, I
~J~s ~-....,: J~ e~
(:AJ;A, «-1 ;JJ;J~ ~ ~ ti.. P~f h o--o fi~ ·~-~-~ 1 -~~
fM_, !~ ~ ~f~ 1<~,~
~ ~ ~ ~ ()uLl_ ~ fMQ, /(~
(MJ__~~~-
Co vn n;~ , Cd)
I
~-~
~: '9.ANNtNG BRANCH
(3)
. L ~~ ~~~~~
J)w j w+ ~1J-~ ~ ~ Ni0~
~ Cvv\ ~~ ./,LJ:;, l~
~ -~ ~~~~ At~-Jk
li,0~ Wuk ~ £~ ~ ~
UrYt ~ fr ~ rv.wi,J~ ~ ~ .1<~ kwr !owt 11witOM£j ~
-1--o ~ ~ /Ltu.t, r(},
~ ~ -!u-~ f tAq s ~~----,
~I~ CML ~ ~ f4_s
iV\4 ~~~-l.c ~-
1) ~ ~ ~~~,Jh ➔
~ ;tw,~ ~ jj>-~ NAJ.f_ a, ~ ~ <1(' kf-~'f u.1/, 1~ ~ ¾ ~1 M.7, IAJolvv/ ~ ~ '-. ~ . r ~ MMJ~ ~~ fr LciJy fr~
t:.,.. I ~ ,.·, ~ ~ V,.,., ~ ~, . "'1 ft-£
·--:1 V vJ'ri vJ.,J/f-~ h~ .
•,.
W;..\ rm QumJTY
;;J) ~~ -~~ ~ i ~I~~
I\_~~ ~"". ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
t¼, A-v,/~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ l'u,J41f-l/4
~~~ c~~~~
k . r
-~~!Lu I
3)-rk ~¼7,(/J ~j ~ ~ LdJ/s
!J ~ ',vnh, ~ JdjjQ, '<~ ~ r~ t~~J ~X,w,~~1 ~(W
1rr k /VoYJ-~ 7~ -
Lf) 1k ~Jc,~~~~ R~·b /aac ~
~f ~ jytw~ ~--..c__ wt...e0
0 . 1 __ • 7 £:Jr -. Jli . ~ r/V/
,
m@~ :),J{_oo7 · fw-4 ~~
N ~ $ t-~ -Vl R
s) tkL ~, ~~~~
~acA-UY\,~
("'.'"
i !1)1 10 Wiii
V'F\1£R Q.\lf.\L\T'i
-~-~G ~AAt4C\\
Mr. David Hance
Division of Water Quality Planning Section
1617 MSC
Raleigh, North Carolina 27 699-1617
407 Dixie Trail
Raleigh, NC 27607
October 8, 2007
Re: Raleigh's Request for a Variance from Ground Water Standards
Dear Mr. Hance:
I am writing to oppose the City of Raleigh's request for a variance from state ground
water standards at its Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant land application site.
I believe that the City and the Division of Water Quality could develop more
environmentally sound and cost effective options in addition to the natural attenuation
option and the pump and treat it all option.
I'm pleased that Raleigh has substantially reduced the discharge of nitrogen for its
wastewater treatment plant. However, Raleigh contributes substantial nitrogen from its
stormwater runoff and the land application site. I believe Raleigh could do more to
reduce its nitrogen load and other impacts on the Neuse River and Pamlico Sound by
protecting and restoring riparian buffers and wetlands.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bill Holman
Raleigh GW Variance
Subject: Raleigh GW Variance
From: Bill Holman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:04:25 -0400
To: [e-mail]
comments are attached; thanks
Bill Holman <[e-mail]>
Senior Fellow
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions
Duke University
..... ,.!. ..
Content-Type: application/msword
Raleigh GW Variance 10-8-07.doc
Content-Encoding: base64
l of 1 10/9/2007 10:23 AM
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release/ P ...
1 of2
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request-October 3rd Press Release/ Public Comment Extension!
From: "Thomas C. Worth, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:19:59 -0400
To: "David Hance" <[e-mail]>
Mr.Hance:Thank you for copying me today on the "Media Alert" about which I read in the "News & Observer" last
night.Please note that in behalf of my clients I had formally requested an extension of the Public Comment Period of a
minimum of sixty(60)days from 10/5/07.I now request that the sixty days(60)days run from11/5/07as I believe it will take
every bit of ninety(90) days if not more to become conversant in this matter about which we knew nothing until Mr.Crisp's
Notice dated August 21,2007.Thomas C.Worth,Jr.
-----Original Message -----
From: David Hance
To: [e-mail]; bij oubill@minds prin g.com; [e-mail]; cand yf [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Thomas C. Worth . Jr.; deb welch@ yahoo.com; d jmadcow@ yahoo.com; Mike Holland
; e gci [e-mail]; [e-mail]; g [e-mail]; Harry LeGrand; J.C. Wilson; John Crenshaw;
[e-mail] ; juliecrum6262@ yahoo.com; lawsonhen ry @earthlink.net; losflemin [e-mail];
matthew miller; [e-mail]; michelencha ooy @bellsouth.net; nancy rpal@ yahoo.com ;
rollin [e-mail]; sasserbird@ yahoo.com; sherrill@o oeramail.com; sn [e-mail];
[e-mail]
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 Raleigh :
Attachedis 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: 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 varianc~ 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.
10/19/2007 3:30 p:
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / P ...
2 of2
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].
###
10/19/2007 3:30 P
Dear Mr. David Hance,
I think that the city of Raleigh should not be granted a waiver, that they should be
held accountable for their actions, clean up their act, and protect its citizens and
environment. I will address the following bullet points in the subsequent paragraphs to
explain my reasoning.
• Accountability
• Short term solution, city growth will continue
• Detriments to ecosystem, Neuse River and supported life
• Misuse of already scant water supply
• Explore other solutions to reduce nitrate levels, funding
• Discuss with other cities who were in a similar growth pattern
Raleigh went forward with their sludge deposit programs despite warnings from
the state. Now, they are asking for a waiver to continue dumping in the same manner as
before and only build a few wells to treat and protect a considerably smaller area than
what was asked of them, around subdivisions. They effectively want to get out of what
the trouble that they got themselves into and not take responsibility for their waste
dumping.
People aren't allowed to go without punishments for wrong doings, why should
governments? After all, government punishments should be more severe because they
have an affect on many more people. They may claim that their actions were not
malicious but 'looking the other way' and neglecting the responsibility to protect your
citizens and lands is unacceptable. Raleigh has polluted more groundwater than eight
other towns in the area combined. The capital should set a better example.
Raleigh's proposal doesn't address the real contamination issue that is raised.
They hope to safe guard the people and residences that are in closer proximity to the
fields where sludge is dumped, with a fraction of the wells that are proposed. This may
sound like a reasonable solution to the money issue and it appears that a lot of time and
effort would be saved in focusing and concentrating their plans on a specific area. This
however, is just short term thinking. The reason that this is addressed now is because of
Raleigh's growth. That is also the reason why the state should not accept this waiver.
The city continues to grow and concerns are raised now that people are starting to
get closer to the areas of waste deposit. The desire for a city to avoid contaminating the
public water supply is self evident, but what Raleigh is proposing will be like putting a
band-aid on a broken arm. Their proposition addresses the safety of the current
residences but what about the future?
Raleigh is not showing any signs that it will stop growing. Is Raleigh just going
to keep building water treatment wells in isolated areas around new subdivisions as they
sprout up? They might as well address the issue now and cover all of the contaminated
areas because Raleigh is not going to stop growing and housing will continue to spread
where there is available land.
Raleigh neither looking into the future, nor are they looking around at the bigger
picture. We already know the implications associated with continuing to allow sludge
deposits at their current level. Soil, a natural nitrate neutralizer, can't do its job with the
overload of waste that is dumped on its surface. The soil and nature will not be able to
naturally take care of the waste, as Raleigh is suggesting, if they continue their careless
dumping. The ground water will continue to be contaminated in the surrounding areas,
unchecked (because, if Raleigh's plan goes through, they will think that they have the
problem blocked off from affecting residences) and they will continue to dump at current,
if not increased levels.
The Neuse River will see more problems. Granted, the river is already polluted,
but that shouldn't give us a right to write it off as a lost cause and let it become a trash
can. Even if we wanted to, we can't afford to. The Neuse and other rivers like it aren't
simply symbols and parts of our heritage that should be protected with pride (at least they
should be) they are also vital to life.
The Neuse River feeds one of the nation's largest coastal estuaries (Albemarle-
Pamlico). Marine life thrives where the Neuse River ends but that could all change if
Raleigh is allowed to let pollution run into its waters. Fish will be killed as nitrogen and
algae build up robs them of their natural, livable environment. Fishing as an industry and
recreationally will receive a serious hit.
The river feeds and supports so many other things. By allowing pollution to
escalate in this river, the river will spread its contaminated, diseased water over
everywhere it touches. A good amount of Eastern North Carolina lives in the Neuse
River Basin including the city of Raleigh. They would be shooting themselves in the foot
and hurting everyone else if they wanted to create a cesspool and expect to live in its
basin. In 2000, it was estimated 1,320,379 people and 18 counties were within the basin.
(Neuse River Basin) This decision doesn't just affect Raleigh, it affects millions of others.
Frankly, I don't know how the state could consider this proposal when they
already recognized and addressed this problem in the past. The state passed legislation
that changed the way hog farms operated in order to protect the Neuse and other rivers
just 10 years ago. They should stop the pollution and protect the river now, as they have
in the past. We need to be vigilant in protecting our natural resources from new threats
that arise as well as old ones.
No, we are not dealing with toxic waste but the last thing that we want is to be
placed in the same light as a Winona, Texas. We don't want to be looked at as people
who are not taking care of our citizens and looking out for their long-term, best interest.
The waiver also shouldn't be considered because it further neglects the growing
water crisis that we are facing over our entire state. The proposal suggests that we build a
few wells to treat the ground water around housing areas. What happens to the rest of the
water? Aren't we running out of water? Shouldn't we try to conserve all the water that
we have? Water treatment wells should go up to treat all the contaminated water b.ecause
we need all that we can get and we need to help our environment.
If anything, the current state of our global environment has taught us that we can
no longer simply use and dispose of things anywhere we please. The earth has been
stretched too far by our abuses and now, by all accounts, it is snapping back. The earth
won't simply take care of our wastefulness and recklessness, as Raleigh expects it will.
People and governments around the world are taldng steps to reverse the affects of global
warming, watch what they use, what they throw away, and how they treat natural
resources. Why shouldn't the city of Raleigh?
So where can we go from here? I don't think that they have adequately explored
alternative avenues to fix the waste placement problem. We still have to look to other
options such as converting more of the waste to compost and then shipping that out
where it is needed. Perhaps we could enlist the services of private compose providing
companies. If we take away their business, then we could give them grants, or jobs
helping to distribute the compost. I am no expert, but there have to be other methods for
getting rid of waste besides costly incineration and harmful waste spread.
If we properly educate the people on the situation and the consequences of
inaction and allowing the pollution to continue, then it might be worth it to propose a tax
to help pay for some of the costs. Some of the money off existing taxes could be used to
help fund this. People would be willing to pay a small percentage more if they
understood what they were paying for and if they knew that their money would go
towards something to actually make a difference for themselves and everything around
them. Many taxes don't make sense to people and they don't see that their money goes to
anything that directly benefits them. This tax could be an exception. People like to be
involved and if we are called to protect our families and the things that we care about,
then I feel that people will not only answer the call but they will do it with enthusiasm.
We could think of other ways to cut down on the nitrate level. We could explore
using zeolite clay or other substances that trap the nitrates. Zeolite can also be recharged
and reused again. That might not be reasonable but it is an idea.
One thing we should definitely do is open our doors to suggestions. I feel
strongly about consulting other cities that were in our shoes, to ask about how they
handled their waste problem. Simply talking with someone in city government who
helped their city go through a growth pattern that we are currently experiencing and
hearing what they have to say about our situation, would provide an amazing return on
our investment. It is cheap to ask for advice or to look at someone else's model and we
would lose nothing from seeking a second opinion. Another perspective might be just
what we need to get through our waste placement problem safely, and we might also find
a way to save a little money.
Hopefully, we can find a way to bring down the cost of $80 million that Raleigh
faces but their proposal is out of the question. In their proposal, Raleigh is opting to pay
one tenth of that figure and do even less than that for its people. Raleigh is acting
irresponsible and lazy. They can't be allowed to get away with a half-hearted attempt.
Most importantly, they can't be allowed to jeopardize its citizens and the environment of
Eastern North Carolina as a whole. You can't put a price tag on the environment nor can
you stop asking your government to do the right thing. Bravo to the state for holding
Raleigh accountable. I just hope that it sticks and that we don't wind up deeper in this
crap.
Sincerely,
Erick Cipau
References:
Neuse River Basin. Retrieved Oct. 4, 2007, from
<http://www.p2pays.org/ref/37/36065.pdf>
Mr. David A. Hance
Environmental Specialist
NCDENR
THOMAS C. WORTH, JR.
Attorney
Certified Mediator
Professional Building
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Post Office Box 1799
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
October 4, 2007
VIA E-MAIL to
[e-mail].
Division of Water Quality-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
AND VIA FED EX EXPRESS
AND VIA HAND DELIVERY
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Opposition to City of Raleigh Variance Request; Request for
Extension of the Comment Period
Public Hearing: Septerp.ber 5, 2007
Clients: Edge of Auburn LLC and Auburn Associates
Dear Mr. Hance:
I represent the above referenced entities which own properties in proximity to property
owned by the City of Raleigh which is the apparent source of nitrates which have migrated from
the City's property and contaminated the groundwater under adjacent properties. The properties
owned by my clients are identified by Wake County Revenue Department PIN Nos. as follows:
1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086 and 1730975189.
I was in attendance at the Public Hearing on September 5, 2007 and subsequently advised
my clients that, in my opinion, they could not proceed with their proposed development without
utilizing municipal utilities as their . currently proposed utilization of wells to provide water to
their residents is far too risky under the present circumstances. My clients had no knowledge of
this contamination prospect until their representative received the Notice of Groundwater
Corrective Action Plan Under 15 NCAC 2L.0106(k) from Mr. H. Dale Crisp, P.E., Raleigh
Public Utilities Director, dated August 21, 2007 and the related undated Notice of Variance
Application and Hearing Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water
Quality from Coleen H. Sullins, Director, Division of Water Quality. Upon receipt of these
Notices, they ceased the field studies and preparation of documents for their plan approval
submission which were well underway (and for which they had already expended a significant
amount of money) and as indicated I now have advised them to proceed no further with their
plans pending the resolution of this matter.
As I have indicated to representatives of the City and to its counsel, my clients are
morally and legally required to disclose the prospect of tainted ground/well water up front to
developers, to their lenders and to all builders and homeowners and their respective lenders who
may develop, lend, build and live upon their properties. I have further indicated to the City
representatives, however, that the public should never be at risk because I do not believe that any
properly informed lender will provide to my clients a development loan for these properties. In
sum this situation and its resolution by the variance sought by the City of Raleigh place my
clients in a totally untenable position.
In closing, I confirm our intention to oppose vigorously the City of Raleigh's variance
request in this matter and furthermore I request in behalf of my clients that the Comment Period
be extended from and after October 5, 2007 for a minimum period of sixty (60) days to enable us
to review what I understand are extensive files in DENR's possession relative to this matter
which date back over a decade prior to the date of Mr. Crisp's aforementioned letter of August
21, 2007.
Sincerely,
~r.
TCWjr/jwp
cc: S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G.
NCDENR-Division of Water Quality
1628 Mail Service Center
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
(via E-mail and Fed Ex Express)
RALPH C/l·l!ATH
4821 I(flkenny ·Place
~a!eigh, NQ · 27612
Mr. DAVID HANCE
DENR-DWQ PLANi!iING SECTION
1617 Nail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1617
1 uf, 1l11if.JJ 11l 11ul, 1, 11 ,, llill, 1111/ 11111 If ,l11l,l111 I, ,If
10/03/2007 11:19 9198474702
October 2, 2007
David H ance
DENR-DWQ.-Plennlng Section
1111 Mall Servi ce center
Ralelgh, NC 27899-1817
Dear Mr. Hance:
G KRILL PAGE 01
It was with grut lr'itereet that I read the article In todaY'• N&O concerning the
city ot Raleigh's requeet for a waiver from atata rules governlr1g the dlspoeal oi
wastewater. Arter having been warned, fined, and ordered to form a clean-up
plan, Raleigh dleplays an arrogant hack r.,t ,;:oncem for the river and the rMkMnta
downstream. I ask that this state NOT g ram the t.r=queeted waiver to the city ot
Raleigh.
It •• apparent that the "85 people that move to thla aree every dayn are having an
Impact that cannot neceaalrty be cl•••lfled n good for the bllamen of cllNlft
water, unlen, of couree, one operates a wa8tewater trucking Nl'Vlce. The $80
mllllon dollar coat of lmplementlng a clean-up openatfQn could be financed by
Impact fees that the city councll has so fer refueed to Increase afgnlflcantly.
Again, may I ask that tlle atate hold Raleigh rnpo'l•lbltt fr.,r the health of the river
and the lpa~cl of an expanding populaHon on our water aource. I wtrl emall this
letter as wait •• tax It, Just to make aure that you receive n.
Suzara.-.e .-rid Gary Krtll
6605 Vancouver Lane
Ralelgll~ NC 27815
3
Au gust, 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 knowingly discharg 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 unintentionalJy 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 kilJ 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 KMn04 via NPDES permit No.
NC0082376."
DWO strongly disagrees, sayi ng "No provision in the permit allows the City to discha rge
leftover chemicals used in the p rocess 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 crystal 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 $4 74 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 "rooted 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 January. It would essentially authorize any bypass that occurred -including
the 42-million bypass at the end of January-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 p reventin g 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 WQOOOl 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 fmally 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 has 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.
June4,2002
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 has become one of the most serious cases of groundwater
contamination in the state, Seneca says.
June 10 1 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 f'"mds 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 haz.ardous 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 has 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.
July 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 haz.ards, failing to place proper railing on ladderways, exposing workers to
formaldehyde and a methanol byproduct solution and improperly weatherproofmg 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.
Julv 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 fertilirer.
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."
Aug . 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.
Aug. 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
q uestioned why Crisp and the public utilities staff had not offered long-term strategies 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."
Aug . 23, 2002
Seven private wells near the wastewater plant are found to be unsafe due to a high nitrate content in the water.
Aug. 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."
Aug. 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.
Se p t. 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 .
Sept. 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.
Sept. 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/1, 0.53 mg/1 and 0.66 mg/l. 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 county in the state, with the greatest maiority of the sewage 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 spiH. By the end of January, Granvi11e
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 CH2MH1LL 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. CH2MH1LL 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 tot.al 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 fJXing the wastewater plant.
This brings the cost of fixing 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 f"mes 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
The 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 fertilizer 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 75
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 durin g the past year. Most of the problems contributing to these projected increases could
have been avoided.
July 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 three 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 seleniwn. 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.
Aug. 14, 2003
An article in The Wake Weekly reviews Raleigh's 2002 discharge monitoring reports and fmds 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"
• 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 fmd 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, Hali "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 WQ0001730
• Dec. 15, 1997
• Feb. 5, 1998
• Feb. 6, 1998
• May 14, 1998
• Permit NC002903
• May 27, 1998
• File 02-010, 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 of 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 has
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 department 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
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 effluent They would
still be beyond the state requirement and could justify that they are reducing nitrates by
overcompensating for it in their effluent.
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.
1bis 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
effluent. 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.
Dtl\rJ }\\Acc'.S:o~Ls·
J p 9efl.-vJ tJ~e..-~l J lf)__\Lxepe.,L
N .e JS l-~u.l C--'t..--~0 • .J~ A-1,DN'
Clayton, North Carolina
August, 28, 2997
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Sir:
These comments are in reference to the letter titled 'NOTICE OF
VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURSES DEVISION OF WATER
QUALITY''.
When the city of Raleigh applied for and accepted a permit to operate
the Neuse river wastewater treatment plant, they also accepted the rules and
regulations that govern such a permit. For whatever reason, nitrate
contamination has been allowed to get outside the boundary of the treatment
plant. State ground water rules in 15ANCA2L and pennit conditions
specifically prohibit natural attenuation as a cleanup method.
The fact that the City of Raleigh hired consultants to come up with
a justification for using natural attenuation for the cleanup should carry no
weight. Since the City of Raleigh is clearly the only beneficiary of this
justification, and since the justification was generated by employees of the
City it is most certainly a conflict of interest.
Operators of the wastewater treatment plant have created a condition
that has endangered both the human and environmental health of southeastern
Wake county. Instead of trying to find ways around the regulations that exist,
a concerted effort should be made to cleanup the contamination using the
methods prescnoed by existing regulations.
At the meeting to be held on September 5, T would like to have the
following questions answered:
1. How long has the contamination condition existed?
2. Why hasn't a full public disclosure been made?
3. Why is this variance application even being considered?
4. Will there be a fine levied against the city for creating
this condition?
The city of Raleigh needs to face up to their responsibility and
cleanup the mess that they created. This should be done under the
Regulations that govern the operating permit, and should be started
immediately.
incerely: ._ .,, . ,, -\ .
/f a;,.,,u1i/~~,.? b.--:;
,fl I \..._../_,;'?"_.
Phillip N. Douglas -
413 Hardwood Ridge Court
Clayton ,NC 27520
• -----·
TIPPETrr ••s CHAP_E-L
Free WUI Baptist ,thu rch
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
2530 Shotwell Road
Clayton, NC 27520
919-553-7037
www TinnP.tt~r.h~nP.I r.nm· tinnP.tt~fwhfmP.~rthlink nP.t
od-~o :ioo'J J
(0
/D: u.s. -P~ +-[A)~SR.NJ~
✓~c.XL 0 ~1 i,J~ ep 4
o~ ,'\~~~~-4<¼,J~~
·-ff o Y)'1 : ~u..-,,.,,..____ a,Q A-. ~cklj ~~ ~ .
F~ cLr ~ 1 ~ ~~ j/\AA"-'V t
~ewJ~ s · Jift4, 12 ,UJJJu
W lf1 N Jd~ ~ ~ u P~r h
1 fi~~:J~~
~ !~~~-f~~~,~
~ t¼,J-f; ~ (,Au .. ,ll_ __ a,.,,_4 f~ t )...U.JJ_,
(»J_ ~ ~ ~,
(3)
L ~· , ~~~~
~ ~ 0,¥1 ~~·~,/(~
~~ ~ ~ !fow~ M Jy ~tk
lw~ wu_/i, ~ ~~ ,~
u,-Yl ~ ~ fr ~ r~~ ~ ~ l~kdfy6WL11~~~
~ ~~ ~ llAM_, r o,
~ ~ -k--~fks,, . ,
~ I ~ CLlL ~ ~ fcl;,...s
~c..f ~ ~ ~ ~ &ivJ_;j~/l,,1 -
t) ~ ~ 1/L(J ~ ~ j ftL ➔
~ ~~ ~w.J jj)-~ ~!/ a,
~ ~ Cf<' l.aut.f-~ i al/, i>M-0
. -i ~ ¼, lc«Lri M7, LV~/ ~ ~
.o.:J z, ~:i fw-,n ~ luM!°f v.f~ fr kuily -1-oUL
~,:;;~·.':.::,·. r,~ t:;-l ~vn of 1ri, lh.'1 4 1 ,·U,,1, J:r r ,twfJ '(i ··,1.--, ,,. , !C 'Y AM.(; =-cv -ri,u...,,.~ -I ,,,V"'
'ti~ VvJo/1 W.u/f-~ h~ ,·
'.,,:.; .·•
~;_;~~ ~. _i ._.:--.. '.:
3) YN__ ~~ ~j ~ ~ ~
i ~ ~tir ~ lJiJjQ,~~~r~ r ~J ~;tw,~~1~QL)
fr,-L__ /V{JYJ-~ ~,
Lf) ~ ~cl -~~~~ !<tul)'b frac fJ
/'J-~-tur,A ~~ ~ JycJvi/~ ~(JR__ YYl~
,0 1, ,. . t f;Jt · · :Ju!·~ orJ
,
~ ©J41_, :;},Jl..007 ' . µ,; ~ ~
rJ LvU. > t-~ ~"
s) fkA-~ , · ~ rdr1 a-vv-1 :its
4 uvrtr'1/\, ~
CORPUD Variance: Dis.cussion of Dr. Bill Showers Comments
1 of2
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Discussion of Dr. Bill Showers Comments
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:53:33 -0500
To: "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>
Yes Ted, I understand.
I have spoken with Jay on this. We do not evaluate late comments with any of the same weight as we would timely
comments and it would not be discussed in the same vein as comments that arrived on November 5th. It should not
be discussed in any summaries the hearing officers get for review from our DWQ staff.
As I noted in a conversation with Jay ...... in past rulemakings and other actions, staff have considered comments
outside of the comment period if comments raised (1) brought up compelling issues staff never considered or (2)
provided technical solutions that staff feel are important. Jay said he would look this one over and give their
technical recommendation to the Hearing Officers. We have provided late comments to the EMC Groundwater
Committee in a separate appendix to a hearing officers report so that they can raise questions at least get a chance
to look at them.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
*********************************************************************************************
Ted L. Bush, Jr. wrote:
Hearing Officers,
It does not seem appropriate to include these comments,,with the comments you received previoi:,tsly. I think we
need to be very careful about commingling "late comments" with "timely comments". Regardless of whether
we agree or disagree with input submitted, it is my understanding that we have an obligation to adhere to the
predetermined and publicly noticed official comment period.
I would not recommend any further e-mail comments or responses to my message. If anyone :would like to
discuss, please feel free to give me a call, or discuss verbally among yourselves.
Thanks,
Ted
David Hance wrote:
Hello Hearing Officers and staffs:
Dr. Showers has sent in his comments late past the extended deadline for comments.
These are technical comments concerning the Neuse River and monitoring and I am sending them to the
staff and hearing officers to determine if those comments have considerable weight.
They are in PDF and are attached.
11/7/2007 5:58 PM
CORPUD Variance: Discussion of Dr. Bill Showers Comments
..
2 of2
david hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
11/7/2007 5:58 PM
CORPUD Variance: Dr. Bill Showers Comments that came in today ...
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Dr. Bill Showers Comments that came in today on November 6th
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:28:14 -0500
To: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
CC: "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Hello Hearing Officers and staffs:
Dr. Showers has sent in his comments late past the extended deadline for comments.
These are technical comments concerning the Neuse River and monitoring and I am
sending them to the staff and hearing officers to determine if those comments have
considerable weight.
They are in PDF and are attached.
david hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x .. 587
Showers, NCSU_Comments on the Variance Request.pdf
Content-Type: application/pdf
Content-Encoding: base64
Hn/2007 12:03 PM
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request-October 3rd Press Release/ P ...
t·
1 of2
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / Public Comment Extension!
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:18:41 -0500
To: Bill Showers <[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Nora Deamer
<[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>
Bill,
The Comment Deadline was yesterday on November 5, 2007. What is submitted by you here is a late comment. I will
go ahead and forward this on to the hearing officers to let them see it.
David Hance
919-733-5083 x. 587
************************************************************************************************
Bill Showers wrote:
David,
Attached are my comments, I hope that they are not late and that you can use them. We have tried to include all the
latest data in this report for your consideration.
Thanks for letting me comment on this variance request.
Bill Showers
attachment
At 03:13 PM 10/5/2007, you wrote:
_Hello to those interested in the proposed 2L Groundwater Variance for the City of Raleigh;_
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: 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
11/7/2007 12:03 PM
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / P ...
2 of2
_ 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].
###
William J. Showers
Dept of Marine, Earth & Atm Sciences
North Carolina State University
Raleigh NC 27695
(919) 515 -7143 Office
(919) 515 -7802 Fax
(919) 515 -3689 Isotope Lab
(919) 632 -2283 Cell
(919) 515 -7911 Field Lab
Visit our RiverNet Web Site
http ://rivernet.ncsu.edu/
lln/2007 12:03 PM
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release/ P ...
1 of2
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release/ Public Comment Extension!
From: Bill Showers <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue; 06 Nov 2007 17:31:05 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
David,
sorry I got the dates mixed up, I hope that it will still be useful.
Bill Showers
At05:18 PM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
Bill,
The Comment Deadline was yesterday on November 5, 2007. What is submitted by you here is a late comment. I
will go ahead and forward this on to the hearing officers to let them see it.
David Hance
919-733-5083 x. 587
************************************************************************************************
Bill Showers wrote:
David,
Attached are my comments, I hope that they are not late and that you can use them. We have tried to include all the
latest data in this report for your consideration.
Thanks for letting me comment on this variance request.
Bill Showers
attachment
At 03:13 PM 10/5/2007, you wrote:
_Hello to those interested in the proposed 2L Groundwater Variance for the City of Raleigh;_
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: IMMEDIATE Contact: Susan Massengale
Date: Oct. 3, 2007 Phone: [phone] ext. 227
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR RALEIGH VARIANCE REQUEST EXTENDED TO NOV. 5
11/6/2007 6:08 PM
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / P ...
2 of2
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].
###
William J. Showers
Dept of Marine, Earth & Atm Sciences
North Carolina State University
Raleigh NC 27695
(919) 515 -7143 Office
(919) 515 -7802 Fax
(919) 515 -3689 Isotope Lab
(919) 632 -2283 Cell
(919) 515 -7911 Field Lab
Visit our RiverNet Web Site
http ://rivemet.ncsu.edu/
William J. Showers
Dept of Marine, Earth & Atm Sciences
North Carolina State University
Raleigh NC 27695
(919) 515 -7143 Office
(919) 515 -7802 Fax
(919) 515 -3689 Isotope Lab
(919) 632 -2283 Cell
(919) 515 -7911 Field Lab
Visit our RiverNet Web Site
htt p ://rivernet.ncsu.edu/
11/6/2007 6:08 PM
CORPUD Variance: Dr. Bill Showers Comments that came in today ...
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Dr. Bill Showers Comments that came in today on November 6th
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue,-06 Nov 2007 17:28:14 -0500
To: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
CC: "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Hello Hearing Officers and staffs:
Dr. Showers has sent in his comments late past the extended deadline for comments .
These are technical comments concerning the Neuse River and monitoring and I am
sending them to the staff and hearing officers to determine if those comments have
considerable weight.
They are in PDF and are attached.
david hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
Showers, NCSU_Comments on the Variance Request.pdf
Content-Type: application/pdf
Content-Encoding: base64
11/6/2007 5:28 PM
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request-October 3rd Press Release/ P ...
)
1 of2
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release/ Public Comment Extension!
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:18:41 -0500
To: Bill Showers <[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Nora Deamer
<[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Bill,
The Comment Deadline was yesterday on November 5, 2007. What is submitted by you here is a late comment. I will
go ahead and forward this on to the hearing officers to let them see it.
David Hance
919-733-5083 x. 587
************************************************************************************************
Bill Showers wrote:
David,
Attached are my comments, I hope that they" are not late and that you can use them. We have tried to include all the
latest data in this report for your consideration.
Thanks for letting me comment on this variance request.
Bill Showers
attachment
At 03:13 PM 10/5/2007, you wrote:
_Hello to those interested in the proposed 2L Groundwater Variance for the City of Raleigh;_
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: IMMEDIATE Contact: Susan Massengale
Date: Oct. 3, 2007 Phone: [phone] ext. 227
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR RALEIGH V ARlANCE 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
11/6/2007 5:23 PM
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / P ...
2 of2
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 .hance@ncmai I .net.
###
William}. Showers
Dept of Marine, Earth & Atm Sciences
North Carolina State University
Raleigh NC 27695
(919) 515 -7143 Office
(919) 515 -7802 Fax
(919) 515 -3689 Isotope Lab
(919) 632 -2283 Cell
(919) 515 -7911 Field Lab
Visit our RiverNet Web Site
htt p://rivernet.ncsu.edu/
11/6/2007 5 :23 PM
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request-October 3rd Press Release/ P ...
1 of2
S~)>jJft:"R.e: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / Public Comment Extension!
From: Bill Showers <w [e-mail]>
Dat~: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:08:45 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
David,
Attached are my comments, I hope that they are not late and that you can use them. We have tried
to include all the latest data in this report for your consideration.
Thanks for letting me comment on this variance request.
Bill Showers
attachment
At 03:13 PM 10/5/2007 , you wrote:
_Hello to those interested in the proposed 2L Groundwater Variance for the City of Raleigh;_
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: 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 (919)
733-5083 ext. 587 or e-mail [e-mail] .
###
William J. Showers
Dept of Marine, Earth & Atm Sciences
North Carolina State University
Raleigh NC 27695
(919) 515 -7143 Office
(919) 515 -7802 Fax
(919) 515 -3689 Isotope Lab
11/6/2007 5:22 PM
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / P ...
2 of2
-,.
(919) 632 -2283 Cell
(919) 515 -7911 Field Lab
Visit our RiverNet Web Site
http ://rivernet.ncsu.edu/
! Content-Type: application/pdf •
Showers, NCSU Comments on the Variance Request.pdf : -i Content-Encoding: base64 •
11/6/2007 5:22 PM
www.neuseriver.or g). This history of negligence demonstrates a clear disregard for state and
federal laws, human health and the environment.
As the capital of the State of North Carolina, the City of Raleigh should take a leadership role in
being a steward-instead of a polluter -of our state's environment. The city needs to own up to
its failure to protect the environment and health of its people. The NCDENR has a vested
responsibility to uphold and embrace its mission to protect human health and the environment by
upholding the state standards for groundwater and surface waters.
We encourage the DENR/DWQ to defer to its "Principles of Enforcement" in the matter of the
City of Raleigh's variance request:
1) Compliance is the first step toward the ultimate goal of stewardship;
2) Enforcement will be an effective deterrent against future violations;
3) Enforcement actions will increase in severity for regulated entities with poor compliance
histories;
4) The cost of non-compliance should be greater than the cost of compliance.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Dayton
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
NC Healthy Communities Statewide Coordinator
P.O.BOX44
Saxapahaw, NC 27340
336.525.2003
sdavton@swc p.com
6
BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE
www.BREDL.org PO BOX 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 [e-mail] [phone] office [phone] cell
November 5, 2007
Mr. David Hance
Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
RE: Notice of Variance Application and Hearing
DENR/DWQ
Cleanup at the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant -Permit Number WQ0001730
TO:
Ms. Kathy Stecker, Hearing Officer
Mr. Andrew Pitner, Hearing Officer
Kevin Martin, EMC Groundwater Committee Chair
Marion Deerhake
Tom Ellis
David Moreau
Donnie Brewer
Thomas Cecich
Freddie Harrill
Darryl Moss
Steven Weber
Forrest Westhall
We wish to thank the DENR/DWQ for granting our request for an extension of public comments
concerning the City of Raleigh's request for a variance from groundwater protection regulations
concerning the nitrate contamination that has occurred at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
It is important that the public has ample opportunity to comment on the subsequent
contamination of the groundwater, the Neuse River, private drinking water wells, and
surrounding land from years of over-application of sewage sludge by the City of Raleigh Public
Utilities Department.
On behalf of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, I wish to submit to you the
following comments and recommendations concerning the City of Raleigh's request for a
variance 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 into the Neuse River and surrounding properties.
1
N
CS)
----N
CS)
w
~
<C
Q_
M
(T)
N
N
I
cD
I.()
I.()
I en
rl en
rl
CS)
cD
rl
!'-
CS)
CS)
N
----N
N
' co
rl
Raleigh w~1ts sludge
to take care of itself ·
Request opposed by
officials down river.
fE'asible." ·
(
·n1(' dty i11sleatl .. wa11ls to
1m,MI a limiled number of
groundwater extraction wieUs .
BY l.JIToYA MAcJC SnnoN al a cosl o($9 million and allow
· .. natural ar~enm1lion" t,o , lake
care of llte nsl:rt>getJ. ,
Hal(.'igh offidals 1101,e lime '"f3asita!ly, the '112tiance that
will take rnre of sludge frum ils l~le~gh has proposed is ~o 40
Nrusc River wastewater treal-nollung bo dean tlus up,' sai.d m~r,e plari•. i.arry Baltlwi.11, Lo ·wer Ne11se
11\e plan! is responsible fur mverkeeper.
l,ll(l() llCfC'S of gn,undw.alC:'r . Officials iw-Craven County
c•mlmninaliun cau51•u ·1,,y -over-and New Bern,· ll1e lacc\tio11 ol
.iwlying sludge. Stutlge, whkh . Baldwin's of(ice, pla.f1 to-send
is s1,rayed on farm fields, 1s ;:i a leltcr to the Environment.a.I
le-ft-over solid 1 ►rudt1ced dur:ini.t M311~me11LCon11nission, ask-
111-e waler ~nd sewage treaL-ing tlri:-m nol lo granl Haleigh's
m~nt process. var.im1i.:e request .
A"l rt rC':1u ·ll of the nml.i111i11:1-Twl.'n.ly-five percent of th~
liu11, 1.lU,000 pouml11, of nihu-120,UOO JJOllllllS ol nilrngcu
gen will seep into the Ne'llse from Ral~lt's treatme,nt plant
m vc-r cvei·y year for tJJ~ :~~~ ~11 -~~J,~ 1,1nl.y -W t:f~itNeus-e
}'L•.urs. ' :, ,_ ·•·,.. ...,Riv·er ···~stuilf-y .-in New Dern,
111e state Division of Waf.er B:ddwiu ~d. ~-~' {1l · ·
qualily r-e1Luires Raleigh to ·. ''-lt's riot just 21t issue !i:ftecific
dean lip [he contaminatio.n, but to Raleigh, bt!t il 1s someililng
l1ow it will µo so is the sabjecl that has an effect' all the -way
· TJ. Lynch, the was(ewaler
treat menl pl.ult superinl~ndent,
saic.J in January the dly reduced
ils 1iitrogcn disd1.arges by 50
(Jercent, ahove lite 30 per~nl
Ure -stale requires. Lynell said
tlte red~1cliom, :are clue lD bette.r
lra.ning for em11foyces and con-
lfoually l',1/eak;ng lheprocess_ lo
get better numbers.
Public-comment-on Raleigh's
Yatiru1ce req11esl h~ been ex-
tended uni.ii Nov. 5. , . : ~:
'lliose wlio wish to submit· .
conunents or inspect tl1e·vaJi. ·
am:e request, should write to .
David . Hance, DENR-DWQ ..
Plrn111i11g Sediion, :i.61, Mail
Se.TVice Center, Raleigb, NC;",
27699-1617~ call 733-6003, en.
587, or 'l'='Lllai! david.lui.nc-e@nc-·
mail.net. · · · · , i•
oh[iehatie. .. tlownj.beriver,7hesald.1 .
. A nrst oi,lion requires install-Wtiµe Bald~ s~~ i~ is !rue
mg42:6 wells, Iormmg.a.hydrnu-the mlrogen ,Will nafutally de-
lie barrier lbat would red11ce crease bver ilin~,i1u! said it will
groundwaler disdiarge. WiUi a take 40 years:or more to do so. ·
fll'ice lag o{ $80 millio11 over 30 "For t11em to \tiaitt•a' free pass
years, Ralew;h officials deemed and □ot clean any of it up is just
that option "economically not unllliukable," Baldwin said.
Variance request
We oppose the City of Raleigh's request for a variance and strongly urge the DENR/DWQ to
deny this variance request. Permit conditions and state groundwater rules in 15A NCAC 2L
prohibit natural attenuation as a clean-up method on permitted wastewater treatment land
disposal sites. We strongly object to the city's "do-nothing" approach as it fails to conform to
state regulations designed to protect groundwater and surface water. Moreover, the state's
approval of this variance would set a dangerous precedent for clean up of similar contamination
at other permitted facilities. Natural attenuation is an available clean-up option for use on sites
contaminated by unpermitted discharges, such as leaking underground storage tanks. The Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant is a permitted facility; thus, using natural attenuation as a
cleanup method for nitrate contamination is not applicable to this facility.
Recommendations
Reports from the media, public officials, state regulators and private citizens describe the City of
Raleigh's options for cleanup of the nitrate contamination as a "damned if you do, damned if you
don't" extreme. These are: 1) remediate the nitrate contamination by drilling over 425 extraction
wells and conducting active remediation involving a pump and treat method. This reportedly will
cost the city an estimated $80 million dollars; 2) remediate the nitrate contamination using the
"do-nothing" method. In other words, allowing Mother Nature to take care of the mess.
Unfortunately, both of these options represent the extremes of what might be a safer and better
approach, along with being more cost effective for the applicant.
Because of the severity and range of contamination, we recommend a multi-faceted approach to
offset the impacts of the contamination such as on-site clean up of the primary source of nitrate
contamination, restoration of wetlands further downstream, and remediation of the 16 drinking
water wells belonging to private residents of communities impacted by this contamination. We
also recommend the DENR/DWQ and the City of Raleigh continue to engage in a transparent
dialogue with the Neuse River Foundation and members of the public in identifying an
acceptable and effective solution with swift implementation of a plan to offset the impacts of
contamination caused by over-application of sewage sludge.
Human health risks from nitrates
Under North Carolina Administrative Code Subchapter 2L -Groundwater Classification and
Standards, section 15A NCAC 02L.0l 13 (4) states that the applicant that submits a request for a
variance must demonstrate that the variance "will not endanger the public health and safety,
including the health and environmental effects from exposure to groundwater contaminants."
The "do-nothing" alternative for _ nitrate clean up proposed by the applicant does not come close
to fulfilling the stipulations under this ·section.
Short-term exposure to drinking water with a nitrate level at.or just above the health standard of
10 mg/I nitrate-N is a potential health problem primarily for infants. Babies consume large
quantities of water relative to their body weight, especially if water is used to mix powdered or
concentrated formulas. The digestive systems of babies are more likely than adult digestive tracts
to allow the reduction of nitrates to nitrites. In particular, the presence of nitrites in the digestive
tract of newborns can lead to a disease called methemoglobinemia (Nitrate: Health Effects in
Drinking Water, M. Mccasland, N. Trautmann, and K. Porter, Natural Resources Cornell
Cooperative Extension: htt p:/ /pmep.cce.comell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/nit-heef-grw85 .html).
2
Effects on ecosystems
In addition to being toxic to human babies, nitrates affect young animals and are a problem for
ruminant animals of all ages. Some livestock have been known to abort fetuses due to drinking
water containing high levels of nitrates (Animal Waste and Water Quality, Alabama Cooperative
Extension System, p.5: http://www.aces.edu/crd/publications/wtrqlty/wg-animalwaste.pd0.
A growing number of studies suggest that nitrates have the potential to be an endocrine
disrupting contaminant and pose a direct threat to the conservation and restoration of vertebrate
populations and the ecosystems they depend on for survival (/s Nitrate an· Ecologically Relevant
Endocrine Disruptor in Vertebrates? L.Guillette, Jr. and T.M. Edwards, Society for Integrative
and Comparative Biology, 2005, 45(1):19-27:
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/45/l/19).
It is well documented that increased amounts of nutrients can kill fish due to a lack of oxygen as
a result of excessive algal growth (What are the Usual Causes of Fish Kills? USGS:
http://water.usgs.gov/owg/FA0.htm#010). However, in addition to fish kills, research conducted
by Pieter Johnson of the University of Colorado has found that increased levels of nitrogen cause
deformities in amphibians. Snail populations that host microscopic parasites known as
trematodes reproduce dramatically in nitrogen rich environments infecting frogs with the
parasites which then cause cysts in the limbs of developing tadpoles (Aquatic Eutrophication
Promotes Pathogenic Infection in Amphibians, Johnson et al, 2007:
http://www.colorado.edu/eeb/facultysites/pieter/documents/J ohnson % 20et% 20al. %202007. pdf).
It is not known whether the Neuse River ecosystem will be affected by this phenomenon due to
excessive levels of nitrate contamination.
Additional organic wastewater contaminants found in sludge
The Notice of Variance Application and Hearing states that "no other substance monitored at this
facility is under consideration." Additional impacts from contaminants contained in sludge may
not be so apparent, and thousands of potentially toxic compounds continue to remain unregulated
and untested due to the federal government's inability to take effective action to provide
protection of human health and the environment frorri emerging contaminants. Untested
chemicals at wastewater treatment plants include heavy metals, pharmaceuticals and personal
care products (PPCPs), hormones, pathogens, and industrial chemicals that end up in effluent
released into surface waters. Many of these compounds are classified as organic wastewater
contaminants (OWCs).
These compounds have been found to concentrate in sludge, collectively referred to as biosolids
by academics, state and federal regulators and industry pundits. A survey conducted by Eastern
Washington University and the USGS examined nine different biosolids products destined for
land application produced by municipal wastewater treatment in seven different states. Fifty-five
OW Cs from a total of 87 OWCs were detected in one biosolids product with a minimum of 30
and a maximum of 45 OWCs detected in any one sample. Among the most commonly detected
compounds were pharmaceuticals (prescription and non-prescription), hormones, detergent
metabolites, steroids, fragrances, plasticizers, pesticides, fire retardants, and disinfectants in the
biosolids. The compounds detected in greater concentrations were nonlyphenol and octyylphenol
detergent metabolites.
3
The Eastern Washington University/USGS study concluded that a range of compounds are
"incompletely removed during wastewater treatment and sequestered in biosolids that are
subsequently land applied." Since an estimated fifty percent of biosolids are land applied they
are a potentially ubiquitous nonpoint source of OWCs into the environment. The potential
concerns surrounding the presence of these compounds in the environment include adverse
psychological effects, increased cancer, reproductive impairment in humans and other animals,
and antibiotic resistance among pathogenic bacteria (Survey of Organic Wastewater
Contaminants in Biosolids Destined for Land Application, Kinney et al, Environmental Science
Technology, Vol. 40, 2006, p. 7207-7215).
Studies conducted by the USGS have found hormones, antibiotics, and prescription drugs in
urban streams receiving effluent from wastewater treatment plants across the nation. Some of
these chemicals such as the detergent degradation product nonylphenol and the fragrances
AHTN and HHCB have been shown to disrupt reproduction and growth in fish by affecting the
endocrine systems (Assessing the biological potency of binary mixtures of environmental
estrogens using vitellogenin induction in juvenile rainbow trout, Thorpe et al, Environmental
Science and Technology, v. 35, no, 12, 201).
Other chemicals such as triclosan found in popular liquid anti-bacterial soaps may increase the
antibiotic resistence of basteria in the environment (Resistance to triclosan in laboratory and
clinical strains of Escherichia coli, McMurry et al, FEMS Microbiology Letters, v. 166, no. 2,
1998) and reducing algae diversity in streams (Effects of three pharmaceutical and personal care
products on natural freshwater algal assemblages, Wilson et al, Environmental Science and
Technology, v. 37, no. 9, 2003).
The human health and environmental effects of these and other compounds are not well
understood, and standards to protect human health and aquatic life have not been established for
these chemicals (Wastewater Chemicals in Colorado's Streams and Groundwater, USGS:
http://www.coboulder.com/health/environ/water/ows/pdf/FactSheet%20Wastewater%20Chemica
ls.pdf
Numerous research studies have shown that endocrine-disrupting compounds and
pharmaceuticals that have the ability to alter the sex of fish and create antibiotic resistance. In
Boulder Creek and the South Platte River, Colorado, researchers found more feminized fish
downstream of sewage effluent sites than upstream. At least two estrogen compounds, a natural
estrogen and a type of synthetic estrogen found in birth control pills, contributed to the
feminization. The Colorado study found that each compound was potent enough to cause
changes in fish on its own, but together had an even greater impact ("Wading in Hormones:
Estrogen Invades Colorado's South Platte River," ScienceLine, Aug, 1, 2007:
http :/ /scienceline.org/2007/08/01/environment-anderson-water hormones/).
These compounds end up in wastewater effluent that is eventually released into the Neuse.
However, since these compounds also concentrate in sludge, instead of being applied to land,
they have been "re-released" into the Neuse, the volumes of which are unknown.
Environmental justice
Since the 1980s the city has over-applied sewage sludge to 1,000-acres at its Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant's sludge farm. As a result of the over-application of sewage sludge
over 30 families (16 wells total) have had their drinking water wells contaminated with nitrates
from the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant.
4
After the contamination was discovered, the wells were abandoned and families were placed on
city water. It is unclear as to if and when the wells will be safe to use again. Additional concerns
include a community well system planned for a subdivision in Wake County just west of the
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (Public Hearing, Raleigh Request for Variance,
Testimony of Russell Briggs, B&F Consulting).
If the city's request for a variance is granted, an estimated 120,000-150,000 lbs. of nitrates will
be released into the Neuse River over the next 30-40 years. It is reportedly the largest source of
groundwater contamination in the state. In order to ensure protection of future generations and
residents who may be living in subdivisions on lands in close proximity to the Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant, the applicant should be required by the state to provide continuous
remediation of the 16 contaminated wells until they are restored to their original condition.
The water quality standards applicable to groundwater rules established under section 15A
NCAC 02L.0103 Policy (a) specifically provide for the preservation of the "quality of the
groundwaters, prevent and abate pollution and contamination of the waters of the state, protect
public health, and permit management of the groundwaters for their best usage by the citizens of
North Carolina.
Furthermore, 15A NCAC 021.0103 states, "It is the policy of the Commission that the best usage
of the groundwaters of the state is as a source of drinking water .... and to enhance and restore
the quality of degraded groundwaters where feasible and necessary to protect human health
and the en·vironment, or to ensure their suitability as a future source of drinking water."
[emphasis added]
The city's request to apply 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) which allows the contaminant to migrate
onto adjacent properties if (A) "such properties are served by an existing public water supply
system dependent on surface waters ... " is a rule that applies to non-permitted sites only.
Furthermore, it is a sham that the city wishes to use this rule to allow the migration of nitrates
into the Neuse River and avoid clean up of nitrate contamination while allowing it to further
contaminate land where it now provides public water to those whose wells it was responsible for
contaminating.
Since they are very soluble and do not bind to soils, nitrates have a high potential to migrate to
groundwater. And because they do not evaporate, nitrates/nitrites are likely to remain in water
until consumed by plants or other organisms (USEPA Consumer Fact Sheet on Nitrates/Nitrites:
http ://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw contamfs/nitrates.html).
Princi ples of Enforcement
The city has stated the over-application was due to a mathematical error which resulted in
application rates double or triple what they should have been. This resulted in the migration of
nitrates from groundwater into the Neuse River. Land application was stopped in 2002 after
several wells were found to be contaminated with nitrates from the over-application of sewage
sludge (Notes from EMC Meeting Summary, Erin Kimrey, NCCN, Sept. 12-13, 2007, p.10).
Research conducted by the Neuse River Foundation, however, states the opposite. Their research
shows a history of illegal dumping, raw sewage and chemical spills, worker safety issues, illegal
and excessive sludge spraying, and repeated violations despite penalties and warnings from the
state (Profile of a Polluter: The History of Problems at Raleigh's Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant and the E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant, Neuse River Foundation:
5
<3it!J C9f CR_aleigh
November 5, 2007
Mr. David Hance
DENR-DWQ Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Hance:
:North &troltna.
I am writing on behalf of the City of Raleigh (City) in support of the City's
Variance Application (Application) relating to its Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for
nitrate-nitrogen contaminated groundwater at the City's Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). In the Application, the City has requested a variance from
the Environmental Management Commission's (EMC) groundwater rules, 15A NCAC
2L, to allow it to fully implement a CAP that relies in part on best available technology
(i.e. well installation, pumping and treating) and on monitored natural attenuation for the
remainder of the site, rather than implementing the pump'n treat best available
technology over the entire 1,000 acre farm field permitted site for biosolids land
application.
The City has demonstrated that the statutory criteria for the issuance of a variance
h,.we been met -i.e., that the nitrate-nitrogen contamination at the NRWWTP site (Site)
does not endanger human health or safety and that compliance with the 2L standard for
nitrate-nitrogen cannot be achieved by the application of economically reasonable
technology and would produce serious hardship to the City without equal or greater
benefits to the public. See N.C.G.S. § 143.215(e).
With respect to the human health risk, the City's consultants, ENSR Consulting
and Engineering (NC), Inc. (ENSR) conducted a risk assessment and found that there
were no unacceptable risks for exposure to groundwater used for a non-potable purpose
(e.g., a swimming pool). Neither were there unacceptable risks for using groundwater for
irrigation purposes.· While there is a potentially unacceptable risk if the groundwater
were used for drinking water, no property owners in the vicinity of the NRWWTP are
using groundwater for drinking water that exceeds the nitrate groundwater standard or is
predicted to exceed the standard, since the City has extended potable public water service
1
to the area and provided water service to those properties at the City's expense that have
experienced even only one nitrate-nitrogen exceedance from their well, which may or
may not have caused by the City's biosolids land application program. Moreover, the
City will continue to monitor nitrate-nitrogen levels in groundwater at the compliance
boundary for as long as nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in groundwater are above the 10
mg/L standard to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.
ENSR also performed a comprehensive study ofremedial alternatives. ENSR
concluded that the best available technology (BAT) pump'n treat alternative, which
would involve the installation of extraction wells along the entire compliance boundary
and the pumping and treatment of contaminated groundwater, would cost an estimated
$80,000,000.00. This alternative would create a serious financial hardship for the City.
The City has just completed the construction of a series of major upgrades over the past
four (4) years to the NRWWTP treatment processes that exceed $40,000;000.00. The
City's will continue to invest heavily over the next 10 years ($156 million) to provide
additional state-of-the-art treatment process improvements at the NRWWTP and will
expand the plant's capacity, due to the growth in City's wastewater service population.
The,estimated capital costs of full compliance with the 2L rules ($80 million) would
consume approximately 50 percent of the approved total capital budget for the
NRWWTP. In order to implement the BAT approach currently required by the 2L rules,
the City would be compelled to divert funds currently allocated to the numerous and
extensive capital improvements planned for the NRWWTP and the City's sanitary sewer
collection system, putting the protection of water quality and the availability of high
quality wastewater treatment service to the area's growing population at risk. In the
City's opinion, capital expenditures of almost $80,000,000 are not economically
reasonable to remediate groundwater to drinking water standards that has no likelihood of
actually being used directly by the public for drinking water.
This extraordinarily expensive alternative to comply with the 2L rules would
yield minimal public benefit because (i) there are no current or potential human receptors
downgradient of much of the compliance boundary; (ii) in those areas where there are
downgradient residences, as previously indicated, the City has connected those residences
to City water service; and (iii) much of the nitrate that moves beyond the compliance
boundary naturally denitrifies in the Neuse River riparian buffer. In addition, the 2L-
required alternative would reduce groundwater discharge and thus stream baseflow to
several streams in the area, particularly Beddingfield Creek, which would be potentially
detrimental to the ecology of those streams. Thus, strict compliance with the 2L rules for
corrective action in this case produces benefits that are not remotely commensurate with
the enormous expenditure of public funds required. The City is not aware of any public or
regulatory comments questioning these conclusions.
Rather, it appears all of the public comments in opposition to the City's variance
request express concern that granting the variance will result in adverse impacts to water
quality in the Neuse River Estuary by allowing an estimated substantial amount of
nitrogen loading to the Neuse River through the discharge of nitrate-nitrogen laden
groundwater to surface waters tributaries. Groundwater modeling performed by ENSR
2
on behalf of the City confirms that such loading from the Site is occurring, but denying
the variance and requiring implementation of a best available technology CAP in full
compliance with the 2L rules, in the opinion of both the City's consultants and the DWQ
Aquifer Protection staff, would not produce a materially different result. The vast
majority of nitrate-nitrogen loading from the Site transported via groundwater to the
Neuse River is not occurring as a result of contaminated groundwater crossing the
compliance boundary, but based on additional scientific investigative work performed by
N.C. State University researchers and supported by ENSR staff, is the result of high
concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen in groundwater in the interior of the property, which
discharges to first-order streams within the compliance boundary. These exceedances of
the 2L standard for nitrate-nitrogen within the compliance boundary, and the associated
discharge of nitrate-nitrogen to streams on the property, do not constitute violations of the
2L standards and do not require remediation under the 2L program. Moreover, the
corrective action required by the 2L rules at the compliance boundary would do nothing
to reduce the nitrogen loading to surface water within the compliance boundary.
The City has acknowledged and responded to the need to address the problem of
nitrate-nitrogen loading to surface water from contaminated groundwater on the Site and
has been working with DWQ toward that end. Initially, the City and DWQ agreed that
the best way for the City to compensate for the increased loading of nitrogen from the
Site to the Neuse River would be for the City to make a conservative estimate of that
nitrogen load and to be required to count it against the cap in the City's discharge of total
nitrogen from the NRWWTP. That cap is currently set in the City's NPDES permit at
676,417 pounds per year. Based on hydro geologic modeling performed on behalf of the
City, the City and DWQ agreed that the amount of groundwater nitrogen load that should
be counted against the permit cap should start at approximately 123,000 pounds per year
and decline over time based on the modeled reduction in groundwater load over time. It
is critical to note that conservative and protective assumptions were used in the model
( e.g., no credit for natural denitrification), as evidenced by the fact that the transport
model simulated higher historical concentrations than were actually observed values in
the City's monitoring wells. Furthermore, the model results indicated that the amount of
the load to be debited was close to the total load coming from the Site, even though most
of this load is the result of activities performed in compliance with all laws and
regulations (i.e., not the result of any 2L violation or of the over-application ofbiosolids
in violation of the City's non-discharge permit).
A condition has already been added by DWQ to the City's renewed NPDES
permit as a result of the City's debit proposal that would require the counting of defined
amounts of groundwater nitrate-nitrogen ]oad against the City's permit limit/cap for total
nitrogen discharge, but this condition does not go into effect unless the variance is
granted. This renewed NPDES permit was processed through DWQ's normal public
notice process and the nitrogen debit condition was not publicly opposed. If the City's
variance request is denied by the EMC, the benefits of this condition to protecting water
quality in the Neuse River Estuary would be lost. Moreover and as previously noted, the
exceptionally expensive CAP that the City would then be required to implement would
3
do nothing to solve the problem that opponents of the City's variance request appear to
be concerned about.
Some comments regarding the City's variance request have suggested that
because the City's actual nitrogen discharge is currently less than 50% of the permit limit
(because of concerted efforts by the City and its staff to reduce its total nitrogen
discharge beyond current state-of-the-art technology), the approach described above (the
"Permit Debit") does not require the City to do anything. That conclusion is not accurate.
First, the Permit Debit immediately reduces the amount of nitrogen that the City may
discharge from the NRWWTP. Thus, the City may not eliminate all of the measures it
has voluntarily implemented and discharge up to its full permitted amount. The City has
demonstrated its desire to reduce its total nitrogen discharge to the limits of technology
by implementing denitification at the NRWWTP five (5) years in advance of being
required to do so by DWQ or EPA. Second, as the City's population continues to grow,
as a result of the Permit Debit, the City will have to make extra efforts to stay within its
permit limit. Finally, the EMC's own rules allow the City to share its total nitrogen
allocation with others members of the Neuse River Compliance Association and
therefore, the unprecedented nitrogen removal performance at the NRWWTP that has
been achieved through significant capital expenditures and operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs by the City are currently being shared throughout the entire Neuse River
Basin. The Permit Debit temporarily reduces the amount of total nitrogen available
below the permit allocation achieved through the City's "beyond compliance efforts" that
it may share and thereby reduces the potential for increased nitrogen loadings to the
Neuse River from other sources.
The City recognizes that there are competing points of view as to how the
nitrogen load from groundwater to surface water at the Site should best be addressed. For
the past few years, the City has been cooperating with, supporting and funding additional
investigative work at the NRWWTP farm field sites by researchers at N. C State
University (NCSU), DWQ and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in order to develop
sufficient data to determine which additional and alternative methods of nitrate nitrogen
removal would be most effective. Preliminary reports from the NCSU and USGS
researchers have been presented to the City's staff and consultants over the past two
weeks, which will now help develop an additional and alternative methods nitrate-
nitrogen removal system that will be submitted to DWQ in a report in January, 2008 for
their review and approval for a modified CAP. The City has therefore committed and
agreed to evaluate a range of alternative approaches to dealing with the on Site nitrate-
nitrogen problem and has entered into discussions with the Neuse River Foundation, and
with DWQ, about such alternatives. These alternatives may include, among other things,
phytoremediation, ecosystem enhancement, containment and treatment of surface water,
and/or the reuse of treated effluent. The City will consider both on-and off-site
alternatives and the resulting proposal may involve some combination ofremedies. The
City is in the early stages of this process but hopes that it will result in an outcome that is
satisfactory to all interested parties. Although the City does not concede that the issue of
nitrate-nitrogen loading to surface water within the compliance boundary is germane to
the Application, in light of these developments, the City requests that no action be taken
4
on its variance request, including completion of the hearing officers' report, until the City
has completed this additional and alternatives analysis and made a proposal to DWQ to
address this issue. The earliest that the City would request hearing of the Application by
the EMC would be after DWQ Aquifer Protection staff has had an opportunity to review
and approve the additional and alternatives nitrate-nitrogen removal report from ENSR.
Finally we want to be sure that the record reflects the exceptional steps that the
City has _taken and is continuing to take to reduce nutrient loading (both total nitrogen
and phosphorus) from the NRWWTP to the Neuse River and to improve it management
of biosolids. 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
NR WWTP. 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 River 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 regional1y 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 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 immediately 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 in the NRWWTP Annual TN removal graph enclosed with this letter. As
you can see, steady reductions have been made each year when compared to the previous
year in every year but one. This trend wil1 occur again this year in 2007, with the City
discharging less than 300,000 pounds of Total Nitrogen. This trend is even more
remarkable when it is compared the wastewater flowrates at the NR WWTP, which has
steadily increased over this 10 year period.
The groundwater hydraulic modeling referenced previously by ENSR 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, the City has already removed more than twice this total
amount ofNO3-N and more than three times the estimated average annual loading. This
exceptional level of treatment success can be attributed to the skill and diligence of the
City's operations staff, as well as to the use of methanol. Methanol serves as a
carbonaceous food source that drives the denitrification process in both the secondary
anoxic zone of the aeration basin and the tertiary filter. Methanol is fairly expensive and
so removing total nitrogen through O&M does not come without cost to the City. Since
5
2005, the NRWWTP has spent more than $1.1 million dollars on this chemical in order to
treat the NRWWTP effluent to levels well below that which is required.
The City has been recognized for its NRWWTP O&M efforts with
numerous accolades over the years, including NACWA Gold Awards in 2003 through
2006 for 100% compliance with NPDES permits requirements. In addition, the City has
implemented an Environmental Management System (EMS) at the NRWWTP to improve
biosolids management. Through the EMS, the City has adopted standards to consistently
review its management program and look for areas of improvement. The City's EMS has
been certified by the National Biosolids Partnership, becoming only the 14th certified
agency in the country out of a total of 16,000 such agencies and is the first NBP certified
program in EPA's Region IV. The City's EMS is a management framework for
integrating environmental considerations into day-to-day operations and decision-
making, and for improving organizational performance over time. The EMS supports
continua] improvement in key areas that will help the City demonstrate its commitment to
operational excellence and environmental protection. These key areas include, but are
not limited to, (i) quality management practices, (ii) public participation, (iii) regulatory
compliance, and (iv) environmental performance. The EMS assists the City in providing
the best biosolids management program, while protecting the environment and
maintaining public health.
In addition to reducing nitrogen concentrations. in its effluent, the City is planning
to reduce the quantity of effluent discharged by implementing a beneficial reuse system
(Reuse System) for its treated effluent. This $21,000,000 project will distribute the
NRWWTP's highly treated effluent, which meets the EMC's standards for beneficial
reuse. The Reuse System will not increase the capacity of the plant, but is a conjunctive
use system that provides an environmentally responsible alternative to discharge into the
Neuse River. By constructing the Reuse System, the City will also alleviate the demand
on its potable water system by supplying water that would otherwise be discharged to the
Neuse River for certain EMC-approved uses, such as landscape irrigation. At maximum
capacity and 100% use for irrigation purposes, the Reuse System could divert up to
27,854 pounds of nitrogen away from the Neuse River each year. Only a handful of
public utilities in the state are providing this service to its customers.
As previously noted, the implementation of an $80 million CAP, which would
provide minimal public benefit, would compromise the City's ability to fund many of
these highly beneficial measures, including the Reuse Program, proposed major capital
improvement to the NRWWTP and sanitary sewer collection system and the use of
methanol in the treatment process at the NRWWTP to achieve beyond state-of-the-art
denitrification, all of which are voluntary actions.
The City has demonstrated that it meets the requirements of the EMC's rules for a
variance and respectfully requests that the EMC grant its request. As explained herein,
requiring the City to implement a groundwater remedy that fully complies with the 2L
rules is not needed to protect public health, would imposes a severe hardship on the City,
and would not produce public benefits commensurate with the extraordinary costs.
6
Moreover, denial of the variance request would not result in any greater protection to the
Neuse River and could actually have a detrimental effect eliminating the Permit Debit
and by causing the City to divert resources from current and future projects designed to
protect surface water quality. However, as previously stated, the City requests that
DWQ and the EMC defer further action on the Application until the City has prepared an
analysis of additional alternatives for addressing nitrogen loading from groundwater at
the Site to the Neuse and has selected a preferred alternative in consultation with DWQ
and other interested parties.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. I maybe reached at (919)-857-
4540 if there are any questions .
Sincere ·
I
I'
H. ale ri ,
Raleigh Public Director
cc: J. Russell Allen, City Manager
Steve Levitas, Kilpatrick and Stockton
Robert Massengill, Asst. Public Utilities Director
T.J. Lynch, Wastewater Treatment Plants Superintendent
Tim Woody, Reuse Superintendent
Bill Doucette, ENSR
7
Chart2
TOTAL NITROGEN COMPARISON FOR NRWWTP
1800000
·'
1600000
1400000
. 1,50
1,438,137 '
1.;316,939 n ..
,.,'1 6,939
1200000 '
,I
"' 1000000
Q z ::::,
0
0. 800000
600000
400000
950;718
I I D 11 ,_ ,_ -676;496 -,--,_ 592;053 ..
' I! -··. 540,663
II I -A92,815
' r--'-422,814, 443 ,114
r ·, ~ 400,139 II I . ""--357,399 11 -313,13f 1, ....-
I'. : .--
11
200000 Ii I: r ,.. 11 I
I
11
11 Ii 11
,::.1.::'
0 '
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
DATE
l -series2 i,c <:41Actual Poundage Permit Limit -Benchmark Limit J
Page 1
<3ity <9f CR_aleigh
October 30, 2007
Representative Alice G. Underhill
16 W. Jones Street, Room 1206
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1096
9vorth &:rolina
Re: City of Raleigh Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP)
Dear Representative Underhill:
The City is in receipt of your October 16 th letter to Mr. David Hance of the N.C. Division
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
15A NCAC 2L Groundwater Standards. Thank you for copying Mayor Meeker with
your letter. I am sorry that there was not an opportunity provided for City 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 (N03-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 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. Contrary to the implication of your comment letter, denying the
City's variance request will not appreciably reduce nitrogen loadings to the Neuse from
the plant site. Installing the 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 district that you represent, 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 pe1mitted 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 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 immediately reducing its nitrogen
discharge in 1998, gaining compliance with its permit limits four (4 ) full years in advance
of the DWQ re quirement. 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 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 of removing 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.
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,
I} f, j) ;? /;t I) {} • 7 ' I~ ~,,_,,
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
vyaste"".a~ Treatment Superintendent
vDWQ-Lflance, Zimmerman and Sullins
Steve Levitas
CJity <9/' C/ialeigh
November 5, 2007
Mr. David Hance
DENR-DWQ Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Hance:
!North Garottn&
I am writing on behalf of the City of Raleigh (City) in support of the City's
Variance Application (Application) relating to its Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for
nitrate-nitrogen contaminated groundwater at the City's Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). In the Application, the City has requested a variance from
the Environmental Management Commission's (EMC) groundwater rules, 15A NCAC
2L, to allow it to fully implement a CAP that relies in part on best available technology
(i.e. well installation, pumping and treating) and on monitored natural attenuation for the
remainder of the site, rather than implementing the pump'n treat best available
technology over the entire 1,000 acre farm field permitted site for biosolids land
application.
The City has demonstrated that the statutory criteria for the issuance of a variance
have been met-i.e., that the nitrate-nitrogen contamination at the NRWWTP site (Site)
does not endanger human health or safety and that compliance with the 2L standard for
nitrate-nitrogen cannot be achieved by the application of economically reasonable
technology and would produce serious hardship to the City without equal or greater
benefits to the public. See N.C.G.S. § 143.215(e).
With respect to the human health risk, the City's consultants, ENSR Consulting
and Engineering (NC), Inc. (ENSR) conducted a risk assessment and found that there
were no unacceptable risks for exposure to groundwater used for a non-potable purpose
(e.g., a swimming pool). Neither were there unacceptable risks for using groundwater for
irrigation purposes. While there is a potentially unacceptable risk if the groundwater
were used for drinking water, no property owners in the vicinity of the NRWWTP are
using groundwater for drinking water that exceeds the nitrate groundwater standard or is
predicted to exceed the standard, since the City has extended potable public water service
1
to the area and provided water service to those properties at the City's expense that have
experienced even only one nitrate-nitrogen exceedance from their well, which may or
may not have caused by the City's biosolids land application program. Moreover, the
City will continue to monitor nitrate-nitrogen levels in groundwater at the compliance
boundary for as long as nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in groundwater are above the 10
mg/L standard to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.
ENSR also performed a comprehensive study of remedial alternatives. ENSR
concluded that the best available technology (BAT) pump'n treat alternative, which
would involve the installation of extraction wells along the entire compliance boundary
and the pumping and treatment of contaminated groundwater, would cost an estimated
$80,000,000.00. This alternative would create a serious financial hardship for the City.
The City has just completed the construction of a series of major upgrades over the past
four (4) years to the NRWWTP treatment processes that exceed $40,000,000.00. The
City's will continue to invest heavily over the next 10 years ($156 million) to provide
additional state-of-the-art treatment process improvements at the NRWWTP and will
expand the plant's capacity, due to the growth in City's wastewater service population.
The estimated capital costs of full compliance with the 2L rules ($80 million) would
consume approximately 50 percent of the approved total capital budget for the
NRWWTP. In order to implement the BAT approach currently required by the 2L rules,
the City would be compelled to divert funds currently allocated to the numerous and
extensive capital improvements planned for the NRWWTP and the City's sanitary sewer
collection system, putting the protection of water quality and the availability of high
quality wastewater treatment service to the area's growing population at risk. In the
City's opinion, capital expenditures of almost $80,000,000 are not economically
reasonable to remediate groundwater to drinking water standards that has no likelihood of
actually being used directly by the public for drinking water.
This extraordinarily expensive alternative to comply with the 2L rules would
yield minimal public benefit because (i) there are no current or potential human receptors
downgradient of much of the compliance boundary; (ii) in those areas where there are
downgradient residences, as previously indicated, the City has connected those residences
to City water service; and (iii) much of the nitrate that moves beyond the compliance
boundary naturally denitrifies in the Neuse River riparian buffer. In addition, the 2L-
required alternative would reduce groundwater discharge and thus stream baseflow to
several streams in the area, particularly Beddingfield Creek, which would be potentially
detrimental to the ecology of those streams. Thus, strict compliance with the 2L rules for
corrective action in this case produces benefits that are not remotely commensurate with
the enormous expenditure of public funds required. The City is not aware of any public or
regulatory comments questioning these conclusions.
Rather, it appears all of the public comments in opposition to the City's variance
request express concern that granting the variance will result in adverse impacts to water
quality in the Neuse River Estuary by allowing an estimated substantial amount of
nitrogen loading to the Neuse River through the discharge of nitrate-nitrogen laden
groundwater to surface waters tributaries. Groundwater modeling performed by ENSR
2
on behalf of the City confirms that such loading from the Site is occurring, but denying
the variance and requiring implementation of a best available technology CAP in full
compliance with the 2L rules, in the opinion of both the City's consultants and the DWQ
Aquifer Protection staff, would not produce a materially different result. The vast
majority of nitrate-nitrogen loading from the Site transported via groundwater to the
Neuse River is not occurring as a result of contaminated groundwater crossing the
compliance boundary, but based on additional scientific investigative work performed by
N.C. State University researchers and supported by ENSR staff, is the result of high
concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen in groundwater in the interior of the property, which
discharges to first-order streams within the compliance boundary. These exceedances of
the 2L standard for nitrate-nitrogen within the compliance boundary, and the associated
discharge of nitrate-nitrogen to streams on the property, do not constitute violations of the
2L standards and do not require remediation under the 2L program. Moreover, the
corrective action required by the 2L rules at the compliance boundary would do nothing
to reduce the nitrogen loading to surface water within the compliance boundary.
The City has acknowledged and responded to the need to address the problem of
nitrate-nitrogen loading to surface water from contaminated groundwater on the Site and
has been working with DWQ toward that end. Initially, the City and DWQ agreed that
the best way for the City to compensate for the increased loading of nitrogen from the
Site to the Neuse River would be for the City to make a conservative estimate of that
nitrogen load and to be required to count it against the cap in the City's discharge of total
nitrogen from the NRWWTP. That cap is currently set in the City's NPDES permit at
676,417 pounds per year. Based on hydrogeologic modeling performed on behalf of the
City, the City and DWQ agreed that the amount of groundwater nitrogen load that should
be counted against the permit cap should start at approximately 123,000 pounds per year
and decline over time based on the modeled reduction in groundwater load over time. It
is critical to note that conservative and protective assumptions were used in the model
(e.g., no credit for natural denitrification), as evidenced by the fact that the transport
model simulated higher historical concentrations than were actually observed values in
the City's monitoring wells. Furthermore, the model results indicated that the amount of
the load to be debited was close to the total load coming from the Site, even though most
of this load is the result of activities performed in compliance with all laws and
regulations (i.e., not the result of any 2L violation or of the over-application of biosolids
in violation of the City's non-discharge permit).
A condition has already been added by DWQ to the City's renewed NPDES
permit as a result of the City's debit proposal that would require the counting of defined
amounts of groundwater nitrate-nitrogen load against the City's permit limit/cap for total
nitrogen discharge, but this condition does not go into effect unless the variance is
granted. This renewed NPDES permit was processed through DWQ's normal public
notice process and the nitrogen debit condition was not publicly opposed. If the City's
variance request is denied by the EMC, the benefits of this condition to protecting water
quality in the Neuse River Estuary would be lost. Moreover and as previously noted, the
exceptionally expensive CAP that the City would then be required to implement would
3
do nothing to solve the problem that opponents of the City's variance request appear to
be concerned about.
Some comments regarding the City's variance request have suggested that
because the City's actual nitrogen discharge is currently less than 50% of the permit limit
(because of concerted efforts by the City and its staff to reduce its total nitrogen
discharge beyond current state-of-the-art technology), the approach described above (the
"Permit Debit") does not require the City to do anything. That conclusion is not accurate.
First, the Permit Debit immediately reduces the amount of nitrogen that the City may
discharge from the NRWWTP. Thus, the City may not eliminate all of the measures it
has voluntarily implemented and discharge up to its full permitted amount. The City has
demonstrated its desire to reduce its total nitrogen discharge to the limits of technology
by implementing denitification at the NRWWTP five (5) years in advance of being
required to do so by DWQ or EPA. Second, as the City's population continues to grow,
as a result of the Permit Debit, the City will have to make extra efforts to stay within its
permit limit. Finally, the EMC's own rules allow the City to share its total nitrogen
allocation with others members of the Neuse River Compliance Association and
therefore, the unprecedented nitrogen removal performance at the NRWWTP that has
been achieved through significant capital expenditures and operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs by the City are currently being shared throughout the entire Neuse River
Basin. The Permit Debit temporarily reduces the amount of total nitrogen available
below the permit allocation achieved through the City's "beyond compliance efforts" that
it may share and thereby reduces the potential for increased nitrogen loadings to the
Neuse River from other sources.
The City recognizes that there are competing points of view as to how the
nitrogen load from groundwater to surface water at the Site should best be addressed. For
the past few years, the City has been cooperating with, supporting and funding additional
investigative work at the NRWWTP farm field sites by researchers at N . C State
University (NCSU), DWQ and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in order to develop
sufficient data to determine which additional and alternative methods of nitrate nitrogen
removal would be most effective. Preliminary reports from the NCSU and USGS
researchers have been presented to the City's staff and consultants over the past two
weeks, which will now help develop an additional and alternative methods nitrate-
nitrogen removal system that will be submitted to DWQ in a report in January, 2008 for
their review and approval for a modified CAP. The City has therefore committed and
agreed to evaluate a range of alternative approaches to dealing with the on Site nitrate-
nitrogen problem and has entered into discussions with the Neuse River Foundation, and
with DWQ, about such alternatives. These alternatives may include, among other things,
phytoremediation, ecosystem enhancement, containment and treatment of surface water,
and/or the reuse of treated effluent. The City will consider both on-and off-site
alternatives and the resulting proposal may involve some combination of remedies. The
City is in the early stages of this process but hopes that it will result in an outcome that is
satisfactory to all interested parties. Although the City does not concede that the issue of
nitrate-nitrogen loading to surface water within the compliance boundary is germane to
the Application, in light of these developments, the City requests that no action be taken
4
on its variance request, including completion of the hearing officers' report, until the City
has completed this additional and alternatives analysis and made a proposal to DWQ to
address this issue. The earliest that the City would request hearing of the Application by
the EMC would be after DWQ Aquifer Protection staff has had an opportunity to review
and approve the additional and alternatives nitrate-nitrogen removal report from ENSR.
Finally we want to be sure that the record reflects the exceptional steps that the
City has taken and is continuing to take to reduce nutrient loading (both total nitrogen
and phosphorus) from the NRWWTP to the Neuse River and to improve it management
of biosolids. 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 River 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 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 immediately reducing its nitrogen
discharge in 1998, gaining compliance with its permit limits four (4 ) full years in advance
of the DWO req uirement. 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 in the NRWWTP Annual TN removal graph enclosed with this letter. As
you can see, steady reductions have been made each year when compared to 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. This trend is even more
remarkable when it is compared the wastewater flowrates at the NRWWTP, which has
steadily increased over this 10 year period.
The groundwater hydraulic modeling referenced previously by ENSR 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, the City has already removed more than twice this total
amount ofNO3-N and more than three times the estimated average annual loading. This
exceptional level of treatment success can be attributed to the skill and diligence of the
City's operations staff, as well as to the use of methanol. Methanol serves as a
carbonaceous food source that drives the denitrification process in both the secondary
anoxic zone of the aeration basin and the tertiary filter. Methanol is fairly expensive and
so removing total nitrogen through O&M does not come without cost to the City. Since
5
..
2005, the NRWWTP has spent more than $1.1 million dollars on this chemical in order to
treat the NRWWTP effluent to levels well below that which is required.
The City has been recognized for its NRWWTP O&M efforts with
numerous accolades over the years, including NACWA Gold Awards in 2003 through
2006 for 100% compliance with NPDES permits requirements. In addition, the City has
implemented an Environmental Management System (EMS) at the NRWWTP to improve
biosolids management. Through the EMS, the City has adopted standards to consistently
review its management program and look for areas of improvement. The City's EMS has
been certified by the National Biosolids Partnership, becoming only the 14th certified
agency in the country out of a total of 16,000 such agencies and is the first NBP certified
program in EPA's Region IV. The City's EMS is a management framework for
integrating environmental considerations into day-to-day operations and decision-
making, and for improving organizational performance over time. The EMS supports
continual improvement in key areas that will help the City demonstrate its commitment to
operational excellence and environmental protection. These key areas include, but are
not limited to, (i) quality management practices, (ii) public participation, (iii) regulatory
compliance, and (iv) environmental performance. The EMS assists the City in providing
the best biosolids management program, while protecting the environment and
maintaining public health.
In addition to reducing nitrogen concentrations in its effluent, the City is planning
to reduce the quantity of effluent discharged by implementing a beneficial reuse system
(Reuse System) for its treated effluent. This $21,000,000 project will distribute the
NRWWTP's highly treated effluent, which meets the EMC's standards for beneficial
reuse. The Reuse System will not increase the capacity of the plant, but is a conjunctive
use system that provides an environmentally responsible alternative to discharge into the
Neuse River. By constructing the Reuse System, the City will also alleviate the demand
on its potable water system by supplying water that would otherwise be discharged to the
Neuse River for certain EMC-approved uses, such as landscape irrigation. At maximum
capacity and 100% use for irrigation purposes, the Reuse System could divert up to
27,854 pounds of nitrogen away from the Neuse River each year. Only a handful of
public utilities in the state are providing this service to its customers.
As previously noted, the implementation of an $80 million CAP, which would
provide minimal public benefit, would compromise the City's ability to fund many of
these highly beneficial measures, including the Reuse Program, proposed major capital
improvement to the NRWWTP and sanitary sewer collection system and the use of
methanol in the treatment process at the NRWWTP to achieve beyond state-of-the-art
denitrification, all of which are voluntary actions.
The City has demonstrated that it meets the requirements of the EMC's rules for a
variance and respectfully requests that the EMC grant its request. As explained herein,
requiring the City to implement a groundwater remedy that fully complies with the 2L
rules is not needed to protect public health, would imposes a severe hardship on the City,
and would not produce public benefits commensurate with the extraordinary costs.
6
Moreover, denial of the variance request would not result in any greater protection to the
Neuse River and could actually have a detrimental effect eliminating the Permit Debit
and by causing the City to divert resources from current and future projects designed to
protect surface water quality. However, as previously stated, the City requests that
DWQ and the EMC defer further action on the Application until the City has prepared an
analysis of additional alternatives for addressing nitrogen loading from groundwater at
the Site to the Neuse and has selected a preferred alternative in consultation with DWQ
and other interested parties.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. I maybe reached at (919)-857-
4540 ifthere are any questions.
Sincere
H. ale ri ,
Raleigh Public
cc: J. Russell Allen, City Manager
Steve Levitas, Kilpatrick and Stockton
Robert Massengill, Asst. Public Utilities Director
T.J. Lynch, Wastewater Treatment Plants Superintendent
Tim Woody, Reuse Superintendent
Bill Doucette, ENSR
7
Chart2
TOTAL NITROGEN COMPARISON FOR NRWWTP
1800000 .-------------------------------------------,
1600000
1400000 -
1200000
u, 1000000
C z :::::,
0
a. 800000
600000
400000 -
200000
1 ,580,326
1,438,137
1,316,939 ,....,,,__...,.,.._ _ _,.._.., ______________ ~ • ., 6,939
950,718
-n
592,053 676,496
540,663
-492,815
422,814 443,114 _ 400,139
_ 357,399
,_ 313, 13E -
,--
0 --t--___.____._--f,---_.__+, _.....__.....__.__ __ ___.__-+------...J._____.-+-_.....__--'----!,---------'-+, _....._.....__....____...____._--+,-----'--+, ----'---':f----___._---'---------!
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
DATE
2002 2003 2004
l -series2 c::JActual Poundage Permit Limit -Benchmark Limit I
Page 1
2005 2006
~DUKELAW
Ryke Longest. Director
Environmental Law & Policy Clinic
Box 90360
Durham, NC 27708-0360
Telephone: {919) 613-7207
Toll Free: [888) 600-7274
Fax: {919) 613-7262
November 5, 2007
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-161
RE: Comments on after hours filings
Dear David,
I just want to make my objection known, for the record, to consideration as part of
the record any comments made after filing hours. As I understand the rules, the
designation of November 5th as a filing date does not include comments filed after 5:00
p.ni. Eastern Standard Time. When I called the Water Quality Section Main Number, I
was informed by recording of the fact that regular business hours for the office ends at
5:00 p.m. It would appear therefore that the proper deadline for submitting comments on
any water quality related matters ends at 5:00 p.m. as well, absent a provision in the
comment requesting document. According to my theory, this document is untimely. I
submit it to register my objection to the consideration by this Commission of any
document filed after 5:00 p.m. on November 5, 2007. Should the Commission decide to
accept filings after 5:00 p.m. despite this fact, I would ask the Commission to consider
whether those who have submitted their comments early have been prejudiced by any
sandbagging tactics by those who file later.
Very Truly Yours,
Ryke Longest
of the request for variance to assess the effects that variance could have on its planned mixed use
development, and we have discovered the technical questions and issues of the groundwater to
be many and significant.
Page 5 of 5
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
~DUKE LAW
Ryke Longest, Director
Environmental Law & Policy Clinic
Box 90360
Durham, NC 27708-0360
Telephone: [phone]
Toll Free: [phone]
·Fax: [phone]
November 5, 2007
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-161
RE: Comments on CORPUD's proposed variance request-Permit Number
WQ0001730
Dear David,
I am writing to you in response to the Notice of Variance Application. This
Notice indicated that the proposal was considered an appropriate variance by staff,
"based on information contained in the variance request and technical review." I am
writing to give youmy personal opinion on the proposal. Based on my review of the
materials presented, I believe that the proposed ''Natural Attenuation Corrective Action
Plan" should not be granted as proposed. This variance request is not supported by the
facts presented, frustrates the policy declared by the State's constitution, and presents this
commission with a false choice: do everything or do nothing. The City of Raleigh should
be proposing to do something about its contaminated groundwater discharges to the
Neuse River. Instead it argues that everything is too expensive, so it should be allowed to
do nothing, so long as it accounts for it in its permitting capacity slack. I would ask that
you pass along the following to the Environmental Management Commission along with
my compliments on behalf of the Neuse River Foundation.
I. North Carolina's Law Creates a Public Trust to Protect Surface Water for
Present and Future Uses and to Prohibit Adverse Environmental Impacts
The Constitution of the State of North Carolina ends with a section which
declares the policy of the State with respect to environmental protection and resource
conservation. This section begins: "It shall be the policy of this State to conserve and
protect its lands and waters for the benefit of all its citizenry, and to this end it shall be a
proper :function of the State of North Carolina and its political subdivisions to acquire and
preserve park, recreational, and scenic areas, to control and limit the pollution of our air
and water, to control excessive noise, and in every other appropriate way to preserve as a
part of the common heritage of this State its forests, wetlands, estuaries, beaches,
historical sites, openlands, and places of beauty." The Neuse River and the ecosystems
which it supports are such places of beauty. When interpreting any statute or rule of
conservation or protection, we must remember that the people have enshrined this policy
statement in the Constitution of North Carolina. As this provision is the source of its
power to enact legislation to regulate pollution, all such enactments and their
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page2
implementing rules must be judged with the Environmental Protection Clause in mind.
In all its choices, this Commission has a duty to carry out its powers so as to implement
the protections afforded to the lands and waters for the benefit of all its citizenry.
The General Assembly has done so by enacting the General Statutes. In the
Chapter on protection of Water and Air Resources, the General Assembly declares its
intent in that Chapter to be: "to achieve and to maintain for the citizens of the State a total
environment of superior quality. Recognizing that the water and air resources of the State
belong to the people, the General Assembly affirms the State's ultimate responsibility for
the preservation and development of these resources in the best interest of all its citizens
and declares the prudent utilization of these resources to be essential to the general
welfare." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-21 l(a)(emphasis added). The General Assembly's
enactment clearly shows their intent to clarify the legal point that water resources belong
to the people.
The General Assembly has recognized its duty to protect this heritage of the
people and discharge its public trust obligations in the General Statutes. Furthermore, the
General Assembly has directed this Commission to issue water quality standards and this
Department to enforce the same. The General Assembly set seven factors which must be
considered when this Commission enacts standards for water quality. Standards of water
quality must be designed to:
1) protect human health,
2) prevent injury to plant and animal life,
3) prevent damage to public and private property,
4) insure the continued enjoyment of the natural attractions of the State,
5) encourage the expansion of employment opportunities,
6) provide a permanent foundation for healthy industrial development,
7) secure for the people of North Carolina, now and in the future, the
beneficial uses of these great natural resources."
See N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 143-21 l(c).
In order to meet this obligation, this Commission has enacted the 2L rules. These
rules both set the groundwater standards and require that parties which violate the
standards undertake corrective action. The purpose of the 2L rules is to implement the
policy of the Commission to protect all groundwater for use as a drinking water supply.
The 2L rules reads as follows, in pertinent part:
"The rules established in this Subchapter are intended to maintain and
preserve the quality of the groundwaters, prevent and abate pollution and
contamination of the waters of the state, protect public health, and permit
management of the groundwaters for their best usage by the citizens of
North Carolina. It is the policy of the Commission that the best usage of
the groundwaters of the state is as a source of drinking water. These
groundwaters generally are a potable source of drinking water without the
necessity of significant treatment. It is the intent of these Rules to protect
the overall high quality of North Carolina's groundwaters to the level
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page 3
established by the standards and to enhance and restore the quality of
degraded groundwaters where feasible and necessary to protect human
health and the environment, or to ensure their suitability as a future
source of drinking water."
See ISA NCAC 2L .0103 (a) (emphasis added)
The 2L rules thus establish that groundwater is to be protected for use as drinking
water both to protect human health and the environment. The 2L rules must be
interpreted so as to effectuate both of these purposes. These dual stated purposes meet
the policy declared in the Environmental Protection Clause of the North Carolina's
Constitution. Neither the Environmental Protection Clause, nor the Water and Air
Resources Chapter, nor the 2L rules themselves limit the protection of groundwater
resources to demonstrated human health effects. Rather, the Environmental Protection
Clause, the Water and Air Resources Chapter and the 2L rules state that the goal is to
protect the resources to benefit both human health and the environment. They also offer
these protections for both current and future uses. In considering whether to grant a
variance request, this Commission must not limit itself to looking only at current human
health impacts. To do so would eviscerate the protections enshrined in the
Environmental Protection Clause, the Water and Air Resources Chapter and the 2L rules.
II. Public Trust Doctrine Protects Neuse River as a Public Trust Resource
The Neuse is more than a river protected by this Commission's water quality
standards. The Neuse River is more than a sewer. The Neuse is more than a source of
drinking water. The Neuse is more than a passage for boats. The Neuse is more than a
place to observe wildlife. The Neuse is more than one of the most threatened rivers in
America. The Neuse River is a resource protected by the Public Trust Doctrine.
The Public Trust Doctrine applies to waters covered by ebb and flow of the tides
as well as those which can be navigated. When impounded, as it is above Raleigh, the
Neuse creates a large lake, easily traveled by large boats except during times of
exceptional drought. When joined by other waters, as it is below Raleigh, the Neuse
meets with other drainages. The waters of the Neuse River flowing past the CORPUD
treatment plant join with others to fill the large estuary as it turns brackish near New
Bern. Just a short trip later, the vast waters of the Neuse feeds into the second largest
estuarine system in the United States. The·Neuse River is a Public Trust Resource.
As a Public Trust Resource, the State cannot enact or enforce laws which
dispossess of the Public of its uses of that Resource. The State's power to act does not
extend that far. The General Assembly and the People of North Carolina recognized this
fact as part of the existing law which they sought to expand by passage of the
Environmental Protection Clause. As the N.C. Supreme Court noted, "Our state
constitution mandates the conservation and protection of public lands and waters for the
benefit of the public." State ex rel. Rohrer v. Credle, 369 S.E.2d 825, 831 (N.C. 1988)
State power must be interpreted so as to protect the Public Trust and such
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page4
protection is inherent in the title. "Title to public trust waters is "held in trust for the
people of the State, that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce
over them, and have liberty of fishing therein, freed from the obstruction or interference
of private parties." RJR Technical Co. v. Pratt, 339 N.C. 588,592 (N.C. 1995) (quoting
Shepard's Point Land Co., 132 N.C. at 526, 44 S.E. at 42) Only express legislative intent
suffices to detach the State from its obligations to Public Trust Resources, as contained in
a legislative grant of title in fee simple. See RJR Technical Co. v. Pratt, 339 N.C. 588,
590, 453 S.E.2d 147, 149 (1995)
Our legislature has not granted CORPUD title to the Neuse River in fee simple for
its use as a natural attenuation waste treatment system. This Commission may not
therefore grant CORPUD any variance unless it demonstrates that the variance will not
interfere with Public Trust Resources. In particular, there would appear to be a concern
with allowing excess reactive forms of nitrogen into the Neuse River Basin by allowing
the Neuse River to be used as a wastewater treatment system.
In fairness to the applicant, the 2L rules do not list protection of public trust
resources such as submerged lands and fisheries as a factor in the variance criteria. The
most likely explanation for the absence of such a requirement is that the 2L rules writers
never envisioned that any applicant would make such a bold and imaginative use of the
variance process. CORPUD's variance makes no representations about fisheries impacts
whatsoever. It rather looks at human health effects on the fisherman. Nevertheless, 2L
variance cannot be interpreted to allow that which North Carolina's law prohibits:
obstruction and interference with common law rights to fish the waters. This
Commission should deny the variance in order to protect the Public Trust Resource.
III. Variance Request does not Reflect Coordination with Agencies Promised by
Coastal Habitat Protection Planning Process and EMC Commitments
Regulatory effort and protection for the Neuse River and its estuary are not
limited to this Commission. Fisheries resources are a public trust resource of value to the
state as recognized by the courts. The Neuse River estuary historically has been a
productive fisheries resource enjoyed by anglers and commercial fisherman throughout
the state's history. Before there was a Raleigh, the Neuse was a vital fishing grounds.
Just a few years ago, this Commission committed itself to working together with
other agencies to protect the habitat of this fisheries resource. The Coastal Habitat
Protection Plan (CHPP) action items recognized that protection of estuarine fisheries
resources requires coordinated effort by all agencies interested in these issues. This
Commission as well as the CRC and the MFC committed to take actions to coordinate
their permitting and enforcement activities beginning in 2005. No mention of such
coordination appears in the record to this variance request.
The record is devoid of comments from the Division of Marine Fisheries or the
Wildlife Resources Commission about impacts from this nitrogen load to the Neuse
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page 5
River's fisheries resource. It _would appear that such coordination has not occurred in the
processing of this variance request. This Commission committed itself to act in the
future in coordination with other agencies in making its decisions. Approving this
variance now without addressing the impact of additional nitrogen loading on estuarine
fisheries resources would betray the Public Trust Doctrine's purposes and the
commitments made in the CHPP Implementation Plan.
IV. Variance Application of CORPUD Does Not Meet the Standards Established
by the Environmental Protection Clause, Chapter 21 and the 2L Rules
The Environmental Protection Clause does not contain a variance provision.
Rather the basis for a variance must arise from the provisions in the Water and Air
Resources Chapter's provision for enforcement discretion. In this case, the discharges
from shallow groundwater are modeled by ENSR to be within the permitted capacity for
discharges. The conclusion that these discharges will riot exceed permitted capacity is
based on two assumptions that may not always hold true. First, it is assumed that the
modeled discharges will decrease over time and be relatively constant. Shallow
groundwater flow to the river may not be constant, especially when drought conditions
make the groundwater contribution to river flow more significant. Discharges from the
CORPUD plant also may not be as consistent as modeled. The SWAT Model used by
CORPUD is a watershed level model. It is being used here to model the effects of a
single facility. No explanation occurs in the variance request of the uncertainties inherent
in using this model to answer the question of how much nitrogen is coming off of the
CORPUD site. CORPUD will argue that they have taken a very conservative estimate.
Conservative or not, the fact remains that the estimate is still based upon uncertainties
which have not been quantified to this Commission in the Variance Request. The risk
posed by this uncertainty increases due to the thirty year assumptions built into this
variance request.
Variance requests under ISA NCAC 2L need to establish a number of facts to the
satisfaction of the Environmental Management Commission (EMC). Applicants must
provide, inter alia:
"( 5) Supporting information to establish that requirements of this Rule
cannot be achieved by providing the best available technology
economically reasonable. This information must identify specific
technology considered, and the costs of implementing the technology and
the impact of the costs on the applicant.
(6) Supporting information to establish that compliance would produce
serious financial hardship on the applicant.
(7) Supporting information that compliance would produce serious
financial hardship without equal or greater public benefit."
ISA NCAC 2L .0113
CORPUD's request meets none of these three criteria.
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page6
A) Failure to Meet Factor Five
First, CORPUD has listed out its projected expenses of Alternative One, without
discussing why it rejected other less expensive options in its evaluation. In the CAP
document contained in the Variance Record, several treatment options were outlined in a
table. Most were rejected for narrative reasons, without providing this Commission with
an evaluation of their costs and benefits. Without such a complete analysis, CORPUD
has failed to show that its other options beside alternative one do not meet the test of
"best available technology economically reasonable." Rather, the argument is made that
since alternative one is very expensive, the preferred alternative is the only choice. In
fact, a range of alternatives have not been presented to this Commission, as the rule
requires under these circumstances. By neglecting to consider alternative feasible
options, CORPUD has failed to establish that it meets the requirements of factor 5.
There also exists no explanation of how certain figures have been determined.
Original estimated cost of the cleanup Alternative 1 was $25M, assuming more than 400
wells at 100 foot spacing. The extra cost is to allow expansion of plant capacity to meet
the 1.2 MGD of groundwater which would be pumped through the plant and discharged.
While CORPUD asserts that Alternative One would cost $35,402,500 in capital expenses
to implement, it later asserts that Alternative One will cost more than $70 Million more
than the "natural attenuation" CAP. The summary of these costs are in Table 8, but
details are not provided.
The difference between $35M and $70M must be in O&M costs, over a thirty
year span. CORPUD asserts that the O&M costs are projected to be increased for
alternative one by $5M per year for the first three years. All that CORPUD asserts in
support of its argument that costs are not reasonable are projections. The "reasonable"
cost of any treatment must be in relation to the extent of the problem. The problem this
cleanup is designed to treat is enormous in size. More than 400 extraction wells is a large
figure, but it covers a large area of contamination. CORPUD has failed to demonstrate
that this variance meets factor five, because the costs of the cleanup as projected are
reasonable in relation to the extent of the remedial action required.
B) Failure to Meet Factor Six
Factor six requires that the applicant would produce serious financial hardship on
the applicant. CORPUD has not provided an analysis sufficient to satisfy this
requirement. Any such analysis should include an analysis of the revenue structure, rate
base, capital financing options available to the applicant. Obviously the burden an
applicant must meet under factor six will vary with the size and financial resources of the
applicant and whether they are a public utility. CORPUD has not begun to show how
this cost could be paid by ratepayers. For example, if $80M cost were paid over 30
payments by 150,000 ratepayers, the cost per ratepayer will be less than $20 per payment.
This is the kind of analysis which CORPUD must do because it is a public utility, with
the ability to raise its rates. Rather, CORPUD seeks to prove factor 6 by comparing the
projected costs of Alternative One to its projected budget for capital improvements.
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page 7
CORPUD's entire submission on this point is budget strain: comparing the
cleanup expenses as a percentage of the current planned expenditures. CORPUD argues
serious financial hardship because it is a large portion of its currently projected capital
budget. CORUPUD has not identified any discreet action which it will not take if forced
to clean up the site as required. CORPUD has not shown that it will be unable to pay for
such cleanup with even its current resources. The standard is "serious financial hardship"
not inconvenience or unplanned expense. CORPUD has failed to provide the type of
analysis which this Commission should accept to support its argument. Financial
hardship is not serious, merely because it is unplanned. Cleanup obligations are
unplanned expenses by their nature. CORPUD has failed to meet factor six, because it
has not shown this Commission that it cannot raise the extra funds needed from
ratepayers.
C) Failure to Meet Factor Seven
Lastly, the issue of "greater public benefit" is given short discussion. The
assertion that groundwater is not likely to be used for drinking water does not mean that
clean groundwater has no value. Given the drought currently experienced by Raleigh and
the growth so eagerly planned by CORPUD, clean groundwater is likely to have a higher
value in ten years than it does today. This Commission has already determined that the
public policy of this state favors the protection of groundwater as a source of drinking
water for both current and future use. Such prudence is well demonstrated during the
current period of exceptional drought.· What might have been written off as an excess of
groundwater resource ten years ago, now appears to have significant value. No
quantification of such value is presented by CORPUD in support of its argument.
In addition, there is a measurable public benefit in taking actual discharges of
nitrate out of the Neuse River and its estuarine system. The problems caused by excess
nitrogen in the Neuse are well understood by this Commission. This Commission has
previously enacted measures such as buffer rules to protect the Neuse from non-point
source pollution from nitrates. These measures cost many landowners significant sums in
order to eliminate non-point discharges from agricultural fields, pastures and homes
along the Neuse.
In 2001, before the State of North Carolina issued penalties against CORPUD for
overapplying sewage sludge, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) published a report on eutrophication in the nation's estuaries . (See Clement,
Chris, S. B. Bricker and D.E. Pirhalla. 2001, Eutrophic Conditions in Estuarine Waters.
In: NOAA's State of the Coast Report. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.) Per that report, the Neuse River estuary exhibits a high
level of eutrophication, along with 43 other observed estuarine systems in the United
States. Due to its state of eutrophication, this waterbody is damaged by all actual
discharges of nitrates which reach the area of the Neuse River estuary.
This Commission's hard work to address this eutrophication is well documented,
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page 8
but other parties have also worked hard to reverse the historic trend of nitrogen
overloading. The Soil and Water Conservation Commission have worked to reduce
loading of nitrates to the Neuse for the past decade. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
have been implemented on many sites, designed by Technical Specialists working for
local, state and federal governments. Many of these BMPs have been implemented with
state and federal cost share dollars. The State of North Carolina and the United States
Department of Agriculture have determined that the public benefit of removing non-point
source discharges of nitrate to the Neuse requires expenditure of the public's resources.
CORPUD's assertion in its variance that human health will not be endangered
does not meet the standard set in factor seven. The Neuse River is more than just a
drinking water supply and sewage outfall. The Neuse River supports all manner of
wildlife, birds, fish, mollusks, insects and plants. Excess nitrate in Neuse River has
caused eutrophication in its lower reaches-a condition of over-enrichment by nutrients
leading to high levels of nuisance algal blooms and low dissolved oxygen. Protecting the
Neuse for the benefit of all North Carolina's citizens means protecting it from nuisance
algal blooms and low dissolved oxygen. Nitrate loading which does not cause toxic
effects on people swimming in the river will still contribute to eutrophication.
CORPUD asserts that there is no impact on the environment, because their
modeling of discharge of nitrates still is within the expected margin of loading allowed in
their current NPDES permit. No other defense of their proposal is offered. No studies,
no modeling of impacts, and no assessment of mitigation alternatives is presented.
Rather, since CORPUD has managed to negotiate a nitrate NPDES permit discharge limit
sufficiently above their ability to comply, this Commission is told that there is no adverse
impact on the environment. If everyone managed to discharge up to the legal limit, does
this Commission truly believe that the Neuse would not be harmed? This argument
assumes that existing maximum NPDES permit limits on the Neuse River are protecting
it from adverse environmental impacts. They are not doing so, as evidenced by the
actions taken by this commission to address non-point sources. CORPUD asks this
commission to issue a 30-year permit to one of the largest single non-point sources of
nitrate pollution in the Neuse River Basin. CORPUD has failed to demonstrate that this
variance meets factor seven by failing to show that the public benefits of reducing nitrate
loading to the Neuse outweigh the projected costs.
V. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Variance Requests
In enacting the amendments of 1972 to the Clean Water Act, Congress declared a
goal of eliminating discharges of pollutants to navigable waters by 1985. See 33
U.S.C.S. § 1251. The objective of the amendments was to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's water." Id. A discharge limit
is a means to that end. Because the Neuse is in a high state of eutrophication, all
additional discharges of nutrients harm the river, whether they are within permitted limits
or not.
It is undisputed that CORPUD runs a wastewater treatment plant which is subject
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page9
to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Under NPDES,
CORPUD has a permit issued to its Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant. This
permit governs operation of the plant and its associated discharges. The variance
purports to allow CORPUD to discharge wastewater from its Neuse River plant in
violation of the terms of its existing NPDES permit. The authority to grant variances
under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 does not extend to allowing the discharge of contaminated
wastewater into surface waters in violation of the requirements of the NPDES program.
CORPUD has not sought to apply for a Special Order by Consent. Rather, CORPUD has
sought to use the variance procedure of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 to effectively amend its
NPDES permit obligations. Its current NPDES permit renewal was made contingent
upon its receipt of this variance request. Clearly, this variance is tied in with the concepts
and requirements ofNPDES and with its recently approved NPDES permit.
The discharge limit which was set in that permit was technologically based with
the objective of meeting the water quality standards for the receiving waters. While the
permit limits may be sufficient to meet the water quality standards, they are also based
upon a showing that the technology used to treat the wastewater meets the technology
standards of the Clean Water Act. NPDES effluent permit limits are not a tradable
pollution quota which can be used to allow uncontrolled discharges of contaminated
groundwater at the same facility where tertiary treatment is required for wastewater. Nor
can they be used to offset the CORPUD's cleanup obligations under the 2L Rules.
Whatever value the offset may have in a more comprehensive solution than the instant
request, the purpose of NPDES is to eliminate uncontrolled discharges of pollutants.
VI. CORPUD Already Caught a Break During the Penalty Phase
CORPUD asserts in support of its request that the required remedial activity will
adversely affect its ability to make planned capital improvements in its plant. The
argument goes that this $79M cleanup is excessive, and will prevent other needed
improvements. While it is tempting to accept that CORPUD should plow more into other
improvements at the plant, the fact remains that CORPUD already caught a significant
break from the State in the civil penalty assessed for the spill.
While CORPUD was assessed civil penalties for the overapplications made to
these fields, they were far below the statutory maximum. On June 21, 2002, Alan
Klimek assessed a penalty against CORPUD for overapplying sewage sludge on more
than 100 occasions in 2001 and 2002. The total assessed for these violations was a little
over $700 per violation on average. Additionally, CORPUD was cited for 14 other
violations for which no penalty was assessed and another 6 violations for less than $200
each. All told, the City was assessed $73,650 for 124 violations, or just under $600 per
violation on average. The statutory maximum at the time for these violations was
$10,000 per violation, making this CPA eligible for a seven figure assessment.
Assessing CORPUD a lower civil penalty has already achieved the objective of
allowing CORPUD to retain money needed in order to improve its operations. To its
credit, CORPUD appears to have done just that. CORPUD has made significant
DENR-Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2007
Page 10
improvements in both its operations and in its equipment. What CORPUD has failed to
explain is what they will choose not to do if their proposal is not allowed.
VII. Conclusion: CORPUD's Variance Presents a False Dichotomy
Since 2002 the City of Raleigh has made remarkable strides in improving its
sewage treatment. They have worked to greatly improve upon the level of effort made by
previous councils, staffs and mayors. For this they are to be rightly commended. This
variance request is not in keeping with the fine tradition which the City of Raleigh is
pursuing in making the environment a top priority.
Despite this record of improvement, the Variance Request under review presents
this Commission with a false dichotomy-a forced limit among possible choices. The
Corrective Action Plan shows that a number of alternatives existed. Even if Alternative
One is approved and implemented, there is no guarantee that no nitrate will cross the
compliance boundary. The area impacted is too large to even be accurately measured,
rather the impacts must be modeled. It may be that the current proposal is the result of a
misunderstanding.
Reading it, one cannot help but conclude that CORPUD has presented this
Commission with a false dichotomy. The Commission is presented with two choices:
Alternative One is claimed to cost more than $79M, clearly making it one of the most
expensive cleanups of groundwater in North Carolina's history. Alternative Two is
claimed to cost nearly $SM, but uses the Neuse River as its primary treatment system;
Surely there exist other alternatives and other means of achieving the mutual goals of the
City of Raleigh and the State of North Carolina. In effect, CORPUD asks this
commission to issue a 30-year permit to one of the largest single non-point sources of
nitrate pollution in the Neuse River Basin. The fact that it is called a variance does not
alter the fact that it acts as a permit, purporting to allow that which the law would
otherwise forbid.
Cc: Dean Naujoks
Steve Levitas
Very Truly Yours,
Ryke Longest
HuNroN&
W]LLIAMS
November 5, 2007
By Hand
Mr. David Hance
Planning Section
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Room 625AA, Archdale Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
HUNfON & WILLIAMS LLP
POST OFFICE BOX 109
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
TEL 919 • 899 • 3000
FAX 919 • 899 • 3209
CRAIG A. BROMBY
DIRECT DIAL: 919-899-3032
EMAIL: cbromby@hunton .com
FILE NO: 99999.000309
Re: Comments on Variance Request by City of Raleigh and Request for Extension of
Comment Period
Dear Mr. Hance:
Enclosed please find comments submitted by Edge of Auburn, LLC, on the request for
variance by the City of Raleigh. Edge of Auburn appreciates this opportunity to submit
comments on this proposed variance to the regulatory corrective action requirements at 15A
NCAC 2L .0106. Edge of Auburn, LLC, owns property to the west southwest of the land
application fields operated by the City of Raleigh, and is adjacent to a parcel that has
reportedly been contaminated by nitrates in excess of groundwater standards.
Edge of Auburn's interest pertains to a proposed mixed use development that it plans and for
which it has recently submitted plans to W alee County. Because neither the City of Raleigh nor
the City of Gamer would agree to extend public water supply to this development, Edge of
Auburn will have to rely on a system of on-site wells for its community water supply. The
City of Raleigh was aware of the potential for this community water supply system before it
filed its application for variance.
The wells in the Edge of Auburn's community water supply system will pump at a
significantly higher rate than any other well ( or collection of wells) examined by Raleigh's
consultants, but the effect of the wells was not investigated or accounted for in any report
submitted by Raleigh or its consultants to the Aquifer Protection Section of the Division of
Water Quality .
. A.TLA1JTA 3lJ--rGI(OK ~ETJU,TG 3R.USSELS CHARLOTTE Di~LLAS ~,:ous·roN IQ ·J O;~-:.nLLE !../JHDON
LOS. Al'JGELES hlcLEPJ'~ ~-..1IA1vH :,:E\i/ YOFl( YORFOLK l1_A.LEiGH T::.ICHivIQ1->!D ~TI·-!GJ-,.PQ;-.E -:;•~l "SHI!-JGTCfrJ
7/\;;,,r•P.hunt<:,n.c0n1
Hl.JNTON &
WILLIAMS
Mr. David Hance
November 5, 2007
Page2
Edge of Auburn is in the process of retaining an expert hydrogeologist to review the Raleigh
submittal. Since fewer than 60 days have elapsed since Edge of Auburn was notified of the
request for variance, we do not believe it is unreasonable to extend the comment period for an
additional 60 days.
Sincerely yours,
~ ,0' l-<--c5
Craig A. Bromby
CAB/psb
cc : Steve Smith
Comments of Edge of Auburn, LLC
Request for Variance by City of Raleigh, NC
November 5, 2007
Edge of Auburn, LLC, ("Auburn") is a development company that owns a tract of land to
the southeast of the Raleigh land application site at which elevated nitrate levels have been
detected. For the reasons set forth below, Auburn objects to the requested variance unless the
City of Raleigh provides access to a public water supply system to all properties adjacent to a
property with off-site contamination, including that owned by Auburn.
Auburn has recently submitted to Wake County plans to develop a mixed use
development on this tract, with over 350 homes in the first phase. The Auburn development will
require its own source of water supply because, as the City of Raleigh is aware, the City of
Garner has no plans to extend public water service to that area in the foreseeable future. 1
To address its need for a community water supply for a mixed use development with over
350 homes in the first phase, Auburn plans to install supply wells with a withdrawal capacity of
over 150,000 gpd. The well system is planned within a half-mile of the Raleigh land application
site. Due to topography and other constraints, the wells for the community water supply are
planned to be located at the eastern property line of the Auburn property. The eastern boundary
line is the area closest to the Raleigh land application sites and to the contaminated groundwater.
Topographically, the well system appears to be upgradient of the land application sites.
However, the wells will probably have to be installed in bedrock to produce a sufficient yield to
supply a sufficient supply of water to the community.
In order to be eligible for a variance, the City of Raleigh must show that compliance with
the rules would effect a financial hardship, and that public health and safety will be protected
under the alternative offered under the variance. 2 Raleigh has proposed a corrective action plan
based on natural processes of degradation and attenuation of contaminants.3 In essence, Raleigh
1 Auburn's plans have been complete for a considerable time, but submittal to Wake County was delayed until
recently pending discussions with the cities of Raleigh and Garner pertaining to the availability of municipal water.
Those discussions with Raleigh and Garner began in 2003, concluding unsuccessfully in 2007. As it became
apparent that municipal water would not be extended to Auburn's property in a reasonable time frame, Auburn
revised its plans to include a community water system which would use on-site wells as a source of potable water.
Auburn received a notice of the application for variance in September, 2007, well after the City of Raleigh was
aware of its need to proceed with a private community water supply.
2 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c). Auburn's comments do not address whether the City has provided information
sufficiently persuasive to show financial hardship and economic unreasonableness of the technology required to
comply with the requirements of the rule.
3 City of Raleigh, NC, Corrective Action Variance A pp lication (December 1, 2005), p. 1
Page I of 5
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
seeks to have its permitted land application site to be treated as a non-permitted site.4 Therefore,
the Environmental Management Commission ("EMC") should examine, at a minimum, whether
its would be approvable if it were eligible under the rules to propose such a plan. Specifically,
the EMC should examine whether Raleigh seeks to be relieved of the expense to reasonably
assure the protection of public health from existing and foreseeable receptors.
According to the groundwater rules, operators of non-permitted sites may request
approval of a corrective action plan ("CAP") based on natural processes of degradation and
attenuation of contaminants. 5 The City's request for variance is premised on a proposed CAP
based on these natural processes. 6 There are several showings an applicant for a natural
attenuation CAP. The City has failed to make the required showings as described below:
• All sources of contamination from the site for which the variance is sought have been
removed or controlled. 7
The City of Raleigh intends to continue to use it land application fields. Therefore, the
source of contamination for which the variance is sought will neither have been removed nor
controlled to any greater extent than it has been previously. The City of Raleigh has a history
of noncompliance concerning exceedances in the application of plant-available nitrogen.
Thus, Raleigh has failed to show that all sources of contamination have been removed or
controlled.
• The contaminant has the capacity to degrade or attenuate under the site-specific conditions. 8
Scenarios modeled by the City of Raleigh's consultants have not taken in account Auburn's
planned 150,000 gpd well system. The uncertainties that the City's consultants have not
been able to account for include (i) the location of fractures that could carry contaminated
groundwater, that has had little opportunity for degradation or attenuation, directly to the
Auburn community water supply wells, (ii) the effect of the mafic dikes on the transport of
contaminated groundwater vertically to the fractured bedrock, and (iii) the effect of the
pumping of the Auburn community well system on groundwater flow. Thus, Raleigh has not
shown that the nitrates will degrade or attenuate under predictable site-specific conditions.
According to the City's consultants, groundwater movement in bedrock is restricted to
4 See 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)
5 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1).
6 ENSR International, Corrective Action Plan --City of Raleigh. Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant. Raleigh
North Carolina, (February 2005), p. 2-11. (the CAP was revised in December 2005, but the revision did not alter the
proposal for monitoring natural attenuation).
7 ISA NCAC 2L .0106(1)(1).
8 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(2).
Page 2 of 5
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
intersecting sets of water bearing fractures and joints. 9 Bedrock in the area of the land
application sites "typically consists of a granitic rock type with high degree of fractures near
the interface of [partially weathered rock] and bedrock."10 Additionally, the consultants
reported that that rock formations known as mafic dikes occurred in the area.11 . The location
of all the dikes predicted to occur in the area could not be confirmed, and the consultants
reported that "the hydraulic influence of the dikes is difficult to fully characterize."12
However, the dikes apparently create fracture zones in the bedrock in which they are
embedded.13
• The time and direction of contaminant travel can be predicted with reasonable certainty.14
The 150,000 gpd well system will draw water from water-bearing fractures in the bedrock.
When the wells are producing, the water table is depressed in response to pumping. This
depression is characterized as a "cone of depression." At a daily withdrawal of 150,000 gpd,
the wells would tend to reverse the gradient of groundwater for a substantial distance from
the wellhead. The consequence could be that contamination which under present
circumstances would tend to flow in an easterly direction, could be pulled instead in a
westerly direction and captured within the cone of depression of the Auburn water supply
well system. Similarly, contaminated groundwater already in a saturated fracture zone could
move toward the wells. This depressive effect is true of all pumping wells, but the 40
existing wells accounted for in the consultants' report served individual residences, with the
exception of one community water supply well serving six residences. All of these wells
together would have a much lower production rate than the Auburn well system and thus
have a much less significant cone of depressio. Even collectively, the combined production
is considerably less than the production planned for the Auburn wells, plus the effect of even
all wells pumping at maximum capacity would be widely dispersed and thus not have the
drawing power of the Auburn wells . Ironically, the Auburn wells might function very
similarly to an extraction-type corrective action system of the type the City seeks to avoid
under the requested variance.
9 ENSR International , Su pplemental Site Assessment Re port -City of Ralei gh Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant. Ralei gh , North Carolina (September 2003), p. 2-3 (hereinafter cited as "SSA Report").
10 SSA Report at p.2-2.
11 ENSR Consulting and Engineering, (NC) Inc .. Groundwater Flow Model Re port. City of Ralei e:h Neuse River
Waste Water Treatment Plant. Ralei eh, North Carolina (September 2003), p.2-6 (hereinafter cited as "GFM
Report").
12 GFM Report, p. 2-6.
13 GFM Report, p. 2-6.
14 ISA NCAC 2L .0106(1)(3).
99999 .000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
Page3 of5
• Contaminant migration will not result in any violation of applicable groundwater standards at
any existing or foreseeable receptor.15
Under the facts pertinent to this variance request, the community water supply wells planned
by Auburn are a foreseeable receptor of contaminants, because the City was aware of
Auburn's requests for municipal water supply and the denial by the City of Garner of that
request. Studies done on behalf of The City of Raleigh have not accounted for the potential
for contaminants migration to community water supply wells on Auburn property, and the
nature of the geology and groundwater flow are such that contaminants may flow to the
Auburn community water supply wells without sufficiently degrading or attenuating.
• Contaminants will not migrate onto adjacent properties or, in the absence of written consent
by the owners to the variance request, such adjacent properties are served by an existing
public water supply system.16
Raleigh acknowledges that contaminants have migrated and will continue to migrate onto
adjacent properties. They have not accounted for the hydrogeologic effect of Auburn's
150,000 gpd community water system withdrawal. Raleigh has closed several wells on
adjacent and nearby properties and provided municipal water. A source of public water
supply should also be provided to the Auburn mixed use development where a much larger
population would be put at risk.
The Auburn well system could be accounted for in a hydrogeologic model to determine
the potential for migration of contaminated groundwater in response to the pressure exerted by
the high-production well system. That investigation would probably also require the installation
of monitoring additional wells into the bedrock where the Auburn well system will ultimately
have to find its source of water, and use of methods to determine the location of fractures and the
influence of mafic dikes on the vertical movement of contaminated groundwater to the bedrock.
The EMC should require as a prerequisite to a variance that the City of Raleigh provide
municipal water to the Auburn mixed use development. Failing that, the EMC must require the
City of Raleigh to conduct a detailed study which accounts for the community well system of the
Auburn mixed use development which properly assesses contaminant migration to foreseeable
receptors in accordance with the groundwater rules.
For these reasons, Auburn respectfully requests that the variance request be rejected for
the failure by the City of Raleigh to meet its burden of making the showings required at ISA
NCAC 2L .0113 and 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1). In addition, Auburn respectfully requests that the
comment period for the variance request be extended for an additional 60 days in order to allow
Auburn to engage the services of an expert hyrdogeologist to evaluate this request and the
information provided in support of the request. Auburn has had less than 60 days since learning
15 ISA NCAC 2L .0106(1)(4).
16 ISA NCAC 2L .0106(1)(5).
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
Page4 of 5
of the request for variance to assess the effects that variance could have on its planned mixed use
development, and we have discovered the technical questions and issues of the groundwater to
be many and significant.
Page 5 of 5
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
Ryke Longest, Director
Environmental Law & Policy Clinic
Box 90360
Durham, NC 27708-0360
Telephone: [919) 613-7207
Toll Free: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
November 5, 2007
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-161
RE: Comments on after hours filings
Dear David,
I just want to make my objection known, for the record, to consideration as part of
the record any comments made after filing hours. As I understand the rules, the
designation of November 5th as a filing date does not include comments filed after 5:00
p.m. Eastern Standard Time. When I called the Water Quality Section Main Number, I
was informed by recording of the fact that regular business hours for the office ends at
5:00 p.m. It would appear therefore that the proper deadline for submitting comments on
any water quality related matters ends at 5:00 p.m. as well, absent a provision in the
comment requesting document. According to my theory, this document is untimely. I
submit it to register my objection to the consideration by this Commission of any
document filed after 5:00 p.m. on November 5, 2007. Should the Commission decide to
accept filings after 5:00 p.m. despite this fact, I would ask the Commission to consider
whether those who have submitted their comments early have been prejudiced by any
sandbagging tactics by those who file later.
Very Truly Yours,
Ryke Longest
Second Comment
Subject: Second Comment
From: "Ryke Longest" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20: 17:24 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>
David,
The attached is only applicable to any comments filed after 5:00 p.m. today.
Thanks,
Ryke
Ryke Longest
Director & Sr. Lecturing Fellow
Environmental Law and Policy Clinic
Duke University School of Law
P.O. Box 90360
Durham, NC 27708-0360
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
Email: [e-mail]
---·-·•··········· .. ············· .. ·····
CORPUD Variance Comments-after hours.pdf
----.......................................... .
Content-Type: application/pdf
Content-Encoding: base64
111£,,...n,v, ,.,_,.,on
ALDERMEN
JULIUS C. PARHAM, JR.
ROBERT G. RAYNOR, JR.
MACK L. "MAX" FREEZE
JOSEPH E. MATTINGLY, JR.
BARBARA LEE
TOM BAYLISS, Ill
MAYOR
WALTER B. HARTMAN, JR.
CITY MANAGER
VICKIE H. JOHNSON
CITY CLERK DANAE. OUTLAW
ffl4ree filenturies of 1~fort4 filaro!ina ~ritage
FOUNDED1710
Phone: [phone] P.O. Box 1129
Mr. David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Hance:
~ear ~ern, ~(1128563-1129
October 23, 2007
MARY B. MURAGLIA
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
It has come to our attention that the City of Raleigh has made a request for a
variance from its permit to allow an area contaminated by permit violation to correct
itself naturally. While we sympathize with Raleigh's predicament, our position is that
something must be done to eliminate this problem in a way that provides maximum
benefits to the Neuse River.
In New Bern, we have spent considerable·resources in creating methods for
eliminating or diminishing discharge of nitrogen. We have made it a policy that we don't
participate in nutrient trading at considerable potential city expense. We have also
removed three discharges of small inefficient package systems by allowing them to use
our system even though they were not in New Bern proper. Additionally, we have
developed an old quarry in New Bern as a non-point discharge although we didn't need
to for purposes of our permit.
We would hate to think that the reductions we have made would be marginalized
by discharges into the river that shouldn't have occurred under their permit. It is our
hope that your department and Raleigh can work together to eliminate this discharge in
the least expensive way possible to Raleigh's rate payers with emphasis on the former.
cc: Board of Aldermen
Neuse River Foundation
Mayor Charles Meeker
Sincerely,
c:2a4yli~
Mayor
~trini~ for ~xcelfonte
~orlq <!Iarolina ~£mral J\g£mhl1J
~mme of ~.sentafilre.s
REPRESENTATIVE ALICE GRAHAM UNDERHILL
3RD DISTRICT
~fate ~gi5Iatfue ~uilhlng
~ttl.cislr 27601-1096
AGRICULTURE
APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEES:
Of'FICE ADDRESS : 16 W . .JONES STREET, ROOM 1206
RALEIGH, NC 27601·1096
TELEPHONE : (919) 733·5853
[phone] FAX
EMAIL: [e-mail]
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT, CHAIR
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, VICE•CHAIR
HOMELAND SECURITY, MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
.JUDICIARY III
HOME ADDRESS : 3910 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
NEW BERN, NC 28562
PHONE: (252) 633·2270
[phone] FAX
October 16, 2007
Mr. David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 276-99-1617
TRANSPORTATION
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
resources to recuperate may reach far into the future.
Beyond the damage done to the water quality and other natural resources will be the economic impact to the
people of Eastern North Carolina. ihe health of-tile N~use 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 furth~r down river is not an acceptable choice. •
Yours truly,
~4-~~
Rep. Alice G . Underhill
AGU/rmp
CC : Charles Meeker, Mayor of Raleigh
David McCracken , President of Neuse River Foundation
N
~ ..._
N
(S)
>-_J
Q
w
3:
w X ~·
w I
I-
C'1
C'1
N
('I
I
LO
lD
lD
I
07
rl
CTI
rl
~
\.D ....
Raleigh wai;its sludge
to take care of itself
Request opposed by
officials down river.
f f.'asiblt>. H •
l h(' d1y i11sleatl .. Wall Is to
111s(ru.l a limilecl number of
groundwater extraction wells
BY LATm/\ MA.cK Stn-rol'l al a cosl o[$9 million ~d allow
· ••natural arlenualion" to, lake
care of lhe nilrtigen. ,
Haleigh oflidals ho1,e lime NBasitally, the •r.uiance that
will !alee care of slu.c!ge from ils Haleigh has proposed is to do
Neuse River waslewaler lreal-nothi11g bu, -deru:1 Hus up,N" said
merit J~k'1rit i.arry Bahlwi11, Lower euse
17,e plan! is responsible fur mverkeeper.
l,llCIO 11.crC'S of groundw~,le2r . Officials in :-Crnve11 County
omlaminailion causc·tl. boy -0Ye1--and New Bern: ti1e locl\1.icm oI
;i[Jlll;ring sludge . Sludge, whkh. Baldwin's ofOce, pla[l lo send
is !'l1,rayecl on farm 1ields, is r1 a lell(?r to the E1&Vi.ronmenlal
Jefl~iver sCJlid 1>roduced dudn~ M:a11a,ceme11L Com1nission, ask-
111(' water :incl :sewage treat-ing I hem n,u L l,o granl Raleigh's
ment process. variance request .
A"'I ;1; rC':;Ull of the cut1.l:1111icm-Tw~n.ly-nve percent of lb~
1iu11, l.t!0,000 fJoum.li; of nitru-lZU,000 i,oumls of nilrngeu
geu will !>eep into the Ne'llse frum Ral~lt's Jreajment plant
l~l vc-r cvet·y Y,eRr for the ·next a&-'Will onutb~Jt:s way -10 the:Neuse
}1elll"S. .. '' :,-, .. '' •. q ,iRl_yer ···~sh',ilf-y .-in New nern,
1)1e state Division of Waf.er Baldwiu said, ~~, J;" · ·
Qu~lily recLuires Raleigh lo ·. '"lt's n~tJusl an issue S:{tedfic
dean up lhe contamination, but to Raldgl:i, bl!t It 1s some.t.h.lng
l1ow it wm 9-0 so is the subject tlnt has an effect' 81.1 the• way
ohlehale . .. dciwn J.he river/[ he slid.• .
A firal oplion requires install-W~e Bald~ sru:4 i~ is _true
ing 42:6 wells, formmg .a. hyd.rau-lhe mtrogen, Will nafuially de-
Uc 1.nkl·rie;-lhat would redtJce crease b\ler tim(!,ihe said it will
g.r<1unchvaler discharge. With a take 40 years:or more to do so.
1irice tag o( $80 million o\ler 30 "For Uiem to Wt"a free ·pass
yearn, Ralejgb officials deemed and IJot clean ariy tifit up is just
that option "economically not un.thiitkable,u Baldwin said.
· TJ. Lynch, lhe wastewlller
'1·catme1~1 plaill supetintiendent,
s.ai(J in January tl1e dly reduced
ils nilrogcn disd1arges by 50
percent, above the JO per("ent
!lie -s-tale requires. Lynell said
lite red~1dion!'l ;are clue to bellie.r
lnli.ning tor em1ifoyces 1111d con-
t3i:iually l'A'eaking lheproce:ss. lo
get better numbers.
Public-comment <.1n Raleigh's
~arfa11ce r~g__llest lw been ex-
1.e1,ded uni.ii Nov. 5. , . : ~:
ll1ose wlto wish to sublllit"
conunents or insirecl tlae·vafi-·
a11c:.e ·request, sl muld write to .
David . Hance, DENR-DWQ,
Plmm111g SecliQn, 161? Mail
Ser vice Center, Raleigh, NC,.:.
27699-1617~ call 733-6003. ext.
587, or ~mai! tlavi<l.lui.nc-e@nc-·.
mail.net · • · · · . t
BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE
www.BREDL.org PO BOX 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 BREDL@sk)'best.com [phone] office [phone] cell
November 5, 2007
Mr. David Hance
Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.
RE: Notice of Variance Application and Hearing
DENR/DWQ
Cleanup at the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant -Permit Number WQ0001730
TO:
Ms. Kathy Stecker, Hearing Officer
Mr. Andrew Pitner, Hearing Officer
Kevin Martin, EMC Groundwater Committee Chair
Marion Deerhake
Tom Ellis
David Moreau
Donnie Brewer
Thomas Cecich
Freddie Harrill
Darryl Moss
Steven Weber
Forrest W esthall
We wish to thank the DENR/DWQ for granting our request for an extension of public comments
concerning the City of Raleigh's request for a variance from groundwater protection regulations
concerning the nitrate contamination that has occurred at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
It is important that the public has ample opportunity to comment on the subsequent
contamination of the groundwater, the Neuse River, private drinking water wells, and
surrounding land from years of over-application of sewage sludge by the City of Raleigh Public
Utilities Department.
On behalf of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, I wish to submit to you the
following comments and recommendations concerning the City of Raleigh's request for a
variance 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 into the Neuse River and surrounding properties.
1
Variance request
We oppose the City of Raleigh's request for a variance and strongly urge the DENR/DWQ to
deny this variance request. Permit conditions and state groundwater rules in 15A NCAC 2L
prohibit natural attenuation as a clean-up method on permitted wastewater treatment land
disposal sites. We strongly object to the city's "do-nothing" approach as it fails to conform to
state regulations designed to protect groundwater and surface water. Moreover, the state's
approval of this variance would set a dangerous precedent for clean up of similar contamination
at other permitted facilities. Natural attenuation is an available clean-up option for use on sites
contaminated by unpermitted discharges, such as leaking underground storage tanks. The Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant is a permitted facility; thus, using natural attenuation as a
cleanup method for nitrate contamination is not applicable to this facility.
Recommendations
Reports from the media, public officials, state regulators and private citizens describe the City of
Raleigh's options for cleanup of the nitrate contamination as a "damned if you do, damned if you
don't" extreme. These are: 1) remediate the nitrate contamination by drilling over 425 extraction
wells and conducting active remediation involving a pump and treat method. This reportedly will
cost the city an estimated $80 million dollars; 2) remediate the nitrate contamination using the
"do-nothing" method. In other words, allowing Mother Nature to take care of the mess.
Unfortunately, both of these options represent the extremes of what might be a safer and better
approach, along with being more cost effective for the applicant.
Because of the severity and range of contamination, we recommend a multi-faceted approach to
offset the impacts of the contamination such as on-site clean up of the primary source of nitrate
contamination, restoration of wetlands further downstream, and remediation of the 16 drinking
water wells belonging to private residents of communities impacted by this contamination. We
also recommend the DENR/DWQ and the City of Raleigh continue to engage in a transparent
dialogue with the Neuse River Foundation and members of the public in identifying an
acceptable and effective solution with swift implementation of a plan to offset the impacts of
contamination caused by over-application of sewage sludge.
Human health risks from nitrates
Under North Carolina Administrative Code Subchapter 2L -Groundwater Classification and
Standards, section 15A NCAC 02L.0l 13 (4) states that the applicant that submits a request for a
variance must demonstrate that the variance "will not endanger the public health and safety,
including the health and environmental effects from exposure to groundwater contaminants."
The "do-nothing" alternative for. nitrate clean up proposed by the applicant does not come close
to fulfilling the stipulations under this section.
Short-term exposure to drinking water with a nitrate level at or just above the health standard of
10 mg/1 nitrate-N is a potential health problem primarily for infants. Babies consume large
quantities of water relative to their body weight, especially if water is used to mix powdered or
concentrated formulas. The digestive systems of babies are more likely than adult digestive tracts
to allow the reduction of nitrates to nitrites. In particular, the presence of nitrites in the digestive
tract of newborns can lead to a disease called methemoglobinemia (Nitrate: Health Effects in
Drinking Water, M. Mccasland, N. Trautmann, and K. Porter, Natural Resources Cornell
Cooperative Extension: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/nit-heef-grw85.html).
2
Effects on ecosystems
In addition to being toxic to human babies, nitrates affect young animals and are a problem for
ruminant animals of all ages. Some livestock have been known to abort fetuses due to drinking
water containing high levels of nitrates (Animal Waste and Water Quality, Alabama Cooperative
Extension System, p.5: htt p://www.aces.edu/crd/publications/wtrqlty/wq-animalwaste.p d f).
A growing number of studies suggest that nitrates have the potential to be an endocrine
disrupting contaminant and pose a direct threat to the conservation and restoration of vertebrate
populations and the ecosystems they depend on for survival (ls Nitrate an Ecologically Relevant
Endocrine Disruptor in Vertebrates? L.Guillette, Jr. and T.M. Edwards, Society for futegrative
and Comparative Biology, 2005, 45(1):19-27:
http ://icb.oxford joumals.org/c gi/content/full/45/l/19).
It is well documented that increased amounts of nutrients can kill fish due to a lack of oxygen as
a result of excessive algal growth (What are the Usual Causes of Fish Kills? USGS:
http ://water.usgs.gov/owq/FAO .htm#0 l0). However, in addition to fish kills, research conducted
by Pieter Johnson of the University of Colorado has found that increased levels of nitrogen cause
deformities in amphibians. Snail populations that host microscopic parasites known as
trematodes reproduce dramatically in nitrogen rich environments infecting frogs with the
parasites which then cause cysts in the limbs of developing tadpoles (Aquatic Eutrophication
Promotes Pathogenic Infection in Amphibians, Johnson et al, 2007:
http ://www.colorado.edu/eeb/facultv sites/pieter/documents/J ohnson %20et%20al. %202007 .p df).
It is not known whether the Neuse River ecosystem will be affected by this phenomenon due to
excessive levels of nitrate contamination.
Additional organic wastewater contaminants found in sludge
The Notice of Variance Application and Hearing states that "no other substance monitored at this
facility is under consideration." Additional impacts from contaminants contained in sludge may
not be so apparent, and thousands of potentially toxic compounds continue to remain unregulated
and untested due to the federal government's inability to take effective action to provide
protection of human health and the environment frorri emerging contaminants. Untested
chemicals at wastewater treatment plants include heavy metals, pharmaceuticals and personal
care products (PPCPs), hormones, pathogens, and industrial chemicals that end up in effluent
released into surface waters. Many of these compounds are classified as organic wastewater
contaminants (OWCs).
These compounds have been found to concentrate in sludge, collectively referred to as biosolids
by academics, state and federal regulators and industry pundits. A survey conducted by Eastern
Washington University and the USGS examined nine different biosolids products destined for
land application produced by municipal wastewater treatment in seven different states. Fifty-five
OWCs from a total of 87 OWCs were detected in one biosolids product with a minimum of 30
and a maximum of 45 OW Cs detected in any one sample. Among the most commonly detected
compounds were pharmaceuticals (prescription and non-prescription), hormones, detergent
metabolites, steroids, fragrances, plasticizers, pesticides, fire retardants, and disinfectants in the
biosolids. The compounds detected in greater concentrations were nonlyphenol and octyylphenol
detergent metabolites.
3
The Eastern Washington University/USGS study concluded that a range of compounds are
"incompletely removed during wastewater treatment and sequestered in biosolids that are
subsequently land applied." Since an estimated fifty percent of biosolids are land applied they
are a potentially ubiquitous nonpoint source of OWCs into the environment. The potential
concerns surrounding the presence of these compounds in the environment include adverse
psychological effects, increased cancer, reproductive impairment in humans and other animals,
and antibiotic resistance among pathogenic bacteria (Survey of Organic Wastewater
Contaminants in Biosolids Destined for Land Application, Kinney et al, Environmental Science
Technology, Vol. 40, 2006, p. 7207-7215).
Studies conducted by the USGS have found hormones, antibiotics, and prescription drugs in
urban streams receiving effluent from wastewater treatment plants across the nation. Some of
these chemicals such as the detergent degradation product nonylphenol and the fragrances
AHTN and HHCB have been shown to disrupt reproduction and growth in fish by affecting the
endocrine systems (Assessing the biological potency of binary mixtures of environmental
estrogens using vite!logenin induction in juvenile rainbow trout, Thorpe et al, Environmental
Science and Technology, v. 35, no, 12, 201).
Other chemicals such as triclosan found in popular liquid anti-bacterial soaps may increase the
antibiotic resistence of basteria in the environment (Resistance to triclosan in laboratory and
clinical strains of Escherichia coli, McMurry et al, FEMS Microbiology Letters, v. 166, no. 2,
1998) and reducing algae diversity in streams (Effects of three pharmaceutical and personal care
products on natural freshwater algal assemblages, Wilson et al, Environmental Science and
Technology, v. 37, no. 9, 2003).
The human health and environmental effects of these and other compounds are not well
understood, and standards to protect human health and aquatic life have not been established for
these chemicals (Wastewater Chemicals in Colorado's Streams and Groundwater, USGS:
http://www.co boulder .corn/health/environ/water/ows/pdf/FactSheet%20W astewater%20Chemica
ls.pdf
Numerous research studies have shown that endocrine-disrupting compounds and
pharmaceuticals that have the ability to alter the sex of fish and create antibiotic resistance. In
Boulder Creek and the South Platte River, Colorado, researchers found more feminized fish
downstream of sewage effluent sites than upstream. At least two estrogen compounds, a natural
estrogen and a type of synthetic estrogen found in birth control pills, contributed to the
feminization. The Colorado study found that each compound was potent enough to cause
changes in fish on its own, but together had an even greater impact ("Wading in Hormones:
Estrogen Invades Colorado's South Platte River," ScienceLine, Aug, 1, 2007:
htt p://scienceline.ore/2007/08/01/environment-anderson-water hormones/).
These compounds end up in wastewater effluent that is eventually released into the Neuse.
However, since these compounds also concentrate in sludge, instead of being applied to land,
they have been "re-released" into the Neuse, the volumes of which are unknown.
Environmental justice
Since the 1980s the city has over-applied sewage sludge to 1,000-acres at its Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant's sludge farm. As a result of the over-application of sewage sludge
over 30 families (16 wells total) have had their drinking water wells contaminated with nitrates
from the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant.
4
After the contamination was discovered, the wells were abandoned and families were placed on
city water. It is unclear as to if and when the wells will be safe to use again. Additional concerns
include a community well system planned for a subdivision in W ak:e County just west of the
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (Public Hearing, Raleigh Request for Variance,
Testimony of Russell Briggs, B&F Consulting).
If the city's request for a variance is granted, an estimated 120,000-150,000 lbs. of nitrates will
be released into the Neuse River over the next 30-40 years. It is reportedly the largest source of
groundwater contamination in the state. In order to ensure protection of future generations and
residents who may be living in subdivisions on lands in close proximity to the Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant, the applicant should be required by the state to provide continuous
remediation of the 16 contaminated wells until they are restored to their original condition.
The water quality standards applicable to groundwater rules established under section 15A
NCAC 02L.0103 Policy (a) specifically provide for the preservation of the "quality of the
groundwaters, prevent and abate pollution and contamination of the waters of the state, protect
public health, and permit management of the groundwaters for their best usage by the citizens of
North Carolina.
Furthermore, 15A NCAC 021.0103 states, "It is the policy of the Commission that the best usage
of the groundwaters of the state is as a source of drinking water .... and to enhance and restore
the quality of degraded groundwaters where feasible and necessary to protect human health
and the en·vironment, or to ensure their suitability as a future source of drinking water."
[emphasis added]
The city's request to apply 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) which allows the contaminant to migrate
onto adjacent properties if (A) "such properties are served by an existing public water supply
system dependent on surface waters ... " is a rule that applies to non-permitted sites only.
Furthermore, it is a sham that the city wishes to use this rule to allow the migration of nitrates
into the Neuse River and avoid clean up of nitrate contamination while allowing it to further
contaminate land where it now provides public water to those whose wells it was responsible for
contaminating.
Since· they are very soluble and do not bind to soils, nitrates have a high potential to migrate to
groundwater. And because they do not evaporate, nitrates/nitrites are likely to remain in water
until consumed by plants or other organisms (USEPA Consumer Fact Sheet on Nitrates/Nitrites:
http ://www.ep a.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw contamfs/nitrates.html).
Principles of Enforcement
The city has stated the over-application was due to a mathematical error which resulted in
application rates double or triple what they should have been. This resulted in the migration of
nitrates from groundwater into the Neuse River. Land application was stopped in 2002 after
several wells were found to be contaminated with nitrates from the over-application of sewage
sludge (Notes from EMC Meeting Summary, Erin Kimrey, NCCN, Sept. 12-13, 2007, p.10).
Research conducted by the Neuse River Foundation, however, states the opposite. Their research
shows a history of illegal dumping, raw sewage and chemical spills, worker safety issues, illegal
and excessive sludge spraying, and repeated violations despite penalties and warnings from the
state (Profile of a Polluter: The History of Problems at Raleigh's Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant and the E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant, Neuse River Foundation:
5
www .neuseriver.or g). This history of negligence demonstrates a clear disregard for state and
federal laws, human health and the environment.
As the capital of the State of North Carolina, the City of Raleigh should take a leadership role in
being a steward -instead of a polluter -of our state's environment. The city needs to own up to
its failure to protect the environment and health of its people. The NCDENR has a vested
responsibility to uphold and embrace its mission to protect human health and the environment by
upholding the state standards for groundwater and surface waters.
We encourage the DENR/DWQ to defer to its "Principles of Enforcement" in the matter of the
City of Raleigh's variance request:
1) Compliance is the first step toward the ultimate goal of stewardship;
2) Enforcement will be an effective deterrent against future violations;
3) Enjorcement actions will increase in severity for regulated entities with poor compliance
histories;
4) The cost of non-compliance should be greater than the cost of compliance.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Dayton
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
NC Healthy Communities Statewide Coordinator
P.O.BOX44
Saxapahaw, NC 27340
336.525.2003
sdavton@swcp .com
6
~orfl? fila:rolimt <i£trernl~£mhly
~ous.e of ~s.etthrlili.es
~tat.e ~girumiu.e tfi!uilhlns
~~ 27601-1096
REPRESENTATIVE ALICE GRAHAM UNDERHILL
3RD DISTRICT
OFFICE ADDRESS: 16 W. JONES STREET, ROOM 1206
RALEIGH, NC 27601-1096
TELEPHONE: [phone]
(9 I 9) 833-0606 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-CHAll't
HOMELAND SECURITY, MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
JUDICIARY ID
TRANSPORTATION
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
resources to recuperate may reach far into the future.
Beyond the damage done to the water quality and other natural resources will be the economic impact to the
people of Eastern North Carolina. The health of the 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 further down river is not an acceptable choice.
Yours truly,
~4 l-l1t~
Rep. Alice G. Underhill
AGU/rmp
CC: Charles Meeker, Mayor of Raleigh
David McCracken, President of Neuse River Foundation
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request-October 3rd Press Release/ P ...
2 of2
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].
###
10/19/2007 3:30 Pl
(0
/D: u.,s. +'~+~~SR.NJ~
✓ ~cvU., u~ 1 t-J~ ep4
b-U>\,,y\ 7'\cu.j ~ ~ 'll ~ ,J~~
-~oY'Yl: ... u.--.~ao A-. >vJ-dvlj A~~
p~ Lr~1~r~ JA~~y
~evJ~.s ~~'-t J~ e~
µ Lt: ;JJd~ ~ ~ u F~rh r rA ~ ry.~~~~:-~~ I ~~
-J:;w_, (~µ'.{i~f-~lt~,~
~ ~ ~ :d:tk ().u)\__ o.,,,,_4 ,~ t ~
CkL .~ 1/J~ ~-
/1--q 'Cf-J~J-; 6.3/!.
~
',t,
G-C, LC/ -3 33--!:J-ty_] ...
(3)
·.k ~· . ~~~~
~ ~~~·~,l~
~ -~ ~ ~~ .u o/~1:k
L,0~ vJu/i , ~ £~ ~ /kL
l»Y\ r 7 fr ~r~~
~ J;tt4 l~~~ f6wt 1f~~~
+o ~ ~ /Lcut.L r (),
L-._ ~ -hr JkL f LAq s ~ . '
~ I ~ 4A_Q__ ~ ~ f<-¼'._s
11A-4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'1 -
}~~~-,. ·:
-~,;;t-\ ~, ( '>•.:. ~I
:J) t~ -~~ ~ ~rfil s~1~
~ ~ ~~ vii~ +v J;J,d:: ·h, k71
A__~~~-~~ r~ ~~ ~ ~
~ A-vv~ ~ Jrt /14-J r ,lb ~ ~ /'!,vV~JJ,d,J
~-~~ ~~4 w~fv
t,:W\_. ' r
~~ I
3)~~¼WJ~j~-~~
i ~ ';,,nh, ~ Jd;tk '<~ ~ f~~
~~J C~;ti,w,~-~;ft,-WJ
fr, L_ /VlJYJ-~ ~,
if) t1u-~Jc [J; ~ ~ 11<~ ·, b jv-ac arJ
~~/ f'c t....,;~ , w.r -Yr'l..01/)
JJ> , A--AJI../VJ
4 (✓,,~ ~ ~ efVl
, ™ @c1.t'U :), i),_00 7 . M ¼ ~
N ~ S. t-~-Ulu,
(",-·,
r-·
1-·
.,,. ... ~ -~ c' •. ~-1-4 . .,, ,..,,
}Ji:, i5l l O '"i."Y\
~l\1E.R QU(.\UT( ,
~N\tlG sAANCt1
Mr. David Hance
Di vision of Water Quality Planning Section
1617 MSC
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
407 Dixie Trail
Raleigh, NC 27607
October 8, 2007
Re: Raleigh's Request for a Variance from Ground Water Standards
Dear Mr. Hance:
I am writing to oppose the City of Raleigh's request for a variance from state ground
water standards at its Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant land application site.
I believe that the City and the Division of Water Quality could develop more
environmentally sound and cost effective options in addition to the natural attenuation
option and the pump and treat it all option.
I'm pleased that Raleigh has substantially reduced the discharge of nitrogen for its
wastewater treatment plant. However, Raleigh contributes substantial nitrogen from its
storrnwater runoff and the land application site. I believe Raleigh could do more to
reduce its nitrogen load and other impacts on the Neuse River and Pamlico Sound by
protecting and restoring riparian buffers and wetlands.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bill Holman
Raleigh GW Variance
1 ,..c 1
Subject: Raleigh GW Variance
From: Bill Holman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:04:25 -0400
To: [e-mail]
comments are attached; thanks
Bill Holman <[e-mail]>
Senior Fellow
-,
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions
Duke University
Raleigh GW Variance 10-8-07.doc
Content-Type: application/ms word
Content-Encoding: base64
1(\/f\/"lf)f"\"7 1f\."'l') A
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / P ...
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / Public Comment Extension!
From: "Thomas C. Worth, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:19:59 -0400
To: "David Hance" <l)[e-mail]>
Mr.Hance:Thank you for copying me today on the "Media Alert" about which I read in the "News & Observer" last
night.Please note that in behalf of my clients I had formally requested an extension of the Public Comment Period of a
minimum of sixty(60)days from 10/5/07.1 now request that the sixty days(60)days run from11/5/07as I believe it will take
every bit of ninety(90) days if not more to become conversant in this matter about which we knew nothing until Mr.Crisp's
Notice dated August 21,2007 .Thomas C.Worth,Jr.
-----Original Message -----
From: David Hance
To: [e-mail]; bi joubill@minds prin g.com; [e-mail]; cand yt [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Thomas C. Worth , Jr.; deb welch@ yahoo.com; d imadcow@ yahoo.com; Mike Holland
; e qci [e-mail]: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Harry LeGrand; J.C. Wilson; John Crenshaw;
[e-mail]; iuliecrum6262@ yahoo.com; lawsonhen ry @earthlink.net; [e-mail];
matthew miller; [e-mail]; michelenchappy @bellsouth.net; [e-mail];
rollin [e-mail]; sasserbird@ yahoo.com; sherrill@o peramail.com; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
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 ;
Attachedis an official press release NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources infonning 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: 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 unpennitted discharges, such as
leaking underground storage tanks.
1 011 gnom -:vm
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / P ...
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
da [e-mail].
###
1,,...,1,....,,..,nrv·,.., "''"'
Dear Mr. David Hance,
I think that the city of Raleigh should not be granted a waiver, that they should be
held accountable for their actions, clean up their act, and protect its citizens and
environment. I will address the following bullet points in the subsequent paragraphs to
explain my reasoning.
• Accountability
• Short term solution, city growth will continue
• Detriments to ecosystem, Neuse River and supported life
• Misuse of already scant water supply
• Explore other solutions to reduce nitrate levels, funding
• Discuss with other cities who were in a similar growth pattern
Raleigh went forward with their sludge deposit programs despite warnings from
the state. Now, they are asking for a waiver to continue dumping in the same manner as
before and only build a few wells to treat and protect a considerably smaller area than
what was asked of them, around subdivisions. They effectively want to get out of what
the trouble that they got themselves into and not take responsibility for their waste
dumping.
People aren't allowed to go without punishments for wrong doings, why should
governments? After all, government punishments should be more severe because they
have an affect on many more people. They may claim that their actions were not
malicious but 'looking the other way' and neglecting the responsibility to protect your
citizens and lands is unacceptable. Raleigh has polluted more groundwater than eight
other towns in the area combined. The capital should set a better example.
Raleigh's proposal doesn't address the real contamination issue that is raised.
They hope to safe guard the people and residences that are in closer proximity to the
fields where sludge is dumped, with a fraction of the wells that are proposed. This may
sound like a reasonable solution to the money issue and it appears that a lot of time and
effort would be saved in focusing and concentrating their plans on a specific area. This
however, is just short term thinking. The reason that this is addressed now is because of
Raleigh's growth. That is also the reason why the state should not accept this waiver.
The city continues to grow and concerns are raised now that people are starting to
get closer to the areas of waste deposit. The desire for a city to avoid contaminating the
public water supply is self evident, but what Raleigh is proposing will be like putting a
band-aid on a broken arm. Their proposition addresses the safety of the current
residences but what about the future?
Raleigh is not showing any signs that it will stop growing. Is Raleigh just going
to keep building water treatment wells in isolated areas around new subdivisions as they
sprout up? They might as well address the issue now and cover all of the contaminated .
areas because Raleigh is not going to stop growing and housing will continue to spread
where there is available land.
Raleigh neither looking into the future, nor are they looking around at the bigger
picture. We already know the implications associated with continuing to allow sludge
deposits at their current level. Soil, a natural nitrate neutralizer, can't do its job with the
overload of waste that is dumped on its surface. The soil and nature will not be able to
naturally take care of the waste, as Raleigh is suggesting, if they continue their careless
dumping. The ground water will continue to be contaminated in the surrounding areas,
unchecked (because, if Raleigh's plan goes through, they will think that they have the
problem blocked off from affecting residences) and they will continue to dump at current,
if not increased levels.
The Neuse River will see more problems. Granted, the river is already polluted,
but that shouldn't give us a right to write it off as a lost cause and let it become a trash
can. Even if we wanted to, we can't afford to. The Neuse and other rivers like it aren't
simply symbols and parts of our heritage that should be protected with pride (at least they
should be) they are also vital to life.
The Neuse River feeds one of the nation's largest coastal estuaries (Albemarle-
Pamlico). Marine life thrives where the Neuse River ends but that could all change if
Raleigh is allowed to let pollution run into its waters. Fish will be killed as nitrogen and
algae build up robs them of their natural, livable environment. Fishing as an industry and
recreationally will receive a serious hit.
The river feeds and supports so many other things. By allowing pollution to
escalate in this river, the river will spread its contaminated, diseased water over
everywhere it touches. A good amount of Eastern North Carolina lives in the Neuse
River Basin including the city of Raleigh. They would be shooting themselves in the foot
and hurting everyone else if they wanted to create a cesspool and expect to live in its
basin. fu 2000, it was estimated 1,320,379 people and 18 counties were within the basin.
(Neuse River Basin) This decision doesn't just affect Raleigh, it affects millions of others .
Frankly, I don't know how the state could consider this proposal when they
already recognized and addressed this problem in the past. The state passed legislation
that changed the way hog farms operated in order to protect the Neuse and other rivers
just 10 years ago. They should stop the pollution and protect the river now, as they have
in the past. We need to be vigilant in protecting our natural resources from new threats
that arise as well as old ones.
No, we are not dealing with toxic waste but the last thing that we want is to be
placed in the same light as a Winona, Texas. We don't want to be looked at as people
who are not taking care of our citizens and looking out for their long-term, best interest.
The waiver also shouldn't be considered because it further neglects the growing
water crisis that we are facing over our entire state. The proposal suggests that we build a
few wells to treat the ground water around housing areas. What happens to the rest of the
water? Aren't we running out of water? Shouldn't we try to conserve all the water that
we have? Water treatment wells should go up to treat all the contaminated water because
we need all that we can get and we need to help our environment.
If anything, the current state of our global environment has taught us that we can
no longer simply use and dispose of things anywhere we please. The earth has been
stretched too far by our abuses and now, by all accounts, it is snapping back. The earth
won't simply take care of our wastefulness and recklessness, as Raleigh expects it will.
People and governments around the world are taking steps to reverse the affects of global
warming, watch what they use, what they throw away, and how they treat natural
resources. Why shouldn't the city of Raleigh?
So where can we go from here? I don't think that they have adequately explored
alternative avenues to fix the waste placement problem. We still have to look to other
options such as converting more of the waste to compost and then shipping that out
where it is needed. Perhaps we could enlist the services of private compose providing
companies. If we take away their business, then we could give them grants, or jobs
helping to distribute the compost. I am no expert, but there have to be other methods for
getting rid of waste besides costly incineration and harmful waste spread.
If we properly educate the people on the situation and the consequences of
inaction and allowing the pollution to continue, then it might be worth it to propose a tax
to help pay for some of the costs. Some of the money off existing taxes could be used to
help fund this. People would be willing to pay a small percentage more if they
understood what they were paying for and if they knew that their money would go
towards something to actually make a difference for themselves and everything around
them. Many taxes don't make sense to people and they don't see that their money goes to
anything that directly benefits them. This tax could be an exception. People like to be
involved and if we are called to protect our families and the things that we care about,
then I feel that people will not only answer the call but they will do it with enthusiasm.
We could think of other ways to cut down on the nitrate level. We could explore
using zeolite clay or other substances that trap the nitrates. Zeolite can also be recharged
and reused again. That might not be reasonable but it is an idea.
One thing we should definitely do is open our doors to suggestions. I feel
strongly about consulting other cities that were in our shoes, to ask about how they
handled their waste problem. Simply talking with someone in city government who
helped their city go through a growth pattern that we are currently experiencing and
hearing what they have to say about our situation, would provide an amazing return on
our investment. It is cheap to ask for advice or to look at someone else's model and we
would lose nothing from seeking a second opinion. Another perspective might be just
what we need to get through our waste placement problem safely, and we might also find
a way to save a little money.
Hopefully, we can find a way to bring down the cost of $80 million that Raleigh
faces but their proposal is out of the question. In their proposal, Raleigh is opting to pay
one tenth of that figure and do even less than that for its people. Raleigh is acting
irresponsible and lazy. They can't be allowed to get away with a half-hearted attempt.
Most importantly, they can't be allowed to jeopardize its citizens and the environment of
Eastern North Carolina as a whole. You can't put a price tag on the environment nor can
you stop asking your government to do the right thing. Bravo to the state for holding
Raleigh accountable. I just hope that it sticks and that we don't wind up deeper in this
crap.
Sincerely,
Erick Cipau
References:
Neuse River Basin. Retrieved Oct. 4, 2007, from
<http://www.p2pays.org/ref/37/36065.pdf>
Response to Raleigh's waste problem
Subject: Response to Raleigh's waste problem
From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 _12:33:33 -0400
To: david;[e-mail]
Good afternoon Mr. Hance,
I have attached my response to the issue concerning Raleigh 's waiver. Thank you for accepting public
comments and letting the people get involved. Please review and consider what I have written. I
hope that my opinions make sense and will hopefully be noted. P·lease, if you can, let me know how
things progress and if there is anything else I can do. Thank you so much and I hope you have a great
weekend.
Erick Cipau
[e-mail]
Email anc! !JM; fi~ally to_gether. Yo~'ve got~a chec::k_ m~t _free AOL Mail! _
Content-Type: application/msword I Response to Raleigh's waiver proposal.doc C B ontent-Encoding: ASE64
__ .;:_. ·--=----=----'---'---'-----"--'-"-----'--"----------·---·_; __ ..:..., . ;:_ -.
rn1<;1?M7 1?·4':l
Opposition to City of Raleigh Variance Request
Subject: Opposition to City of Raleigh Variance Request
From: "Thomas C. Worth, Jr."<[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:36:52 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
Mr. Hance: Please see attached letter which is also being forwarded to you by Federal Express and Hand
Delivery.
Thank you.
Thomas C. Worth, Jr.
PO Box 1799
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27602 (27601)
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
email: curmudl gtcw@ _earthlink.net __ -·:-:---::::-::·:::::::=.::-c-:: ·-:-,::--;-:=---·•,:: .cc::.=_-.:.::-_c:-·.=-:··-:-c_:::=:::c-:::-::.-c:: -.c •• ·-··---··------··--·-····· .. ·-··-··• -
! Content-Type: application/msword
Signed Hance letter 10-4-07.docl C E . b 64 : ontent-ncodmg: ase
_;.:· .. ·:. :·:; __ :·::::··:::::.:: :· .. ···=.::::::::::.:-::::. -:: .. ···.::.-···-.. : -.-.--_"7·:.:..:;::.:·:.. ·--:::·=:·: . .: .. ::·-.-:.:-:--.:···.:.::·.:-.-::! ___ .,:;;· -.=::.:·.:.::-::. ·-'' -: .. :::.:-:::::.::·.:.·.~·:-: ... :· ·: .. :: .• -.::. ::·. -::~: ·.:-:.:::.:::·.:;:;: .:· ·_-·--::·· :::-:: :··----~.:--·-:· -:·.:-.-----· .......... . ' .
10/19/2007 3 :28
THOMAS C. WORTH, JR.
Attorney
Certified Mediator
Professional Building
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Post Office Box 1799
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
October 4, 2007
Mr. David A. Hance VIA E-MAIL to
[e-mail] _ Environmental Specialist
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
AND VIA FED EX EXPRESS
AND VIA HAND DELIVERY
RE: Opposition to City of Raleigh Variance Request; Request for
Extension of the Comment Period
Public Hearing: September 5, 2007
Clients: Edge of Auburn LLC and Auburn Associates
Dear Mr. Hance:
I represent the above referenced entities which own properties in proximity to property
owned by the City of Raleigh which is the apparent source of nitrates which have migrated from
the City's property and contaminated the groundwater under adjacent properties. The properties
owned by my clients are identified by Wake County Revenue Department PIN Nos. as follows:
1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086 and 1730975189.
I was in attendance at the Public Hearing on September 5, 2007 and subsequently advised
my clients that, in my opinion, they could not proceed with their proposed development without
utilizing municipal utilities as their currently proposed utilization of wells to provide water to
their residents is far too risky under the present circumstances. My clients had no knowledge of
this contamination prospect until their representative received the Notice of Groundwater
Corrective Action Plan Under 15 NCAC 2L.0106(k) from Mr. H. Dale Crisp, P.E., Raleigh
Public Utilities Director, dated August 21, 2007 and the related undated Notice of Variance
Application and Hearing Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water
Quality from -Coleen H. Sullins, Director, Division of Water Quality. Upon receipt of these
Notices, they ceased the field studies and preparation of documents for their plan approval
submission which were well underway ( and for which they had already expended a significant
amount of money) and as indicated I now have advised them to proceed no further with their
plans pending the resolution of this matter.
As I have indicated to representatives of the City and to its counsel, my clients are
morally and legally required to disclose the prospect of tainted ground/well water up front to
developers, to their lenders and to all builders and homeowners and their respective lenders who
may develop, lend, build and live upon their properties. I have further indicated to the City
representatives, however, that the public should never be at risk because I do not believe that any
properly informed lender will provide to my clients a development loan for these properties. In
sum this situation and its resolution by the variance sought by the City of Raleigh place my
clients in a totally untenable position.
In closing, I confirm our intention to oppose vigorously the City of Raleigh's variance
request in this matter and furthermore I request in behalf of my clients that the Comment Period
be extended from and after October 5, 2007 for a minimum period of sixty (60) days to enable us
to review what I understand are extensive files in DENR's possession relative to this matter
which date back over a decade prior to the date of Mr. Crisp's aforementioned letter of August
21, 2007.
Sincerely,
~~r.
TCWjr/jwp
cc: S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G.
NCDENR-Division of Water Quality
1628 Mail Service Center
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
(via E-mail and Fed Ex Express)
RALPli C. ltEA'. ,n>21 ·ui411.• . . . l'H ~ . . ~~ l\.enny ·Place
~ale1gh, N9 · 27612
RESEARCH TRLO.,NGLE REGIO'I'-~ ·;~ .. -.... . -~
' . ' :NC 2 76 -~ L ., .
fi::.°? OCT 201::')7 PM
Mr. DAVID HANCE
DENR-DWQ PLAIWING SECTION
1617 Nail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1617
, .. ,. u. IJ ,.,,,,I, 111 I .1 •• , 1111,11,, It ,Ill 11,II ,f ,,J,f,,, I, ,II
10/03/2007 11:19 9198474702
October 2, 2007
David Hance
DENR-D WQ.-Planning Section
1117 Mall Service center
Ralelgh, NC 27899-1817
Dear Mr. Hance:
G KRILL PAGE 01
It waa wi th gre.t lntereat that I read the article In today'• N&O concemlng the
c:lty Of Ralelgh'a request for a waiver from ltate rules governing the dlspoea l of
waat~water. Arter having been warned, ftned, and ordered to f()l'ffl a clean-up
plan, Ralei g h dlaplays an arrogant ,11ck of ~oncem for the riv• and the teeldentl
downstream. I ask that this state NOT oralit the requeated waiver to the city ot
Raleigh.
It 1$ apparent that the "85 people that move to thla area every day" are havtng an
lmpaot that cannot necessalrty be cla•Hled u good for the bua men of clean
water, unlaaa, of couree, one operatN a waatewater trucking Mf'Vfce. The $80
mllllon dollar coet of lmptementlng a clean-up ope...Uc;m could be fi nanced by
Impact fees that the city council haa so far refueed to lnctMee etgnlflcantly.
Again, may I ask that the atate hold Ralelgh respoll•lble tor the health of the river
ind the Impact of an ex~dlng populatton on our wabH' source. I wtll emall this
letter as well a• rax It. Just to make sure that you racelYe It.
Suzanoe .-nd Gary Krlll
6605 Vancouvet Lane
Ralelg11J NC 27115
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."
September 1996
During Hurricane Fran and afterward between SO and 80 million gallons of raw human sewage pours
into Walnut Creek when power to a lift station on Barwell Road is Jost 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 p4w.t
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 Jeny 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 knowinglv discharged" 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 KMn04 via NPDES permit No.
NC0082376."
DWO strongly disagrees. saying "No provision in the permit allows the City to discharge
leftover chemicals used in the process of drinking water." DWO found nine separate 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 crystal 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. lS, 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.
Janua ry, 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 fmal 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 January. It would essentially authorize any bypass that occurred -including
the 42-million bypass at the end of January -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 NOV s 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 p revent the situation from
occurring" and suggests "further research should be conducted by the city in determinin g the cause of the
incident'' and preventin g the ''possibility of this event to occur a gain."
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, sp ills that are either not
reported or im properly rep orted 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 perm.it 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.
June 2 , 2002
Neuse River plant officials fmally admit to the January sludge bypass and estll!late the spill at no more than 5
million gallons.
Ernie Seneca, the DWQ spokesman, says that the city has 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 has 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 diy 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 Caiy'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 has 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.
July 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 weatherproofmg 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 Cacy, 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 staffing 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 fmes. 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.
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."
Aug. 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.
Aug. 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 strategies 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."
Aug. 23, 2002
Seven private wells near the wastewater plant are found to be unsafe due to a high nitrate content in the water.
Aug. 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."
Aug. 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.
Sep t. 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.
Sep t. 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 unpennitted 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 .
Sept. 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
Io 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 county in the state, with the e:reatest maiority of the sewage coming from Raleigh.
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 CH2MHILL 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. CH2:MIDLL also recommended a 20-year management plan.
In the final chapter of the CH2MHil,L 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 Gamer, 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 ~or 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 fixing 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 f"mes 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
The 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 frxing 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 S
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 e;h 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 repair at the wastewater plant for
problems fou nd during the past year. Most of the problems contributing to these projected increases could
have been avoided.
July 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 three 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 st.a.ff with A licenses and those
seven also hold the highest licenses, Grade N, 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. Toe state also wants to test the water released at the water treatment plant for metals
and other contaminants.
16
Aug. 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 bas refused to investigate allegations linking Crisp and other upper utility managers to
fraudulent activities. Naujciks recommended a federal criminal investigation.
Aug.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"
• July 12, 2002, Hall, "Plant marked by varied past''
• July 13, 2002, Hall, "Larger sludge spill acknowledged"
• July 16, 2002, HalJ, "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 fmd 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. 2 7, 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 incre.ase 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 fmed 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
• PermitWQ0001730
• Dec. 15, 1997
• Feb. 5, 1998
• Feb. 6, 1998
• May 14, 1998
• Permit NC002903
• May 27, 1998
• File 02-010, 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 fo r
Profile of a Pollute r
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 has
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 i,n crisis mode. We believe the entire
utility department 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
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 effluent They would
still be beyond the state requirement and could justify that they are reducing nitrates by
overcompensating for it in their effluent
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
effluent. 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
cootaminated 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.
De~~ }\\AtLio\Ls·
\) p 9eJ1,,--. (}J Q..JM,, ~l J lQ_\{_p_e_pe .t L
N .e. vS l-\<lu e...1--bu,.J~ A---ccDN
Clayton, North Carolina
August, 28, 2997
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Sir:
These comments are in reference to the letter titled 'NOTICE OF
VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURSES DEVISION OF WATER
QUALITY".
When the city of Raleigh applied for and accepted a perm.it to operate
the Neuse river wastewater treatment plant, they also accepted the rules and
regulations that govern such a permit. For whatever reason, nitrate
contamination bas been allowed to get outside the boundary of the treatment
plant State ground water rules in 15ANCA2L and permit conditions
specifically prohibit natural attenuation as a cleanup method.
The fact that the City of Raleigh hired consultants to come up with
a justification for using natural attenuation for the cleanup should carry no
weight. Since the City of Raleigh is clearly the only beneficiary of this
justification, and since the justification was generated by employees of the
City it is most certainly a conflict of interest.
Operators of the wastewater treatment plant have created a condition
that has endangered both the human and environmental health of southeastern
Wake county. Instead of trying to find ways around the regulations that exist,
a concerted effort should be made to cleanup the contamination using the
methods prescn"bed by existing regulations.
At the meeting to be held on September 5, J would like to have the
following questions answered:
1. How long has the contamination condition existed?
2. Why hasn't a full public disclosure been made?
3. Why is this variance application even being considered?
4. Will there be a fine levied against the city for creating
this condition?
The city of Raleigh needs to face up to their responsibility and
cleanup the mess that they created. This should be done under the
Regulations that govern the operating permit, and should be started
immediately.
d,incerely~: ._ . ·--..,_ . 'i
,. '' ··,.,,; -. . \ ( ~ t/,
/' v~UJ.-l' / t. v\!!!f ~:::.£-.--r;
Philliti N. Douglas v
413 Hardwood Ridge Court
Clayton ,NC 27520
Notice of variance memo
l of I
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
2530 Shotwell Road
Clayton, NC 27520
919-553-7037
[e-mail]
www.Ti ppettsCh~l°p_el.com ---··----·'-'-----··-······· .. _
1
_....... .. . .. ·-·· ....... .
i I Content-Type: application/pdf
j 082707 TC water memo.pdf1 .
L___ __ _ _ ~-.. _ .... 1 _ Conte~t-Encod1~g: ~as~~4
8/27/2007 4:39 F
Re: Second Comment---Comment deadline
1 of 1
Subject: Re: Second Comment---Cornment deadline
From: David Hance <l)[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:01:58 -0500
To: Ryke Longest <[e-mail]>
The comment deadline was midnight on November 5, 2007 . Since this was sent before
midnight -it is within the comment period and will be included in the hearing
record.
david hance
733-5083 x. 587
*********************************************************************************
Ryke Longest wrote:
David,
The attached is only applicable to any comments filed after 5:00 p.m. today.
Thanks,
Ryke
Ryke Longest
Director & Sr. Lecturing Fellow
Environmental Law and Policy Clinic
Duke University School of Law
P.O. Box 90360
Durham, NC 27708-0360
(919) 613-72 07 (phone)
( 919 ) 613 - 7 2 6 2 ( fax)
Email: [e-mail]
11/6/2007 11 :02 AM
seeks to have its permitted land application site to be treated as a non-permitted site.4 Therefore,
the Environmental Management Commission ("EMC") should examine, at a minimum, whether
its would be approvable if it were eligible under the rules to propose such a plan. Specifically,
the EMC should examine whether Raleigh seeks to be relieved of the expense to reasonably
assure the protection of public health from existing and foreseeable receptors.
According to the groundwater rules, operators of non-pennitted sites may request
approval of a corrective action plan ("CAP") based on natural processes of degradation and
attenuation of contaminants. 5 The City's request for variance is premised on a proposed CAP
based on these natural processes. 6 There are several showings an applicant for a natural
attenuation CAP. The City has failed to make the required showings as described below:
• All sources of contamination from the site for which the variance is sought have been
removed or controlled. 7
The City of Raleigh intends to continue to use it land application fields. Therefore, the
source of contamination for which the variance is sought will neither have been removed nor
controlled to any greater extent than it has been previously. The City of Raleigh has a history
of noncompliance concerning exceedances in the application of plant-available nitrogen.
Thus, Raleigh has failed to show that all sources of contamination have been removed or
controlled.
• The contaminant has the capacity to degrade or attenuate under the site-specific conditions. 8
Scenarios modeled by the City of Raleigh's consultants have not taken in account Auburn's
planned 150,000 gpd well system. The uncertainties that the City's consultants have not
been able to account for include (i) the location of fractures that could carry contaminated
groundwater, that has had little opportunity for degradation or attenuation, directly to the
Auburn community water supply wells, (ii) the effect of the mafic dikes on the transport of
contaminated groundwater vertically to the fractured bedrock, and (iii) the effect of the
pumping of the Auburn community well system on groundwater flow. Thus, Raleigh has not
shown that the nitrates will degrade or attenuate under predictable site-specific conditions.
According to the City's consultants, groundwater movement in bedrock is restricted to
4 See 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)
5 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1).
6 ENSR International, Corrective Action Plan --City of Ralei eh . Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant. Ralei e h
North Carolina. (February 2005), p. 2-11. (the CAP was revised in December 2005, but the revision did not alter the
proposal for monitoring natural attenuation).
7 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(1).
8 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(2).
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
Page 2 of 5
of the request for variance to assess the effects that variance could have on its planned mixed use
development, and we have discovered the technical questions and issues of the groundwater to
be many and significant.
Page 5 of 5
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
HuNroN& WILLIAMS
November 5, 2007
By Hand
Mr. David Hance
Planning Section
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Room 625AA, Archdale Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
HUNTON & WILLIA."1S LLP
POST OFFICE BOX 109
RALEIGH , NORTH CAROLINA 27602
TEL 919 • 899 • 3000
FAX 919 • 899 • 3209
CRAJG A . BROMBY
DIRECT DIAL: 9!9-899-3032
EMAIL : [e-mail]
FILE NO: 99999 .000309
Re: Comments on Variance Request by City of Raleigh and Request for Extension of
Comment Period
Dear Mr. Hance:
Enclosed please find comments submitted by Edge of Auburn, LLC, on the request for
variance by the City of Raleigh. Edge of Auburn appreciates this opportunity to submit
comments on this proposed variance to the regulatory corrective action requirements at 15A
NCAC 2L .0106. Edge of Auburn, LLC, owns property to the west southwest of the land
application fields operated by the City of Raleigh, and is adjacent to a parcel that has
reportedly been contaminated by nitrates in excess of groundwater standards.
Edge of Auburn's interest pertains to a proposed mixed use development that it plans and for
which it has recently submitted plans to Wake County. Because neither the City of Raleigh nor
the City of Garner would agree to extend public water supply to this development, Edge of
Auburn will have to rely on a system of on-site wells for its community water supply. The
City of Raleigh was aware of the potential for this community water supply system before it
filed its ap~1ication for variance.
The wells in the Edge of Auburn's community water supply system will pump at a
significantly higher rate than any other well (or collection of wells) examined by Raleigh's
consultants, but the effect of the wells was not investigated or accounted for in any report
submitted by Raleigh or its consultants to the Aquifer Protection Section of the Division of
Water Quality.
liuNroN&·
WilllAMS
Mr. David Hance
November 5, 2007
Page2
Edge of Auburn is in the process of retaining an expert hydrogeologist to review the Raleigh
submittal. Since fewer than 60 days have elapsed since Edge of Auburn was notified of the
request for variance, we do not believe it is unreasonable to extend the comment period for an
additional 60 days.
Sincerely yours,
~ ,0, /2---(5
Craig A. Bromby
CAB/psb
cc: Steve Smith
Comments of Edge of Auburn, LLC
Request for Variance by City of Raleigh, NC
November 5, 2007
Edge of Auburn, LLC, ("Auburn") is a development company that owns a tract of land to
the southeast of the Raleigh land application site at which elevated nitrate levels have been
detected. For the reasons set forth below, Auburn objects to the requested variance unless the
City of Raleigh provides access to a public water supply system to all properties adjacent to a
property with off-site contamination, including that owned by Auburn.
Auburn has recently submitted to W ak:e County plans to develop a mixed use
development on this tract, with over 350 homes in the first phase. The Auburn development will
require its own source of water supply because, as the City of Raleigh is aware, the City of
Gamer has no plans to extend public water service to that area in the foreseeable future.1
To address its need for a community water supply for a mixed use development with over
350 homes in the first phase, Auburn plans to install supply wells with a withdrawal capacity of
over 150,000 gpd. The well system is planned within a half-mile of the Raleigh land application
site. Due to topography and other constraints, the wells for the community water supply are
planned to be located at the eastern property line of the Auburn property. The eastern boundary
line is the area closest to the Raleigh land application sites and to the contaminated groundwater.
Topographically, the well system appears to be upgradient of the land application sites.
However, the wells will probably have to be installed in bedrock to produce a sufficient yield to
supply a sufficient supply of water to the community.
In order to be eligible for a variance, the City of Raleigh must show that compliance with
the rules would effect a financial hardship, and that public health and safety will be protected
under the alternative offered under the variance. 2 Raleigh has proposed a corrective action plan
based on natural processes of degradation and attenuation of contaminants.3 In essence, Raleigh
1 Auburn's plans have been complete for a considerable time, but submittal to Wake County was delayed until
recently pending discussions with the cities of Raleigh and Garner pertaining to the availability of municipal water.
Those discussions with Raleigh and Garner began in 2003, concluding unsuccessfully in 2007. As it became
apparent that municipal water would not be extended to Auburn's property in a reasonable time frame, Auburn
revised its plans to include a community water system which would use on-site wells as a source of potable water.
Auburn received a notice of the application for variance in September, 2007, well after the City of Raleigh was
aware of its need to proceed with a private community water supply.
2 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c). Auburn's comments do not address whether the City has provided information
sufficiently persuasive to show financial hardship and economic unreasonableness of the technology required to
comply with the requirements of the rule.
3 City of Raleigh, NC, Corrective Action Variance A pp lication (December 1, 2005), p. 1
Page 1 of 5
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
seeks to have its permitted land application site to be treated as a non-permitted site.4 Therefore,
the Environmental Management Commission ("EMC") should examine, at a minimum, whether
its would be approvable if it were eligible under the rules to propose such a plan. Specifically,
the EMC should examine whether Raleigh seeks to be relieved of the expense to reasonably
assure the protection of public health from existing and foreseeable receptors.
According to the groundwater rules, operators of non-permitted sites may request
approval of a corrective action plan ("CAP") based on natural processes of degradation and
attenuation of contaminants.5 The City's request for variance is premised on a proposed CAP
based on these natural processes.6 There are several showings an applicant for a natural
attenuation CAP. The City has failed to make the required showings as described below:
• All sources of contamination from the site for which the variance is sought have been
removed or controlled. 7
The City of Raleigh intends to continue to use it land application fields. Therefore, the
source of contamination for which the variance is sought will neither have been removed nor
controlled to any greater extent than it has been previously. The City of Raleigh has a history
of noncompliance concerning exceedances in the application of plant-available nitrogen.
Thus, Raleigh has failed to show that all sources of contamination have been removed or
controlled.
• The contaminant has the capacity to degrade or attenuate under the site-specific conditions. 8
Scenarios modeled by the City of Raleigh's consultants have not taken in account Auburn's
planned 150,000 gpd well system. The uncertainties that the City's consultants have not
been able to account for include (i) the location of fractures that could carry contaminated
groundwater, that has had little opportunity for degradation or attenuation, directly to the
Auburn community water supply wells, (ii) the effect of the mafic dikes on the transport of
contaminated groundwater vertically to the fractured bedrock, and (iii) the effect of the
pumping of the Auburn community well system on groundwater flow. Thus, Raleigh has not
shown that the nitrates will degrade or attenuate under predictable site-specific conditions.
According to the City's consultants, groundwater movement in bedrock is restricted to
4 See 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)
5 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1).
6 ENSR International, Corrective Action Plan --City ofRalei2h . Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant. Ralei 2h
North Carolina, (February 2005), p. 2-11. (the CAP was revised in December 2005, but the revision did not alter the
proposal for monitoring natural attenuation).
7 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(1).
8 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(2).
99999.000~09 RALEIGH 323852v3
Page 2 of 5
intersecting sets of water bearing fractures and joints. 9 Bedrock in the area of the land
application sites "typically consists of a granitic rock type with high degree of fractures near
the interface of [partially weathered rock] and bedrock."10 Additionally, the consultants
reported that that rock formations known as mafic dikes occurred in the area.11 . The location
of all the dikes predicted to occur in the area could not be confirmed, and the consultants
reported that "the hydraulic influence of the dikes is difficult to fully characterize."12
However, the dikes apparently create fracture zones in the bedrock in which they are
embedded.13
• The time and direction of contaminant travel can be predicted with reasonable certainty.14
The 150,000 gpd well system will draw ,water from water-bearing fractures in the bedrock.
When the wells are producing, the water table is depressed in response to pumping. This
depression is characterized as a "cone of depression." At a daily withdrawal of 150,000 gpd,
the wells would tend to reverse the gradient of groundwater for a substantial distance from
the wellhead. The consequence could be that contamination which under present
circumstances would tend to flow in an easterly direction, could be pulled instead in a
westerly direction and captured within the cone of depression of the Auburn water supply
well system. Similarly, contaminated groundwater already in a saturated fracture zone could
move toward the wells. This depressive effect is true of all pumping wells, but the 40
existing wells accounted for in the consultants' report served individual residences, with the
exception of one community water supply well serving six residences. All of these wells
together would have a much lower production rate than the Auburn well system and thus
have a much less significant cone of depressio. Even collectively, the combined production
is considerably less than the production planned for the Auburn wells, plus the effect of even
all wells pumping at maximum capacity would be widely dispersed and thus not have the
drawing power of the Auburn wells. Ironically, the Auburn wells might function very
similarly to an extraction-type corrective action system of the type the City seeks to avoid
under the requested variance.
9 ENSR International, Su pp lemental Site Assessment Re port -Cit y of Ralei gh Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant, Ralei e.h . North Carolina (September 2003), p. 2-3 (hereinafter cited as "SSA Report").
10 SSA Report at p.2-2.
11 ENSR Consulting and Engineering, (NC) Inc .. Groundwater Flow Model Re port . City of Ralei gh Neuse River
Waste Water Treatment Plant. Ralei gh. North Carolina (September 2003), p.2-6 (hereinafter cited as "GFM
Report").
12 GFM Report, p. 2-6.
13 GFM Report, p. 2-6.
14 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(3).
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
Page 3 of 5
• Contaminant migration will not result in any violation of applicable groundwater standards at
any existing or foreseeable receptor.15
Under the facts pertinent to this variance request, the community water supply wells planned
by Auburn are a foreseeable receptor of contaminants, because the City was aware of
Auburn's requests for municipal water supply and the denial by the. City of Gamer of that
request. Studies done on behalf of The City of Raleigh have not accounted for the potential
for contaminants migration to community water supply wells on Auburn property, and the
nature of the geology and groundwater flow are such that contaminants may flow to the
Auburn community water supply wells without sufficiently degrading or attenuating.
• Contaminants will not migrate onto adjacent properties or, in the absence of written consent
by the owners to the variance request, such adjacent properties are served by an existing
public water supply system. 16
Raleigh acknowledges that contaminants have migrated and will continue to migrate onto
adjacent properties. They have not accounted for the hydrogeologic effect of Auburn's
150,000 gpd community water system withdrawal. Raleigh has closed several wells on
adjacent and nearby properties and provided municipal water. A source of public water
supply should also be provided to the Auburn mixed use development where a much larger
population would be put at risk.
The Auburn well system could be accounted for in a hydrogeologic model to determine
the potential for migration of contaminated groundwater in response to the pressure exerted by
the high-production well system. That investigation would probably also require the installation
of monitoring additional wells into the bedrock where the Auburn well system will ultimately
have to find its source of water, and use of methods to determine the location of fractures and the
influence of mafic dikes on the vertical movement of contaminated groundwater to the bedrock.
The EMC should require as a prerequisite to a variance that the City of Raleigh provide
municipal water to the Auburn mixed use development. Failing that, the EMC must require the
City of Raleigh to conduct a detailed study which accounts for the community well system of the
Auburn mixed use development which properly assesses contaminant migration to foreseeable
receptors in accordance with the groundwater rules.
For these reasons, Auburn respectfully requests that the variance request be rejected for
the failure by the City of Raleigh to meet its burden of making the showings required at 15A
NCAC 2L .0113 and 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1). In addition, Auburn respectfully requests that the
comment period for the variance request be extended for an additional 60 days in order to allow
Auburn to engage the services of an expert hyrdogeologist to evaluate this request and the
information provided in support of the request. Auburn has had less than 60 days since learning
15 ISA NCAC 2L .0106(1)(4).
16 ISA NCAC 2L .0106(1➔(5).
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
Page 4 of 5
of the request for variance to assess the effects that variance could have on its planned mixed use
development, and we have discovered the technical questions and issues of the groundwater to
be many and significant.
Page 5 of 5
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
HUNTON& WILLIAMS
November 5, 2007
By Hand
Mr. David Hance
Planning Section
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Room 625AA, Archdale Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
POST OFFICE BOX 109
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
TEL 919 • 899 • 3000
FAX 919 • 899 • 3209
CRAIG A. BROMBY
DIRECT DIAL: 919-899-3032
EMAIL: [e-mail]
FILE NO: 99999.000309
Re: Comments on Variance Request by City of Raleigh and Request for Extension of
Comment Period
Dear Mr. Hance:
Enclosed please find comments submitted by Edge of Auburn, LLC, on the request for
variance by the City of Raleigh. Edge of Auburn appreciates this opportunity to submit
comments on this proposed variance to the regulatory corrective action requirements at 15A
NCAC 2L .0106. Edge of Auburn, LLC, owns property to the west southwest of the land
application fields operated by the City of Raleigh, and is adjacent to a parcel that has
reportedly been contaminated by nitrates in excess of groundwater standards.
Edge of Auburn's interest pertains to a proposed mixed use development that it plans and for
which it has recently submitted plans to Wake County. Because neither the City of Raleigh nor
the City of Gamer would agree to extend public water supply to this development, Edge of
Auburn will have to rely on a system of on-site wells for its community water supply. The
City of Raleigh was aware of the potential for this community water supply system before it
filed its application for variance.
The wells in the Edge of Auburn's community water supply system will pump at a
significantly higher rate than any other well (or collection of wells) examined by Raleigh's
consultants, but the effect of the wells was not investigated or accounted for in any report
submitted by Raleigh or its consultants to the Aquifer Protection Section of the Division of
Water Quality.
'Gl\OK BflJI ,G BRl' S' 1.S CH IU OrTf ll ·o ·v11 LI LO''DO"I
LOS ANGELES LT ~llAMI \\ 't'ORK ORFOLK RAU 1011 INC,APf lRf A HIN<i TO
www hunton.c m
HUNTON&
WILLIAMS
Mr. David Hance
November 5, 2007
Page 2
Edge of Auburn is in the process of retaining an expert hydrogeologist to review the Raleigh
submittal. Since fewer than 60 days have elapsed since Edge of Auburn was notified of the
request for variance, we do not believe it is unreasonable to extend the comment period for an
additional 60 days.
Sincerely yours,
C-j (}, !Z-25
Craig A. Bromby
CAB/psb
cc: Steve Smith
Comments of Edge of Auburn, LLC
Request for Variance by City of Raleigh, NC
November 5, 2007
Edge of Auburn, LLC, ("Auburn") is a development company that owns a tract of land to
the southeast of the Raleigh land application site at which elevated nitrate levels have been
detected. For the reasons set forth below, Auburn objects to the requested variance unless the
City of Raleigh provides access to a public water supply system to all properties adjacent to a
property with off-site contamination, including that owned by Auburn.
Auburn has recently submitted to Wake County plans to develop a mixed use
development on this tract, with over 350 homes in the first phase. The Auburn development will
require its own source of water supply because, as the City of Raleigh is aware, the City of
Gamer has no plans to extend public water service to that area in the foreseeable future.1
To address its need for a community water supply for a mixed use development with over
350 homes in the first phase, Auburn plans to install supply wells with a withdrawal capacity of
over 150,000 gpd. The well system is planned within a half-mile of the Raleigh land application
site. Due to topography and other constraints, the wells for the community water supply are
planned to be located at the eastern property line of the Auburn property. The eastern boundary
line is the area closest to the Raleigh land application sites and to the contaminated groundwater.
Topographically, the well system appears to be upgradient of the land application sites.
However, the wells will probably have to be installed in bedrock to produce a sufficient yield to
supply a sufficient supply of water to the community.
In order to be eligible for a variance, the City of Raleigh must show that compliance with
the rules would effect a financial hardship, and that public health and safety will be protected
under the alternative offered under the variance. 2 Raleigh has proposed a corrective action plan
based on natural processes of degradation and attenuation of contaminants. 3 In essence, Raleigh
1 Auburn's plans have been complete for a considerable time, but submittal to Wake County was delayed until
recently pending discussions with the cities of Raleigh and Garner pertaining to the availability of municipal water.
Those discussions with Raleigh and Garner began in 2003, concluding unsuccessfully in 2007. As it became
apparent that municipal water would not be extended to Auburn's property in a reasonable time frame, Auburn
revised its plans to include a community water system which would use on-site wells as a source of potable water.
Auburn received a notice of the application for variance in September, 2007, well after the City of Raleigh was
aware of its need to proceed with a private community water supply.
2 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c). Auburn's comments do not address whether the City has provided information
sufficiently persuasive to show financial hardship and economic unreasonableness of the technology required to
comply with the requirements of the rule.
3 City of Raleigh, NC, Corrective Action Variance A pplication (December 1, 2005), p. 1
Page 1 of 5
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
seeks to have its permitted land application site to be treated as a non-permitted site.4 Therefore,
the Environmental Management Commission ("EMC") should examine, at a minimum, whether
its would be approvable if it were eligible under the rules to propose such a plan. Specifically,
the EMC should examine whether Raleigh seeks to be relieved of the expense to reasonably
assure the protection of public health from existing and foreseeable receptors.
According to the groundwater rules, operators of non-permitted sites may request
approval of a corrective action plan ("CAP") based on natural processes of degradation and
attenuation of contaminants.5 The City's request for variance is premised on a proposed CAP
based on these natural processes. 6 There are several showings an applicant for a natural
attenuation CAP. The City has failed to make the required showings as described below:
• All sources of contamination from the site for which the variance is sought have been
removed or controlled.7
The City of Raleigh intends to continue to use it land application fields. Therefore, the
source of contamination for which the variance is sought will neither have been removed nor
controlled to any greater extent than it has been previously. The City of Raleigh has a history
of noncompliance concerning exceedances in the application of plant-available nitrogen.
Thus, Raleigh has failed to show that all sources of contamination have been removed or
controlled.
• The contaminant has the capacity to degrade or attenuate under the site-specific conditions. 8
Scenarios modeled by the City of Raleigh's consultants have not taken in account Auburn's
planned 150,000 gpd well system. The uncertainties that the City's consultants have not
been able to account for include (i) the location of fractures that could carry contaminated
groundwater, that has had little opportunity for degradation or attenuation, directly to the
Auburn community water supply wells, (ii) the effect of the mafic dikes on the transport of
contaminated groundwater vertically to the fractured bedrock, and (iii) the effect of the
pumping of the Auburn community well system on groundwater flow. Thus, Raleigh has not
shown that the nitrates will degrade or attenuate under predictable site-specific conditions.
According to the City's consultants, groundwater movement in bedrock is restricted to
4 See 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)
5 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1).
6 ENSR International, Corrective Action Plan --City of Ralei gh . Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant. Ralei gh
North Carolina, (February 2005), p. 2-11. (the CAP was revised in December 2005, but the revision did not alter the
proposal for monitoring natural attenuation).
7 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(1).
8 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(2).
Page 2 of 5
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
intersecting sets of water bearing fractures and joints.9 Bedrock in the area of the land
application sites "typically consists of a granitic rock type with high degree of fractures near
the interface of [partially weathered rock] and bedrock."10 Additionally, the consultants
reported that that rock formations known as mafic dikes occurred in the area. 11 • The location
of all the dikes predicted to occur in the area could not be confirmed, and the consultants
reported that "the hydraulic influence of the dikes is difficult to fully characterize."12
However, the dikes apparently create fracture zones in the bedrock in which they are
embedded. 13
• The time and direction of contaminant travel can be predicted with reasonable certainty.14
The 150,000 gpd well system will draw water from water-bearing fractures in the bedrock.
When the wells are producing, the water table is depressed in response to pumping. This
depression is characterized as a "cone of depression." At a daily withdrawal of 150,000 gpd,
the wells would tend to reverse the gradient of groundwater for a substantial distance from
the wellhead. The consequence could be that contamination which under present
circumstances would tend to flow in an easterly direction, could be pulled instead in a
westerly direction and captured within the cone of depression of the Auburn water supply
well system. Similarly, contaminated groundwater already in a saturated fracture zone could
move toward the wells. This depressive effect is true of all pumping wells, but the 40
existing wells accounted for in the consultants' report served individual residences, with the
exception of one community water supply well serving six residences. All of these wells
together would have a much lower production rate than the Auburn well system and thus
have a much less significant cone of depressio. Even collectively, the combined production
is considerably less than the production planned for the Auburn wells, plus the effect of even
all wells pumping at maximum capacity would be widely dispersed and thus not have the
drawing power of the Auburn wells. Ironically, the Auburn wells might function very
similarly to an extraction-type corrective action system of the type the City seeks to avoid
under the requested variance.
9 ENSR International, Supplemental Site Assessment Report -City of Raleigh Neuse River Waste Water Treatment
Plant. Raleigh. North Carolina (September 2003), p. 2-3 (hereinafter cited as "SSA Report").
10 SSA Report at p.2-2.
11 ENSR Consulting and Engineering, (NC) Inc .. Groundwater Flow Model Report, City of Ralei!ili Neuse River
Waste Water Treatment Plant. Ralei!!h, North Carolina (September 2003), p.2-6 (hereinafter cited as "GFM
Report").
12 GFM Report, p. 2-6.
13 GFM Report, p. 2-6.
14 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(3).
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
Page 3 of 5
• Contaminant migration will not result in any violation of applicable groundwater standards at
any existing or foreseeable receptor. 15
Under the facts pertinent to this variance request, the community water supply wells planned
by Auburn are a foreseeable receptor of contaminants, because the City was aware of
Auburn's requests for municipal water supply and the denial by the City of Garner of that
request. Studies done on behalf of The City of Raleigh have not accounted for the potential
for contaminants migration to community water supply wells on Auburn property, and the
nature of the geology and groundwater flow are such that contaminants may flow to the
Auburn community water supply wells without sufficiently degrading or attenuating.
• Contaminants will not migrate onto adjacent properties or, in the absence of written consent
by the owners to the variance request, such adjacent properties are served by an existing
public water supply system.16
Raleigh acknowledges that contaminants have migrated and will continue to migrate onto
adjacent properties. They have not accounted for the hydrogeologic effect of Auburn's
150,000 gpd community water system withdrawal. Raleigh has closed several wells on
adjacent and nearby properties and provided municipal water. A source of public water
supply should also be provided to the Auburn mixed use development where a much larger
population would be put at risk.
The Auburn well system could be accounted for in a hydrogeologic model to determine
the potential for migration of contaminated groundwater in response to the pressure exerted by
the high-production well system. That investigation would probably also require the installation
of monitoring additional wells into the bedrock where the Auburn well system will ultimately
have to find its source of water, and use of methods to determine the location of fractures and the
influence of mafic dikes on the vertical movement of contaminated groundwater to the bedrock.
The EMC should require as a prerequisite to a variance that the City of Raleigh provide
municipal water to the Auburn mixed use development. Failing that, the EMC must require the
City of Raleigh to conduct a detailed study which accounts for the community well system of the
Auburn mixed use development which properly assesses contaminant migration to foreseeable
receptors in accordance with the groundwater rules.
For these reasons, Auburn respectfully requests that the variance request be rejected for
the failure by the City of Raleigh to meet its burden of making the showings required at 15A
NCAC 2L .0113 and 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1). In addition, Auburn respectfully requests that the
comment period for the variance request be extended for an additional 60 days in order to allow
Auburn to engage the services of an expert hyrdogeologist to evaluate this request and the
information provided in support of the request. Auburn has had less than 60 days since learning
15 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(4).
16 15A NCAC 2L .0106(1)(5).
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
Page 4 of 5
of the request for variance to assess the effects that variance could have on its planned mixed use
development, and we have discovered the technical questions and issues of the groundwater to
be many and significant.
Page 5 of 5
99999.000309 RALEIGH 323852v3
3
J©ilf Yf,Th) • r.... .• j ,!:,l,. lf\\. '\ ~~ l!?l
OOT 3 J/Lj -1 2007 (!.t{
ALDERMEN
JULIUS C . PARHAM, JR.
ROBERT G . RAYNOR, JR.
MACK L. "MAX" FREEZE
JOSEPH E. MATTINGLY, JR.
BARBARA LEE
TOM BAYLISS , Ill
MAYOR
WALTER 8. HARTMAN, JR.
CITY MANAGER
VICKIE H. JOHNSON
CITY CLERK DANAE. OUTLAW
1filqrtt illtnturits of , nrtq illarnl ina ,rtritag.e
FOUNDED1710
Phone: [phone] P.O. Box 1129
Mr. David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Hance:
~efu ~em, ~QI 28563-1129
October 23, 2007
MARY B. MURAGLIA
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
It has come to our attention that the City of Raleigh has made a request for a
variance from its permit to allow an area contaminated by permit violation to correct
itself naturally. While we sympathize with Raleigh's predicament, our position is that
something must be done to eliminate this problem in a way that provides maximum
benefits to the Neuse River.
In New Bern, we have spent considerable' resources in creating methods for
eliminating or diminishing discharge of nitrogen. We have made it a policy that we don't
participate in nutrient trading at considerable potential city expense. We have also
removed three discharges of small inefficient package systems by allowing them to use
our system even though they were not in New Bern proper. Additionally, we have
developed an old quarry in New Bern as a non-point discharge although we didn't need
to for purposes of our permit.
We would hate to think that the reductions we have made would be marginalized
by discharges into the river that shouldn't have occurred under their permit. It is our
hope that your department and Raleigh can work together to eliminate this discharge in
the least expensive way possible to Raleigh's rate payers with emphasis on the former.
cc: Board of Aldermen
Neuse River Foundation
Mayor Charles Meeker
Sincerely,
/,)~~ Lr /o f::: A. Bayliss, III
Mayor
~tri&ing for ~xrtUtntt WATER QUAUTY
PLANNING BRANCH
Board of Commissioners
lohnnie Sampson, Jr., Chairman
Jason R. Jones, Vice Chairman
Lee Kyle Allen
(raben (ountp Administration Building
406 Craven Street
New Bern, NC 28560
Fax [phone]
[e-mail] Theron McCabe
Perry L. Morris
M. Renee Sisk
Steve Tyson
Administrative Staff
Harold Blizzard, County Managl"r
Kay H. Moser, Assistant Manager
Gwendolyn M. Bryan, Clerk to the Board
Rick Hemphill, Finance Officer
loan Harrell, Human Resources Director
Mr. David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Hance:
October 23, 2007
Commissioners 252-636-6601
Manager 252-636-6600
Finance 252-636-6603
Human Resources 252-636-6602
On behalf of the Craven County Board of Commissioners, and the citizens of Craven
County I am writing to oppose the variance application for cleanup at the City of Raleigh
Public Utility Department-Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (Permit Number
WQ000l 730). It is feared that relieving the City of Raleigh from its responsibility to
clean up contamination from land-applied sludge may result in the production of
significant amounts of nitrogen which would undoubtedly make its way down the Neuse,
to the detriment of Raleigh's down river neighbors in the lower Neuse communities.
All communities along the Neuse River share in its benefits, and should share in its
preservation as well. We ask that the DWQ consider North Carolina's citizens here at the
"end of the line" in making this crucial decision.
Sincerely, O -" _ ~~~~
g ;irman Johnnie Sampson, Jr .
Craven County Board of Commissioners
~orfly Qlarnlina ~~neral ~~mhllJ
~ous.e of ~pr.es.entati&.es
~tat.e 1[.egislatfu.e ~uilmns
~al.eisl-r 276.01-1.096
REPRESENTATIVE ALICE GRAHAM UNDERHILL
3RD DISTRICT
OFFICE ADDRESS: 16 W. JONES STREET, ROOM I 206
RALEIGH, NC 27601·1096
TELEPHONE: (9 I 9) 733·5853
(9 I 9) 833-0606 FAX
EMAIL: [e-mail]
HOME ADDRESS: 3910 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
NEW BERN, NC 28562
PHONE: (252) 633·2270
[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, VICl!:·CHAIR
HOMELAND SECURITY, MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
JUDICIARY DI
TRANSPORTATION
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
resources to recuperate may reach far into the future.
Beyond the damage done to the water quality and other natural resources will be the economic impact to the
people of Eastern North Caroiina. The health oftheNeuse River has a significant impact on jobs and tile
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 further down river is not an acceptable choice.
Yours truly,
~4-~~
Rep . Alice G . Underhill
AGU/riilp ..
CC: ' Charles Meeker, Mayor of Raleigh
David McCracken, President of Neuse River Foundation
lm t'N)'.13 ff''i7f:'::-,, It--,, .. :·' ,,,., ·.·· .. , ...,;;J ::.,:..-,.,. ~ .... ·.' ·;· -;·•·: '
•
22 2007
~nrt4 · illa:rolina-®emml J\,ss£mhl1J
· · -~.ouse .of ~pn,sentafilies
REiPRESENTATIVE ALICE G. __ UNDERHILL
, _--~gislatilre ~m,_llritt£_
-·~*iglf, ~en: 27601-1096
0
Mr. David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 276-99-1617
Re: City of Raleigh Variance-YOur Comments to this
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Variance-YOur Comments to this
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:40:51 -0400
To: [e-mail]
I cannot find it Ralph.
Question: Can you email it to me as an attachment?
david hance
733-5083 X 587
[e-mail] wrote:
David, the letter I sent you is the one Harry was referring to. Let me know if you did not receive it.
1 of 1
Ralph
--------------Original message from David Hance <[e-mail]>: --------------
> Ralph,
>
> I want to make sure I got this letter that is referred to in Harry's
> letter. Could email that to me?
>
> You know the comment period was extended to November 5, 2007.
>
> David Hance
> DWQ-Planning
> 733-5083 X. 587
>
10/16/2007 1 :41 PM
Re: CORPUD Variance Requests: more dailies of e-Comments and I ...
1 of 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance Requests: more dailies of e-Comments and I am now caught up!
From: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:55:37 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>, Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Hi David,
Thanks again for compiling these. I noticed that there were a couple of emails in
this most recent group that referenced 'attached comments.' In particular, a 10/8
email from Bill Holman and a 10/5 email from Erick Cipau made reference to
attachments that seem to be there as file names within your summary. Have you
downloaded those attachments and can you share them with us? Thanks,
Andrew
David Hance wrote:
_Hello Hearing Officers, RRO staff, and management,_
Here attached in word are what we have as of Friday, October 12, 2007 in the way
of e-Comments to the variance.
It seems they slacked off a bit after the announcement of the extension of the
comment period.
David Hance
DWQ -Planning Section
919-733-5083 X. 587
Andrew Pitner, P. G. -Andrew. Pi tner@ncmail .n e-.:
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]
10/15/2007 11:44 AM
Re: [Fwd: request & comment] ---see this
1 of2
Subject: Re: [Fwd: request & comment] ---see this
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09: 17 :00 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]> .
CC: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>
I had not until now. Mr. Miller lives about 4-5 houses from my own and is not at risk from the
sprayfields. His home is located 3/4 to 1 mile from the nearest fields and is separated by several
drainage divides. He, like me, is at greater risk from nitrate impacts assoc. with the nearby golf course
than the sprayfields.
I am not sure how we need to respond to these types of comments. Do we merely consider the
comments and make a decision and recommendation to the hearing officers (which is what we have been
doing)? Do we use this as an opportunity to educate people and attempt to address their concerns?
Should we attempt to do both? Thoughts from others ......... .
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
I cannot remember ifl forwarded you this one. They are making a request for public water.
Did you see this?
davidhance
733-5083 X. 587
Subject:
request & comment
From: "matthew miller" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:34:05 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
To: <david.hance@ ncmail.net>
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
fax [phone]
Raleigh should be required to clean up now and pay the fine. They would not have done anything
unless they were caught. They purpose of the fine is to be proactive in preventing future
"accidents". Without a fine and cleanup some underhanded political dealings seem to be taking place.
They are not being good upstream neighbors. They need to play by they same rules that are required
by the rest of the citizens. I personally raised concerns about the field spraying years ago and was
10/12/2007 10:23 AM
Re: [Fwd: request & comment] ---see this
2 of2
assured that it was safe and that I did not know what I was talking about. They had "experts".
My neighborhood, Pine Hollow in Wake county, is very close to the sprayed area. Can we get
connected to a water system?
Matthew Miller
1101 Fairway Drive
Clayton, NC 27520
Wake County .... yes, it really is in Wake County not the other county that starts with a J
matthewmiller@ nc.rr.com
919-210-6820
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <Jay.Zimmerman@?ncmail.net>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
10/12/2007 10:23 AM
Re: [Fwd: request & comment] ---see this/ Just my view on it
1 of2
Subject: Re: [Fwd: request & comment] ---see this/ Just my view on it
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:12:31 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Ted Bush <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>
With personal nature of this comment ----being that he is a well owner and a property owner ----I
would think we need to do both.
Calling him and explaining all of this makes sense to me. Providing this email to the hearing officers
for them to respond gets them where they need to be.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
********************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
I had not until now. Mr. Miller lives about 4-5 houses from my own and is not at risk from the
sprayfields. His home is located 3/4 to 1 mile from the nearest fields and is separated by several
drainage divides. He, like me, is at greater risk from nitrate impacts assoc. with the nearby golf
course than the sprayfields.
I am not sure how we need to respond to these types of comments. Do we merely consider the
comments and make a decision and recommendation to the hearing officers (which is what we have
been doing)? Do we use this as an opportunity to educate people and attempt to address their
concerns? Should we attempt to do both? Thoughts from others ........ ..
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
I cannot remember if I forwarded you this one. They are making a request for public water.
Did you see this?
david hance
733-5083 X. 587
Subject:
request & comment
10/12/2007 3:06 PM
Re: [Fwd: request & comment] ---see this/ Just my view on it
From:
"matthew miller" <[e-mail]>
Date:
Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:34:05 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
fax [phone]
Raleigh should be required to clean up now and pay the fine. They would not have done anything
unless they were caught. They purpose of the fine is to be proactive in preventing future
"accidents". Without a fine and cleanup some underhanded political dealings seem to be taking
place. They are not being good upstream neighbors. They need to play by they same rules that
are required by the rest of the citizens. I personally raised concerns about the field spraying years
ago and was assured that it was safe and that I did not know what I was talking about. They had
"experts".
My neighborhood, Pine Hollow in Wake county, is very close to the sprayed area. Can we get
connected to a water system?
Matthew Miller
1101 Fairway Drive
Clayton, NC 27520
Wake County .... yes, it really is in Wake County not the other county that starts with a J
[e-mail]
919-210-6820
2 of 2 10/12/2007 3:06 PM
CORPUD Variance: File review for Duncan Mcmanus and ReDox Tech
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance: File review for Duncan Mcmanus and ReDox Tech
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:21:24 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
CC: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>
Hi,
I will respond to this .
I just noticed it yesterday. So many comments -after a while --they all look the
same now. I wanted to know if there was any contact with the region hearing officers
first from this group prior to me contacting them. Sometimes they do that.
I will send on a response that they can come in and see the variance and give them
the option to speak with the regional office on the permit, if they wish to go that
far.
Thank you
David Hance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Andrew Pitner wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for all of your effort compiling the numerous emails. A quick
about one that I came across. The 10/3 email from Duncan McManus of
specifically requested info to perform a file review. Did you or RRO
the appropriate contact info?
question
Redox Tech
respond with
Andrew
David Hance wrote:
Here attached are dailies of email comments received. I have had some
assignments outside of variances and I am catching up here.
More to come!
See the documents in word.
david hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
10/12/2007 3:06 PM
CORPUD Variance Requests: more dailies of e-Comments and I am ...
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance Requests: more dailies of e-Comments and I am now caught up!
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:59:42 -0400
To: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Andrew
Pitner <[e-mail]>
CC: "Teci L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark
<[e-mail]>
Hello Hearing Officers, RRO staff, and management,
Here attached in word are what we have as of Friday, October 12, 2007 in the way of e-Comments to the
variance.
It seems they slacked off a bit after the announcement of the extension of the comment period.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 x. 587
Content-Type: applicati6n/msword I
Corpud-DailySummaryofEcomments-1009-1012.doci Content-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: application/msword :
Corpud-DailySummaryofEcomments-1005-1008.docl Content-Encoding: base64
10/12/2007 6:00 PM
City of Raleigh Variance-October 3rd letter to Harry LaGrand -coul...
1 of 1
Subject: City of Raleigh Variance-October 3rd letter to Harry LaGrand -could you send it direct to me
email?
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:27:58 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Ralph,
I want to make sure I got this letter that is referred to in Harry's letter. Could
email that to me?
You know the comment period was extended to November 5, 2007.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733 -5083 X. 587
10/12/2007 6:00 PM
Re: Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Plant--reply
1 of2
Subject: Re: Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Plant--reply
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:04:45 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Sir,
If you wish to see the variance request, you can make an appointment with me at the DWQ Planning Section in the
Archdale Building. We do not have this online and do not have scanning capabilities as of yet.
Contact me, David Hance, by email or call 919-733-5083 x. 587 if you want a look at it during normal business
hours.
The technical consultant for the City of Ralei gh is ENSR and the contact is as follows:
Peter M: Thidodeau, Section Manager
ENSR
7041 Old Wake Forest Roads, Suite 103
Raleigh, NC 27616
T-919-872-6600
c-919-280-5882
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
**********************************************************************************************
Duncan McManus wrote:
10/12/2007 3:06 PM
[Fwd: Re: Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Plant--reply]
1 of 2
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Plant--reply]
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:05:56 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail]
Here is something I sent that consultant. dh
Subject: Re: Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Plant--reply
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:04:45 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Sir,
If you wish to see the variance request, you can make an appointment with me at the DWQ Planning Section in the
Archdale Building. We do not have this online and do not have scanning capabilities as of yet.
Contact me, David Hance, by email or call 919-733-5083 x. 587 if you want a look at it during normal business
hours.
The technical consultant for the Cit y of Raleigh is ENSR and the contact is as follows:
Peter M. Thidodeau, Section Manager
ENSR
7041 Old Wake Forest Roads, Suite 103
Raleigh, NC 27616
T-919-872-6600
c-919-280-5882
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
**********************************************************************************************
Duncan McManus wrote:
Mr. Hance,
I read with interest the story about the Raleigh wastewater treatment plant
in the October 2, 2007 edition of the News and Observer.
I work for Redox Tech, LLC in Cary, North Carolina. We are a remediation
contractor, and we are currently treating a nitrogen plume in Wilmington, NC
using active (air sparging) and passive (permeable reactive wall)in-situ
methods. The contaminants at our Wilmington site include ammonia and
nitrates. So far, the monitoring results are promising.
I understand that the City of Raleigh is in compliance with their permit as
described in the article; however, I want to know if the City or its
consultant have considered other treatment technologies. If ammonia is not
a contaminant, a permeable reactive wall along with natural attenuation
might be a cost-effective alternative to the pump-and-treat system mentioned
in the newspaper article -and still reduce the nitrogen entering the river
through the groundwater.
10/12/2007 3:06 PM
Re: Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Plant--reply
Mr. Hance,
I read with interest the story about the Raleigh wastewater treatment plant
in the October 2, 2007 edition of the News and Observer.
I work for Redox Tech, LLC in Cary, North Carolina. We are a remediation
contractor, and we are currently treating a nitrogen plume in Wilmington, NC
using active (air sparging) and passive (permeable reactive wall)in-situ
methods. The contaminants at our Wilmington site include ammonia and
nitrates. So far, the monitoring results are promising.
I understand that the City of Raleigh is in compliance with their permit as
described in the article; however, I want to know if the City or its
consultant have considered other treatment technologies. If ammonia is not
a contaminant, a permeable reactive wall along with natural attenuation
might be a cost-effective alternative to the pump-and-treat system mentioned
in the newspaper article -and still reduce the nitrogen entering the river
through the groundwater.
Can you tell me who the City"s consultant is for this project? Also, who
should I contact to request a file review?
Thanks,
Duncan McManus
Redox Tech, LLC
Cary, NC 27513
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
10/12/2007 3:06 PM
[Fwd: Re: Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Plant--reply]
2 of2
Can you tell me who the City's consultant is for this project? Also, who
should I contact to request a file review?
Thanks,
Duncan McManus
Redox Tech, LLC
Cary, NC 27513
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
!Re: Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Plant--reply
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Encoding: 7bit
10/12/2007 3:06 PM
[Fwd: CORPUD Variance: Requests made ofDWQ Staff and Hearing ...
1 of 1
Subject: [Fwd: CORPUD Variance: Requests made of DWQ Staff and Hearing officers] --fyi -my contact with the
City's consultant on this
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:46:39 -0400
To: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
FYI for Hearing Officers and RRO staff:
I am forwarding to you what I have sent to Kilpatrick Stockton today.
Based on email traffic between myself and Kathy, I sent this email on to Carolyn Bachl. Remember that she works
for Steve Levitas at Kilpatrick Stockton.
It tells them that if they want copies of written comments, emailed comments, questions, or other things related to
this variance ... they need to ask us in writing.
Kathy felt that they should do this as a matter of preventing a conflict or an appearance of a conflict of interest.
I will not send anything to them until I get the note or document from them requesting it. I also will not send
anything that has not already been sent to the Hearing officers and technical staff -based on discussions.
David Hance
733-5083 X. 587
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Requests made ofDWQ Staff and Hearing officers
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:39:25 -0400
To: "Bachl, Carolyn" <[e-mail]>
On October 3, 2007 you phoned me requesting some comments from the public for this variance .
After discussion with the hearing officers for this variance, it is deemed appropriate for the
City of Raleigh and/or its legal representative submit your request for information in writing.
Please specify what you and your staff need from us in the document you send. You can send
this to me by email attachment.
If you need more information, call me at 919-733-5083 x. 587 .
David Hance
Env. Spec
DWQ/Planning
919-733-5083 x. 587
CORPUD Variance: Requests made of DWQ Staff and Hearing officers!
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Encoding: 7bit
10/11/2007 5 :46 PM
CORPUD Variance: Some more "Dailies" of e-comments on this vari ...
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Some more "Dailies" of e-comments on this variance reque_st
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:14:29 -0400
To: [e-mail], Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker
<[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>
Here attached are dailies of email comments received. I have had some
assignments outside of variances and I am catching up here.
More to come!
See the documents in word .
david hance
DWQ-Planning
733 -5083 x. 587
• I Content-Type: application/msword
Corpud-DailySummaryofEcomments-1004.doci C E od' b 64 : ontent-nc mg: ase
Content-Type: application/msword
Corpud-DailySummaryofEcomments-1003.doc Content-Encoding: base64
10/11/2007 5:15 PM
Re: CORPUD Variance: Some more "Dailies" of e-comments on this ...
1 of 1
Subject: Re: CORPUD Variance: Some more "Dailies" of e-comments on this variance request
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:41:56 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>, Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
I have not had a chance to review the most recent requests. We have no problem with
arranging a file review. I am not aware that he has contacted our office though, so
I'll attempt to contact him and arrange a review through my admin. assistant .
J
Andrew Pitner wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for all of your effort compiling the numerous emails. A quick
about one that I came across. The 10/3 email from Duncan McManus of
specifically requested info to perform a file review. Did you or RRO
the appropriate contact info?
Andrew
David Hance wrote:
question
Redox Tech
respond with
Here attached are dailies of email comments received. I have had some
assignments outside of variances and I am catching up here.
More to come!
See the documents in word .
david hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 X. 587
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
10/12/2007 10:22 AM
CORPUD Variance: Requests made of DWQ Staff and Hearing officers
Subject: CORPUD Variance: Requests made of DWQ Staff and Hearing officers
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:39:25 -0400
To: "Bachl, Carolyn" <[e-mail]>
On October 3, 2007 you phoned me requesting some comments from the public for this
variance.
After discussion with the hearing officers for this variance, it is deemed
appropriate for the City of Raleigh and/or its legal representative submit your
request for information in writing.
Please specify what you and your staff need from us in the document you send. You
can send this to me by email attachment.
If you need more information, call me at 919-733-5083 x. 587.
David Hance
Env. Spec
DWQ/Planning
919-733-5083 x . 587
1 of 1 10/11/2007 5:39 PM
Re : City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release/ P ...
1 of2
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release/ Public Comment Extension!
From: "Thomas C. Worth, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:19:59 -0400
To: "David Hance" <[e-mail]>
Mr.Hance:Thank you for copying me today on the "Media Alert" about which I read in the "News & Observer" last ,
night.Please note that in behalf of my clients I had formally requested an extension of the Public Comment Period of a
minimum of sixty(60)days from 10/5/07.1 now request that the sixty days(60)days run from11/5/07as I believe it will take
every bit of ninety(90) days if not more to become conversant in this matter about which we knew nothing until Mr.Crisp's
Notice dated August 21,2007.Thomas C.Worth,Jr.
-----Original Message -----
From: David Hance
To: [e-mail]; biioubill@minds prin g.com; [e-mail]; cand yf [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Thomas C. Worth . Jr.; deb welch@ yahoo.com; djmadcow@ yahoo.com; Mike Holland
; egci [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Harry LeGrand; J.C. Wilson; John Crenshaw;
[e-mail]; iuliecrum6262@ yahoo.com; lawsonhemy @earthlink.net; [e-mail];
matthew miller; [e-mail]; michelenchappy @bellsouth.net; nancyrpal@ yahoo.com;
rollin [e-mail]; sasserbird@ yahoo.com; sherrill@o peramail.com; sn [e-mail];
t [e-mail]
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: 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.
10/19/2007 3:30 p~
Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / P ...
2 of2
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].
###
10/19/2007 3:30 P1
Mr. David A. Hance
Environmental Specialist
NCDENR
THOMAS C. WORTH, JR.
Attorney
Certified Mediator
Professional Building
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Post Office Box 1799
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
October 4, 2007
VIA E-MAIL to
[e-mail]
Division of Water Quality-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
AND VIA FED EX EXPRESS
AND VIA HAND DELIVERY
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Opposition to City of Raleigh Variance Request; Request for
Extension of the Comment Period
Public Hearing: September 5, 2007
Clients: Edge of Auburn LLC and Auburn Associates
Dear Mr. Hance:
I represent the above referenced entities which own properties in proximity to property
owned by the City of Raleigh which is the apparent source of nitrates which have migrated from
the City's property and contaminated the groundwater under adjacent properties. The properties
owned by my clients are identified by Wake County Revenue Department PIN Nos. as follows:
1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086 and 1730975189.
I was in attendance at the Public Hearing on September 5, 2007 and subsequently advised
my clients that, in my opinion, they could not proceed with their proposed development without
utilizing municip1l utilities as their currently proposed utilization of wells to provide water to
their residents is far too risky under the present circumstances. My clients had no knowledge of
this contamination prospect until their representative received the Notice of Groundwater
Corrective Action Plan Under 15 NCAC 2L.0106(k) from Mr. H. Dale Crisp, P.E., Raleigh
Public Utilities Director, dated August 21, 2007 and the related undated Notice of Variance
Application and Hearing Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water
Quality from Coleen H. Sullins, Director, Division of Water Quality. Upon receipt of these
Notices, they ceased the field studies and preparation of documents for their plan approval
submission which were well underway (and for which they had already expended a significant
amount of money) and as indicated I now have advised them to proceed no further with their
plans pending the resolution of this matter.
As I have indicated to representatives of the City and to its counsel, my clients are
morally and legally required to disclose the prospect of tainted ground/well water up front to
developers, to their lenders and to all builders and homeowners and their respective lenders who
may develop, lend, build and live upon their properties. I have further indicated to the City
representatives, however, that the public should never be at risk because I do not believe that any
properly informed lender will provide to my clients a development loan for these properties. In
sum this situation and its resolution by the variance sought by the City of Raleigh place my
clients in a totally untenable position.
In closing, I confirm our intention to oppose vigorously the City of Raleigh's variance
request in this matter and furthermore I request in behalf of my clients that the Comment Period
be extended from and after October 5, 2007 for a minimum period of sixty (60) days to enable us
to review what I understand are extensive files in DENR's possession relative to this matter
which date back over a decade prior to the date of Mr. Crisp's aforementioned letter of August
21, 2007 .
TCWjr/jwp
cc: S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G.
NCDENR-Division of Water Quality
1628 Mail Service Center
3 800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
(via E-mail and Fed Ex Express)
Sincerely,
CORPUD Variance: A NEW request for even more time to comment ...
1 of2
Subject: CORPUD Variance: A NEW request for even more time to comment beyond November 5, 2007 & some perspective
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:00:57 -0400
To: kathy stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning
<[e-mail]>, "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>
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 15A 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 discusses the outreach activity ofDWQ staff and excludes some voluntary outreach to communities by the City of
Raleigh that occurred leading up to the public hearing.
The requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 specify a total of 60 days from the time notice is sent to the time the comment record is closed
and these requirements are the same as for a revision to a rule (i.e. 2L groundwater standards, 2T Non-Discharge rules, 2C well rules, etc.)
With the extension now granted as of October 3, 2007 to allow comment until November 5, 2007, the public has a total 90 days to submit
comments since notices went out in late July 2007 and August 2007. The way I am reading this email, if Mr. Worth's new request is granted
the comment period would end on January 5, 2007. This would mean that DWQ would be receiving comments on the variance for a total of
150 days.
I believe this request should be referred to our DWQ Director for a response.
david hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 x. 587
************************************************************************************************
Subject: Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release/ Public Comment Extension!
From: "Thomas C. Worth, Jr."<[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:19:59 -0400
To: "David Hance" <[e-mail]>
Mr.Hance:Thank you for copying me today on the "Media Alert" about which I read in the "News & Observer" last night.Please note that in
behalf of my clients I had formally requested an extension of the Public Comment Period of a minimum of sixty(60)days from 10/5/07.1 now
request that the sixty days(60)days run from11/5/07as I believe it will take every bit of ninety(90) days if not more to become conversant in this
matter about which we knew nothing until Mr.Crisp's Notice dated August 21,2007.Thomas C.Worth,Jr.
-----Original Message -----
From: David Hance
To: [e-mail]; bi joubill@minds prin g.com; [e-mail]; cand yf [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Thomas C. Worth , Jr.; deb welch@ yahoo.com; d jmadcow@ yahoo.com; Mike Holland ;
egci [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Harry LeGrand; J.C; Wilson; John Crenshaw;
[e-mail]; juliecrum6262@ yahoo.com; lawsonhen ry @earthlink.net; losflemin [e-mail];
matthew miller; [e-mail]; michelencha ppy @bellsouth.net; [e-mail];
rollin [e-mail] ; sasserbird@ yahoo.com ; sherrill@o peramail.com ; sn [e-mail] ;
t [e-mail]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 2:25 PM
10/5/2007 6:05 -PM
CORPUD V;c.;-iance: A NEW request for even more time to comment ...
2 of2
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 Citv 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 VARIAN CE 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 [e-mail].
###
Content-Type: Re: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release/ PublicComment Extension!
Content-Encoding: 7bit
message/rfc822
10/5/2007 6:05 PM
Re: [Fwd: Raleigh Nitrate Contamination -River Chase Developmen ...
1 of2
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Raleigh Nitrate Contamination -River Chase Development Well Water Quality]
Frcm: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:58:36 -0400
T.p: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, kathy
stecker <[e-mail]>
David,
We'll look into it ...... Most PWS wells are analyzed for nitrates, particularly if they supply water to a
subdivision. I spoke to the PWSS and they have recent data that reports no significant nitrate problems.
It is a new well system and not believed to be at risk from Raleigh. I will get specifics Monday and
forward to all involved. Rick and I will be working on the other comments we have received, preparing
responses for Andrew and Kathy to consider. Also, I received a letter from an attorney representing the
Edge of Auburn, LLC, which is the developer planning a subdivision approx. 3/4 miles west of the
western most application fields. We each have reviewed his letter and will provide a response. Please
copy Andrew and Kathy on the letter as Rick and I already have one.
Thanks
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Hello Technical staff in the RRO for the variance re quest:
I have been getting the press release out to the people who responded by email.
I saw got down to reading this one. They claim to be well owners of a community system and not on
public water.
Q. Do we know what is up with this? Do they need testing for nitrate?
david hance
733-5083 X. 587
Subject:
Raleigh Nitrate Contamination -River Chase Development Well Water Quality
From: "John Knittel" <iohn@absolutehomeins pections.biz>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 19:25:21 -0400
To: "David Hance" <[e-mail]>
To: "David Hance" <[e-mail]>
CC: "John Knittel" <john@absolutehomeins pections.biz>
David,
10/5/2007 3:59 PM
Re: [Fwd: Raleigh Nitrate Contamination -River Chase Developmen ...
...
2 of2
We recently moved into the River Chase development which is less than .5
miles from the Sewage Treatment plant on the other side of the river.
Contrary to today's N&O article, we are a nearby community who"s residents
;:D NOT have municipal water. We get our water from a community well system
run by Aqua NC, Inc out of Bryn Mawr, PA (877-987-2782). At this point we do
not know the quality of our water and it is probably unlikely that it can be
determined during your public comment period that ends on 10/5. I am no
aquifer "expert, but believe ground water does travel considerable distances.
I am requesting that the health and safety of all residents within a prudent
distance, who use well water, be further investigated and taken into
consideration before a remediation plan is approved.
Thapk you.
John
John Knittel
Absolute Home Inspections
Phone : ( 919 ) 8 8 0 -8 8 7 8
E-mail: john@absolutehomeinspections .biz
Web: www.absolutehomeinspections.biz
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. <[e-mail]>
Environmetal Regional Supervisor/ Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ/Aquifer Protection Section
10/5/2007 3:59 PM
City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release I Publi ...
1 of 1
Subject: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / Public Comment Extension!
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:11:47 -0400
To: Dean Naujoks <[e-mail]>
Hello to those interested in the pro posed 2L Groundwater Variance for the City of Raleigh :
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: 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].
###
Content-Type: application/msword
Raleigh VarianceExtend.doci
Content-Encoding: base64
10/5/2007 4:14 PM
City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / Publi ...
1 of 1
Subject: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / Public Comment Extension!
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:57:15 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Hello to those interested in the pro posed 2L Groundwater Variance for the City of Raleigh ;
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: 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].
###
Content-Type: application/msword
Raleigh V arianceExtend.doci
Content-Encoding: base64
10/5/2007 4:14 PM
City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / Publi ...
1 of2
Subject: City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release/ Public Comment Extension!
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:08:18 -0400
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
BCC: an drew [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], betty.b. [e-mail], [e-mail], Bart Iannetta
<[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], csnow 1 [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], Ginger
Deason <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], Jeri Gray <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], [e-mail], Jeff Mann <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], Duncan
McManus <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], Natalie Puckett
<npuckettl [e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], Susan Johnson <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], sskog [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Hello to those interested in the pro posed 2L Groundwater Variance for the City of Raleigh :
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: 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.
10/5/2007 3:09 PM
City of Raleigh Variance Request -October 3rd Press Release / Pub Ii ...
2 of2
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].
###
Content-Type: application/ms word
Raleigh VarianceExtend.doci
Content-Encoding: base64
10/5/2007 3:09 PM
Michael F. Easley, Governor A';h
MCDENR
NoRn-i CA.ROLINA 01!:F"AATMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT ANO NNURAL RESOURCES
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
N .C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Release: IMMEDIATE
Date: October 3, 2007
MEDIA ALERT
Contact: Susan Massengale
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 November 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 unperrnitted
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 ore-
mail [e-mail].
Office of Public Affairs
Phone: [phone]
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
#####
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
Diana Kees, Director
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
CORPUD variance: Request by the law firm representing the City of ...
)
1 of 1
Subject: CORPUD variance: Request by the law firm representing the City of Raleigh (Kilpatrick
Stockton)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:18:01 -0400
To: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, kathy stecker <[e-mail]>
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?
david hance
919-733-5083 x/ 587
10/5/2007 1: 18 PM
' \ STATEOFNORTHCAROLINA
L
C/O DEPARTMENT OF AD~INISTRATION
STATE PROPERTY
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NC 27603
:·AQU ~ PRC I.EC l,)N S
I I I I) Ill I t:SSES
,.O,LO
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION SUPERVISOR
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
COURIER NUMBER 12-59-01
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION SUPERVISOR
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
COURIER NUMBER 16-04-01
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION SUPERVISOR
WINSTON-SALEM REGIONAL OFFICE
COURIER NUMBER 13-15-01
DEBRA WATTS
DENR / DWQ AQUIFER PROTECTION
SECTION 1636 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1636
:·s ,\CC ,,'c.,J E: s :T, ,,."
. T JN ·"· .. '"'·
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/
SURFACE WATER PROTECTION SUPERVISOR
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
COURIER NUMBER 12-59-01
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/
SURFACE WATER PROTECTION SUPERVISOR
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
COURIER NUMBER 16-04-01
CITY OF RALEIGH
POBOX590
RALEIGH NC 27602-0590
···A Q .J F t ,
I {'>TECTlO
" LLO\! •
f ,LT' J . SECT o:,;-
ffSSES
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION
SUPERVISOR
FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
COURIER NUMBER 14-56-25
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION
SUPERVISOR
WILMINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
COURIER NUMBER 04-16-33
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION
SUPERVISOR
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
INTEROFFICE 1628 MSC
Y ;:; li'.C'
J D "·-':,.,,:-,, ,f
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/
SURFACE WATER PROTECTION SUPERVISOR
FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
COURIER NUMBER 14-56-25
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/
SURF ACE WATER PROTECTION SUPERVISOR
WILMINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
COURIER NUMBER 04-16-33
LINDA CULPEPPER
DENR / DIVISION OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT
MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1646
401 OBERLIN ROAD -SUITE 150
RALEIGH NC 27699-1646
CC '!ff\ 't· CTfO.
I I I ,.; '[S
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
/ AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION
SUPERVISOR
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
COURIER NUMBER 09-08-06
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/
KINSTON FIELD OFFICE
COURIER NUMBER 01-23-35
TED BUSH
DENR / DWQ AQUIFER PROTECTION
SECTION 1636 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1636
SEC 0,
IO
r
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY/
SURFACE WATER PROTECTION
SUPERVISOR
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
COURIER NUMBER 09-08-06
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/
SURFACE WATER PROTECTION
SUPERVISOR
WINSTON-SALEM REGIONAL OFFICE
COURIER NUMBER 13-15-01
DENR-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY/
SURFACE WATER PROTECTION SUPERVISOR
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
INTEROFFICE 1628 MSC
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES
FOLLOW
THE HONORABLE
CHARLES C MEEKER
MAYOR-CITY OF RALEIGH
POBOX590
RALEIGH, NC 27602
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
REPRESENTATIVES FOLLOW
J RUSSELL ALLEN
CITY OF RALEIGH -CITY MANAGER-
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT
222 WEST HARGETT STREET
RALEIGH NC 27602
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
REPRESENTATIVES FOLLOW
DAVID COOKE
WAKE COUNTY MANAGER
PO BOX 550 -SUITE 1100
RALEIGH NC 27602
RICK HESTER
JOHNSTON COUNTY MANAGER
POBOX1049
SMITHFIELD NC 27577
WAY OF LIFE BAPTIST CHURCH
2100 HARMONY COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520
ROY & CHARLOTTE JOHNSON
:2008 RIDGE COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-8809
SONDRA AND GARY MORRIS
2016 ELIZABETH COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520
ROBERT AND JODY ST AMEY
2000 ELIZABETH COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-8818
TONY LEE JOHNSON AND MARTHA P
JOHNSON
2008 ELIZABETH COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520
DONALD K WILLIAMS AND
VIRGINIA WILLIAMS
2013 VALLEY COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-8804
HERBERT F MUNT III
2017 VALLEY COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-8804
LONNIE G GRANT &
PATTY M GRANT
2021 VALLEY COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520
MALCOM DEWITT AND
CAROL JOHNSON
POBOX966
CLAYTON NC 27520-0966
IRENE P BENSON
2501 OLD US 70 WEST
CLAYTON NC 27520-6520
DONALD l .. ND JEAN
2'19 R,:',VEN Rll>GE COURT
CLAYTON NC 27620 8809
JANET LYNN FLEMING
2004 FOREST DRIVE
CLAYTON NC 27520
JAMES F ETTRIDGE AND JUDITH L
ETTRIDGE
2020 ELIZABETH COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520
GARY L JENKINS AND
JANETH. JENKINS
2012 ELIZABETH COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520
WILLIS E PRIVETTE AND JANICE
PRIVETTE
1925 OLD US 70 WEST
CLAYTON NC 27520
GARY A JEWELL AND RHONDA
JEWELL
2003 PINEBARK LANE
CLAYTON NC 27520
JAMES DANIEL AND MISTY SHREVE
2000 PINE BARK LANE
CLAYTON NC 27520
TRAVIS E RUSSELL & DEBRA RUSSELL
121 PEBBLE DRIVE
CLAYTON NC 27520-8042
CAROL BEARD BOONE
422 BISCAYNE DRIVE
WILMINGTON NC 28411
IRENE P BENSON
LF EST & STEVEN
2501 OLD US 70 WEST
CLAYTON NC 27520-6520
HOWARD AND MELISSA BOWEN
2016 RIDGE COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520
AVIE COMPANY
1000 CCC DRIVE
CLAYTON NC27520
RALPH AND SONDRA STRICKER
2024 ELIZABETH COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-8818
WILLAM MICHAEL STRICKER
2004 ELIZABETH COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-8818
BRUCE LEVANS AND
CAROLYN M. EVANS
2004 PJNEBARK LANE
CLAYTON NC 27520
CE CAUGHMAN AND
REBECCA CAUGHl.\ilAN
2009 VALLEY COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-8804
SANDY M SMITH AND
MATTHEW SMITH
2007 PINEBARK LANE
CLAYTON NC 27520
LARRY W CARROLL JR
125 PEBBLE DRIVE
CLAYTON NC 27520-8042
SARAH BEARD HORNE
214 TARPON COURT
NAGS HEAD NC 27959
CHRISTOPHER JONES AND
ANITA JONES
2025 ELAINE DRIVE
CLAYTON NC 27520-8212
JUDY W. BEL VIN
LARRY E. BEL VIN
321 EAST MAIN STREET
CLAYTON NC 27520-2463
llON-l' .. LI> .'' ... PI' .. RKER
JOO SOUTH PINE STREET
BENSON NC 27604
CLARENCE JOHNSON AND WIFE
201 MEADOW RUN
KNIGHTDALE , NC 27545
JAMES M. GILBERT INC
POBOX236
CLAYTON, NC 27520
DAVID IRA JOHNSON AND
MARNIE JOHNSON
5009 COVERED BRIDGE ROAD
CLAYTON NC 27520
PATRICIA A FRANKLIN
3435 DEER TRACE LANE
CLAYTON NC 27520-5931
BRIAN C DONATI AND
DEBORAH M DONATI
1316 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
AMANDA TERRY AND
RYAN GROULX TERRY
1320 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
CATHRINE DEBNAM
5717 MIAL PLANTATION ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8529
JOHN R BAUCOM AND
MARIE A BAUCOM
4400 AUBURN CHURCH ROAD
GARNER NC 27529-8765
EDGE OF AUBURN LLC
PO BOX 19808
RALEIGH NC 27619-9808
BOBBY H BROADWELL AND
PAMELA S BROADWELL
1328 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
NICHOLAS A SORROCCO AND
EUGENIA S SORROCCO
7820 OLD BAUCOM ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9252
JIMMY C ADAMS
TONDRA E ADAMS
8428 OLD BAUCOM ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9264
SUSAN M AUTON AND
JERRY L AUTON
3524 BALLOT ROAD
CLAYTON NC 27520-9301
RICHARD M DEBOCK AND
JOANNE DEBOCK
1320 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
WYTOLD R LEBING AND
CAROL BARBOUR SWADE E JR
1304 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
VIRGINIA D SEWALL
5529 MIAL PLANTATION ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8526
ERIC B. OKAMOTO AND
JUDITH F OKAMOTO
1113 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
KYLE D HINZ AND KAREN K HINZ
3401 DEER RACE LANE
CLAYTON NC 27520
TERI FULK HUNTER
(TRUSTEE)
1340 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
MICHAELS BRUFF AND
KIMBERLY B BRUFF
1312 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
DARYLJGARRETT AND
RAMONA C GARRETT
7027 FARMDALE ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9732
PHLLIP N. DOUGLAS
AND
BARBARA S DOUGLAS
413 HARDWOOD RIDGE COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-8603
DENNIS C WHITE AND
RUTHHWHITE
1324 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
KATHY LYNN CARROLL
8500 OLD BAUCOM ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9266
MCINNIS RESIDENCE
TANKARD RESIDENCE
8419 KALB ROAD
RICHMOND VA 23229-4133
ROBERT A HEDRICK AND
PATRICIA O HEDRICK
4704 STILLER STREET
RALEIGH NC 27609-5640
RICHARD W BEAVERS AND
SHARON ROSE BEAVERS
654 CORBETT ROAD
CLAYTON NC 27520-8452
TIMOTHYJOELBAKER
AND
LULA ANNE BAKER
3345 STONEY CREEK DRIVE
CLAYTON NC 27520
MARGERY CARNEY GAZDA
SHANE GAZDA
2704 EMMETT CREST COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
RICHARD D LEHOCKY AND
BETTY A LEHOCKY
1336 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
..
TIPPETTS CHAPEL
FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH
2530 SHOTWELL ROAD
CLAYTON NC 27520
DONALD A PARKER
300 S PINE STREET
BENSON NC
27504-1620
DOUGLAS BALL
401 CffiCLE DRIVE
GARNERNC
27529-3601
CURRENT RESIDENT OR OWNER
1304 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC
CLAYTON, NC 27520-9424
CURRENT RESIDENT OR OWNER
2700 BALLOT RD
CLAYTON NC
27520-9304
CURRENT RESIDENT OR OWNER
2700 BALLOT RD
CLAYTON NC
27520-9304
DONALD WAUGH
& JEANWAUGH
2610 RIDGE COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-8809
PAULJGIL
2708 EMMETT CREST COURT
CLAYTONNC 27520-9322
CURRENT RESIDENT OR OWNER
1009 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC
27520-9358
BOXHOLDER OR RESIDENT
POBOX248
CLAYTON NC 27528-0248
CURRENT RESIDENT OR OWNER
125 PEBBLE DR
CLAYTON NC
27520-8047
DOUGLAS BALL
C/O HARTWELL PLAZA
1027 US filGHW A Y 70 W -SUITE 225
GARNER NC 27529-2501
JOHN R. BAUCOM
7829 OLD BAUCOM ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9253
DOUGLAS BALL
C/O HARTWELL PLAZA
1027 US HIGHWAY 70 W -SUITE 225
GARNER NC 27529-2501
STEPHEN & SHERRY BROWN
135 RIDGE WAY LN
CLAYTON, 27520-8084
POLLY S QUINN
POBOX132
HINESBURG VT 05461-0132
RALPH L PRICE AND
BEVERLY W PRICE
1201 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9361
JOSEPH A KELLY AND
JOANBKELLY
1332 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
PBR GROUP LLC
RTE 2 2400 BRANCH ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610
JENNIFER P GILBERT
273C BLUE POND ROAD
CLAYTON NC 27520-7493
DALTON HICKMAN ADAMS
GEORGIA M COOPER
8401 OLD BAUCOM ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9265
PAMELA ANN WHEELER
BRIAN KEITH WHEELER
6029 MAIL PLANTATION ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8534
JOHN H HOPKINS
2293 STANDING ROCK ROAD
CAMDENTON MO
65020-4626
TIPPETTS CHAPEL ORICINf .. L
RR 1 (RURAL ROUTE 1)
KNIGHTDALE NC 27S4S 9801
VANRMCCARDLE AND
CHERYL M MCCARDLE
1105 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
SWANOLA DEBNAM MCKINNON
5708 MIAL PLANTATION ROAD
RALEIGHNC
27610-8528
IAN BELL AND EMMA C BELL
1308 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9324
MARVIN CLAUDE PERKINS AND
SUSAN J PERKINS
6200 MIAL PLANTATION ROAD
RALEIGH NC
27610-9643
PHYLLIS DEBNAM DUNN
2916 OLD MILBURNE ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27604-9655
CHEYNEY A NICHOLSON
POBOX33065
RALEIGH NC 27636-3065
BETTY B COWING
8100 OLD BAUCOM ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9258
JAMES E HINTON
333 LAFAYETTE A VENUE
APARTMENT 121
BROOKLYN NY 11238-1337
JERRY WAYNE ADAMS AND
BRENDA DIANNE ADAMS
8513 OLD BAUCOM ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
JULIAN M BAUCOM
3021 HICKORY TREE PLACE
RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
CHARLES E REED
7020 FARMDALE ROAD
RALEIGHNC
27610-9732
CHRISTOPHER JONES AND
ANITA A JONES
2025 ELAINE DRIVE
CLAYTON NC
27520-8212
WILLIAM T RHODES AND
GWYN K RHODES
3751 EAST GARNER ROAD
CLAYTON NC 27520-6541
PAUL MADAMS (HEIRS)
C/O WANDA S ADAMS
EXECUTRIX
8404 OLD BAUCOM ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9264
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT
COMPANY C/O ATTN
W H KEITH (CXIG)
POBOX14042
ST PETERSBURG FL 33733-4042
MATERIALS RECOVERY LLC
421 RALEIGH VIEW ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-4623
WILIAM B BAUCOM AND
ANNRBAUCOM
POBOX248
CLAYTON NC 27528-0248
DAVID W HASH AND
LINDABHASH
6216 MIAL PLANTATION ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
PAUL J GIL AND DARCY A GIL
2708 EMMETT CREST COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
SHIRLEY H DEBNAM
5700 MIAL PLANTATION ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8528
WILLIAM J MARLARKEY AND
CECELIA GALE MARLARKEY
1325 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9345
HEAKWOO AND
CHUNIWOO
3425 DEER TRACE LANE
CLAYTON NC 27520-5931
DANIEL D' ALLAIRD AND
EMMA D' ALLAIRD
2436 NEUSEIDLL LANE
RALEIGH NC 27610-9102
JULIAN BAUCOM AND
MARLENE BAUCOM
3021 IDCKORY TREE PLACE
RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
DAUGHTERY GRADYS YOUNG
DANIEL HOLLAND
572 BOGGS BRANCH ROAD
GRAHAM NC 27253
JOHN F MIESCH AND
LINDA T MIESCH
3420 EAST GARNER ROAD
CLAYTON NC 27520-9307
THOMAS L BIDDIX AND
DEBORAH W BIDDIX
1117 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
ROBERTS MCLEAN AND
JONNIE F MCLEAN
1333 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9345
DOUGLAS E MCCLUNG AND
AMYE MCCLUNG
420 HARDWOOD RIDGE COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-8603
DEBNAM RESIDENCE
1501 CHURCHILL DOWNS DRIVE
WAXHAW NC 27173-6610
DOUGLl· .. S BALL
1927 HWY 79 ~ST
SUITE226
Gl .. R.1\J-Ell NC 27629
ELIZABETH B MORGAN
POBOX4721
CHAPEL IDLL NC 27515-4721
WILLIAM J HAWLEY AND
ROBERTA L HAWLEY
2709 EMMETT CREST COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
WILLIAM BYRD BAUCOM
POBOX248
CLAYTON NC 27528-0248
EARL DANIELS AND
JOELINE Y DANIELS
5717 MIAL PLANTATION ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610 -8529
ROBERT CHAMPION AND
MONA CHAMPION
2700 EMMETT CREST COURT
CLAYTON NC 27520-9322
JAMES E SLAVIN AND
MARYE SLAVIN
1205 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9361
SWADE E BARBOUR JR
(HEIRS)
326 LOMBAR STREET
CLAYTON NC 27520
LESTER L PIDLLIPS AND REBECCA
PHILLIPS
2700 BALLOT ROAD
CLAYTON NC 27520-9304
MARGARET B TALTON
2728 BRANCH ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-8528
LONG BRANCH FARM LCC
2400 BRANCH ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9208
PHYLLIS DEBNAM DUNN
2916 OLD MILBRUNIE ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27604-9655
CLIFTON P BAUCOM
3005 IDCKORY TREE PLACE
RALEIGH NC 27610-8539
ETHEL BARBOUR ROBERTSON
JETHRO
1999 PINE TR,4 .. IL
CL-\YTON NC 27629 9J68
LOUIS MARRINER AND
FRANCIS OWENS MARRINER
1125 PINE TRAIL
CLAYTON NC 27520-9360
STEVEN DALE BROWN AND
SHERRY ADAMS BROWN
135 RIDGE WAY LANE
CLAYTON NC 27520-8084
EVELYN C YOUNG
8537 OLD BAUCOM ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9767
H DALE CRISP (PE) DIRECTOR
CITY OF RALEIGH
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
POBOX590
RALEIGH NC 27602
SUE DAYTON
BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE LEAGUE
NORTH CAROLINA HEALTY COMMUNITIES
POBOX44
SAXAPAHAW NC 27340
SYBLE B BROWN
8529 OLD BAUCOM ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
ARNOLD L OSBORN JR
6208 MIAL PLANTATION ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9643
CAROLYN BACHL
KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
3737 GLENWOOD A VENUE
SUITE400
RALEIGH NC 27612
BRENDA J FRISON
8549 OLD BAUCOM ROAD
RALEIGH NC 27610-9267
DEAN NAUJOKS
UPPER NEUSE RIVER KEEPER
112 SOUTH BLOUNT STREET
RALEIGH NC 27601
TERRY PIERCE, DIRECTOR
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH
1630 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1601
GIBBIE HARRIS, HEALTH DIRECTOR,
WAKE COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT
COURIER NUMBER 51-91-00
' Dear Mr. David Hance,
I think that the city of Raleigh should not be granted a waiver, that they should be
held accountable for their actions, clean up their act, and protect its citizens and
environment. I will address the following bullet points in the subsequent paragraphs to
explain my reasoning.
• Accountability
• Short term solution, city growth will continue
• Detriments to ecosystem, Neuse River and supported life
• Misuse of already scant water supply
• Explore other solutions to reduce nitrate levels, funding
• Discuss with other cities who were in a similar growth pattern
Raleigh went forward with their sludge deposit programs despite warnings from
the state. Now, they are asking for a waiver to continue dumping in the same manner as
before and only build a few wells to treat and protect a considerably smaller area than
what was asked of them, around subdivisions . They effectively want to get out of what
the trouble that they got themselves into and not take responsibility for their waste
dumping.
People aren't allowed to go without punishments for wrong doings, why should
governments? After all, government punishments should be more severe because they
have an affect on many more people. They may claim that their actions were not
malicious but 'looking the other way' and neglecting the responsibility to protect your
citizens and lands is unacceptable. Raleigh has polluted more groundwater than eight
other towns in the area combined. The capital should set a better example.
Raleigh's proposal doesn't address the real contamination issue that is raised.
They hope to safe guard the people and residences that are in closer proximity to the
fields where sludge is dumped, with a fraction of the wells that are proposed. This may
sound like a reasonable solution to the money issue and it appears that a lot of time and
effort would be saved in focusing and concentrating their plans on a specific area. This
however, is just short term thinking. The reason that this is addressed now is because of
Raleigh's growth. That is also the reason why the state should not accept this waiver.
The city continues to grow and concerns are raised now that people are starting to
get closer to the areas of waste deposit. The desire for a city to avoid contaminating the
public water supply is self evident, but what Raleigh is proposing will be like putting a
band-aid on a broken arm. Their proposition addresses the safety of the current
residences but what about the future?
Raleigh is not showing any signs that it will stop growing. Is Raleigh just going
to keep building water treatment wells in isolated areas around new subdivisions as they
sprout up? They might as well address the issue now and cover all of the contaminated
areas because Raleigh is not going to stop growing and housing will continue to spread
where there is available land.
Raleigh neither looking into the future, nor are they looking around at the bigger
picture. We already know the implications associated with continuing to allow sludge
deposits at their current level. Soil, a natural nitrate neutralizer, can't do its job with the
overload of waste that is dumped on its surface. The soil and nature will not be able to
naturally take care of the waste, as Raleigh is suggesting, if they continue their careless
dumping. The ground water will continue to be contaminated in the surrounding areas,
unchecked (because, if Raleigh's plan goes through, they will think that they have the
problem blocked off from affecting residences) and they will continue to dump at current,
if not increased levels.
The Neuse River will see more problems. Granted, the river is already polluted,
but that shouldn't give us a right to write it off as a lost cause and let it become a trash
can. Even if we wanted to, we can't afford to. The Neuse and other rivers like it aren't
simply symbols and parts of our heritage that should be protected with pride (at least they
should be) they are also vital to life.
The Neuse River feeds one pf the nation's largest coastal estuaries (Albemarle-
Pamlico). Marine life thrives where the Neuse River ends but that could all change if
Raleigh is allowed to let pollution run into its waters. Fish will be killed as nitrogen and
algae build up robs them of their natural, livable environment. Fishing as an industry and
recreationally will receive a serious hit.
The river feeds and supports so many other things. By allowing pollution to
escalate in this river, the river will spread its contaminated, diseased water over
everywhere it touches. A good amount of Eastern North Carolina lives in the Neuse
River Basin including the city of Raleigh. They would be shooting themselves in the foot
and hurting everyone else if they wanted to create a cesspool and expect to live in its
basin. In 2000, it was estimated 1,320,379 people and 18 counties were within the basin.
(Neuse River Basin) This decision doesn't just affect Raleigh, it affects millions of others.
Frankly, I don't know how the state could consider this proposal when they
already recognized and addressed this problem in the past. The state passed legislation
that changed the way hog farms operated in order to protect the Neuse and other rivers
just 10 years ago. They should stop the pollution and protect the river now, as they have
in the past. We need to be vigilant in protecting our natural resources from new threats
that arise as well as old ones.
No, we are not dealing with toxic waste but the last thing that we want is to be
placed in the same light as a Winona, Texas. We don't want to be looked at as people
who are not taking care of our citizens and looking out for their long-term, best interest.
The waiver also shouldn't be considered because it further neglects the growing
water crisis that we are facing over our entire state. The proposal suggests that we build a
few wells to treat the ground water around housing areas. What happens to the rest of the
water? Aren't we running out of water? Shouldn't we try to conserve all the water that
we have? Water treatment wells should go up to treat all the contaminated water because
we need all that we can get and we need to help our environment.
If anything, the current state of our global environment has taught us that we can
no longer simply use and dispose of things anywhere we please. The earth has been
stretched too far by our abuses and now, by all accounts, it is snapping back. The earth
won't simply take care of our wastefulness and recklessness, as Raleigh expects it will.
People and governments around the world are taking steps to reverse the affects of global
warming, watch what they use, what they throw away, and how they treat natural
resources. Why shouldn't the city of Raleigh?
So where can we go from here? I don't think that they have adequately explored
alternative avenues to fix the waste placement problem. We still have to look to other
options such as converting more of the waste to compost and then shipping that out
where it is needed. Perhaps we could enlist the services of private compose providing
companies. If we take away their business, then we could give them grants, or jobs
helping to distribute the compost. I am no expert, but there have to be other methods for
getting rid of waste besides costly incineration and harmful waste spread.
If we properly educate the people on the situation and the consequences of
inaction and allowing the pollution to continue, then it might be worth it to propose a tax
to help pay for some of the costs. Some of the money off existing taxes could be used to
help fund this. People would be willing to pay a small percentage more if they
understood what they were paying for and if they knew that their money would go
towards something to actually make a difference for themselves and everything around
them. Many taxes don't make sense to people and they don't see that their money goes to
anything that directly benefits them. This tax could be an exception. People like to be
involved and if we are called to protect our families and the things that we care about,
then I feel that people will not only answer the call but they will do it with enthusiasm.
We could think of other ways to cut down on the nitrate level. We could explore
using zeolite clay or other substances that trap the nitrates. Zeolite can also be recharged
and reused again. That might not be reasonable but it is an idea ..
One thing we should definitely do is open our doors to suggestions. I feel
strongly about consulting other cities that were in our shoes, to ask about how they
handled their waste problem. Simply talking with someone in city government who
helped their city go through a growth pattern that we are currently experiencing and
hearing what they have to say about our situation, would provide an amazing return on
our investment. It is cheap to ask for advice or to look at someone else's model and we
would lose nothing from seeking a second opinion. Another perspective might be just
what we need to get through our waste placement problem safely, and we might also find
a way to save a little money.
Hopefully, we can find a way to bring down the cost of $80 million that Raleigh
faces but their proposal is out of the question. In their proposal, Raleigh is opting to pay
one tenth of that figure and do even less than that for its people. Raleigh is acting
irresponsible and lazy. They can't be allowed to get away with a half-hearted attempt.
Most importantly, they can't be allowed to jeopardize its citizens and the environment of
Eastern North Carolina as a whole. You can't put a price tag on the environment nor can
you stop asking your government to do the right thing. Bravo to the state for holding
Raleigh accountable. I just hope that it sticks and that we don't wind up deeper in this
crap.
Sincerely,
Erick Cipau
References :
Neuse River Basin . Retrieved Oct. 4, 2007 , from
<http://www.p2pays.org/ref/37/36065.pdf>
[Fwd: [Fwd: City of Raleigh Waiver Request]]
1 of 2
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: City of Raleigh Waiver Request]]
From: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:22:48 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Andrew Pitner, P. G. -Andrew. Pi tner@ncmaU .. 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]
Subject: [Fwd: City of Raleigh Waiver Request]
From: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:00:05 -0400
To: TED BUSH <[e-mail]>, Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Kathy
Stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Subject: City of Raleigh Waiver Request
From: Jean Dasnoit <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:39:49 -0400
To: [e-mail]
The state Division of Water Quality is taking public comments through Oct. 5 on the city's request for the
waiver from state rules, as per information found in an N&O article.
My comment? No waiver!
Best Regards
J. Dasnoit
Content-Type: message/rf c822
[Fwd: City of Raleigh Waiver Request].eml
Content-Encoding: 7bit
10/5/2007 10: 13 AM
[Fwd: [Fwd: City of Raleigh Waiver Request]]
Content-Type: message/rfc822
City of Raleigh Waiver Request.eml Content-Encoding: 7bit
2 of2 10/5/2007 10: 13 AM
[Fwd: [Fwd: Reject City of Raleigh Request for Waiver Requiring Cl...
1 of 1
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Reject City of Raleigh Request for Waiver Requiring Cleanup of Nitrate Contaminated Ground-water]]
From: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:22:23 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
just passing along as I trust you"re compiling all comments that come ...
Andrew Pitner, P.G. -A:nd r:ew.Pit:nc-r@ncrnr.•il.nr-t:
Division of Water Quality ...:·Aguifei 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]
Subject: [Fwd: Reject City of Raleigh Request for Waiver Requiring Cleanup of Nitrate Contaminated Ground-water]
From: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:51:31 -0400
To: "Ted L. Bush, Jr."<[e-mail]>, Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner
<[e-mail]>
fyi
Subject: Reject City of Raleigh Request for Waiver Requiring Cleanup of Nitrate Contaminated Ground-water
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:53:49 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Ms. Coleen Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality Administration
NCDENR
Dear Ms. Sullins,
This is a serious matter: I am writing to request that the State Division of Water Quality Administration reject the City of Raleigh's request for a waiver from state
rules that would require cleanup of nitrate contaminated ground-water around its Neuse River sewage-treatment plant. This contamination contributes excess
nitrogen to the Neuse River and slowly chokes off the river's ability to function as a healthy ecosystem. Ultimately, the lives of all North Carolinians literally
depend on the long-term health of the our natural ecosystems. Reducing nitrate emissions into the Neuse river is a critical part of that process. Please take the
wise, long-term view and reject Raleigh's waiver request.
Thank you,
Robin E. Neal
9201 Ranworth Way
Raleigh, NC 27615
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
Content-Type: :[Fwd: Reject City of Raleigh Request for Waiver Requiring Cleanup of Nitrate Contaminated Gronnd-water].eml
Content-Encoding: 7bit
message/rfc822
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Reject City of Raleigh Request for Waiver Requiring Cleanup of Nitrate Contaminated Ground-water .em!
Content-Encoding: 7bit
10/5/2007 10:14 AM
October 2, 2007
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Hance:
It was with great interest that I read the article In today's N&O concerning the
city of Raleigh's request for a waiver from state rules governing the disposal of
wastewater. After having been warned, fined, and ordered to form a clean-up
plan, Raleigh displays an arrogant lack of concern for the river and the residents
downstream. I ask that this state NOT grant the requested waiver to the city of
Raleigh.
It is apparent that the "85 people that move to this area every day" are having an
impact that cannot necessairly be classified as good for the business of clean
water, unless, of course, one operates a wastewater trucking service. The $80
million dollar cost of implementing a clean-up operation could be financed by
impact fees that the city council has so far refused to increase significantly.
Again, may I ask that the state hold Raleigh responsible for the health of the river
and the impact of an expanding population on our water source. I will email this
letter as well as fax it, just to make sure that you receive it.
Sincerely, ..-
~ ~
Suzanne and Gary Krill
6605 Vancouver Lane
Raleigh, NC 27615
Ms. Suzanne KriU
6605 Vancouver Lane
Raleigh, NC 27615-6532
R2:'SE. . .tUtCH TRlA/!>iGLc ri.EG!ON
·NC27.f..2·L
.. n~ ~ .• -
DEN£ -[) \tJ 9 --P,
l&/1~~ e.¾ I'{_{ 2749?-/&/7
l11l1ll111l1ll11t.l1,l1l11u1f11 II 11111IIJ 111fl1lul1l111l11H
Corpud Raleigh Variance Request Comment Period Extension Release ...
1 of2
Subject: Corpud Raleigh Variance Request Comment Period Extension Release -Comment to hearing officers
and staff
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:10:36 -0400
To: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
CC: susan massengale <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Andrew
Pitner <[e-mail]>, Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Hearin g 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 varianc~ 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
10/4/2007 5:36 PM
Corpud Raleigh Variance Request Comment Period Extension Release ...
2 of2
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 (919)
733-5083 ext. 587 or e-mail [e-mail].
###
10/4/2007 5:36 PM
Raleigh Variance Request Comment Period Extension Release
1 of 1
Subject: Raleigh Variance Request Comment Period Extension Release
From: susan massengale <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:58:55 -0500
To: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>, Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>,
Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, DAVID
HANCE <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Chuck Wakild
<Chuck.W [e-mail]>
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 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].
###
10/3/2007 7 :30 PM
[Fwd: Raleigh Variance Request Comment Period Extension Release]
Content-Type: message/rfc822 i:
• Raleigh Variance Request Comment Period Extension Release
Content-Encoding: 8bit
7 of? 10/1/')007 R·06 PM
[Fwd: [Fwd: ]]
1 of2
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: ]]
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:30:57 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: ]
From: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:05:48 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>,
Chuck Wakild <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, "Ted L.
Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Kathy/Andrew - I think you guys are the hearing officer on this.
Jay/Ted/Chuck -fyi. I expect we will get more of these based on today's article .
Coleen
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:02:12 +0000
To: [e-mail]
Ms. Coleen Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality Administration
NCDENR
Dear Ms. Sullins ( coleen.sullins@ ncmail.net),
I am writing to request that the State Division of Water Quality Administration reject the City of
Raleigh's request for a waiver from state rules that would require cleanup of nitrate contaminated
ground-water around its Neuse River sewage-treatment plant. This contamination contributes excess
nitrogen to the Neuse River and slowly chokes off the river's ability to function as a healthy ecosystem.
Ultimately, the lives of all North Carolinians literally depend on the long-term health of the our natural
ecosystems. Reducing nitrate emissions into the Neuse river is a critical part of that process. Please take
the wise, long-term view and reject Raleigh's waiver request.
Thank you,
Greg S. Neal
9201 Ranworth Way
Raleigh, NC 27615
10/2/2007 4:06 PM
[Fwd: [Fwd : ]]
1 of2
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: ]]
From: "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:41 :09 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: jeff manning <[e-mail]>
--------Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd:]
Date:Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:05:48 -0400
From:Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
To:Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>,
Chuck Wakild <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>,
"Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Kathy/Andrew - I think you guys are the hearing officer on thi s .
Jay/Ted/Chuck -fyi. I expect we will get more of these based on
today's article. Coleen
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:02:12 +0000
To: [e-mail]
Ms. Coleen Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality Administration
NCDENR
Dear Ms. Sullins ( coleen.sullins(tl!,Ilcmail.net),
I am writing to request that the State Division of Water Quality Administration reject the City of
Raleigh's request for a waiver from state rules that would require cleanup of nitrate contaminated
ground-water around its Neuse River sewage-treatment plant. This contamination contributes excess
nitrogen to the Neuse River and slowly chokes off the river's ability to function as a healthy ecosystem.
Ultimately, the lives of all North Carolinians literally depend on the long-term health of the our natural
ecosystems. Reducing nitrate emissions into the Neuse river is a critical part of that process. Please take
the wise, long-term view and reject Raleigh's waiver request.
Thank you,
Greg S. Neal
9201 Ranworth Way
'Raleigh, NC 27615
10/2/2007 4 :07 PM
[Fwd: [Fwd: ]]
2 of2
Ted L. Bush, Jr., Chief
Aquifer Protection Section
DENR Division of Water Quality
.eml
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Encoding: 7bit
10/2/2007 4:07 PM
[Fwd: [Fwd: ]]
1 of2
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd:]]
From: Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:19:28 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
see below for another comment (just so you've got copies of all of them coming in ...
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: {704) 663-1699
Direct Phone: [phone]
MRO Fax: [phone]
Subject: [Fwd: ]
From: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:05 :48 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>,
Chuck Wakild <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>, "Ted L.
Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Kathy/Andrew - I think you guys are the hearing officer on this.
Jay/Ted/Chuck -fyi. I expect we will get more of these based on today's article.
Coleen
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:02:12 +0000
To: [e-mail]
Ms. Coleen Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality Administration
NCDENR
Dear Ms. Sullins ( coleen.sullins @,ncmail.net),
-===-----
I am writing to request that the State Division of Water Quality Administration reject the City of
Raleigh's request for a waiver from state rules that would require cleanup of nitrate contaminated
ground-water around its Neuse River sewage-treatment plant. This contamination contributes excess
nitrogen to the Neuse River and slowly chokes off the river's ability to function as a healthy ecosystem.
Ultimately, the lives of all North Carolinians literally depend on the long-term health of the our natural
ecosystems. Reducing nitrate emissions into the Neuse river is a critical part of that process. Please take
lthe wise, long-term view and reject Raleigh's waiver request.
10/2/2007 4:07 PM
[Fwd: [Fwd: ]]
Thank you,
Greg S. Neal
9201 Ranworth Way
Raleigh, NC 27615
Content-Type:
[Fwd: ].eml Content-Encoding: 7bit
message/rfc822
------=-----'--'-------------'-'"---"====:::.!
----~ Content-Type: ~~ssage/rfc822
1
.eml . Content-Encoding: 7b1t
1 O/'J/?007 A.·07 Pl\,f
[Fwd: [Fwd: ]]
1 of2
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd:]]
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09: 11: 11 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
--------Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd:]
Date:Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:05:48 -0400
From:Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
To:Jay Zimmerman <ja [e-mail]>, Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>,
Chuck Wakild <[e-mail]>, Andrew Pitner <[e-mail]>,
"Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Kathy/Andrew - I think you guys are the hearing officer on this.
Jay/Ted/Chuck -fyi. I expect we will get more of these based on
today's article. Coleen
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:02:12 +0000
To: [e-mail]
Ms. Coleen Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality Administration
NCDENR
Dear Ms. Sullins (coleen.sullins @ncmail.net),
I am writing to request that the State Division of Water Quality Administration reject the City of
Raleigh's request for a waiver from state rules that would require cleanup of nitrate contaminated
ground-water around its Neuse River sewage-treatment plant. This contamination contributes excess
nitrogen to the Neuse River and slowly chokes off the river's ability to function as a healthy ecosystem.
Ultimately, the lives of all North Carolinians literally depend'on the long-term health ofthe our natural
ecosystems. Reducing nitrate emissions into the Neuse river is a critical part of that process. Please take
the wise, long-term view and reject Raleigh's waiver request.
Thank you,
Greg S. Neal
9201 Ranworth Way
Raleigh, NC 27615
10/2/2007 4:08 PM
[Fwd: [Fwd: ]]
Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Modeling and TMDL Unit
NCDWQ
-~-=-• ..... Content-Typ=e=:==m=es=s=ag=e=/r=fc=8=2=2=--. [ Content-Encoding: 7bit
10/7/?007 4-0R PM
Re: CORPUD variance request--about meeting up
I of3
Subject: Re: CORPUD variance request--about meeting up
From: "Ryke Longest" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11 :14:13 -0400
To: "David Hance" <[e-mail]>
I attended the Hearing. I just need to review the paper copies of complete variance
request. I would probably be coming by around 3:00 or so. 2:00 will be too early for
me. Does 3:00 work for you?
Thanks,
Ryke
11 I David Hance <[e-mail]> 10/1/2007 9:42 AM>>>
Ryke,
I have someone from the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League who
wants to come tommorow afternoon at 2 PM. She is ok with both of you
listening to the tape together.
Are you ok with that?
If so, she will be over here at 2 PM.
david hance 733-5083 x. 587
111
***************************************************************************************
Ryke Longest wrote:
I can probably make that afternoon work .
I do intend to make comments at this point.
Thanks,
Ryke
Ryke Longest
Director & Sr . Lecturing Fellow
Environmental Law and Policy Clinic
Duke University School of Law
P.O. Box 90360
Durham, NC 27708-0360
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
Email: long [e-mail]
David Hance <David.Hance@ncmail .net> 9/28/2007 9:02 AM>>>
Ryke,
The morning does not work well for me. There is a seminar that morning .
The afternoon or October 3rd is much better.
Q. Do you intend to make comments to the variance request?
david hance 733-5083 x. 587
10/1/2007 4:41 PM
Re: CORPUD variance request--about meeting up
? nf'.1.
****************************************************************
Ryke Longest wrote:
How is the morning of Oct.2? I was thinking about 8:30 or so. Would that work
for you?
Thanks,
Ryke
David Hance <[e-mail]> 9/26/2007 4:51 PM>>>
I have the request here that includes all of the technical information
and such.
You can come to my office and review it if you like. I am at the
Archdale Building in Room 625aa.
You can make an appointment with me. I am in the office on Thursday and
Friday this week. October 1st -I will be in meetings all day and
training on October 4th. Other days next week -I am free.
Let me know what you want to do.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 x. 587
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Ryke Longest wrote:
David,
Where can I obtain a copy of the CORPUD variance request?
Thanks,
Ryke
Ryke Longest
Director & Sr. Lecturing Fellow
Environmental Law and Policy Clinic
Duke University School of Law
P.O. Box 90360
Durham, NC 27708-0360
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
Email: [e-mail]
1()/117007 4·41 PM
Re: CORPUD variance request~~about meeting up
)'
3 of3 10/1/2007 4:41 PM
Clayton, North Carolina
August, 28, 2997
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Sir:
These comments are in reference to the letter titled •NOTICE OF
VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATIJRAL RESOUR.SES DEVISION OF WATER
QUALITY".
When the city of Raleigh applied for and accepted a permit to operate
the Neuse river wastewater treatment plant, they also accepted the rules and
regulations that govern such a permit. For whatever reason, nitrate
contamination has been allowed to get outside the boundary of the treatment
plant. State ground water rules in 15ANCA2L and permit conditions
specifically prohibit natural attenuation as a cleanup method.
The fact that the City of Raleigh hired consultants to come up with
a justification for using natural attenuation for the cleanup should carry no
weight. Since the City of Raleigh is clearly the only beneficiary of this
justification, and since the justification was generated by employees of the
City it is most certainly a conflict of interest.
Operators of the wastewater treatment plant have created a condition
that has endangered both the human and environmental health of southeastern
Wake county. Instead of trying to find ways around the regulations that exist,
a concerted effort should be made to cleanup the contamination using the
methods prescribed by existing regulations.
At the meeting to be held on September 5, I would like to have the
following questions answered:
1. How long has the contamination condition existed?
2. Why hasn't a full public disclosure been made?
3. Why is this variance application even being considered?
4. Will there be a fine levied against the city for creating
this condition?
The city of Raleigh needs to face up to their responsibility and
cleanup the mess that they created. This should be done under the
Regulations that govern the operating permit, and should be started
immediately.
Yd~
Phillip N. Douglas
413 Hardwood Ridge Court
Clayton ,NC 27520
,·M:: :J.,~t:i :]-L
·,29 ciUJG .:l.l)f.il ?!!JJ.
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."
September 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 knowingly discharged" 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, saying "No provision in the permit allows the City to discharge
leftover chemicals used in the process of drinking water." DWO found nine separate 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 crystal 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 $4 74 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.
Janua ry,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 fmal 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 January. It would essentially authorize any bypass that occurred -including
the 42-million bypass at the end of January -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 a gain."
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, s pills that are either not
reported or im pro perly 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 Deparbnent of
Environment and Natural Resources. Russell Allen is selected as the new city manager.
2001
The state fmes 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 indefmitely 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.
June 2 , 2002
Neuse River plant officials fmally 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 has 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 has 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 fmes 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 fine 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 haz.ardous 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 has 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.
July 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 staffing 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 fmes. 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."
Au g. 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 Aug ust 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-Se pt. 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.
Au g. 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 lone;-term strategies 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
Au g . 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.
Se pt. 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 unpennitted 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/1, 0.53 mg/l 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 county in the state, with the greatest majority of the sewage coming from Raleigh.
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 complaints 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 CH2MHILL 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. CH2MHil..L 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 fixing 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 tilling
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 fmes 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
The 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 fertilizer 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 75
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 through 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 during the past year. Most of the problems contributing to these projected increases could
have been avoided.
July 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 three 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.
Aug. 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 ,:.14, 2003
An article in The Wake Weekly reviews Raleigh's 2002 discharge monitoring reports and fmds 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 l, 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 fmes"
• 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"
• 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 WQ0001730
• Dec. 15, 1997
• Feb. 5, 1998
• Feb. 6, 1998
• May 14, 1998
• Permit NC002903
• May 27, 1998
• File 02-010, 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"
Summary fo r
Profile of 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 has
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 department 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
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 Dressell,
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 efiluent. 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.
Dtt\N NAu.1o~Ls -
\J p9erl,--oJ Q_J:-},l,, \2.lJ eJ).i£epeiL
N .e. JS l-~tJ e,,,t.._ ~.Jo<JQi A-1,DN
• ---
TIPPETT'S CHAPE 'L
Free Will Baptist Church
August27,2007
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
2530 Shotwell Road
Clayton, NC 27520
919-553-7037
www.TippettsChapel.com ; tippettsfwb@earthlink .net
Tippett's Chapel
2530 Shotwell Road
. Clayton, NC 27520
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
l11l1II,, ,I, II,, I, I, ,I, f,.,, ,II, II'.,, ,Ill, I ,11,f ,,1.1 Ill I 11 II
•
•
Raleigh Waste Water Treatment Plant
NC0029033
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 effluent. They would
still be beyond the state requirement and could justify that they are reducing nitrates by
overcompensating for it in their effluent.
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
effluent. 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.
De~tJ NAu.,io\LS'
\J p 9 efl--oJ Q_,J ~ ~l u tf'J.ie e,pR-lL
N.e_vsL-\<lv~ ~0.vt:iA-1,oN
Clayton, North Carolina
August, 28, 2997
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Sir:
These comments are in reference to the letter titled •NOTICE OF
VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURSES DEVISION OF WATER
QUALITY''.
When the city of Raleigh applied for and accepted a permit to ope~te
the Neuse riyer wastewater treatment plant, they also accepted the rules and
regulations that govern such a permit. For whatever reason, nitrate
contamination has been allowed to get outside the boundary of the treatment
plant. State ground water rules in 15ANCA2L and permit conditions
specifically prohibit natural attenuation as a cleanup method.
The fact that the City of Raleigh hired consultants to come up with
a justification for using natural attenuation for the cleanup should carry no
weight. Since the City of Raleigh is clearly the only beneficiary of this
justification, and since the justification was generated by employees of the
City it is most certainly a conflict of interest.
Operators of the wastewater treatment plant have created a condition
that has endangered both the human and environmental health of southeastern
Wake county. Instead of trying to find ways around the regulations that exist,
a concerted effort should be made to cleanup the contamination using the .,
methods prescnbed by existing regulations.
At the meeting to be held on September 5, I would like to have the
following questions answered:
1. How long has the contamination condition existed?
2. Why hasn't a full public disclosure been made?
3. Why is this variance application even being considered?
4. Will there be a fine levied against the city for creating
this condition?
of
The city of Raleigh needs to face up to their responsibility and
cJeanup the mess that they created. This should be done under the
Regulations that govern the operating pe1mit, and should be started
immediately.
A incerely: --.. _,.
" --~'\~·' . ·t ~ "/i . .. . f .,.,,.,, f-v r;J;,/,&.,r / _ ve:9"•..,_....;,. ~
Philli{ N. Douglas _,,,
413 Hardwood Ridge Court
Clayton ,NC 27520
..
The city of Raleigh needs to face up to their responsibility and
cleanup the mess that they created. This should be done under the
Regulations that govern the operating permit, and should be started
innnediately.
Aincerely~ .. ~ ..... ___ .-•· A'/,. -·v_L' _, ,tl4i&;,f ,,/ t v\:j~~?-9
Philli/ N. Douglas .,,
413 Hardwood Ridge Court
Clayton ,NC 27520
Notice of variance memo
I of I
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
2530 Shotwell Road
Clayton, NC 27520
919-553-7037
[e-mail]
www.TippettsCh~pel.com
i [ Content-Type: application/pdf
; 082707 TC water memo.pelf: C . b 64 , , ontent-Encodmg: ase
8/27/2007 4:39 PM
THOMAS C. WORTH, JR.
Attorney
Certified Mediator
Professional Building
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Post Office Box 1 799
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
jI;©lmJiflllJ)
OCT ~ 2DD7 ',~, ,.
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
October 4, 2007
Mr. David A. Hance
Environmental Specialist
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
VIA E-MAIL to
[e-mail]
AND VIA FED EX EXPRESS
AND VIA HAND DELIVERY
RE: Opposition to City of Raleigh Variance Request; Request for
Extension of the Comment Period
Public Hearing: September 5, 2007
Clients: Edge of Auburn LLC and Auburn Associates
Dear Mr. Hance:
I represent the above referenced entities which own properties in proximity to property
owned by the City of Raleigh which is the apparent source of nitrates which have migrated from
the City's property and contaminated the groundwater under adjacent properties. The properties
owned by my clients are identified by Wake County Revenue Department PIN Nos. as follows:
1740280715, 1740174496, 1740470086 and 1730975189.
I was in attendance at the Public Hearing on September 5, 2007 and subsequently advised
my clients that, in my opinion, they could not proceed with their proposed development without
utilizing municipal utilities as their currently proposed utilization of wells to provide water to
their residents is far too risky under the present circumstances. My clients had no lrnowledge of
tbs contamination prospect until their representative received the Notice of Groundwater
Corrective Action Plan Under 15 NCAC 2L.0106(k) from Mr. H. Dale Crisp, P.E., Raleigh
Fublic Utilities Director, dated August 21, 2007 and the related undated Notice of Variance
Application and Hearing Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water
Quality from Coleen H. Sullins, Director, Division of Water Quality. Upon receipt of these
Notices, they ce~sed the field studies and preparation of documents for their plan approval
submission whic:·1 were well underway (and for which they had already expended a significant
amount of money) and as indicated I now have advised them to proceed no further with their
plans pending the resJlution of this matter.
As I have indicated to representatives of the City and to its counsel, my clients are
morally and legally required to disclose the prospect of tainted ground/well water up front to
developers, to their lenders and to all builders and homeowners and their respective lenders who
may develop, lend, build and live upon their properties. I have further indicated to the City
representatives, however, that the public should never be at risk because I do not believe that any
properly informed lender will provide to my clients a development loan for these properties. In
sum this situation and its resolution by the variance sought by the City of Raleigh place my
clients in a totally untenable position.
In closing, I confirm our intention to oppose vigorously the City of Raleigh's variance
request in this matter and furthermore I request in behalf of my clients that the Comment Period
be extended from and after October 5, 2007 for a minimum period of sixty (60) days to enable us
to review what I understand are extensive files in DENR's possession relative to this matter
which date back over a decade prior to the date of Mr. Crisp's aforementioned letter of August
21, 2007.
Sincerely,
~~r
TCWjr/jwp
cc: S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G.
NCDENR-Division of Water Quality
1628 Mail Service Center
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
(via E-mail and Fed Ex Express)
Opposition to City of Raleigh Variance Request
1 of 1
Subject: Opposition to City of Raleigh Variance Request
Froni: "Thomas C. Worth, Jr."<[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:36:52 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
Mr. Hance: Please see attached letter which is also being forwarded to you by Federal Express and Hand
Delivery.
Thank you.
Thomas C. Worth, Jr.
PO Box 1799
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27602 (27601)
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
email: curmud [e-mail]
Signed Hance letter 10-4-07.doci
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
10/19/2007 3 :28 PM
Mr. David Hance
Division of Water Quality Planning Section
1617 MSC
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
407 Dixie Trail
Raleigh, NC 27607
October 8, 2007
Re: Raleigh's Request for a Variance from Ground Water Standards
Dear Mr. Hance:
I am writing to oppose the City of Raleigh's request for a variance from state ground
water standards at its Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant land application site.
I believe that the City and the Division of Water Quality could develop more
environmentally sound and cost effective options in addition to the natural attenuation
option and the pump and treat it all option.
I'm pleased that Raleigh has substantially reduced the discharge of nitrogen for its
wastewater treatment plant. However, Raleigh contributes substantial nitrogen from its
stormwater runoff and the land application site. I believe Raleigh could do more to
reduce its nitrogen load and other impacts on the Neuse River and Pamlico Sound by
protecting and restoring riparian buffers and wetlands.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bill Holman
~k C~l.tfATH
4821 ~nny_ -Place
~leigh. NC · 27612
RE~E,ARCH TRIANGLE REGipN ··:.;;.,-."':'-,,. .. ·-~
'i NC 276 "i ;:L:i
t.x3 OCT 2007 PM
Mr. DAVID HANCE
DENR-DWQ PLANDING SECTION
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1617
J,.f,tl,uf,lf,;l,lul,l,11nll,H,111,llf,,,ll,lul,f,,,l,,/J
Dear Mr. David Hance,
I think that the city of Raleigh should not be granted a waiver, that they should be
held accountable for their actions, clean up their act, and protect its citizens and
environment. I will address the following bullet points in the subsequent paragraphs to
explain my reasoning.
• Accountability
• Short term solution, city growth will continue
• Detriments to ecosystem, Neuse River and supported life
• Misuse of already scant water supply
• Explore other solutions to reduce nitrate levels, funding
• Discuss with other cities who were in a similar growth pattern
Raleigh went forward with their sludge deposit programs despite warnings from
the state. Now, they are asking for a waiver to continue dumping in the same manner as
before and only build a few wells to treat and protect a considerably smaller area than
what was asked of them, around subdivisions. They effectively want to get out of what
the trouble that they got themselves into and not take responsibility for their waste
dumping.
People aren't allowed to go without punishments for wrong doings, why should
governments? After all, government punishments should be more severe because they
have an affect on many more people. They may claim that their actions were not
malicious but 'looking the other way' and neglecting the responsibility to protect your
citizens and lands is unacceptable. Raleigh has polluted more groundwater than eight
other towns in the area combined. The capital should set a better example.
Raleigh's proposal doesn't address the real contamination issue that is raised.
They hope to safe guard the people and residences that are in closer proximity to the
fields where sludge is dumped, with a fraction of the wells that are proposed. This may
sound like a reasonable solution to the money issue and it appears that a lot of time and
effort would be saved in focusing and concentrating their plans on a specific area. This
however, is just short term thinking. The reason that this is addressed now is because of
Raleigh's growth. That is also the reason why the state should not accept this waiver.
The city continues to grow and concerns are raised now that people are starting to
get closer to the areas of waste deposit. The desire for a city to avoid contaminating the
public water supply is self evident, but what Raleigh is proposing will be like putting a
band-aid on a broken arm. Their proposition addresses the safety of the current
residences but what about the future?
Raleigh is not showing any signs that it will stop growing. Is Raleigh just going
to keep building water treatment wells in isolated areas around new subdivisions as they
sprout up? They might as well address the issue now and cover all of the contaminated
areas because Raleigh is not going to stop growing and housing will continue to spread
where there is available land.
Raleigh neither looking into the future, nor are they looking around at the bigger
picture. We already know the implications associated with continuing to allow sludge
deposits at their current level. Soil, a natural nitrate neutralizer, can't do its job with the
overload of waste that is dumped on its surface. The soil and nature will not be able to
naturally take care of the waste, as Raleigh is suggesting, if they continue their careless
dumping. The ground water will continue to be contaminated in the surrounding areas,
unchecked (because, if Raleigh's plan goes through, they will think that they have the
problem blocked off from affecting residences) and they will continue to dump at current,
if not increased levels.
The Neuse River will see more problems. Granted, the river is already polluted,
but that shouldn't give us a right to write it off as a lost cause and let it become a trash
can. Even if we wanted to, we can't afford to. The Neuse and other rivers like it aren't
simply symbols and parts of our heritage that should be protected with pride (at least they
should be) they are also vital to life.
The Neuse River feeds one of the nation's largest coastal estuaries (Albemarle-
Pamlico). Marine life thrives where the Neuse River ends but that could all change if
Raleigh is allowed to let pollution run into its waters. Fish will be killed as nitrogen and
algae build up robs them of their natural, livable environment. Fishing as an industry and
recreationally will receive a serious hit.
The river feeds and supports so many other things. By allowing pollution to
escalate in this river, the river will spread its contaminated, diseased water over
everywhere it touches. A good amount of Eastern North Carolina lives in the Neuse
River Basin including the city of Raleigh. They woqJd be shooting themselves in the foot
and hurting everyone else if they wanted to create a cesspool and expect to live in its
basin. In 2000, it was estimated 1,320,379 people and 18 counties were within the basin.
(Neuse River Basin) This decision doesn't just affect Raleigh, it affects millions of others.
Frankly, I don't know how the state could consider this proposal when they
already recognized and addressed this problem in the past. The state passed legislation
that changed the way hog farms operated in order to protect the Neuse and other rivers
just 10 years ago. They should stop the pollution and protect the river now, as they have
in the past. We need to be vigilant in protecting our natural resources from new threats
that arise as well as old ones.
No, we are not dealing with toxic waste but the last thing that we want is to be
placed in the same light as a Winona, Texas. We don't want to be looked at as people
who are not taking care of our citizens and looking out for their long-term, best interest.
The waiver also shouldn't be considered because it further neglects the growing
water crisis that we are facing over our entire state. The proposal suggests that we build a
few wells to treat the ground water around housing areas. What happens to the rest of the
water? Aren't we running out of water? Shouldn't we try to conserve all the water that
we have? Water treatment wells should go up to treat all the contaminated water because
we need all that we can get and we need to help our environment.
If anything, the current state of our global environment has taught us that we can
no longer simply use and dispose of things anywhere we please. The earth has been
stretched too far by our abuses and now, by all accounts, it is snapping back. The earth
won't simply take care of our wastefulness and recklessness, as Raleigh expects it will.
People and governments around the world are taking steps to reverse the affects of global
warming, watch what they use, what they throw away, and how they treat natural
resources. Why shouldn't the city of Raleigh?
So where can we go from here? I don't think that they have adequately explored
alternative avenues to fix the waste placement problem. We still have to look to other
options such as converting more of the waste to compost and then shipping that out
where it is needed. Perhaps we could enlist the services of private compose providing
companies. If we take away their business, then we could give them grants, or jobs
helping to distribute the compost. I am no expert, but there have to be other methods for
getting rid of waste besides costly incineration and harmful waste spread.
If we properly educate the people on the situation and the consequences of
inaction and allowing the pollution to continue, then it might be worth it to propose a tax
to help pay for some of the costs. Some of the money off existing taxes could be used to
help fund this. People would be willing to pay a small percentage more if they
understood what they were paying for and if they knew that their money would go
towards something to actually make a difference for themselves and everything around
them. Many taxes don't make sense to people and they don't see that their money goes to
anything that directly benefits them. This tax could be an exception. People like to be
involved and if we are called to protect our families and the things that we care about,
then I feel that people will not only answer the call but they will do it with enthusiasm.
We could think of other ways to cut down on the nitrate level. We could explore
using zeolite clay or other substances that trap the nitrates. Zeolite can also be recharged
and reused again. That might not be reasonable but it is an idea.
One thing we should definitely do is open our doors to suggestions. I feel
strongly about consulting other cities that were in our shoes, to ask about how they
handled their waste problem. Simply talking with someone in city government who
helped their city go through a growth pattern that we are currently experiencing and
hearing what they have to say about our situation, would provide an amazing return on
our investment. It is cheap to ask for advice or to look at someone else's model and we
would lose nothing from seeking a second opinion. An.other perspective might be just
what we need to get through our waste placement problem safely, and we might also find
a way to save a little money.
Hopefully, we can find a way to bring down the cost of $80 million that Raleigh
faces but their proposal is out of the question. In their proposal, Raleigh is opting to pay
one tenth of that figure and do even less than that for its people. Raleigh is acting
irresponsible and lazy. They can't be allowed to get away with a half-hearted attempt.
Most importantly, they can't be allowed to jeopardize its citizens and the environment of
Eastern North Carolina as a whole. You can't put a price tag on the environment nor can
you stop asking your government to do the right thing. Bravo to the state for holding
Raleigh accountable. I just hope that it sticks and that we dori't wind up deeper in this
crap.
Sincerely,
Erick Cipau
References:
Neuse River Basin. Retrieved Oct. 4, 2007, from
<http://www.p2pays.org/ref/37/36065.pdf>
Response to Rafeigh's waste problem
1 of 1
Subject: Response to Raleigh's waste problem
From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:33:33 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Good afternoon Mr. Hance,
I have attached my response to the issue concerning Raleigh's waiver. Thank you for accepting public
comments and letting the people get involved. Please review and consider what I have written. I
hope that my opinions make sense and will hopefully be noted. Please, if you can, let me know how
things progress and if there is anything else I can do. Thank you so much and I hope you have a great
weekend.
Erick Cipau
[e-mail]
Email ap.·······d···.·.· .. ·.·.A ... ·.·.·.·.·.·.·.IM ... ·············f~p.aj!y!(?g~tll~~'. X2~•y~g(?!!'1:check o,l!!X~~~AOL Nlail !... ············•····•···· ······==··I
Content-Type: application/ms word
Response to Raleigh's waiver proposal.doc
6 Content-Encoding: BASE 4
·············································-····································-············································ .................................................................. ,, .. , .......... , .. , ··········•·•····························•···················---·•
10/5/2007 12:43 PM